Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria: Evidence from Philo's 'Quarrelsome' Colleahues Author(s): Maren R.

Niehoff Source: The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 1 (May, 2007), pp. 166-182 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4493482 . Accessed: 26/07/2013 08:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Classical 57.1 166-182(2007)Printed in GreatBritain Quarterly doi:10.1017/S0009838807000158

166

HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS IN ANCIENT ALEXANDRIA: EVIDENCE FROM PHILO'S 'QUARRELSOME' COLLEAGUES
Philo of Alexandria provides important, yet hitherto overlooked, evidence concerning the relationship between Homeric scholarship and Bible exegesis. While rejecting critical inquiries into Scripture, he offers crucial glimpses into a now lost world of Jewish scholarship.' In this article I wish to draw attention to a group of literal exegetes whom Philo dismissed as 'quarrelsome'.2 Despite the highly fragmentary character of the evidence we can reconstruct the academic profile of these exegetes by comparing their work to the scholia on the Iliad.3 I shall argue that there were Jewish exegetes who applied text-critical methods from Homeric scholarship to the Hebrew Bible. Aristarchus was their model. Some ancient Jews regarded their Scriptures as parallel to Homer's epics, addressing for the first time in Judaism serious text-critical issues.4

* This researchwas supportedby the ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (grant no. madevaluable commentson a draftof this articleand provided 810/03).MargalitFinkelberg materialsfrom her privatelibrary.This articlecould not have been writtenwithout Yehuda I joinedhis studygroupon theIliad,profiting Liebes. fromhis vastknowledge of the immensely someof thetranslations andmaking other epic.Liebesalso reada draftof thisarticle, improving valuable comments. reader of theCQfor Last,butnot least,I wouldliketo thankthe anonymous constructive comments. 1 ConcerningPhilo's position, see: A. Kamesar,'The logos endiathetosand the logos in allegorical Philo andthe D-scholiato the Iliad',GRBS44 (2004), prophorikos interpretation: in the D-scholia;id., 163-81,who pointsto a parallelbetweena Philonicallegoryand material andthe narrative in J. C. ReevesandJ.Kampen the 'Philo,Grammatike aggada', (edd.),Pursuing that'Philodoes for theStudyof theOldTestament, suppl.184(Sheffield, 1994),223,who stresses not practice an exegesis of the "classical" Alexandrian variety'. 2 Otherliteralexegetes will be treated in a separate Thusfar,attentionhas been monograph.
Literatur(Lwow, paid to them by E. Stein, AlttestamentlicheBibelkritik in der spdthellenistischen Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His SeventiethBirthday,Journal

1935), 4-10; A. Kamesar,'The literarygenres of the Pentateuchas seen from the Greek thetestimony of Philoof Alexandria', Studia Philonica Annual 9 (1997),170-1;M. J. perspective: 'Alexandrian Jewishliteralists',JBL 55.4 (1936), 261-84, whose analysisis severely Shroyer, of theseexegeteswith a partyof pious and evenfundamencompromised by his identification talistJews. 3 Thisreconstruction takesseriously into accountthe factthatonlya selectamountof ancient sourceshas survived. Readagainstthe grain,the extantwritings throwat leastsomelighton the Seealso the finetheoretical discussion 'Alexandrian Judaism: original variety. by A. K. Petersen, a problematic cultural andG. Hinge rethinking category' 2008),in J. Krasilnikoff (forthcoming,
(edd.), Alexandria as a CulturalMelting Pot of Antiquity,ASMA 9 (Aarhus, 2006); A. Kovelman, Between Alexandria and Jerusalem: The Dynamic of Jewish and Hellenistic Culture (Leiden,

a literalJewishreadingof Gen. 2.21 in 2005), 80-1, who uses Eus.PE 12.12.1-3to reconstruct the lightof Plato'sSymposium. 4 The possibilityof criticalBible study in the Hellenisticperiod is often ignored;see e.g in a Hellenistic Jewish BiblelOld 'Early interpretation style',in M. Saebo(ed.),Hebrew E Siegert, of the Greekmind. the Jewswere'not infected by thiscriticalspirit'
Testament. The History of Interpretation(Gdttingen, 1996), 1.130-35, 164, who suggested that

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS

167

Furthermore, the evidence from Philo suggests that Aristarchus enjoyed popularity in various scholarly circles.5 During the Augustan period Aristonicus and Didymus recorded and discussed Aristarchus' work, drawing new attention to him and producing a student as famous as Philo's contemporary Apion.6 Jewish participation in this scholarly discourse may throw new light on the intellectual world of Homer's Greek readers. Before analysing Philo's report about his 'quarrelsome' colleagues, we have to appreciate his own views on the application of Homeric hermeneutics in order to evaluate the nature and reliability of his testimony. While praising Homer as the foremost poet, 'most highly esteemed among the Greeks', Philo hardly mentioned the study of his works.7Important insight, however, may be gained from an investigation into the classical terms of Homeric scholarship, namely ?iqyr"Taand Jir6propla. Philo occasionally tolerated or even welcomed an inquiry into Scripture that was based on these techniques of Homeric scholarship. This was the case when the questions did not challenge the basic unity, value and authenticity of the canonical text.8 Suffice it here to discuss two examples, both of which are taken from the context of man's creation (LXX Gen. 1.26-7). Philo approvingly mentions a q'rlCqa on man's place in the creation, which had been discussed by some of his colleagues: 7") EUTLv Ipc vp7To T" rTOV, Ko"Crpov T,)v alTl-av, (' ,v"o-`ar6v Someone might inquire into the reasond why it is that man was created last with regard thepa to fLSvtOVuW, EtpyauaTO. A7YO rVAU 01) T V/tow ~7risrXE/ovqfga~vZvaVTES KClL 'r& KCLT or W OaVTOV9 aVTOi3 EVL UT1)L VLE7 La7EWSaKpL/3OvvTE , TSp) E/kE ws ETramp UVYYEVElCSr tg aplOTS)(S v 0 OEOS cLOpWS7Tw) TSp) AoytK?S, PLETa5O.I6S 57, Ot(E TW -7q'T "UpTWEW a"AAwv 9V a El 9aATa'TWc w T O) VTp 7TpOLp.C/uaTO AA'C04 Ta o0v0"VE1, O1KELtoTa.TW KatO STa) KO/V /I av5TOv atW TpoS TE TON arop-qig7cL 57 V Kat To E) 7NV. fEvO& YEVOIJEvO /ovA'r7lE'S Someonemightinquireinto the reasonwhy it is that man was createdlast with regardto the creationof the cosmos for, as the holy writingsreveal,the Creatorand Fathermade him last afterall the others.Indeed,those who immerse themselves furtherin the Lawsand investigate influencein scholarly circlesmustbe distinguished fromhis influenceon the 5 Aristarchus' betweenAristarchus' and at vulgatetext of the Iliad.Didymusalready distinguished readings "5ELS (schol. Il. 5.881). See also M. L. West, Studies in the Text KoLval(schol.11. 5.797) or a' qtbk andTransmission and of theIliad(Munich-Leipzig, 2001),50-2, 61-7; id., 'Thetextualcriticism
editing of Homer', in G. W Most, Editing Texts: Texte edieren, Aporemata 2 (G6ttingen, 1998), 6 'iV T 'E7TtLSyUEELE t'

Aristarchus' influence on the numerus M. Finkelberg showedthat 99, wherehe stresses versuum; Aristarchus hardlyinfluencedthe readingsof the Homerictext, while he did have a crucial ' "Sheturnsaboutin the samespotandwatches versuum impacton the numerus (M. Finkelberg, for Orion": ancientcriticism and exegesisof Od. 5.274 = Il. 18.488',GRBS44 (2004),231-44; textsandthe circulation of books:the caseof Homer',GRBS46 (2006),231-48; ead., 'Regional see also K. McNamee,'Aristarchos and "Everyman's" Homer',GRBS22 (1981),247-55;J. I. lines and circles:Aristarchos and Crateson the exegesisof Homer',in Porter,'Hermeneutic
R. Lamberton and J. J. Keaney (edd.), Homer's Ancient Readers.:The Hermeneutics of Greek Epic's Earliest Exegetes (Princeton, 1992), 68-9. 6 West (n. 5), 46-85; P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), 1.463-5. R. Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind. Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt Stroumsa (edd.), Homer, the Bible and Beyond (Leiden, 2003), 75-96.

termsto his 'reading andstudy onlyin general 7 Philo,Mut. 179,see also Abr.10;Philorefers of thewritings of thepoets'(Congr. in grammar; seealso 74)in thecontextof his owninstruction 'Homeras a foundation (Princeton-Oxford, 2001),194-7;M. Finkelberg, text',in ead.andG. G.

see M. R. Niehoff,'Questions andanswers in PhiloandGenesisRabbah', 8 Fordetails, Studia Philonica Annual(2007),forthcoming; on Philo'sformulation of canonicity, see ead., Philo on Jewish andCulture Identity 2001), 187-209;Siegert(n. 4), 172-6. (Tiibingen,

