Samson the biblical story is transferred from a rural to an urban environment whose milieu is suggestive of a city in the Greek-speaking world during the Roman period, in particular, Alexandria. An Alexandrian setting for the text\u2019s composition also comports with these homilies having been transmitted together with Philo\u2019s writings.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
Siegert regards the art of preaching on sacred texts as an innovation of the Greek-speaking synagogue that was later taken over by Christianity. Before Aucher\u2019s publication of these homilies, no text of this genre\u2014i.e. any speech on a biblical text given during the synagogue liturgy\u2014was known, and previously this art was attested only by indirect witnesses. A simple and archaic worldview characterizes these sermons, and they contain no philosophical reasoning. As for the rhetorical arrangement of the material, it is sophisticated and displays a finely honed skill in psychological analysis.
\nIn Siegert\u2019s view, these texts are actual speeches delivered before a synagogue audience, not written compositions: it was a common practice in antiquity to declaim long, improvised speeches. These works belong to the genre of epideictic oratory, that is, they are panegyrics or encomia on Jewish heroes. The pomposity of florid and exuberant \u201cAsianic\u201d oratory is obvious throughout the text. Thus, the sermons are specimens of \u201centertainment,\u201d with, of course, theological content: the main topic of On Jonah is \u201cGod\u2019s philanthropy\u201d and of On Samson, \u201cthe fair Jew.\u201d Along with the stylistic affinity of the two homilies, Siegert notes many differences in their content and ideology; but this does not prevent him from supposing that the works might belong to the same author. Being a good orator, Pseudo-Philo was able to elaborate on his subject matter, although sometimes this leads him to quite contradictory conclusions. Furthermore, according to Siegert the sermons contain no direct references to the Law of Moses, which could explain why Christians have preserved such sermons rather many others that would have been nearer to the Rabbinic Midrash. But the textual absence of the Mosaic Law does not militate against a Jewish origin or against the sermons having been taken seriously by the Jewish community. Its absence in On Jonah can be explained by the sermon\u2019s relationship to the afternoon reading on the Day of Atonement (Meg. 31a), which had a universal message: the story of the Ninevites\u2019 repentance gave this day a meaning that is valid for all mankind. The biblical text of On Samson was the afternoon reading associated with Num. 4:21\u20137:89 and belonged to the Sabbath, when the Torah was present, and the preacher\u2019s goal was to entertain the synagogue audience until sunset.
\nOn Samson and On Jonah were not only an integral part of the Armenian Corpus Philonicum but were also incorporated by Armenian commentators on Philo (from the 13th century onward) in one of the seven \u201ccycles\u201d or \u201cseries\u201d of class lectures on Philonic writings. This cycle was called \u201cExodus\u201d; it included Questions and Answers on Exodus 1\u20132; On the Special Laws 1.79\u201381, 131\u201361, 285\u2013345; 3.1\u20137; On the Decalogue; Spec. Laws 3.8\u201363; and On Samson, On Jonah, and On God (De Deo). This series contains the interpretation of moral norms given in the form of the written Law not to all people but to a few righteous persons. According to an Armenian scholar, the triad On Samson\u2014On Jonah\u2014On God represents the two highest virtues, namely piety and philanthropy in their relation to the creative and the lordly potencies of the Almighty.<\/p>\n
GUIDE TO READING<\/p>\n
In elaborating the biblical episodes, Pseudo-Philo uses various literary devices from the arsenal of rhetorical composition. He turns the laconic account of biblical events into detailed descriptions\u2014for example, in the account of Samson tearing the lion (On Samson 27:8\u201310). He supplies his descriptions with elaborate interpretations; for example, in On Samson, his explanation of the angel\u2019s likeness to God (On Samson 9:6\u20137); in On Jonah, his excursus on the possibility of deceiving humans and the impossibility of deceiving God when casting lots (On Jonah 11:6\u20138). At times Pseudo-Philo addresses his interpretations to an imaginary opponent (On Samson 26:1\u20137); to \u201cone of the audience\u201d (On Samson 35:1\u20136) or to \u201ca listener\u201d (On Samson 38:1\u20137).
\nAmong the typical rhetorical devices the author employs are comparisons: God is compared with a doctor (On Samson 7:1; On Jonah 2:1); the barrenness of Samson\u2019s parents and their relations with the angel are compared with the story of Sarah and Abraham (On Samson 7:2\u20133; 14:3\u20138); Jonah\u2019s tempest is compared with fire (On Jonah 8:3\u20134). Pseudo-Philo also uses metaphor; for example, Jonah is a \u201crock\u201d (On Jonah 7:4); his release from the belly of the fish is \u201cchildbirth,\u201d and the fish carrying him inside is \u201cpregnancy\u201d (On Jonah 25:7\u20138). Long or short speeches are put in the mouths of the characters, for example, Samson\u2019s speech at his wedding (On Samson 30:1\u20138); God\u2019s command to Jonah (On Jonah 4\u20135); and Jonah\u2019s prayer in the belly of the fish (On Jonah 19\u201326). Similarly, Pseudo-Philo elaborates on the shorter remarks of the biblical characters, making them into real speeches; for example, Jonah\u2019s proclamation to the Ninevites (On Jonah 27:1\u20135). Pseudo-Philo also poses rhetorical questions (e.g., On Samson 34:1; 39:2, 5; On Jonah 3:1; 4:5); uses emotional appeals to the characters (On Samson 31:1; On Jonah 17:2); and addresses the audience (On Samson 10:1; 35:1; On Jonah 15:1). He presents a controversy surrounding a specific question, refers to contradictory opinions, and offers arguments against the position unacceptable to him (On Samson 23\u201324). He cites examples from Scripture to corroborate his view on a particular question (concerning patriarchs receiving various spirits: On Samson 25:2\u20134).
\nThe LXX is sometimes cited literally, but there are also examples of paraphrase. This too is characteristic of the rhetorical method of writing. For instance, \u201cA man of God came to me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very awesome\u201d (Judg. 13:6) is paraphrased as: \u201cBut I saw (\u2026) the venerable dignity and appearance of an angelic image with a shining and majestic countenance. I could learn from no one [but] from him what I saw, and I conjectured about his nature and his dwelling place. By his grandeur, he looked like a man of God and by the lucent brilliancy of his face, like a citizen of heaven, as if wearing the rays of a luminary\u201d (On Samson 8:3\u20135). Pseudo-Philo also invents a new episode (the second assembly of the Ninevites [On Jonah 39]) and changes some details of the original stories (e.g., while in the LXX the sailors throw Jonah into the sea, here he jumps himself [On Jonah 14:3], perhaps to achieve a more dramatic effect).<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Kennedy, G. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974.
\nLewy, H., The Pseudo-Philonic De Jona, Pt. 1: The Armenian Text with a Critical Introduction. London: Christophers, 1936.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cHomily and Panegyrical Sermon.\u201d In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 BC\u2013AD 400), edited by Stanley E. Porter, 421\u201343. Leiden: Brill 1997.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cHellenistic Jewish Midrash, 1: Beginnings.\u201d In Encyclopedia of Midrash. Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism, edited by J. Neusner and A. Avery-Peck, 1:199\u2013220. Leiden: Brill, 2005. And \u201cHellenistic Jewish Midrash, 3: Developed Non-Allegorical Forms.\u201d In Neusner and Avery-Peck, Encyclopedia of Midrash, 1:232\u201350.
\nLewy, H., and J. de Roulet, trans. Pseudo-Philon: Pr\u00e9dications synagogales, traduction, notes et commentaire par avec la collaboration de J. J. Aubert et N. Cochand (Sources Chr\u00e9tiennes, 435). Paris: Cerf, 1999.
\nSiegert, F., trans. Drei hellenistisch-j\u00fcdische Predigten. Vol. 1: \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Armenischen und sprachliche Erl\u00e4uterungen. Vol. 2: Kommentar. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 20, 61. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr, 1980, 1992.
\nTerian, A. Philonis Alexandrini De Animalibus. The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 1. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981.
\nVardazarjan, O. S. Filon Aleksandri\u012dski\u012d v vosprijatii armjanskogo srednevekovjja [The Perception of Philo of Alexandria in Medieval Armenia]. Yerevan: Lusabats\u2019, 2006.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
1:1\u20136 Pseudo-Philo changes the sequence of events and starts his homily with the beginning of the end of the biblical story (Judg. 16:16). In the continuation of his work, he never refers to Delilah and the treacherous cutting of Samson\u2019s hair again, preferring to orate on other events of his life. Perhaps he begins On Samson with this dramatic episode to tempt the readers (or the audience) and capture their attention for what follows. He regards Samson\u2019s irresistible lust as the main reason for his defeat, describing it in pompous words and, in particular, comparing voluptuousness with a cross upon which victims are nailed. While the Bible is not explicit in considering Samson\u2019s lust as the cause for his betrayal of the secret (stating instead that he yielded to the woman because she harassed and urged him daily, so that \u201che was tired to death\u201d), Pseudo-Philo\u2019s interpretation accords with that found in Jewish sources. Num. Rab. 9:24, for example, referring to Judg. 16:28 (\u201cThen Samson called to the LORD and said, \u2018LORD God, remember me,\u2019 \u201d etc.), comments on the verse that Samson\u2019s claim upon God for remembrance was hardly justified since he had lusted after whoredom. Sot. 9b explains \u201curged him\u201d as Delilah\u2019s separation from Samson at the moment of consummation (i.e., he was unable to satisfy his lust and had to open the secret to her); the conclusion in the Mishnah is that he who went after the desire of his eyes, lost his eyes. Josephus in Ant. 5.312 relates the episode in more moderate terms, referring neither to Samson\u2019s tiredness to death nor to his immense lust: in the end, according to Josephus, Samson told the truth to the woman, because \u201cshe was asking\u201d (deomen\u0113s) and \u201che wished to please Delilah\u201d (charizesthai boulomenos t\u0113i Dalalei).
\n1:1. From the vortex of ductility What is meant is Samson\u2019s obedience to Delilah (Judg. 16:6\u201317), which, according to Pseudo-Philo, finally turned into overwhelming lust and made the hero reveal his secret.
\nlook upward That is, pay heed to God.
\n2:1\u20134:7 This is a kind of preamble that, alongside ordinary rhetorical statements (e.g., that physical force is necessary for exploits and that a narrator must be wise) and theological commonplaces (that in each divine action, a new aspect of the wonder-working power of God is revealed, that God is benevolent toward those who carry out his commands but chastises disobedient human beings, etc.), contains the emphatic idea that God had endowed Samson with extraordinary abilities already before his birth, not as a reward for his righteous character but as proof of providence. That is to say, Pseudo-Philo reformulates and interprets in his own way Judg. 13:5 (\u201cFor the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb\u201d), a verse also discussed in Num. Rab. 10:5, with references to Jer. 1:5 (\u201cBefore I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you\u201d) and Ps. 58:4 (\u201cThe wicked go astray from the womb; they err from birth speaking lies\u201d). The other basic motif of this section is the love of God for human beings, the main subject of On Jonah. But here, as distinct from other similar cases, Pseudo-Philo speaks of a quite moderate manifestation of the divine philanthropy, just \u201ca drop of grace,\u201d for due to Samson\u2019s sinful behavior God had to counterbalance His profound humaneness with a portion of severity.
\n4:3. supreme assistants a gloss in an Armenian manuscript interprets this as \u201ctheir gods,\u201d and Aucher accepts this interpretation by adding falsos deos in parentheses to praesidentes eis adjutores in his Latin translation.
\n5:1\u201310:3 This part of the homily roughly covers Judg. 13:2\u201311. In his usual embellishing manner, the author reworks \u201chis wife was barren, and bore not\u201d (Judg. 13:2) into an allegory of infertile, \u201cperplexed\u201d earth sown in vain and compares God with an artful tiller who, in addition to making the soil fruitful, perfects the seed itself. That is to say, from Pseudo-Philo\u2019s understanding of the story it follows that perhaps the couple\u2019s sterility was not only because of the woman but also the man. A similar doubt is voiced more explicitly in Num. Rab. 10:5, which states that probably there was a quarrel between Manoah and his wife: they blamed each other for their incapability to produce offspring. However, the conclusion is that it was the woman who was barren, because the angel first appeared to her and not to Manoah (according to the same source, the wife was called Zlelponi or Hazlelponi [cf. BB 91a, Tanh. B, 4:160 and elsewhere], for she turned her face [ponah] to look at the angel; \u201czalal\u201d applies to the angel, since angels came \u201cunder the shadow [zel] of my roof\u201d [Gen. 19:8]). Pseudo-Philo then remarks that through the angel God ordered the wife \u201cto accept what had not been sown yet,\u201d i.e., the productive intercourse had not taken place before the angel\u2019s appearance. Interestingly, this contradicts the view expressed in Num. Rab. 10:5, namely, that \u201cthe semen of that night\u201d was already in the woman\u2019s matrix and she had not \u201cdischarged\u201d it before hearing the good news from the angel. A different conception of impregnation by the interference of God is found in Philo\u2019s QG 3:5 regarding Abraham and Sarah: Philo believes that in such cases the childbirth does not take place through begetting but is entirely a result of divine miracle-working. Among Pseudo-Philo\u2019s further embellishments of the biblical laconism are \u201cby his grandeur, he looked like a man of God and by the lucent brilliancy of his face, like a citizen of heaven, as if wearing the rays of a luminary\u201d for \u201chis countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very awesome\u201d (Judg. 13:6); \u201cthen, borrowing some speed from the outstripping angel and adding it to her own run, the woman raced with a bird\u2019s swiftness and reached her husband\u201d for \u201cand the woman made haste, and ran\u201d (Judg. 13:10), etc. This section concludes with a rhetorical judgment on the inferiority of the human face to the angels\u2019 when compared with the archetypal image, though the angelic countenance too does not completely resemble that of God. Noteworthy details about Samson\u2019s parents and the episode of the angel\u2019s coming are provided by Josephus in Ant. 5.276\u201381. According to him, Manoah (Man\u014dch\u0113s) was a uniquely virtuous man and the principal person in his homeland. Manoah\u2019s wife was the most beautiful woman among her contemporaries, so he crazily loved and was extremely jealous of her. The couple often went together to the suburbs of their city and entreated God to give them a child, but when the angel brought the good tidings, the wife was alone. Since the angel looked like a tall, handsome young man, when the woman told Manoah about the apparition, he became bitterly jealous and did not calm down until he saw the angel himself and understood that a messenger of God was before him.
\n5:1. Samson\u2019s parents \u2026 did not find it Cf. Judg. 13:2: \u201cAnd there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bore not.\u201d
\n6:1. He dispatched an angel \u2026 to accept what had not been sown yet Cf. Judg. 13:3: \u201cAnd the angel of the LORD appeared to the woman, and said to her, \u2018Behold now, you are barren, and bear not; but you shall conceive, and bear a son.\u2019 \u201d
\n6:3. a piece of news Lit. \u201ca piece of gossip\u201d (Arm. banararut\u2019iun; Gk. logopoi\u0113ma).
\n8:1. having ordered her to beware of drunkenness Cf. Judg. 13:4: \u201cNow therefore beware, I beseech you, and drink not wine nor strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing.\u201d
\n8:3\u20135. \u201cthe venerable dignity \u2026 as if wearing the rays of a luminary\u201d Cf. Judg. 13:6: \u201cThen the woman came and told her husband, saying, \u2018A man of God came to me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very awesome; but I asked him not from where he was, nor did he tell me his name.\u2019 \u201d
\n8:5. a citizen of heaven Arm. erknak\u2019aghak\u2019ats\u2019I; Gk. uranopolit\u0113s.
\n9:1. When Manoah heard this \u2026 wishing to see and hear the messenger himself Cf. Judg. 13:8: \u201cThen Manoah entreated the LORD, and said, \u2018O my LORD, let the man of God whom you sent come back to us, and teach us what we shall do with the child who shall be born.\u2019 \u201d
\n9:2. And God \u2026 as she sat in the sown land Cf. Judg. 13:9: \u201cAnd God listened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came back to the woman as she sat in the field.\u201d
\n9:4. Then, borrowing some speed \u2026 reached her husband Cf. Judg. 13:10: \u201cAnd the woman made haste, and ran, and told her husband, and said to him, \u2018Behold, the man who came to see me the other day has appeared to me.\u2019 \u201d
\n11:1\u201317:4 Here the author occupies himself with a rhetorical exercise, pronouncing an original eulogy on the angel for his clever conduct and actions appropriate to the situation. The angel, Pseudo-Philo thinks, deserves praise for: (1) showing two natures: one awesome, necessary for the first appearance to the woman, in order to look impressive and make her believe the message, and the other moderate and human, so that Manoah should not fear and should calmly comprehend the divine instruction; (2) not acting haughtily but patiently waiting for Manoah to come and tolerantly answering his questions; (3) declining Manoah\u2019s invitation to dinner and thus giving him to understand that he should honor God and not His (God\u2019s) messenger; (4) not disclosing and thereby usurping his divine name, which ultimately belongs to God; and (5) withdrawing as if on God\u2019s chariot together with the flame and making the final scene of the vision as awe-inspiring as his first apparition to the woman, so that the couple should not doubt the truthfulness of the good news from heaven. Though hardly any direct parallel to Pseudo-Philo\u2019s encomium on the angel exists in available sources, the expediency of the angel\u2019s behavior is appreciated in Rabbinic tradition as well. We can refer to Num. Rab. 10:5, which perfectly understands and approves the angel\u2019s conduct: (1) he came back to the wife and not to the husband with good reason, or else his first talk with the woman would become worthless (i.e., the angel would have to repeat to Manoah all that he had said to the wife); (2) when the husband asked the angel to announce again the message directly to him (because women have no right to give directions and are unreliable), the angel justifiably refused, in order to show respect to the woman and endear her to Manoah; (3) when the angel was invited to \u201crejoice over\u201d the meat of a kid, he did not accept the offer, intimating that it is God, not he, who must be honored for the good news (cf. above Pseudo-Philo\u2019s praise of the angel for the same behavior); (4) the angel rightly did not tell his name to Manoah because, according to one of the explanations, when God sends His messengers on missions, He names them variously depending on the specific occasion (cf. Pseudo-Philo\u2019s different interpretation above); etc. Furthermore, both On Samson and Numbers Rabbah compare Manoah trying to entertain the angel with Abraham, but while Pseudo-Philo\u2019s purpose is to show that Abraham was more righteous than Manoah (for the former invited the angels to eat with him before receiving the good tidings), the Rabbinic source wishes to stress the correct reaction of the angels: in the case of Abraham they accepted the invitation and pretended to eat since he had offered them food immediately, not as a \u201cpayment\u201d for the message. In this section of On Samson Pseudo-Philo, simultaneously with praising the angel, suggests a noteworthy explanation of the magical power of Samson\u2019s hair: he was to be head of the people and, therefore, had to keep his hair intact, because the head\u2019s thick hair is the symbol of the masses and their strength.
\n12:3. he waited without hesitation Cf. Judg. 13:9\u201311: \u201cAnd the angel of God came back to the woman as she sat in the field; but Manoah her husband was not with her. And the woman made haste, and ran, and told her husband, and said to him, \u2018Behold, the man, who came to see me the other day, has appeared to me.\u2019 And Manoah arose, and went after his wife, and came to the man.\u201d
\n12:4. disdainfully asked him who he was and from where Cf. Judg. 13:11: \u201cAnd Manoah \u2026 said to him, \u2018Are you the man who spoke to the woman?\u2019 \u201d and Judg. 13:17: \u201cAnd Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, \u2018What is your name, that when your sayings come to pass we may do you honor?\u2019 \u201d
\n13:4. the mother has to keep away from tippling and the offspring, from a razor Judg. 13:4\u20135: \u201cNow therefore beware, I beseech you, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing. For, behold, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head.\u201d
\n14:1. invited him to dinner Cf. Judg. 13:15: \u201cAnd Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, \u2018I beseech you, let us detain you, until we shall have prepared a kid for you.\u2019 \u201d
\n15:1. The angel refused \u2026 into hospitality to God Cf. Judg. 13:16: \u201cAnd the angel of the LORD said to Manoah, \u2018Though you detain me, I will not eat of your bread; and if you will offer a burnt offering, you must offer it to the LORD.\u2019 \u201d
\n15:2. \u201cWhat is your name, so that we can at least keep it in our memory\u201d Cf. Judg. 13:17: \u201cAnd Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, \u2018What is your name, that when your sayings come to pass we may do you honor?\u2019 \u201d
\n15:3. \u201cIt is wonderful\u201d Pseudo-Philo follows the LXX; cf. Judg. 13:18: \u201cAnd the angel of the LORD said to him, \u2018Why ask you thus after my name, seeing it is hidden?\u2019 \u201d
\n16:3. the angel said it was inappropriate to mention the name of the Great and Supreme One In the Bible, the angel makes Manoah realize that it is unfit to ask his own (not God\u2019s) name; cf. Judg. 13:18 (see the citation in the previous lemma).
\n17:1. after this he prepared a sacrifice Cf. Judg. 13:19: \u201cSo Manoah took a kid with a meal offering, and offered it upon a rock to the LORD.\u201d
\n17:2. Then \u2026 being taken aloft by the flame of the offering Cf. Judg. 13:20: \u201cFor it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar.\u201d
\n18:1 The scene is borrowed from Judg. 6:21 (\u201cThen the angel of the LORD put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire from the rock, and consumed the meat and the unleavened cakes\u201d), and it replaces the laconic and obscure \u201cthe angel did wondrously\u201d (Judg. 13:19). Josephus in Ant. 5.283\u201384 describes the offering in a similar way: the angel touches the flesh with his rod and thus kindles a fire that consumes the meat together with the loaves.
\n18:1. As soon as Manoah placed on a rock \u2026 it suddenly blazed up Cf. Judg. 13:19: \u201cSo Manoah took a kid with a meal offering, and offered it upon a rock to the LORD; and the angel did wondrously.\u201d
\n18:4\u20138 This elaboration of Judg. 13:22\u201323 includes the author\u2019s own assessment of the situation in general as well as the character of both husband and wife. Whereas one would normally expect fearfulness on the woman\u2019s part and bravery on the man\u2019s, just the opposite wondrously happened: the wife made efforts to encourage the frightened husband. Though we were unable to find the exact saying (\u201cA man may have a female soul, and a soul fitting a man may wear a female image\u201d) ascribed by Pseudo-Philo to \u201cSomebody\u201d in verse 8, and by an Armenian glossator to Plato (see the corresponding footnote), the general idea occurs as early as in Herodotus\u2019s Hist.: cf. 8.88, where Xerxes says, \u201cFor me, the men have become women, and the women men.\u201d
\n18:4. he thought his life had become lifeless Cf. Judg. 13:22: \u201cAnd Manoah said to his wife, \u2018We shall surely die, because we have seen God.\u2019 \u201d
\n18:5\u20136. \u201cDid this vision \u2026 guarantee of his salvation?\u201d Cf. Judg. 13:23: \u201cBut his wife said to him, \u2018If the LORD would have been pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering and a meal offering from our hands, nor would he have shown us all these things, nor would have told us, at this time, such things as these.\u2019 \u201d
\n19:2\u201321:6 In these chapters the author grandiloquently describes Samson\u2019s personality and physical abilities, even trying to portray his appearance. When speaking of Samson\u2019s features, he uses common stylistic devices (such as the comparison of the youth\u2019s flourishing face to flowers or his brows to a crescent moon) rather than mentioning anything specific. Though the supernatural strength and heroism of Manoah\u2019s son are unquestionably acknowledged both by Pseudo-Philo and the Rabbis, their views on the size of his body and the extent of his power are quite different. While Pseudo-Philo thinks that Samson looked like other people, Rabbi Simeon the Pious in Sot. 10a supposes that the width between Samson\u2019s shoulders was 60 cubits. Among Samson\u2019s exploits, Pseudo-Philo mentions nothing that equals what Rabbi Assi attributes to him in Sot. 9b, namely, that Samson uprooted two great mountains, Zorah and Eshtaol, and ground one against the other. Interestingly, Jewish sources also refer to a physical defect in the hero\u2019s body unknown to our author: Samson was lame in both legs (cf. Sot. 10a and Nispahim 44). Pseudo-Philo and the Rabbis agree about the weak side of his character: he was unable to resist sensual desires. In this regard Sot. 9b states that Samson rebelled against God through his eyes (i.e., the source of lust), and Pseudo-Philo imagines that \u201che was reproached by the spirit for being weak\u201d against lasciviousness. He further believes, probably on the basis of Judg. 13:25 (\u201cAnd the spirit of the LORD began to stir him \u2026\u201d), that the divine spirit \u201cserved him as a soul\u201d and controlled everything he did; cf. Sot. 9b, which understands the same biblical passage as \u201cthe Shekhinah kept ringing in front of him like a bell,\u201d and then, with reference to Judg. 16:20, notes that Delilah was able to weaken Samson since the Shekhinah had departed from him.