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

168

MAREN R. NIEHOFF

andwithall scrutiny, as muchas is possible, into thethingsconcerning them,saythat thoroughly to the logicalfaculty, God aftergivingmana sharein his kinshipwithregard whichwasthe best himanyof the otherseither, of all gifts,did not begrudge but prepared in the cosmos everything forhimas forthemostfamiliar andbelovedcreature, he should wishingthatuponbeingcreated not lackanything needfulto liveandto livewell. 77)9 (Opif. Philo has nothing but praise for these scholars, whose work is in his view informed by the highest degree of scrutiny and precision. He wholeheartedly embraces their interpretation, paraphrasing not only their basic solution, but also the parable they subsequently provided for illustration.1' His description of their activity moreover suggests that they systematically applied themselves to the interpretation of Scripture, 'investigating ... into the things concerning them [the Laws]'. The expression <os 'vt indicates that, as far as Philo was concerned, these literal exegetes accepted pdAwTara certain limits of investigation. They seem to recognize that the Bible contains things that are beyond human comprehension. On this crucial issue Philo wholeheartedly sympathized with them. He himself occasionally expressed awe vis-a-vis Scripture, stressing, for example, that 'necessarily only God knows the really true reason' for a particular crux in the Biblical text (Opif. 72). These congenial exegetes of the Hebrew Bible must have been Jews. Pagans did not begin to take an interest in this text before the advent of Christianity.1'They moreover seem to have been Alexandrians, because their parable contains details about banquets as well as theatrical and gymnastic contests which best fit the environment of that urban centre. The method of Philo's favoured exegetes conforms to a standard technique in Homeric scholarship, namely the ?q7'T-a, which flourished during the Hellenistic period especially in Alexandria.12 The particular question discussed here derives from the context of the verse rather than from a crux in the text itself. It is asked whether
9

Wendland, Philonis Alexandriniopera quae supersunt(Berlin, 1896-1915). 10 I take the parable in Opif. 78, phrased in the usual terms KaOdrrEp and 7-v aV-rOv Tpd7Tov,to

My translationsof Philonic texts are based on the criticaledition of L. Cohn and P.

The difficulty of identifying the preciseboundaries of be partof Philo'sreporton the exegetes. in the contextof allegorical Philo'sreportshas been discussed exegetesby D. M. Hay,'Philo's references to otherallegorists', StudiaPhilonica Annual 6 (1979-80),52. storiesabout the Jewsand their allegedexpulsionfrom Egypt (such as 11Greco-Egyptian Manetho's andApion's), nowhere containa reference to the BiblicalExodusstoryandcan thus as 'counter-histories'; seeesp.E. S. Gruen,'Theuse andabuseof the Exodus hardlybe identified
story', Jewish History 12 (1998), 93-122; P. Schifer, Judeophobia:Attitudes towardthe Jews in the Ancient World(Cambridge, MA, 1997), 15-33; J. G. Gager, Moses in Greco-RomanPaganism,

ser. 16 (Nashville-NewYork, 1972), 113-33.While Society of BiblicalLiterature monograph to the Jews,neverquotedtheirScriptures, Celsus'refutation of Plutarch,thoughsympathetic containsdetaileddiscussions of the Bookof Genesis Christianity significantly (esp. Book 6 of Contra Gen. 1.9-10(OntheSublime 9.9;see Celsum). Longinus quotedGen. 1.3andparaphrased On the Sublime also the valuablecommentsby W. R. Roberts,Longinus.: [Cambridge, 1899], 231-7). 12 On the genre, see esp.the excellent overview AVUEts, RE 13,cols. 2511-29; by A. Gudeman, and the fine philosophical sur les questions: d'une analysisby C. Jacob,'Questions archeologie pratique intellectuelleet d'une forme discursive',in A. Volgers and C. Zamagni (edd.),
Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Question-and-Answer Literature in Context (Leuven, 2004), 25-54. Porphyry recalls: 'v r j MovaUEl 7 KaT 'r AAEViv pElaV voosg 'vv 7TpoPd3AAEUGOa 7 rI7Tr-qLTaat Ka\ rgL tVOLava AvUELtS gvaTypbEU Oat (Porph. schol. on II. 9.682, in H. Schrader, Porphyrii quaestionumHomericarumad Iliadem pertinentiumreliquiae [Leipzig, 1880], 141). See also P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria.-An Exegete for his Time, suppl. to NT 86 (Leiden, 1997),

similarities betweenHomeric,Philonic,and rabbinic 82-9, who pointedto phenomenological techiques without, however,committinghimself to a particularhistorical reconstruction. see: C. Zamagni,'Existe-t-il une Christian exegetesalso appliedthe Greek r ~cypa technique, in Volgersand Zamagni, terminologietechniquedans les Questionsd'Eusebede Cesar6e?', 81-98.

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HOMERIC

SCHOLARSHIP

AND BIBLE EXEGESIS

169

the sequence of creation, with man placed at the end, may indicate his low value. At stake is the precise message conveyed by Scripture. The provided by the literal ,Avtos exegetes is much to Philo's liking, because it confirms man's centrality as God's most beloved creature, a notion on which he himself elaborates (Opif. 79-88). Both the question and the solution are remarkable for their conservatism. No difficulty is identified in the Biblical text and no criticism is expressed. Originally, the tradition had been far more subversive. Aristotle confronted fundamental ( q'r'za-ra questions concerning the logical consistency, historical truth, and moral propriety of the Homeric epics.13 The first Jew known to have raised explicit questions concerning the Biblical text also proceeded in a more critical spirit. Demetrius, an Alexandrian Jew flourishing probably during the last half of the third century, wrote for example: '... but someone may ask how the Israelites had weapons, seeing that they left Egypt unarmed'.14He also asked 'why did Joseph give Benjamin a five-fold portion at the meal even though he would not be able to consume so much meat?'15Both questions indicate that Demetrius addressed issues of apparent inconsistency in Scripture. The Biblical notice about the Israelites' war against the Amalekites seemed to contradict the earlier information about their lack of weapons during the Exodus from Egypt. Joseph's measure to Benjamin appeared illogical in view of Benjamin's physical capacities. To be sure, Demetrius provided answers justifying the Biblical text. It remains remarkable, however, that he approached Scripture intellectually open to consideration of its inconsistencies. The question raised by Philo's exegetes instead looks as if it had been invented for the sake of providing an interesting solution. It serves as a spring-board for an interpretation which may have been ready beforehand. This feature fits the milieu in Alexandria that saw an inflation of Homeric questions. Aristarchus complained about this phenomenon, accusing its practitioners of 'wanting to invent /rqjltara'.16 Philo's literal exegetes seem to have belonged to an environment where questions were no longer put to actual text-critical use, but rather served more general hermeneutic purposes. In certain circles they had become something of a stylistic device. Philo's exegetes thus did not participate in the discourse of hard-core Homeric criticism, but rather belonged to a milieu that was loosely inspired by the scholarly methods without rigorously applying them. This observation is further supported by the fact that these exegetes show no intellectual affinity to the Peripatos, the school most influential in text-critical Alexandrian scholarship.17 The above quoted interpretation instead relies on Plato's Timaeus, where man is presented as a creature endowed with divine reason and

13 Arist.Apor.Hom. in V. Rose,Aristotelis Fragmenta(Leipzig, 1886),frs.142-79;seealsoN. J. of Homerandits background', in Lamberton andKeaney(n. 5), Richardson, reading 'Aristotle's

30-40; M. Carroll, Aristotle's Poetics, c. XXV in the Light of the Homeric Scholia (Baltimore,

E Tva nistic Jewish Authors (Chico, 1983), 1.76 = Euseb. Praep. evang.9.29.16 r(0jS (r7TtIr-Ei^v o1 'IparqAiYat irAa 'uaXovIvo7TAo\ 'EAO'SElSr). Demetrius' importance in terms of critical scholarship has been stressed by Y. Gutman, The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature

1895),10-13. 14 Editionand translation (withmy emendations) by C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Helle-

1969;Hebrew), 1.138-9;Kamesar (Jerusalem, (n. 1, 1994),219-21.