\n19:2. the spirit served him as a soul Cf. Judg. 13:25: \u201cAnd the spirit of the LORD began to stir him in Mahaneh-Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol.\u201d
\n20:1. just as \u2026 are [also] perfect The passage is obviously corrupt; our translation is conjectural.
\n22:1\u201326:7 Pseudo-Philo presents three opinions on Judg. 14:1\u20133 (Samson\u2019s lust after the Philistine woman), ascribing the first two to \u201csages\u201d and arguing against the third, which belongs to unknown opponents. According to the first opinion, which corresponds to Judg. 14:4, it was by the divine will that Samson wished to take a Philistine to wife (the purpose of God was to punish the Philistines in this way, as he actually did: cf. Josephus, Ant. 5.286\u201387); and according to the second, God never achieves any goal by unjust means: Samson made the choice voluntarily, and God used this opportunity for harming the Philistines. We can draw a parallel with a passage in Sot. 9b that reflects the first and, partly, the second opinion. Though this source refers to Judg. 14:4 (\u201cBut his father and his mother knew not that it was from the LORD\u201d) to prove that Samson sinned because God had decided so, it adds that, in any case, he chose his wife following his own inclinations. The third opinion, with which Pseudo-Philo disagrees, blames the spirit (see comment at 19.2\u201321.6) for the hero\u2019s transgression, claiming that Samson had already received it when he felt the desire for the Philistine woman. Responding to this accusation, Pseudo-Philo attacks his opponents for ignorance of what Scripture says about the various spirits, of wisdom, of might, etc., because Samson had got the spirit of strength, not of justice, and the former cannot be reproached for a lawless action (Pseudo-Philo has in mind Isa. 11:2, which mentions the different essences of the divine spirit). The influence of the spirit of God on Samson is also discussed in Rabbinic sources. Rabbi Nahman in Lev. Rab. 8:2 believes that when the divine spirit dwelled with Samson, his hairs became rigid and knocked one against another like a bell. He further refers to three cases when the spirit affected Samson\u2019s actions, namely in Judg. 14:6, 19; and 15:14. For the notion that the divine spirit can manifest itself in hair, see also Gen. Rab. 4:4, where in \u201cThen the LORD answered Job from the whirlwind\u201d (Job 38:1), the last word (sa\u2019arah) is understood as \u201chair\u201d (sa\u2019arot).
\n22:1. and the woman had a perfect female constitution Arm. ew kinn \u0113r i dzew kanats\u2019i ka\u1e5buts\u2019eal (lit. \u201cand the woman was formed in a female shape\u201d).
\n22:1\u20132. a Philistine woman cropped up \u2026 bound by a vision Cf. Judg. 14:1: \u201cAnd Samson went down to Timnath, and saw a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines.\u201d
\n23:1. the Godhead does not wish to save by lawlessness In this case, to save the Israelites from their enemies by Samson\u2019s unlawful marriage to a Philistine woman; cf. Judg. 14:3: \u201cThen his father and his mother said to him, \u2018Is there no woman among the daughters of your brothers, or among all my people, that you must take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?\u2019 \u201d
\n24:5\u20136. \u201cWe are various gifts \u2026 of the fear of God\u201d Cf. Isa. 11:2: \u201cAnd the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD?\u201d
\n25:2. showed himself to be full of goodness, for he believed the Living One Cf. Gen. 15:6: \u201cAnd because he put his trust in the LORD, He reckoned it to his merit.\u201d
\n25:3. Joseph \u2026 defeating the fleshly desire Cf. Gen. 39:7\u201312.
\n25:4. Simeon and Levi \u2026 the Shechemites Cf. Gen. 34:25\u201326.
\nJudah \u2026 judging his daughter-in-law Cf. Gen. 38:24\u201326.
\n27:2\u201329:4 Not only has Pseudo-Philo invented a fanciful description of Samson\u2019s fight with the lion, but he has also changed an important detail of the story. His narrative suggests that Samson was the \u201caggressor,\u201d not the lion: it quietly sat under vines and did not even roar against the man (as it does in Judg. 14:5), while Samson attacked and troubled the beast in order to tear it in two. Another version of this battle is found in Josephus\u2019s Ant. 5.287, where Samson does not tear the lion but \u201cstrangles\u201d (anchei) it and casts the carcass \u201cinto a woody place inside the road.\u201d The scene in Pseudo-Philo depicting how Samson composed the riddle while he looked at the bees making honey in the lion\u2019s carcass has a slightly different parallel in the Rabbinic tradition. According to Lev. Rab. 8:2, Samson, having seen the honeycombs, was meditatively saying to himself: \u201cThe lion eats all other animals, but now food has come out of it\u201d (then the lion is compared to Aaron, \u201cwho eats of all the sacrifices, but now a sacrifice comes forth from him,\u201d as it is said, \u201cThis is the offering of Aaron and his sons\u201d [Lev. 6:13]).
\n27:2\u20133. and the town \u2026 he saw a young lion sitting under bunches of grapes Cf. Judg. 14:5: \u201cThen went Samson down, and his father and his mother, to Timnath, and came to the vineyards of Timnath; and, behold, a young lion roared against him.\u201d Unlike the Hebrew Bible and the Codex Vaticanus, which state that Samson \u201ccame\u201d to the vineyards, the Codex Alexandrinus and the Armenian Bible read \u201cdeviated from the path.\u201d
\n27:6. with its abdomen pulled in In an aggressive arched posture.
\n28:2. he even did not let his parents know Cf. Judg. 14:6: \u201cBut he told not his father or his mother what he had done.\u201d
\n28:5. the future riddle of the lion The riddle in Judg. 14:14: \u201cOut of the eater came food, and out of the strong came sweetness.\u201d
\n29:2. For the bees \u2026 had made a honeycomb there Cf. Judg. 14:8: \u201cAnd after a time he returned to take her, and he turned aside to see the carcass of the lion; and, behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcass of the lion.\u201d
\n29:4. wedding feast The Masoretic Text (MT) and the LXX simply mention \u201ca feast\u201d (cf. Judg. 14:10: \u201cSamson made there a feast; for the young men used to do so\u201d). Pseudo-Philo adds \u201cof wedding\u201d (Arm. harsaneats\u2019n); probably, he followed a variant reading of the LXX that is also reflected in the Armenian Bible: \u201cfor the young men used to celebrate wedding so.\u201d
\n30:1\u201332:5 Here Pseudo-Philo expands Samson\u2019s short speech, concluding with \u201cOut of the eater came food \u2026\u201d in Judg. 14:12\u201314; composes an unparalleled panegyric on the wisdom of the riddle; and offers a kind of psychological and physiological analysis as to why the 30 Philistines so rashly and stupidly agreed to take the bet. He simply writes that Samson addressed 30 bettors (\u201cthirty of you\u201d), without any hint at their age or traits; the Bible mentions \u201cthirty companions,\u201d whereas Josephus in Ant. 5.288 says that the Philistines \u201cbecause of fear\u201d (dia deos: cf. en t\u014di phobeisthai in the Codex Alexandrinus of the LXX) gave Samson 30 \u201cmost vigorous young men\u201d (tous akmaiotatous), who in pretense were to be his companions but actually had been sent to keep a watch on him. Furthermore, Josephus paraphrases the riddle as follows: \u201cThe all-devourer, despite of being very unsweet, produced sweet food from itself\u201d (hoti to pamboron gegenn\u0113koi boran h\u0113deian ex autou kai panu a\u0113dous ontos).
\n30:5. thirty of you Cf. Judg. 14:11: \u201cAnd it came to pass, when they saw him, that they brought thirty companions to be with him.\u201d
\n30:7. For if each of you is defeated \u2026 each body of the winning party Cf. Judg. 14:12\u201313: \u201cIf you can tell me what it is within the seven days of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty sheets and thirty changes of garments. But if you cannot tell me what it is, then shall you give me thirty sheets and thirty changes of garments.\u201d
\n32:5. rushing to a decision \u2026 confined within the organs Pseudo-Philo probably means that reason, subdued by \u201cthe organs\u201d (i.e., the \u201ctools\u201d of animal instincts), makes unwise decisions.
\n33:1\u201335:6 While there is no appraisal of the wife\u2019s behavior in Judg. 14:16\u201317, Pseudo-Philo seizes the opportunity to deliver a long woman hater\u2019s speech in the best Philonic tradition. A classic example of misogynistic rhetoric, it is directed against the female gender in general and the Philistine women in particular. The author uses familiar phrases such as \u201cthe female race \u2026 is horrible and irresistible,\u201d \u201conly for them it is easy to capture the race of strong men,\u201d \u201cif we deem them timid and obedient, we are defeated,\u201d etc., and as a conclusion he evaluates his accusatory speech as \u201can antidote, a remedy against the deadly poison.\u201d Though Josephus (Ant. 5.294) does not express his personal negative opinion on what the woman did, he puts in Samson\u2019s mouth the desperate exclamation \u201cNothing is more deceptive than a woman!\u201d (eipen oude gynaikos einai ti doler\u014dteron).
\n36:1\u201340:6 Pseudo-Philo continues his own version of the story about the \u201cwisdom of the riddle,\u201d the Philistines\u2019 inability to solve it, and their decision to blackmail the woman. Once again, Samson\u2019s wife becomes the main target of his severe reproach, which in the end grows to a direct curse (\u201cYou, impious, vile woman \u2026\u201d). He disapproves of the Philistines\u2019 ignoble behavior only in passing, as \u201cseeking after an impudent and shameful victory,\u201d and afterward almost justifies it, because, in Pseudo-Philo\u2019s opinion, the woman betrayed her husband \u201cdue to her nature\u201d rather than by necessity. Notably, while in Judg. 14:15 the Philistines threaten Samson\u2019s wife with burning her and her father\u2019s house (cf. Josephus\u2019s Ant. 5.291, where the menace is \u201cto burn her\u201d [empr\u0113sein aut\u0113n], without a mention of her father\u2019s house), in our text the threat is worded as \u201cdeath penalty.\u201d According to the MT, after the woman betrayed her husband, she \u201cwas given to his companion\u201d; and when later on Samson wished to enter his wife\u2019s room, her father did not allow him to go in (Judg. 14:20; 15:1). In Josephus\u2019s Ant. 5.298, after the betrayal Samson himself \u201crejects that marriage\u201d (ton de gamon ekeinon paraiteitai), whereas in On Samson Pseudo-Philo blames the woman as the initiator of the divorce, both directly (\u201cThat is why you did not keep your bride bed after seven days, as usually happens after weddings, but dissolved your marriage\u201d) and indirectly (she revealed her husband\u2019s secret and thereby ruined their wedlock). In the Rabbinic sources, the whole riddle episode seems not to have drawn special attention.
\n36:3. The three days \u2026 passed Cf. Judg. 14:14: \u201cAnd they could not in three days tell what the riddle was.\u201d
\n37:3. we will pay the price of the bet from your paternal property Cf. Judg. 14:15: \u201cAnd it came to pass on the seventh day that they said to Samson\u2019s wife, \u2018Entice your husband, that he may tell us the riddle, lest we burn you and your father\u2019s house with fire; have you called us to take possession of our goods?\u2019 \u201d
\n38:4. She \u2026 pressed him before being pressed by others Cf. Judg. 14:17: \u201cAnd she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted; and it came to pass on the seventh day, that he told her.\u201d
\n38:6. Though \u2026 nothing but abuse The passage is corrupt; we have tried to make sense of it.
\n40:4. You destroyed the marriage Cf. Judg. 14:20: \u201cAnd Samson\u2019s wife was given to his companion, who was his friend.\u201d
\n41:1\u201346:5 These concluding chapters of the homily contain: the two final scenes of the riddle story (the Philistines solve the riddle, and then Samson kills 30 of their fellow countrymen to pay the price of the bet), the author\u2019s further praise of Samson\u2019s wisdom and prowess, and his final appreciation of the hero\u2019s character. After mentioning Samson\u2019s angry reaction to the bettors\u2019 answer (\u201cif you had not plowed with my heifer, you would not have found out my riddle\u201d), Pseudo-Philo takes the opportunity to admire once again Samson\u2019s wit and the \u201cwonderful second riddle,\u201d which even Jews\u2014including the author himself (\u201cwe, Samson\u2019s fellow tribesmen\u201d: a direct testimony by Pseudo-Philo to his Jewish origin)\u2014would be unable to comprehend, let alone the Philistines. Then, to justify the killing of 30 men, the orator forgets for a moment his anger at the \u201cimpious, vile woman\u201d and thinks that \u201cthe sage\u201d should not be accused, because he rightly perpetrated the massacre \u201cout of pity for the woman who had been menaced by the Philistines.\u201d Pseudo-Philo is amazed at the mastery by which Samson carried out the bloodshed without spoiling their garments. He also eulogizes Samson for taking vengeance on his offenders later, in due time, because at the moment of his defeat it was necessary to respect the bet first and give what he owed to the bettors! In Rabbinic tradition, namely in Naz. 4b, the killing and stripping of the 30 Philistines by Samson is discussed from the viewpoint of ritual purity: did he, a Nazirite, defile himself by contact with the dead when he slew 30 men and took their clothing? The Rabbis offer two suppositions on this matter: (1) he first stripped and then killed them; (2) he wounded mortally and then stripped them. They accept the latter supposition, concluding therefore that Samson came into contact with the dead. No Rabbinic source regards him as a prophet, unlike Josephus and Pseudo-Philo. Josephus says in Ant. 5:285 that as the newborn boy (whose name means \u201cstrong\u201d) grew quickly, his prophetic gift became evident (d\u0113los \u0113n proph\u0113teus\u014dn), and Pseudo-Philo considers him an \u201cinspired man,\u201d i.e., a prophet, able to see the forthcoming events before they happen. Like Pseudo-Philo, Josephus finishes his version of the story with a eulogy on the hero (5:317), mentioning his astounding valor; strength; and magnanimity at death, because he did not hesitate to die together with his enemies. As to Samson\u2019s weakness for women, Josephus ascribes it to human nature in general.
\n43:2. he killed their distant relatives and dressed the nearer ones Cf. Judg. 14:19: \u201cAnd the spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their booty, and gave changes of garments to those who had told the riddle.\u201d
\n43:6. had threatened to burn the woman\u2019s house Cf. Judg. 14:15: \u201cEntice your husband, that he may tell us the riddle, lest we burn you and your father\u2019s house with fire.\u201d
\n44:2. no less at his riddles than at his heroism This is what the Armenian text reads, but \u201cno less at his heroism than at his riddles\u201d would be more logical in this context.
\n46:1. inspired men Cf. the reference to the \u201cinspired\u201d (Gk. pneumatophoros) prophets in On Jonah 1:2.
\n46:2. when the time came \u2026 defeated the wrongdoers Cf. Judg. 15:1\u20138 and Samson\u2019s final revenge in 16:28\u201330.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
1:4\u20132:1. Therefore, I regard the Legislation as a ship \u2026 He who steers all the cities The allegory of the pilot (not necessarily referring to God) steering his ship was a commonplace both in biblical commentaries and in other literary genres. Interestingly, in this passage God the Pilot steers three different, though interrelated, \u201cships\u201d: the Legislation (i.e., the Torah), \u201cthis world,\u201d and \u201call the cities.\u201d The clause \u201cthe Pilot of all is seated upon it, rightly steering this world toward the salvation of everyone\u201d has a striking parallel in Philo\u2019s Confusion 98, where he refers to God as \u201cthe pilot of the universe, holding the helm and steering all things in a saving way\u201d (ho kybern\u0113t\u0113s theos t\u014dn hol\u014dn oiakonom\u014dn kai p\u0113daliouchon s\u014dt\u0113ri\u014ds ta sympanta). Another parallel occurs, for example, in Migration 272, where Philo compares \u201cthe first wise man in the human race\u201d (Abraham) with a helmsman on a ship. In Rabbinic literature, the symbolic character of the pilot figures, for example, in Lev. Rab. 12:1 (\u201cthe steersman sitting on the masthead\u201d) and 21:5 (Rabbi Johanan says that a man must always be like a steersman, on the lookout for performing a religious act). Finally, a remote parallel can be found in Wis. 10:4: \u201cWhen the earth was flooded \u2026 wisdom again saved it, steering the righteous man by a paltry piece of wood\u201d (Noah is meant).
\n2:1\u20133. as a good doctor \u2026 having proclaimed death and devastation, builds the favor of salvation The motif of God the healer curing the world even through destruction, which in this paragraph Pseudo-Philo develops in a rhetorical manner, goes back to Exod. 15:26 (\u201cI will not bring upon you any of the diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians, for I the LORD am your healer\u201d), Ps. 103:2\u20133 (\u201cBless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, Who forgives all your iniquities, who heals all your diseases\u201d) et al. and is as if summarized in Deut. 32:39 (\u201cSee now that I am he, and there is no god with me; I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; nor is there any who can deliver out of my hand\u201d). In Rabbinic tradition, a parallel may be drawn with Gen. Rab. 10:4, where Rabbi Phinehas in the name of Rabbi Hama of Sepphoris, referring to Isa. 30:26 (\u201cAnd He will heal the stroke of their wound\u201d), explains the verse as \u201cHe will heal the wound of the world.\u201d
\n3:1\u20132. And the Philanthropist seeks after an associate for their salvation: a man out of many \u2026 hoping to escape from an inescapable God According to Jewish sources, this \u201cassociate,\u201d i.e., Jonah, son of Amittai, was one of the thousands of disciples surrounding the prophet Elisha (B. Ket. 106a refers to more than 2,200 disciples of this master). Furthermore, before sending Jonah to Nineveh, God had assigned him another task, namely, to announce death and destruction to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The mentioned sources express the view that this first message of God, addressed to the people of Jerusalem through Jonah, is corroborated by 2 Kings 14:25 (\u201cHe restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath to the sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the LORD God of Israel, which he spoke by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gath-Hepher\u201d). However, this interpretation is not accepted in Mek. Bo 2a and Yebam. 98a, where both revelations of the Shekhinah to Jonah (i.e., in 2 Kings 14:25 and in Jon. 1:1\u20132) are connected with the affairs of Nineveh. The sources that speak about the first divine message to Jerusalem further narrate that its inhabitants repented and changed their conduct, thanks to which God did not destroy the city and, consequently, Jonah\u2019s prophecy was regarded as \u201cfalse\u201d (the epithet of which he was so afraid). This is why, in order to avoid falsity for the second time, Jonah decided to flee from God and avoid going to Nineveh; he even preferred to lose his life in the sea rather than see the heathens repent.
\n3:1. who gave knowledge to the prophets? Cf. Dan. 2:21: \u201cHe gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding.\u201d
\n3:2. the doctor Jonah, who was going to \u201cheal\u201d the inhabitants of Nineveh.
\n4:1\u20135:6. \u201c\u2026 the city of Nineveh \u2026 they should not live in delight with any expectation for the future!\u201d This long elaboration of the laconic Jon. 1:2 (\u201cArise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness has come up before me\u201d) as a whole has no parallel either in Rabbinic or in theological literature. The oratorical structure of the divine speech is based on cause-effect relations and is intended to logically prove the truthfulness and fairness of what is said to the listeners: God granted fine weather and prolific lands to the Ninevites, but they turned out to be ungrateful and did not even wish to utter a word of thanks to Him; moreover, making use of the created things, they totally ignored the Creator (cf. Wis. 13:1: \u201cNor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works\u201d). However, God would forgive even their negligence and blasphemy if they had been righteous toward one another; but since the Ninevites have despised those principal norms of correct behavior, they are no longer worthy of living on the earth. This emphasis on the two primary aspects of human perfection may be traced back to Philo\u2019s Abraham 208, where \u201cpiety toward God\u201d (hosiot\u0113s pros theon) and \u201cjustice toward men\u201d (dikaiosyn\u0113 pros anthr\u014dpous) are mentioned as the main virtues of Abraham.
\n5:3. differing from one another in appearance Irrespective of whether they are attractive or unattractive.
\n5:6. Proclaim destruction to the city Cf. Jon. 1:2: \u201cArise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness has come up before me\u201d; and Jon. 3:2: \u201cGo to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim to it the message that I bid you.\u201d
\n6:1. When the prophet heard this \u2026 he fled from the city As we have noted in the annotation of 3:1\u20132, according to several Jewish sources Jonah decided to avoid the task not only because, thanks to his prophetic gift, he saw Nineveh flourishing even after his proclamation, but also because he had already felt bitter disappointment with his announcement of death and destruction to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (when he had been called \u201cfalse prophet\u201d for the first time).
\n6:3\u20137:6. he fled to cast himself into the bare and open sea \u2026 roused the sea over the prophet Pirke R. Eli. 10; Tanh. Va-Yikra 8; Midr. Jonah 96\u201397; and Ned. 38a add interesting details to the story of Jonah\u2019s flight and seafaring. Because the prophet believed that the Shekhinah could only appear in heaven and on dry land, he thought that in the open sea it would be possible to avoid another divine revelation and not have to go to Nineveh. When he went to the harbor of Joppa, no ship was there. To test Jonah, God roused a wind and forced a vessel that had left the port two days ago to return to Joppa and take the fugitive aboard. Jonah regarded this as an encouraging sign, hoping that God was well disposed toward his plan. Being in high spirits, he paid enough to hire the whole ship (the payment was 4,000 denarii), but the vessel had hardly made a day\u2019s journey when God hurled a tempest upon the sea. According to Gen. Rab. 24:4, this was one of the three most terrible storms the world had ever seen: one of the other two was in the days of Job and the third in the days of Elijah. However, the storm in the days of Jonah was directed against his ship only, and no one else suffered from it.
\n7:2. the city The city to which they were traveling.
\n7:6. the sea no longer possessed Because Jonah had disappeared from the \u201csight\u201d of the sea.
\n8:1. Now, the steersman left the helm, and the sailors, the other equipment, and they stretched their hands in prayer Jewish sources mention representatives of the 70 nations of the earth that are traveling on this ship. Each had his particular idol and faith; the sailors decided that everyone should pray to the deity of his own nation, and whichever god was able to calm the sea was to be acknowledged as the only true divine power. However, since none of the praying travelers got help from his god, the captain of the ship had to approach the sleeping Jonah. When addressing the prophet, the captain says he had already heard that the God of the Jews was the most powerful.
\n9:1\u20132. for the sound of the snore \u2026 when they are overfilled with the breath, they wheeze This funny description of the process of snoring by Pseudo-Philo is based on the Gk. word errenchen in the LXX (cf. Jon. 1:5: \u201cBut Jonah had gone down into the interior of the ship; and had lain down, and was snoring\u201d). The Hebrew Bible reads yeradem (\u201cwas fast asleep\u201d).
\n9:4\u20137. Do you sleep \u2026 we too will perish Cf. Jon. 1:6: \u201cSo the ship\u2019s captain came to him, and said to him, \u2018What do you mean, O sleeper? Arise! Call upon your God! Perhaps God will give a thought to us that we do not perish.\u2019 \u201d
\n9:6. has seized our ship Arm. i mer naws argeleal p\u2019akets\u2019aw (lit. \u201chas been enclosed in our ship\u201d).
\n10:2\u20133. he saw everyone [suffering] and was consoled \u2026 each one derives a consoling remedy for his pain from the misfortunes of others Nothing similar to this noteworthy episode about the prophet being comforted by others\u2019 anguish together with Pseudo-Philo\u2019s apt remark on egoistic human nature can be found in the other versions of Jonah\u2019s story.
\n11:1\u20138. they conducted an investigation into each deed \u2026 and [God] unmasks him by secret means Pseudo-Philo has slightly changed both the sequence of events and the contents of this part of the biblical story and has invented some additional episodes. Thereby, with his rhetorical approach, he has tried to make the narrative more attractive and intriguing. In Jon. 1:7\u20138, after the captain speaks with Jonah, the sailors cast lots to know who caused the evil; when the lot falls upon the prophet, they ask him who he is and where he comes from. In our text, the sailors question all the other passengers before they turn to Jonah (it is interesting that they add to their questions a remark about his appearance: \u201cYou are small in stature but a burden for the boat\u201d). In his answer, the prophet mentions only what is in his favor, namely, that he is a servant of God, but he says nothing about his disobedience to the divine order and his attempt to escape by way of their ship (cf. the contrary statement in Jon. 1:10 that he had told the sailors about his flight even before the interrogation). Since his response seems doubtful to the crew (because God had given \u201cthe entire human wisdom\u201d to them), they decide to cast lots and unmask the wrongdoer; he is no longer able to lie, for God has become the Supreme Judge and reveals his sin with incontestable evidence (the lot clearly points at the prophet). We see a different picture in Rabbinic tradition, where Jonah, immediately after being awakened from sleep, confesses the wrong he has done and urges the captain to cast him into the sea\u2014a harsh punishment that at first the sailors and the passengers do not agree to carry out.
\n11:2\u20133. \u201cWho are you \u2026 sink the ship!\u201d Cf. Jon. 1:8: \u201cThen they said to him, \u2018Tell us, we beg you, for whose cause is this evil upon us? What is your occupation? Where do you come from? What is your country? And of what people are you?\u2019 \u201d In the Bible, the sailors ask these questions to Jonah after casting lots.
\n11:6. lots were cast \u2026 was discovered and bound \u201cAnd they said to one another, \u2018Come and let us cast lots that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us.\u2019 So they cast lots, and the lot fell upon Jonah.\u201d
\n12:1\u201315:4. the seamen in their turn handed him over to his Judge \u2026 that he should learn philanthropy from the beneficence of God There is a significant difference between this paraphrase of Jon. 1:11\u201315 and what we find in Jewish sources. Here, although the sailors are reluctant to perform the cruel deed (cf. Jon. 1:14, where they ask God not to lay innocent blood upon them), they make the decision to throw the prophet overboard quite quickly and unhesitatingly, declaring that for them \u201cthe salvation of many is preferable to one man\u2019s death\u201d (perhaps the seamen act so resolutely because they are sure that \u201can abyssal angel or a speechless great fish\u201d is going to take care of Jonah). In Pirke R. Eli. 10, Tanh. Va-Yikra 8, Midr. Jonah 97, and especially in Zohar 1, 121a, and 2, 230b\u201331a, on the contrary, the crew and the passengers make all possible efforts to keep Jonah on the vessel. First, they plunge him into the water up to his knees, and the sea calms down, but when they lift the prophet back the tempest breaks out again. The second time, they immerse him in the water up to his navel, and the storm stops; they raise Jonah out of the sea, and the wind rages in its previous fury. The third time, they lower him into the water up to his neck, and the tempest is pacified, but when the prophet is back on the ship, the waves rise again. Only after these three futile attempts to save Jonah\u2019s life are the seamen convinced that he cannot be kept on board and cast him into the sea. As to the other relevant passages that further embellish the story in our text\u2014the prophet\u2019s exciting speech about erecting \u201can obelisk of humaneness\u201d through self-sacrifice (it is worth mentioning that here he himself jumps into the water); the pity expressed by the author for Jonah\u2019s suffering; and the concluding statement about the instructive humaneness of God toward the sinner\u2014they all are remarkable and characteristic inventions by Pseudo-Philo.
\n12:3. Now, if there is a chance \u2026 to one man\u2019s death Cf. Jon. 1:14: \u201cAnd they cried to the LORD, and said, \u2018We pray you, O LORD, we pray you, let us not perish for this man\u2019s life, and lay not upon us innocent blood; for you, O LORD, have done as it pleased you.\u2019 \u201d
\n12:5. we are throwing \u2026 luggage Cf. Jon. 1:15: \u201cthey threw the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it for them.\u201d
\n13:1. Others\u2019 I.e., the Ninevites\u2019, whose destruction Jonah did not wish to declare, thus as if giving them \u201csalvation\u201d.
\n14:3. threw himself into the wavy deep Cf. Jon. 1:15: \u201cSo they took Jonah up and threw him into the sea; and the sea ceased from its raging.\u201d
\n16:1\u201318:3. He supplied him with a vessel: a huge fish swimming there \u2026 [it played] a melody by the musician\u2019s fingers Here Pseudo-Philo elaborates Jon. 2:1\u20132 (\u201cAnd the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah \u2026 Then Jonah prayed to the LORD his God from the belly of the fish\u201d), which is retold in an embellished form in Rabbinic sources as well. In our text, just as in the Bible, God appoints the sea monster to swallow Jonah at the moment when he plunges into the sea, whereas according to Pirke R. Eli. 10, Tanh, Va-Yikra 8, and Midr. Jonah 97, God had made the great fish during the creation of the world, with the intention to use it in the future as a shelter for Jonah. While Pseudo-Philo compares the fish\u2019s belly with a house for the prophet, its eyes, with mirrors reflecting the exterior for him, and the whole moving monster, with a king\u2019s carriage, the Rabbinic works mentioned use different images: the huge fish is likened to a spacious synagogue, quite comfortable for Jonah, and its eyes, to windows through which the prophet could see everything in the bottom of the sea; the monster also had a diamond shining like the sun that made the underwater world clearly visible to Jonah. A contrary view, that the abdomen of the great fish was a torturous place for the prophet, where he was \u201cwasting away,\u201d is expressed in 3 Macc. 6:8; Ibn Ezra on Jonah 4:6 even adds that because of the heat in the fish\u2019s belly, Jonah\u2019s hair had fallen out; and in Tehillim 26:220 God compensates for the prophet\u2019s suffering in the abyss, exempting him from death and allowing him to enter paradise while he was alive. Pseudo-Philo, further characterizing the sea monster as a \u201cperfect machine,\u201d makes its mouth and tongue into a tool for Jonah\u2019s prayer.
\n16:1. He supplied him with a vessel \u2026 in its belly Cf. Jon. 2:1: \u201cAnd the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.\u201d
\n18:1. he prayed \u2026 inside the huge fish Cf. Jon. 2:2: \u201cThen Jonah prayed to the LORD his God from the belly of the fish.\u201d
\n19:1\u201325:8. The prayer of the supplicant was as follows: \u201c\u2026 shows how natural labor takes place\u201d Pseudo-Philo\u2019s version of the prayer from the belly of the huge fish has little in common with Jon. 2:2\u201310 (except for some commonplaces in this story, mentioned below) and can be regarded as an original piece of homiletic work. Its main motifs include:<\/p>\n
1. Jonah\u2019s penitence for the greatness of his sin, which deserves \u201ceven harsher punishment.\u201d
\n2. The inescapability of divine commands but at the same time the humanity and mercifulness of God ready to listen to sinners (cf. Jon. 2:3: \u201cI cried to the LORD out of my distress, and he heard me\u201d).
\n3. \u201cThe sea raging against\u201d Jonah and \u201cthe ship submerging\u201d because of him (cf. Jon. 2:4: \u201cThe floods surrounded me; all your billows and your waves passed over me\u201d).
\n4. The sailors\u2019 judgment on Jonah and the decision to expel him from the ship (\u201cthe expulsion of my body as a useless vessel\u201d; a notable detail, making the \u201cvessel\u201d even more useless, is added to this episode in Zohar 1, 121a: the soul of the prophet left him when he was cast into the water and, after a trial in heaven, returned back into his body when the monster was about to swallow him).
\n5. The deepness of the abyss in which \u201cthe whole world above\u201d could be placed (cf. Jon. 2:7: \u201cI went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars closed on me forever\u201d).
\n6. The confinement of the prophet in a \u201cnarrow place\u201d (thus, despite the comparison of the great fish with a house and \u201cking\u2019s chariot\u201d for Jonah [see the previous comment] and the claim in 21:4 that he is delighted to be inside the monster, the prophet in fact was not very happy with his new dwelling and fate).
\n7. The two divine functions: \u201cYou chastise the sinners with a judge\u2019s wrath but you take care of them with kingly love\u201d (cf. Philo\u2019s doctrine about the chastening and beneficent powers of God: QE. 2:68 [and our comment on 2:68.2\u201315], Heir 166, and On Flight and Finding 101).
\n8. The fabulous salvation of Jonah\u2014comparable with the stories of the fiery furnace (Dan. 3:19\u201330), Daniel in the den of lions (Dan. 6:16\u201323), and even the Jews crossing the divided Red Sea (Exod. 14:21\u201322)\u2014as another proof of the almightiness of God (in the Rabbinic tradition, these four miracles, among others, are mentioned side by side, e.g., in Gen. Rab. 5:5).
\n9. Jonah\u2019s humbleness after being taught a lesson and his readiness to fulfill the divine task; this corresponds to \u201cI will pay that which I have vowed\u201d concluding the prayer in Jon. 2:10, as well as in Midr. Jonah 98\u201399, which contains another version of it in the regular form of the Selikhah (in Pirke R.abbi Eli. 10, Tanh. Va-Yikra 8, and 2 Midr. Jonah 33, Jonah\u2019s entreaty to God from the belly of the fish is quite short). Unlike the biblical and the midrashic versions of the prayer, in Pseudo-Philo it ends not with Jonah\u2019s promise to pay what he owes but with a \u201cscientific\u201d remark: the \u201cpregnancy\u201d of the monster with the prophet shows how \u201cnatural\u201d childbirth takes place\u2014an attempt to interpret a scriptural episode, in imitation of Philo, rationalistically.
\n22:3. this tool of our voice The mouth of the fish.
\n25:2. The unjust fire \u2026 with piety Cf. the story of the fiery furnace in Dan. 3:19\u201330.
\n25:4. man defeated fire Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are meant; cf. Dan. 3:19\u201330.
\nthe righteous men played with beasts Probably this reference is to Daniel thrown into the den of lions; cf. Dan. 6:16\u201323.
\n25:6. that which was made \u2026 in pledge Jonah probably means his own body.
\n25:7. through us Through Jonah himself and the huge fish.
\n26:1\u20135. it was commanded to vomit Jonah out on the dry land \u2026 in a hurry and in complete obedience, he reached the people While in Jon. 3:1\u20132, after the \u201cvomit,\u201d God addresses the prophet once again, urging him to arise and go to Nineveh, in Pseudo-Philo Jonah so ardently hurries to carry out his mission that, as if himself \u201ctransformed into the message,\u201d he needs no second inducement. Casting a glance at the world and giving thanks to God, he hastens to the city. Furthermore, Pseudo-Philo believes that the prophet, \u201csoaked in sweat,\u201d finished the three-day trip in one day, which is perhaps a result of misinterpretation (though Jon. 3:3\u20134 refers to Nineveh as \u201can exceedingly great city, three days\u2019 journey in extent,\u201d it does not state that Jonah passed the whole way in one day but that he made the proclamation after \u201cgoing a day\u2019s journey\u201d). Jonah 2:11\u20133:4 is further elaborated in Midr. Jonah 99\u2013100, Pirke R. Eli. 10, Tanh. Va-Yikra 8: when the great fish vomited the prophet, he landed on the earth 965 parasangs away from the monster. Having seen the miraculous salvation of Jonah, the sailors of the ship from which he was thrown into the sea denied their idols and became God-fearing proselytes in Jerusalem. These sources too say that the prophet immediately hurried to Nineveh; the greatness of the city is described as follows: it covered 40 square parasangs and its population was 12 times as large as that given in Jon. 4:11 (that is to say, 12 \u00d7 120,000).
\n26:1. it was commanded to vomit Jonah out on the dry land Cf. Jon. 2:11: \u201cAnd the LORD spoke to the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.\u201d
\n26:4. he turned \u2026 into one day\u2019s simple task Cf. Jon. 3:3\u20134: \u201cAnd Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days\u2019 journey in extent. And Jonah began to go into the city, going a day\u2019s journey.\u201d
\n27:1\u20135. He stood at a high spot and proclaimed: \u201c\u2026 whatever you teach to others is spiteful!\u201d The \u201chigh spot\u201d is invented by Pseudo-Philo to make the ominous scene even more awe inspiring: the figure of the prophet announcing death and destruction from a high place is really impressive, and this impressiveness is further enhanced by the enumeration of the Ninevites\u2019 sins, some of which are quite sinister (\u201cYou disgrace the beauty of virgins \u2026 and abduct others\u2019 brides \u2026 you oppress the living, you rob corpses,\u201d etc.). Thus, in this case too, the laconic biblical verse (cf. Jon. 3:4: \u201cAnd Jonah began to go into the city, going a day\u2019s journey, and he cried, and said, \u2018Another forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown\u2019 \u201d) has been transformed into an expressive rhetorical piece. In the description of this episode, Midr. Jonah 99\u2013100 emphasizes the strength of Jonah\u2019s voice: thanks to its sonority, it reached every corner of the great city. As to the contents of Jonah\u2019s proclamation, we find a similar passage in Philo\u2019s Abraham (133\u201336), condemning the Sodomites. However, in contrast to the long \u201csin list\u201d in Jonah\u2019s message, Philo speaks about two main transgressions of the inhabitants of Sodom: gluttony (gastrimargia); and lewdness (lagneia), which not only destroys others\u2019 marriages but also makes men lust after one another (cf. in our text: \u201cYou seek after lawless fleshly pleasures, you defile marriage \u2026 you wish to show womanhood in men\u201d).
\n27:2. three days So read both the LXX and the Armenian Bible (instead of the \u201cforty days\u201d of the Hebrew Bible; cf. Jon. 3:4: \u201cAnd he cried and said: \u2018Another forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown\u2019 \u201d).
\n28:4\u201336:3. So the Ninevites summoned men and women, elders and princes, servants, kings, and lords \u2026 so that we are saved Such an \u201cassembly\u201d (Arm. zhoghovaran; Gk. ekkl\u0113sia, occurring in Philo\u2019s Abraham 20; or, less probably, synagog\u0113) of the inhabitants of Nineveh, summoned to decide how to react to the divine message, is mentioned neither in the Rabbinic tradition nor in the Bible itself. Cf. Jonah 3:5, according to which immediately after the frightful prophecy the people of Nineveh \u201cbelieved God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth\u201d (though afterward [3:7] a \u201cdecree of the king and his nobles\u201d addressed to the citizens and ordering everyone to fast and put on sackcloth is also referred to). Oddly enough, instead of the king of Nineveh, \u201ckings\u201d figure in 28:4 (unlike 37:2, where the author follows the biblical version and says that \u201cthe king replaced the throne of his power with sackcloth\u201d). Those \u201ckings\u201d are present at the assembly alongside elders, princes, servants, lords, men, and women. Either this is simply a literary device and a remote echo of the Athenian ecclesia or we are dealing here with a remarkable testimony that hints at details of the author\u2019s place and time (i.e., possibly in that place, during Pseudo-Philo\u2019s lifetime, decisions crucial for the whole people were still made by an assembly). Midr. Jonah 99\u2013100 (25\u201326 in the second version), on the contrary, not only refers to one king but also gives his name: Osnappar of Assyria. Pirke R. Eli. 43 and Tosefta-Targum on Jonah 3:6 mention Pharaoh as the king of Nineveh. As for the Ninevites\u2019 speech itself, although it is not addressed to God directly, in the second person, we can regard it as a penitential prayer containing ordinary commonplaces (e.g., pious men should worship God before they are condemned; they must acknowledge the Fruit bearer and not just consume the fruits; they have abundantly received life and everything else from the Creator but have forgotten to give thanks to Him, thus behaving like irrational animals; the harmonious universe with its luminaries and many other wondrous things witness to the greatness of the Craftsman, who himself is invisible, so it is he who must be glorified; though God at times severely punishes sinners, he shows mercy to penitents and so let Jonah, as a servant of God, pray with them to save the city).
\n34:2. this night star Pseudo-Philo probably means the moon.
\n34:5. from above By rains.
\n35:5. Announce a fast Cf. Jon. 3:5: \u201cAnd the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast.\u201d
\n37:1\u201338:5. everyone renounced his dignity \u2026 they unexpectedly saw themselves [alive], and everyone gave thanks to God Once again, the corresponding short biblical passage is retold in an extensively embroidered fashion. In Jon. 3:5\u20138, the penitence of the Ninevites simply includes fasting, putting on sackcloth, and turning from evil ways and violence. To these, Pseudo-Philo has added such fanciful penitential actions as the release of slaves by their masters, the removal of nuptial bed curtains, the lament of virgins over their destroyed hopes and of youngsters over the loss of their youth, etc. The reference to \u201cbeast, herd, or flock\u201d in Jon. 3:7 has permitted Pseudo-Philo to make God \u201cthe Guardian\u201d of not only the Ninevites but also of their domestic animals, which, he says, prayed with the humans for their salvation even though they were irrational; 38:1 further states that in the gloomy days of repentance those animals had been driven out of barns. The passage can be compared with a similar episode in Jewish sources where the story of the Ninevites\u2019 repentance is also significantly altered: young domestic animals were separated from their mothers, which were taken out of stables while the young remained inside; then the Ninevites cried to God that if he shows them no mercy they will not pity the animals. Like Pseudo-Philo, Rabbinic works add fanciful details to Jon. 3:5\u20138: the king, they state, put ashes on his head, took off his purple clothing, and rolled about in the dust of the streets; the king\u2019s heralds announced the king\u2019s decree everywhere in the city; the Ninevites held their children heavenward and, shedding tears, entreated God to have pity on them; if a man had arrogated to himself another\u2019s property, he made every effort to compensate for the loss and injustice; some people even ruined their palaces to give back a single brick to its legitimate owner; etc. In Pseudo-Philo, a remarkable scene concludes the description of the Ninevites\u2019 penitence: after the fast and other penitential actions, they put on costly garments, so that if the city is destroyed they will be buried in those suitable clothes, and if it is saved, they can feast in splendid dress.
\n37:1\u20132. everyone renounced his dignity \u2026 with sackcloth Cf. Jon. 3:5\u20136: \u201cAnd the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them. And word came to the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he took off his robe, and covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.\u201d
\n37:4. \u201cWho knows if God may yet be moved by entreaties?\u201d Cf. Jon. 3:9: \u201cWho can tell if God may yet turn and repent?\u201d
\n37:5. domestic animals According to Jon. 3:7, the animals of Nineveh fasted together with the citizens.
\n38:5. This is what happened \u2026 they unexpectedly saw themselves [alive] Cf. Jon. 3:10: \u201cAnd God saw their doings, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that He had said He would do to them; and He did not do it.\u201d
\n39:1\u20136. They summoned a second assembly \u2026 with how many gifts will He honor us now when we are pious This scene of the second assembly of the Ninevites, like the first one, as well as their words of gratitude are entirely invented by Pseudo-Philo. The optimistic ending of the passage, where the people believe that thanks to their piety God will grant even more gifts to them, contrasts with an original version in the Rabbinic tradition. According to Pirke R. Eli. 43, God was kind toward the inhabitants of Nineveh as long as they remained pious. Forty years (40 days in Yal. 2:550 on Jonah 3) later they returned to their malicious conduct and became more sinful, so God fulfilled the punishment, and the earth devoured them.
\n40:2\u201345:4. Meanwhile the prophet, having proclaimed the message to the Ninevites, did not stay in the city \u2026 In this fashion the prophet was mourning This corresponds to Jon. 4:1\u20136, but Pseudo-Philo has changed the sequence of events to make them more logical. While in the Bible the prophet goes out of Nineveh after God has already granted life to its inhabitants and sits \u201con the east side of the city,\u201d making a booth for himself, in our text he finds a comfortable place before that, in order to watch from a safe distance the ruin of Nineveh. Afterward, since \u201cthe salvation of the city could not gladden to the same extent as the nonfulfillment of the proclamation irritated him,\u201d he offers another sorrowful prayer to God (cf. a similar long prayer by the prophet in the second version of Midr. Jonah 34\u201335) that does not, however, ask him, as in Jon. 4:3, to take his life, and he craftily explains the reasons why he fled, although he knew that no one can escape from God. His purposes were (1) to protect his good name and not be regarded as a false prophet; (2) to proclaim the power and humaneness of God not only on the earth but also on the sea; and (3) to admire once again the miraculous things created by God, including those under the sea, and prove by his salvation how mighty he is. Thus, in accordance with the rhetorical character of the work, Jonah tries, by means of sophistry, to persuade even God that his flight was justified. Among the amazing beings created by God, the prophet mentions Leviathan, who blocks the abyssal torrents with its huge body in order to moderate the enormous strength of underwater streams. As narrated in BB 74b, this monster is so huge that the Jordan River flows into its mouth. Leviathan also figures in Rabbinic versions of the Jonah story: after having swallowed Jonah, the great fish was about to die and swam to Leviathan to be eaten by it (this was the duty of all the fish of the sea), but the prophet told Leviathan that he was appointed by God to capture the great fish in the life to come and to offer it as a sacrifice at the table of the just and pious. When Leviathan saw the sign of the covenant on the prophet\u2019s body, it was frightened and fled away, and Jonah and the fish were saved. As to Jonah\u2019s reaction to the salvation of the Ninevites, Midr. Jonah 102 describes it differently: When the prophet saw that the city was saved, he was encouraged to ask God to forgive him, too, for his flight. God did so and also took further care of him: since Jonah had been in the belly of the fish and smelled very bad, he was sorely plagued by insects, so God created the colocynth (kikayon) to protect him not only from the sun but also from those insects.
\n40:2\u20133. Meanwhile the prophet \u2026 comfortable place for him Cf. Jon. 4:5\u20136: \u201cAnd Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there he made himself a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he should see what would become of the city. And the LORD God appointed a castor oil plant, and made it grow over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to save him from his distress. And Jonah was exceedingly glad of the plant.\u201d
\n40:6. The nonfulfillment of the proclamation irritated him Cf. Jon. 4:1: \u201cAnd this displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.\u201d
\n41:1\u20134. \u201cThis is why I fled \u2026 deliverance from death\u201d Cf. Jon. 4:1: \u201cAnd he prayed to the LORD, and said, \u2018I pray you, O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I hastened to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and that you repent of the evil.\u2019 \u201d
\n43:1. The solid and firm load Land.
\n46:1\u201353:3. came to the prophet to see his illness \u2026 they are worthy of humanity This concluding part of the work, based on Jon. 4:7\u201311, consists of two edifying divine speeches addressed to the prophet, between which, since Jonah continues to be stubbornly angry about the nonfulfillment of his prophecy, God destroys Jonah\u2019s beloved colocynth. Thus, demonstrating to Jonah how painful the loss of something dear can be, God presents a number of logical arguments to prove that the salvation of the citizens is much more important than the accomplishment of the proclamation. Midr. Jonah 102, which mentions another reason why God had produced the colocynth, namely, to protect Jonah from insects (see the previous comment), further narrates that the heat of the sun (not God) withered the plant. The insects began to annoy the prophet again, and he shed tears, wishing for death, but God, instead of taking his life, used the opportunity to show him, by the example of the plant, that he was wrong in desiring the fulfillment of the message (though in Jewish tradition, in contrast to Pseudo-Philo, Jonah\u2019s anger is not particularly stressed).
\n48:3. \u2018Another three days \u2026 overthrown\u2019 Jon. 3:4; \u201cforty days\u201d in the Hebrew Bible.
\n49:1. bared the colocynth Cf. Jon. 4:7: \u201cGod appointed a worm, and it attacked the plant so that it withered.\u201d
\n49:8. But you cannot bear seeing the nakedness \u2026 the second destroyed it Cf. Jon. 4:10: \u201cThen the LORD said, \u2018You had concern for the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night.\u2019 \u201d
\n49:10. Would it be right, prophet, not to have compassion on the city: not on plants but on prudent men? Cf. Jon. 4:11: \u201cAnd should I not spare Nineveh, that great city, where there are more than 120,000 persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?\u201d
\n52:7. heating elements Perhaps fire (or the sun) is meant.<\/p>\n
The Biblical Interpretations of Philo<\/p>\n
Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus<\/p>\n
Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan<\/p>\n
Philo of Alexandria\u2019s love for the Bible, which he knew in its Greek version, the Septuagint (LXX), is most explicitly expressed in his two treatises: Questions and Answers on Genesis (QG, in four books) and Questions and Answers on Exodus (QE, in two books). His verse-by-verse exegesis in these treatises resembles Hellenistic commentaries on the Homeric poems; the question- and-answer method he uses here may also have been practiced in the Alexandrian synagogues. The Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus (hereafter Questions) were probably written before Philo\u2019s other exegetical commentaries; they have even been regarded as preliminary notes containing material for later fundamental works.
\nThe treatises are structured as a series of questions dealing with sequential citations from the Bible, in the form of \u201cWhat is [the meaning of] xxx?\u201d or \u201cWhy [does it say] yyy?\u201d; the answers range from several lines to several pages. The two treatises contain a total of 646 questions and answers.