L E7T BEVLa1LiV 'Iwac)75 kIEpLPa 5C'W KE o O)dpt'roV rEvTa7Tvrhaalova

a T 7TorE rt '1 Holladay (n. 14), 1.70 = Euseb. Praep. evang 9.21.14 (&ta7opEdOat S' td [4'T 8vvajuE'vOV ac'vro Kppa). 0Uoaa6Ta Ka-ravahcLaaL 16 Schol. II. 10.372.
17

Fordetailson the connection between Alexandrian andAristotle, see below. scholarship

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

170

MAREN

R. NIEHOFF

therefore inclined to contemplate the heavens as well as to develop 'the genre of philosophy'.18 Their insistence on God's lack of envy is moreover echoed by Plato, who characterizes the demiurge in precisely these terms (Tim. 29E). Philo's exegetes were thus firmly anchored in Plato's approach, while lacking signs of attachment to rigorous scholarship under the aegis of the Peripatetic school. Philo approved of their approach to Scripture, himself sharing a distinctly Platonic background.19His own tractates Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, significantly, contain many examples of the kind of (j-Tr para that were raised with a view to their solution, rather than actual text-critical problems.20 Another kind of scholarly inquiry into Scripture met with distinct ambivalence on Philo's part. The nature of his reservations becomes clear when we consider his that had been raised concerning God's words 'Let us make discussion of an d&rTdp-rla man in our image and likeness' (LXX Gen. 1.26). Philo himself tended to avoid the problem of the plural by adapting this verse to the more monotheistic expression KaT' ElKdva OEOVo in Gen. 1.27. Philo thus paraphrased Gen. 1.26 as follows 7rv Av8pwondv EEO KaE KaO' 61tOawLV Y7 at L KaT (Opif.69). WhilepredOq7u yEyEv1 dEIKdOva emptively solving the problem by omitting the crux itself, Philo nevertheless referred to the obvious difficulty that apparently occupied many readers: m u etdVOU 7 vLVOpWTOV iUELE Tgspk7TOTE (ATOp E'lr OVX ' TcS OFK ar7T UKo07TO, tV7 EVEarLV EV H rroaEdw EldanyE o hAA' yap rov l7ratrEpa rJOv ,LsoUpy KaiOinTErp oTAAa aVE'yOinKEVa, doaavE? KbEe Kabl' Kea' tEvavOpWTrov EsKOdva Awov ravrtd AEhyovTna '7TroL7aw' 7tLE~pave ototmoaw'. su?7 w e aYdIV rKatl)v KaEtL OV;mEOn To avjvpybaovy0ro, vOpwclrrov eOtAatrav, 7 KELN Tl'K7pY Ol O OLOS EE'E3l0hoq Ta ufkrpOeEWs 771O)r OV OVTWS ErEpl) o3L p or9a' o atTpv
KaTaaEKEvaaEaLOa;

2)paXc avroV

the Should someone not withoutjustificationraise the difficultywhy he (Moses) attributed creationof man only not to one demiurgeas with all the others,but as if to many.For he of everything to our the Father thus:'Letus createman according speaking (Moses)introduces ask whether the Oneto whomeverything (LXX Gen. 1.26).I would[rather] imageandlikeness' whatsoever? He who hadno needof anycollaborator when is in needof anything is subordinate the heavenand the earthand the sea-should He not havebeenableto makesucha He created as manwithouthelpers, creature humbleandperishable justby Himself?! (Opif.72) The initial question raised here is presented in typically Aristotelian style: the verb Jlmopgo is characteristic of Aristotle's dialectical enquiries and became especially famous through his iTroptiar~ a LpOptKa.21 N. J. Richardson stressed the influence "0L of the latter work on Alexandrian scholarship, identifying Callimachus' Aitia as a

Cf. Philo, Opif 77-8 to P1.Tim.47A-B, 34A-35B;41E-42D.Note that the expression -r also mentionsit (Plut. Quaest. ... yEvos is uniqueto Platoand PhilountilPlutarch LAoao0las Onthe Creation Plat. 999E).See also D. T. Runia,Philoof Alexandria: of the Cosmos according and Commentary, Philo of Alexandria Series1 Translation to Moses.Introduction, Commentary (Leiden,2001),201-3, 248-51. 19Seeesp.D. T. Runia,Philoof Alexandria andthe Timaeus of Plato(Leiden,1986). 20 on Genesis a full analysisof Philo'sQuestions andAnswers andExodusin I hope to provide my planned monograph.In the meantime,see G. Bardy, 'La litteraturepatristiquedes surl'Ecriture et responsiones" sainte',RB 41 (1932),212-17;D. M. Hay (ed.),Both "quaestiones andAnswers on Genesis and Studiesin Philo'sof Alexandria's LiteralandAllegorical. Questions Exodus(Atlanta,1991). 21 Diog. Laert. 5.26 mentionssix volumes,the fragments of which havebeen collectedby EE in identical formin Arist. V.Rose.Note thatthe aboveexpression d3'v r- appears drTop(aET Eth.Nic. 1.6.5.
18

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HOMERIC

SCHOLARSHIP

AND BIBLE EXEGESIS

171

work based on Aristotle's model.22 Furthermore, the above JirrdprlyLa relates to the Torah as a literary work, dwelling on its particular style. It is asked why the author 'attributed' a particular expression to one of the characters and 'introduced' him by a speech considered unusual. This approach closely parallels the kind of literary criticism in the spirit of Aristotle's Poetics, which has been identified especially in the exegetical scholia and also in Aristarchus' work.23 Philo clearly was ambivalent about this To'rdpr-la.Instead of lavishing praise on its expounders, as he did in the previous case, he admits that their question is raised 'not without justification'. He furthermore reports their approach only fragmentarily. While he reported the full details of the previous question and answer, omitting not even the parable, in this case he transmits only the question without providing the answer given by the literal exegetes themselves. Abruptly terminating his report, Philo instead formulates his own question in a highly pointed, if not sarcastic, tone. It is thus difficult to reconstruct the exegetes' own interpretation. We may, however, gain a clue from Philo's apologetics. When sharply asking his readers whether one can really think of God, the creator of the whole cosmos, as someone in need of collaborators when it comes to the creation of man, Philo seems to give an ironic twist precisely to the kind of claim that had been made, namely that God needed a helper for the creation of man. Philo's own solution to the problem raised by the literal exegetes characteristically reflects a Platonic spirit. Inspired by the Timaeus,he devotes all his exegetical efforts to proving that the plural in ToL477wVEEv has ethical significance. God relied on 'others

as if on collaborators' so as to shunresponsibility forman's evilinclinations (Opif. man's he insists, were in theDivine created while 75).24 Only spiritual aspects, image, all hisinferior fromGod's assistants. Philo's in qualities originated theological Avats the image of Plato's Timaeusthus replaces the original solution of the literal exegetes,

who had been inspiredby Aristotle'sapproach. This procedure conformsto a more occasionshe distanced himself generaltendencyin Philo'swork.On otherimportant from the Aristotelianorientationprevailingin Alexandria,counteringPeripatetic
influence among his fellow Jews.25 He advocated Plato rather than Aristotle as a thinker congenial to Judaism. Philo was committed to upholding proper standards of speaking about God, rejecting an inquiry into the Hebrew Bible that was not bound by certain theological considerations. It now remains for us to investigate how he reacted to a branch of literal exegesis that went, in his view, far beyond what was proper.

22

grecqued I'p1oquehellknistiqueet romaine(Geneva, 1993), 7-28.

23

N. J.Richardson, andHellenistic in F. Montanari scholarship', (ed.),Laphilologie 'Aristotle N. J. Richardson, criticism in the exegetical scholiato the Iliad:a sketch',CQ 30 'Literary

(Olms,1992),13-17. 24 Cf. Tim.41B-E, wherethe lowerdeitiesare said to be responsible for the inferiorbodily aspectsof man. Beingcreated themselves, they ensurethatman will not be immortal. Philo,by does not explainthe originandnature of God'scollaborators. contrast, 25 Seehis polemics viewsof creation, discussed againstAristotelian by M. R. Niehoff,'Philo's contribution to contemporary Alexandrian in D. Brakke,A.-C. Jacobsen,and metaphysics',
J. Ullrich (edd.), Beyond 'Reception'. Mutual Influences between Antique Religion, Judaism and Early Christianity(Frankfurt, 2006), 35-55.

zu den (1980), 265-87; Richardson (n. 22), 23-5; Porter (n. 5), 74-80; D. Liihrs, Untersuchungen Athetesen Aristarchs in der Ilias and zu ihrer Behandlung im Corpus der exegetischen Scholien

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

172

MAREN R. NIEHOFF

Philo passedthe following judgementon certainliteralexegeteswho appliedtheir acumento the changeof Abraham's and Sarah's names:
o oi0v CETOELS (Gen. 17.5). EvLOt oV -rov vwV KOa WLOUsv 7Tpoa7TTEtV 'a/oWtkotL ,thacrrlTExlO L, Ot UaotCpaUL Kat 70TO q 7 pdytLaLUt aK'PVKKTOV JOEAO'VTwv 1ttAAov 7TOAEPOPvTWV rTTOAEOV no O' be A a saYlp EpOrg r7Tav EV7eTPE walwl aa t TO7r al 6OKEA ablto i ,E tLO~ ,a ETa m aKpe wE7T wageoA htAoardl e7rtpXovra ErPEavr7S26 9an oaaVtrav Tr KpnvTTEOcatL E TLS V3vopLcTOV KalTTP77Tv 7)KOvuaa ropoEpovatL, 8taq0EpOVTWS Trgv (T.LaaETOUEL. rE it o XAEV6oVToS Kcl KaLaKEpToLOVVToS KO gaE31oN, LEtYaACLL ov6po tLEp 0"ELv E,'A/lcLa n-d ^b c nTO atXElOV Oc vacw Ka~tre7 t"i~sa rero M olWpEa, yesLcial 7thV8 hJav3pEYELV TEprp Aovaat tiTnagLV a, taOLXEOV <yadp> igrpoaO-der"to ,by m Ans 7TEPtLTr727 KaL wic p. 7TpoUtETEL cao b E iOnEVh "T7Vaf3praL yvvasKa o6lpav f6ppav OavLaaCr77v s7ApKroqv EV'pyEUOlav 7rapEUax7uOatt28 7TvEVUTs Kata oaa OLOtrLpo7T a VVEepwvr ovotaahE8& rONP CO7tapaoayL W'v Kwal EMoTrLCpK'ISW)V n OoV apo 7l pVa tLea 8LEreL"t. Troi dEV rpvoEVo/hAa3EtaS oofK Els oLaKpav WKE L pOU aoV 8ltK77v Cd7T e Etr,aYrXVV s ~Ev, Loh 7t s TVXOvf KaCL KL ~v yap ans pOta)Ewr Laps HKmOaprTOS 1Ktpaas /17,aEKaOapo)OavLTW TOES' TEAEVT9'O7. 3LKCrLWS'( 8) LV 7TEp aLTOLS^ P7) KaN '7VE~L~S 7TOV) E"TEPOV TLS v7Trovola l TaVTa Ka vatLOAOyOVVTE9 AEY'tyLEva EaKKO6aaPLLEV, a7TOSLKVVVTE -Tar ,AJvatE27~4LTL' Ua a7rov. 7TrLU'17s

yap oTL AEyEcraL '00 Kr76qOUcrTcatL ' ',vota r-

Afpc4, urov

rovo6 ouov A/paac4' A' a-ratTO a

Forit is saidthat'your name shall no longer becalled butyour name willbeAbraam' Abram,
(LXX Gen. 17.5). of thosewho love quarrel and alwayswish to attachblameto blameless Some,however, things, not so much regarding externalmattersbut the very meaning,29 and of those who wage an undeclared waragainstholy thingsreproach the changesof names,after by calumny, especially havingdeprecated by meansof a detailedenquiryall the thingswhichseemto themcannotbe as appropriate in the literalsense,althoughthese are in realitysymbolsof nature preserved whicheverlikesto hide. I havejust now heardfroma godlessand impiousfellowwho wasjestingand railingviolently, to say: 'greatand surpassing indeedare the gifts which Moses says the havingthe effrontery Leaderof all provided. Forby the additionof a letter,one singlealpha,a superfluous letter,and again by the addition of another letter, a rho, He seems to have given from Himself an Sarraby doublingthe rho'.And at extraordinarily greatgift namingSarathe wife of Abraham the sametime he continuedto go in detailthroughall similarcases speakingbreathlessly and Fora minorand sneering [atthem].Not beforelonghe paidthe suitable penaltyforhis insanity. trivialallegation he rushedto the hangingbuttress so thatthe filthyandimpure fellowcamenot evento a cleandeath. we Rightlythen,in orderto prevent anyoneelsebeingcaughtby the same[literal interpretations]
26 Cohn/Wendland, ad loc., suggest a substantialemendationof the text adding o'K or textis grammatically thusnot warranting correct, replacing by l'xa. Yetthemanuscript any CLETd clearwhenwe considerthe continuation of Philo's change,and its contentsbecomesperfectly criticism:he accusesthe 'quarrelsome' Bible criticsof havingstudiedall the cases of name theirattackon a broadand detailedanalysis(Mut.61). WhileCohn's changesthus grounding conjecturewas unfortunately acceptedby the EnglishtranslatorColson, it has rightlybeen translator Arnaldez. rejected by the French ad loc., put the expression in brackets. I follow 27 Cohn/Wendland, aTroLXELC 7TEpLTTEVEL Colsonand Arnaldez, who acceptthe formrestored by Markland, namely otOLXELOV 7TEPLTTO77. We shallmoreover see belowthatthis expression fits wellinto the overall of exegetical approach theseexegetes. ad loc., suggesta lacuna, that Philomustinitiallyhavepointed 28 Cohn/Wendland, assuming to the etymological of Abraham's name.Thisis possible, butnot at all necessary. explanation i) 7TpdyoLaa is highlyunusual. Colsontranslated 'not so 29 Theexpression oi3acTpauLL ,uAAov muchto material and ideas'(Philoin Ten Volumes, Loeb ClassicalLibrary thingsas to actions the Stoicdistinction insteadreflects between MA, 1981], 5.173).My owntranslation [Cambridge, the actualwordspoken,arl/LLVEvov irp7ayta, the meaningunderstood the hearer by cwv7r, and TvyXLvov,the actual object spoken of (SVF 2.166). Throughouthis discussionof the the underlying changesof namesPhilostresses meaning conveyed by them,see esp.his reference to ra 8~E to dappa (Mut.77). impliedin the changefromZd'pa TVYXvLvovTa

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HOMERIC

SCHOLARSHIP

AND BIBLE EXEGESIS

173

the underlying fromnatural and showingthat wishto eliminate meanings, explaining principles areworthyof most seriousattention. thesethingswhichhavebeensaid[in Scripture] (Mut.60-2) Philo evidently dislikes the above mentioned exegetes to such a degree that his rhetoric obscures their actual activities. It is exceedingly difficult for the modern reader to recover the precise features of their work. Initially therefore, we have to analyse Philo's own comments, which form the editorial layer and must be distinguished from the exegetes' self-image. Only after appreciating the particular thrust of Philo's criticism can we begin to analyse the few bits of actual information that he provides. It will thus be possible to reconstruct a particular scholarly approach to the Bible that is reflected in Philo's report, albeit in a highly distorted manner. Philo provides both a general criticism of these exegetes and a report about one member. Both of them teem with accusations. Characterizing the whole group, he says that they 'love quarrel and always wish to attach blame to blameless things'. They are also said to 'reproach by calumny' and 'deprecate by means of a detailed enquiry'. All of these terms are highly loaded, suggesting that these exegetes are sinful Jews who cause internal strife by adopting an outsider's perspective on the Hebrew Bible. refers in Philo's writings predominantly to Jews Initially, the term tLAarrqEXOlyOtvwv who fail to show sufficient loyalty to their fellow-Jews either by rejoicing over their misfortunes or generally behaving as complete strangers.30 Philo says that joining the Jewish community implies, among other things, becoming friendly with men, while those who 'rebel from the holy laws' become 'quarrelsome' (Virt. 182). He clearly expects that Jews foster unity among each other. The harmony of the community may be disturbed, Philo complains, when some 'lovers of quarrel' compare the story of Isaac's binding to cases of child sacrifice in Greek and barbarian culture (Abr. 178). Philo rejects such a comparison, making considerable efforts to show the unique value of the Biblical story. Certain literal interpretations were thus identified by Philo as stemming from 'quarrelsome'quarters of the Jewish community. Their exegesis was in his eyes equal to other activities of disloyalty and deserved to be uprooted. Philo moreover describes the exegetes as 'attaching blame to blameless things'. The terms and ~Luw~osregularly occur in Philo's writings in the context of fowftos sacrifice, identifying priests and animals as either ritually fit or unfit.31 In some contexts, however, Philo extends his discussion to the metaphorical realm, speaking of spiritual blamelessness. Besides some general statements,32 he repeats one specific theme: blameless is the soul that acknowledges God as the cause of everything, preserving His gifts undamaged and perfect.33The arts and sciences, Philo insists, must also be recognized as having their cause and ultimate purpose in God (Her. 116). They are gifts which must not be harmed by putting them to irreverent use. When Philo thus accuses some Jewish exegetes of 'attaching blame to blameless things', he implies that they profane Scripture which had been donated as a gift by God. The canonical text, naturally pointing to God's sovereignty, has in his view been damaged by a kind of exegesis that gives too much consideration to human judgement.
30 See esp. Mos. 1.248;Spec. 1.241;Jos. 226; Fuga 5. Two of the ten occurrences referto to Jews(Virt.34;InFlacc.52).Forthe analysis of Philonic hostilityshownby non-Jews key-terms

I rely on P. Borgen, K. Fluglseth and R. Skarsten, The Philo Index: A Complete WordIndex to the Writingsof Philo of Alexandria (Leiden, 2000). 31 Philo, Spec. 1.117, 166, 242, 259, 268; Mut. 233; Somn. 2.185. 32 Philo, All. 3.141; Cher.85; Sobr. 11. 33 Philo,All. 1.50; Her. 114-23.