\nTwo main methods of interpretation occur: literal and allegorical. In a limited number of cases Philo explicitly labels the type of exegesis he is going to give, literal or according to the metaphorical sense. While literal exegesis prevails here to a greater extent than in Philo\u2019s other writings, allegorical interpretation seems to be more important for him (e.g., QG 2.79; 3.8; 4.145, 196 contain explicit remarks about the superiority of allegorical exegesis). Such exegesis was common in traditional Judaism, whereas allegorical interpretation belonged to the world of Hellenism, and there is no contradiction between them in Philo\u2019s works.
\nDetailed study of Philo\u2019s exegetical method in the Questions reveals a wide use of literal interpretation, but also a tendency for presenting various options. Furthermore, his contradictory comments on the same biblical notions and personages characterize his exegesis in the Questions as \u201chighly atomistic, looking at the problem of the single text and not aiming at systematics.\u201d Nevertheless, it is possible to point to some constant allegories found throughout the Questions, such as, \u201cMan is the mind and woman is the senses,\u201d \u201cGod has created two kinds of man: the earthly one and the heavenly one,\u201d \u201cparadise is the allegory of wisdom,\u201d \u201cthe four rivers of paradise are the symbols of four human virtues,\u201d and so on.
\nPhilo attempted to combine the sophisticated language and conceptions of Greek philosophy with the Mosaic Law, which was an unquestioned authority for him. He believed that both philosophy and the Law were granted to man by God, and that the sublime essence and complicated allegory of the divine revelation was to be deciphered with the help of philosophy. In this approach, Philo founded a new intellectual sphere: rational theology. And his works had a significant influence on both Neoplatonists and the Christian theologians who were becoming widespread in the Near East. Armenia was among the countries where Philo\u2019s treatises extensively circulated, so it is not surprising that some of them have come down to us only in old Armenian translations.<\/p>\n
Authorship and History<\/p>\n
The two treatises survive in a late 5th-century Armenian translation from Greek and as a series of Greek fragments cited in works of later authors; there is also a Latin version of the second half of the fourth book of QG.
\nThe Armenian Questions was published only once (in 1826), on the basis of five manuscripts found in the Mechitarist library of San Lazaro in Venice. Ralf Marcus produced the well-known English translation of the Armenian text with the parallel Greek fragments. A new critical edition on a wider manuscript basis and in comparison with all the surviving Greek fragments known today would result in a better text, cleared of many obviously corrupt readings.
\nThe Armenian versions of the Questions represent the so-called Hellenizing School of Armenian translation, which originated in the late 5th or early 6th century. Typical of those translations is a high degree of literalism in rendering the word order, syntax, and other grammatical features of the Greek originals. The common practice was to create new Armenian words for Greek compounds, even in cases when there already existed Armenian equivalents for them. This method has been characterized as \u201cservile\u201d or \u201cwooden,\u201d and the Hellenizing Armenian, as \u201cartificial.\u201d However, the extreme literalness of the translations of the Hellenizing School have been highly appreciated for their text-critical importance and are often irreplaceable for the study and publication of Greek originals.
\nMany grammatical and lexical features typical of the Hellenizing School can be found in the Armenian versions of Philo\u2019s works. Among them are the so-called doublets, that is, the rendering of one Greek word by two or more Armenian words. This method was used in many other texts, but doublets occur especially frequently in the Armenian translations of Philo.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
The Questions contain both explicit and implicit references to a prior interpretive tradition. Tobin has shown how, for example, Philo\u2019s distinction between the tangible (earthly) man and the intelligible (heavenly) man is based on pre-Philonic interpreters. In addition, Philo makes occasional references to Homer or the Greek poets and Greek mythology (e.g., in his commentary on the giants of Gen. 6, at QG 1.92) and often makes direct reference or explicit allusions to Plato in explicating the spiritual\/philosophical sense of the legislator\u2019s (i.e., Moses\u2019s) prose on the creation of the cosmos (cf. QG 1.6).
\nMarcus draws interesting parallels between the exegetical methods of Philo, the Rabbis, and the church fathers. He defines three subtypes of Philo\u2019s allegorical exegesis, namely, physical (cosmological or theological), ethical or psychological, and mystical. He characterizes Philo\u2019s twofold (literal and allegorical) interpretation as the forerunner of the fourfold method used by Rabbinic and patristic commentators. Marcus compares the literal exegesis with the literal or historical interpretation of the church fathers and with the peshat of the Rabbis. Philo\u2019s physical interpretation corresponds to the allegorical interpretation of the church fathers and the remez of the Rabbis; his ethical interpretation is comparable with the moral interpretation of the church fathers and the derash of the Rabbis; while his mystical exegesis corresponds to the anagogical interpretation of the church fathers and to the sod of the Rabbis.
\nMarcus presumes that the book divisions of Philo\u2019s Questions could have initially corresponded to the sedarim of the Babylonian lectionary system. That is to say, each book covered a Pentateuchal portion of about the same length as a weekly lesson in the Babylonian annual cycle of 54 sedarim. Royse has demonstrated in detail that those weekly sections, or parshiyot, fit the structure of the Questions, and it is possible that Philo simply followed the lectionary divisions of the Bible.
\nMedieval Armenian literature was strongly influenced by Philo, as can be seen by the vast number of commentaries written on his works. The Armenian Philonic corpus seems to have been steady, at least from the 13th century on, although commentators knew that Philo had written much more than the limited number of treatises rendered into Armenian. The stylistic influence of those translations on Armenian authors was quite significant too.<\/p>\n
GUIDE TO READING<\/p>\n
The Armenian versions of Philo, in particular, of the Questions, are often quite difficult to understand, and this has led to scribal corruptions in the course of copying manuscripts. It is possible to decipher some but not all of the obscure passages. Aucher\u2019s Latin translation and Marcus\u2019s excellent English translation have been extremely helpful to our work. Nevertheless, in our translation of the selected parts of the Questions we have revised some of Aucher\u2019s and especially Marcus\u2019s interpretations, mentioning the most important cases in the notes. Our goal was to translate the texts into English as literally as possible so that readers will have a clear idea of what is written in the old Armenian original. As a result, the text reads awkwardly at times and often does not follow conventional rules of word usage and grammar.
\nAs in Marcus\u2019s edition, an ellipsis in parentheses (\u2026) indicates that the preceding or the following part of the chapter is irrelevant and we have not translated it. We have added words in square brackets that are absent from the original to make the context clearer.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Harris, J. R. Fragments of Philo Judaeus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1886.
\nHay, D. M., ed. Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria\u2019s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.
\nMarcus, R. \u201cAn Armenian-Greek Index to Philo\u2019s Quaestiones and De Vita Contemplativa.\u201d JAOS 53 (1933): 251\u201382.
\nMercier, C. Philo: Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim I et II e versione armeniaca. Les \u0153uvres de Philon d\u2019Alexandrie 34A. Paris: Cerf, 1979.
\nMercier, C., and F. Petit. Philo: Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim III\u2013IV\u2013V\u2013VI e versione armeniaca: Compl\u00e9ment de l\u2019ancienne version latine. Les \u0153uvres de Philon d\u2019Alexandrie 34B. Paris: Cerf, 1984.
\nPhilo, with an English Translation. Edited and translated by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and R. Marcus. Loeb Classical Library. 12 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929\u201362.
\nSandmel, S. Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. New York: Clarendon, 1979.
\nTerian. Philonis Alexandrini De Animalibus: The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 1. Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1981.
\nVardazaryan, O. \u201cThe \u2018Armenian Philo\u2019: A Remnant of an Unknown Tradition.\u201d In Studies on the Ancient Armenian Version of Philo\u2019s Works (Studies in Philo of Alexandria) 6, ed. S. Mancini Lombardi and Paola Pontini, 191\u2013216. Leiden: Brill, 2011.<\/p>\n
Questions and Answers on Genesis<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
1.4.1\u20135 Philo speaks of the earthly and heavenly human natures. He even calls the one in \u201cthe image\u201d the \u201cWord of God,\u201d regarding him as a kind of intermediary link between the LORD and the earthly man: this is a characteristic aspect of Philo\u2019s theological doctrine. In the Rabbinic tradition, too, humans are considered to have both heavenly and earthly traits, but six or eight qualities are clearly distinguished, by which man resembles either heavenly beings (angels) or animals. Cf., for instance, B. Hag. 16a, where the three \u201cangelic\u201d qualities are knowledge, erect walk, and speaking the holy language (i.e., Hebrew), while the three animal qualities are eating-drinking, multiplying, and relieving the bowels.
\n1.4.4. from dust and earth Josephus (Ant. 1.34) states that the earth out of which the first man was formed was \u201cflame-colored\u201d or \u201cred\u201d (pyrros). For that reason, he says, the man was called \u201cAdam,\u201d which in the Hebrew language means pyrros. According to a Jewish tradition, the dust was of four colors: red (for the blood), black (for the bowels), white (for the bones and veins), and green (for the pale skin).
\n1.5.1. face In Jewish tradition, God first takes a moment to think about where to put Adam\u2019s soul. Different parts of his face are considered (mouth, eyes, ears), and the LORD finally chooses to blow the breath of life into his nostrils.
\n1.5.3. the animate kind Philo means that the animate beings perceive through the senses.
\n1.6.1. paradise Unlike Philo, who places paradise (as Gen. 2:8) in Eden, some Jewish legends separate the two from one another: Eden, according to one version, lies beyond paradise and contains 310 worlds and seven compartments for seven groups of the pious. In Zohar 1:125a, Eden is located in the seventh heaven, and paradise is opposite Eden, on earth.
\n1.6.2. abounding with all sorts of trees Cf. the literal parallel in Josephus, Ant. 1.37. Instead of the generalized \u201call sorts of trees,\u201d a Jewish tradition \u201cspecifies\u201d 80 myriads of trees in every corner of paradise.
\n1.6.3\u20136 As distinct from the biblical version centering learning in the tree of knowledge of good and bad, Philo regards the whole paradise as the symbol of wisdom; cf. also Alleg. Interp. 1.64: \u201cEden, the wisdom of God.\u201d He then stresses the allegory of the tree of life in the middle of the Garden as \u201cknowledge.\u201d Here we can draw a parallel with a Rabbinic tradition depicting Jewish scholars sitting beneath the tree of life, the symbol of learning, and explaining the Torah.
\n1.6.8. the Creator, for being the greatest This is a slightly free interpretation of Plato\u2019s corresponding passage. In Tim. 92c, the cosmos is described as the \u201cgreatest, best, and fairest\u201d visible god made in the image of the intelligible god.
\n1.12.1. the Tigris, and the Euphrates The Dkghat (Dglat in 1.12.6; cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.39: Diglath) and the Aratsani (Phoras [Phrath] in Josephus, Ant. 1.39) are the Tigris and the Euphrates respectively.
\n1.12.2\u20133 Philo, in accordance with what he has heard, correctly refers to the Tigris and the Euphrates as having their sources in Armenian mountains (now in eastern Turkey. The specificity of his description, however, is that he places the main river of Eden underground, beneath paradise, which he locates somewhere outside the inhabited world. That subterranean river, he believes, powerfully erupts water from underneath the ground in various parts of the earth, resulting in the emergence of bigger or smaller rivers, streams and springs. Thus, according to Philo, the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates are overflows of the main river winding under paradise, and their sources above ground are only the \u201cseeming\u201d ones, while the real sources are underground. In Jewish tradition, the water flows from beneath the tree of life and irrigates the whole world. It parts into four streams: the Ganges, the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. Gen. Rab. 15:6 says that the tree under which all the primeval waters branch out is so huge that its trunk is a 500-year journey. Josephus (Ant. 1.38\u201339) states that the Garden was watered \u201cby one river encircling the whole earth with its flow\u201d and dividing into four parts. Gen. Rab. 16:1\u20134 gives other etymologies or explanations of the river names. For instance, there the first river is called \u201cPishon,\u201d because it makes flax grow and flows with tranquility; the third river is Hiddekel-Tigris, called so because it is \u201ca roaring stream.\u201d
\n1.12.6. four virtues In his usual approach, Philo sees symbols and allegory in many parts of the Bible he comments on. Here he deals with the four virtues, a commonplace in Greco-Roman literature (first discussed by Plato in the Resp. 428a\u201339a), later on adopted by church fathers and figuring in Christian literature as \u201cthe four cardinal virtues\u201d: prudence or wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. Philo describes in more detail the four rivers as the symbols of the four virtues in the Alleg. Interp. 1.63\u201387, where he refers to the main river of paradise as the \u201cgeneric virtue\u201d originating from Eden, the wisdom of God, from which the four branches, the Pishon (prudence), the Gihon (courage), the Tigris (temperance), and the Euphrates (justice) are divided. In our text the Gihon is the symbol of temperance, and the Tigris of courage, which once again corroborates that Philo was not always consistent in his interpretations and at times explained the same symbol in different ways.
\n1.14.2\u20135 In this passage, Philo, often inclined to allegorizing, offers a merely practical and quite simple explanation: a cultivator must take care of his garden, doing certain works to fertilize the soil and protecting it from possible harm and unfavorable weather conditions. Furthermore, since Adam was the first man, he had to provide a good example for future gardeners. In Jewish tradition, the placing of Adam in paradise has, first of all, a religious meaning: the Garden of Eden was in itself perfect, so it was not necessary to till it (this same statement also occurs in the question in 1.14.1), and the purpose of putting the man in paradise was that he should study the Torah there and comply with the commandments of the LORD. However, according to another Rabbinic view (Avot R. Nat. 11:45) God ordered Adam to till and tend the Garden so that his descendants should understand the importance of work.
\n1.20.4\u20138 Philo gives prominence to Adam\u2019s wisdom and regards the invention of exact names for the animals as an evident proof of his intelligence. Considering Adam to be both a wise man and a prophet is consonant with the Jewish tradition, where Adam\u2019s wisdom is described as a prophetic trait. Although earlier Rabbinic sources (e.g., Num. Rab. 19:3) mostly speak of Adam\u2019s wisdom, in S. Olam Rab. 21 he is also referred to as a prophet. In later tradition, Adam appears as the greatest of 48 prophets (e.g., Zohar 1:125a).
\n1.21.4\u20136 Philo gives three, purely logical, answers to the question, \u201cWhy does it [Genesis] say, \u2018He brought the beasts to the man to see what he would call them\u2019?\u201d First, God had endowed man with reason and wanted to see how he was going to display it. The second answer deals with the philosophical categories of free will and necessity: according to Philo, it was an opportunity for Adam to act voluntarily, because God has endowed us with free will, and this fact refutes the opinion of those who absolutize the role of necessity in everything. The wording of this answer resembles a passage in Aristotle\u2019s Magna moralia 1.16, where the contradiction between voluntary and involuntary actions is discussed, the latter being characterized as done \u201cby necessity.\u201d In Jewish tradition, Adam\u2019s free will is mentioned in Pirke R. El. 19 and Ps. 95, 408, where he voluntarily makes a gift of 70 years from his 1,000-year life to the great soul of David, to which before that only a single minute of life was apportioned. Finally, Philo\u2019s third explanation is utilitarian: humans were going to use the animals, so names were needed for the latter.
\n1.23.2\u20135 Speaking about the cooperation of the whole nature, all the animals, and even the fruits and plants with the man, Philo does not mention any desire on Adam\u2019s part to have a human assistant. Interestingly, Gen. Rab. 17:4 stresses this aspect of the story, i.e., the creation of woman in accordance with Adam\u2019s wish: he had felt loneliness when the animals had approached him in pairs to receive names.
\n1.24.2\u20133 Philo\u2019s Heir 257 helps to identify \u201cthe prophet\u201d and understand better his description of sleep here. In that passage, Philo notes that Moses \u201cphilosophizes\u201d (cf. the reference to philosophers in QG 1.24.2) and says that the LORD God cast a trance upon Adam (Gen. 2:21). By \u201ctrance,\u201d he continues, Moses means \u201cthe peace and rest of the mind.\u201d In our passage, too, sleep is described as a kind of trance, based on the same biblical words of the prophet (Moses). In contrast to Philo\u2019s philosophical explanation of Adam\u2019s trance, the Rabbinic tradition stresses the practical purpose of casting him into a deep sleep: had Adam seen the formation of the woman from his rib, she would be detestable to him.
\n1.25.2\u20137 Philo\u2019s idea of doubleness, i.e., that woman is one side or a half of man\u2019s \u201cdouble\u201d body, is expressed differently in a Jewish tradition, namely that Adam was initially created with two bodies (he is also referred to as a hermaphrodite), which afterward God separated from one another, and man\u2019s second body became Eve (e.g., Gen. Rab. 8:1). In another version of the tradition, however, the rib is not associated with one side of the body: it is simply a modest part of Adam, and God forms the woman out of it, hoping that she will be modest like the rib.
\n1.25.3. man symbolically means mind \u2026 and sensation \u2026 should be woman Man \u201cthe mind\u201d and woman \u201cthe sense\u201d are among Philo\u2019s beloved symbols (discussed at length in Alleg. Interp. 1.32, 92; 2.14, 38; cf. also Heir 52\u201353). Regarding this matter, the Rabbinic tradition seems to display contradictory attitudes. According to one view, woman is endowed with more understanding than man (because God made the rib into an understanding woman), and woman\u2019s intelligence matures more quickly than that of man (cf. Gen. Rab. 18:1 and B. Ber. 61a). According to the opposite view, however, man\u2019s intelligence matures sooner than that of woman, since, unlike men, women have no opportunity to develop their mind in school (cf. B. Nid. 45b). See also the comment on 1.25.7.
\n1.25.7. man\u2019s form compared with that of woman is more perfect Philo\u2019s traditional view that woman\u2019s constitution is less perfect than that of man seems to be challenged by the Rabbinic remark about the masculine body being simpler, because it is formed of dust, and the feminine body being more complicated, because it is formed of bone, it must bear children, and women become intelligent more quickly than men (cf. Gen. Rab. 17:8; 18:1).
\n1.32.1\u20137 The contents of this section partly correspond to what we have in Jewish sources. According to them, at the beginning the serpent had extraordinary abilities: like man he walked upright (e.g., Gen. Rab. 20:5) and was mentally as developed as man (cf. Philo\u2019s remark that originally the animals were able to speak like man). Furthermore, Philo\u2019s stressing of the linguistic skills of the firstborn finds a parallel in a tradition reflected in Tanh. Ber. 1:4, according to which Adam was the inventor of all 70 languages. Philo tries to find a reason why subsequently humans were deprived of those skills and gives two explanations: first, the human soul was afterward mixed with evil, and second, we lost the original huge dimensions of our body, became small creatures, and our senses proportionally weakened.
\n1.33.3. woman innately is more prone to being deceived than man Philo\u2019s explanation of why the serpent chose the woman for his cunning purpose corresponds to the Rabbinic comment (e.g., Pirke R. El. 13 and Avot R. Nat. [both versions] 1:4\u20135, 151) that the serpent knew too well the steady character of Adam to try to persuade and play his tricks upon him, so he approached the woman, being aware that women are cheated easily. Gen. Rab. 19:4 stresses that Eve ate the fruit, because she heard the plausible words of the serpent (not simply because she saw that the fruit was good and desirable; cf. Gen. 3:6). According to Josephus (Ant. 1.44) the woman in her turn \u201cpersuaded Adam\u201d to eat the fruit, instead of just giving it to him (cf. Gen. 3:6).
\n1.37.2. it was suitable for man to rule over immortality \u2026 and woman, over death In the Rabbinic tradition, too, woman is associated with death: in funeral processions, women must precede men, walking in front of the corpse, because woman brought death into the world by eating the forbidden fruit (cf. Gen. Rab. 17:8).
\n1.40.2\u20134 Philo elaborates on Gen. 3:7 in a philosophical manner, characterizing man and woman, before they ate the fruit, as parts of an immortal and incorruptible whole, and then, after the breach of the harmony between them and nature, as aliens to the environment in which they had lived and as evildoers, now mortal, who were to deal with corruptible things. In some Jewish sources Adam and Eve become naked as a result of eating the fruit (i.e., they were not naked before): they wore \u201cthe cloud of glory and a horny skin,\u201d which dropped when they committed the sin, revealing their nakedness (cf. Tg. Yer. Gen. 3:7, 21 and Pirke R. El. 14).
\n1.41.2\u20135 This original interpretation of Philo mentioning the two contradictory qualities of the fig tree\/leaves, namely, sweetness and harshness (wherefore, they signify the inseparability of lust and pain), has no parallel in his other works. In the Rabbinic and Christian traditions, there is an emphasis on the harshness of the fig leaves causing pain to the body (B. Er. 18b; Adv. Haer. 3.23.5). Rabbis, however, also give other answers to the question why the first man and woman used fig leaves as loincloths. For example, Rabbi Jose and Rabbi Berekiah in Gen. Rab. 15:7, in the discussion about what the fruit was that Adam and Eve ate, say that it was fig: when Adam sinned and God expelled him from the Garden, he approached various trees, asking for leaves to cover himself. All the trees refused the deceiver who had deceived his master except the fig tree (because they had eaten its fruit).
\n1.44.5. and this also implies symbolically that every evil relies upon evil In other words, a sinner is supported only by the one with whom he had sinned.
\n1.45.2. these words seem not to be a question but menace and reproof \u2026 you have moved toward death and misery A similar interpretation of those words being rather a threat and reproach than a question is found in Gen. Rab. 19:9, where God adds, \u201cHow have you fallen!\u201d to his question and then continues that before the sin Adam had been ruled by his will, while after that he was going to obey the serpent\u2019s will, and that before the transgression the world from one end to the other had been at Adam\u2019s disposal, while after sinning he would not be able to hide himself among the trees of the Garden. In Der. Er. Rab. 3, when asking, \u201cAdam, where are you?\u201d God stands \u201cat the gate\u201d of paradise (unlike Gen. 3:8, where he moves about in the Garden).
\n1.68.2\u20134 As in 1.45, Philo tries to prove by simple reasoning that God\u2019s questions were not intended for informative answers, since he is omniscient, but for something else.
\n1.68.5. the Deity is not the cause of evil While Philo accentuates Cain\u2019s free will in the fratricide, because God cannot be the source of evildoing, and while in Josephus\u2019s Ant. 1.55\u201356 Cain at first attempts to avoid punishment by cunningly deceiving God, in Jewish tradition he insolently accuses the LORD of the murder: \u201cThou didst create the evil inclination in me. Thou guardest all things; why, then, didst Thou permit me to slay him? Thou didst Thyself slay him.\u201d
\n1.74.2\u20134 There are striking parallels between this passage and Jewish legends: (1) Philo\u2019s \u201cthe parts of the world\u201d that were expected to punish Cain corresponds to \u201cthe earth quaked under Cain\u201d; (2) Philo\u2019s view that Cain, being unrighteous, was afraid of beasts and reptiles corresponds to Rabbi Judah saying that all the cattle, beasts (\u201camong them, the accursed serpent\u201d), and birds gathered together to demand justice for Abel in Gen. Rab. 22:12; (3) Philo\u2019s statement that Abel\u2019s parents did not know before the murder what death is corresponds to the Rabbinic legend that \u201cfor a long time it [Abel\u2019s corpse] lay there exposed, above the ground, because Adam and Eve did not know what to do with it. They sat beside it and wept.\u201d
\n1.81.3. [Scripture] demonstrates him as neither the successor \u2026 nor the originator \u2026 but it gives both [honors] to the blameless Seth Gen. 4:17\u201324 refers to Cain\u2019s descendants: Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusael, Lamech, Jabal (\u201cthe ancestor of those who dwell in tents and amidst herds\u201d), and his brother Jubal (\u201cthe ancestor of all who play the lyre and the pipe\u201d), not figuring in Philo\u2019s comment, which creates the impression that Cain had no offspring at all. Pirke R. El. 2 generalizes, dividing the human race into two generations: the pious, born from Seth, and the vicious and ungodly, born from Cain. Ginzberg states that nothing is known in the early Rabbinic sources about the glorification of Seth, but it had prevailed for some time, because a gnostic sect called \u201cSethiani\u201d identified Seth with the messiah.
\n1.81.4. this one is in the likeness \u2026 the elder one \u2026 displays in himself nothing of the father, neither in body nor in soul Gen. 5:3 says that Adam begot Seth \u201cin his likeness after his image,\u201d but it keeps silent about Cain\u2019s appearance. The remark that Cain bore no resemblance to his father is Philo\u2019s addition, and it coincides with Pirke R. El. 2, where Cain is mentioned as a son not in the likeness and image of Adam.