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

174

MAREN R. NIEHOFF

is another characteristic attributed to the groupof exegetes. Calumny, Thistermis&8apoA,, in half of its nineteen because in occurrences especially significant, Philo's it refers to slanders attached to Jewsby Gentiles, writings especially by the infamous Thetopical context in Alextheethnic conflict is, of course, Egyptians.34 andria which ledto a pogrom of theJews the term to a (C.E. 38-41). Applying 8tapoAX kind of literal Philo hints their of a at vicious external particular exegesis, adoption Inrespect to their to themosthostile perspective. scholarly approach, theyaresimilar andunpleasant of contemporary DidPhiloconsider to thesefellow Jews Egyptians. be too closeto Apion, whowasbotha leading in Alexandria Homer scholar andthe headof the hostileEgyptian to Gaius? Did theseJewish in fact scholars embassy if to circle? Even such a connection was it is not belong Apion's implied byPhilo, clear that calumny was a gravesin in his eyes.SomeIsraelites wereguiltyof it when Mosesof having madeup oracles in order to justify his choiceof Aaron, accusing which wasin their viewnothing butnepotism Philothussuggests that (Mos.2.176). of Scripture he identifies the literal whoseinterpretation as calumny, were exegetes, their owntradition. similarly rebelling against in thiscontext Thelastcharge mentioned is deprecation of a detailed 'bymeans in verb is all The Philo's extant an enquiry'. writings, reflecting qavAlw unique of irritation. The also is rare, very degree expression exceptional 4pEvva dKpt0IjS in thecontext of literal Once it occasions hermeneutics.35 occurring onlyontwoother refers to theexegetes discussed thosewhoinvestigated above, namely whymanwas thereas a created last (Opif.66). As we saw,Philomeantthe characterization the used to describe 'the Furthermore, expression compliment. aKPt9S- is iEpEvva After the basic skills of education embraced by school-learning' (Agr. 18). acquiring andwriting, Philoexplains, thestudent is expected to apply himself to 'the reading detailed of thethings[written] investigation by the wisepoets'.Theforemost poet, as Philoreadily 'mosthighlyesteemed Homer, is, of course, amongthe Greeks' to reflect thegeneral to Hisdescription seems hermeneutic admits.36 activity applied of this andotherpoets.Philoacknowledges the serious nature the studyof Homer the sameterm.Homeric the Jewish exegetes scholarship, describing by precisely field. The label thus sharethe samesemantic and Biblical exegesis scholarship as Didtheyseethemselves 'detailed self-image. mayalsohintattheexegetes' inquiry' themethods of Greek criticism to theHebrew scholars Scriptures? literary applying literal somefurther cluesthat Philo's about oneparticular provides exegete report it is thatthe enableus to locatethis groupmoreprecisely. Initially, conspicuous in question on theLXX,referring to theGreek rather thantheHebrew relies exegete Greek likePhilo andSarah. He evidently wasa native namesof Abraham speaker in this exegeteseems to have been Philo'scontemporary himself.Moreover, Philo because he 'justnow heardfrom'his mouth(TrpUlqv Alexandria, KovUa).
34Philo, 241.OnPhilo's InFlacc. of the Jos.66;Mos.1.46; 33,89;Leg.160,170-1,199, image andnotbelonging: asultimate seeNiehoff S.Pearce, Other, (n.8),45-74; 'Belonging Egyptians Local in S. Jones andS. Pearce Patriin Philoof Alexandria', Jewish localperspectives (edd.),
in the Graeco-Roman otismandSelf-Identification Period,JSPS suppl.ser.31 (Sheffield, 1998), 79-105. occursalsoin the contextof Egyptian-Jewish 'detailed inquiry' significantly 35 Theexpression them(InFlacc. to Egyptians forJewsandinvestigating tensionin Alexandria, searching referring literal connection between the practices of the Jewish 90, 96). Thereis thusoncemorea semantic The term, however, occursalso in a more exegetesand the actionsof Egyptiananti-Semites. 129andSacr.85. neutral context,see e.g. Cher. philosophical 36 Philo,Mut. 179,see alsoAbr.10.

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS

175

moreoverindicatesthat he has been executednot too long ago.37His readersare Philo expected to recognizethe case and to be familiarwith the circumstances. himself does not specifythe cause,insteadsuggestinga generalconnectionbetween hermeneutics and execution.The latterwas in his view a well-deserved blasphemous The fact that only 'a minorand trivialallegation' was put forward at the punishment. official trial implies that Divine providencewas at play. Philo's biased report resemblesto a strikingdegree his presentationof Flaccus, the Roman prefectin In his case,too, he said nothingaboutthe trialitself,but Alexandria underTiberius. insteadused it to teacha lessonin Divineprovidence. He suggestedthat Flaccuswas triedand executedby the Romans,becausehe had maltreated the Jews.38 God merely usedthe Romancourtas an instrument of retribution. The historical however, reality, musthavebeenrather the Romanshavingtheirown reasonsforprosecuting different, Flaccus.Philo clearlywishedto set up this figureas a sign of assurance to his readers that no enemy of the Jews will go unpunishedfor long. The same holds true for fromwithinthe Jewishcommunity. Philo sawthemas contemporaries 'quarrelsome' enemiesof the Jewish nationwho bringsimilar on themselves as Flaccus. punishment Philo's attitude and we are now in a position rhetoric, Havingappreciated general to analyse his report about the methods of the literal exegetes.The first bit of we receiveabouttheirworkis theirrefusalto readthe Bibleallegorically. information Philo complainsthat they attachblame'not so muchregarding externalmattersbut to the verymeaning' becausethey (Mut.60). Theymissthe realintentionof Scripture, do not recognizethe 'symbolsof naturewhicheverlikesto hide'(ibid.).Philo hopes to mend the damage they have caused by pointing to 'the underlyingmeanings, explainingfrom naturalprinciplesand showingthat these things which have been said [in Scripture] are worthyof most serious attention'(Mut. 62). Interpretation accordingto natureis in Philo'swritingsa regulartermfor an allegorical readingof He sometimesapprovingly mentionsallegoriesby VULoKOL Scripture. av)pEs.39 The literal exegetes criticizedby Philo obviously belong to the opposite camp. Their but represents a consciousapproach. Philo says neglectof allegoryis not accidental, about them in anothercontext that they 'are unwillingto apply themselvesto the inwardfacts of thingsand followaftertruth'.40 Philo providesalso somepositivecluesinto theirmethod.His accusation thatthey 'reproach by calumny, especially the change of names' conveys some crucial information(Mut. 60). It impliesthat these exegetesfocusedon a particulartopic, such as the changeof names.They studiedreferences to a particular themethroughout Scripture. This is preciselywhat the exegete,who was executed,is said to have
understood Philoto referto suicide(Colson,ad loc.; Shroyer generally 37 Scholars [n. 2], 279; casein Spec.3.161maysupportthisview.Anotherpassage, however, Hay [n. 10],92). A parallel becausehangingappears herein precisely the samecontextof dyingan provesfarmorerelevant, 'unclean death'(Aet.20). In this passagePhiloexplicitly enumerates hangingamongthe waysof dyingthatcometo mennot 'fromwithinthemselves' ?avTr&v),but'fromoutside' (trr6 78 ETv ratherthan suicideis also meant(Js in Mut. 62, wherePhilo mentionsa 'minor CKTdS). Execution and trivialallegation'.
38

Translation and Commentary, Philo of Alexandria Series2 (Leiden, Introduction, Commentary 2003),219-29;Niehoff(n. 8), 40-1, 133-6. 39 Seee.g. Abr.99, discussed by M. R. Niehoff,'Motherandmaiden,sisterand spouse:Sarah in PhilonicMidrash', HThR97 (2004),431-3. 40 QG3.53treating thesameinterpreters of thechangeof Abraham's andSarah's names. (This passage is only preservedin an Armeniantranslation,transl. R. Marcusin Loeb Classical Library suppl.vol. 1).

See esp. In Flacc. 147-52, discussed by P. van der Horst, Philo's Flaccus.:The First Pogrom.

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

176

MAREN R. NIEHOFF

done: 'he continuedto go in detail throughall similarcases'(Mut. 61). This literal was basedon a broadand comparative The studyof Biblicalphenomena. approach HebrewBible was studiedin its entiretyand investigated with a view to recurring expressionsor similarcases. Philo'sreportis our first testimonyto such a method in the Alexandrian Jewish is beingusedamongJews.Its initialoccurrence community that the It of this method was the result of a highlysignificant. suggests application acculturation to the Hellenistic environment. These Jewish had exegetes adopted deep a method of Homericscholarship that came to be knownas "IOprlpov 16" Oftapov JamesI. Porterhas shown, he rejectedallegoryand insteadlooked for a solution within the corpusof the Homerictext (see n. 5). Aristarchus investigated particular and theirparallels Homericexpressions with a viewto the poet'scharacteristic usage He also studied names them to their by comparing parallel (7oto7-LtKOV 00s).43 in otherpassagesof the Iliad.44 occurrences Aristonicussaid of Aristarchus that he Il. 'studiedhomonyms' (schol. 2.837-8). A further whenPhilosaysthattheseexegetes'deprecated emerges pieceof evidence as appropriate in the ... all the thingswhich,it seemsto them, cannot be preserved literal sense' (Mut. 60). The crucial expression is: irrTv0'aouai EV7rrpE7FErri Av Adywl
Aristarchus was the foremost scholar associated with this maxim.42As oao qvt'ELw.41

It is onlyherethatPhilousestheverb taoua 80KE^. w in a hermeneutic 8cau ?ELv It is nota technical termof Homeric YetPhilothusseems context.45 to scholarship.46 have referred to an exegetical that was not only used by his Jewish technique
colleagues,but also by Homericscholars.The techniqueI havein mind is athetesis.
Philo's reference to

or appropriateness werecrucialin the exegetes' decisionwhether ationsof fittingness a particular could be 'preserved'. therewereJewishBible item in Scripture Evidently scholarsin Alexandriawho studied Scripture by examiningwhethera passage or word in question conformedto certain standardsof propriety.They treated the canonical text as a piece of literatureto which the regularscholarlymethods of as in the case of the Biblicalnamechanges,these analysiscan be applied.Sometimes, exegetes were highly critical, suggesting that a certain Biblical item cannot be maintained. The precisemeaningof theirmethodcan best be appreciated by lookingat parallel
cases in the scholia. The term
E,3rpETErs in such often used to justifythe text as especially poeticallyand morallyappropriate, The true cause of the Trojan cases whereseriousexegeticalproblemshad arisen.47 in suchterms.Several of the factthat scholiasts wereacutelyaware Warwas discussed the Cypriaprovidedan alternative approach,suggestingthat Zeus plannedthe war
41 Porph.Quaest. Hom. II. 297, quotedand discussedby Porter(n. 5), 70-7. C. Schaublin, maximwas rather that this exegetical 'Homerum ex Homero',MH 34 (1977),221-7, suggested

EVtrrpE7T

supports this conjecture. He explains that consider-

is characteristic of the bT scholia, where it is

andnotconfined to the in theimperial grammatikoi. period widespread

42 Porter(n. 5), 70-4, arguedagainstR. Pfeiffer, Historyof ClassicalScholarship from the of the to the End of the HellenisticAge (Oxford,1968), 231, for the probability Beginnings Aristarchan originof themaxim. in schol. II. 5.299, 43 Schol. II. 1.499;see also 9s o80sairJ in schol. Il. 5.734-6; similarly 5.684. 44 E.g. schol.Il. 5.708. 45 The verboccurs timesthroughout Philo'swork,otherwise to salvation referring thirty-three in a historical or ethicalsense(seeeg. Abr.98, 177;Leg.328). 46 The scholiasts see index use it only oncein the general senseof salvation (schol.II. 20.335); in Homeri Iliadem (Berlin,1983),6.309. by H. Erbse,ScholiaGraeca 47 E.g. schol.II. 8.362, 139-40,9.316,334-6;20.94-5.

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HOMERIC

SCHOLARSHIP

AND BIBLE EXEGESIS

177

against Troy and incited the Trojans by setting up a beauty contest between Hera, Athena and Aphrodite in which Paris, the judge, preferred the latter.48On this view, the war emerged as Hera's revenge for her insult. Homer, by contrast, suggested that tension between Zeus and Hera prompted the war. Troy was actually Zeus's preferred city, which he, however, surrenderedto Hera, who insisted that her dislike of that city and its inhabitants must at least have some visible effect (1. 4.25-9). While several scholiasts, including Aristarchus, stressed Homer's ignorance of the version found in the Cypria,49 a scholiast in the bT tradition tackles what was in his eyes a serious difficulty in the Homeric text:
8ta
TL

6t

Atkv

'EAA-qlvas, 06
qOLAT'Ta?.

ZE's E

1Htav, -q 6E`

Hpa

r TpELs
Ta

ULIv)EXELt

kc 7TTOAELS Ota~T,
TO)v EaLTA4a TWv

Kat

/ I/ qtE'

ip/apov;

E'SEL yap

KpELaUovas

OEC3v E'XELv

whydid Zeussaythathe has one [beloved city],whileHerasaysshe has threebelovedcities,she evenhavingGreek[cities], whilehe has a barbarian the king of gods must one, for necessarily havethebestonesas his beloved[cities]. (schol.II.4.51--2) This drordprlta derives from the assumption of a strict hierarchy among the gods. The highest god must therefore be associated with the greater number and better quality of cities. Given the philhellenic spirit of the scholiasts in the bT tradition, this also implies Greek cities for Zeus.S5 The Homeric text, however, violates these sensitivities, associating Troy with Zeus. For the scholiast it was inconceivable that Zeus should have been on the side of the barbarians. Homer's sympathy for the opponents of the Greeks and his lack of an overt nationalism were simply passe, clashing with the exegete's own world view. On the other hand, the scholiast wished to preserve the Homeric text rather than accept the version of the Cypria. The problem is solved by reference to propriety:
P-7TEoF
OVX

)0 qv 61160o5

Tt EV7TPEI?7 3OvA6/TLEVOS aUTI 7TEpLqE-vcLL avararaTTEL,

O ?pa

A. TO

( bltv avTl7v TSTOr7TAE( TO) KOAAhoVS TOi Tpwoatv ETMlTrq6ES TavTasr OLtAELv, XaA,&rawtv, aS TO 7T KKaT 7TEpt ToLSaKa T/lV EAEIv-qV YEYOVEV

1u?7

TpOTtq7qOIvatl

tTII(lta lOJ TS lOpyIS 6I7TOLI/Tlq,Kat S t7) KplaUE T77s A?poTJr ?JET

one mustsaythatthe poet,wishingto bestowuponhera becoming reasonfor herwrathandnot the one whichmythhad fabricated, becauseshe had namelythat she was angryat the Trojans not beenpreferred to Aphrodite in the beautycontest,purposefully saidthatshelikesthesecities on accountof whichthewrongconcerning Helenwasdone. (schol.II.4.51-2) The scholiast suggests that Homer chose his version wisely, thus dismissing the one found in the Cypria. This explanation is subsequently expanded, either by the same scholiast or some colleague in the same tradition. It is argued that the Cypric version

cannot be reconciledwith the story about Hera'sborrowingof Aphrodite's belt in

48 Cypria 1, apudProclus, ChrestomacyI (ed. H. G. Evelyn-White). Le cycle 'pique dans by A. Severyns, 49 Schol.II. 4.32, 4.51, 4.52; see also the fine discussion l'icole d'Aristarque 1928),261-4, showingthat Homerin fact knewthe alternative (Liege-Paris,

who wishedto preserve the version,whichwas, however, vehemently rejected by Aristarchus, Homericepicfromanycontamination by suchmythicmaterial. orientation of the bT scholiais conspicucus see 50 The philhellenic rightfromthe beginning, schol.II. 1.1, 2; see also schol. II. 11.197,15.618,16.814-15,17.220-32;for broader discussion whatis explained to the reader?', in E Montanari tremila annidopo(Rome,2002), (ed.), Omero
172-3. and other references, see M. Schmidt, Die Erkliirungenzum WeltbildHomers und zur Kultur der Heroenzeit in den bT-Scholien zur Ilias (Munich, 1976), 56-7; id., 'The Homer of the scholia:

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

178

MAREN

R. NIEHOFF

order to seduce her husband, because, if indeed she had been insulted by a defeat in the beauty contest, she would not be on such friendly relations with her rival. Moreover, the Homeric version is praised for showing Zeus's exceptional generosity: he was willing to surrenderthe only beloved city he had. The notion of poetic propriety also played a crucial role in decisions of athetesis.51 This is the case, for example, when Poseidon's speech to Iris is discussed (schol. II. 15.212-17). The exegetical crux is the tension between Poseidon's initial resignation and his immediately following threat awo 7 yE V7rrodEiow) (vEEoual8ES the motif of the Aristarchus rejected lines 212-17, thus casting doubt on(dr7TE Ovtfk). His threats. motivation, as recorded by Aristonicus,52was the following: w tIs F) elne 0nil'let himrko t rvT us' (I 15.2617 lnAe Kareathri thir atw uth71X01 s aur %orom L VC) aOnE7V7aL cT 0i7 7h1)a a 0i7L Ei7Enti 70th70e aeS cha7 70both , sirt [o Kcid

0o01) o E r TjV at6AEoWV, OEW1V16potcaL7apE7EVTrVOXE*

TaKLa7aC 7TpOELEt7m KaCl yap'VtEpEu'1oqEtS' 771 a&L.OLOpw ;o(w' oLo1'L% rOEUWLV 0 TEHO0ELt5WV o1 K E1S~ 0g7 'ar7tELACru'. TtEpEI ri-TAog ELGEratL ETCEA-qEr77Ot3ES ErTrTC7aL p.0 EKCE70) 701 AXLAaa 19S ra TE ro19Tpwal. a aA
rL(a1 T

ra

EvavrTovtuEvWv q &6dr7C; OEoptaXtaS . T "EAEv ISL 7 OUEE WSOUtE 'EP5 ''HbEpp-^rp 7OL9 fap/i3pols OEO9,OVKTL "UoC Er7T1777aS Ta 7r7 777EEKa 7TapEtlAq0Ev avrovS. EAA' t3povov qa1tKa7arTcaLEW 7TrpO7'17UEw,