\n1.85.2\u20133 Philo comments on the passage according to the LXX (\u201che was pleasing to God\u201d instead of \u201cEnoch walked with God\u201d in the Hebrew text), regarding Enoch as an absolutely righteous person throughout his life, who even after his death continues pleasing God. In most Jewish legends, too, he appears as a rarely pious man and, as such, is believed to have dwelt in a secret place, isolated from others. Interestingly, however, Gen. Rab. 25:1 speaks of the dual character of Enoch: at first he had not been listed among the righteous, but among the wicked; he was a hypocrite, behaving sometimes righteously and sometimes wickedly. So the LORD decided to remove him from the earth while he was righteous (before that, he had walked with God 300 years; Gen. 5:24).
\n1.86.1\u20133 Enoch\u2019s death was in fact not death: this interpretation is a commonplace in the vast literature concerning Enoch. The ambiguous biblical phrase \u201cGod took him\u201d allowed commentators to elaborate on the fantastic disappearance of the righteous man. Although in Gen. Rab. 25:1, Rabbi Jose objects to some \u201csectarians\u201d who say they have the impression that Enoch did not die, because the word \u201ctaking\u201d (as in the case of Elijah; cf. 2 Kings 2:1) is used in the relevant passage, he, too, avoids using the words \u201cdie\u201d or \u201cdeath\u201d and answers: \u201cGod took him\u201d means that Enoch was no more in the world.
\n1.86.3. something very miraculous happened There are exaggeratedly splendid descriptions of the miraculous translation of Enoch to heaven in Jewish accounts. Yashar Bereshit 11a\u201313a, for example, narrates that, after Enoch had lived a long time in a secret place isolated from man, he was taken to the heavens in a fiery chariot drawn by fiery horses.
\n1.86.5. Elijah \u2026 ascended from among those on the earth to heaven Gen. Rab. 25:1 also draws a parallel between Enoch and Elijah (cf. the comment on 1.86.1\u20133).
\n1.92.3. Hayk Hayk was the mythical ancestor of the Armenians, described as a handsome and powerful giant. Here the translator has probably used his name to render Gk. gigas.
\n1.92.4\u20137 \u201cThe sons of God\u201d in the LXX (\u201cthe divine beings\u201d in the Hebrew Bible (the Masoretic Text) were identified either with angels or with the posterity of Seth. Philo identifies them with angels and assumes that, before having intercourse with mortal women, they had changed their angelic appearance, becoming similar to men. In Jewish tradition, further details are added to this story. According to them, the angels begot the giants (Nephilim) after they had rebelled against God and descended from the heavens to the earth. Their appearance had changed as a consequence of this translation. The women who were to become the mothers of the giants were the descendants of Cain. Cainite women, as Cainite men, had the custom of walking naked and were lascivious. When the fallen angels, now with sublunary bodies, appeared in their land, they were charmed by the beauty of the Cainite women and tempted from the path of virtue (cf. Pirke R. El. 14; Zohar 1:58a; and Zohar Hadash Ruth 99a). Gen. Rab. 26:7 states that the giants were called by seven names: Nephilim, Emim, Refaim, Gibborim, Zamzumim, Anakim, and Awim; \u201cEmim\u201d means that their dread fell upon everyone, \u201cRefaim,\u201d that those who saw them melted, and so on.
\n1.93.2\u20133. some think that contrition \u2026 is shown \u2026 the Divinity does not change The equivocal enethym\u0113th\u0113 (pondered, was concerned with) and dieno\u0113th\u0113 (thought it over) in the LXX permit Philo to comment on the passage in accordance with his concept of the absolute invariability of God (which means that he never feels contrition for his deeds). However, the Hebrew text clearly reads that the LORD \u201cregretted\u201d having created man on earth and that \u201chis heart was saddened.\u201d This causes difficulties for the Rabbis in Gen. Rab. 27:4, who, too, do not wish to admit that God regretted his deed, at least not having created man at all.
\n2.11.2. faith is indicated, because thanks to one righteous and worthy man many people are saved The logic of Philo\u2019s whole comment is that Noah\u2019s virtue and leader\u2019s abilities (below he compares Noah with a good pilot or general, or \u201cthe ruler mind\u201d controlling all the parts of the body) were decisive in his and his family\u2019s salvation. Thus, the man\u2019s personal qualities have come to the foreground, and God\u2019s benevolence toward Noah seems to have been somewhat overshadowed.
\n2.11.7. so that he would not seem to condemn the former [generations], nor to deprive of hope those who are to come later The other generations were believed to have been more righteous. Therefore, Rabbi Johanan in B. Sanh. 108a considers Noah to have been a comparably just and perfect man only in his generation.
\n2.14.5. it is not futile \u2026 that the passage contains in itself 40 days and 40 nights \u2026 the two numbers determined for bringing forth humans, 40 and 80 In 1.25.7, Philo says that God needed only 40 days to create the man, a perfect being, and that he needed twice as much, i.e., 80 days, to create the woman, because she was not as perfect as the man, so the LORD had to make more efforts. The logic of the connection between the formation of man and the 40 days and nights of the flooding rain is that the same period necessary for making a human was needed for his destruction. The parallel between the 40 days of the rain and the 40 days during which the human embryo takes shape is also referred to in Gen. Rab. 32:5, where Rabbi Johanan says that the sins had corrupted the features of man that are formed in 40 days. In the same passage, however, another explanation, too, is given for the symbolic meaning of the number 40: the Torah was given to Moses after he had stayed 40 days on the mountain.
\n2.18.2. the extremities, the earth and the heavens \u2026 when the waters meet one another In the Rabbinic tradition, the story of the Flood is extensively and fancifully elaborated on. In particular, noteworthy details are added to the scene of earthly and heavenly waters meeting one another. Pirke R. El. 23, for example, says that the waters rising from the deep were female, and the waters pouring down from above were male. This unnatural disaster is paralleled with the unnatural sexual intercourses of the sinful generation. Ginzberg, referring to \u201cothers,\u201d comments that the belief that the Flood was caused by the union of the male and female waters (a view also found in 1 En. 54:8\u20139) goes back to the Babylonian conception of Apsu and Tiamat. In Gen. Rab. 32:7, an eyeball symbolizing lasciviousness is regarded as the source of human sins. That is why God punished them with water (i.e., in the same way as the eye sheds tears, God poured the flooding water).
\n2.29.4\u20135. they were quite moderate \u2026 the sources and floodgates were closed Philo\u2019s purpose is to emphasize some moderateness in God\u2019s punishment: he made the waters milder in order to prevent total destruction. Correspondingly, in Jewish legends the LORD\u2019s humanity is accentuated by his not closing all the fountains when deciding to stop the Deluge, but, for the benefit of mankind, leaving some mineral springs with their healing properties open. According to Gen. Rab. 33:4 and B. Sanh. 108a, those sources were the great well of Biram, the gulf of Gaddor, the cavern spring of Paneas, and the hot springs of Tiberias.
\n2.35.5\u20137 Philo means that the Deluge had cleansed the world of human vices like haughtiness and impudence. That is why Noah as the only virtuous man sent away the evil bird symbolizing those qualities. Also, for the brightness of the human mind and sanity of the forthcoming generation, the last residue of dulled consciousness, the raven-darkness was to be removed. The raven as the allegory of darkness is also mentioned in Gen. Rab. 33:5 (with a reference to Ps. 105:28). A remarkable dialogue between the raven and Noah is found in B. Sanh. 108b, where the bird blames Noah and his master (i.e., God) for hating him. He even reproaches his sender for trying to get rid of him, because Noah feels lust for the she-raven! Another Jewish legend narrates that the raven did not execute Noah\u2019s commands and did not return, because he saw a corpse and set to work to devour it.
\n2.38.2. the dove is first of all a clean animal A messenger must be clean; according to Pirke R. El. 23, if one sends a message by an unclean messenger, he sends it through a fool; he must trust only someone clean who will serve him faithfully as messenger. In Jewish accounts, the faithfulness of the dove is also confirmed by his agreeing, after returning to Noah with an olive leaf, to accept food as bitter as the olive if it is from the LORD\u2019s hands and if he is delivered into the power of men. Gen. Rab. 33:6 states that the olive leaf was from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, because the Deluge had not submerged the Holy Land.
\n2.47.1\u20132 Philo believes that the Deluge started in the seventh month, and one year later it also ended in the seventh month (instead of the \u201csecond\u201d and \u201csecond\u201d of the standard versions of Scripture). Furthermore, the \u201c27th day\u201d and \u201c27th day\u201d in Philo are in accordance with the LXX. Gen. 7:11 MT reads \u201c17th\u201d instead of the first \u201c27th,\u201d adding 11 extra days to the duration of the Flood. The disaster lasted for 12 months or one solar year (365 days). The Jewish year is lunar (354 days), so 354 + 11 = 365. According to Gen. Rab. 33:7, the Flood commenced in the month Marheshwan.
\n2.47.7. the abandoned earth in one day grew everything It follows from Philo\u2019s comment that, immediately after the earth became dry, God filled it with all sorts of plants and trees. Some Jewish legends however, describe a different scene: when Noah came out of the ark, the view of the devastated earth was so awful that he began to weep bitterly. According to Gen. Rab. 33:7, the soil was arid, looking as if it had been parched, and nothing would grow on it. Therefore, it was necessary to wait until the next rain in order to sow.
\n2.48.2\u20134 Philo considers Noah\u2019s reverence for God and his fear that the earth could be flooded again as the reasons why he did not come out of the ark until hearing the command to do so. In the Rabbinic tradition, the latter reason appears to be more decisive. Noah is so afraid of another deluge that he refuses to leave the ark even after God orders him to go into the open (e.g., Gen. Rab. 34:6).
\n2.49.3. because when they went in Trying to reveal in his usual way of interpretation the inner meaning of the words, Philo repeats a common comment on these scriptural passages, occurring in a number of Rabbinic sources. Both Philo and the Rabbis base themselves on the version contradicting the standard Hebrew text in which, when coming out of the ark, Noah is first followed by his sons (not his wife) and then by his and his sons\u2019 wives. In B. Sanh. 108b it is stated, as in Philo, that God forbade those going into the ark from copulating by means of indicating to Noah the order of entrance. The same comment is found in Gen. Rab. 31:12 and 34:7. In addition, B. Sanh. 108b and Gen. Rab. 36:7 also state that, in spite of God\u2019s command, three inhabitants of the ark had sexual intercourse: the dog, the raven, and Ham.
\n2.50.3. to be grateful in willing spirits Philo interprets Noah\u2019s sacrifice purely from the aspect of proper behavior: man\u2019s undelayed thanksgiving to his benefactor, without awaiting any corresponding instruction from the latter. As opposed to this approach, some Jewish sources state another, more urging reason why Noah hurried to offer sacrifices to the LORD. When Noah went out of the ark and saw the devastated earth, he blamed God for not having had mercy upon his creatures, despite being called \u201cMerciful.\u201d The LORD was irritated at Noah\u2019s insolence and selfishness (because when he first heard from God that he was going to bring a flood upon the earth, he did not care at all about others). Therefore, in order to conciliate the LORD immediately, Noah offered him the sacrifice. According to Gen. Rab. 34:9, the \u201caltar\u201d means the great altar in Jerusalem, where Adam had sacrificed.
\n2.52.3. the most tame and immaculate ones of the domestic [animals] Clean and tame animals are listed in Jewish accounts, where Noah sacrificed an ox, a sheep, a goat, two turtle doves, and two young pigeons. He had chosen those domestic animals because he thought they were appointed for offerings (God had ordered him to take seven pairs of them into the ark).
\n2.52.5. the clean animals and the birds are the senses and the mind The animals, since they are terrestrial beings, symbolize the human senses, and the flying birds are the symbol of the mind, which is able to hover high above the earth. There seems to be confusion in Philo or the Arm. translation, because the entire verse has already been introduced as being said \u201cin the metaphorical sense.\u201d
\n2.54.2. the reason shows regret, which is a passion not characteristic of the divine power The theological axiom that God never feels repentance seems to be challenged more than once in Scripture (cf. the comment on 1.93.2\u20133). In such cases, Philo, like other pious interpreters, does his utmost to explain the corresponding passages as anything but regret on the part of the LORD. According to Philo, there is no greater sin than to claim that the divine temper is changeable. In Unchangeable 20\u201332, he once again fixes his attention on Gen. 6:6\u20137, where God regrets having made man on earth and decides to destroy the existing generation. Here in 2.54, he encounters the same issue, still connected with the Flood, this time, because God, as another apparent expression of repentance, promises not to exterminate the human race again. Philo\u2019s interpretation of God\u2019s oath, \u201cNever again will I doom the earth because of man \u2026 nor will I ever again destroy every living being,\u201d may be summarized as follows: these words should not be accepted at face value; rather, they have a didactic purpose, because with their help the LORD instructs man not to take revenge on the same wrongdoer for the same misdeed more than once. Furthermore, the philanthropic LORD does not wish to add more evils to those already abundant upon the earth, but since, nevertheless, God does not leave malefactors unpunished, he will bring death only upon them, and not upon the whole mankind. The last statement is generally consonant with a Rabbinic comment in J. Ber. 9, 13d and J. Ker. 77b that God set his bow (i.e., rainbow) in the clouds as a sign that even if men were to become sinful again, their sins would cause no harm to the earth (that is to say, the whole world would not be destroyed because of separate people). However, the Rabbinic remark does not indicate, as with Philo, that God, in any case, was going to punish evildoers. It states, instead, that in the course of time humans became pious enough not to sin and live in fear of punishment.
\n2.56.2\u20136 Noah as the ancestor of the second generation, ruler of the world, and the one whom, together with his sons, God blessed and instructed to \u201cbe fertile and increase\u201d is compared with Adam in Jewish tradition (Midr. Hag. 1:168). In accordance with his division of the first-created man into the one \u201cin the image of God\u201d and \u201cthe formed man\u201d (cf. QG 1.4 and the corresponding comment), Philo draws a parallel between Noah and the former, \u201cincorporeal\u201d one, who was made on the sixth day of the Creation and honored with the blessing \u201cbe fertile and increase.\u201d It follows, then, from Philo\u2019s interpretation that the \u201cformed man\u201d made on the seventh day from the dust of the earth was inferior both to the \u201cfirst Adam\u201d and Noah, the real \u201ckings\u201d of the world. However, there is also a different view in the Rabbinic tradition. Gen. Rab. 34:12 states that \u201cthe fear and the dread\u201d of humans upon the animals returned after God blessed Noah and his sons, but men\u2019s dominion over them did not return before the days of Solomon, because he had dominion over the whole region (1 Kings 5:4).
\n2.60.3\u20136 This comment by Philo on the famous biblical passage is quite original. While Scripture in fact equates the animals to the men as deserving the same punishment when they kill humans, Philo somehow seems to justify the former: the beasts are unconscious of their crime and unfamiliar with their victims; in other words, they are not \u201cbrothers\u201d to those who are killed by them. This also contrasts with the Rabbinic comment in B. Sanh. 15b that both men and beasts, if they have committed murder, shall be convicted by 23 judges, as equal murderers, and not live.
\n2.64.2\u201314 In order to refute the view widespread in his time that the \u201cbow\u201d placed by God was the rainbow, Philo tries to explain the appearance of the latter \u201cscientifically.\u201d In the end, however, he comes to the quite nonscientific conclusion that if anything is set by the Existent, it must have a certain substance, whereas the rainbow, always appearing incidentally, is immaterial and nonexistent. His comparison of the \u201cbow of God\u201d with the weapon releasing arrows has a parallel in Midr. Hag. 1:172, referring in its turn to Hab. 3:9, where, allegorically, the bow and the arrows of God are mentioned. Nonetheless, the \u201cbow\u201d in Philo\u2019s interpretation has a very peculiar allegorical meaning: a tool for balancing the natural and human powers, to forbid them from going to extremes. Gen. Rab. 35:3, without further specifying whether the rainbow or some other natural phenomenon is meant by the \u201cbow,\u201d states that it signifies God\u2019s likeness (cf. Ezek. 1:28), something that can be compared with the \u201cinvisible might of God\u201d in QG 2.64.17.
\n2.66.6\u20138 Philo clearly differs the work of a husbandman, which demands great skill and is highly esteemed, from just tilling the ground. Noah, as \u201ca husbandman of the earth\u201d is highly honorable, unlike the fratricide Cain, who was not a skilled cultivator but just tilled the ground. In the Rabbinic tradition (e.g., Tanh. B 1:46) \u201ca husbandman of the earth\u201d or \u201ca man of the soil\u201d is regarded as a respectful designation. However, Gen. Rab. 36:3 subordinates this epithet of Noah to the one given to Moses: at first, Noah was called \u201ca righteous man\u201d (Gen. 6:9) and then \u201ca man of the soil,\u201d but Moses, first called \u201can Egyptian man\u201d (Exod. 2:19), afterward was called \u201cthe man of God\u201d (Deut. 33:1), because he was more beloved than Noah.
\n2.67.2. where did he find a plant after the Flood, when everything on the earth was dried up and destroyed? Philo\u2019s answer to this question is different from what we find in the Rabbinic tradition. According to Gen. Rab. 36:3, for example, Noah had taken into the ark with him vine sprouts (as well as shoots for fig and olive trees) for planting after the Flood. Pirke R. El. 23 and Tg. Yer. Gen. 9:20 state that Adam had brought the vine shoots from paradise, and Noah found them when he came out of the ark (the sprouts had not been damaged by the Deluge).
\n2.67.7. the use of wine is excessive, not necessary The idea about wine being something excessive also occurs, more expressly and exaggeratedly, in Jewish sources. B. Sanh. 70a\u2013b states that all troubles to man are caused by wine, and the forbidden tree from which Adam ate was the vine. Unfortunately, Noah, when planting the vine shoots, did not take a warning from Adam, drinking wine (Gen. 9:21) and thus transgressing like the forefather. It is even believed that when Noah was going to plant the vineyard he came into partnership with Satan (the demon Shimadon) (Gen. Rab. 36:3). However, in contrast to these sources, Philo somewhat justifies Noah in QG 2.68 (not included in our selection), saying that Noah, as a righteous and wise man, did not drink wine excessively but only \u201ca part of it.\u201d
\n2.77.2. the two, the father and the son \u2026 as if both [were] in one body and conducted by one soul This kind of sophistic judgments in Philo\u2019s comments does not give a clear answer to the logical question: why, though the sinner was Ham and not his son Canaan, was the latter punished together with his father, and even more strictly than Ham? Rabbis, when dealing with Gen. 9:22\u201327, have tried to give simpler and more plausible explanations to the story. In Gen. Rab. 36:7, for instance, Rabbi Judah comments that since God had blessed Noah and his sons (Gen. 9:1), there could not be a curse upon Ham after the blessing; therefore, Canaan was cursed instead. Rabbi Nehemiah slightly changes the story to make things clearer: it was not Ham who first saw Noah\u2019s nakedness but Canaan, who then informed his father and uncles. Pirke R. El. 23 goes so far as to allege that Canaan not only saw the naked Noah but also castrated him.
\n2.77.6. Because \u201cHam\u201d is rendered as \u201cwarmth\u201d or \u201cheat\u201d In Sobriety 44, Philo explains that the meaning of Ham\u2019s name, \u201cwarmth\u201d (therm\u0113), indicates fever in the body and wickedness in the soul. He interprets \u201cCanaan\u201d differently in Sobriety 44, 48, namely, as salos (tossing motion, restlessness). Here two different Arm. words are used for \u201cChanaan,\u201d which Marcus (Questions 1.169) translates \u201cmerchants\u201d and \u201cmiddle-men,\u201d respectively. We have preferred \u201cmediators\u201d for the first word and \u201ccauses\u201d for the second word because, according to the context of Philo\u2019s comment, Canaan and his father \u201cmediated\u201d and \u201ccaused\u201d misfortunes for their descendents.
\n3.3.5. and [he] orders to take a three-year-old, one of each animal In the Rabbinic tradition, the Hebrew word for \u201cthree-year-old\u201d is also interpreted as \u201cthree kinds.\u201d Accordingly, in Gen. Rab. 44:14 God orders Abram to sacrifice, for different purposes, three kinds of bullocks, three kinds of goats, and three kinds of rams.
\n3.3.6. why \u2026 does [he] introduce two females, a heifer and a she-goat, and one male, a ram? The idea expressed by Philo that female animals are sacrificed to atone for sins also occurs, a bit differently, in Lev. 4:32: \u201cIf the offering he brings as a sin offering is a sheep, he shall bring a female without blemish\u201d (in Philo\u2019s comment, the sheep is male, not to be sacrificed for sins but something else). According to Gen. Rab. 44:14, three kinds of rams (i.e., male sheep, in contrast to Lev. 4:32 on the one hand and Philo on the other) should be sacrificed as guilt offerings: one as the guilt offering of an obligation, the second as the guilt offering of doubt, and the third, a lamb, as the sin offering (brought by an individual). Instead of the heifer and the she-goat of the Bible and Philo, the same Rabbinic source refers to two bullocks and one heifer with broken neck and three goats (their sex is unspecified) respectively.
\n3.3.11. \u201che sat with them\u201d This is a citation from Gen. 15:11, where the MT reads \u201cdrove them away\u201d instead: \u201cBirds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away.\u201d The whole sentence in Philo is obscure, and Marcus translates the sentence as follows (Questions 1.179): \u201cAnd as for what happens to them, they say that this is an indication of chance and of opportunely visible likenesses.\u201d
\n3.3.12. And these [people] By this example, concerning Gen. 15:11 and not directly related to the passage in question, Philo adduces an additional proof that those \u201cslanderous people\u201d do not attempt to understand the essence of what is said in the Bible but they \u201cjudge the book by its cover.\u201d Although Abram \u201csat with\u201d the birds of prey, this does not mean a harmony between the former and the latter.
\n3.6.2. fifth and cyclic essence That is to say, the quintessence; cf. Philo\u2019s Heir 282. The term is based on Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo 269a.13(cf. Marcus Questions 1.188 n. e).
\n3.6.4. watery, aerial, and fiery [elements] This expression, following in the Arm. text the reference to the three elements, rather concerns all the three than only the last, fiery one, as Marcus (Questions 1.188) renders: \u201cThe earth contains in itself also a watery (element) and an aerial one and what is called a fiery one more by comprehension than by sight.\u201d
\n3.6.8\u20139 The birds, since they are able to soar high, are the symbol of the fifth (after earth, water, air, and fire), the purest, highest, and most inseparable element, the quintessence. This philosophical allegory has no parallel in the Rabbinic tradition, where the bird not cut by Abram appears to be a completely different symbol. According to Gen. Rab. 44:15 and Pirke R. El. 28, the dismembering of the other victims symbolizes the division of the power of Israel\u2019s enemies, whereas the bird that remained whole means that Israel, too, will maintain its wholeness.
\n3.7.4. by the flight of the birds \u2026 announcing the attack of enemies The appearance of the birds of prey is interpreted as something ominous, symbolizing enmity, wickedness, and other human and animal vices. Similarly, in Gen. Rab. 44:16, Abram, trying to get rid of the evil creatures, takes a frail and beats the birds in order to kill them. In Tg. Yer. Gen. 15:11, however, the birds of prey are a different symbol: they indicate the advent of the messiah (but since it was not yet the time for the latter to come, Abram drove the birds away, thus bidding the messiah to wait until the day appointed to him).
\n3.9.3. ecstasy \u2026 is nothing else but the giving up and the coming out of reason Philo\u2019s description of Abram\u2019s sleep as an ecstatic state is similar to his comment (QG 1.24) on Gen. 2:21 (God casts a deep sleep upon Adam), where he explains that phenomenon as a kind of trance, \u201crelaxation of the senses and retirement of reason\u201d (cf. also the comment on 1.24.2\u20133). The Rabbis discussing Gen. 15:12 in Gen. Rab. 34:17 give different explanations to it (one of them is that sleep is a state of stupidity!), some of which can be compared with what Philo says: sleep is one of the three kinds of torpor; the other kinds are prophecy (cf. the relationship between sleep and prophecy in Philo\u2019s comment) and unconsciousness (cf. Philo: when one sleeps, reason departs from him).
\n3.11.4\u20137 The generalization of the word \u201cfathers\u201d and its metaphorical interpretation as \u201cthe hosts of divine world\u201d by Philo contradicts the concretized comment in Gen. Rab. 38:12, according to which by saying \u201cyou shall go to your fathers in peace\u201d God informed Abraham that his father had a portion in the world to come.