, avuvapoiaa

rE7TapVvEt
7)1v

From this line until 'let him know this, that betweenus' (I/. 15.217)six lines are athetised, because they are cheap, both in compositionand in authorialintention. [Poseidon]having I shall withdraw', as if repenting, attacks'I shall utter a threat.' startedby saying'indignant will not sparethe city,but he assistedthe Trojans Poseidonknowsthatin the end he [Zeus] only the namesof the gods from for the purposeof givinghonourto Achilles.Someonetransferred withthe barbarian the theomachia gods, [thenamesof] theiropponents (II.20.33-6),associating to sackinga city wereof no concern that the thingspertaining whileno longerunderstanding for Hermes and Hephaestus,but [the poet] has mentionedthem only for the purpose of (schol.II. 15.212A) opposition. Aristarchus argues that lines 212-17 are a later addition to the original Homeric text. He identifies a rather incompetent editor, who invented the part of Poseidon's speech containing the threat. The latter did so by transferring the names of Hermes and Hephaestus from II. 20.33-6, without, however, realizing that he inserted them into a context entirely out of character for them. Poseidon could not, in Aristarchus' view, have appealed to these gods as prospective sackers of Troy.The text in Book 20 does not explicitly say what Aristarchus takes it to mean, but, at least, the verses do not mention Hermes' and Hephaestus' martial intentions vis-a-vis Troy. Hera, by the way, is not at all discussed in this context, presumably because Homer dwelt precisely on her plan to sack the city (II. 15.14-29). Aristarchus moreover considered II. 15.211-17 as 'cheap', because they contain contradictions which cannot be reconciled with the context. Indignation and shame thus imply repentance, which cannot be followed immediately by angry threats. Furthermore, Poseidon knew the ultimate fate of Troy and could therefore not have threatened what he would do in case the city should be spared. Aristarchus implies that Poseidon must have known of Thetis' appeal to Zeus, asking him to 'honour my son' (Trt`rl6v pot UOv).53 Zeus hesitantly agreed to her request, nodding assent as a sure token, yet aware that he will thus invoke further reprimands from Hera, who earlier had already criticized his support for the Trojans (II. 5.19-27). It is thus assumed that the reader's knowledge is also on athetesis, see Schmidt For a surveyof the discussion (n. 50), 19-22. as a faithfultransmitter of Aristarchan Aristonicus has long ago beenestablished material, there. see:Liihrs(n. 23), 4-5 andbibliography 53 11.2.505.
51 52

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS

179

shared by all the actors of the Homeric plot, especially when they are divine figures. All of these considerations led Aristarchus to suggest an unusually long athetesis of six verses. A scholion from the bT tradition presents a radically different view, countering Aristarchus' judgement of Ev'-EAE by an emphatic affirmation of the lines' poetic propriety:
Et U 4XLtAAEV~S ITEPOYWS KKat c7TaAAayq7v OptE'TaL, N p EVUx-qova EtcLTavaWI''wV ,7VOPY77, -7,-v ot" rrp' A rL/'LEv co TWV) 5' a"AAwv, yT a, a !LOt EUTLt7) oJOErOvvt5'L -Tp ON -'a7TEtA-q; a' TEL 7W El 8E'JKOVUEV L7TLtTEU; Kat' EWTrpErrws E'KUT7OvaL OEAEL. dw-'c9AEwL'Lr "IAttooS, r vg6v ,a Etw4 7Taprp .AAwg a xvovUEXos pOL KalTro KaAxav-ros. 'JAAM oE9Jv EUrrETaL, -E A'yatk.4vwv T ' AA 3EL vTErTraXfjOlvat I UE"V ' Or VyV KE'.

relief[of emotions], the angeruntilthe end,as also He (thepoet) set up a becoming withholding Achillessays 'but of everything else that is mine'(1. 1.300).Six lines are athetised.For whyis wishesto [present But we saythathe [thepoet]befittingly therethe threat? him]as beingout of his mind. If he heard that Ilios will be sacked, how does he now show disbelief? But said] 'dreadfulgrief for you will be mine', and yet he knew it from Agamemnon[similarly it is necessary to [admit] thatthisversecontradicts 'Butin factI willyieldfor Calchas. Otherwise now'(il. 15.211). (schol.Il.15.212B) The scholiast shows a fine literary sensitivity, which is inspired by Aristotle's notion of katharsis in tragedy. Homer, he insists, presents a 'becoming relief' of emotions, carefully postponing the expression of anger. The tension between lines 211 and 212 is thus not a logical contradiction, as Aristarchus assumed, but rather a dramatic tension that is purposefully built up.54The scholiast moreover refers to a parallel case of protracted anger. Achilles initially declared that he will not fight for Briseis, but instead accept Agamemnon's decision to take her for himself (1. 1.298-9). He stresses in a seemingly subservient mood that Agamemnon is only taking back what he has given. Then, however, Achilles threatens mutiny. He and his soldiers will no longer participate in the war. This parallel case supports the scholiast's argument for the authenticity of II. 15.212-17. Both passages are in his view poetically appropriate. They portray a troubled character whose emotions are both exceptionally strong and unusually coerced by external circumstances. Release can thus not come in a regular fashion, but only in an extraordinary way. Philo's 'quarrelsome' colleagues must be appreciated in the context of this type of Homeric scholarship. Their judgement that certain Biblical items, such as the change of Abraham's and Sarah's names, cannot be maintained as E1'7TPEn7ES corresponds to prevalent exegetical considerations among Greek scholars. Unable either to offer a proper textual solution or to withdraw to allegory, they rejected certain Biblical verses. Gen. 17.5 and 17.15 were considered spurious. These verses would not have been omitted from the manuscript, but instead athetized. Following Aristarchus, the literal exegetes probably marked such verses in the margins of the manuscript with an obelus, while separately discussing the reasons for their criticism.55
54 See similarly: M. van der Valk, Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad (Leiden, 1964), 2.426. 55 The scholia often distinguish between Aristarchus' atheteses and what appear to be Zenodotus' emendations. See esp. schol. II. 8.385-7a: adOETroVTa7 atlrXO TpELS... 85i KaL 7jOEEL in schol. II. 8.528;schol.II. 8.371-2 Similarly ApLUrrooqva. Zrlvood8070o o06E (rrapJ E'ypaev. schol. II. 9.416a-b(o;58ErapJ ZlvoOd'6r oVK o 860o [urTXoL]); wdEdpETo; schol. qaav S II. 10.240 schol. 15.610-4b. The nature of Zenodotus' II. (ov' Ev T-r Zqvo86droviv); precise Z7lvo5dTW"

in modernscholarship, workis stillcontroversial and see E Montanari, Aristarchos 'Zenodotus,

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

180

MAREN R. NIEHOFF

Philo's 'quarrelsome'colleagues were thus especially close to Aristarchus. They did not follow the path of the bT scholiasts who often pleaded for poetical propriety in the face of Aristarchus' atheteses. Instead, they declared that a certain Biblical item was not thus using a virtually identical term to Aristarchus' . The EV'rPE7TS, drrpE7rr latter rejected, for example, 11. 1.29-30, because adTpETErs KL TOv Kat 6 Aya4tEvova Aristarchus alsorejected because TotavTa 24.130-2, a7TpEdTErs vtw AE'-yEw. RI. prlqTrpa AEyELy 'ayaOdv EaUL yvvaltK t tuyEaOaL'.Some Jewish exegetes in Alexandria adopted Aristarchus' approach, applying it to the Hebrew Bible. Given their radical commitment to textual criticism, it is no longer surprising that Philo disliked them intensely. Preceding modern Bible criticism by almost two thousand years, these Alexandrian exegetes inevitably aroused animosity in certain circles of the Jewish community.56 Placed in the context of Homeric scholarship, Philo's report yields further striking evidence. His description of one particular exegete allows us to recover the reasons for rejecting particular verses. According to Philo, this exegete criticized Gen. 17.5 and 17.15, because he found the letters alpha and rho, which were added to Sarah's and Abraham's names, utterly superfluous (aToLxEtovrEprtT-o7).He moreover considered the notion of God donating a gift of this sort rather ludicrous.57His criticism thus relied on a linguistic observation that was supported by a theological judgement. In other words, the exegete initially noted a superfluous item in the text, which does not add any new information. His doubts about its authenticity were then corroborated by the impression that, in terms of content, the lines in question express inappropriate ideas. Taken together, these two considerations justified athetesis. The procedure of this Jewish exegete can best be understood in the context of Aristarchan scholarship. Aristarchus rendered the notion of rEpLaU6dsa central category. Erbse's index shows almost an entire column of references to it, most of them relating to Aristarchus' work.58It became an important criterion in decisions of athetesis. Aristarchus athetized, for example, l. 21.471, because 'it is superfluous after (the verse) "But his sister rebuked him harshly, the queen of wild beasts"' (Ii. 21.470). Dietrich Liihrs stressed that Aristarchus' decisions of athetesis were usually based on a two-fold consideration, namely a linguistic redundancy together with an obserthe ekdosisof Homer',in Most (n. 5), 1-21, who argued that for a pluralistic model,suggesting both Zenodotus in emending on it; andAristarchus wereengaged the textas wellas commenting cf. the viewthatZenodotus in the margins: did not eliminate lines,but only notedhis suspicions West(n. 5), 38-45;H. vanThiel,'Zenodot, ZPE 90 (1992),1-32, andid., Aristarch undAndere', 'Der Homertext in Alexandria', ZPE 115(1997),13-36,who argued thatall so-called editionsby ancientcommentators on an existing werein reality commentaries text. 56 There are signs that some methods of Homericscholarship may have been appliedby rabbinic in of the firstfew centuries see esp. S. Lieberman, Hellenism C.E., exegetesin Palestine Palestine2 midrashand Homericmidrash' (New York, 1962),20-47; A. A. Halevi, 'Rabbinic 31 (1962), 157-69,264-80;P. S. Alexander, (Hebrew),Tarbiz '"Homerthe prophetof all"and "Mosesourteacher": of theHomeric lateantiqueexegesis epicsandthetorahof Moses',in L. V.
Rutgers, P. van der Horst et al. (edd.), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World(Leuven,

Reflectionson the textual 1998), 130-2; id., 'Whyno textualcriticismin Rabbinicmidrash?