\n3.11.12. not \u201cat a long old age\u201d but \u201cat a good old age\u201d Here Philo understands Gk. kalos (good) as \u201cvirtuous,\u201d meaning that, according to what God said, Abraham was going to be so in his old age. Gen. Rab. 63:12, however, stresses another meaning of \u201cgood\u201d in the context of Gen. 15:15, namely, \u201chappy\u201d: in fact, Abraham\u2019s old age did not turn out to be happy, because he saw his grandson (Esau) practicing idolatry, immorality, and murder (so the Rabbis interpret Gen. 25:29: \u201cEsau came in from the open, famished\u201d). Therefore, it would have been better for Abraham to leave this world in peace before that.
\n3.18.2\u20135 B. Yev. 64b adds that Sarai was not only barren but that she even had no womb. Rabbis have also voiced a doubt (e.g., Gen. Rab. 45:1 and B. Yev. 64a) that the reason for Abram\u2019s and Sarai\u2019s childlessness was that the former, too, was barren (or only he, because Scripture says that Sarai had borne him [not someone else] no children: if she were married to another man, she would have given birth to children). Thus, the intervention of the divine power, to which Philo also gives prominence, becomes more striking: in addition to Abram being 100 years old and Sarai being 90 (Gen. 17:17) and barren, it turns out that she even had no womb and that Abram was not able to beget, but, by the providence of God, they gave birth to Isaac (Gen. 21:2).
\n3.18.7. liken the righteous spirit of the race to the male rather than the female What does Philo mean by this passage? Perhaps that, since Sarai was barren and her conception (Gen. 21:2) was \u201cthe work of the divine power,\u201d she had a minor role in the birth of Isaac and his descendents (i.e., the \u201crace\u201d born from Abraham and Sarah), so the spirit of that race was more like that of the male progenitor (Abraham).
\n3.20.2. it is the same [as] not to be jealous and envious The nobility of Sarai\u2019s behavior is also stressed in Midr. Hag. 1:241\u201342. Regarding the continuation of Abram\u2019s family line more important than her own feelings, she gave her maidservant to her husband as wife without a trace of jealousy.
\n3.34.5\u20137 Philo juxtaposes the simple-mindedness of Hagar, the maidservant, with the wisdom of Sarah, the mistress: it was natural for the former, who is compared with \u201csavages,\u201d to take the angel for God; Sarah the Wisdom would never be so naive. Gen. Rab. 45:7\u201310, commenting on the appearance of the angel to Hagar, does not discuss the issue of the confusion of God\u2019s messenger with God. On the contrary, 45:10 states that when Hagar speaks to God, it is through the angel (as Rebekah, too, according to Rabbi Levi\u2019s interpretation, addresses God through an angel; Gen. 25:22\u201323). That is, Hagar was aware that it was God\u2019s angel who appeared to her and not God himself. Moreover, Gen. Rab. 45:7 comments that not one but four (the number of times \u201cangel\u201d occurs) or five (the number of times \u201cspeech\u201d is mentioned) angels appeared to Hagar.
\n3.43.2\u20134 Philo also speaks of these impious men-critics of the Bible\u2014again not mentioning their names, in Names 60\u201362. Being \u201camong the quarrelsome and always wishing to attach reproaches to irreproachable things,\u201d they waged \u201cunannounced war\u201d against \u201choly things.\u201d Apparently, those critics (and perhaps Philo\u2019s own opponents) were quite influential in his days. However, as Philo informs, at least one of them had a terrible fate: not long after mocking the addition of one letter in Abram\u2019s and Sarai\u2019s names, that \u201cungodly and profane\u201d man hanged himself, suffering a deserved punishment.
\n3.43.15\u201326 Similar remarks, with slight differences, are found in Philo\u2019s other works (e.g., Abraham 81\u201383, Names 60\u201376, Cherubim 4\u20137, and Giants 62\u201364). God changed Abram\u2019s name and, thereby, his mission in order to tear him away from purely heavenly matters such as the motions and periods of the stars and bring him closer to earthly things. It is not clear on what etymologies \u201csublime father\u201d and \u201celect father of sound\u201d are based (in Names 71, Philo states that while the Hebrews would say \u201cAbraham,\u201d the Greeks would call him \u201celect father of sound\u201d instead, but he does not give any additional explanation of how the meanings of the Hebrew and the Greek denominations are related to each other). Philo\u2019s remarkable and very original commentary, strange as it may seem, demonstrates once again the flight of his thought. Gen. 17:5 interprets \u201cAbraham\u201d as \u201cfather of a multitude\u201d (where ab = \u201cfather of\u201d and ham is an abbreviation of hamon [multitude], and the letter resh should be ignored). Gen. Rab. 46:7\u20138 simply accepts the biblical explanation of the name and warns that whoever, after the change of \u201cAbram\u201d into \u201cAbraham,\u201d continues to refer to \u201cAbram\u201d infringes both the positive (\u201cyour name shall be Abraham\u201d) and negative (\u201cyou shall no longer be called Abram\u201d) commandment of God. B. Shab. 105a, mentioning a number of examples, among them \u201cAbraham,\u201d states that abbreviated forms are recognized by the Torah, because it is written: \u201cFor Ab (the father of) Hamwn (a multitude of) nations have I made you.\u201d B. Ber. 13a explains \u201cAbram\u201d as \u201cfather of Aram\u201d (Ab-Aram); Abram was the father of Aram only, but when he received the name \u201cAbraham,\u201d he became the father of the whole world. In this Rabbinic passage, too, any mention of Abraham as Abram is considered to be a violation of both the positive and negative commandments of God.
\n3.48.2\u201311 This rationalistic argumentation for the usefulness of circumcision (in order to avoid diseases of the genitalia, especially spreading in summer and in the hot parts of the world) has no parallel in the Rabbinic comments, which rather see a symbolic meaning in the removal of the foreskin. For instance, according to Gen. Rab. 46:2 God gave that command to Abraham before the birth of Isaac so that the latter issues from a holy (the symbolic parallel of \u201cpure\u201d [cf. Gen. Rab. 46:21: \u201cBut no less useful to cleanness is the circumcision of the foreskin\u201d] and \u201chealthy\u201d in Philo) source.
\n3.48.9. the side of the Plough The constellation also known as the Big Dipper, the Big Bear, the Drinking Gourd; i.e., the north.
\n3.48.12\u201315 Circumcision is also regarded as a stimulus for multiplication in Jewish sources. In Gen. Rab. 46:1, Rabbi Judan compares Abraham with the fig tree. At first its fruit is gathered one by one, then two by two, and then three by three, until eventually the figs are gathered in baskets and with shovels. Likewise Abraham was one, then there were he and Isaac, and then these two and Jacob, until eventually, \u201cthe Israelites were fertile and prolific; they multiplied and increased very greatly\u201d (Exod. 1:7). This happened after Abraham was circumcised, because the only inedible part of the fig is its stalk, and when the latter is removed, the defect vanishes. The foreskin was like the stalk: it was cut away, the blemish was removed, and Abraham became fertile. Gen. Rab. 46:4 refers to the virile foreskin as the part of the tree where it brings fruit. Consequently, in Zohar 3a circumcision is compared with pruning, after which flowers appear.
\n3.48.18. a mature person \u2026 would perhaps delay doing the lawful thing for fear Fear of circumcision was an essential issue also referred to in the Rabbinic tradition. For example, Gen. Rab. 46:2 remarks that Abraham did not circumcise himself at the age of 48, when he recognized his Creator, in order not to frighten the proselytes by the painful act.
\n3.48.23. the heart, the principal genitor of the thought The heart is also regarded as the center of thinking in Gen. Rab. 46:5: where could Abraham perform circumcision and yet be fit to offer (i.e., remain whole)? If he were circumcised at the ear, he would not be whole and able to hear; if at the mouth, he would not be whole and able to speak; if at the heart, he would not be whole and able to think. Where then could he be circumcised and yet be whole and able to think? Only at the foreskin.
\n3.48.23. liken the bodily genitalia to the heart Here and in the following sentence, the Arm. text seems to be corrupt. We have slightly revised the passage based on Philo\u2019s Spec. Laws 1.6, where the heart and the generative organ are considered to be alike, because both are ready for procreation, \u201cthe breath within the heart [is generative] of the thoughts and the generative organ, of the living things.\u201d Thus, Philo regards the heart as the generator of the thoughts, and we have translated the above passage accordingly.
\n4.2.2\u201322 Another original and sophisticated comment by Philo, the \u201cthree men\u201d are considered to be God himself and his two principal powers, the creative and the lordly\u2014an inseparable triad (a unity of the three aspects of God). Abraham did not just see them with his bodily eyes, because they were not tangible, but perceived their presence with the eyes of wisdom or with the eyes of his soul, and this sort of \u201ceyes,\u201d making \u201cone eye\u201d of the person possessing them, are the exclusive quality of the virtuous. Furthermore, the complicated appearance of the three is also understood by Philo as a unity of the divine (God himself) and the human (the two \u201cstrangers\u201d), which can be seen with the two kinds of spiritual sight: one for seeing God and the other for seeing the human aspect of his threefold appearance. In contrast to these subtle remarks, a much simpler interpretation of the personality of the \u201cthree men\u201d is suggested by other commentators of the passage. Josephus (Ant. 1.196), referring to Abraham\u2019s guests, simply says that he saw \u201cthree angels.\u201d The names of those angels are mentioned in Rabbinic sources. According to B. BM 86b, they were Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael: Michael came to bring the good news of Isaac\u2019s birth to Sarah, Raphael, to cure Abraham (of the wound of circumcision), and Gabriel, to destroy Sodom. These same angels as the three visitors to Abraham also figure in Gen. Rab. 48:9 and 50:2.
\n4.5.3\u20134 A similar interpretation of the words \u201clet a little water be brought\u201d as a humble request to God rather than a command to servants is found in B. BM 86b, where, for more clarity, \u201cI pray you\u201d is added: \u201cLet a little water, I pray you, be brought.\u201d In reply to Abraham\u2019s words, the Israelites were granted the water springing from the rock (Exod. 17:6: \u201cStrike the rock and water will issue from it\u201d) and Miriam\u2019s well.
\n4.5.6. men are cleansed being washed by water, and the water itself, by the divine foot Thus, two of the three visitors, \u201cthe strangers,\u201d were to clean their feet by washing them, while the third guest, God, was supposed to clean (i.e., sanctify) the water itself with his feet. Since in B. BM 86b God does not figure among the three guests, and all of them are regarded as angels, Rabbi Jannai explains Abraham\u2019s wish to have them wash their feet quite differently: it seemed to Abraham that they were Arabs (cf. Gen. Rab. 48:9: one of the angels looked like a Saracen, the second like a Nabatean, and the third like an Arab) who \u201cworship the dust on their feet,\u201d and he tried to prevent them from entering his tent with unclean feet and defiling it.
\n4.6.3. \u201ctake food,\u201d but when [it is said], \u201cYou eat,\u201d he imagines the strange men The Gk. lamban\u014d (to take) in the LXX allows Philo to comment on the passage in this manner. Abraham\u2019s humbleness before the divine countenance makes him offer something strange: he will take the bread and the guest(s) will eat it. In the MT, things are clearer: \u201cAnd let me fetch a morsel of bread that you may refresh yourselves\u201d (Gen. 18:8). In Jewish tradition, Abraham\u2019s piety, humility, and reverence for the heavenly visitors is demonstrated in a different way. According to B. BM 86b\u201387a, being of the truly righteous men \u201cwho promise little and perform much\u201d (see also B. Ned. 21b), Abraham spoke only of a morsel of bread, but what he served afterward to his guests was a sumptuous meal.
\n4.9.3. for the blessed and fortunate natures do not eat food and do not drink red wine The view that the heavenly creatures do not eat and drink was a commonplace in commentaries on the Bible. For example, Josephus (Ant. 1.197) says that when Abraham served the meal to his guests sitting under the oak tree, \u201cthey created for him the impression of eating.\u201d And in Gen. Rab. 48:11, when Abraham offers food to the visitors, they directly tell him that they neither eat nor drink, but since Abraham himself eats and drinks, he should do as he said and bring the food (48:14 repeats that there is neither eating nor drinking in heaven). Thus, according to Genesis Rabbah, the three guests do not behave in the way that Josephus describes and Philo highly appreciates, i.e., they do not pretend to eat and drink in order to gladden their host (especially in Abraham 118, Philo admires the miracle that the three celestial beings seemed to drink and eat though they did not).
\n4.12.1. at the [right] time at this hour The MT reads \u201cnext year\u201d (Gen. 18:10). More details about the time of Sarah\u2019s pregnancy and Isaac\u2019s birth are found in Jewish sources. Michael, the greatest of the three angels, declaring that Isaac will be born, draws a line on a wall and says that when the sun crosses one point of the line, Sarah will conceive, and when it crosses the other point, she will bear a child (Midr. Hag. 1:274; Tanh. B 1:107; Pesik. Rab. 6:24b). Philo\u2019s specific comment on why God postponed the birth of Abraham\u2019s son (because he wanted the righteous man to become even more perfect) has no parallel in the Rabbinic tradition.
\n4.12.11. the birth of the self-taught one with a better nature That is Isaac. Philo means that Abraham, hearing the promise of God, would improve himself (or his soul) and more deservedly be rewarded with Isaac\u2019s birth. The Arm. passage is difficult to understand; Marcus\u2019s translation (Questions 1.286) is incorrect: \u201cA better progeny through a nature that rises by itself.\u201d
\n4.17.3\u20135 Philo again tries to explain the biblical passage in a sophisticated fashion, attempting to persuade the reader that the words of God, in spite of their direct purpose, were in fact not reproof but praise of the clever woman. Likewise, he believes Abraham\u2019s faith was so steadfast that his laughter at the promise to become father again (Gen. 17:17) did not mean any doubt and therefore was not to be blamed by God. A different view is expressed in Midr. Hag. 1:276, namely, that what God said was reproach directed against both Abraham and Sarah, because the former also manifested little faith when he was informed about the forthcoming birth of Isaac. God referred only to Sarah\u2019s disbelief, because he wanted Abraham to note his blunder himself.
\n4.17.4. and in Chaldean \u201cIsaac\u201d Yishaq means \u201che laughs\u201d in Hebrew.
\n4.20.3. and having willingly given [them] whatever was suitable \u2026 started on a journey with them In addition to giving prominence to Abraham\u2019s piety (who felt so inspired by the presence of his heavenly guests that he was deeply grieved about their departure), Philo also refers to the two general rules of hospitality. Those rules are to welcome guests properly and to see them off in an equally appropriate manner. In his opinion, they originate from the biblical story about the \u201cthree men\u201d visiting Abraham (even Homer, he believes, learned those rules from the Bible!). A similar remark on Abraham\u2019s behavior is found in Midr. Hag. 1:276, discussing the same biblical passage. We read there that Abraham, after he had suitably received his guests, accompanied them and brought them on their way, because even more important then the duty of entertainment is the duty of furthering the guest\u2019s departure.
\n4.20.4. And the poet, it seems to me, taking from here Our translation literally corresponds to the Arm. version. Strange as it may seem, Philo means that \u201cthe poet\u201d (Homer) used the Bible as a source (in general, he believed that Homer\u2019s wisdom originated from his Jewish learning. Marcus (Questions 1.293) changes the meaning of the clause: \u201cAnd in this, it seems to me, he took as his example what the poet fittingly says.\u201d
\n4.26.1. and approaching, Abraham said, \u201cYou will not destroy\u201d Tanh. B 1:88\u201389 states that, when revealing to Abraham the forthcoming fate of the sinful cities, the intention of God was not simply to inform him but also to get his consent. Several reasons are mentioned why he behaved so, the main of which was that God had promised to give the land of Canaan (including Sodom and Gomorrah) to Abraham.
\n4.26.2\u20135 Philo expresses two main concerns in this comment. First, that Abraham \u201capproached\u201d God and spoke to him should by no means be understood in the direct sense, as a physical contact, for he was able to communicate with God only mentally. Second, one should pay special attention to Abraham\u2019s mercifulness: he is asking not for the innocent, because it is out of the question that they will be spared, but for the sinful. (If for the sake of the righteous, God decides not to destroy the cities, the sinners, too, will survive.) This noble quality of Abraham is also praised in Jewish tradition; for instance, in Gen. Rab. 39:6 and Pesik. Rab Kah. 19:139, where Abraham figures as a compassionate \u201cfather\u201d trying to prevent the extermination of the Sodomites and Gomorrheans.
\n4.26.9. the flare of the sparkling ray and the flashes of the fire of justice Cf. Migration 122, where, according to Philo, Abraham believes that even if all other things perish, a small piece of virtue will survive, like a spark of fire.
\n4.39.2\u20135 Based on Gen. 19:9, Philo has invented this address of the Sodomites to Lot. Further details about the same episode, some of which correspond to what Philo says, are found in Gen. Rab. 50:3\u20137. For example, \u201cLot was sitting in the gate of Sodom\u201d (Gen. 19:1) means that Lot was appointed the chief judge of Sodom that day, being the head of five other principal judges, False Principles, Lying Speech, and so on. Having themselves appointed him judge, the Sodomites then reproach him for judging (cf. \u201cyou judge and discriminate between affairs\u201d in Philo). Another parallel: the Sodomites reproach Lot for trying to destroy the laws of their predecessors, according to which strangers were forced into sodomy (cf. \u201clascivious desire is the law\u201d in Philo) and were robbed.
\n4.39.7. such as the boys [who] due to being burdened with grammar cannot receive instruction Philo probably means that, according to the Sodomites, the boys engaged in school education are so busy as not to have time for bodily desires. Therefore, for them those desires are secondary.
\n4.43.2\u20135 It follows from this interpretation that the inhabitants of Sodom (in particular, Lot\u2019s sons-in-law) were not only lewd and licentious but also very wealthy and had obtained glory and grandeur. (Philo even draws a parallel between Sodom and the Persian and Macedonian empires.) This exaggeration, however, is for a more general purpose, namely, to demonstrate by the example of Sodom that excessive self-confidence and satiation may lead to disasters. Furthermore, according to Philo\u2019s comment, Lot\u2019s sons-in-law not only did not believe him, having the impression that he was joking, but they also laughed at him and thought he was a fool. A similar comment also occurs in the Rabbinic tradition. Midr. Hag. 1:290\u201391 narrates that the husbands of Lot\u2019s daughters scoffed at their father-in-law, calling him stupid, and were sure that the violins, cymbals, and flutes (organs and cymbals in Gen. Rab. 50:9) joyfully sounding in Sodom could by no means portend destruction.<\/p>\n
Questions and Answers on Exodus<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
1.1.1. it shall be the first of the months of the year [for you] As Philo states, the year begins from the vernal equinox (about March 21 in the Northern Hemisphere, coinciding with the beginning of Nisan in the Jewish calendar), which is in the constellation of Aries, \u201cthe head of the zodiac.\u201d In modern astronomy, the vernal equinox is regarded as the first point of Aries, the initial sign of the zodiac.
\n1.1.2\u201326 Exodus 12:2, which establishes the Jewish lunar year, is one of the most well-known, frequently discussed biblical verses. For example, in Exod. Rab. 15, there are dozens of various comments on it. So we have translated all of Philo\u2019s long analysis of this passage. He interprets the words of God from different aspects: astronomical, semantic, climatological, economical, cosmological, theological, ethnical, and historical. Philo enumerates the qualities that make spring so significant, attempting to explain, as the rationalist, how they reveal the logic of God\u2019s command from philosophical and practical points of view. In the everlasting succession of life and death, spring is the time of birth, fertility, and fieldwork, while in autumn everything withers. That is why the year, which symbolically is the start of life, should be reckoned from the vernal, and not autumnal, equinox. Spring is prior and superior to other periods of the year in a wider cosmological context too, because God created the cosmos in that season, when all things are born. Furthermore, according to Philo, the Jewish calendar should be distinct from other nations\u2019 calendars, especially the Egyptians\u2019. So Scripture, which, according to Philo, directly addresses the Jews, clearly fixes the start of the Hebrew year. It is also significant that God chose the beginning of the year to start in spring, the season when the Jews were released from captivity and migrated from Egypt. Philo\u2019s comment is in general quite original and different from the Rabbinic tradition. A few parallels, nevertheless, may be found. B RH 10b\u201311a contains two different views regarding the time of the creation of the universe. Rabbi Eliezer states that the sixth day of the creation, when God made Adam and Eve, coincided with the first day of Tishrei, the seventh month of the Jewish year, while in Rabbi Joshua\u2019s opinion, the world came into being in the month of Nisan. Although the latter opinion corresponds to what we read in Philo\u2019s interpretation, one does not get the impression that something well known is repeated, because he comes to that conclusion \u201cconscientiously\u201d and \u201cguided by prudence.\u201d Another parallel can be drawn with Exod. Rab. 15:1, 3, where, just as in Philo, the historical significance of Nisan is emphasized (the Israelites were redeemed and left Egypt in that month, therefore, it became the first of the months). Also, Exod. Rab. 15:1, like Philo, remarks on the relationship between the words \u201cfirst\u201d and \u201cbeginning,\u201d referring to several biblical passages (e.g., Isa. 44:6, where God says: \u201cI am the first and I am the last\u201d). In Jewish sources, in general, the establishment of the calendar is connected with the feast of Passover on the 15th day of Nisan: cf., for example, Mek. R. Ish., Bo. 1:2b\u20133a and Pesik. Rab. 15:78a. Likewise, Philo in Spec. Laws 2.150\u201355, which contains many parallels with the comment in question, speaks about the Passover in connection with the first month of the calendar.
\n1.1.4. those who are learned in astronomy Probably meaning Babylonian or Greek astronomers. Semantically, Philo stresses the synonymous meanings of \u201cfirst\u201d (pr\u014dtos) and \u201cbeginning\u201d (arch\u0113), considering the period in question to be the start and the \u201chead\u201d of the seasons both in sequence and by significance.
\n1.1.10. harvest In Moses 2.223, Philo clearly states that by this spring harvest he means wheat and barley, which are among the most essential kinds of food for humans.
\n1.1.13. having strength when accumulating it This passage is obscure; according to Marcus\u2019s free rendering (2.4), the fighter is autumn: \u201cIt enables them [the trees] to gather together their strength,\u201d but nothing in the Armenian text corresponds to \u201cit enables them.\u201d
\n1.1.18 Nation (Arm. azg = Gk. genos) can also be translated \u201crace\u201d (i.e., the human race), as Marcus (2.5) does, but it seems that Philo means the Israelites in contrast to other nations (the Egyptians in particular).
\n1.2.2\u20139 Commenting on the literal sense of the two biblical passages on the paschal lamb to be sacrificed on the eve of Passover (the 14th of Nisan, on the night of the Exodus from Egypt), Philo suggests four practical and logical explanations. The Israelites were commanded to choose the lambs for sacrifice on the 10th of Nisan, so that (1) during the several days preceding the night of the offering they could carefully prepare themselves and not perform the sacrifice in haste; (2) they had time to be purified physically and spiritually; (3) God became sure about the steadfastness of their faith; and (4) the Egyptians were struck with new disasters when their enemy was preparing the sacrifice\u2014the sign of their final defeat. The demand of physical purification (one should not enter a sanctuary unwashed) has a parallel in QG 3.48, where Philo speaks of circumcision as a cleansing act (see especially 3.48.19, remarking on \u201cthe cleanness of oblations in sacred places\u201d).
\n1.2.7. it should happen [so that] the numbers and nature are altogether united The meaning of this clause is unclear, perhaps because the Armenian text has been corrupted by scribes. In a similar recondite and allegorical manner Philo interprets \u201con the 10th of this month each of them shall take a lamb\u201d (Exod. 12:3) in Congr. 105\u20137: according to him, it is said so, in order that \u201cfrom the 10th, the sacrifices maintained in the soul should be dedicated to the 10th\u201d (i.e., God, \u201cthe 10th portion\u201d). It is difficult to trace a relationship between these remarks of Philo and Jewish sources. For example, Pesik. Rab. 15:78b and Mek. R. Ish., Bo 5:5b and 6:6b simply suggest that the days of the public preparation of the offering were intended for distressing the Egyptians, who had to watch how the animals they worshiped were to be sacrificed.
\n1.2.8. the souls are visibly bright and shining Another unclear clause.
\n1.8.2\u201312 One of Philo\u2019s beloved subjects is the difference between the superior \u201cmale\u201d faculty (i.e., \u201cmind\u201d) and the inferior \u201cfemale\u201d faculty (i.e., \u201csense-perception\u201d) (cf., e.g., QG 1.25.3). Here, too, he compares those opposites and, as a consistent misogynist, believes that the change from female to male, i.e., the selection of male lambs for the sacrifice, is nothing else but improvement (or progress; Gk. prokop\u0113). As it becomes clear from similar passages in his other works (Alleg. Interp. 3.165 and Sacrifices 112), Philo by folk etymology traces a relationship between the words prokop\u0113 and probaton (the word for \u201clamb\u201d in the LXX), because the latter, in his view, is connected with probain\u014d (to go forward), which means improvement\/progress.
\n1.8.5. but not in vain has [Scripture] also added \u201cyearling,\u201d because the year is called \u201cperfect\u201d Philo supplements these peculiar comments by another one, to confirm the idea of improvement and perfection: the lambs must be yearlings, because the year, as its Greek name, eniautos, suggests, is perfect, containing everything in itself, autos en heaut\u014d (itself in itself). This is another example of folk etymology, more clearly formulated in Spec. Laws 4.235.
\n1.8.10. perhaps because Egypt deified those animals most of all Finally, Philo points to simpler reasons why lambs and kids were chosen for the offering. One of those reasons, namely, that the victims were worshiped by the Egyptians as idols so the sacrifice of those animals would mean their complete defeat, is also mentioned in the Rabbinic tradition. According to Exod. Rab. 16:2\u20133, by sacrificing the paschal lambs the Israelites drew their hands away from idolatry and slew the gods of their enemies.
\n1.10.2\u201316 This comment is especially noteworthy as an example of mythical mentality quite uncharacteristic of the rationalist Philo. Usually relying upon reason and logic, here the commentator is inclined toward exaggeration and fiction to such an extent that he believes all the Egyptians, without exception, were equal in impiety and sinfulness while all the Jews, on the contrary, were equally pious and perfect. The main idea Philo expresses in his interpretation of \u201call the assembled congregation\u201d in Exod. 12:6 is the absolute equality of the people at the performance of the sacrifice, irrespective of their age and rank, because God granted priesthood to all the Jews. In this respect, Philo differs from the Rabbinic comment in Exod. Rab. 16:1, pointing to a certain hierarchy among the people even at the public offering and stating that the paschal lambs were to be slaughtered by the hands of the elders of the nation (therefore, the redemption of Israel was to be realized through their hands). However, a similar idea of equality, though not as persistent and clearly expressed as in Philo, is found in Exod. Rab. 15:12, where the inclusion of even the poor in the people\u2019s joy (so that \u201cit may be complete\u201d) is regarded as the purpose of addressing the whole congregation.
\n1.12.2\u20136 In addition to repeating and supplementing what he had already said in other chapters, namely, that in the absence of temples every house had symbolically become a temple and that the offering was to be performed openly to spite the Egyptians (and therefore, the sacrificial blood was ordered to be put upon the house temples), Philo suggests another, quite queer, explanation. Comparing metaphorically the lintel with the heart, the house with desire, and the doorposts with reason, he concludes that the blood, their relative, was to be with them on their way toward virtue. Although nothing similar can be found in Jewish sources, Rabbis have offered another allegorical interpretation of the passage. According to Exod. Rab. 1:36 and 17:3, the sacrificial blood on the lintel and two doorposts was to remind the Israelites of their three forefathers: Abraham (the blood on the lintel, because Abraham was the greatest forefather, and the lintel is the highest part of the doorway), Isaac, and Jacob (the two doorposts).
\n2.27.2\u20137 Here is an example of Philo\u2019s famous number symbolism. The numbers here\u20144, 10, 7, and 70\u2014are among those to which Philo attaches special importance, discussing them in his other works as well. The perfection and significance of 4 is described, for instance, in Planting 119\u201325 (the world is composed of four elements: earth, water, air, and fire; the year has four seasons; in geometry, the square has four right and equal angels, which allegorize the correctness of reason, etc.). Creation 47 helps to understand what Philo means by \u201cthe tetrad, which is the essence of the decade,\u201d stating that what the number 10 is actually (entelecheia), the number 4 is potentially (dynamei), because the units contained in the latter make 10 by addition (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10). According to the same passage, 10 for Philo is the \u201call-perfect\u201d (panteleios) number. Furthermore, a large section of the same work (89\u2013128) discusses the importance of the number 7, starting with the remark that after completing the creation of the world in six (another perfect number) days, God exalted the seventh and called it holy. In QE 2.27.1, Philo does not cite the continuation of the biblical sentence containing \u201c70\u201d (\u201cand 70 elders of Israel\u201d) but, nevertheless, he mentions that number among the other perfect ones: God chose 4 and 70 for Moses and his companions, thereby honoring them. Philo, however, views these symbolic numbers in the literal context of the passage. Thus, we may conclude that Moses and his three companions, as Philo believes, allegorize the different aspects of mental capacities that together form wisdom. In this view, we can draw a parallel, though quite a vague one, with Exod. Rab. 27:2, according to which God showed respect to Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the 70 elders of Israel thanks to their wisdom (with a reference to Prov. 3:35: \u201cThe wise shall obtain honor\u201d). In Lev. Rab. 20:10, however, Nadab and Abihu are mentioned quite negatively, as arrogant people who, walking behind Moses and Aaron, were thinking about the death of those two old men to become the leaders of the community.
\n2.29.3\u20134 Philo distinguishes three ranks among the Israelites gathered at the foot of Mount Sinai to receive the Torah from God: Moses symbolizing \u201cthe prophetic mind\u201d (ho proph\u0113tikos nous) and representing the first rank was the only man allowed to approach God; Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the 70 elders representing the second rank were to ascend the mountain but stay at some distance from God and Moses; and the common people representing the third rank were to be \u201cbeholders of beholders,\u201d i.e., watch from below those that were allowed to see \u201cthe way to heaven\u201d (the second group). This in general corresponds to the Bible but makes things clearer, especially the missions of the second and third groups. According to Exod. 24:9\u201310, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the 70 elders of Israel \u201cascended; and they saw the God of Israel,\u201d whereas Philo following the LXX cites in the relevant comment (QE 2.37) the last phrase as \u201cthey saw the place where the God of Israel was standing.\u201d He then explains that no one can ever boast of having seen the invisible God. Philo also uses the opportunity to refer once again to his beloved number symbols, this time, the supreme monad and the inferior dyad. Moses, the mind filled with God, is as if united with him and transformed into absolute and pure oneness, having nothing to do with the mixed duality. As Philo clarifies in Alleg. Interp. 2.2\u20133, one is the number of God, who is alone, not a compound (ou synkrima) but a single nature (physis hapl\u0113), unlike the other beings, which are combinations (polla), soul and body in their turn consisting of different parts. Thus, Moses alone is permitted to come near God because he symbolizes not only the prophetic mind but also the divine monad. In Jewish sources, a different and very noteworthy variant of the episode (Moses alone remaining with God) occurs, according to which all the Israelites except Moses not only stayed at a distance but soon returned to their tents (cf. Exod. 24:14 stating, on the contrary, that the elders of Israel were commanded to wait). According to Mek. d\u2019Rashbi, Bahodesh 3:64a; 9:71a\u201372b; and Mek. d\u2019Rashbi 113, the whole people had heard the Ten Commandments from God, and they were expecting that the rest of the Torah would also be revealed to them. However, the terrible divine vision on Mount Sinai had so exhausted the Israelites that they were afraid to hear another word from God and die. They wanted to withdraw and begged Moses to be the mediator between them and God. Their wish was found right, so, as B. Shab. 87a mentions, God told Moses to go to the people and send them to their tents.
\n2.30.2 The word \u201cstones\u201d in the LXX, instead of the \u201cpillars\u201d in the Hebrew Bible, allows Philo to suggest two explanations of the passage. First, Moses possibly built the altar of 12 stones, so that their unity symbolizes the unanimity of the Israelites as if becoming one sanctuary for God. The second explanation is suitable to both \u201cstones\u201d and \u201cpillars,\u201d because Philo considers them a memorial to the 12 tribes, metaphorically replacing the absent worshipers during divine services. The idea that Moses erected a memorial to the Israelites also occurs in Mek. d\u2019Rashbi, Bahodesh 6:63b.
\n2.31.2\u20138 Philo\u2019s complicated thoughts regarding the young men performing the sacrifice may be summarized as follows: God had charged the 70 elders with one task, so they could not simultaneously carry out another. If Moses decided to summon other elders for the offering in the absence of those 70 he would offend the latter. Old men are like children\u2014both in early and advanced age, humans are not full of extreme vigor (\u201cblood\u201d) as youths, so bloody offerings befit young men. Furthermore, their unrestrained activity should be directed toward pious deeds (sacrifice, for example) to prevent them from lusting after females. The deeper meaning of the passage in Philo\u2019s interpretation continues the foregoing: the principles (logoi) forming the soul of wise and devout men are both elderly and youthful, and the latter type prevails in youngsters. Therefore, they are tending toward fitting acts (such as sacrifice) to be remembered for ages. A late Jewish tradition in Lekah Tov on Exod. 24:5 contradicts the Bible, stating that the sacrifice was performed by elders (not youths) who, in spite of their old age, carried out the task with youthful vigor.
\n2.31.2. the vision That is, the revelation of the Torah.
\n2.31.3. those who were not offering [it] with them I.e., the 70 elders.
\n2.33.2\u201317 This intricate comment is based on allegories. The two portions of the sacrificial blood, according to Philo, signify two different substances: the first part poured into craters becomes a mixture and is for humans consisting of contrary, mingled principles, whereas the blood poured on the altar is pure and, in fact, only this portion is offered to the luminous essence of God. Then Philo develops this dual symbolism: the unmixed blood allegorizes the qualities (equality, likeness, identity, and unity) characterizing the better, divine genus, while the portion poured into craters signifies the antipodes of those qualities (inequality, unlikeness, diversity, and separation) typical of the worse, human genus; the best part, as if the head, is offered to the Creator, while the rest of the body, which is inferior, is the lot of the material substances such as humans. The symbolism of odd and even numbers occurring in this comment may accordingly be explained as follows: since odd numbers cannot be divided into two equal parts, i.e., they do not consist of proportional contraries, they are unmixed and active, signifying the divine nature, whereas even numbers containing opposite portions, which contradict one another and thus force those numbers to be passive, are related to the mixed essences. Other meanings of Exod. 24:6 are revealed in the Jewish tradition. Midr. Tan. 56\u201357 states that the sacrificial blood was divided into two equal halves; this was done under the control of the angel Michael, so that there would not be a drop more in one half than in the other. Both halves were sprinkled on the altar, one to atone for the people (as a token that the Israelites would never worship idols instead of their God) and the other as a sign that God was never going to exchange the Israelites for another nation. Lev. Rab. 6.5 contains a different version, according to which the blood became two halves by itself; one half turned black and the other remained red. Moses put them into equal basins; God commanded him to sprinkle his portion on the people (cf. Exod. 24:8) and their portion on the altar. Thus, here too, as in Philo, the idea that one portion of the blood belonged to God and the other to the people is expressed (though quite differently).
\n2.34.2\u20137 Unfortunately, Philo does not discuss what \u201cthe book of the testament\u201d or \u201cthe book of the covenant\u201d that Moses read to the Israelites was (an issue regarded as quite important in Jewish tradition). Was it the whole Pentateuch or a part of it or what? He refers for such a discussion to another work of his (which does not survive), preferring, instead, to give a physical description of Moses\u2019s voice reaching the people not through the vibration of air but in a miraculous way, as a kind of continuous and lucid flow overcoming all obstacles and audible to everyone. Furthermore, he adds a metaphorical remark, imagining God privately and invisibly dictating Moses the testament, of which he conveys to the people only what they are permitted to hear.
\n2.34.2. the divine testament In Names 53, Philo mentions his discussion of the testament \u201cin two treatises\u201d, probably meaning one work in two books. Perhaps here the reference is to that lost work.
\n2.41.3\u20137 The main idea of this comment, namely the eternity of the Ten Commandments (and the Law in general, of which those commandments are the \u201cheads\u201d; cf., e.g., Decalogue 20), is expressed differently in other works of Philo. Here the hard material of the tablets, stone, is regarded as the guarantee of the commandments\u2019 incorruptibility, but allegorically the Law is immortal thanks to not being recorded on perishable materials but in the mind (see Good Person 47) or in the souls (see Spec. Laws 4.149). The practical part of what Philo says in the comment in question, i.e., the description of the reliable qualities of stone, can be paralleled with the remark in Jewish sources that the tablets were made of very hard sapphirelike stone. As to the symbolic significance of the stone tablets, in Philo\u2019s view they had twofold meaning: stone, as a symbol of strong faith and observance of those divine laws, and the tablet covered with wax, one of the usual materials for writing texts, as a symbol of disobedience to the commandments and, thereby, denial of God.
\n2.42.1. if God writes laws The question is, \u201cDoes God write laws?\u201d Here Philo comments on the second clause of Exod. 24:12, where God says he has written the Law and commandments (ton nomon kai tas entolas has egrapsa in the LXX) on the tablets (\u201cI will give you the stone tablets with the teachings and commandments that I have inscribed\u201d).
\n2.42.2. recorded in writing, not of the hands \u2026 but at his command Since the idea of God and his appearance are very abstract in Philo\u2019s works, here too, accordingly, he imagines the process of \u201clegislation\u201d as the letters forming the commandments by themselves at the divine order and not inscribed by his hand. This is a significant difference between Philo and Jewish tradition: in the latter, God sometimes has quite material features (cf. the example in comment on 2.29.3\u20134). Likewise in this case: in contrast to Philo, B. Shab. 89a, for instance, states that when Moses ascended Mount Sinai and approached God, he was adorning with crowns the letters of the Torah, which he had inscribed. God even blamed Moses for not assisting him in that labor. Or, according to B. Sanh. 111a, Moses found God sitting and writing the word \u201clong-suffering\u201d in the Torah.
\n2.45.2\u20136 Philo brings more arguments for his conception of God as incorporeal essence that can be only mentally imagined and is void of such a material quality as movement in relation to place and time. This time, he uses the LXX word \u201cglory\u201d (doxa): it was not God himself who descended on Mount Sinai but his glory (the word Shekhinah, Divine Presence, in the Hebrew Bible would hardly allow him to comment on the passage in this way). Moreover, in accordance with the immateriality and invisibleness of God, Philo considers Mount Sinai to be unapproachable (he even etymologizes \u201cSinai\u201d as \u201cinaccessible,\u201d a meaning unknown from elsewhere).
\n2.45.3. not the being of God The comment that it was not God himself who lived on the mountain has a parallel in Jewish tradition. A Tanna who flourished in the mid-2nd century CE opined that the Shekhinah never came down upon the earth; the heavenly voice heard on Mount Sinai made the false impression that God was there. Other Jewish sources, however, speak about 10 revelations of God on the earth, among which is his descent on Mount Sinai.
\n2.45.5. the mountain is quite suitable for accepting the revelation of God Philo\u2019s comment contrasts with the remark in Jewish sources that God chose Sinai because it was the smallest, most insignificant, and most humiliated among the mountains (and the others, since they were high had been used for the worship of idols).
\n2.46.2\u20137 Exodus 24:16 gives Philo another chance to accentuate the significance of the numbers 6 and 7. His juxtaposition of crucial events is quite apt and expressive: the creation of the world, including the \u201cformed\u201d earthly man, in six days on the one hand and the final election of the Israelites (as the \u201ccontemplative nation\u201d deserving to receive the Law) during the six days when Mount Sinai was covered with a cloud on the other; the birth of the \u201cheavenly\u201d man in the image of God on the seventh day of the beginning of the world and the rebirth of Moses on the seventh day of his ascension to Mount Sinai, at his entry into the cloud (when he became equal to the heavenly man).
\n2.46.6. for he is called on the seventh day The comparison between Moses\u2019s new birth \u201cwithout a mother\u201d and the \u201cvirginal\u201d essence of the number 7 becomes clearer with the help of Alleg. Interp. 1.15. Here Philo refers to the Pythagoreans who compare that number with the ever-virgin goddess born without a mother (Athena), because 7 does not generate any other number below 10 and is not generated by any of them (see note to translation of 2.46.5). Unlike Philo basing his remarks on number symbolism, Jewish sources understand the interval between Moses\u2019s ascent to the mountain and the command of God from the cloud differently, without attaching special importance to the number of days. According to S. Olam Rab. 6, B. Yoma 4b, Y. Ta\u2019an. 4:68b, and other writings, Moses needed that period to clean himself of the mortal impurity and be prepared for being taken to heaven by God.
\n2.51.2\u201310. It is not easy to follow Philo\u2019s train of thought here. He traces a twofold meaning in Exod. 25:8: first, God commands the Israelites to establish his \u201cdwelling place,\u201d the Tent of Meeting, which later on was to be replaced by the Temple, and second, the biblical verse hints at the \u201cspiritual temple,\u201d that is, the human soul that, after being purified of all mortal sins and passions, becomes worthy of receiving God. Philo understands the divine appearance in two ways. On the one hand, God is always present in the world through his beneficent powers eternally moving throughout the universe and the elements (that is why, as Philo writes in Planting 50, the world is the \u201csensible house of God,\u201d i.e., the material part of his dwelling that can be perceived by the senses). On the other hand, as an exclusive favor to the humans among all the beings, God himself with his luminous essence (\u201cthe intelligible sun\u201d) appears only to them, provided that their souls are like cleansed sanctuaries. Finally, the divine appearance takes place in the mental sphere, because God is unreachable by the senses (cf. comment on 2.29.3\u20134). While in Philo the making of the Tabernacle symbolizes the sanctification of the human soul, in Jewish tradition it is interpreted as a different allegory signifying the firmness of the world. As we read in Pesik. Rab. 5:16a, Tanh. Naso 19, Terumah 9, Tanh. B 2:94, and Shemuel 26, as soon as the sanctuary was erected, the world became steady; before that it was shaking back and forth.
\n2.52.2\u20135 This philosophical comment written in a platonistic manner represents two different aspects of the universe, inseparably connected with each other: the metaphysical world of intelligible patterns (cf. Plato\u2019s eternal ideas) and the physical world of objects perceived by the senses and reflecting the incorporeal unchangeable forms that surround the divine essence. Thus, Philo understands \u201call that I shall show you on the mountain\u201d as the mental model of the Tabernacle, which Moses (the only human being who got the opportunity to communicate with the intelligible exemplars) was to adopt on Mount Sinai, keep in mind, and then make its material copy on the earth. This dualistic conception of the Tabernacle (or the Temple) is also expressed, in a simpler, unsophisticated fashion, in Jewish tradition. Tanh. Ber. 4:35 and Tanh. Naso 11, for example, mention the heavenly temple of God, which had been erected even before the creation of the world, but, as a sign of his great love for humans, God commanded the Israelites to make an earthly dwelling place for him, so that he could live among them.
\n2.54.1. pure gold from inside and with gold from outside Cf. Exod. 25:11. The Hebrew Bible states that the Ark was to be covered with pure gold from both inside and outside, while according to Philo\u2019s comprehension of the passage in the LXX (kai katachrys\u014dseis aut\u0113n chrysi\u014d kathar\u014d, ex\u014dthen kai es\u014dthen chrys\u014dseis aut\u0113n), God demanded pure gold only for the inner surface (and ordinary gold for the outside; cf. Marcus, 2.102 n. a).
\n2.54.2\u201311 This comment is a result of Philo\u2019s original understanding (or rather misunderstanding) of Exod. 25:11 LXX: as if the gold was to be pure only for the inside, and not the outside, of the Ark (see note to translation of 2.54.1). Accordingly, he regards the two kinds of gold, pure and ordinary, as the symbols of the inner, incorporeal and outer, corporeal worlds (in other words, of the invisible human soul and the visible body) respectively. Unlike those deceivers who look attractive from outside but neglect the virtues of the soul, Moses first of all takes care of the inner chastity. Furthermore, Philo\u2019s logic is that the \u201cordinary gold,\u201d i.e., moderate external attractiveness in behavior, is sufficient to make someone perfect if his internal qualities are like pure gold. In a similar approach, Philo understands the two golden layers of the Ark as allegorizing the two aspects of human perfection in other works (e.g., Drunkenness 85\u201386 and Names 43\u201344, which do not, however, distinguish between the pure and ordinary kinds). A comment on the inner and outer gold of the Ark partly resembling Philo\u2019s symbolism can also be found in the Rabbinic tradition. For example, B. Yoma 72b says that the inside of a scholar studying the Torah must be like his outside (i.e., both must be chaste), or else he will not be a scholar and, moreover, he will be corrupt. In some Jewish commentaries the description of the Ark\u2019s construction does not coincide with the biblical version. The same Rabbinic source, for instance, delineates the Ark as consisting of three separate caskets: one wooden in the middle, nine spans high; one golden inside, eight spans high; and another golden one outside, 10 spans plus a fractional part high. Thus, here the two gold layers of the Ark have become separate golden caskets.
\n2.62.2\u20138 The same etymology and symbolism, with slight differences, occurs in Philo\u2019s Moses 2.97\u2013100. There, briefly stating that the Hebrew word \u201ccherubim\u201d means \u201cmuch recognition and knowledge\u201d in Greek, he disagrees with \u201csome\u201d who interpret the figures of the two cherubim on the cover of the Ark as the symbols of the two hemispheres (one beneath the earth and the other above the earth, since the whole heaven has wings). Philo offers, instead, his own symbolism, namely, that the two cherubim allegorize the two most ancient and supreme powers of God, creative and kingly: by the former he has created the universe and by the latter he justly rules over all the beings of the world. While Philo regards the two cherubim as the symbols of the two aspects of the divine power, that midrashic comment attributes the allegory of the might of God to only one of them; the number of the cherubim corresponds, besides the two tables, also to the two holy names of God, Adonai and Elohim, which describe him as benevolent and as powerful.
\n2.62.2. much recognition In an attempt to explain Philo\u2019s etymology of \u201ccherubim,\u201d Stein supposes that, in Philo\u2019s view, \u201ccherubim\u201d consists of the Hebrew words hakkir (to recognize) and bin (knowledge) or rabbim (much).
\n2.62.7. the ancients spoke of creating as \u201cputting\u201d Philo builds this comment on the similarity between the aorist infinitive theinai of the Gk. verb tith\u0113mi and theos (God). The first meaning of tith\u0113mi is \u201cto put,\u201d but it also means \u201cto make, to cause\u201d (cf. LSJ s.v. tith\u0113mi C2) and so can be connected with the creative power. Philo mentions the relationship between theos and tith\u0113mi elsewhere too (e.g., Moses 2.99).
\n2.66.2\u20136 According to the LXX, \u201cthe faces\u201d of the cherubim were to be \u201ctoward each other,\u201d at the same time being directed \u201ctoward the mercy seat\u201d; in other words, they were to look simultaneously at each other and at the mercy seat. Accordingly, in the Greek fragment of this section, the word ekneu\u014d (to turn the head) is used in the question (ta pros\u014dpa eis all\u0113la ekneuei, \u201cthe faces are turned toward each other\u201d), which the Armenian translator simply rendered \u201clook\u201d (hayin): \u201cthe faces of the cherubim look at each other, and both, at the mercy seat.\u201d Based on this description in the LXX, Philo once again represents the harmonious allegory of the two separate but inseparable powers of God (cf. comment on 2.62.2\u20138), which are in concord (they peacefully look at each other) and unity (they both look at the mercy seat), having joined their benevolent efforts to do good. The picture is a bit different in the Hebrew Bible, which reads: \u201cThey shall confront each other, the faces of the cherubim being turned toward the cover.\u201d It is not clear whether the cherubim, looking at the cover (= the mercy seat in the LXX) also look at each other. Rabbi Johanan and Rabbi Eleazar argue on this question in B. BB 99a. The former says that the cherubim faced each other, while the latter objects that their faces \u201cwere inward.\u201d The solution to this dispute is that the faces of the cherubim were not always in the same position: when the Israelites obeyed the will of God (\u201cthe Omnipresent\u201d), the cherubim looked at each other in agreement; but when Israel disobeyed his will, their faces \u201cwere inward.\u201d
\n2.68.2\u201315 Philo, at other places (e.g., QG 4.2) speaking of the Triad consisting of God himself together with the creative and kingly powers, here describes a more complicated six-grade hierarchy of the divine aspects plus \u201cthe intelligible world\u201d completing the hebdomad. That world of ideas, according to him, is symbolized by both the Ark, excluding the cover, and its contents, i.e., the Law. As to the upper component of the Ark, that is, the cover or the mercy seat, Philo divides it into four parts denoting a fourfold allegory. The highest, immaterial part is above the cover; it hosts and at the same time symbolizes the supreme Divine Essence (referred to as \u201cthe Speaker\u201d), who is invisible and inaudible but dictates the words addressed to Moses. The second part, lower in rank, is \u201cthe middle\u201d of the mercy seat, the place of the Divine Logos, mentioned together with the Voice and thus being endowed with a certain sense-perceptible quality (audibility); it is the Logos that audibly speaks to Moses. Finally, the inferior side parts of the cover, on the right and left of the middle, are represented by the figures of the cherubim: each of them allegorizes two divine powers (a main power and its subordinate). The main powers, equal in rank, are the creative and the kingly, and their derivatives are the beneficent (or propitious) and the legislative (or chastening) powers respectively. Jewish sources, too, comment on \u201cfrom above the cover, from between the two cherubim,\u201d but not in a complicated context of symbols as it does Philo. B. Suk. 5a, for example, explains \u201cfrom above the cover\u201d as simply a certain height (10 spans, because the Ark was nine spans and its cover was one span) below which God would not come down to the earth. Rabbi Jose explains, referring to Ps. 115:16 (\u201cthe heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he gave over to men\u201d), that the Shekhinah never descended directly on the earth and Moses and Elijah never ascended heaven; even Exod. 19:20, \u201cThe LORD came down upon Mount Sinai,\u201d means that he did not come down lower than 10 spans.
\n2.68.8\u20139 For the three aspects of God, the Divine Triad, cf. QG 4.2 and the comment there.
\n2.68.13. is superior [to them] Philo wishes to say that the Logos is superior to the other symbols, while the Speaker is superior to the Logos (cf. 2.68.5). Marcus (2.117 n. g) takes the Armenian term here to be a corruption of a verb meaning \u201cthere appears,\u201d because the Greek fragment reads hypemphainetai (there appears). But the Armenian verb also means \u201cto be superior to,\u201d which perfectly fits the context of the whole sentence.
\n2.78.2\u20133 The comparison of the lampstand with the planets is a commonplace in biblical commentaries, including the Midrashim. Its seven branches are regarded as symbols of the seven planets in Tadshe 11, Tanhuma Beha\u2019aloteka 6, and Yal. 1:219. Philo himself discusses this symbolism in more detail in other treatises (e.g., Heir 221\u201325; Moses 2.103; and Spec. Laws 1.13\u201314).
\n2.79.2\u20134 Since the seven lamps imitate the seven planets, which also give light but only from the Southern Hemisphere, the lampstand, too, gives light from one, southern side. In Moses 2.102, Philo represents the same notion, adding that the sun, moon, and other planets revolving in the south are very far from the northern regions of the universe. Therefore, the lampstand was placed at the southern side of the Tabernacle. Similar concepts (which, however, do not associate the \u201cone-sided\u201d light with the planets) are expressed in Jewish sources too. Tadshe 11 writes that the only light is in the south: it is the light of the Shekhinah. B. BB 25b says that if someone wishes to become wise, he should pray toward the south (i.e., toward the light of wisdom), and he who desires to become rich should turn to the north when praying. This is symbolized by the lampstand placed to the south of the altar in the Tabernacle and by the table (as a sign of wealth) on the northern side.
\n2.82.2\u20135 As in 2.52 and Moses 2.74, once again Philo believes that on Mount Sinai God showed Moses the immaterial models of the Tabernacle and its furnishings, which the prophet beheld with the eyes of his soul and then, after descent, ordered the Israelites to make them in accordance with those incorporeal patterns. Unlike Philo, Exod. Rab. 40:2 speaks of material vessels of the Tabernacle that Moses saw on the mountain as the model forms of the future sacred objects.
\n2.82.3. for the former is the pattern and seal and measure of the visible [heaven] Philo means that the incorporeal heaven is the pattern, seal, and measure of the corporeal one.
\n2.83.2\u20136 The first part of this comment (83.2\u20133) continues the theme of immaterial and material worlds in connection with the Tabernacle, this time represented by the Ark and the table respectively (see comment on 2.79.2\u20134). To the symbols of the incorporeal and corporeal worlds Philo also adds a third one, the lampstand (with its seven lamps) allegorizing the heaven (with its seven planets), and then concludes that the portable earthly Tabernacle of God is a part of the changeable world. Thus, he again alludes to the idea that the sanctuary the Israelites made was a reflection of the heavenly pattern. The allegorical meaning of the Tabernacle is interpreted variously in Jewish sources as a symbolic image of the human body or as a representation of heaven and what it contains. Philo\u2019s comment about the dwelling of God being like the wilderness tents finds a parallel in Gen. Rab. 3:9, which says that since the beginning of creation God was eager to enter into partnership with mortals and that this was realized when the Tabernacle was made and he got the chance to dwell among the people.
\n2.83.4. certain imitation Philo probably means that the Tabernacle was made in the likeness of other tabernacles in the desert.
\n2.101.2\u20139 Though Philo\u2019s first explanation of why the altar had horns is based on Deut. 14:4\u20135, here, too, we should emphasize his originality. He regards the horns as the main distinguishing feature of the 10 eatable animals (in Deut. 14:6, that feature is the divided hoof), and thereby the altar\u2019s horns become a reminder of the rule that only horned animals may be eaten. The other two explanations are also quite original: the four horns were directed toward the four sides of the world and thus invited everyone from everywhere to sacrifice on that altar; and, finally, the horns of the altar, as those of the animals, grew directly from it and were a defensive means against enemies (unrighteous sacrificers), goring and opening their sinful souls. In Jewish tradition, the four horns are discussed, for instance, in Tanhuma Terumah 10, according to which those symbols were to atone for the sins of the people who on Mount Sinai had received \u201cthe horn of the Torah,\u201d \u201cthe horn of the Shekhinah,\u201d \u201cthe horn of the Priesthood,\u201d and \u201cthe horn of the Kingdom.\u201d<\/p>\n
On the Creation of the World<\/p>\n
David T. Runia<\/p>\n
On the Creation of the World (De opificio mundi) is Philo\u2019s best-known work and stands at the beginning of all editions and translations of his writings. It is the opening work of the series Exposition of the Law. In it, Philo gives a selective exegesis of the first three chapters of Genesis up to the expulsion from paradise. He argues that before we are ready to understand the Law as it applies to human beings, we must first have an understanding of the Law in its cosmic context, since there is a direct correlation between the Law of God for humanity and the law of nature for the cosmos as the totality of the physical world (Creation 3). This correlation goes right back to the way in which the cosmos was created. The cosmos was first conceived as a plan in the divine Logos, Philo\u2019s term for God\u2019s thinking in relation to the world (\u00a716). God\u2019s plan unfolds in the works of the six days of Creation, which are not to be taken literally, but rather as indicating the cosmos\u2019s order and structure (\u00a713). Because humanity is created \u201cafter the image of God,\u201d that is, in relation to his Logos (\u00a725), human beings possess the faculty of reason (\u00a769) and can understand the rationale behind the Law. The influence of the passions, and especially of desire, has caused human beings to turn away from God (\u00a7152). Understanding of the main lessons taught by Moses in the Creation account will allow them to achieve \u201ca blessed life of well-being, marked as he is by the doctrines of piety and holiness\u201d (\u00a7172, final words of the treatise).
\nIn giving its exegesis of the Mosaic Creation account, the treatise touches on many important theological, cosmological, and anthropological themes. The chief of these is the theme of God\u2019s sovereign power. Only God can create the universe (\u00a723), using his incomparable power (\u00a721). Unlike the Bible, however, Philo does give a reason why God created the cosmos. He did so because he was good (\u00a721), the same reason that Plato gave in his cosmological dialogue, the Timaeus (29e). The cosmos, as created through the divine Logos, is an ordered reality. The six days of the Creation account symbolically tell us much about that order (\u00a713). Order is expressed in numbers, which are heavily emphasized in Philo\u2019s exegesis (\u00a7\u00a713, 15). Philo\u2019s doctrine of human nature is basically dualistic, contrasting body and mind (or spirit). The human intellect can range far and even tries to gain a vision of God (\u00a771). But human beings living on earth consist of body and soul, infused by the divine spirit (\u00a7135). Because God created the cosmos and humanity, God\u2019s providence takes care of both, like a parent looking after children (\u00a7\u00a75, 171). This is the final of the five lessons with which Philo ends the treatise (\u00a7\u00a7170\u201372).
\nFor more on Philo, see the essay \u201cThe Writings of Philo,\u201d elsewhere in these volumes.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
Philo\u2019s treatise is the first example of a new genre of biblical exegesis, the hexaemeral literature, that is, works explaining the six days of Creation. This genre continued to be written until the Middle Ages. Philo\u2019s exegetical themes found their way into Christian writings, for example, in those of the church fathers Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine. Even in the 17th century, Sir Isaac Newton was an avid reader of Philo\u2019s writings. They were not, however, used by later Jewish interpreters. Because the center of Jewish exegetical activity after Philo shifted to Palestine and Babylonia, where the Rabbis (who wrote in Hebrew and Aramaic and not in Greek) were less interested in philosophical exegesis, and because Christians preserved and used Philo\u2019s writings, his hexaemeral (and other) writings had more influence on Christians than on Jews.<\/p>\n
GUIDE TO READING<\/p>\n
Philo\u2019s treatise is a commentary on the Creation account in Gen. 1\u20133, which he regards as the work of the prophet and lawgiver Moses. But it is not a running commentary on every word of the text. Instead Philo starts with an introductory section (\u00a7\u00a71\u201312), followed by \u201cchapters\u201d that cite small sections of the text, but generally assume the reader\u2019s familiarity with the biblical text as a whole. When reading, therefore, it is important at all times to bear in mind the biblical text on which Philo is commenting.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses. Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 1. Leiden: Brill, 2002; Atlanta: SBL, 2005.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
Title The treatise is usually referred to by a Latin title used from the 16th century onward, De opificio mundi (On the manufacture of the world). The ancient Greek title is more complete (On the creation of the cosmos according to Moses), specifically drawing attention to the authorship of Moses. It is important to recognize that Philo regards Moses as the author of the Creation account in Gen. 1\u20133.
\n1. the other lawgivers Philo begins the treatise with an apologetic theme. Moses, the lawgiver of the Jews, is superior to other lawgivers. No doubt he has especially Greek lawgivers in mind. Early statesmen and philosophers who are recorded as lawgivers are Lycurgus (Sparta), Solon (Athens), Pythagoras (Croton), and Parmenides (Elea). Later philosophers wrote treatises containing idealized constitutions. Famous examples are Plato\u2019s Republic and Laws and the Republic of Zeno, founder of the Stoic school. Philo probably has Plato\u2019s Laws in mind when he thinks of works with a \u201cmass of verbiage.\u201d
\n2. Moses surpassed both groups In Philo\u2019s On the Life of Moses, he presents Moses as king, lawgiver, priest, and prophet. Moses\u2019s role as lawgiver is consistent with Greek ideas about the founder of a community. The same emphasis is found in Philo\u2019s predecessor Aristobulus (frag. 2\u20134) and Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.154\u2013286.
\nnor did he \u2026 invent myths Philo frequently denounces the falsehood of humanly fabricated myths, such as those of Greeks or Egyptians, because they inevitably involved an erroneous theology. In this he followed not only the critiques of idolatry in the Bible, but also the lead of Plato, who in his Republic strongly criticizes the poets for blasphemous stories about the gods and forbids them from being told in his ideal state; see Rep. 377b\u2013383c.
\n3. The beginning is \u2026 quite marvelous Philo has to explain why the Pentateuch, called the Law (Nomos) in Greek, starts with an account of Creation and of the early history of the human race and the Jewish people.
\nthe cosmos is in harmony with the law Philo here presumes the Stoic theory of natural law. Cosmic law is identified with the rational logos, or divine principle that pervades the cosmos, and is responsible for its order and structure. There is thus in Philo\u2019s view a direct connection between the cosmos\u2019s structure and role of law in human life. If you obey the law, you can live an ordered life, in which you will feel at home in the universe as a whole. You can thus become a kosmopolit\u0113s, a \u201ccitizen of the world.\u201d
\n5. we must dare to speak In the second part of his introduction, Philo touches on the method he will use. He is no more than an interpreter of Scripture who merely tries to explain the wealth of thought in his text without imposing any of his own ideas on it. But, we are obliged to say, this is a delusion, because the commentator always brings his own ideas to the text. For example, Philo\u2019s reading of the Genesis account is heavily influenced by his own reading of Greek philosophical works, such as Plato\u2019s Timaeus.
\na love and desire for wisdom Indirectly Philo is speaking about himself here. He feels this love and desire himself, and it spurs him on. But \u201cwisdom\u201d is ambiguous here. It could refer to the wisdom sought by philosophers such as Plato in his dialogues, or it could refer to the hidden depth of Scripture. Moses is initiated in both, as we shall read in Creation 8. Philo is convinced that both ultimately reach the same goal, knowledge of God. See further the passionate description of the ascent of the intellect in \u00a7\u00a769\u201371.
\n6. the tiniest seal Philo compares the wonderful contents of the Creation account with his own feeble efforts as commentator. In both cases there is a vast reduction of scale.
\na preliminary remark This announces the following section (\u00a7\u00a77\u201312), which lays a philosophical foundation for the rest of the commentary.
\n7. There are some people Philo first presents how one should not think about the relationship between God the creator and the cosmos as created reality. The chief Greek philosopher who defends the eternity of the cosmos is Aristotle. Philo probably does not have him in view, but rather a particular religious mentality that he associates with the Chaldeans. Their mistake is to give too much honor to the cosmos, even thinking it to be a god, and not enough to God himself.
\nMaker and Father These terms are used by Plato to describe the so-called Demiurge, the creator figure in his cosmological account in the Timaeus (28c3). Of course they also have a biblical background, although the metaphor of God as Father is less common in the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint than in the New Testament.
\n8. the very summit of philosophy \u2026 oracles Philo here summarizes the two main sources of Moses\u2019s supreme knowledge. \u201cPhilosophy\u201d represents the peak of human attainment. The instruction by means of \u201coracles\u201d indicates the knowledge he reveals in his writings also had a divine source.
\nit is absolutely necessary At first glance this statement might seem dualistic, as if there are two principles in reality, God and matter. But it must be noted that only God is presented here as a cause. In fact there is only one principle.
\nintellect Philo takes over the Greek philosophical view of God as nous, who creates through the use of his rational powers, identified below in \u00a720 as his logos. See also \u00a769.
\neven superior to the good For Plato, the Good was the supreme principle (Resp. 509b). For Philo, God is superior. This change gives rise to the question of the relationship between God and the Platonic ideas, to be answered in Creation 16.
\n9. when set in motion We note that Philo does not tell us where the material basis for the cosmos came from. It is doubtful that he held the doctrine of \u201ccreation from nothing,\u201d which later became standard in both Jewish and Christian thought. But this question remains controversial among scholars.
\nprovidence The doctrine of providence is extremely important for Philo, who even devoted two whole treatises to the subject, preserved only in an Armenian translation (with some Greek fragments). See the Loeb Classical Library Philo. The doctrine of providence is the obverse of the doctrine of creation. Once the world has been created, it needs to continue its existence, which can happen only if God takes care of it. See also \u00a7171, where Philo writes: \u201cthat the maker always takes care of what has come into existence is a necessity by the laws and ordinances of nature, in accordance with which parents too take care of their children\u201d, i.e. providence is built into the very structure of created reality and the care that parents lavish on their children is a case where human beings imitate God the creator.
\n10. Reason demands The argument here uses an analogy from our own experience. Parents produce children, and craftsmen produce works of art. In both cases they look after what they have made. God does the same. But God would not do so if he had not been the world\u2019s Maker. This is why Philo\u2019s opponents eliminate the doctrine of providence. But Philo\u2019s opponents deny that the world has a creator, and so necessarily eliminate the doctrine that God the creator takes care of His creation.
\n11. a worthless and unhelpful doctrine The denial that the world is created and is cared for by the God who created it.
\nin a city Philo will return to this metaphor below in \u00a718. The term \u201cpower vacuum\u201d translates an-archia, literally, \u201ca situation without rule or authority [arch\u0113].\u201d As a member of the ruling elite, Philo is afraid of the disorder that can occur when social pressures build up and events spin out of control. This happened in the notorious pogrom against the Jews in Alexandria in 38 CE. (See the essay \u201cThe Writings of Philo,\u201d elsewhere in these volumes.)
\n12. the great Moses It is typical of Philo\u2019s method that he attributes these philosophical ideas to Moses. They are derived, however, from Greek philosophy. In this case he paraphrases a statement that Plato makes in Tim. 27d\u201328a.
\nwhat is ungenerated In Plato the contrast is between the realm of being\u2014that is, intelligible entities that have an absolute existence and can be perceived only by the intellect\u2014and becoming\u2014that is, the realm of physical or sense-perceptible entities. Philo subtly changes this to the contrast between God and the physical world of created reality. God is eternal and not created by any superior being; the cosmos comes into being through the act of creation carried out by God.
\nthe appropriate name \u201cbecoming\u201d A clear reference to the title of the first book of Moses in the Septuagint, Genesis. In contrast to the Hebrew Bible\u2014in which each of the Five Books of Moses receives its name from one of the opening words, the Septuagint follows Greek practice and gives its books thematic names. It suits Philo\u2019s program of philosophical exegesis extremely well that the title of the first book is actually a key philosophical concept. Genesis means \u201cbecoming,\u201d the kind of existence that Plato and other philosophers attribute to the world of physical reality.
\n13. in six days No commentator can avoid the question of what Moses meant by his seven-day scheme of Creation, a unique feature of the biblical Creation account. It is not surprising that Philo does not take the days at face value, for a literal interpretation gives rise to many questions from a logical point of view, e.g., how can there be days before there are heavenly bodies to indicate them. Similarly, in Greek philosophy there had been numerous discussions about whether Plato in his account of the creation of the world in the Timaeus meant it to be taken literally or not.
\nNumber is inherent in order Throughout his works Philo shows a great interest in arithmology, that is, the science of numbers. He generally interprets numbers symbolically as representing key features of the reality they describe. Much of his number lore is taken from Greek sources.
\nsix Since no creation takes place on the seventh day, six is the number of creation. Philo sees a connection between two features of the number six and the created cosmos: the process of generation and its state of perfection.
\nodd \u2026 and \u2026 even The association of odd with male and even with female goes back to Pythagorean thought; see Aristotle, Metaph. A 5, 986a25. According to Plutarch, one of the reasons is anatomical (see Mor. 288D).
\n14. as the most perfect The Greek adjective teleios means both perfect and complete. Just like the number six, the cosmos consists of the totality of its parts (6 = 3 + 2 + 1) and also the product of its parts (6 = 3 \u00d7 2 \u00d7 1).
\n15. making an exception for the first Philo here introduces his remarkable exegesis of \u201cday one\u201d of creation. As we shall see in Creation 16, on this day not the physical world, but its blueprint, the intelligible cosmos (see the comment below), is created.
\nhe gives it the accurate name \u201cone\u201d Philo has noted that in Gen. 1:5 the text reads literally h\u0113mera mia, \u201cday one\u201d; that is, the cardinal and not the ordinal number is used. This is in fact a Hebraism, but Philo uses it to his philosophical advantage, taking it as evidence for the separate status of what is created on that day.
\n15. the intelligible cosmos By the time of Philo, Platonism had developed the doctrine of two worlds: the intelligible world and the sense-perceptible world. The former was nonphysical and nontemporal, perceived only by the intellect. It formed the model or plan for the physical world, which was always in a state of becoming or change. The basic idea for the doctrine came from Plato\u2019s Timaeus, where the creating deity, called the Demiurge (literally, craftsman), contemplates a model before ordering the chaotic situation that he confronts (see Tim. 29e\u201331a). Plato himself does not use the term \u201cintelligible cosmos.\u201d Philo\u2019s On the Creation of the World is the earliest text in which it is found, but there is no need to conclude that Philo invented it. He would have taken it over from contemporary Platonist writings. The intelligible cosmos forms a much tighter unity than the physical world, because there is no dislocation in space. For this reason it is symbolized by the number one or the monad.
\n16. a beautiful copy \u2026 a beautiful model The language of Platonism. See the previous comment. The term \u201cmodel\u201d is paradeigma, from which our word paradigm is derived.
\nhe first marked out the intelligible cosmos Is there anything in the biblical text to justify Philo\u2019s extremely bold interpretation of a separate creation of a different kind of cosmos on \u201cday one\u201d? In his defense we might point out that the heaven is not formed until the second day and the earth until the third day. So there is a kind of \u201cdoubling up\u201d in the creation account that needs to be explained (i.e., the heaven and the earth are mentioned as being created both on the first and on subsequent days).
\n17. in some place Philo has to explain that this other world is not physical.
\nto an image drawn from our own world This remarkable extended image gives a splendid picture of Hellenistic civic life. There are good reasons for thinking that Philo has the foundation of his own city, Alexandria, in mind. See my article, \u201cPolis and Megalopolis: Philo and the Founding of Alexandria,\u201d Mnemosyne 42 (1989), 398\u2013412.
\na king or a ruler \u2026 a trained architect Two traditions had arisen about the founding of Alexandria. In the first, Alexander himself takes the initiative, laying out the outline of the city with flour; see the account in Arrian, Anab. 3.1\u20132. In the second, he makes use of the services of a trained architect, Dinocrates of Rhodes; see Vitruvius, Book 2, preface. Philo follows the second tradition. Note that in the image there are three roles\u2014the king who supplies the opportunity, the architect who does the planning, and the builder who executes the project\u2014and only two separate persons. This may be theologically significant, suggesting that the distinction between God and his logos is only conceptual. Cf. the text in Gen. Rab. 1.1 on the same text in Gen. 1:1: \u201cIn the way of the world, a human king who builds a palace does not build it on his own but with the advice of an architect and the architect does not build it from his mind but rather has plans and diagrams to how to build rooms and entrances. So too the Holy One, blessed by He, looked into the Torah and created the world.\u201d Here too there is a separation of roles, but it would be wrong to say that a plurality of creators was involved. Significantly, the plan of creation is here identified with the Torah and not a philosophical concept such the intelligible cosmos. This text is attributed to Rabbi Hoshai\u2019a of Caesarea. It may be assumed that he is quietly correcting Philo\u2019s image, so we have here one of the rare occasions in which a Rabbi made use of Philo\u2019s writings. Hoshai\u2019a was a friend of the church father Origen and it is likely that he gained knowledge of Philo\u2019s treatise through his mediation. See further D. T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: a Survey (Minneapolis: Assen, 1993) 14.
\nfavorable climate and location Alexandria was famed for its advantageous location on the edge of the Eastern Mediterranean.
\n18. the intelligible city as an image The plan in the architect\u2019s head corresponds to the intelligible cosmos that God uses as the plan for Creation.
\n19. The conception we have concerning God Here we get the application of the image to the Genesis Creation account. In Plato, the world of transcendent ideas is separate from the creating deity. Philo changes this, so that the plan of Creation is formed in the mind of God. This change reflects developments in Platonist doctrine, in which the ideas become the objects of divine thought. Philo, however, is more radical, because he makes them the contents of \u201cday one\u201d of Creation; that is, they are actually created by God.
\n20. the city \u2026 had no location This answers the question in Creation 16. The creation of \u201cday one\u201d has no physical location, but is located metaphysically in God.
\nno other place than the divine Logos This is the first mention of the figure of the Logos in the treatise. The doctrine of the Logos is one of the most famous in Philo\u2019s thought, particularly because of its significance for understanding the genesis of Christian doctrine. In general the term covers that aspect of God that is directed toward creation, whether conceptually, as here in the creation of the intelligible cosmos as \u201cblueprint\u201d for Creation, or as active agent in the ordering of the physical world and its administration. In this context the Logos\u2019s role can be described as that of God\u2019s reason (we recall that in \u00a78 God was described as intellect; cf. also \u00a769 below). But the term logos is interesting because it retains the link to speech (hence the common translation of John 1:1 as \u201cIn the beginning was the Word\u201d) and by implication to the formula \u201cAnd God said\u201d that is so common in the Creation account.
\nhis Powers Philo also has a doctrine of the divine Powers, which he associates with the names of God. The name God (theos) indicates God\u2019s creative Power, the name LORD (kyrios) his ruling Power. These powers are linked with the divine qualities of beneficence and punishment (e.g. at Spec. Laws 1.307). This association also calls to mind the Rabbinic concept of the divine middot, or attributes, of mercy and justice, which the Rabbis associate with God\u2019s names. Interestingly,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Samson the biblical story is transferred from a rural to an urban environment whose milieu is suggestive of a city in the Greek-speaking world during the Roman period, in particular, Alexandria. An Alexandrian setting for the text\u2019s composition also comports with these homilies having been transmitted together with Philo\u2019s writings. Significance Siegert regards the art … <\/p>\n