Studies suppl.11(Oxford, 2000),175-90. in the extensive passage). 57 Philo,Mut.61 (quotedabove 58 See also Liihrs(n. 23), 18-148. His analysisis somewhat by two facts:he compromised focusedtoo narrowly verbsat the beginning of versesand, furthermore, on casesof redundant examined otherthanTrrpLUads is used.A systematic studyof manyscholiawherean expression the references in Erbse's confirmsLihr's important conclusionthat rTEptLUao index,however, refersto a particular of athetesis. category

culture of the Rabbis', in G. J. Brooke (ed.), Jewish Waysof Reading the Bible, Journalof Semitic

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HOMERIC

SCHOLARSHIP

AND BIBLE EXEGESIS

181

vationof improper wasthusinclinedto suspecta verse,or evena content.Aristarchus series of consecutiveverses,if these showed signs of superfluityboth in terms of languageand of content. Two examplesmay sufficehere to illustratethe background of Philo's 'quarrelin the some'exegete.The firstpertainsto Theano's prayer templeof Athene,whichis with some reported redundancy.
< CLVE"VEVE WV Ea E aAAaV 6IJ A7407>: ) EVXOkEI-7q, TO'E 0 a'OErELatl, O't rTPOV OV';B'V T' VY70La Ka o0K 17LLEVOV" KaTO )EYv yap TO EvaVTLOV ZEV' EI7TLJEflLOL KaTaVEV"WV. Kat\ E$'jV 3; E'Eyof`VOV w3 at /1EV P EVXOVTO uraqLwV vETracL7TEptLcrlOs 0 TrXOS. yEAolta E KatL\7 aVcVEUOVaAO'qvd.

'ThussheprayedandPallasAthenethrewbackherheadas a tokenof denial.'(II.6.311) [This verse] is athetised, because the phrase added for ornamentis to no purpose and It is in contrastto the opposite[scenewhere]Zeus confirmsby noddingassent uncustomary. Since the same idea is repeatedsubsequently, 'Thus they were praying'(I1. (KaTavEWcwv).59 And Athenathrowing herheadbackas a tokenof denial 6.312),the verseis clearlysuperfluous. is ludicrous. (Schol.II.6.311) II. 6.311-12 drew Aristarchus' attention, because these lines contain a puzzling repetition. Their opening was linguistically almost identical: c ~qs ar7' EVXOpJEv7r versus cws at (Ev ' While verse 311 mentions the conclusion of Theano's 7qVXOV70. prayer as well as Athena's negative response, verse 312 summarily refers to the prayer

of Theano and the women of Troy,using the same expressionas in II. 6.303-4. Aristarchusidentifiedverse 311, ratherthan 312, as spurious,because it violates
Homeric usage. In his view it becomes Homer to ascribe to a deity a literal nodding in the case of assent, as he did in II. 1.527 with regard to Zeus. 'AvaVE{vw, by contrast, is used metaphorically, as the opposite of the verb 8&sowut (II. 16.250-2).60 Given the

contextof Theano'sprayer to Athena'sstatue,Aristarchus seemsto haverejected the possibilityof a metaphorical meaning.On the otherhand, a statuemovingher head backalso appeared ludicrous. Whenthe metaphorical meaningseemedinappropriate and the literalmeaningimpliedboth repetition as well as violationof Homericusage and commonsense,athetesis was the only solution. Another examplemay illustratehow Aristarchuscombinedlinguisticconsiderationswithjudgments of content:
3E"O1KE < EE acL71Evra8' T KatEvavrlov Hp-l>: COETratTL dW " AEVK0AEVOV EXwV? 7TEpTTOrS d Ka Ly p 'wS&pa S 'EpLVEV 'aXEcOoV av'8-v', 46AOV6tL l\ wvo7avoU EMrLEqpE 7rapauxovuaL" VOEO WTEP yap 7TroL7T17"T 7KE<V> rotoLTro ('r v iEV aptI47qAov Of ErT7P ?qwEV'.

'the goddess, white-armedHera, providedhim [the horse Xantes] with human speech'(II. 19.407) as superfluous andcontaining a contradiction. It is in discordwith (the (Thisverse)is athetised he had thus spoken,the Erinyes held backhis voice'(II. 19.418)- thus they clearly verse)'After had also granted[speech]. Of this kindis the poet:'thegod who brought himto light,madehim disappear' (schol.II. 19.407) (II.2.318).

Aristonicus tworeasons forAristarchus' athetesis: andcontraprovides superfluity diction. Theformer consideration is no longer in but Aristarchus' explained detail,
was surelythe following: verse407 is redundant, becauseit presents Heraas reasoning initiatingthe horse's speech, while accordingto verse 404 the horse was already
59
60

Thisis not a quotation of II.2.527,buta paraphrase. See also Ltihrs(n. 24), 111-12.

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

182

MAREN

R. NIEHOFF

Aristarchus athetizedverse407, ratherthan 404, becauseonly speaking (rrpog'-q). the former containedalso a contradiction to II. 19.418,wherethe Erinyes are said to took II. 2.318 as a proof of Homer's stop the horse'shuman speech.Aristarchus situation,will also restorethe principlethat the god who has initiatedan exceptional state. On his Homer cannot the restorationof the have attributed view, previous animalstateto the Erinyes, whileHeragavehumanspeechto the horse.If Herahad in the initialstage,she wouldalso havebeen mentionedat indeedbeen instrumental the end of the episode. Philo's'quarrelsome' considerations. He, too, is sensitive colleagueadducessimilar to the fact that the lettersalpha and rho in Sarah'sand Abraham's new names are Their of in as turns out to be no real the LXX, superfluous. change names, reported at as of the the sound names the remains same. this Furthermore, change all, virtually Philo'sreport exegeteconsidersthe contentsof the versesin questionto be ludicrous. of his criticism,especiallythe formulation indeedare the gifts 'greatand surpassing which Moses says the Leaderof all provided'(Mut. 61), suggestthat this exegete considered the idea conveyedin Gen. 17.5, 15 as a violationof Moses'characteristic ways of speaking about God. He was convincedthat Moses would never have attributed to God the ridiculous notion of donatinggifts as worthless as the addition of a single,superfluous letter. Thisjudgementhas a clearlyAristarchan flavourand must be understoodin the largercontext of the groupof literalexegeteswhom Philo criticizedin Mut. 60-2. Philo said aboutthemthat they rejected certainitemsin Scripture, suchas Gen. 17.5 and 17.15,whichcould, in theirview,'not be preserved in the literal as appropriate sense'. Philo did not mention any reason for theirjudgementof athetesis,instead of attackingtheirwhole approach.It would seem that the exegeticalconsiderations the individual whichhe subsequently of the arein fact an explanation exegete, reports, athetesisin question.In the same way as Aristonicussometimesonly recordedan athetesisby Aristarchus, but on other occasionsprovidedor reconstructed also his decisionthatcertainverses reasonsfor doing so, Philo initiallyreported the exegetes' and then adducedthe reasonsfor that decision,as formulated 'cannotbe preserved' by one particular exegete. If my analysisis correct,we haveevidenceof a text-critical branchof JewishBible More than 2,000 yearsago that was inspiredby Aristarchus. exegesisin Alexandria therewereJewishscholarswho judgedcertainversesto be spurious.In the present article one example of this critical scholarshiphas come to light. Otherswill be discussedin my full treatment of the topic. Philothus provides crucialinsightsinto a now lost world of JewishBible scholarship in ancientAlexandria.This world was richand engagedin a meaningful extremely dialoguewith Homericscholarship. TheHebrewUniversity of Jerusalem MAREN R. NIEHOFF msmaren@mscc.huji.ac.il

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions