D X Runia

FYANT1RTA
AND THE
TIMAEUS OF PLATO

VU Boekhandel
PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA
AND THE
TIMAEUS OF PLATO
I
Druk: Offsetdrukkerij Kanters B.V., Alblasserdam

ISBN 90-6256-183-7 (2 volumes)

© 1983 D. T. Runia, Kampen

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing
from the holder of the copyright.
 VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT TE AMSTERDAM

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA
AND THE
TIMAEUS OF PLATO
ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van

doctor in de letteren
aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam,
op gezag van de rector magnificus
dr. H. Verheul,
hoogleraar in de faculteit
der wiskunde en natuurwetenschappen,
in het openbaar te verdedigen op
donderdag 2 juni 1983 te 15.30 uur
in het hoofdgebouw der universiteit,
De Boelelaan 1105

door

D O U W E THEUNIS RUNIA
geboren te Marknesse

VU Boekhandel
Promotor: Prof. dr. A. P. Bos
Copromotor: Prof. dr. J. C. M. van Winden
Referent: Prof. dr. C. Datema
 CONTENTS
Preface v i i
Notice to the reader ix

PART ONE INTRODUCTION

1. Aim and s t r u c t u r e of the study 1
2. Recent developments i n P h i l o n i c s t u d i e s 5
3. The h i s t o r i c a l and c u l t u r a l s e t t i n g 23
4. The Timaeus from P l a t o to the age of P h i l o 27
5. Method 40

PART TWO ANALYSIS

A 'Commentary' on P l a t o ' s Timaeus as read and u t i l i z e d by P h i l o
^' Timaeus 17a-27d: the dialogue's i n t r o d u c t i o n 48
2. Timaeus 27d-29d: the proemium 67
3
- Timaeus 29d-31b: the a c t of c r e a t i o n 104
^* Timaeus 31b-34b: the body of the cosmos 146
5. Timaeus 34b-41a: the cosmic soul and the heavenly bodies 166
6* Timaeus 41a-42e: the demiurge's speech and f i n a l c r e a t i v e a c t 197
7' Timaeus 42e-47e: man's descent i n t o the body 221
Timaeus 48a-61c: the r e c e p t a c l e and the primary bodies 241
9. Timaeus 61c-*89c: the physiology and psychology of man 257
^* Timaeus 89d-92c: f i n a l remarks on man and the lower animals 280
Appendix to Part two: Pentateuchal texts given exegesis with r e f e r e n c e
to the Timaeus 308

PART THREE SYNTHESIS

1. The manner of P h i l o ' s use of the Timaeus 318
2. The i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus on P h i l o ' s thought 349
3. P h i l o and the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n of the Timaeus 394

PART FOUR CONCLUSION

1. P h i l o and P l a t o ' s Timaeus 425
2. P h i l o ' s achievement 429

Samenvatting 448
Notes 453
Bibliography 555
Indices 570

A MORE DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS IS FOUND AT THE END OF THE BOOK

 PREFACE
Now that t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , and with i t my Academic t r a i n i n g , has reached
completion, i t i s a very great p r i v i l e g e to express my h e a r t f e l t g r a t i t u d e to
the many people and the d i v e r s e i n s t i t u t i o n s , without whose a s s i s t a n c e i t
could not have been w r i t t e n .
It. i s f i t t i n g to begin wit h my promotor, Prof .dr.A.P.Bos. The warm wel-
come which he gave my wife and me on our a r r i v a l i n the Netherlands remains
f r e s h i n my memory. I t was a suggestion of h i s that f i r s t turned my thoughts
to a study of the w r i t i n g s of P h i l o of A l e x a n d r i a . He showed a n e v e r - f l a g g i n g
i n t e r e s t i n my research d u r i n g the long years of p r e p a r a t i o n , while h i s c o n t i -
nual stream of p e n e t r a t i n g comments proved an i n d i s p e n s a b l e s t i m u l u s . I t was
a great honour that Prof .dr. J.CM.van Winden (RU L e i d e n ) , who at an e a r l y
stage had given my plans encouraging support, accepted the task of a c t i n g as
copromotor. The f i n a l manuscript r e c e i v e d much b e n e f i t from h i s v a s t e x p e r i -
ence i n the f i e l d of C l a s s i c a l and P a t r i s t i c s t u d i e s . My thanks are a l s o due
to Prof.dr.Cuaterna f o r a c t i n g as r e f e r e n t and reading through the e n t i r e manu-
script. The academic context of my research was the Vakgroep Antieke en Pa-
t r i s t i s c h e f i l o s o f i e i n the Céntrale I n t e r f a c u l t e i t of the Free U n i v e r s i t y .
I t s members, among whom I wish to mention e s p e c i a l l y Drs.P.Boot, Drs.T.A.Bol-
h u i s , Drs.V.Kal and Miss M.Maes, provided f r u i t f u l d i s c u s s i o n and warm encour-
agement. A source of i n s p i r a t i o n to me was the s h i n i n g example set by the
l a t e Prof.M.CSmit. I t i s a matter of deep r e g r e t to me that he d i d not live
to see the study, which d i d not escape the polymathic scope of h i s i n t e r e s t s ,
finished. L a s t but c e r t a i n l y not l e a s t , I would l i k e to use t h i s opportunity to
express my g r a t i t u d e to my A u s t r a l i a n teachers, and among them e s p e c i a l l y Mr.
M.B.Keary (The Geelong C o l l e g e ) , Prof.G.W.Clarke and Dr.K.J.McKay (The Univer-
s i t y of Melbourne), who instilled i n me a love f o r Greco-Roman a n t i q u i t y and
f i r s t acquainted me with the t o o l s of C l a s s i c a l philology.

Other s c h o l a r s , who were l e s s d i r e c t l y connected with the i n s t i t u t i o n s at

which I s t u d i e d , gave generous a s s i s t a n c e . Words can h a r d l y convey how much
I am indebted to Prof.V.Nikiprowetzky (Paris). As soon as he heard of my pro-
j e c t , he placed h i s time and u n p a r a l l e l e d knowledge of P h i l o n i c s t u d i e s at my
disposal. Through the mediation of h i s extensive l e t t e r s I was saved from
numerous e r r o r s and was kept informed on the very l a t e s t developments i n
Philonic studies. The keen i n t e r e s t he showed i n my work over a p e r i o d of
three years was a constant source of encouragement. Prof.M.Baltes (Miinster)
k i n d l y answered e n q u i r i e s on t e c h n i c a l aspects of P l a t o n i s t philosophy .
viü PREFACE

P r o f . J . D i l l o n (Dublin) and Prof.B.L.Mack (Claremont U.S.A.) a l s o showed i n t e r -

est i n d i v e r s e aspects of my research. A very s p e c i a l vote of thanks must be
given to Drs.J.J.S.Weitenberg (RU L e i d e n ) , who generously devoted many hours
of h i s time to h e l p i n g me confront the complexities of the P h i l o n i c .wqrks pre-
served only i n an Armenian t r a n s l a t i o n . Another Armenologist, P r o f . A . T e r i an
( B e r r i e n Springs, U.S.A.), k i n d l y gave me access to an e x c i t i n g d i s c o v e r y
which he had made and which was r e l e v a n t to the subject of my study.

G r a t e f u l acknowledgement f o r f i n a n c i a l support must be made to two i n s t i -

tutions. A T r a v e l l i n g s c h o l a r s h i p awarded by The U n i v e r s i t y of Melbourne
enabled me to commence the o r i e n t a t i n g p e r i o d of research. A generous t h r e e -
year grant s u p p l i e d by the Netherlands O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r the Advancement of
Pure Research allowed me to devote a l l my time to the p r o j e c t and thus b r i n g
i t to f r u i t i o n . I am g r a t e f u l t o the C o u n c i l and s t a f f of the Fondation Hardt
(Vandoeuvres-Geneva) f o r g i v i n g me the opportunity to w r i t e a d i f f i c u l t sec-
t i o n of the work| i n i d e a l surroundings. The t r i p to Switzerland was financed
by a T r a v e l grant from the Netherlands O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r the Advancement of
Pure Research. Through the agency of the Buma B i b l i o t h e e k (Leeuwarden) and
i t s a s s i s t a n t l i b r a r i a n , Mr.D.W.Kok, I was given access to the many s p e c i a l -
i z e d books and j o u r n a l s r e q u i r e d f o r a study of t h i s k i n d . The VU Boekhandel
and i t s staff-member, Mr.F.Grijzenhout, gave me i n v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e i n the
p r e p a r a t i o n of the d i s s e r t a t i o n f o r a c t u a l p u b l i c a t i o n .

My g r e a t e s t debts I have l e f t u n t i l l a s t . For as long as I can remember

my parents have encouraged me t o study and explore those f i e l d s of knowledge
i n which I was e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t e d . At the same time they showed me by
t h e i r own example that there was more to l i f e than merely the a c q u i s i t i o n of
knowledge and the p u r s u i t of one's own i n t e r e s t s . I regard i t as p a r t i c u l a r -
l y appropriat e that I should graduate at the same u n i v e r s i t y from which my
f a t h e r , twenty-eight years ago, r e c e i v e d h i s doctorate. There was a great
deal that my wife had to leave behind when we embarked together on our Euro-
pean adventure. Throughout the years she has been f o r me a n e v e r - f a i l i n g
source of support and s t r e n g t h , from the u n c e r t a i n p e r i o d at the s t a r t to the
f i n a l busy months, when day i n day out she a s s i s t e d me i n the arduous task of
t y p i n g out a long and f r e q u e n t l y e s o t e r i c manuscript. What I owe t o her can-
not be expressed i n words. To my parents and to my wife — xoCs pev yovlwv
apbOTOus, xrj 6e YUVOILMUJV cpuAxaxg — I dedicate t h i s book.

Kampen
Easter 1983
 \
\

NOTICE TO THE READER

The subject of t h i s study cannot be d e a l t with i n an adequate manner un-

l e s s a t t e n t i o n i s given to a c o n s i d e r a b le amount of t e c h n i c a l d e t a i l . There
i s a danger that an excess of such d e t a i l w i l l have a numbing e f f e c t on the
reader. I have taken t h i s i n t o account i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the study.
T e c h n i c a l aspects are confined as much as p o s s i b l e to the 'Commentary1
in
Part II and the notes. The reader who i s not so concerned with s p e c i a l i z e d
matters i s thus advised to commence by d i r e c t i n g h i s a t t e n t i o n f i r s t to Parts
I, I I I and IV.
References to s c h o l a r l y l i t e r a t u r e are g e n e r a l l y (but not i n a l l cases)
given i n f u l l on the f i r s t o c c a s i o n and t h e r e a f t e r i n an abbreviated form.
F u l l d e t a i l s of a l l works c i t e d are given i n the B i b l i o g r a p h y at the end of
the book. A number of important s t u d i e s are r e g u l a r l y c i t e d by the author's
name only. These are i n d i c a t e d by means of an a s t e r i s k i n the Bibliography.
F i v e a b b r e v i a t i o n s are used throughout the study f o r references to the
major e d i t i o n s and t r a n s l a t i o n s of P h i l o ' s works:
C-W Cohn and Wendland, E d i t i o maior
EE E n g l i s h E d i t i o n (Colson-Whitaker-Earp)
EES E n g l i s h E d i t i o n Supplement (Marcus)
FE French E d i t i o n (Arnaldez-Pouilloux-Mondesert)
GT German T r a n s l a t i o n (Cohn-Heinemann-Adler-Theiler)
Other a b b r e v i a t i o n s are explained i n the B i b l i o g r a p h y at the end of the book.
P h i l o ' s t r e a t i s e s are i n d i c a t e d by means of the f o l l o w i n g a b b r e v i a t i o n s :
Opif. De o p i f i c i o mundi
Leg. Legum a l l e g o r i a e
Cher. De Cherubim
Sacr. De s a c r i f i c i i s A b e l i s et C a i n i
Pet. Quod d e t e r i u s p o t i o r i i n s i d i a r i s o l e a t
Post. De p o s t e r i t a t e C a i n i
Gig. De gigantibus
Deus Quod Deus s i t immutabilis
Agr. De a g r i c u l t u r a
Plant. De plantatione
Ebr. De e b r i e t a t e
Sobr. De sobrietate
Conf. De confusione linguarum
Migr. De migratione Abrahami
X NOTICE TO THE READER

Her. Quis rerum divinarum heres s i t

Congr. De congressu e r u d i t i o n i s gratia
Fug. De fuga et inventione
Mut. De mutatione nominum
Somn. De somniis

Abr- De Abrahamo
ios . De Iosepho
Mos. De v i t a Moysis
Decaí. De Decálogo
Spec. De s p e c i a l i b u s legibus
Virt. De v i r t u t i b u s
Praem. De praemiis et poenis, de e x s e c r a t i o n i b u s
Prob. Quod omnis probus l i b e r s i t
Contempl. De v i t a contemplativa
Aet. De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi
Flacc. In Flaccum
Legat. L e g a t i o ad Gaium
Hypoth. Hypothetica
Prov. De Providentia
An im. De animalibus
QG Quaestiones et s o l u t i o n e s i n Genesim
QE Quaestiones et s o l u t i o n e s i n Exodum
 PART ONE

INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER ONE

AIM AND STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY

About ten years before h i s death the Athenian philosopher PLATO, s e c u r e l y

s e t t l e d i n the Academy which he had founded, made p u b l i c the masterpiece of
h i s o l d age, the dialogue known as the Timaeus. 1
The most s t r i k i n g f e a t u r e of
t h i s work was the quasi-mythical manner i n which i t presented an account of
the o r i g i n of the universe and of i t s most important i n h a b i t a n t , man. Right
from the s t a r t the dialogue proved to be a success. No other p h i l o s o p h i c a l
work i n a n t i q u i t y was so widely disseminated and the subject of so much d i s -
cussion as the Timaeus. Although P l a to showed a keen i n t e r e s t i n the wisdom
of the East, he was almost c e r t a i n l y unaware that h i s cosmogony bore at l e a s t
a s u p e r f i c i a l resemblance to another c r e a t i o n a l account found i n the Holy books
of the Jews. By the f o u r t h century B.C. the c o m p i l a t i o n of the f i r s t five
books of the Old Testament, commonly known as the Torah or the Pentateuch, had
reached the f i n a l form i n which we s t i l l know them today. Containing m a t e r i a l
of great a n t i q u i t y , they were a t t r i b u t e d to the authorship of the Jewish pro-
phet and lawgiver MOSES. 2
The books of Moses c h i e f l y recount the h i s t o r y and
laws of the people of I s r a e l , but at the beginning of the book Genesis that
h i s t o r y and the accompanying l e g i s l a t i o n are placed i n a u n i v e r s a l p e r s p e c t i v e .
An account i s given of how God created the u n i v e r s e and man. Almost four cen-
t u r i e s a f t e r P l a t o wrote the Timaeus, the A l e x a n d r i an Jew PHIL0 set himself
the task of composing p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y o r i e n t a t e d commentaries on the w r i t i n g s
of Moses. 3
These were by then a v a i l a b l e i n a Greek t r a n s l a t i o n , the Septua-
ginta, and continued a l s o i n t h i s v e r s i o n to possess a b i n d i n g a u t h o r i t y on
the Jews of the Diaspora. An i n f l u e n t i a l and learned man, P h i l o was w e l l ac-
quainted with the Greek l i t e r a r y and c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e of the H e l l e n i s t i c world
i n which he l i v e d . From h i s voluminous works i t i s apparent that he had a
p a r t i c u l a r fondness fo r Plato's celebrated dialogue.

What, t h e r e f o r e , has Jerusalem to do with Athens? The answer, i n our

context, i s that A l e x a n d r i a has to do with them both. The group of three
2 INTRODUCTION

w r i t i n g s o u t l i n e d above form the point of departure f o r the present study. The

aim of the study i s to make a comprehensive examination of the way in which
Philo understands and utilizes the Timaeus of P l a t o i n h i s e n t i r e oeuvre. The
reader of the study w i l l be c o n s t a n t l y reminded, however, that behind P h i l o ' s
reading and use of the Timaeus lurks the dominating presence of the Mosaic l e -
g i s l a t i o n , to which as a Jew he never wavered i n h i s l o y a l t y . In p a r t i c u l a r
three areas of research w i l l occupy our attention.

F i r s t l y i t i s our i n t e n t i o n to i n v e s t i g a t e the manner in which Philo makes

use of the Timaeus. Does he o f t e n quote or paraphrase i t s contents d i r e c t l y ,
or are h i s a l l u s i o n s to i t u s u a l l y more s u b t l e and concealed? Are some parts
of the work of greater s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r him than others? Are references to
the dialogue spread evenly through h i s works, or are there p a r t i c u l a r points
of concentration? Are there many passages where he d i r e c t l y discusse s the doc-
t r i n e s of the Timaeus, or does he mainly use i t i n r e l a t i o n to the task of ex-
plaining scripture? What d i f f e r e n t kinds of usage can we d i s c o v e r , and what
are the i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r P h i l o s e x e g e t i c a l
!
practice?

A second task of our study i s to determine the influence of the Timaeus

on Philo's thought. I f i t should prove to be the case that P h i l o frequently
and e x t e n s i v e l y r e f e r s to the Timaeus, i t i s h i g h l y l i k e l y that the work w i l l
have l e f t s i g n i f i c a n t t r a c e s of i t s presence on h i s t h i n k i n g . What are the
d o c t r i n e s of the P l a t o n i c dialogue which he f i n d s p a r t i c u l a r l y persuasive?
What i s the e f f e c t that these d o c t r i n e s have on h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of scrip-
ture? Does he make any attempt to preserve the systematic coherence of P l a -
to's a n a l y s i s of v i s i b l e r e a l i t y and i t s r e l a t i o n to the d i v i n e immutable realm?
And can we say that, i n h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s c r i p t u r e , he incorporates Pla-
tonic doctrines i n a coherent p a t t e r n of thought of h i s own? The main sub-
j e c t s of d i s c u s s i o n here w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y be determined by the subject matter
of the Timaeus, namely the c r e a t i o n and the s t r u c t u r e of the cosmos and the
i m p l i c a t i o n s thereof f o r theology, cosmology and anthropology.

The t h i r d main area of concern of t h i s study w i l l be to i n v e s t i g a t e Phi-

lo s r e l a t i o n to the
r
t r a d i t i o n s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus. The Timaeus
does not make easy reading. Some passages are p l a i n l y i n a c c e s s i b l e to the
p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y unschooled reader. Right from the outset many of i t s d o c t r i n e s
were the subject of controversy i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools. It i s highly
improbable that P h i l o should have read the Timaeus without being aided and af-
f e c t e d by the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the work c i r c u l a t i n g i n h i s day, especially
those of the school l o y a l to the words of the master, the Middle P l a t o n i s t s .
Does P h i l o r e v e a l many points of contact with t r a d i t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of
the Timaeus? Does h i s manner of reading the work bear resemblance to that of
philosophers who l i v e d at about the same time as he? I s / i t p o s s i b l e to discover
 I 1. 3

the sources which may have a s s i s t e d him i n coming to a b e t t e r understanding of

what the dialogue has to say?
As f i n a l r e s u l t of the study i t should be p o s s i b l e to reach some c o n c l u -
sions on the way that P h i l o uses a p h i l o s o p h i c a l textbook, on h i s a t t i t u d e to
the t r a d i t i o n of Greek philosophy i n general and Platonism i n p a r t i c u l a r , on
the r e l a t i o n between philosophy and exegesis i n h i s oeuvre, and on h i s place
i n the h i s t o r y of thought.

The way that the study i s structured c l o s e l y corresponds to the aims which
have j u s t been o u t l i n e d . I t w i l l c o n s i s t of four p a r t s . In p a r t one, the In-
troduction, the necessary background i n f o r m a t i on w i l l be presented - on recent
developments i n P h i l o n i c s c h o l a r s h i p , on P h i l o s h i s t o r i c a l and
f
cultural set-
t i n g , on the career of the Timaeus and i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n from P l a t o to P h i l o ,
and, most importantly, on the method that w i l l be used i n c a r r y i n g out the r e -
search i n the remainder of the study. In the second p a r t , e n t i t l e d Analysis,
the evidence w i l l be set out. A l l the passages i n which P h i l o r e f e r s to or
makes use of the Timaeus w i l l be c o l l e c t e d together and analysed i n a k i n d of
'Commentary . 1
This part w i l l possess a somewhat h y b r i d c h a r a c t e r , f o r the se-
quence of subjects d e a l t w i t h i n the P l a t o n i c work i s r e t a i n e d , but the pas-
sages d i s c u s s ed w i l l of course be drawn from P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s . The task of the
t h i r d p a r t , e n t i t l e d Synthesis, i s to c o l l e c t a l l the pieces of evidence pre -
sented i n the A n a l y s i s and organize them i n t o chapters which w i l l d i s c u s s i n a
synoptic way the three main areas of research o u t l i n e d i n the previous para-
graph. The three chapters of t h i s part correspond to those three areas of i n -
terest. F i n a l l y part f o u r , the Conclusion, advances a l i t t l e beyond the s t r i c t
confines of P h i l o s use of the Timaeus and
f
attempts to place the r e s u l t s of
the i n q u i r y i n a more general perspective.

The aim of t h i s study i s , as already s a i d , to i n v e s t i g a t e the use that

P h i l o made of P l a t o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l dialogue in a l l his writings. But, as the
b r i e f e s t p e r u s a l w i l l confirm, the vast m a j o r i t y of those w r i t i n g s are con-
cerned w i t h the d i r e c t exegesis and explanation of the Pentateuch. For this
reason i t i s i n e v i t a b l e that the r e l a t i o n between philosophy and exegesis will
be a c o n s t a n t l y r e c u r r i n g L e i t m o t i v i n our study. 'Philosophy 1
we take to r e -
f e r not only to the t r a d i t i o n of Greek philosophy found i n the pages of P l a t o
and o u t s i d e them, but a l s o i n more general terms to the p r a c t i c e of reflecting
and arguing on the nature and meaning of r e a l i t y . 'Exegesis' i n our context
i n d i c a t e s above a l l the attempt to understand and expound the meaning of the
s c r i p t u r a l t e x t , but can a l s o be a p p l i e d to the e x p o s i t i o n of other authorita-
t i v e t e x t s such as Homer or indeed P l a t o n i c w r i t i n g s . (The p a r a l l e l aspects
of such exegesis to the s c r i p t u r a l exegesis which P h i l o p r a c t i s e s w i l l engage
4 INTRODUCTION

our a t t e n t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y when we d i s c u s s the i n f l u e n c e of Middle Platonism.)

It i s evident that the two terms, as we use them, are not mutually e x c l u s i v e .
P h i l o s o p h i c a l exegesis i s p o s s i b l e , and so i s e x e g e t i c a l philosophy, but i t
w i l l not do simply to i d e n t i f y these two.** The reader i s asked to keep the
problem of the r e l a t i o n between philosophy and exegesis i n P h i l o s oeuvre i n f

mind throughout h i s r e a d i ng of our study, u n t i l we s p e c i f i c a l l y address the

subject i n the concludin g p a r t .

L a s t l y a note of c a u t i o n must be sounded. Though perhaps s u p e r f l u o u s , to

leave i t unsaid i s to take too great a r i s k . The subject matter of t h i s study,
by i t s v e r y nature, e n t a i l s a necessary and one-sided c o n c e n t r a t i o n on the p h i -
l o s o p h i c a l l y o r i e n t a t e d aspects of P h i l o ' s works. The l e a s t that can be s a i d
of P h i l o i s that he was a many-sided author. Many aspects of P h i l o n i c s t u d i e s
- such as, f o r example, h i s h a n d l i n g of the B i b l i c a l t e s t , h i s r e l a t i o n to
P a l e s t i n i a n Judaism, h i s p o s s i b l e use of m y t h o l o g i c a l m o t i f s from the H e l l e n -
i s t i c r e l i g i o n s , the relevance of h i s w r i t i n g s f o r our knowledge of the p o l i -
t i c a l , s o c i a l and l i t u r g i c a l a c t i v i t i e s of Alexandrian Judaism, and so on -
are touched on only m a r g i n a l l y , i f at a l l . The reader of t h i s study w i l l thus
not get a p i c t u r e of P h i l o f
i n the r o u n d .
1
But at the same time I w i l l readi-
l y confess that I would not have undertaken a p r o j e c t of t h i s scope, were i t
not my c o n v i c t i o n that i t i s concerned with a very important f a c e t of P h i l o ' s
achievement.
 CHAPTER TWO

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN P H I L O N I C STUDIES

Is i t necessary to commence a study on P h i l o w i t h some remarks, however

b r i e f , on P h i l o n i c s c h o l a r s h i p ? One might w e l l argue that i t i s b e t t e r to
plunge i n medias res and l e t the t e x ts speak f o r themselves. The f u n c t i o n of
s c h o l a r l y s t u d i e s should be to e l u c i d a t e P h i l o s w r i t i n g s and
f
contribute to
the understanding of h i s thought, not to lead a l i f e of t h e i r own. Perhaps
one might envisage an i d e a l i n which the i p s i s s i m a verba P h i l o n i s are approa-
ched with a mind unencumbered by the s c h o l a r l y c o n s t r u c t s and hypotheses accu-
mulated over the c e n t u r i e s . But i t must be conceded that such an i d e a l i s im-
p r a c t i c a b l e , and indeed not without i t s dangers. A d i r e c t c o n f r o n t a t i o n with
P h i l o s w r i t i n g s i s l i k e l y to prove a d i s c o n c e r t i n g experience f o r the unpre-
f

pared reader. Those i n t e r e s t e d i n ancient farming, f o r example, are c e r t a i n l y

not going to f i n d i n the De a g r i c u l t u r a what they are looking f o r . I t i s per-
haps j u s t as r i s k y to approach P h i l o without c o n s u l t a t i o n of secondary studie s
as i t i s to form a p i c t u r e of him on the b a s i s of such works alone. The re-
s u l t i s that students of P h i l o s thought are i n e v i t a b l y i n f l u e n c e d by the d i -
1

verse currents of past s c h o l a r s h i p , and even more by the trends of t h e i r own

time.

The task f o r us here w i l l not be to present a h i s t o r y of s c h o l a r s h i p on

P h i l o - t h i s has been done o f t e n and s u c c e s s f u l l y enough — but to d e l i n e a t e
1

c e r t a i n developments i n P h i l o n i c research which emerge i n a number of recent

studies. E x p l i c i t c r i t i c i s m of these s t u d i e s w i l l be l i m i t e d , because the main
thrust of t h e i r p i c t u r e of P h i l o w i l l be evaluated i n the course of our study.
The reader w i l l d e t e c t , i n the s e l e c t i o n I have made, a c e r t a i n b i a s i n the
d i r e c t i o n of our theme, but the wider i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r an understanding of
P h i l o ' s achievement as a whole w i l l be evident. The remarks w i l l be concluded
with a b r i e f mention of those s t u d i es which have already explored c e r t a i n as-
pects of our s u b j e c t , the use made by P h i l o of P l a t o ' s Timaeus.

2.1. A quintet of dissension

P h i l o was once described as 'die k o m p l i z i e r t e s t e und den verschiedensten

Einflüssen ausgesetzte Persönlichkeit des A l t e r t u m s ' . 1
There are absolutely
no grounds f o r t h i n k i n g that t h i s r a t h e r dismaying statement has any validity
- nothing at a l l i s known about P h i l o ' s p e r s o n a l i t y - but i t c e r t a i n l y gives
6 INTRODUCTION

an e x c e l l e n t i n d i c a t i o n of the great d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered by s c h o l a r s in

grappling with the w r i t i n g s that he bequeathed to p o s t e r i t y . Rarely has there
been such a manifest d i s s e n s i o eruditorum on the nature and s i g n i f i c a n c e of an
author's achievement as i n the case of P h i l o . We s h a l l i l l u s t r a t e i t with the
b r i e f e s t mention of f i v e c l a s s i c studies on P h i l o w r i t t e n between 1930 and
1950, 2
which each i n t h e i r own way endeavoured to present a ' s y n t h e t i c ' por-
t r a i t of P h i l o and have exerted a profound i n f l u e n c e on the course of P h i l o n i c
studies.

Isaac HEINEMANN, on the b a s i s of a p a i n s t a k i n g a n a l y s i s of the presenta-

t i o n of the Mosaic l e g a l p r e s c r i p t i o n s i n the De specialibus legibus, conclu-
ded that P h i l o ' s Jewish p i e t y determines the choice of the copious Greek ' B i l -
dungsgut' i n h i s w r i t i n g s , but that the dominance of Greek modes of thought i s
so great that h i s Jewish h e r i t a g e i s e n t i r e l y s p i r i t u a l i z e d and i t s special
character i s i n danger of becoming l o s t . 3
Erwin G00DEN0UGH went much f u r t h e r
i n h i s a f f i r m a t i o n of P h i l o ' s H e l l e n i z a t i o n . P h i l o i s a mystic philosopher i n
the H e l l e n i s t i c t r a d i t i o n , but with important s y n c r e t i s t i c o r i e n t a l elements
added. 4
The A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary guides the mystic i n h i s quest f o r know-
ledge of and u l t i m a t e l y union w i th the Deit y v i a the two stages of the Mystery
of Aaron and the Mystery of Moses, i n which ascent the Law of Moses function s
as no more than a s t a r t i n g - p o i n t . In Walther VOLKER's study P h i l o the Jew
makes an impressive comeback. 5
There i s much Greek m a t e r i a l i n Philo's wri-
t i n g s , but i t i s wholly devoid of system and f u l l of i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s . It must
be seen i n the l i g h t of P h i l o ' s 'Grundhaltung' as a God-fearing, Law-abiding
Jew, whose p i e t y d i f f e r s l i t t l e from that of Jesus ben Sirach. Greek termino-
logy and doctrines are no more than s c a f f o l d i n g , which can be methodically
s t r i p p e d away once the c e n t r a l i t y of P h i l o ' s Jewish p i e t y i s recognized. The
magisterial tomes of Harry Austryn W0LFS0N on P h i l o are l i k e l y to deceive the
reader i f he i s not careful. 6
By using h i s 'hypothetico-deductive method' to
uncover the l a t e n t processes of P h i l o ' s thought, Wolfson was able to present
P h i l o as a 'philosopher i n the grand manner', who develops a t i g h t - k n i t p h i l o -
s o p h i c a l system of h i s own i n response to and i n constant debate with P l a t o ,
A r i s t o t l e and the S t o i c s . But, note w e l l , t h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l system proves to
be Jewish to the very core, being based on s c r i p t u r e as r e v e l a t i o n and taking
a number of s c r i p t u r a l presuppositions as i t s s t a r t i n g - p o i n t . Philo initiates
the Jewish, C h r i s t i a n and Islamic philosophies of the Middle Ages and his tea-
chings are the dominant i n f l u e n c e i n European philosophy u n t i l Spinoza. Wolf-
son was unable to e x p l a i n , however, why P h i l o chose to present h i s philosophy
in a form so unsuited to i t s systematic s t r u c t u r e . I t would be u n f a i r to com-
pare the study of Andre-Jean FESTUGIERE with the other f o u r . 7
He devoted only
 I 2.1. 7

one long chapter of h i s great work on the i n t e l l e c t u a l antecedents of the Her-

mética to P h i l o , but i n i t he revealed an a t t i t u d e t y p i c a l of many c l a s s i c a l
scholars. P h i l o i s a p e r f e c t example of the educated man produced by the do-
zen i n the H e l l e n i s t i c s c h o o l s . P h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s are detached from t h e i r
context, and merely serve to i l l u s t r a t e B i b l i c a l t e x t s or form the b a s i s f o r
rhetorical display. One can read the whole of P h i l o ' s works without coming
across a s i n g l e o r i g i n a l thought...

The vast chasm which separates the extravagant claims of Wolfson and the
contemptuous d i s m i s s a l of Festugiére r e v e a l s more f o r c e f u l l y than anything
else the f a i l u r e of the s c h o l a r s of t h i s generatio n to reach a consensus on
the way P h i l o should be understood and e v a l u a t e d . 8
The points of d i s p u t e can
be summed up under four headings.
(1) Heinemann's attempt to show that P h i l o achieved a s y n t h e s i s of H e l l e -
nism and Judaism d i d not manage to solve a l l the problems a s s o c i a t e d with the
r e l a t i o n between P h i l o Alexandrinus and P h i l o Judaeus. Is the core of P h i l o s f

t h i n k i n g Jewish, or more s p e c i f i c a l l y determined by the 'Grundhaltung 1

of J u -
daic p i e t y (Volker, Wolfson), or has the importation of Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l
and/or r e l i g i o u s ideas transformed h i s thought i n t o something that i s no lon-
ger e s s e n t i a l l y Jewish (Goodenough)? Also the question of P h i l o s r e l a t i o n to
f

P a l e s t i n i a n Judaism and the R a b b i n i c a l Oral Law remained unresolved, with H e i -

nemann and Wolfson reaching e x a c t l y opposite c o n c l u s i o n s . 9

(2) What i s the r o l e of Greek philosophy i n P h i l o s writings?

f
For Wolf-
son P h i l o i s most d e f i n i t e l y a philosopher, who r e s t r u c t u r e s the e n t i r e s t r u c -
ture of Greek philosophy, s y s t e m a t i c a l l y matching the great Greek philosophers
on t h e i r own ground. Goodenough considered P h i l o to be more i n t e r e s t e d i n my-
s t i c a l experience than p h i l o s o p h i c a l reasoning, while Volker regarded the p h i -
losophy i n P h i l o as a s c a f f o l d i n g which needs to be dismantled i n order to un-
derstand him. For Festugiére philosophy i s too b i g a word f o r P h i l o s c o l l e c - T

t i o n of t o p o i and b a n a l i t i e s . Another question which c o n s t a n t l y recurs i s

whether P h i l o s thought
f
i s p r i m a r i l y i n f l u e n c e d by the philosophy of P l a t o or
by the d o c t r i n e s of the Stoa through the mediation of P o s i d o n i u s . 10
Wolfson
and Goodenough opted f o r the former (even i f much transformed), while Heine-
mann (as Z e l l e r and Cohn b e f o r e him) was i n c l i n e d to choose the latter. 1 1

(3) A t h i r d crux i s P h i l o ' s a t t i t u d e to the Law of Moses. No one could

deny that P h i l o considered i t necessary to observe the Law and devoted a good
deal of h i s w r i t i n g s to i t s e x p l a n a t i o n . But how important was i t to him?
Heinemann and Goodenough both considered that the Mosaic Law has a s p e c i a l
place i n P h i l o ' s h e a r t , but that u l t i m a t e l y i t i s subordinated to the Law of
Nature and the r a t i o n a l i s m of the Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n . Wolfson and
8 INTRODUCTION

Volker, on the c o n t r a r y , placed the Law of Moses at the centre of P h i l o s f

thought, but disagreed s h a r p l y on the nature of the e d i f i c e which he c o n s t r u c t s

on the foundation of that Law.
(4) The e n t i r e q u i n t e t of s c h o l a r s had i n common that they found i t dif-
f i c u l t to come to terms with the formal aspect of P h i l o s w r i t i n g s . f
Wolfson
showed the v i r t u e of frankness when he a f f i r m e d that the a r t i f i c i a l i t y of the
l i t e r a r y form of P h i l o s e x e g e t i c a l w r i t i n g s tends to obscure h i s t r u e thought.
f 12

Goodenough would have had to agree, s i n c e there are more s u i t a b l e ways of i n -

t r o d u c i n g the mystic ascent than i n complex chains of exegesis. V o l k e r con-
s i d e r e d that the source of the e x e g e t i c a l t r a c t a t e s was the h o m i l i e s of the
Synagogue; hence t h e i r e d i f i c a t o r y tone and t o t a l l y unsystematic and rambling
character. But could one imagine even the most devoted student of the Law ac-
t u a l l y l i s t e n i n g to P h i l o ' s convoluted e x e g e t i c a l explanations?

2.2. A quintet of recent studies

For a decade or so a f t e r the p u b l i c a t i o n of Wolfson's great tomes there

appeared to be a k i n d of l u l l i n Philonic research. Not that the stream of
books and a r t i c l e s on P h i l o d r i e d up during these years. Much continued to be
w r i t t e n and p u b l i s h e d , 1
but one gets the impression of c o n s o l i d a t i o n r a t h e r
than the quest f o r new avenues of research . I f we should look f o r an event
which ushered i n the modern p e r i o d of P h i l o n i c study, I would propose the com-
mencement of the undertaking to t r a n s l a t e the e n t i r e Corpus Philonicum i n t o
French under the e d i t o r s h i p of Arnaldez, P o u i l l o u x and Mondesert. 2
T h i s ambi-
t i o u s p r o j e c t i n v o l v e d the cooperation of about twenty-five s c h o l a r s , so that
there i s n a t u r a l l y a good d e a l of v a r i a t i o n i n the q u a l i t y of the work produ-
ced. Some p a r t s of s e r i e s are no more than mediocre t r a n s l a t i o n s without notes
or s i g n i f i c a n t i n t r o d u c t i o n s , others are of the highest standard and virtually
amount to complete commentaries on the works i n q u e s t i o n. On 11-15 September
1966 the t r a n s l a t o r s , l i k e the Septuaginta s c h o l a r s of o l d , assembled together
at Lyon and, i n the company of other French experts on P h i l o and h i s 'Umwelt , 1

h e l d a Collogue which must be considered a h i g h p o i n t i n the h i s t o r y of P h i l o -

nic studies. 3
I t i s a p p r o p r i a t e , t h e r e f o r e , that we begin our review of r e -
cent s t u d i e s with a French s c h o l a r who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n both the t r a n s l a t i o n
s e r i e s and the Collogue.

(a) H a r l — P h i l o as a homo r e l i g i o s u s
To Marguerite HARL the assignment was g i v e n to prepare a t r a n s l a t i o n of
the t r e a t i s e Quis rerum divinarum heres s i t . 4
Recognizing the r i c h n e s s of
 I 2.2. 9

thought i n t h i s work and the important place i t occupies i n the expression of

P h i l o ' s cosmological ideas, she devoted to i t a lengthy i n t r o d u c t i o n which
v i r t u a l l y amounted to a separate monograph. 5
C e r t a i n of her ideas on how to
study P h i l o were repeated at the Colloque mentioned above, where her paper
concentrated on the P h i l o n i c fragment, De Deo. 6

Harl s T
s t a r t i n g point i s the r e c o g n i t i o n of the 'double c u l t u r e 1
of P h i l o ,
who expresses des idées grecques avec des
f
expressions j u i v e s et des convic-
t i o n s j u i v e s avec des symboles grecs', whose works and thought c o n s t a n t l y ap-
pear to play on d i v e r s e l e v e l s , ' s o i t que l e s images grecques expriment sa f o i
j u i v e , s o i t que l es images j u i v e s revêtent des c o n v i c t i o n s profondément grec-
ques'. 7
The question i s whether there i s a u n i f y i n g element i n P h i l o ' s thought.
For her views on the nature of P h i l o ' s Greek c u l t u r e H a r l appears much indeb-
ted to Festugière, though she c r i t i c i z e s that s c h o l a r f o r being too severe and
narrow i n h i s judgment. P h i l o ' s Greek ideas and images are devoid of any no-
v e l t y , being drawn from the p h i l o s o p h i c a l koine of h i s time. 8
But a closer ex-
amination r e v e a l s h i s o r i g i n a l i t y , f o r one discovers resonances q u i t e diffe-
rent from those of the 'piété hellénistique commune'. 9
The key to H a r l ' s under-
standing of P h i l o ' s thought l i e s i n the d i s t i n c t i o n which she h a b i t u a l l y makes
between the philosophical mode of expression and the r e l i g i o u s mode which pas-
ses beyond the l e v e l of d i s c u r s i v e t h i n k i n g and l o g i c and i s p r i m a r i l y concer-
ned with the r e l a t i o n to God. 10
P h i l o has i n t e r i o r i z e d the Jewish r e l i g i o n and |

discovered a means of g i v i n g expression to h i s h i g h l y charged r e l i g i o u s s e n s i -

• • il I

bility. He i s the f i r s t representative of a new type of homo r e l i g i o s u s . |

So i n a n a l y s i n g what she considers to be the three main themes of the
t r e a t i s e — the r e l a t i o n between God and the cosmos as seen i n the d i v i s i o n of
the universe , the Odyssey of the s o u l , the L e v i t i c s p i r i t u a l i t y of abandonment
of the world, s u p p l i c a t i o n and consecration to God — H a r l f i n d s time and time
again that P h i l o ' s text appears to be very Greek but i s i n f a c t profoundly Je-
wish, that P h i l o uses the language of Greek c u l t u r e to express ideas that are
deeply rooted i n the B i b l i c a l t e x t and i n Jewish f a i t h . 1 2
For example, the
source of the n o t i o n of the Logos tomeus i s so d i f f i c u l t to l o c a t e p r e c i s e l y
i n Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l ideas, d e s p i t e many s u p e r f i c i a l p a r a l l e l s , because the
primary impulse i s given by the B i b l i c a l conception of God's d i v i d i n g Word and
exegesis of the f i e r y sword of Gen.3:24. 13

One may w e l l ask whether H a r l i n f a c t represents an advance i n r e l a t i o n

to the Vôlkerian i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of P h i l o . I think she does i n two respects.
From the methodological angle she i s conscious of the importance of Philo's
e x e g e t i c a l method and f o l l o w s the sinuous thematics of P h i l o ' s t e x t without
enclosing them i n a systematic straightjacket: 1 4

...l'interprète du texte de P h i l o n ne d o i t se s a t i s f a i r e que lorsqu'il

10 INTRODUCTION

a réussi à i d e n t i f i e r , en l e s i s o l a n t , l e s différents éléments, conceptu-

e l s ou imagés, que P h i l o n emprunte à sa double c u l t u r e , grecque et j u i v e ;
l e plus souvent, i l d o i t a r r i v e r à mettre ces éléments en équivalences,
en doublets, que c e u x - c i soient reconnus comme t e l s par P h i l o n ou qu'in-
versement i l cache l ' u n des modes d'expression. L'interprète de P h i l o n
d o i t , d'autre p a r t , rassembler autour d'un passage l e plus grand nombre
de textes parallèles q u i l u i permettent de connaître l e s d i v e r s r e g i s t r e s
sur l e s q u e l s l e thème e s t présenté, a f i n d ' a r r i v e r à s a i s i r , à t r a v e r s
tous, l a cohérence de l a v i s i o n des choses.
Through t h i s method she i s b e t t e r able (e.g. than Volker) to do j u s t i c e to the
Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l themes used by P h i l o . Secondly, the attempt to f i n d a 'co-
herence i n P h i l o ' s view of t h i n g s ' represents a s i g n i f i c a n t s p e c i f i c a t i o n of
the 'Jewish p i e t y ' which Volker and Heinemann l e f t too vague. H a r l regards
c e r t a i n Jewish ideas and symbols as g i v i n g a u n i t y to P h i l o ' s cosmological
thought (even i f they are o f t e n i l l u s t r a t e d by Greek 'doublets'), namely the
ark of the covenant, the theme of m i g r a t i on and the notio n of L e v i t i c spiri-
tuality. 1 5

(b) The P h i l o I n s t i t u t e — P h i l o and h i s t r a d i t i o n

A second major event i n recent P h i l o n i c s t u d i es occurred i n 1971. The
P h i l o I n s t i t u t e was e s t a b l i s h e d i n Chicago by a group of e n t h u s i a s t i c scholars,
with the aim 'to encourage b a s i c research i n the P h i l o n i c corpus i n p a r t i c u l a r ,
and to promote s c h o l a r s h i p i n H e l l e n i s t i c Judaism i n g e n e r a l ' . 16
In the f o l l o -
wing year a j o u r n a l , Studia P h i l o n i c a , was launched i n order to stimulate Phi-
lonic research. 17
I t goes without saying that not a l l the members of the I n -
s t i t u t e hold the same views on P h i l o . Nevertheless a c e r t a i n convergence can
be detected, and i t i s not u n f a i r to a s s o c i a t e that body with a p a r t i c u l a r way
of approaching P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s .

At the f i r s t annual meeting Robert HAMERTON-KELLY presented a programma-

t i c essay. 18
P h i l o deserves renewed a t t e n t i o n , to be expended not on f u r t h e r
studie s of 'ideas' and 'concepts', but r a t h e r on ' " i n t r o d u c t i o n " matters' such
as the s t r u c t u r e , i n t e n t i o n , sources and t r a d i t i o n s of each i n d i v i d u a l t r e a -
tise. P h i l o ' s 'thought' presents such a b e w i l d e r i n g p i c t u r e because h i s w r i -
tings a r e read i n the way that the B i b l e was read i n p r e - c r i t i c a l times. Ana-
l y s i s of source m a t e r i a l , genre, s t r u c t u r e and vocabulary, i f c a r r i e d out with
tact and p r e c i s i o n , i s l i k e l y to lead to f r e s h and i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s . At
the annual meeting four years l a t e r Burton MACK put forward a proposal which
c o n s i d e r a b l y widened the aims formulated by Hamerton-Kelly and at the same
time brought them i n t o sharper focus. 19

P h i l o stands at the end of a long development of s c r i p t u r a l exegesis i n

the Alexandrian synagogue. His w r i t i n g s present such a complex p i c t u r e be-
cause he has incorporated i n them various e x e g e t i c a l methods and themes, em-
ployed with v a r y i n g degrees of acceptance and reworked w i t h v a r y i n g degrees of
 I 2.2. 11

consistency. By means of an a n a l y s i s of the e n t i r e P h i l o n i c corpus i t may be

p o s s i b l e to i d e n t i f y c e r t a i n coherent e x e g e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n s of the synagogue,
and u l t i m a t e l y i t s h i s t o r y may be w r i t t e n . These t h e o l o g i c a l t r a d i t i o n s are
emphatically exegetical i n nature, r e p r e s e n t i n g v a r i o u s ways of reading and
i n t e r p r e t i n g the Pentateuch. The procedure i s unashamedly circular: 2 0

The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the e x e g e t i c a l systems must be won by s t u d i e s which

encompass the e n t i r e P h i l o n i c corpus i n r e l a t i o n to the whole of the Pen-
tateuch, befor e d e t a i l e d analyses of the i n d i v i d u a l t r e a t i s e s can be done
with care and p r o f i t . But the evidence from the d e t a i l e d analyses needs
then to be i n c o r p o r a t ed i n t o the attempt to reconstuct the h i s t o r y of the
systems.
Much of Mack's paper i s devoted to o u t l i n i n g methods which, by investigating
the formal and m a t e r i a l aspects of P h i l o ' s t r e a t i s e s , w i l l a l l o w the identifi-
c a t i o n of b a s i c types of Pentateuchal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 2 1
As a working hypothe-
s i s s i x types are proposed. 22
P h i l o ' s own c o n t r i b u t i o n to the development of
Alexandrian exegesis cannot be determined u n t i l the nature of h i s r e c e i v e d
t r a d i t i o n s and h i s reworking of them i s c l a r i f i e d . I t i s l i k e l y , however, that
t h i s o r i g i n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n may l i e i n the ' p s y c h o l o g i z a t i o n ' of a l l e g o r i e s
which had already been developed i n the e x e g e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n s . 2 3

Of great i n t e r e s t to us i s Mack's way of d e a l i n g with the p h i l o s o p h i c a l

m a t e r i a l found i n the Corpus. Convinced that 'an e x e g e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n i s more
than the d i s c o v e r y of the r e f l e c t i o n of H e l l e n i s t i c philosophy i n the pages of
the B i b l e ' and that the t h e o l o g i c a l concerns of the Alexandria n synagogue were
mapped out before an i n t e r e s t i n H e l l e n i s t i c philosophy arose, Mack proposes
p r o v i s i o n a l l y to bracket the question of the d e r i v a t i o n of concepts, termino-
logy and conceptual systems from the p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s . 24
A classification
of w o r d - f i e l d s might show how c e r t a i n t h e o l o g i c a l t r a d i t i o n s p r e f e r to use
c e r t a i n conceptual conventions ( S t o i c , P l a t o n i c . . . ) i n t h e i r exegesis of s c r i p -
ture. Here i n my view the c i r c u l u s noted above i s i n danger of becoming v i t i -
osus, f o r a l s o i n Mack's other s t u d i e s i t i s apparent t h a t he regards mytholo-
g i c a l themes from H e l l e n i s t i c (and Egyptian) r e l i g i o n as more important than
philosophy i n the formation of P h i l o ' s thought. 25
Noteworthy too i s that the
a t t i t u d e towards the Law i n the Alexandrian synagogue cannot be assumed to be
fixed. I t may prove p o s s i b l e to d i s c o v e r the e x i s t e n c e of v a r i o u s ways of r e -
garding the Books of Moses. 26

Mack's proposal i s nothing i f not ambitious. I t now forms the b a s i s f o r

the Claremont P h i l o P r o j e c t , a long-term p r o j e c t being c a r r i e d out by a team
of s c h o l a r s . So at the present time h i s ideas form no more than a hypothesis
and the r e s u l t s w i l l have to be a w a i t e d . 27
The b a s i c assumption that P h i l o ' s
works record t r a d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l and r e f l e c t developments i n Alexandrian exe-
gesis seems to me e n t i r e l y sound. The methods proposed cannot, however, give
r i s e to h i g h e x p e c t a t i o n s . Unless an author i n d i c a t e s h i s sources, source-
12 INTRODUCTION

c r i t i c i s m must always be based e i t h e r on comparison with other w r i t i n g s or on

the l a c k of coherence and c o n s i s t e n c y of the w r i t e r being s t u d i e d . There i s
v i r t u a l l y no other evidence f o r the development of A l e x a n d r i a n exegesis which
can be used f o r comparative purposes. And i f (as I think) P h i l o has been suc-
c e s s f u l i n i n t e g r a t i n g and indeed transforming h i s r e c e i v e d t r a d i t i o n s , i n v e s -
t i g a t i o n of h i s sources cannot proceed beyond s p e c u l a t i o n . There i s , there -
f o r e , a r e a l danger that the baby w i l l be thrown out with the bathwater. 28

A more l i m i t e d but i n my view more f r u i t f u l attempt to r e l a t e P h i l o to

the t r a d i t i o n s of A l e x a n d r i an exegesis has r e c e n t l y been made by David HAY.
In two a r t i c l e s he has c o l l e c t e d a l l the e x p l i c i t r e f e r e n c es i n P h i l o ' s works
to e x e g e t i c a l predecessors, both those who p r a c t i s e d a l l e g o r i c a l exegesis and
those who went no f u r t h e r than l i t e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n of the sacred t e x t . 2 9
The
hypothesis of a long-standing school or synagogue t r a d i t i o n behind Philo's
w r i t i n g s i s e s s e n t i a l l y confirmed. But at the same time the l a c k of c r i t e r i a
f o r determining where t r a d i t i o n ends and personal c o n t r i b u t i o n s begin c l e a r l y
emerges. The question of P h i l o ' s o r i g i n a l i t y and importance remains largely a
matter of judgment.

(c) Nikiprowetzky - P h i l o as exegete of s c r i p t u r e

In 1977 V a l e n t i n NIKIPROWETZKY published h i s study e n t i t l e d Le commen-
t a i r e de l ' E c r i t u r e chez P h i l o n d'Alexandrie, i n our view the most important
work w r i t t e n on P h i l o s i n c e the great s t u d i e s d e s c r i b e d i n the previous sec-
tion. 3 0
An apt t i t l e f o r the book might have been 'Prolegomena to the study of
Philo', 3 1
f o r Nikiprowetzky's aim i s not to present yet another account of P h i -
l o ' s thought, but r a t h e r to examine what P h i l o ' s i n t e n t i o n s were i n w r i t i n g
h i s t r e a t i s e s and to determine, i n consequence, the way that they should be
read. Two p a r t i c u l a r problems engage h i s a t t e n t i o n . Firstly i t i s necessary
to i d e n t i f y the nature of the Jewish and the Greek components of P h i l o ' s thought.
Secondly i t i s necessary to confront the d i s c o n c e r t i n g a r c h i t e c t u r e of P h i l o ' s
writings. Nikiprowetzky's t h e s i s , put forward with e x t r a o r d i n a r y c l a r i t y and
argumentative f o r c e , i s that both these questions can be r e s o l v e d i f i t i s r e -
cognized that P h i l o i s an exegete of s c r i p t u r e who w r i t e s commentaries i n the
t e c h n i c a l sense of the term.

Among those who regard the Greek sid e of P h i l o as predominant there are
two main approaches, both of which must be r e j e c t e d . The p r e s e n t a t i o n of P h i l o
as a systematic p h i l o s o p h er i n the c l a s s i c mould i n e v i t a b l y leads to a d i s t o r -
t i o n of h i s thought. He i s e s s e n t i a l l y a c r i t i c of a l l the p h i l o s o p h i c a l
schools. The task of uncovering p h i l o s o p h i c a l p a r a l l e l s f o r h i s thought i s
important (and as yet by no means exhausted), but can never amount to more
than an a u x i l i a r y aspect of r e s e a r c h . 32
E q u a l l y misguided i s the attempt
 I 2.2. 13

(Goodenough!) to d i s c e r n a Jewish mystery i n dependence on H e l l e n i s t i c reli-

gious ideas. The language o f mystery and ecstasy which i s so common i n P h i l o
must be seen i n the p e r s p e c t i v e of the P l a t o n i c l i t e r a r y t r a d i t i o n and should
not be taken l i t e r a l l y . The t r u e 'mysticism' of P h i l o i s motivated by Jewish
r e a l i t i e s and e s p e c i a l l y by the a l l e g o r i c a l process. The s c r i p t u r a l text i s
as a dream, i t s hidden meaning a c c e s s i b l e o n l y to the p r o p h e t i c a l l y inspired,
as i l l u s t r a t e d i n the contemplative a c t i v i t y o f the Therapeutae. 33
But also
those who emphasize the J u d a i c aspect of P h i l o must s p e c i f y the nature o f h i s
Judaism. The n o t i o n that P h i l o could read Hebrew and stood i n c l o s e contact
to the t r a d i t i o n s of P a l e s t i n i a n Judaism i s not supported by the e v i d e n c e . 34

If, t h e r e f o r e , Nikiprowetzky f o l l o w s V o l k e r (and H a r l) i n emphasizing the

c e n t r a l i t y of the Judaic aspect i n P h i l o , he goes f u r t h e r than they i n s p e c i -
f y i n g p r e c i s e l y what the f o c a l p o i n t of h i s Judaic p i e t y i s . 3 5
I t i s located i n
his l o y a l t y to the Law of Moses, which he regards as the fount o f a l l wisdom
and t r u t h and t o the exegesis o f which he devotes a l l the time he can spare.
The word cpuAoaocpua i s used i n d i v e r s e senses, but i n i t s most profound meaning
as 'authentic philosophy' i t r e f e r s to the study of s c r i p t u r e . 3 6
Those texts
which p o r t r a y dewpua or (puauoAoyCa as nature-study i n the manner of the Greeks
are not on the same l e v e l as those which present i t as e x p l o r i n g the hidden
depths o f the Law. Nikiprowetzky i s s t r o n g l y opposed to those views which r e -
gard the Mosaic Law as an i n f e r i o r man-made copy of the higher Law of N a t u r e . 37

The Law of Nature and the Law of Moses are i d e n t i c a l i n an absolute and not a
r e l a t i v e sense. The Law of Nature which the cosmos obeys must be transposed
to the l e v e l of man the microcosm, and t h i s i s achieved by the Law of Moses,
which has God as u l t i m a t e author.

P h i l o ' s e x e g e t i c a l a c t i v i t y i s f u l l y c o n s i s t e n t with h i s conception of

the Law o f Moses. The exegete s t a r t s o f f with the s c r i p t u r a l t e x t as a r e -
ceived datum and attempts to uncover i t s hidden meaning, i n c o n t r a s t to the
philosopher, who might use s c r i p t u r e as a s t a r t i n g - p o i n t f o r h i s own f r e e -
wheeling speculations. Scholars have been misled by P h i l o ' s use of p h i l o s o -
p h i c a l terminology. In f a c t he v i r t u a l l y never gives h i s o p i n i o n i n a b s t r a c t o
on a d o c t r i n e o f P l a t o , A r i s t o t l e o r the Stoa, but r a t h e r to e n l i g h t e n h i s
readers on a s c r i p t u r a l problem. 38
They have moreover not understood the i n -
t r i n s i c r e l a t i o n between the l i t e r a r y form of P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s and h i s purpose
i n w r i t i n g them. The e x e g e t i c a l t r e a t i s e s are not p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a c t s , nor
compilations (Bousset), nor records o f synagogal sermons ( V o l k e r ) , nor study-
guides f o r Sabbath-schools (Wolfson). They are s c r i p t u r a l commentaries in the
technical sense of the term, r e f l e c t i n g exegesis i n the Synagogue and based on
the q u e s t i o n and answer method used t h e r e . 39

What a r e P h i l o ' s aims i n w r i t i n g h i s lengthy s e r i e s o f commentaries?

14 INTRODUCTION

They cannot be seen apart from t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n , which gives them

t h e i r markedly a p o l o g e t i c c h a r a c t e r . The Laws of Moses are to be i n t e r p r e t e d
i n a way acceptable to H e l l e n i s t i c t h i n k i n g , but w i t h i n the l i m i t s imposed by
the r o l e of the exegete. Philosophy s u p p l i e s a language of reason used by the
exegete to plumb the depths of s c r i p t u r e . 4 0
It i s p r i m a r i l y propaedeutic, sup-
p l y i n g c a t e g o r i e s , concepts and ideas, and as such i s a s i ne qua non: 41

S i l e t e x t e s c r i p t u r a i r e donne l e u r sens exact aux notions philosophiques

que P h i l o n met en oeuvre à son propos, ce sont ces mêmes notions p h i l o s o -
phiques que l e commentateur porte en lui-même, qui l u i permettent d'aper-
c e v o i r l e sens profond de l a B i b l e . Voilà pourquoi, dans l e système exé-
gétique de P h i l o n , l a c u l t u r e philosophique, l o i n de f o u r n i r à un pur
moyen apologétique, représente une c o n d i t i o n sin e qua non.
Nikiprowetzky i s thus able to f i n d a place f o r an aspect of P h i l o which has
long trouble d commentators, h i s scepticisme 2
P h i l o i s c e r t a i n l y not a true
s c e p t i c , but he recognizes that many c e n t r a l questions of philosophy are be-
yond the sure comprehension of the human mind, even with the help of the Law of
Moses. The Essenians, who s e r i o u s l y occupy themselves with e t h i c s and that
part of physics which deals with God's e x i s t e n c e and the c r e a t i o n of the cos-
mos, but leave the r e s t of physics and the whole of l o g i c to the s o p h i s t s , r e -
present i n some respects an i d e a l i z a t i o n of P h i l o ' s own a t t i t u d e s . 4 3

Much emphasis i s placed on the important i n f l u e n c e of P l a t o on P h i l o ' s

thought, even though i t must be recognized that P l a t o ' s ideas are t r a n s f e r r e d
to Jewish realities. 4 4
To Plat o P h i l o i s indebted f o r the n o t i o n of 'authentic
philosophy'. Just as i n P l a t o the v i s i o n of being i s reached by d i a l e c t i c , so
i n P h i l o i n s p i r e d exegesis of s c r i p t u r e leads to knowledge of God. Even the
c e n t r a l theme around which P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s c r i p t u r e i s c o n s t r u c t e d ,
the theme of migration, i s l a r g e l y i n s p i r e d by P l a t o ' s philosophy.
Nikiprowetzky presents P h i l o as a t h i n k e r of c o n s i d e r a b l e s t a t u r e . The
negative p i c t u r e so o f t e n painted of him (Festugière!) has been caused by the
f a c t that h i s i n t e n t i o n s have been r a d i c a l l y misunderstood. I t i s only when
j u s t i c e has been done to both the Judaic and Greek poles of P h i l o ' s thought
that one can pass beyond t h i s p o l a r i t y and recognize a 'mutation q u a l i t a t i v e '
which c o n s t i t u t e s h i s o r i g i n a l i t y . P h i l o created a new language which was de-
s t i n e d to become an instrument of c a p i t a l importance f o r r e l i g i o u s thought. 45

The methodological c o n c l u s i o n s which Nikiprowetzky draws are c o n s i s t e n t with

h i s main t h e s i s . 4 6
I t i s f u t i l e to construct a Philonism as a coherent philo-
s o p h i c a l system i n the way one can c o n s t r u c t a Platonism or Thomism. Philo i s
betrayed i f h i s ideas are wrenched from t h e i r e x e g e t i c a l context, f o r the sage
i s then married to Hagar and not to Sarah. A study of P h i l o i s l i k e l y to be
fruitful i f one concentrates on an exegetical theme. A l l the r e l e v a n t texts
must be taken into account. I t i s unwise to p o s i t a h i e r a r c h y of t e x t s , i n -
v i t i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n on a man whose personal experience is quite
 I 2.2. 15

unknown. P h i l o s true thought i s h i s quest

f
to uncover the hidden t r u t h of
scripture.

(d) D i l l o n - P h i l o as a Middle P l a t o n i s t
In the same year 1977 the Irish-American s c h o l a r John DILLON published a
book with the t i t l e The Middle P l a t o n i s t s . 4 7
Those readers who eagerly turned
to t h i s f i r s t book-length study of Middle Platonism may have been somewhat
s u r p r i s e d to encounter a long chapter devoted to P h i l o . 4 8
D i l l o n twice empha-
t i c a l l y s t a t e s that he i s attempting only a p a r t i a l study of P h i l o , d e l i b e r -
ately s l a n t e d towards the subject of Middle Platonism and l e a v i n g a s i de those
.aspects of h i s thought which have a Jewish background or are p o s s i b l y o r i g i n a l
to h i m s e l f . 49
Since, however, what he does say i s p e r s u a s i v e l y presented and
i s l i k e l y to exert c o n s i d e r a b l e i n f l u e n c e , i t seems reasonable to accord h i s
study a p l a c e i n our review.

In numerous ways i t i s evident that P h i l o had gone through the f u l l Greek

b a s i c education, culminatin g in philosophical studies. He is particularly
w e l l read i n P l a t o , h i s f a v o u r i t e dialogues being the Timaeus and the Phaedrus.
\ D i l l o n envisages that P h i l o at a c e r t a i n stage of h i s education experienced a
kind of conversion , a r e d i s c o v e r y of h i s own c u l t u r e and traditions. 5 0
He
came to r e a l i z e that the Books of Moses contained the highest and most pro-
found philosophy, and that he could use h i s knowledge of Greek philosophy to
e x t r a c t that philosophy by means of the a l l e g o r i c a l process. His view that
the Greek philosophers owed t h e i r best ideas to Moses i s i n f a c t an extension
of Middle P l a t o n i s t views on the development of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n .
But in practice Moses the great philosopher amounts to Moses the great Middle
Platonist. The d o c t r i n e s which he i s made to profess bear an e x t r a o r d i n a r y
resemblance to the S t o i c i z e d Platonism of Antiochus of Askalon and even more
to the Platonism of Eudorus of A l e x a n d r i a . 51
P h i l o himself adds a d i s t i n c t i v e
streak of Jewish p i e t y , which leads to a greater reverence f o r God than one
would expect from a Greek philosopher , and a l s o o c c a s i o n a l l y to a downgrading
of the human i n t e l l e c t ( i f unaided by God s g r a c e ) , i . e . a r a t h e r unexpected
f

scepticism.

D i l l o n ' s account gains a polemical edge when he argues against the Wolf-
^ sonian conception that P h i l o constructed an e c l e c t i c synthesis of the e n t i r e
1 t r a d i t i o n of Greek philosophy. But i t would a l s o be wrong to regard him as a
superficial dilettante. He was a man who read the t e x t s f o r h i m s e l f , but drew
on a coherent s c h o l a s t i c t r a d i t i o n to understand and e x p l a i n them. 52
Dillon's
r e j e c t i o n of a n ' e c l e c t i c ' P h i l o concurs with a main t h e s i s of h i s work. It i s
well-known that the Middle P l a t o n i s t s appropriated much Pythagorean, S t o i c and
A r i s t o t e l i a n terminology and d o c t r i n e . D i l l o n d e t e c ts a c o n s i s t e n t r a t i o n a l e
16 INTRODUCTION

behind t h i s p r a c t i c e which should not be d e s c r i b ed as 'eclectic'. The Stoics

and the Peripato s plugged c e r t a i n gaps i n P l a t o ' s work and 'modernized' i t ,
while Pythagoreanism was seen as one of P l a t o ' s sources and so i t s d o c t r i n e s
could be presented as P l a t o n i c . D i l l o n ' s t h e s i s t h e r e f o r e provides an a t t r a c -
t i v e s o l u t i o n f o r the b e w i l d e r i n g d i v e r s i t y of d o c t r i n e s present i n Philo's
works. Within the framework of the s c h o l a s t i c manner of p r e s e n t i ng philosophy
( f i r s t the c r i t e r i o n and the t e l o s , then E t h i c s , P h y s i c s , L o g i c ) 5 4
he gives a
most i n t e r e s t i n g and readable account of P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l ideas, attemp-
t i n g to show that the P l a t o n i c ideas i n h i s w r i t i n g s have a Middle P l a t o n i s t
background and that much of the s o - c a l l e d S t o i c , A r i s t o t e l i a n and Neopythago-
rean m a t e r i a l a l s o f i l t e r s down to him through t h i s school. Vacillation and
i n c o n s i s t e n c y are undeniably present, but on the whole P h i l o draws on a cohe-
rent tradition. 5 5

Can P h i l o be c a l l e d a Middle P l a t o n i s t ? D i l l o n does not a c t u a l l y take

t h i s step, but s i n c e Moses i s a ' f u l l y - f l e d g e d Middle P l a t o n i s t ' , 5 6
that label
can h a r d l y be refused h i s d i s c i p l e . Indeed a c e r t a i n ambivalence c h a r a c t e r i -
zes D i l l o n ' s p o r t r a i t . I t i s confessedly p a r t i a l , yet the reader i s e a s i l y
seduced i n t o t a k i n g pars f o r totum. He soon f o r g e t s that P h i l o ' s primary a l -
l e g i a n c e was not to Pythagoras and P l a t o , but to the lawgiver Moses. Nonethe-
l e s s the l a r g e number of P l a t o n i s t d o c t r i n e s which D i l l o n l o c a t e s i n P h i l o are
highly s i g n i f i c a n t . To many of them we must r e t u r n i n the course of our study.
This provocativ e account f o r c e s us to take a stand.

(e) Winston — P h i l o philosophico-mysticus

The f i n a l s c h o l a r whose views on P h i l o we wish to i n c l u d e i n t h i s review
i s another American, David WINSTON. In 1981 he published a comprehensive an-
thology of P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s , presented i n an E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n . 5 7
Inadense-
l y - w r i t t e n i n t r o d u c t i o n to h i s s e l e c t i o n of P h i l o n i c passages he presents a
novel i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of P h i l o that commands our a t t e n t i o n . 5 8
In agreement with
D i l l o n but going a step f u r t h e r , Winston presents P h i l o as a 'convinced and
ardent P l a t o n i s t ' with pronounced m y s t i c a l t e n d e n c i e s . 59
P h i l o i s not to be
seen as an o r i g i n a l philosopher i n the manner of P l a t o , but r a t h e r as a h i g h l y
competent student of the e n t i r e range of the Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n
a v a i l a b l e to him. Although p a s s i o n a t e l y devoted to a m y s t i c a l form of P l a t o -
nism, he was convinced that i t was p o s s i b l e to a s s i m i l a t e t h i s way of t h i n k i n g
to h i s Jewish h e r i t a g e . There i s much t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o l a s t i c m a t e r i a l (both
p h i l o s o p h i c a l and exegetical) i n his writings. His genius was to s e l e c t , mo-
d i f y , amplify , r e f i n e and synthesiz e t h i s great mass of m a t e r i a l and place i t
i n s e r v i c e of an e l a b o r a t e r e l i g i o u s - p h i l o s o p h i c a l world-view. 60
 I 2.2. 17

P h i l o could have, a s s e r t s Winston, presented h i s synthesis of Judaism and

Hellenism i n the form of p h i l o s o p h i c a l essays d e a l i n g with the major themes of
B i b l i c a l thought, i n t h i s way p r o v i d i n g h i s readers with a p r e c i s e and system-
a t i c e x p o s i t i o n of h i s thought. Why then d i d he choose to give complex p h i l o -
s o p h i c a l exegesis of the Pentateuch? There i s a p a r a l l e l with P l a t o ' s use of
the d i a l o g i c form. 61
By w r i t i n g a d e t a i l e d s c r i p t u r a l commentary P h i l o wished
to show that the m y s t i c a l Platonism he championed was not h i s own construct,
but could be derived from n e a r l y every verse i n the Mosaic w r i t i n g s . This
procedure i n e v i t a b l y r e s u l t e d i n considerabl e o b s c u r i t y , but P h i l o thought the
p r i c e worth p a y i n g . 62
Moreover h i s procedure appears to have been to sp£ak to
d i f f e r e n t audiences on d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of comprehension: 63

It i s the nature of such a pedagogical approach that i t renders w e l l n i g h

impossible any e f f o r t to determine with p r e c i s i o n which of the two t r a d i -
t i o n s [ i . e . the b i b l i c a l and the p h i l o s o p h i c a l ] u l t i m a t e l y has the upper
hand when i r r e c o n c i l a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between them can no longer be ade-
quately suppressed. In the l a s t a n a l y s i s , i t i s the s u b t l e inner flow of
P h i l o ' s general thought that must guide our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of any p a r t i -
c u l a r i s s u e that i s obscured by the almost d e l i b e r a t e ambiguity projecte d
by so much of h i s w r i t i n g .
In s p i t e of such o b s c u r i t i e s and ambiguities Winston f i n d s i t p o s s i b l e to iden-
t i f y the main t h r u s t of P h i l o s thought.
1
H i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l views are e s s e n t i -
a l l y Middle P l a t o n i s t . 64

In the confines of the i n t r o d u c t i o n to the anthology n a t u r a l l y not a l l

aspects of P h i l o s thought could be adequately d e a l t with.
f
Winston focusses
h i s account of P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l ideas on two themes, the d o c t r i n e of c r e -
a t i o n and h i s mysticism. The theory of Wolfson that P h i l o espoused a c r e a t i o
ex n i h i l o must be r e j e c t e d . P h i l o p o s i t s a p r e - e x i s t e n t matter, which from a
l o g i c a l point of view has God as i t s i n d i r e c t source, but cannot be described
as the d i r e c t r e s u l t of God's c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y . 6 5
In c o n t r a st to the p l u r a -
l i s m of P l a t o , P h i l o ' s philosophy i s a m y s t i c a l monism (or monotheism). 66
It
i s thus h i g h l y important to r e a l i z e that P h i l o does not b e l i e v e i n a temporal
c r e a t i o n , but r a t h e r i n a c r e a t i o aeterna. The cosmos i s e t e r n a l l y being pro-
duced by the processes of God's thought. 67
In the conception of God's t o t a l
transcendence P h i l o ' s propheti c ( i . e . B i b l i c a l ) i n h e r i t a n c e and h i s p h i l o s o -
p h i c a l i n h e r i t a n c e converge. Man's goal and u l t i m a t e b l i s s l i e i n the know-
ledge or v i s i o n of God, and t h i s can be achieved i n two ways. In the lower
way one can only make use~of the d i s c u r s i v e reason. For the h i g h er way Win-
ston r e j e c t s the Wolfsonian i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e v e l a t i o n bypassing the f a c u l -
ty of reason. Instead he proposes an inner i n t u i t i v e i l l u m i n a t i o n i n v o l v i n g
a r a t i o n a l process of the a n a l y t i c t y p e . 68
T o t a l union with the Ultimate i s of
course not p o s s i b l e , but the mystic can a s p i r e to union with an aspect of God,
h i s Logos, of which man's mind i s a t i n y fragment. In achieving this timeless
18 INTRODUCTION

union Moses was ' d i v i n i z e d ' . It i s also Philo's a s p i r a t i o n : 9

. . . i t becomes abundantly c l e a r that P h i l o was at l e a s t a "mystica l theo-

r i s t " ( i f not a " p r a c t i c i n g mystic") i n the very core of h i s being and
that h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l w r i t i n g s cannot be adequately understood i f t h i s
s i g n a l f a c t i s i n any way obscured.
Winston goes so f a r as to c l a i m that P h i l o ' s world-view i s a s t o n i s h i n g l y s i m i -
l a r to that of the God-intoxicated Spinoza, but that the s i m i l a r i t y i s obscu-
red by the f a c t that h i s philosophy ' i s couched i n the c o n c i l i a t o r y idiom of
P l a t o n i c mysticism and i s f u r t h e r d e l i b e r a t e l y d i s g u i s e d to camouflage i t s
more r a d i c a l dimensions'. 70

Winston's view of P h i l o i s novel, but he stands squarely i n the t r a d i t i o n

of Americal Philonic scholarship. One might say, to adopt a B i b l i c a l formula,
that the method i s the method of Wolfson, but the conclusions are the conclu-
sions of Goodenough (with the amendments of D i l l o n taken i n t o account). Win-
ston f a l l s prey to the same ' r e c o n s t r u c t i v i s m ' which i s so j a r r i n g i n the large
tomes of Wolfson, as w e l l as that same s c h o l a r ' s tendency towards ' p a r a l l e l o -
mania'. 71
A P h i l o n i c system i s constructed by p i e c i n g together d o c t r i n e s as-
sembled without regard f o r t h e i r context. P h i l o ' s a c t u a l w r i t i n g s are regar-
ded as obscuring h i s true thought. But the m y s t i c a l philosophy produced i n
t h i s way resembles the Mystic Way of Goodenough, with the important d i f f e r e n c e
that more s i g n i f i c a n c e i s accorded to P l a t o n i s t philosophy and l e s s to the i n -
fluence of H e l l e n i s t i c mystery r e l i g i o n s . Noteworthy i s that Winston r e v e r t s
to a conception of P h i l o ' s view of the Law of Moses s i m i l a r to that h e l d by
Goodenough. The Mosaic Law i s only a w r i t t e n r e f l e c t i o n of the Archetypal Law
or the D i v i n e Logos. Through the use of i n t u i t i v e reason P h i l o f e l t he could
bypass the w r i t t e n Torah and reach i t s n o e t i c source, the D i v i n e L o g o s . 72

2.3. Some t r e n d s

The enthusiasm which s c h o l a r s have shown i n attempting to reach a f u l l e r

understanding of P h i l o ' s achievement has not been without r e s u l t . In the past
twenty years undeniable advances have been made i n P h i l o n i c s c h o l a r s h i p . They
can be summarized i n a l i s t of trends, to each of which a p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n
must be accorded.

(1) There i s a growing awareness of the importance of methodology i n stu-

dying P h i l o . I t i s g r a d u a l l y being r e a l i z e d that the p i c t u r e one forms of
P h i l o w i l l be i n l a r g e part determined by the assumptions made concerning the
nature of h i s w r i t i n g s and the way they should be read. Nikiprowetzky's study
i s the best example of a s a l u t a r y a t t e n t i o n to 'preliminary' matters. It i s
noteworthy that most s c h o l a r s have forsworn the attempt to produce works of a
 I 2.3. 19

'grand s y n t h e s i s ' i n the manner of the 'quintet of d i s s e n s i o n ' o u t l i n e d above.

Less ambitious p r o j e c t s are being undertaken. 1
I t i s only when a l o t of smal-
ler problems have been solved and a measure of consensus on c e r t a i n b a s i c i s -
sues has been reached that i t w i l l be a d v i s a b l e to embark once more on a s t u -
dy which w i l l present a p i c t u r e of the whole P h i l o .
(2) I n c r e a s i n g l y the attempt i s being made to see P h i l o against the back-
ground of his own time. On the Jewish s i d e the r e l a t i o n to c u r r e n t s of Alex-
andrian exegesis i s being explored, while a l s o the nagging problem of P h i l o ' s
knowledge of P a l e s t i n i a n t r a d i t i o n s needs to be r e s o l v e d . On the Greek s i d e
the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o Middle P l a t o n i s t a f f i n i t i e s i s promising. But con-
s t a n t l y the researcher i s confronted with a l a c k of evidence. I t i s much eas-
ier to use P h i l o to cast l i g h t on h i s surroundings than to use h i s surroun-
dings to c a s t l i g h t on him. The problems here are o f t e n underestimated.
(3) The most important movement towards consensus i n P h i l o n i c s t u d i e s i s
the r e c o g n i t i o n of the central role played by exegesis i n h i s work. Philo re-
garded h i m s e l f as a commentator on s c r i p t u r e , and t h i s has c r u c i a l consequen-
ces f o r the way h i s w r i t i n g s must be read and evaluated. A l i f e t i m e of exege-
t i c a l a c t i v i t y i n d i c a t e s an exceedingly high regard f o r the Law of Moses which
is the subjec t of that exegesis. But no consensus has as yet been achieved on
the status which P h i l o accords the Mosaic Law i n r e l a t i o n to the d o c t r i n e s of
Greek philosophy to which he appears to s u b s c r i b e . Here, f o r example, the
views of Nikiprowetzky and Winston are s t i l l d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposed.
(4) Another point of consensus that cannot be ignored i s the growing ag-
reement among scholars on the profound i n f l u e n c e which Plato and the Platonist
t r a d i t i o n exerted on P h i l o ' s thought. P h i l o ' s debt to P l a t o i s g r e a t e r than
to any other Greek p h i l o s o p h e r , but to a l a r g e extent h i s understanding of
Plato's philosophy, i t i s now argued, i s f i l t e r e d through the s c h o l a s t i c tra-
d i t i o n s of Middle Platonism. Once again, however, apparent agreement conceals
a strong undercurrent of disagreement. Even i f most s c h o l a rs concur in refu-
sing to regard P h i l o as a systematic p h i l o s o p h e r, there are s t i l l widely dif-
f e r i n g views h e l d on the importance of Greek philosophy f o r an understanding
of h i s thought. The a n a l y s i s of P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s i n the s t u d i e s of Mack and
D i l l o n have admittedly q u i t e d i f f e r e n t aims, but a cursory reading might give
the impression that they have nothing i n common except the name of t h e i r pro-
tagonist.

In the hope that the present study w i l l not be regarded as 'trendy' i n

the p e j o r a t i v e sense of ' f a s h i o n a b l e ' and 'ephemeral', I regard i t as a f o r t u -
nate circumstance that i t s subject encourages the c o n t i n u a t i o n of c e r t a i n h e a l -
thy trends i n P h i l o n i c research - i n i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n of an aspect of P h i l o ' s
debt to P l a t o , i t s r e c o g n i t i o n of h i s r o l e as exegete, i t s concern f o r the
20 INTRODUCTION

importance of methodology, and i t s endeavour to place P h i l o i n h i s h i s t o r i c a l

context i n the development of the h i s t o r y of thought.

2.4. Previous r e s e a r c h on o u r subject

Every student of a n t i q u i t y does w e l l to recognize, with Bernard of Char-

t r e s , t h a t , i f he should prove able to see f u r t h e r than h i s predecessors, that
i s only p o s s i b l e because of the grand view he obtains when perched on their
shoulders. Although t h i s study i s the f i r s t to be devoted to P h i l o ' s use of
t
^ ie
Timaeus as a whole, s e v e r a l works have covered an aspect of the subject
and many s c h o l a r s have made important c o n t r i b u t i o n s en passant.
P h i l o r a r e l y makes e x p l i c i t references to P l a t o , but the reader who is
acquainted w i t h the P l a t o n i c corpus w i l l soon recognize echoes of the great
Athenian philosopher. Among the ancient testimonia the f i r s t reference to
P h i l o s Platonism
f
i s made by EUSEBIUS, who d e c l a r e s that he o u t c l a s s e d his
contemporaries i n h i s z e a l f o r the naxa IIAaTwva nau nudayopav aywYn. 1
JEROME
i s the f i r s t author to c i t e the famous proverb, n IUaiwv (p uAwvuCeu n $ L A W V

itAonrwvuCeu . 2
The proverb i s repeated with approval by numerous P a t r i s t i c auth-
ors and gives r i s e to much d i s c u s s i o n on whether i t r e f e r s to the s t y l e or
content of P h i l o s w r i t i n g s .
f
But the remarks on P h i l o ' s Platonism are gener-
a l l y too b r i e f to dwell on h i s debts to s p e c i f i c d o c t r i n es or dialogues of
Plato. 3
THEODORUS the Metochite (12th century) i n t e r e s t i n g l y described him as
not a l t o g e t h e r d e s p i s i n g T O cpuauxov, but showing more i n t e r e s t i n i a u^nAa,
e t h i c s and mathematics. 4
In the seventeenth century P h i l o was gradually liber-
ated from h i s bondage as a C h r i s t i a n f a t h e r , and a more h i s t o r i c a l l y o r i e n t a -
ted examination was made of h i s w r i t i n g s . Thus, f o r example, i n 1693 Johannes
A l b e r t u s FABRICIUS wrote a b r i e f but important study e n t i t l e d E x e r c i t a t i o de
Platonismo P h i l o n i s I u d a e i . 5
There can be no doubt, he w r i t e s , that P h i l o a t -
tended the P l a t o n i c schools at A l e x a n d r i a and that he spent a l o t of time rea-
ding P l a t o ' s works. 6
And with regard to P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the Mooyog
VOTITOS at Conf. 172 he remarks: 7

Qui P l a t o n i s l e g e r i t Timaeum, idem quoque minime d u b i t a b i t , hoc loco a

Philone Platonicam r e f e r r i s p i r a r i q u e doctrinam. Ipse P h i l o i n l i b r o de
mundo i n c o r r u p t i b i l i , P l a t o n i s verba, ne quis d u b i t e t , i n medium a f f e r t .
Since F a b r i c i u s ' c o n c i s e l y w r i t t e n d i s s e r t a t i o n has no footnotes, the r e f e r -
ences remain inexact. But i t i s c l e a r l y implied that P h i l o has drawn on P l a -
to's Timaeus. 8

It i s , however, e s p e c i a l l y the s c h o l a r s h i p of the l a s t century or so that

must be taken i n t o account i n our i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . In the f o l l o w i n g catalogue
I s h a l l l i s t those s c h o l a r s who have made some c o n t r i b u t i o n to the theme of
 I 2.4. 21

P h i l o ' s use of the Timaeus. Explanatory and c r i t i c a l comments w i l l be kept to

the minimum, being reserved where necessary f o r the r e l e v a n t part of our study.
Edward ZELLER, though regarding P h i l o ' s S t o i c ideas as more important
than h i s P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e s , endeavoured to give the d o c t r i n e s drawn from the
Timaeus a place i n a systematic account of P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l thought. 9
In
t h e i r monumental e d i t i o n of P h i l o ' s Greek texts Leopold COHN and Paul WENDLAND
i n d i c a t e many of P h i l o ' s references and a l l u s i o n s to the Timaeus. 10
In 1900
the e x c e l l e n t d i s s e r t a t i o n by Jacob HOROVITZ on the P l a t o n i c vonxov ^wov and
the P h i l o n i c xoapog vonxos appeared. 11
I t deals with the way P h i l o has adapted
and a l t e r e d the d o c t r i n e of the n o e t i c model i n the Timaeus. Of a l l the stu-
dies on P h i l o t h i s one most n e a r l y approaches the contours of our subject, and
even a f t e r eighty years there i s much to be l e a r n t from i t . In h i s monograph
on the p h i l o s o p h i c a l and r e l i g i o u s ideas of P h i l o Emile BREHIER gives a u s e f u l
l i s t of passages from the Timaeus used by P h i l o , as w e l l as some i n s t r u c t i v e
remarks on h i s theology and cosmology. 12
The study of Thomas BILLINGS on Phi-
lo's Platonism i s an extremely v a l u a b l e c o l l e c t i o n of p a r a l l e l s between P l a -
to's and Philo's writings. 1 3
P h i l o ' s r e l a t i o n to the P l a t o n i s t t r a d i t i o n , how-
ever, i s wholly ignored, with the r e s u l t that the c o n t r i b u t i o n made by the
Timaeus to h i s Platonism i s s e r i o u s l y underestimated. In h i s s o l i d account of
P h i l o ' s anthropology Helmut SCHMIDT gives numerous references to r e l e v a nt pas-
sages i n the Timaeus. 14
The important r o l e played by the Timaeus i n the struc-
ture of P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l ideas was recognized by Harry Austryn WOLFSON,
and i t i s r e f e r r e d to f r e q u e n t l y i n h i s two m a g i s t e r i a l tomes. 15

By the 1960's a r t i c l e s covering more l i m i t e d subjects s t a r t to take over

from the more expansive books and d i s s e r t a t i o n s published hitherto. Despite
i t s u n s p e c i f i c t i t l e the a r t i c l e w r i t t e n by P i e r r e BOYANCE i n 1963 deals with
r a t h e r s p e c i f i c aspects of P h i l o ' s r e l a t i o n to Middle Platonism and Neopytha-
goreanism. Due r e c o g n i t i o n i s given to the importance of the Timaeus, 16
With
even greater p r e c i s i o n and a t t e n t i o n to d e t a i l W i l l y THEILER c a r r i e s on t h i s
l i n e of research i n two a r t i c l e s , one on P h i l o and the beginning of Imperial
Platonism, the other on the evidence concerning the H e l l e n i z e d Timaeus found
i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi. 17
V a l e n t i n NIKIPROWETZKY has contributed an impor-
tant a r t i c l e on P h i l o ' s account of the Mosaic cosmogony, as w e l l as many s i g -
n i f i c a n t remarks i n h i s monograph on P h i l o . 1 8
P h i l o ' s views on c r e a t i o n and
the use of i n t e r m e d i a r i e s i n the c r e a t i o n process have been e x t e n s i v e l y stu-
died by H a n s - F r i e d r i c h WEISS, w i t h s p e c i a l referenc e to the r e l a t i o n between
H e l l e n i s t i c and P a l e s t i n i a n Judaism. 19
Arguing against H o r o v i t z , he f i n d s Sto-
i c physics no l e s s important than the Timaeus. In 1968 U r s u l a FRUCHTEL pub-
l i s h e d a study on cosmological representations in Philo. 2 0
She recognizes four
d i f f e r e n t cosmological t r a d i t i o n s , derived from v a r i o u s philosophical schools.
22 INTRODUCTION

The r o l e of the Timaeus tends to be played down. The work has been c r i t i c i z e d
f o r assuming too s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d a d e r i v a t i o n of P h i l o s f
ideas from the Greek
philosophical tradition. 2 1
The book of Georgios FARANDOS on Cosmos and Logos
i n P h i l o i s shoddily produced and, though r e c o g n i z i n g the importance of the
Timaeus, contains no new material. 2 2
I t presents P h i l o as a systematic Plato-
n i z i n g philosopher with the d o c t r i n e of p e x a v a a T a o t s as the key to h i s thought,
In a competent and highly informative study of the ancient i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
the genesis of the cosmos presented i n the Timaeus, Matthias BALTES has analy-
sed a l l the P h i l o n i c passages which are r e l e v a n t to that i n t e r p r e t a t i v e prob-
lem. 23
In so doing he pays c l o s e r a t t e n t i o n to c e r t a i n passages i n the 'Arme-
n i an P h i l o 1
than has h i t h e r t o been customary. The important c o n t r i b u t i o n s of
John DILLON and David WINSTON have already been o u t l i n e d . 2 4
An article was
published i n 1979 on P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of c r e a t i o n by Giovanni REALE. Much i n -
debted to Wolfson, i t regards P h i l o as r e v i s i n g the Timaeus and producing the
f i r s t philosophical elaboration of a true c r e a t i o n i s m i n the h i s t o r y of p h i l o -
sophy. 25
On the subject of c r e a t i o ex n i h i l o Gerhard MAY had one year e a r l i e r
reached r e s u l t s t o t a l l y opposed to those of R e a l e . 26
L a s t l y perhaps a mention
should be made of my own a r t i c l e on the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e problem of the De aet-
e r n i t a t e mundi, i n which the c e n t r a l r o l e which the Timaeus plays i n the s t r u c -
ture of the t r e a t i s e and i t s ideas i s demonstrated. 27
 CHAPTER THREE

THE H I S T O R I C A L AND' CULTURAL SETTING

Together wit h the Septuagint P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s are the most famous product
of A l e x a n d r i a n Judaism. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of A l e x a n d r i a , as the backdrop f o r
P h i l o s e n t i r e l i f e and c a r e e r , cannot be overestimated.
!
Indeed i t i s f a i r to
say that the phenomenon of P h i l o ' s thought could have occurred nowhere e l s e
except i n the c i t y founded i n Egypt by Alexander the G r e a t . 1
Although by P h i -
lo s time i t was
f
e n t e r i ng the long period of i t s d e c l i n e , A l e x a n d r i a was still
a formidable b a s t i o n of H e l l e n i s t i c c u l t u r e , embodied i n the i n s t i t u t i o n s and
t r a d i t i o n s of the Greek p o l i s , i n the proud c l a s s i c i s m of i t s temples and
colonnades, and above a l l i n those v i s i b l e symbols of c u l t u r a l supremacy, the
Museum and the L i b r a r y . Other f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t e d to make A l e x a n d r i a the most
important c i t y i n the Eastern Mediterranean and even a r i v a l of Rome. I t was
the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e centre of Roman Egypt, a f l o u r i s h i n g port and commercial
centre, and a point of confluence f o r peoples (and t h e i r r e l i g i o u s traditions)
from Egypt and the e n t i r e Near East.

From the beginning of the Ptolemaic period Jews from P a l e s t i n e had set-
t l e d i n A l e x a n d r i a , and b e f o r e long i t was the l a r g e s t and most influential
Jewish community i n the D i a s p o r a . 2
The Jews i n A l e x a n d r i a r e c e i v e d , as d i d
other f o r e i g n groups, the r i g h t to form t h e i r own TioAuTeuua, i . e . they were
allowed to o r g a n i z e t h e i r own a f f a i r s and l i v e according to t h e i r customs and
t r a d i t i o n s , though not possessing f u l l p o l i t i c a l autonomy. A l e x a n d r i a n Juda-
ism differs i n c e r t a i n marked respects from the Judaism of the P a l e s t i n i a n
homeland. The c u l t u r a l dominance of Hellenism i n the Near East was complete,
and even P a l e s t i n i a n Judaism was unable to escape i t s impact. 3
But the i n f l u -
ence which Greek c u l t u r e had on the A l e x a n d r i a n Jews was much more profound
and f a r - r e a c h i n g i n i t s e f f e c t s . Within a few generations Greek had become
the language spoken by a l l A l e x a n d r i a n Jews. I t thus became a matter of ne-
c e s s i t y that the sacred s c r i p t u r e s of the Jews be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o the Greek
tongue. The Septuagint, c o n t a i n i n g the Torah i n Greek, gave A l e x a n d r i a n Juda-
ism i t s identity. 4
P h i l o ' s statement that the t r a n s l a t i o n i s i n no way infer-
ior to the o r i g i n a l gives e x p r e s s i o n to the fundamental c o n v i c t i o n which a l -
lowed the Jews of h i s c i t y to remain l o y a l to t h e i r ickpua e§n. 5

It i s p o s s i b l e , t h e r e f o r e , to detect a c o n t r a d i c t o r y double tendency i n

Alexandrian Judaism. 6
On the one hand there e x i s t e d a deep l o y a l t y to the Mo-
s a i c Law and the Jewish way of l i f e based on that Law. The f o c a l p o i n t of the
community's a c t i v i t i e s was the Synagogue where the Law was read and s t u d i e d .
24 INTRODUCTION

As has already been observed, there was a r i c h t r a d i t i o n of exegesis of the

sacred t e x t . 7
The l o y a l t y to the Law and Jewish t r a d i t i o n s was i n d i s p e n s a b le
for p r e s e r v i n g the i d e n t i t y of the Jewish community. On the other hand every
e f f o r t was made to p a r t i c i p a t e v i g o r o u s l y i n the d i v e r s e aspects of H e l l e n i s -
t i c c u l t u r a l l i f e , at any r a t e by the upper and middle c l a s s e s of the Jewish
population. In the H e l l e n i s t i c p o l i s education, c i t i z e n s h i p and s o c i a l - s t a n -
ding were s u b t l y i n t e r r e l a t e d . 8
The education r e c e i v e d i n the gymnasium gave
access to c i t i z e n s h i p and f u l l acceptance i n t o the s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l l i f e of
the Greek c i t y . 9
There i s every reason to b e l i e v e that well-to-do Jews enjoyed
a Greek education i n the gymnasia of A l e x a n d r i a , i n s p i t e of the unavoidable
a s s o c i a t i o n o f these i n s t i t u t i o n s with the p r a c t i c e s of H e l l e n i s t i c c i v i c r e -
ligion. 1 0
Wolfson s t h e s i s , based on a p r i o r i c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and not concrete
f

evidence, that the Jews e s t a b l i s h e d t h e i r own schools and organized t h e i r own

t h e a t r e s , a t h l e t i c games and other c u l t u r a l events, has not found acceptance. 11

The school of the Jews remained the Synagogue. 12

But the temptation certainly
must have e x i s t e d to become so immersed i n Greek c u l t u r a l and s o c i a l l i f e that
the t i e s with Judaism became tenuous and p u r e l y formal. On the whole the d i s -
t i n c t i o n between p a r t i c i p a t i o n and a s s i m i l a t i o n appears to have been preserved;
recorded cases of a c t u a l apostasy are r a r e . 1 3

A r i c h body of l i t e r a t u r e was produced by the H e l l e n i s t i c Judaism of Alex -

andria. 1 4
Only scraps are preserved, but they i n d i c a t e that the Jews, at f i r s t
n a i v e l y but l a t e r with more s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , t r i e d to beat the Greeks at t h e i r
own game. The a n t i q u i t y and s u p e r i o r i t y of the Jewish people was brought for-
ward, as w e l l as the c l a i m that the achievement of Greeks had been a t l e a s t
p a r t l y d e r i v e d from the Jews. 15
The p o l i t i c a l undertones o f a l l t h i s should
not be o v e r l o o k e d . 16
The Jewish community was caught i n a no man's land be-
tween the f u l l p r i v i l e g e s of the Greek p o l i s and the i n f e r i o r status of the
Egyptians and other r a c e s . The goal was to achieve c i t i z e n s h i p and s o c i a l r e -
c o g n i t i o n , without being f o r c e d to be wholly a s s i m i l a t e d to the H e l l e n i c way
of life. These e f f o r t s were s t r o n g l y r e s i s t e d by the Greek populace. Of a l l
the innovations made i n A l e x a n d r i a a n t i - s e m i t i s m i s c e r t a i n l y the l e a s t - e d i f y -
ing. 1 7
A long and arduous s t r u g g l e took p l a c e which the Jews were bound to
lose and which ended i n t o t a l d e f e a t .

P h i l o , as a member of one of the w e a l t h i e s t and most prominent Jewish-

A l e x a n d r i an f a m i l i e s , 1 8
could not p o s s i b l y have avoided extensive contact with
Greek c u l t u r e and s o c i e t y . There i s every reason to b e l i e v e that he enjoyed
such contacts and p a r t i c i p a t e d with enthusiasm i n Alexandrian c u l t u r a l life.
He r e g u l a r l y mentions t h e a t r i c a l performances, dinner-parties, athletic con-
t e s t s and even c h a r i o t - r a c e s i n h i s w r i t i n g s . 1 9
The s i n e qua non f o r such p a r -
 I 3. 25

t i c i p a t i o n , we have seen, was a thoroughly Greek-oriented education. What can

be s a i d with confidence about P h i l o ' s education? The question must be approa-
ched from three angles.
(1) General c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Growing up i n the p e r i o d before the Jews were f i -
n a l l y debarred from e n t e r i n g the gymnasium, 20
P h i l o no doubt r e c e i v e d the Greek
education taught t h e r e . 21
Because of h i s f a m i l y ' s wealth i t is also possible
that he r e c e i v e d t u i t i o n from Greek t u t o r s , j u s t as he imagines Moses to have
done i n the i d e a l education portrayed i n the De v i t a Moysis. 22

(2) The evidence i n his writings. P h i l o t e l l s very l i t t l e about h i m s e l f , but

there can be l i t t l e doubt that the s t y l i z e d account of h i s l o v e - a f f a i r with
nat6eba at Congr.74-76 contains an a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l element. Before pursuing
cpuAoaocpua, he w r i t e s , I s t u d i e d the subjects of the eynvnXbOg nau6eua, grammar,
geometry and music. Other s u b j e c t s such as r h e t o r i c , mathematics and astrono-
my must have a l s o been i n c l u d e d . 23

(3) The evidence of h i s w r i t i n g s . An a n a l y s i s of P h i l o ' s works shows the r e -

markable extent to which he absorbed the c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e of H e l l e n i s m . 24
They
are w r i t t e n i n a c o r r e c t and f l u e n t H e l l e n i s t i c Greek with s l i g h t Atticizing
tendencies. They r e v e a l an i n t i m a t e acquaintance with the main body of Greek
l i t e r a t u r e and philosophy. C e r t a i n l y , compared with a true H e l l e n i s t like
P l u t a r c h , there i s an element of p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i n the nature of P h i l o ' s know-
ledge, 25
but i t i s f a l s e to present him as a dabbler or d i l e t t a n t e . I t would
thus be most unexpected to d i s c o v e r that he had not read a l l the more impor-
tant dialogues of P l a to and c e r t a i n l y the best-known of them, the Timaeus.
But t h i s would be to a n t i c i p a t e the r e s u l t of our study before i t has commen-
ced .

Not enough has been s a i d about the aspect of P h i l o ' s education which con-
cerns us most of a l l , h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a i n i n g . 2 6
Here more than anywhere
e l s e P h i l o ' s s i l e n c e concerning the sources of h i s education i s g r e a t l y to be
r e g r e t t e d . During the e a r l i e r Ptolemaic perio d there was no t r a d i t i o n of p h i l o -
s o p h i c a l schools at A l e x a n d r i a — t h i s aspect of l e a r n i n g was left i n the c a -
pable hands of Athens — but i n the f i r s t century B.C. we hear of men such as
A r i s t o , Dio, Eudorus, Potamon and A r i u s Didymus teaching philosophy i n the
city. 2 7
Through l a c k of evidence, however, we can gain no proper idea of how
philosophy was taught and t r a n s m i t t e d i n the A l e x a n d r i a of P h i l o ' s day. The
evidence of the Corpus Philonicum (and e s p e c i a l l y of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a -
t i s e s ) makes i t q u i t e c l e a r that P h i l o possessed a thorough and wide-ranging
knowledge of the d i v e r s e c u r r e n t s of Greek philosophy. One imagines that t h i s
was not s o l e l y the r e s u l t of p r i v a t e r e f l e c t i o n on the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t e x t s and
commentaries to which h i s wealth gave him access, and that he must have r e -
ceived some k i n d of formal t r a i n i n g . D i l l o n suggests that he may have a t t e n -
26 INTRODUCTION

ded the l e c t u r e s of contemporary P l a t o n i s t s . It i s once more p o s s i b l e that

he c a l l e d i n the a s s i s t a n c e of p h i l o s o p h i c a l t u t o r s . 2 9
For the a c t u a l h i s t o r i -
cal context of P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a i n i n g we must grope i n the dark, with
only the i n c o n t r o v e r t i b l e evidence of h i s w r i t i n g s to guide us.
A f i n a l word should be s a i d concerning the audience which P h i l o envisaged
for h i s works. Even i f he may have w r i t t e n them i n the f i r s t p l a c e f o r h i s
own personal s a t i s f a c t i o n , he must have allowed t h e i r d i s s e m i n a t i o n . Was his
aim i n the f i r s t p l a c e to reach f e l l o w Jews, or a l s o Greek readers who were
sympathetic to Jewish ideas? I t must be agreed wit h Sandmel that the former
i s more l i k e l y . 3 0
Many Jews i n the upper c i r c l e s i n which P h i l o moved must
have been i n d i f f e r e n t or on the verge of apostasy. The most famous example i s
P h i l o ' s own nephew, Alexander, who i n the words of Josephus 'did not remain
l o y a l to h i s a n c e s t r a l b e l i e f s ' . 3 1
P h i l o t r i e d to show that Jews need not be
ashamed of t h e i r h e r i t a g e , that l o y a l t y to the Law d i d not e n t a i l a r e j e c t i o n ,
but p r e c i s e l y a deepening of the ideas of Hellenism. But one cannot help t h i n -
k i n g that P h i l o would have g r e a t l y d e s i r e d that Greeks too became sympathetic
to h i s message of the n o n - i n f e r i o r i t y ( i f not s u p e r i o r i t y ) of Judaism. 32
In
our study we s h a l l be c o n c e n t r a t i n g on the i n t e l l e c t u a l aspect of P h i l o ' s syn-
t h e s i s of Judaism and Hellenism. Let i t not be f o r g o t t e n , however, that the
w r i t i n g s which we analyse have a concrete h i s t o r i c a l background. They bear
witness t o , and indeed p a r t i c i p a t e d i n , the b i t t e r and p r o t r a c t e d struggle for
s u r v i v a l and r e c o g n i t i o n which was the f a t e of the Jewish community i n Alexan-
dria. 3 3
 CHAPTER FOUR

THE TIMAEUS FROM PLATO TO THE AGE OF PHILO

The d i s t a n c e i n time which separates P l a t o and P h i l o i s almost e x a c t l y

that which separates us from Shakespeare, Bacon and the t r a n s l a t o r s of the
King James V e r s i o n of the B i b l e . The p o l i t i c a l and c u l t u r a l difference s bet-
ween P l a t o ' s Athens and P h i l o ' s A l e x a n d r ia may have been l e s s than between us
and E l i z a b e t h a n England. Nevertheless, i f a time machine could have t r a n s p o r -
ted Plato to Roman A l e x a n d r i a , he would have been amazed, one suspects, and
not a l i t t l e uncomfortable. Many f a c t o r s conspired to b r i n g about that P h i l o
and h i s contemporaries read the Timaeus i n a d i f f e r e n t manner than P l a t o could
have intended. But f i r s t one might ask why t h i s s p e c i f i c p h i l o s o p h i c a l work
was read at a l l . H i s t o r i c a l and c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s e x p l a i n why Greek philosophy
was pursued i n A l e x a n d r i a ; f o r the p o p u l a r i t y of the Timaeus p r i m a r i l y i n t e l -
l e c t u a l reasons must be sought. These w i l l occupy our a t t e n t i o n i n the follo-
wing sketch of the ' h i s t o r y ' of the Timaeus from i t s f i r s t appearance to the
age of P h i l o . N a t u r a l l y s p e c i f i c i n t e r p r e t a t i v e problems and the complexitie s
of p h i l o s o p h i c a l argument cannot be adequately d i s c u s s ed i n such an account.
This would be the subject of a much-needed book. 1
The task w i l l be here to
clarify some l i n e s of development. I t w i l l become c l e a r i n the course of our
sketch that i t w i l l have to proceed a l i t t l e beyond P h i l o ' s . time, i . e . to the
second century A.D., i n order to understand the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e context of h i s
reading of the Timaeus.

(a) a problematic inheritance

It i s not known how the Timaeus was receive d when i t f i r s t appeared.
Perhaps P l a t o ' s f e l l o w - p h i l o s o p h e r s and students were s u r p r i s e d to confront
the f u s i o n of myth, philosophy and n a t u r a l s c i e n c e which came from the m a s t e r s f

hand; perhaps the myths i n e a r l i e r dialogues and the long t r a d i t i o n of Greek

cosmogonies had prepared them f o r i t . P l a t o must have been about seventy years
old by then, o l d enough to be an emeritus. But philosophers do not retire
easily. The C h e r n i s s i a n p i c t u r e of him as a r a t h e r a l o o f f i g u r e , d e c l i n i n g to
d i s c u s s the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of h i s works with h i s colleagues i n the Academy,
seems q u i t e i m p l a u s i b l e . 2
Nevertheless there can be no doubt t h a t i n w r i t i n g
the Timaeus P l a t o bequeathed to h i s successors a problematic inheritance.
Right from the s t a r t there were d i f f i c u l t i e s . The f o l l o w i n g l i s t gives a se-
l e c t i o n of the main problems of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which gave r i s e to controversy. 3

(1) Is the c r e a t i o n a l event to be regarded as an act which takes p l a c e i n time

28 INTRODUCTION

or does i t symbolize an e t e r n a l process of genesis? (2) What i s the identity

of the demiurge and what i s h i s r e l a t i o n to the world of the ideas? (3) How
are we to conceive the nature and a c t i v i t y of the r e c e p t a c l e ? (4) What i s the
r e l a t i o n between the a n a l y s i s of r e a l i t y i n the Timaeus and the metaphysics
presented i n books VI & VII of the Republic and the s o - c a l l e d Unwritten doc-
trines? 4
(5) Is P l a t o ' s e v a l u a t i o n of the cosmos and i t s p a r t s ( e s p e c i a l l y the
c e l e s t i a l beings) i n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s p o s i t i v e or negative? (6) How i s man's
soul r e l a t e d to the cosmic s o u l , the demiurge and the ideas?

The statement of D i l l o n that i n the Timaeus P l a t o l e f t behind problems

which he himself 'must have d e c l i n e d to s o l v e ' seems to me u n f o r t u n a t e . 5
Cer-
t a i n l y P l a t o recognized h i s l i m i t a t i o n s . He c o n t i n u a l l y emphasizes that h i s
account of the cosmos i s no more than probable; he refuses to r e v e a l p r e c i s e l y
who the demiurge i s or to d i s c u s s the apxotu of the elemental triangles. 6
But
f o r the r e s t he must have considered that the problems posed by the work could
be solved by the enlightened reader. The P l a t o n i c dialogues are composed i n
such a way as to stand on t h e i r own. 7
There i s one exception to t h i s r u l e i n
t
^ i e
Timaeus, namely the psychogony, which can only be understood against the
background of the S o p h i s t . 8
But the reader who has access to the whole s e r i e s
of dialogues observes c e r t a i n changes of emphasis and developments i n P l a t o ' s
thought. 9
Two are r e l e v a n t to the Timaeus. This work demonstrates a r e t u r n of
P l a t o ' s focus of a t t e n t i o n to the phenomenal world of m u t a b i l i t y and relative
imperfection. Already i n the Republic the philosopher was f o r c e d to r e t u r n to
the cave, but now he does so v o l u n t a r i l y . 1 0
In the second p l a c e the Timaeus i s
a l a t e work and i t s r e l a t i o n to the aypacpa 6oyyaTa needs to be d e f i n e d . Al-
though c e r t a i n elements are reminiscent of these l a t e d o c t r i n e s (the Pythago-
reanism the numerical composition of the cosmic s o u l , the apxctu mentioned
above), i t s p h i l o s o p h i c a l systematics w i l l not allow an easy i n t e g r a t i o n int o
the conception of an a n a l o g i c a l d e r i v a t i o n of the whole of r e a l i t y from two
highest p r i n c i p l e s , the One and the Unlimite d Dyad. 11

Thus i t can be a s s e r t e d that c e r t a i n i n t e r p r e t a t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s posed

by the Timaeus are inherent i n i t s i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e , while others result
from the attempt to combine and systematize i t with other P l a t o n i c works and
doctrines. My o p i n i o n , which i n the present context w i l l have to be stated
somewhat d o g m a t i c a l l y , i s that the problems of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n encountered a l -
most immediately a f t e r the ' p u b l i c a t i o n ' of the Timaeus and t h e r e a f t e r remai-
ning u n t i l the end of a n t i q u i t y and beyond can be explained i n the f o l l o w i n g
manner. The cosmological account, though i n c o r p o r a t i n g c e r t a i n recent p h i l o -
s o p h i c a l d i s c o v e r i e s , i s i n f a c t P l a t o ' s l a s t attempt to breathe l i f e int o the
c l a s s i c philosophy of the middle dialogues which w i l l always be a s s o c i a t e d
with h i s name. The b a s i c d i v i s i o n into the world of being and the world of
 I 4. 29

becoming, together with the p a r a l l e l e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n between vón-

c í u s and óó£a, i s e s s e n t i a l to the s t r u c t u r e of the dialogue's thought. 12
The
demiurge i s a novel f i g u r e , admitted through the adoption of a ( l i m i t e d ) myth-
i c a l framework. 13
He i s a v o u s , and h i s f u n c t i o n i s to impose the order and
p e r f e c t i o n of the i d e a l world onto the d i s o r d e r l y realm of n e c e s s i t y . 1 4
Sensi-
b l e images need a medium i n which (and out of which) to appear, so P l a t o i n -
troduces h i s T p t T O V y e v o s , the r e c e p t a c l e or e x p a y e u o v . 15
The mythical scena-
rio i s not meant to d e s c r i b e a c r e a t i o n a l event, but to e x p l a i n the structure
of r e a l i t y , while at the same time v i v i d l y p o r t r a y i n g the dependence of this
cosmos on a h i g h e r , n o e t i c w o r l d . 16
No one w i l l wish to deny the v i r t u o s i t y of
Plato's philosophica l systematics. 17
The more o f t e n I read the work, the grea-
ter i s my admiration. But once again, i t seems, a convincing s o l u t i o n to the
double aspect of the same problem — the r e l a t i o n of the one and the many, and
the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of s e n s i b l e p a r t i c u l a r s i n i n t e l l i g i b l e forms — was not f o r t h -
coming. 18
In response to t h i s crux Plat o was already developing those doc-
t r i n e s which attempted to d e r i v e the whole of r e a l i t y from two highest princi-
ples. And so when h i s successors confronted the Timaeus, i t was i n terms of
these l a t e d o c t r i n e s , as w e l l as t h e i r own systematic e f f o r t s , that they en-
deavoured to read i t . Hence the d i f f i c u l t i e s almost r i g h t from the beginning.
It i s i n the Old Academy that we must s t a r t .

(b) the Old Academy and Aristotle

About a decade a f t e r the appearance of the Timaeus the l e a d e r s h i p of the
Academy passed to SPEUSIPPUS (407-339). No doubt he continued the p o l i c y of
l i v e l y d i s c u s s i o n s and innovatory quest f o r t r u t h e s t a b l i s h e d by h i s uncle
P l a t o , f o r h i s fragments 19
r e v e a l him as an independent-minded f i g u r e , who re-
j e c t e d or modified a number of P l a t o ' s most b a s i c d o c t r i n e s . His successor
XENOCRATES (396-314), to judge from the fragments, 20
was a less o r i g i n a l and
more conservativ e figure. As the l a s t Scholarch who had known P l a t o , he felt
the need to preserve and systematize the founder's teachings, though i n prac-
t i c e he d i d not r e f r a i n from adding m o d i f i c a t i o n s of h i s own. 21

In the fragments of both men there i s evidence that the d o c t r i n e s of the

Timaeus were r e f l e c t e d upon. 22
Both, as we s h a l l see, gave i t a n o n - l i t e r a l
interpretation; 2 3
both modified the d o c t r i n e of the ideas and endeavoured i n
d i f f e r e n t ways to i n c o r p o r a te the p h i l o s o p h i c a l views of the Timaeus w i t h i n a
system of a n a l o g i c a l d e r i v a t i o n of the whole of r e a l i t y from two highest p r i n -
ciples. 2 4
For Speusippus the demiurgic Nous appears to be placed on the second
l e v e l below the One and the I n d e f i n i t e dyad. 25
Xenocrates, i f we can believe
A e t i u s , took a d i f f e r e n t l i n e and i d e n t i f i e d the Nous with the Monad as one of
the two highest ápxotú. 26
He seems to have been more i n t e r e s t e d i n cosmology
30 INTRODUCTION

than h i s predecessor, and s t r o n g l y promoted the idea of a 'great c h a i n of be-

ing'. By d i v i d i n g the cosmos into three regions and p l a c i n g demons i n the
y e x a p a t a between heaven and e a r t h , he proceeds f a r beyond the s i m p l i c i t y of
Tim.39e-40a. 27
A precious glimpse into h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i v e methods i s given by
P l u t a r c h ' s account of h i s exegesis of the psychogony (Tim.35a-c). 28
There can
be no doubt that he misconstrues the passage by i n t e r p r e t i n g i t i n terms of
the d o c t r i n e s of the two p r i n c i p l e s and the generation of numbers. 29

^ e
Epinomis, g e n e r a l l y a s c r i b e d nowadays to PHILIP of Opus, i s a l s o hea-
vily indebted to the Timaeus, but i t s s h i f t of emphasis from d i a l e c t i c to con-
templation of the cosmos and astronomy amounts to a r e v i s i o n of P l a t o ' s p h i l o -
sophy. 30
The author's proposal to e s t a b l i s h a p u b l i c and a p r i v a t e c u l t of the
cosmos and the c e l e s t i a l bodies presages developments i n H e l l e n i s t i c thought. 31

A l a t e r member of the Academy, CRANTOR (335-275), i s d e s c r i b e d by Proclus as

the f i r s t e C n y i r n i s of the Timaeus, 32
and may have w r i t t e n a commentary on it. 3 3

The three snippets of exegesis that have s u r v i v e d suggest that he earned the
above t i t l e because he endeavoured to recover P l a t o ' s intended meaning rather
than systematize and r e i n t e r p r e t i n the Xenocratean manner. 34

But the member of the Academy whose i n f l u e n c e on the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of

the Timaeus was the g r e a t e s t has not yet been mentioned. I r e f e r of course to
ARISTOTLE (384-322), who d i d not leave the Academy - u l t i m a t e l y to found h i s
own school — till a f t e r P l a t o ' s death and whose w r i t i n g s r e v e a l the i n f l u e n c e
of h i s teacher on almost every page. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y references to the T i -
maeus abound. 35
The overt comments are mostly c r i t i c a l , but do not conceal the
covert stimulus which the dialogue gave to h i s own philosophy. In the gradual
emancipation from h i s P l a t o n i c environment a d e c i s i v e step forward was made i n
the dialogue De P h i l o s o p h i a . The d o c t r i n e of the ideas i s r e j e c t e d , as w e l l as
the n o t i o n that v i s i b l e r e a l i t y could be d e r i v e d Xoymtig from higher princi-
p l e s , while the d o c t r i n e of the e t e r n i t y of the cosmos was defended with po-
werful arguments. 36
In A r i s t o t l e ' s s c h o l a s t i c w r i t i n g s the d i s t a n c e between
his philosophy and the d o c t r i n e s of the Timaeus only i n c r e a s e d .

The f o l l o w i n g changes i n p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e and r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of

the Timaeus were the most s i g n i f i c a n t . (1) The S t a g i r i t e was able to make the
c l a i m that he was the f i r s t to propound the d o c t r i n e of the cosmos' e t e r n i t y
a parte ante et post because he i n t e r p r e t e d the cosmogony i n a l i t e r a l sense. 37

The defence of Speusippus and Xenocrates that the genesis of the cosmos was
meant d i d a c t i c a l l y , l i k e the way mathematicians c o n s t r u c t diagrams, was rejec-
ted. 3 8
To me i t remains somewhat of a mystery why A r i s t o t l e should have chosen
t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n when a reading i n terms of c r e a t i o aeterna would have
brought the Timaeus so much c l o s e r to h i s own thinking. 3 9
(2) A r i s t o t l e ignores
 I 4. 31

the demiurge and accuses P l a t o of i g n o r i n g the e f f i c i e n t c a u s e . 40

Body and mo-
t i o n cannot be produced by ideas or supra-noetic principles. In h i s mature
system he p o s i t s a highest Nous who causes motion cos epwpevov. 41
(3) In cos-
mology A r i s t o t l e a l t e r s P l a t o ' s elemental theory by r e j e c t i n g i t s mathematical
b a s i s , i n t r o d u c i n g the d o c t r i n e of n a t u r a l p l a c e , and, most importantly, posi-
t i n g a f i f t h element with c i r c u l a r motion, out of which the heavenly bodies
are composed. 42
(4) The r e c e p t a c l e i s r e i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms of h i s own doc-
t r i n e of matter. The P l a t o n i c conception l o s e s i t s r a i s o n d'etre i f separated
from the d o c t r i n e of the realms of i n t e l l i g i b l e and sensible r e a l i t y . Yet
t h i s i s what the S t a g i r i t e d i d by equating i t with h i s uAn p r i n c i p l e , which i s
conceived as a m a t e r i a l s u b s t r a t e (e£ ou) and i s inseparably a s s o c i a t e d with
the non-Platonic d o c t r i n e s of p o t e n t i a l i t y / a c t u a l i t y and immanent f o r m . 43

The mixture of c r i t i c i s m and r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which we have observed i n

A r i s t o t l e ' s treatment of the Timaeus proved very d i f f i c u l t f o r l a t e r i n t e r p r e -
t e r s to d i s e n t a n g l e . Hence the frequent presence of A r i s t o t e l i a n d o c t r i n e s i n
l a t e r P l a t o n i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the Timaeus.

(c) i n the H e l l e n i s t i c world

It i s g r a d u a l l y being discovered that the STOICS i n t h e i r p h y s i c a l doc-
t r i n e s d i d not uncomprehendingly trample over the legacy of t h e i r predecessors
with seven-league boots, but c a r e f u l l y moulded d i v e r s e elements of the p h i l o -
s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n i n t o 'an o r i g i n a l system which i n the succeeding centuries
was to have more i n f l u e n c e than the p h i l o s o p h i e s on which i t drew. 44
The T i -
maeus i s thus not so much i n t e r p r e t e d as e x p l o i t e d f o r c r e a t i v e p u r p o s e s . 45

Taking up P l a t o 's challenge i n the S o p h i s t , 46

they c a r r i e d out a c o n s i s t e n t
c o r p o r e a l i z a t i o n of n e a r l y every aspect of r e a l i t y . Only bodies can act on
bodies. This axiom swept the carpet from under the f e e t of the Timaeus (as
w e l l as Academic d e r i v a t i o n i s m and A r i s t o t e l i a n i s m ) . But when we examine the
fundamental S t o i c d o c t r i n e of the two p r i n c i p l e s - the Logos as a c t i v e otpxn,
matter as passive apxn —
we f i n d the c o n s t i t u e n t elements of the Timaeus being
adapted i n t o a new system. 47
The greatest debt of the Stoa l a y i n the fact
that the P l a t o n i c dialogue helped them give man a place i n the Universe. Man's
soul i s a fragment of the a l l - p e r v a d i n g d i v i n e Logos. In f o l l o w i n g the dic-
tates of reason he l i v e s according to nature and i t s law. 48
Two ideas are thus
given f u r t h e r impetus, the contemplation of the cosmos already prominent i n
A r i s t o t l e and the Epinomis and the correspondence between macrocosm and micro-
cosm so v i t a l to the s t r u c t u r e of the Timaeus. * 1 9

A f t e r the Stoa's i n f l u e n t i a l adaptation the Timaeus entered a p e r i o d of

p a r t i a l e c l i p s e l a s t i n g n e a r l y two centuries. The p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools paid
it scant a t t e n t i o n . Under the l e a d e r s h i p of A r c e s i l a u s the Academy commenced
32 INTRODUCTION

its s c e p t i c a l phase. 50
The Peripatos was busy with n a t u r a l s c i e n c e , while E p i -
cureans and Cynics propounded p h i l o s o p h i e s wholly i n i m i c a l to Platonism. The
i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus on the broad stream of H e l l e n i s t i c thought l a y c h i e f -
ly i n a p a r t i c u l a r way of regarding the cosmos and man's p l a ce i n i t . I t ap-
pears i n works such as Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus, the Phaenomena of Aratus and
t
^ ie
D e
mundo. Noting that awe f o r the beauty and r a t i o n a l i t y of the Universe
and e s p e c i a l l y i t s c e l e s t i a l regions was tending i n t h i s p e r i o d to r e p l a c e the
old c i v i c r e l i g i o n i n the minds of the educated, F e s t u g i e r e e n t i t l e d this
i n t e l l e c t u a l movement as the ' r e l i g i o n cosmique'. 51
We have t r a v e l l e d q u i t e a
long way from P l a t o ' s o r i g i n a l d e p i c t i o n of the cosmos as a g l o r i o u s but im-
p e r f e c t image of a p e r f e c t n o e t i c exemplar.

Indeed i t i s important to observe that i n the e a r l y stages of the Timaeus'

long career i t was not regarded as e s p e c i a l l y a u t h o r i t a t i v e . Except Crantor
no philosopher appears to have read i t i n order to recover P l a t o ' s i n t e n t i o n s
or because of an u n c o n d i t i o n a l l o y a l t y to h i s i p s i s s i m a verba. The doctrines
of the Timaeus were f o r the most part r e i n t e r p r e t e d and f i t t e d into non-Plato-
nic systems of thought. Some of these r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s had a lasting, and
o f t e n d e t r i m e n t a l , e f f e c t on the way the d i a l o g ue was read.

(d) the r e t u r n to a P l a t o n i z i n g dogmatism

Towards the end of the second century B.C. a change i n the intellectual
atmosphere can be d i s c e r n e d . Philosophers such as PMAETIUS of Rhodes (185-
109) and POSIDONIUS of Apamea (135-50) showed a greater respect f o r the thin-
kers of the past and e s p e c i a l l y f o r P l a t o . 5 2
ANTIOCHUS of Ascalon (c.130-67)
made the c a l l veteres sequi the L e i t m o t i v f o r h i s attempt to r e v i v e the Old
Academy. 53
CICERO (106-43) was h a r d l y a dogmatic f o l l o w e r of P l a t o but he
c a l l s him P l a t o deus i l l e n o s t e r . 54
This r e t u r n to a kind of c l a s s i c i s m i s not
enough, however, to e x p l a i n the emergence, a l i t t l e l a t e r , of the movement now
known as Middle Platonism. Indispensable f o r that development were two things,
a r e t u r n from the s c e p t i c i s m of the New Academy to the r e a f f i r m a t i o n of a P l a -
t o n i c dogmatism and a breakthrough of the dominance of S t o i c systematics in
the area of physics and theology. 55
In t h i s way the foundation was laid for
the preeminence of Platonism in later antiquity. The question of i t s o r i g i n s
i s thus of great i n t e r e s t and importance.

For a long time i t was thought that the f i g u r e of Posidonius provided the
vital clue. 5 6
He was regarded as having i n i t i a t e d a movement towards a more
r e l i g i o u s l y t i n t e d , o r i e n t a l i z i n g philosophy. A c h i e f instrument of h i s i n -
f l u e n c e was h i s supposed Commentary on the Timaeus, but i t s e x i s t e n ce i s now
considered d o u b t f u l . 5 7
A consensus on Posidonius' s t a t u r e and c o n t r i b u t i o n to
the h i s t o r y of ideas has by no means been r e a c h e d , 58
but i t i s agreed that h i s
 I 4. 33

philosophy does not proceed beyond an innovatory Stoicism 59

and that 'he cannot
be claimed as the necessary and s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n of the emergence of Mid-
dle Platonism'. 60
Also c o n s i d e r a b l y t a r n i s h e d i s the theory that a t t r i b u t e s a
d e c i s i v e r o l e to A n t i o c h u s . 61
C e r t a i n l y h i s break with the s c e p t i c i s m of the
New Academy must be recognized. But i f h i s founding of a r e v i v e d 'Old Acade-
my' was a b o l d but s h o r t l i v e d experiment and he had no important pupils, 6 2
he
can h a r d l y be considered the a p x n Y G T r i s of the P l a t o n i s t school tradition. 6 3

Antiochus appears p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d i n epistemology and ethics. In con-

t r a s t to h i s contemporaries he shows l i t t l e interest i n the Timaeus, which i s
i n f a c t a good i n d i c a t i o n of the s u p e r f i c i a l i t y of h i s r e t u r n to Platonism. 64

Recently the focus of i n t e r e s t has s h i f t e d from A s i a Minor and Athens to

A l e x a n d r i a , and i n p a r t i c u l a r to the shadowy f i g u r e of EUDORUS ( f l o r u i t c.30
B.C.). 65
We know that he wrote a survey of the whole f i e l d of philosophy
(dealt with ipogAnpcxxtMwg) , and that he commented on d o c t r i n e s of P l a t o , A r i -
s t o t l e and the Pythagorean t r a d i t i o n . 6 6
P l u t a r c h r e f e r s to Eudorus i n the De
animae p r o c r e a t i o n e i n Timaeo and i t i s thought l i k e l y that he i s the source
f o r much of the doxographical m a t e r i a l i n that work. 67
C l e a r l y Eudorus was in-
t e r e s t e d i n problems of the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus, such as the psycho-
gony and the n o n - l i t e r a l view of the cosmogony. 68
Perhaps he wrote a commen-
t a r y on the d i a l o g u e . 69
His i n t e r e s t i n the Neopythagorean p r i n c i p i a suggests
a r e t u r n to the d o c t r i n e of ( d i v i n e ) transcendence, which i s an indispensable
p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r the emergence of Middle P l a t o n i s m . 70
I t i s thus p o s s i b l e that,
perhaps v i a the survey of p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s of ARIUS DIDYMUS ( f l o r u i t c.
10 B.C.) Eudorus proved to be a t u r n i n g point i n the r e t u r n to dogmatic P l a t o -
nism. 71
In SENECA (c.4 B.C.-65 A.D.) one can f i n d snippets of d o c t r i n e which
are c e r t a i n l y d e r i v e d from a Middle P l a t o n i c school t r a d i t i o n (and i n which,
once more, the Timaeus i s p r o m i n e n t ) . 72
One should mention a l s o the curious
Pythagorean f o r g e r y 'On the nature of the cosmos and the s o u l ' , a t t r i b u t e d to
TIMAEUS LOCRUS and purported to be the ' o r i g i n a l ' from which P l a t o p l a g i a r -
ized the Timaeus. I t has been shown that c e r t a i n d o c t r i n e s i n t h i s work r e -
semble what we know concerning Eudorus. 73

Two c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn at t h i s p o i n t . The t r a n s i t i o n to a dogmatic

Platonism remains r a t h e r obscure to us, but i s c l e a r l y underway by the begin-
ning of the 1st century A.D. This i s p r e c i s e l y the time of P h i l o ; hence the
importance of h i s e v i d e n c e . 74
Secondly, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and d i s c u s s i o n of the
Timaeus appear to have played a v i t a l r o l e i n the 'rediscovery' of P l a t o ' s
doctrines. The schola r who has placed, the most emphasis on t h i s i s H.Dorrie. 75

Contrary to other s c h o l a r s he emphasizes a d i s c o n t i n u i t y i n the P l a t o n i c t r a -

dition. By the 1st century B.C. contact with the authentic Academic t r a d i t i o n
was l o s t , and i n i t s p l a ce a 'naive Platonism' was r e c o n s t r u c t e d from the pages
34 INTRODUCTION

of the Timaeus. I t s most s t r i k i n g f e a t u re was an u n c r i t i c a l acceptance of a

l i t e r a l cosmogony. In the generation of Eudorus greater s o p h i s t i c a t i o n was
developed, but the d o c t r i n a l b a s i s had a l r e a dy been f i x e d ( e s p e c i a l l y the doc-
t r i n e of the three ápxcxú). D o r r i e ' s theory s u f f e r s from an excess of specula -
tion. 7 6
I t does r e t a i n , however, a c e r t a i n a t t r a c t i v e n e s s on account of the
way that i t can e x p l a i n the d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y great r o l e played by the T i -
maeus i n s u p p l y i n g the fundamental d o c t r i n e s of Middle Platonism.

(e) the Middle P l a t o n i s t s

The importance of the Middle P l a t o n i s t s i n passing on the t o r c h of P l a t o -
nism i s i n c r e a s i n g l y being recognized. But who were these p h i l o s o p h e r s? Where
d i d they come from? And what were t h e i r methods and teachings? As we have
seen, the o r i g i n s of the movement i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d l i e i n A l e x a n d r i a . When,
however, i n the second century A.D. p r o f e s s i n g P l a t o n i s t s s t a r t to emerge iri
greater numbers they are spread throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, with
even a l o c a l school i n d i s t a n t Carthage. The evidence does not p o i n t to any
p a r t i c u l a r c o n c e n t r a t i o n of a c t i v i t y i n Athens. One might perhaps speak of a
Platonist diaspora. 7 7
PLUTARCH (c.45-c.125) remains a rather independent fi-
gure, d i f f i c u l t to p i n down p r e c i s e l y , but r e v e a l i n g much i n d u b i t a b l e Middle
P l a t o n i s t m a t e r i a l i n h i s copious works. 78
A f t e r him come the men most u s u a l l y
a s s o c i a t e d with Middle Platonism - GAIUS ( f l o r u i t c.120), Calvenus TAURUS ( f l o r
r u i t c.145), ALBINUS the p u p i l of Gaius ( f l o r u i t c.150), APULEIUS of Madaura
(123-C.180), ATTICUS ( f l o r u i t c. 175). 79
More on the periphery are men such as
the s o p h i s t MAXIMUS of Tyre ( f l o r u i t c.150), CELSUS ( f l o r u i t c.165), and the
famous GALEN (129-C.200) who on the whole records P l a t o n i c ideas r a t h e r than
professes them. There i s an a i r of m e d i o c r i t y surrounding these f i g u r e s .
Middle Platonism d i d not produce a dominant f i g u r e l i k e P l o t i n u s who could
produce a major s y n t h e s i s . Scholars have t r i e d to organize these t h i n k e rs
into groups, such as the 'School of Gaius' and the 'Athenian s c h o o l ' , but i t
i s becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y c l e a r that l i t t l e i s gained by such e f f o r t s . 8 0
The
c h i e f form of t r a n s m i s s i o n was from teacher to p u p i l , not through the d i s s e m i -
n a t i o n of books and commentaries. 81
Given the f a c t that Middle Platonism had
no organized f o c a l point of a c t i v i t y , i t i s s u r p r i s i n g that i t s t i l l presents
a reasonably u n i f i e d picture.

P a r a l l e l to the Middle P l a t o n i s t s , but not wholly to be i d e n t i f i e d with

them, are the Neopythagoreans. They includ e f i g u r e s such as MODERATUS of Ga-
d e s
( f l o r u i t 60 A.D.?), NICHOMACHUS of Gerasa ( f l o r u i t c.120), NUMENIUS of
Apamea ( f l o r u i t c.150), 82
T h e i r l o y a l t y to the teachings of Pythagoras leads
to a g r e a t e r s t r e s s on the mathematization of r e a l i t y and i t s d e r i v a t i o n from
the One, but many other d o c t r i n e s are held i n common with the P l a t o n i s t s . 8 3
 I 4. 35

Plato was taken to be a p u p i l of Pythagoras, as he himself admitted by u s i n g a

Pythagorean as mouthpiece i n h i s most important dialogue. The Neopythagoreans
thus make extensive use of the Timaeus. * 8¿
I t i s worth r e c a l l i n g that Clement
of A l e x a n d r i a described P h i l o as ó nuSayópebos. 85

A l l the philosophers mentioned i n the above two paragraphs l i v e d after

Philo. Some were a c t i v e more than a century a f t e r h i s death. I t i s extremely
u n l i k e l y that they had ever heard of P h i l o , l e t alone read h i s works. 86
Is
there, then, any point i n comparing h i s use of the Timaeus with t h e i r approach
to the same work? I am convinced that there i s . The chronic l a c k of evidence
f o r the f i r s t c e n t u r i e s B.C. and A.D. ( i t i s not that much b e t t e r f o r the next
century e i t h e r ) hampers us on a l l s i d e s . C e r t a i n l y P h i l o looks back sometimes
to the p e r i o d of the Middle Stoa. But, as we s h a l l see, he c l e a r l y stands on
the other s i d e of the watershed which I have c a l l e d the 'return of a P l a t o n i -
z i n g dogmatism', 87
and that makes a l l the d i f f e r e n c e . Now we must take a b r i e f
look at the methods and d o c t r i n e s of the Middle P l a t o n i s t s .

( f ) t h e i r methods
Since Middle Platonism, as we have seen, presents a reasonably unified
p i c t u r e , i t i s p o s s i b l e to giv e an impression of the 'ideology' and methods
used by i t s proponents without running the r i s k of excessive g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . 8 8

(1) They considered themselves f o l l o w e r s of P l a t o and members of the P l a t o n i c

o t u p e o u s or school of thought, 89
whose task i t was to preserve and transmit the
Platonist tradition initiated i n the Academy and now i n 'diaspora'.
(2) T h e i r view of Plato was dogmatic. Both the s c e p t i c a l and the e s o t e r i c
conception of h i s philosophy and w r i t i n g s was rejected. 9 0
T h e i r account of
Plato's philosophy was considered an authentic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of h i s thought.
(3) They were l o y a l to the t e x t s and considered i t t h e i r task to e x p l a i n P l a -
to's w r i t i n g s . But t h e i r P l a t o i s a P l a t o d i m i d i a t u s , 91
drawn almost exclusi-
v e l y from the ' c l a s s i c a l ' dialogues (Phaedo, Republic, Phaedrus, Symposium,
Timaeus) with a few snippets from elsewhere (e.g. Tht.176a-c).
(4) The p r i n c i p l e of t h e i r hermeneutics i s , as formulated already by Eudorus,
TO óé ye noAúípwvov TOU IUCXTUJVOS <oú noXÚ6o^ov>. 92
P l a t o ' s statements must be
explained by means of other statements of P l a t o , as the r e s u l t of which i t i s
p o s s i b l e to c o n s t r u ct a systematic account of P l a t o ' s philosophy (without,
however, ever showing the p r o f u n d i t y and p e n e t r a t i o n of a P l o t i n u s ) .
(5) But t h i s systematic e n t e r p r i s e i s undertaken w i t h i n the framework of a
c e r t a i n view of the h i s t o r y of philosophy. P l a t o was a d i s c i p l e of Pythagoras;
A r i s t o t l e and the Stoa l e a r n t from P l a t o and made some l e g i t i m a t e 'moderniza-
tions'. In p r a c t i c e , t h e r e f o r e , c e r t a i n Pythagorean ideas are found i n t h e i r
w r i t i n g s and numerous examples of A r i s t o t e l i a n and S t o i c d o c t r i n e s and termi-
36 INTRODUCTION

nology ( e s p e c i a l l y i n l o g i c and ethics). Given the c o n s i s t e n t r a t i o n a l e of

t h e i r method, i t should not be l a b e l l e d eclectic. 9 3

These methods, widely accepted and passed on from teacher to p u p i l , give

Middle Platonism somewhat of a ' s c h o o l 1
atmosphere, even though i t never was a
c e n t r a l l y organized movement. In t h i s study, t h e r e f o r e , we s h a l l have frequent
o c c a s i o n to a l l u d e to s c h o l a s t i c Middle P l a t o n i s t d o c t r i n e s , meaning thereby
m a t e r i a l that belonged to the fund of f i x e d P l a t o n i s t dogma discussed and ex-
pounded by the Middle P l a t o n i s t s . T h e i r w r i t i n g s too reek of the schoolroom,
even though we may be somewhat misled by the chance s u r v i v a l s i n our posses-
sion. They i n c l u de commentaries on P l a t o n i c works (and o c c a s i o n a l l y those of
other p h i l o s o p h e r s ) , surveys of the h i s t o r y of philosophy, introductory ac-
counts of P l a t o ' s philosophy, t r e a t i s e s on i n d i v i d u a l p h i l o s o p h i c a l problems,
t r e a t i s e s with a dose of i n t e r - s c h o o l p o l e m i c . 94
Plutarch's polished literary
dialogues are e x c e p t i o n a l . Even Numenius' dialogue IlepL , rayo^ou mixes h i e r a -
t i c pronouncements with 'schoolmasterly' exposition. 95

(g) t h e i r d o c t r i n e s i n r e l a t i o n to the Timaeus

The i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus on the Middle P l a t o n i s t s ' p r e s e n t a t i o n of
P l a t o ' s thought was d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y g r e a t , but n a t u r a l l y not e x c l u s i v e . An
e x c e l l e n t i l l u s t r a t i o n i s provided by one of the few works that has come down
to us i n t a c t , the D i d a s k a l i k o s of A l b i n u s . 96
In i t s account of xa IUaxoovos
6oYMaxa i t f o l l o w s the usual p o s t - P l a t o n i c t r i p a r t i t i o n of L o g i c , Physics and
Ethics. 9 7
Not only does the s e c t i o n on Physics ( i n c l u d i n g on the apxott) occupy
more than h a l f the work, 98
but i t s contents are dominated by the d o c t r i n e s of
t
* i e
Timaeus. The f o l l o w i n g l i s t g i v e s , i n very general terms, those p h i l o s o -
p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s found i n Middle Platonism which are almost wholly derived
from the Timaeus and i t s interpretative tradition. 9 9

(1) The d o c t r i n e of the three p r i n c i p l e s - God, the ideas, matter. On this

d o c t r i n e the e n t i r e e d i f i c e of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l systematics is b u i l t . 1 0 0

(2) Theology. The h i g h e s t god i s a transcendent vous, reminiscent of A r i s t o -

t l e ' s Unmoved m o v e r . 101
He creates only i n d i r e c t l y , by i n c i t i n g the second god
( i . e . the r a t i o n a l part of the cosmic soul) to a c t i o n . P l a t o ' s demiurge i s
thus s p l i t in two.
(3) The ideas. The ideas are considered transcendent r e a l e n t i t i e s , but their
f u n c t i o n i s more ' p h y s i c a l ' than e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l , i . e . to serve as paradigm
f o r the cosmos and a l l i t s n a t u r a l parts (xa xaxa cpuauv) .
(4) The ideas as God's thoughts. The ideas as t r a n s c e n d e n t a l i a are located i n
God's vous as the o b j e c t of h i s t h o u g h t . 102
C r e a t i o n takes p l a c e when God looks
to h i s thoughts as cosmic paradigm.
(5) Matter. The P l a t o n i c r e c e p t a c l e i s i n t e r p r e t e d under the i n f l u e n c e of
 I 4. 37

A r i s t o t e l i a n \j\r\ and S t o i c ouota. I t i s the unformed, q u a l i t y - l e s s s u b s t r a t e

out of which the cosmos i s c r e a t e d . A tendency towards (mild) dualism, i n which
matter i s regarded as a source of e v i l , i s sometimes encountered.
(6) C r e a t i o n . Under the i n f l u e n c e of P l a t o ' s account the s t r u c t u r e of r e a l i t y
i s explained i n a c r e a t i o n i s t i c way, even i f a l i t e r a l c r e a t i o n i s d e n i e d . 1 0 3

(7) Cosmogony. The question of whether the yeveobg d i d or d i d not take p l a c e

i n time ( i . e . whether the Timaeus should be read l i t e r a l l y or not) was endless -
ly discussed. The d i v i s i o n between l i t e r a l i s t s ( P l u t a r c h , A t t i c u s ) and non-
literalists (the majority ) i s fundamental i n Middle Platonism. 104

(8) The theme of d i v i n e Providence. God's p r o v i d e n t i a l a c t i v i t y 1 0 5

is expli-
c i t l y a f f i r m e d , and e f f o r t s were made to c o r r e l a t e i t with the problems of f a t e
and f r e e w i l l . God i s , by d e f i n i t i o n , never the cause of e v i l .
(9) The cosmic soul. The important r o l e of P l a t o ' s cosmic s o u l i s r e t a i n e d .
But note two m o d i f i c a t i o n s : i t s f u n c t i o n i n g i s portrayed very much i n terms of
the S t o i c Logos; i t can be regarded as i r r a t i o n a l and as awakened and made
r a t i o n a l by the c r e a t i n g god. 106

(10) Cosmology. A h i e r a r c h y of l i v i n g beings, much more complex than that of

the Timaeus, i s introduced under the i n f l u e n c e of the Old Academy. 107
There i s
much i n t e r e s t i n demonology and much i n d e c i s i o n as to whether to accept a f i f t h
element.
(11) Man's s o u l . The d o c t r i n e of the t r i p a r t i t i o n and t r i l o c a t i o n of the soul
i s r e t a i n e d , but i t i s considered that e s s e n t i a l l y the soul has two p a r t s , T O
Aoytxov and T O aAoyov.
(12) The t e l o s . The d o c t r i n e of man's end i n l i f e i s a part of e t h i c s . It i s
summed up i n the P l a t o n i c slogan OUOUOJOUS found i n the Theatetus. By r e a -
ding i t i n t o the Timaeus, i t i s connected with the conception of d e w p t a . 108

(h) how was the Timaeus read and studied?

The s c h o l a s t i c atmosphere of Middle Platonism c l e a r l y had a strong influ-
ence on the way the Timaeus was read. 1 0 9
Once again A l b i n u s gives a f i n e illu-
s t r a t i o n of the procedure. In h i s EtaaywYn he s e t s out a short ' P l a t o n i c r e a -
ding course' f o r the a s p i r i n g p u p i l . 1 1 0
He should s t a r t with the p r o t r e p t i c of
the F i r s t A l c i b i a d e s , followed by the Phaedo which i n s t r u c t s him i n the p h i l o -
sophic l i f e . The Republic introduces the whole of i a u 6 e u a necessary f o r the
a c q u i s i t i o n of apeTri. The climax of the mini-course i s p r e d i c t a b l e . By r e a -
ding the Timaeus the student becomes acquainted with the s t r u c t u r e of the u n i -
verse and with i t s theology, so that he obtains a c l e a r v i s i o n of the d i v i n e . 1 3

The text of the dialogue must have been widely a v a i l a b l e and widely stu-
d i e d , supply and demand r e i n f o r c i n g each o t h e r . 1 1 2
This i s shown by the huge
number of quotations i n l a t e r w r i t i n g s , many of which are v a l u a b l e f o r the r e -
38 INTRODUCTION

c o n s t r u c t i o n of the t e x t . 1 1 3
For those who wished to a s c e r t a i n the bare essen-
t i a l s , epitomes and synopses were i n p l e n t i f u l s u p p l y . 114
The more serious
student could presumably make use of the r i c h store of s c h o l a r l y l i t e r a t u r e
devoted to the explanation and exegesis of the t e x t . Unfortunatel y i t is d i f -
f i c u l t to determine p r e c i s e l y what kind of exegetic works were produced and
how widely they were a v a i l a b l e . Were, f o r example, f u l l - l e n g t h commentaries
on the Timaeus written? This i s a much disputed problem. Dillon attributes
commentaries on the Timaeus to numerous Middle P l a t o n i s t s ; 1 1 5
D o r r i e argues
that the f i r s t f u l l - l e n g t h commentaries comparable to those of Proclus were
produced by P o r p h y r y , 116
The l a t t e r p o s i t i o n seems extreme i n the l i g h t of the
evidence supplied by the papyrus remains of the Anonymous Theatetus Commentary,
which takes the form of a running commentary, a l b e i t at a r a t h e r u n i n s p i r i n g
level. 1 1 7
Much, perhaps, depends on what one takes the d e s c r i p t i o n UTtoyvnyaia
to mean. 118
Even i f the 'commentaries' were not complete or very d e t a i l e d ,
they must have d e a l t with a l l the p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y more important parts of the
text. 1 1 9
Other ways of d i s c u s s i n g the p h i l o s o p h i c a l content of the Timaeus
were p r a c t i s e d i n i n d i v i d u a l t r e a t i s e s (auYYpauuaxa) and i n the genre of £T\TT\-

yaTa. 1 2 0
Summaries of P l a t o n i c philosophy and i n t r o d u c t i o n s to h i s thought
were a l s o , as we have seen, o f t e n h e a v i l y r e l i a n t on the T i m a e u s . 121
Last but
c e r t a i n l y not l e a s t , Timaean d o c t r i n e s were disseminated by means of doxogra-
p h i c a l works. The i n f l u e n c e of these should not be underestimated i n a c u l -
ture not averse to taking shortcuts to l e a r n i n g . 1 2 2
The Timaeus i s u s u a l l y
not e x p l i c i t l y named, but i t s d o c t r i n e s - so s u i t a b l e f o r b r i e f and lucid pre-
s e n t a t i o n — are ubiquitous. 1 2 3

There was, t h e r e f o r e , a whole gamut of ways to read and study Plato's

most c e l e b r a t e d work, ranging from the s u p e r f i c i a l to the p h i l o l o g i c a l l y and
philosophically sophisticated. Moreover one must not f o r g e t that much acade-
mic or s c h o l a s t i c d i s c u s s i o n on the Timaeus was of an o r a l n a t u r e , 1 2 4
whether
a c t i v e l y passed on from teacher to p u p i l or r e v e r b e r a t i n g no f u r t h e r than the
columns of the stoa i n which the devotees of philosophy met to t a l k and argue.

It would be a s e r i o u s mistake, however, to conclude that the Timaeus was

only read and studied by p r o f e s s i o n a l philosophers or students of philosophy.
The very f a c t that i t was regarded as the 'Platonists' B i b l e ' 1 2 5
meant that i t s
i n f l u e n c e i n e v i t a b l y f i l t e r e d down to men of l e t t e r s and even those who had
r e c e i v e d only a smattering of l e a r n i n g . Indeed the Timaeus was the only Greek
prose work that up to the t h i r d century A.D. every educated man could be as-
sumed to have r e a d . 1 2 6
This i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d by the c i t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s
i n e a r l y C h r i s t i a n w r i t e r s such as Clement of Rome, Athenagoras, J u s t i n , Theo-
p h i l u s , the author of the Cohortatio ad Graecos, Minucius F e l i x , few of whom
one would wish to d e s c r i b e as genuine students of p h i l o s o p h y . 127
I t i s against
 I 4. 39

t h i s double background of i n t e n s i v e p h i l o s o p h i c a l study and widespread c u l t u -

r a l d i s s e m i n a t i o n that we must view the use made of the Timaeus by the Alexan-
d r i a n Jew, Philo.
 CHAPTER F I V E

METHOD

5.1 The m e t h o d t o b e u s e d i n t h i s study

The v i t a l importance of methodology i n the study of P h i l o was one of the

r e s u l t s of our review of recent developments i n P h i l o n i c s t u d i e s . 1
The P h i l o -
n i s t who wishes to study the w r i t i n g s and the thought of h i s author f i n d s him-
s e l f i n a dilemma. The best way to e l u c i d a t e the writings i s to w r i t e commen-
t a r i e s on them or essays which adhere c l o s e l y to P h i l o s own p r e s e n t a t i o n .
1

H a r l was complimented i n our review on her s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s me-

thod. 2
But the method has evident l i m i t a t i o n s f o r the study o f P h i l o ' s thought.
Even i f the recommendation of Nikiprowetzky i s followed and s t u d i e s are made
of e x e g e t i c a l themes, 3
i t w i l l be necessary to c o l l e c t together, analyse and,
at l e a s t to a c e r t a i n extent, organize and systematize m a t e r i a l drawn from d i -
verse p a r t s of the Corpus Philonicum. 4
This a p p l i e s a f o r t i o r i to research
(such as t h i s study) which aims to i n v e s t i g a t e P h i l o ' s use of p h i l o s o p h i c a l
m a t e r i a l and h i s r e l a t i o n to the Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n .

It i s moreover h i g h l y i n s t r u c t i v e to compare p h i l o s o p h i c a l s t u d i e s which

are concerned with the same s u b j e c t , but i n r e l a t i o n to another ancient author.
CLAGHORN has w r i t t e n a work e n t i t l e d A r i s t o t l e ' s c r i t i c i s m of P l a t o ' s 'Timaeus',
i n which a f t e r the i n t r o d u c t o r y s e c t i o n there are seven chapters on A r i s t o t -
l e ' s c r i t i c i s m of the r e c e p t a c l e , simple bodies, q u a l i t i e s , motion, time, soul,
nature. 5
The study of MATTER, Zum E i n f l u s s des p l a t o n i s c h e n "Timaios" auf das
Denken P l o t i n s , has four main chapters d e a l i n g with the hypostasis of Soul,
the hypostasis of Mind, time and e t e r n i t y , matter. 6
In both works passages
d e a l i n g with the Timaeus a r e c o l l e c t e d and s y s t e m a t i c a l l y analysed with r e s -
pect to both the main themes of the dialogue and r e l e v a n t aspects of the p h i -
losophy of the authors who have r e f l e c t e d on i t . Indeed BILLINGS' monograph
on P h i l o ' s Platonism i s s t r u c t u r e d on s i m i l a r l i n e s , with chapters on God, the
intermediary powers, man's s o u l , e t h i c s , but with the important a d d i t i o n of a
s e c t i o n on h i s s t y l i s t i c debts to the Greek p h i l o s o p h e r . 7
A l s o i n t e r e s t i n g are
the two books by BALTES on the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n of the Timaeus. In
the one he gives a d e t a i l e d and m e t i c u l o u s l y executed commentary on a tex t
which i s almost a p r e c i s of P l a t o ' s d i a l o g u e . 8
In the other the reader i s pre-
sented with a d i a c h r o n i c e x p o s i t i o n of the way that one of the acutest prob-
lems of i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was d e a l t with over the e n t i r e p e r i o d from the Old
Academy to P r o c l u s . 9
 I 5.1. 41

My c o n v i c t i o n i s that none of the methods described so f a r , whether used

i n studies on the h i s t o r y of Greek philosophy or on P h i l o , are s u i t a b l e f o r
the aims we have set ourselves . I t w i l l be necessary to employ a new method
which corresponds to the p e c u l i a r i t i e s of P h i l o s w r i t i n g s and
1
the distinc-
tiveness of h i s thought. The e s s e n t i a l feature of t h i s method, as has already
been i n d i c a t e d i n the o u t l i n e of the study's s t r u c t u r e , i s that i t involves
two stages, of which the f i r s t adheres c l o s e l y to the text of both the Timaeus
and the w r i t i n g s of P h i l o . The methodology of the two stages w i l l need to be
carefully explained.

(a) the method of Part II

The a n a l y t i c a l part of the study w i l l proceed i n the form of a kind of
sequential 'Commentary' on the Timaeus as read and used by P h i l o . The Commen-
t a r y c o n s i s t s of ten chapters, each d e a l i n g i n P l a t o n i c sequence w i th a part
of the Timaeus [ f o r example, 7. Timaeus 42e-47e: Man's descent i n t o the body],
while each chapter i s d i v i d e d i n t o s e v e r a l sections depending on the Platonic
themes l o c a t e d there [ f o r example, 7.2. The t e l e o l o g y of s i g h t ] . The first
s e c t i o n of each chapter i s i n t r o d u c t o r y [ f o r example, 7.O.], and aims to give
a b r i e f resumé of the ideas and d o c t r i n e s presented i n the part of the Timaeus
under d i s c u s s i o n . In the headings of the sub-sections Philo's utilization
comes to the f o r e [ f o r example, 7.2.2. The mechanism of v i s i o n ] . In these sub-
s e c t i o n s , which n a t u r a l l y make up the bulk of the Commentary, the relevant
P h i l o n i c texts that have been i d e n t i f i e d and c o l l e c t e d are examined and ana-
lysed. 1 0
The doctrines and themes found i n these passages are r e l a t e d to the
P l a t o n i c source and placed i n the context of P h i l o ' s thought. For passages
which are s t r o n g l y indebted to the Timaeus the i d e a l treatment would be a f u l l
l i n e - b y - l i n e commentary, but t h i s p r a c t i c e w i l l occur only r a r e l y and for
short s e c t i o n s . Otherwise the Commentary would be expanded to i n s u f f e r a b l e
length. In most cases b r i e f summaries and a t t e n t i o n to s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s w i l l
have to s u f f i c e . It i s important to i l l u s t r a t e ideas and d o c t r i n e s with r e l e -
vant P h i l o n i c p a r a l l e l s ; i n a d d i t i o n l i m i t e d p a r a l l e l s must be drawn from
Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l t e x t s , H e l l e n i s t i c - J u d a i c sources and ( i n f r e q u e n t l y ) Pat-
ristic literature. But i t i s best to avoid the excesses of 'parallelomania'
i n the i n t e r e s t s of reader and w r i t e r a l i k e . The abbreviation 'etc. ' w i l l be
used repeatedly to i n d i c a t e that more (and undoubtedly i n t e r e s t i n g ) examples
could be given.

What, however, c o n s t i t u t e s P h i l o n i c u t i l i z a t i o n of the Timaeus? Philo's

references to the dialogue cover the e n t i r e spectrum from d i r e c t quotatio n to
implicit allusion. Moreover there i s a 'grey zone' of imagery and word-usage
which can be traced back to the Timaeus, but one i s often hesitant to a c c r e d i t
42 INTRODUCTION

P h i l o , when he uses i t , w i t h awareness of i t s o r i g i n . A problem of c i r c u l a r -

i t y must be recognized. Because one concludes (or presumes) that the Timaeus
held a c e n t r a l place i n P h i l o s t h i n k i n g , one
f
i s encouraged to i d e n t i f y allu-
sions that become more and more r e c o n d i t e . Perhaps i t would be methodologi-
c a l l y sounder to separate the Commentary i n t o two stages. An impressive quan-
t i t y of c e r t a i n quotations and a l l u s i o n s would encourage the reader to accept
those that were more s u b t l e or even s p e c u l a t i v e . But we have l i t t l e choice
but to group them a l l i n one Commentary, and the r e s u l t s w i l l have to v i n d i -
cate our judgment i n a v o i d i n g the p i t f a l l s of a c i r c u l a r i t y t h a t becomes un-
acceptable. The element of s p e c u l a t i o n i s a l s o not easy to a v o i d . Moderation
must be shown whenever there i s an i r r e s i s t i b l e temptation to conclude on the
strength of one or two passages that 'Philo would have read the Timaeus i n
t h i s or that way...'. With regard to another temptation, however, one can be
firm. I r e f e r to the tendency towards ' s e l e c t i v i s m ' , i . e . the tendency to r e -
gard c e r t a i n text s and t r e a t i s e s on a p r i o r i grounds as being more important
than o t h e r s . The primary aim of our Commentary must be to do j u s t i c e to a l l
the f o r t y - e i g h t P h i l o n i c t r e a t i s e s that are s t i l l extant. 11

An e s s e n t i a l aspect of our method w i l l be to r e l a t e the passages c i t e d to

t h e i r context, which means i n p r a c t i c e not only t h e i r context i n the t r e a t i s e s ,
but a l s o i n most cases t h e i r e x e g e t i c a l context. I t would, however, be tedi-
ous to recount every time the long chains of exegesis which cause P h i l o to
c i t e and e x p l a i n t h i s or that t e x t . Very o f t e n we s h a l l l i m i t ourselves to
p l a c i n g the e x e g e t i c a l r e f e r e n c e i n brackets behind the P h i l o n i c passage [ f o r
example, Spec.1.327(exeg. Deut.23:2)]. Nevertheless the p r i n c i p l e behind this
procedure i s exceedingly important. The e x e g e t i c a l background of much of P h i -
l o 's use of p h i l o s o p h i c a l m a t e r i a l cannot and must not be ignored. Indeed at
t h i s p o i n t i t might be argued that a serious d e f i c i e n c y of our method emerges.
Because the Commentary i s s t r u c t u r e d according to the themes and sequence of
^ e
Timaeus i t i s i n f a c t too P l a t o n o c e n t r i c . I d e a l l y one might envisage a
second Commentary i n the sequence of the books of Moses. 12
But much r e p e t i t i o n
would ensue and, anyway, space f o r b i d s . As a 6 e u x e p o s nAous an Appendix w i l l
be compiled which contains a l l the Pentateuchal text s given exegesis by P h i l o
with r e f e r e n c e to the Timaeus of P l a t o .

In Part I I of t h i s study few concessions w i l l be made to the reader. The

m a t e r i a l i s f r e q u e n t l y complex and t e c h n i c a l , and a c e r t a i n exhaustiveness
must be the aim. Footnotes are almost e n t i r e l y avoided. A l l references are
given i n the t e x t , which does not f a c i l i t a t e f l u e n t r e a d i n g. For reasons of
economy c e r t a i n l e s s important s e c t i o n s are p r i n t e d i n c l o s e type.
 I 5.1. 43

(b) the method of Part I I I

The method of t h i s part i s much simpler and i t s explanation w i l l not de-
lay us long. The task i s to c o l l e c t the r e s u l t s gained i n the Commentary and
present a s y n t h e s i s which seeks to cover the main subjects of i n t e r e s t out-
l i n e d at the beginning of t h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n . I t s three s e c t i o n s correspond,
as was s a i d , to the three main areas of research of our study. Synthesis en-
t a i l s a c e r t a i n amount of o r g a n i z a t i o n and s y s t e m a t i z a t i o n , but t h i s must take
place w i t h i n the l i m i t s set by the r e s u l t s reached i n the Commentary. On the
whole there w i l l be i n t h i s part no new d i s c u s s i o n s of P h i l o n i c and parallel
texts. Countless references - to the point of monotony - w i l l be made to ear-
l i e r d i s c u s s i o n s i n Part I I . I t i s hoped that i n t h i s way unnecessary r e p e t i -
t i o n between the two main p a r t s of the study w i l l be kept to a minimum.

In a d d i t i o n the s t y l e of t h i s part i s i n marked c o n t r a s t to that of the

Commentary. The aim i s r e a d a b i l i t y and comprehensibility. There i s no need
to seek an exhaustive treatment of the r e s u l t s which have been gained. The
copious use of f o o t n o t e s, c o n t a i n i n g those numerous c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e s , ensures
that the flow of the argument w i l l not be checked.

(c) priorities
The Timaeus, i n i t s systematic and h i g h l y compressed way, covers an im-
p r e s s i v e range of subjects i n the area of theology, cosmology and anthropology
( i n c l u d i n g psychology and p h y s i o l o g y ) . The endeavour must be to give these
subjects the treatment they r e q u i r e w i t h i n the aims we have s e t . But c e r t a i n
priorities and l i m i t a t i o n s are i n e v i t a b l e . My p o l i c y w i l l be to concentrate
more on the primary aspects of genesis and s t r u c t u r e and l e s s on the secondary
aspects which r e s u l t from that genesis and s t r u c t u r e , such as e t h i c s , eschato-
logy and so on. The Timaeus i s only part of Plato' s oeuvre. Although, as we
have already seen, i t r e c e i v e s a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e amount of a t t e n t i o n i n the
P l a t o n i s t t r a d i t i o n , many other s i g n i f i c a n t and much used t e x t s remain. Phi-
lo's use of other P l a t o n i c dialogues w i l l only be mentioned to the extent that
it i s r e l e v a n t to h i s use of the Timaeus. Our study thus covers only part of
the subject that B i l l i n g s chose f o r h i s monograph, P h i l o s debt to P l a t o . f
An-
other l i m i t a t i o n i s imposed i n r e l a t i o n to non-Platonic p h i l o s o p h i c a l doc-
t r i n e s which P h i l o employs i n h i s w r i t i n g s . Not seldom P h i l o uses such doc-
t r i n e s i n a p a r a l l e l way to those which he draws from the Timaeus. Once again
i t w i l l not be p o s s i b l e to l i s t these every time. The reader i s warned i n ad-
vance that our method i s exposed to the danger of a c e r t a i n one-sidedness i n
i t s o r i e n t a t i o n towards P h i l o s f
Platonism.
44 INTRODUCTION

(d) other p r e l i m i n a r y considerations

(1) The Greek text of P h i l o s works used and c i t e d i s b a s i c a l l y the e d i t i o
f

maior of Cohn and Wendland. But a l s o the many e x c e l l e n t t e x t u a l comments and

emendations made by Colson i n the Loeb e d i t i o n of P h i l o are taken i n t o account.
Textual matters play only a l i m i t e d r o l e i n our research. I t i s not p r a c t i c -
able to c i t e l a r g e s e c t i o n s of P h i l o n i c t e x t . The reader i s expected to read
the Commentary with a text and, i f need be, a t r a n s l a t i o n at h i s or her s i d e .

(2) The Armenian transmission of about a quarter of P h i l o s t i l l , at this

moment, gives r i s e to s e r i o u s problems f o r the P h i l o n i s t , problems which i n my
opinion a r e w i l d l y underestimated by most s c h o l a r s . The Armenian t r a n s l a t i o n s
of P h i l o were made i n the l a t e 6th century by the s o - c a l l e d H e l l e n i z i n g School.
The Armenian language was adapted - i n accidence (!), syntax and vocabulary —
in order t o be able to convey the more s o p h i s t i c a t e d thought of d i f f i c u l t
Greek authors. The r e s u l t i s an Armenian of extraordinary d i f f i c u l t y and f r e -
quent o b s c u r i t y . 13
I t i s c l e a r that the t r a n s l a t o r s lacked the e x p e r t i s e i n
Greek philosophy required to deal with P h i l o * s more p h i l o s o p h i c a l passages. 14

The L a t i n t r a n s l a t i o n s of Aucher i n h i s e d i t i o n s of 1822 and 1826, which even

today a r e s t i l l sometimes quoted or used as the b a s i s f o r f u r t h e r t r a n s l a t i o n s ,
were an impressive performance, but frequentl y fall short of modern s t a n d a r d s . 15

It i s t o be hoped that a s c h o l a r such as A . T e r i a n w i l l be given the opportuni-

ty to make as much as p o s s i b l e of the Armenian P h i l o a c c e s s i b l e to others who
lack h i s s p e c i a l knowledge. 16

My procedure i n studying the Armenian P h i l o has been as f o l l o w s . In each

case the most recent (and presumably the best) t r a n s l a t i o n has been u s e d . 17
Un-
f o r t u n a t e l y the s i t u a t i o n i s at i t s worst f o r the t r e a t i s e which i s most impor-
tant f o r our subject, the De P r o v i d e n t i a . 16
Whenever questions of s p e c i a l s i g -
n i f i c a n c e o r d i f f i c u l t y were encountered, I consulted the Armenologist, Drs .
J.J.S.Weitenberg (Leiden), who most k i n d l y answered questions and provided
translations. In a few instances h i s t r a n s l a t i o n s have been the b a s i s of my
t r a n s l a t i o n s ( i n the case of the De P r o v i d e n t i a ) . His assistance i s i n every
case acknowledged. The aim of our j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s to a f u r t h e r understan-
ding of the Armenian P h i l o i s exceedingly modest, and i s kept s t r i c t l y within
the boundaries of my subject . I t i s to be hoped that they w i l l soon be swept
away i n a t o r r e n t of s u p e r i o r t r a n s l a t i o n s and commentaries. A minor problem
in P h i l o s Quaestiones i s the f a c t that they vary i n length
1
from a few l i n e s
to n e a r l y t e n pages i n Marcus' t r a n s l a t i o n . In the case of the longer quaes-
tiones I have added a reference to that t r a n s l a t i o n [ f o r example, EES 1.181]
to f a c i l i t a t e l o c a t i o n of the exact passage required.

(3) References to the Old Testament are always made t o the Septuagint i n
the e d i t i o n of Rahlfs ( n i n t h e d i t i o n ) , the numbering of which d i f f e r s sometimes
 I 5.1. 45

from that of the Hebrew B i b l e . 1 9

The p r e c i s e wording of P h i l o ' s B i b l i c a l quo-
t a t i o n s i s an important s u b j e c t , on which the l a s t word has by no means been
said. I t w i l l , however, r e c e i v e l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n i n our study except when i t
can be shown that P h i l o ' s reading of the Timaeus has i n f l u e n c e d h i s choice of
readings i n the sacred t e x t .

(4) The t e x t of P l a t o ' s works used i n t h i s study i s that of Burnet i n the

s e r i e s of Oxford C l a s s i c a l T e x t s . 20
In the case of the Timaeus the l i n e s of
the s u b d i v i s i o n of Stephanus' p a g i n a t i o n are c i t e d as found i n Burnet [ f o r
example, 29a5-6].
(5) Because of the great bulk of the P h i l o n i c corpus i t i s necessary to
subdivide h i s lengthy sequences of t r e a t i s e s . In t h i s study a t r i p a r t i t e d i -
v i s i o n , with f i v e groups i n a l l , i s f o l l o w e d . 21

(a) The exegetioal treatises, comprising:

(i) the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary — O p i f. L e g . I - I I I Cher. Sacr. Pet.
Post. Gig . Deus Agr. P l a n t . Ebr. Sobr. Conf. Migr. Her. Congr. Fug.
Mut. Somn.I-II;
(ii) The E x p o s i t i o n of the Law - O p i f . Abr. Ios. Mos.I-II Decal.
Spec.I-IV V i r t . Praem.;
(iii) The Quaestiones - QG I-IV, QE I - I I .
(b) The philosophical t r e a t i s e s — Prob. Aet. P r o v . I - II Anim.
(c) The h i s t o r i c a l - a p o l o g e t i c t r e a t i s e s — Contempl. F l a c c . Legat. Hypoth.
The c r i t i c i s m r e c e n t l y d i r e c t e d against t h i s d i v i s i o n , which has h e l d sway i n
P h i l o n i c s t u d i e s f o r n e a r l y a century, i s of l i t t l e bearing on our s u b j e c t . 22

Also questions of chronology w i l l be set a s i d e , except that the theory that

P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e s are (immature) J u g e n d s c h r i f t en i s r e j e c t e d . 2 3

(6) Only i n i n c i d e n t a l cases i s c r e d i t given f o r d i s c o v e r y of a l l u s i o n s

to the Timaeus i n P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s . This procedure, which i s a p p l i e d both to
the d i s c o v e r i e s of previous s c h o l a r s and to my own research, i s i n no way meant
to conceal the great debt, already acknowledged above, 24
to my predecessors.

5.2. Justification o f a s u b j e c t and a method

The subjec t of t h i s study i n my view s c a r c e l y r e q u i r e d j u s t i f i c a t i o n .

The Timaeus occupies a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t p l a c e i n the development and expres-
s i o n of P h i l o ' s thought, and i t i s high time that t h i s subject be submitted to
a comprehensive and thorough s c r u t i n y . A l s o the c o n s i d e r a b l e l e n g t h of my
study i s p r e d i c t a b l e , given the bulk of the P h i l o n i c corpus and the great num-
ber of p h i l o s o p h i c a l and s c i e n t i f i c themes d e a l t with i n the P l a t o n i c work.
The method which w i l l be employed has been c a r e f u l l y devised i n order to cope
46 INTRODUCTION

with the p e c u l i a r i t i e s of P h i l o s w r i t i n g s and the p a r t i c u l a r requirements of

1

the s u b j e c t . There i s one aspect of our procedure, however, to which objec-

t i o n s could be r a i s e d .

In a recent book e n t i t l e d The beginnings o f C h r i s t i a n philosophy E r i c OS-

BORN has paid more than u s u a l a t t e n t i o n to methodological issues involved i n
the study of the h i s t o r y o f p h i l o s o p h y . 1
Drawing on the work of the A u s t r a -
l i a n p h i l o s o p h e r , John Passmore, 2
he o u t l i n e s v a r i o u s methods of pursuing the
h i s t o r y of i d e a s . 3
The one which he favours (though the best aspects of the
others must be incorporated too) i s the method of problematic elucidation.
Philosophy and theology are concerned with argument and with the attempt to
solve problems. In order to understand the thought of an author i t i s neces-
sary to penetrate to the problems with which he was preoccupied and the argu-
ments which he used i n h i s attempt to s o l v e them. Osborn i s p a r t i c u l a r l y se-
vere on the method which he c a l l s the 'doxographical approach 1
and which i s
compared with s t a m p - c o l l e c t i n g . 4
The doxographer i s so busy t r a c i n g sources
and uncovering p a r a l l e l s f o r the ideas found i n h i s author that he shows no
understanding f o r what a c t u a l l y motivated the man to embark on h i s p h i l o s o p h i -
cal enterprise. Could i t be thought that our method, i n v o l v i n g as i t does the
d i s c o v e r y of a l l u s i o n s and covert usage and making widespread use of p a r a l l e l s ,
i s too d e s c r i p t i v e and bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the p h i l a t e l y to
which Osborn o b j e c t s ?

Such a c o n c l u s i o n I would regard as u n j u s t i f i e d . Firstly i t i s essential

to have an eye f o r the manner o f v e r b a l and conceptual t r a n s m i s s i o n i n Western
c u l t u r e , to which we are so accustomed that we take i t wholly f o r granted. As
George S t e i n e r says i n one o f h i s thought-provoking essays, ?
i n very l a r g e
measure, most books are about previous b o o k s . 1 3
Thoughts are expressed and
problems are r e s o l v e d i n a complex process o f a l l u d i n g t o , adapting, remould-
ing previous statements and arguments. This i s a l l the more true f o r the pro-
found c l a s s i c i s m ( o r , i f you l i k e , t r a d i t i o n a l i s m ) of l a t e r Greek c u l t u r e ,
which lacked confidence i n i t s own o r i g i n a l i t y and was ever ready to look back
to the achievements of the a n t i q u i o r e s . I t i s a l s o a l l the more t r u e f o r a
man such as P h i l o , whose thought i s dominated by a r e l i g i o n d e r i v i n g most of
i t s a u t h o r i t y from a book. N a t u r a l l y P h i l o expected h i s u t i l i z a t i o n of the
Timaeus to be recognized by h i s readers. The p o p u l a r i t y o f the dialogue gave
access to a common idiom shared by author and reader. I t i s an i n d i c a t i o n of
the d i s t a n c e that separates us from h i s c u l t u r e that i t has become the task of
the s p e c i a l i s t to e l u c i d a t e t h i s idiom and make i t a c c e s s i b l e even to f e l l o w -
scholars. I t i s a l s o an i n d i c a t i o n of profound changes i n Western c u l t u r e
that the existence of a s i m i l a r l i t e r a r y , p h i l o s o p h i c a l or r e l i g i o u s idiom
cannot be presumed even among the educated.
 I 5.2. 47

In the second place - and t h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s more important - although

P h i l o i s o f t e n t r e a t e d as a philosopher and has a l s o been c a l l e d the 'first
theologian , 1 6
i t cannot be assumed that he i s d i r e c t l y preoccupied with the
s o l v i n g of p h i l o s o p h i c a l or t h e o l o g i c a l problems, f o r the a n a l y s i s of which
Osborn c o n s i d e r s problematic e l u c i d a t i o n to be the only a p p r o p r i a t e method.
Such preoccupations would have to be proven, and i n so doing a lengthy (and
sometimes tedious) process of examining word usage, drawing p a r a l l e l s and so
on i s not to be avoided. Nevertheless the methodological i s s u e s r a i s e d by
Osborn should not be dismissed as i r r e l e v a n t . I t w i l l be f r u i t f u l to r e t u r n
to h i s d e p i c t i o n of the p h i l o s o p h e r as problem-solver when we f i n a l l y evalu-
ate P h i l o ' s s t a t u s as a t h i n k e r , as seen i n r e l a t i o n to h i s u t i l i z a t i o n of
P l a t o ' s Timaeus.
 PART TWO

ANALYSIS
CHAPTER ONE

TIMAEUS 17A-27D: THE DIALOGUE'S INTRODUCTION

1.0. Introductor y

1.1. The setting (Tim.17a-20c)

1.1.1. F e a s t i n g i n r e t u r n (17a-b)
1.1.2. The summit of philosophy (20a)

1.2. C r i t i a s ' speech (Tim.20a-26e)

1.2.1. 'You Greeks always remain c h i l d r e n ' (22b)
1.2.2. The theory of p e r i o d i c a l l y r e c u r r i n g n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s (22a-23c)
1.2.3. Aet.¡45-149: P h i l o and Theophrastus
1.2.4. Atlantis (24e-25d)

1.3. Final preliminaries (Tim.27a-d)

1.3.1. The subject-matter of the c r e a t i o n account (27a)
1.3.2. The i n v o c a t i o n of God (27c)

1.0. Introductory

The Timaeus i s a d i a l o g u e , though the l e a s t d i a l o g i c of a l l P l a t o ' s works.

The lengthy address of Timaeus of L o c r i i s placed i n a s e t t i n g . Socrates and
h i s three companions, Timaeus, C r i t i a s and Hermocrates, are engaged i n a f e a s t
of words (cf.27b8). Having on the previous day given an account of an ideal
s t a t e , q u i t e s i m i l a r to that found i n the Republic but p e r p l e x i n g l y without
some of i t s most important f e a t u r e s , Socrates now expresses a d e s i r e to see
that i d e a l s t a t e a c t u a l l y i n movement. C r i t i a s responds by t e l l i n g the story
of the v i r t u o u s Athenians of o l d , who had s u c c e s s f u l l y defeated the h u b r i s t i c
r u l e r s of the i s l a n d A t l a n t i s (a story he had heard from h i s grandfather, who
had heard i t from the lawgiver Solon, who i n t u r n had heard i t on h i s t r a v e l s
from an Egyptian p r i e s t ) . But before t h i s story w i l l be t o l d i n d e t a i l ,
 II 1.0. 49

Timaeus w i l l f i r s t set the scene by d e s c r i b i n g the genesis of the cosmos up to

and i n c l u d i n g the nature of man (27a). When he has invoked the gods and god-
desses with a prayer, Timaeus i s ready to embark on h i s daunting task.
Although the s t o r y of A t l a n t i s has always been the subject of much con-
t r o v e r s y , on the whole the opening s e c t i o n of the Timaeus has i n both ancient
and modern times received l e s s a t t e n t i o n than the r e s t of the work. The rea-
sons f o r the r e l a t i v e neglect are obvious. The overwhelming importance a t t a -
ched to the cosmological and a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l aspects of Timaeus* account has
caused the i n t r o d u c t o r y s e c t i o n , which does not seem d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t to the
main p a r t , to appear r a t h e r i n s i g n i f i c a n t . The f a c t that Plato l e f t h i s p l a n -
ned t r i l o g y uncompleted means that the p h i l o s o p h i c a l i n t e n t i o n s of i t s i n t r o -
d u c t i o n and o v e r a l l schema must remain the subject of s p e c u l a t i o n . The speech
of the Pythagorean philosopher now has a much more prominent place than i t was
o r i g i n a l l y planned to have. Because the speech i s q u i t e s e l f - c o n t a i n e d , the
f o r f e i t u r e of the r e s t of the t r i l o g y (except the C r i t i a s , which i s only a
fragment) does not have the s e r i o u s consequences i t might have had. But, even
though the i n t r o d u c t o r y part of the Timaeus i s thus r e l a t i v e l y i s o l a t e d , i t
nevertheless contains a number of important themes which P h i l o could have used.
It should not be passed over i n our Commentary.

1.1. The setting (Tim.17a-20c)

1.1.1. Feasting i n return (17a-b)

The d e s c r i p t i o n of the banquet given by Ptolemy Philadelphus i n honour of

the seventy-two s c h o l a r s , who had been i n v i t e d from Jerusalem to A l e x a n d r i a in
order to undertake the t r a n s l a t i o n of the Law of Moses i n t o Greek, presents
P h i l o with the opportunity to make an e r u d i t e v e r b a l a l l u s i o n to the opening
scene of the Timaeus. At Mos.2.33 he w r i t e s : knl £evCav xAndevxes A6yots aa-
xeuots xau cniou6abous T 6 V eaxtaxopa euooxouv avxecpeaxbuivxes. C-W 4.207 c o r r e c -
t l y r e f e r avxecpeaxtwvxes to avxacpeaxuav at Tim. 17b4.

But the a l l u s i o n i s i n f a c t more e l a b o r a t e : eaxtaxopa looks to 17a2, £evuav

xAnSevxes to 17b2-3, while Aoyots i s reminiscent of the xwv Aoyoov eaxtaauv
which Socrates a n t i c i p a t e s at 27b7. LSJ ad l o c . give avx£(peaxtav as a f a l s a
l e c t i o f o r avxoupeaxuav. There i s considerable confusion between these two
v e r b a l forms i n the manuscripts of both P l a t o ' s t e x t and the r e l e v a n t passage
i n P r o c l u s Commentary. I t i s c l e a r from P r o c l u s comments ( i n Tim.1.25.22-
1 1

24) that he accepts the reading avxacpeaxuav, which he j u s t i f i e s by p o i n t i n g

out the completive f o r c e of the p r e f i x e d omo ( c f . F e s t u g i e r e ad l o c . ) . It
would seem, indeed, that avxacpeoxuav i s the c o r r e c t reading ( c f . a l s o otvxaio-
6a)aetv 20c1, avxaioAricJjeGdau 27b7) . But P h i l o (as w e l l as A e l i a n and P h i l o -
s t r a t u s , c f . LSJ ad loc. ) doubtless had avxecpeaxtav i n h i s t e x t .
50 ANALYSIS

The a l l u s i o n makes a small c o n t r i b u t i o n to the H e l l e n i z i n g atmosphere

which i s so palpable i n the De v i t a Mosis. The questions of whether t h i s t r e a -
t i s e was s p e c i a l l y d i r e c t e d at non-Jewish readers and whether i t i s an i n t e -
g r a l part of the E x p o s i t i o n of the Law are s t i l l much d i s p u t e d . Cf. E.R.Good-
enough, 'Philo's E x p o s i t i o n of the Law and h i s De v i t a M o s i s 1
HThR 27(1933)
109-125, I n t r o d u c t i o n 33-35; Nikiprowetzky 195-197,217,220-221; Sandmel 47-52;
Hecht SPh 6(1979-80)144.

1.1.2. The summit o f p h i l o s o p h y ( 2 0 a )

Timaeus the L o c r i a n i s described by P l a t o as having reached the summit of

a l l philosophy (cptAoaocp tas • • . en 'axpov anaans eAriAu^ev 20a4-5) . A little later
he adds that t h i s man i s the best versed i n astronomy (aaxpovoutxwxaxos) and
has made a s p e c i a l study of the nature of the universe (rcept cpuaeoos xou iravxos
27a3-4) . Should we see a d e l i b e r a t e r e f e r e n c e to Tim.20a on P h i l o ' s part at
Opif .8, where Moses i s d e s c r i b e d as xat (p tAoaocp tag eit'auxriv cpdaaas axpoxrixa
Mat auvexxtxwxaxa xwv xfls cpuaews a v a 6 t 6 a x § e t s ?
The phrase en'axpov (and, to a l e s s e r extent, the H e l l e n i s t i c v a r i a n t k%*
axpoxnta) with the g e n i t i v e , denoting the height of e x c e l l e n c e or d e p r a v i t y i n
a p a r t i c u l a r p u r s u i t , i s of course exceedingly common.
Cf. Stephanus TGL 1.1337, who c a l l s i t a f r e q u e n t i s s i m a formula. In P h i l o i t
i s found at Mos . 2.58 oux erc'axpov J)X%e aocptas, V i r t . 226 , Contempl. 90 e t c . ;
a l s o at P l a t o Laws 701e, Jos.Ant.19.201, Plut.Mor.1048E, P l o t .Eton.3.2.14.19 etc.
But we are concerned here with the p a r t i c u l a r combination with cptAoaocp ta, and
that i s much l e s s easy to p a r a l l e l . In both P l a t o and P h i l o there i s but one
occurrence, i . e . the t e x t s we are d e a l i n g with. Also the context of the P h i l o -
n i c passage i s important. The d e s c r i p t i o n of Moses i s not a c a s u a l remark,
but forms p a r t of a very c a r e f u l l y w r i t t e n s e c t i o n at the beginning of the De
o p i f i c i o mundi, the t r e a t i s e which i n i t i a t e s P h i l o s commentaries on the Law
f

of Moses. The Jewish lawgiver has already (§1-2) been favourably compared
with Greek nomothetes and p h i l o s o p h e r s , i m p l i c i t l y i n c l u d i n g P l a t o (as i s made
even c l e a r e r i n the p a r a l l e l passage at Mos.2.49). Moreover the opening chap-
t e r s of O p i f . a r e , as we s h a l l see, crammed with references to the Timaeus. A
few l i n e s below the passage we are now d i s c u s s i n g a v i r t u a l paraphrase of Tim.
28a i s e x p l i c i t l y a t t r i b u t e d to Moses (see below I I 2.1.1. on O p i f . 1 2 ) .

The evidence thus p o i n t s to a d e l i b e r a t e a l l u s i o n on P h i l o ' s part to P l a -

to's d e s c r i p t i o n of Timaeus. Moses i s i m p l i c i t l y being compared with the I t a -
lian philosopher 1
and with P l a t o h i m s e l f . What then i s P h i l o t r y i n g to say i n
t h i s h i g h l y compressed a f f i r m a t i o n of Moses' p h i l o s o p h i c a l competence? Two
aspects are being h i g h l i g h t e d . The use of xat...xat should not be read as
 II 1.1.2. 51

i n t r o d u c i n g a k i n d of hendiadys, or as s e q u e n t i a l (contra Volker 180n.4), but

r a t h e r as m i l d l y d i s j u n c t i v e , i . e . i n d i c a t i n g a c o n t r a s t or at the very least
a complementarity. cpuAoaocpua i s a p o l y v a l e n t term i n P h i l o (see below IV 2.2.
n.2), but i n our view i t i s here meant to i n d i c a t e the sum t o t a l of the r e -
ceived human e f f o r t s at r e a c h i n g knowledge of God and the cosmos (to which the
Timaeus made an important contribution). In h i s imaginary account of Moses 1

education at Mas.1.21-24 P h i l o d e s c r i b es how he was introduced to a l l the doc-

t r i n e s of Greek ( s i c ! ) and b a r b a r i a n philosophy. This knowledge i s thus con-
t r a s t e d wit h T
t h e numerous and most comprehensive 2
d o c t r i n e s of nature i n which
he was i n s t r u c t e d by means of o r a c l e s 1
( O p i f . 8 ) , by which P h i l o means the
knowledge concerning God and the world of h i g h e r r e a l i t i e s d i s c l o s e d to Moses
when he ascended the mountain and temporarily l e f t behind the l i m i t a t i o n s of
bodily existence (Ex.24:15ff.).

1.2. Critias' speech (Tim.20a-26e)

1.2.1. 'You G r e e k s a l w a y s r e m a i n c h i l d r e n ' (22b)

P l a t o , w e l l aware that the h i s t o r i c a l records of the Egyptians were f a r

more ancient and impressive than the p a l t r y remains possessed by the Greeks,

puts the f o l l o w i n g words i n the mouth of the venerable o l d Egyptian priest

(22b4-8):
'Solon, Solon, you Greeks always remain c h i l d r e n (%aZ6eg), a r e a l Greek
greybeard (yepwv) does not e x i s t . . . You are a l l young (veou) i n your
souls (t^uxots) , f o r i n them you hold no s t o r e of ancient b e l i e f (itaAauav
6o£av) handed down by hearsay from long ago (6u'apxotL,av axoriv) , no l e a r -
n i n g hoary wit h time ( u c t d n u a xpovw itoAuov)'.

This c e l e b r a t e d remark, emphatic i n i t s c o n t r a s t between inexperienced

youth and venerable a n t i q u i t y , i s r e c a l l e d by P h i l o on d i v e r s e o c c a s i o n s , as
can be seen i n t e x t s such as QG 2.74 ( G r . f r a g . at P e t i t FE 33.125)(vewxepciy ou
T 6 V nAuxua x a l xpov^ aAAa T O V cpuxrj. ^ewT£poii£LOv yap r\ M a n i a , uoAuov uadnua n
TipeoftuTaTOV 6e£aadau yn 6 u v a u e v n ) , Post.152, Legat. 1 (axp^ T U V O S nyeus ot ye-
povxes ETu i a u 6 e s eauev, TOL uev awuaxa xpovo^ ynxet TIQAUOL, xas 6e (j^uxas UTI

avauaSnouas x o u t 6 i ] v n j i L O _ u, c f . P e l l e t i e r FE 32.60). As these t e x t s show, the

c o n t r a s t which P h i l o p r e f e r s i s not simply between youth and o l d age, but be-
tween youth and true o l d age r e g a r d l e s s of appearance ( i . e . whether TCOALOS or
not). See f u r t h e r Leg.3.175, Deus 120, Plant.168, Her.49, Fug-146, Abr.271,
Contempl.67; on the motif see f u r t h e r P e l l e t i e r loc.cit.

Of more i n t e r e s t , however, i s the passage at Sacr.76-79, i n which the ex-

e g e t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of P l a t o ' s remark i s most c l e a r l y observed, r e s u l t i n g i n
52 ANALYSIS

a passage c o n t a i n i n g 'much r i c h n e s s of thought' (Colson EE 3.90). Philo is

concerned with the a l l e g o r i c a l exegesis of Gen.4:3, where he f i n d s that two
charges are made against Cain the s e l f - l o v i n g soul (§52). The second of these
i s that he makes h i s s a c r i f i c i a l o f f e r i n g to the Lord from the f r u i t s (arco x&v
xapnwv) and not, as the Law p r e s c r i b e s , from the f i r s t f r u i t s (Ttpwxoyevvnpaxa),
i n d i c a t i n g thereby that he honours created being (yeveaus) more h i g h l y than
God (§72). The exegete i s now drawn on to make a lengthy comment on the na-
ture of an o f f e r i n g of f i r s t f r u i t s , basing h i s d i s c u s s i o n on the text Lev.2:14,
where i t i s p r e s c r i b e d that the o f f e r i n g should be d i v i d e d i n t o the new (via),
the r o a s t e d , the s l i c e d , and f i n a l l y the ground (§76-87). I t i s n a t u r a l l y the
f i r s t category that .causes the Timaeus text to be r e c a l l e d . P h i l o ' s t r a i n of
thought proceeds i n three steps .
(1) To begin with, the category vea conjures up the c o n t r a s t between
those who d e l i g h t i n mythology and the o l d days and those who wish to r e c e i v e
the new thoughts and f r e s h b e n e f i t s u n s t i n t i n g l y l a v i s h e d by God the timeless
One (§76; on the reference to the d i s t i n c t i o n between time and e t e r n i t y see
below I I 5.3.2.). Given P h i l o ' s a t t i t u d e to myth, the reference to xov l a A a t -
ov nai yepovxa xat uu§a>6n xpovov i s e n t i r e l y negative.
(2) The c o n t r a s t between vea and iaAaua e v i d e n t l y r e c a l l s to P h i l o ' s mind
the word T I O A L O S , f o r he now quotes Lev. 19:32, the only text i n the Pentateuch
where i t occurs. But t h i s text adds a c o m p l i c a t i o n , because, i f read i n one
p a r t i c u l a r way, i t suggests a contrast between the hoary (noAtos) and the e l -
der (itpea3uxepos) . The hoary, symbolizing i n e f f e c t i v e time, i s disparaged i n
a manner s i m i l a r to the previous paragraph (§76), whereas the e l d e r i s deemed
worthy of the highest honour (§77) . P h i l o i s a great b e l i e v e r i n the p r i n c i -
p l e , both Greek and B i b l i c a l , that what i s p r i o r i n time merits reverence and
respect. The a n t i t h e s i s Ttpea3uxepos/ved>xepos i s one of h i s f a v o u r i t e themes,
always t u r n i n g out to the advantage of the former, i n s p i t e of the p a r a d o x i c a l
r e l a t i o n between o l d e r and younger o f t e n found i n s c r i p t u r e (Cain/Abel, Esau/
Jacob e t c , ; c f . f o r example the lengthy exegesis of Gen.9:24 at Sobr.6-29).
The honour due to the e l d e r i s here shown by the c i t a t i o n of Num.11:16 (same
t e x t at Sobr.19). But the theme's i n t r u s i o n here i s s u r e l y r a t h e r awkward,
s i n c e P h i l o i s a c t u a l l y engaged i n p r a i s i n g the v i r t u e s of the new. (A more
s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d exegesis of Lev.19:32, i n which the hoary and the e l d e r are
not contrasted but seen as complementary i s given at Spec.2.238.).
(3) At §78-79, however, a milder a t t i t u d e towards what i s ancient and
hoary i s adopted. At t h i s p o i n t more overt references to Tim.22b appear. The
o l d and hoary that i s contraste d to the new has become the time-honoured be-
l i e f s (itaAauau 6o£at cf.22b8) and ancient t r a d i t i o n s of noble deeds (apxaua
axon cf.22b7) which h i s t o r i a n s and poets hand down to p o s t e r i t y . One should
i n f a c t n e i t h e r r e j e c t l e a r n i n g grown hoary with age (itoAuov uev uadnya xpovy
urioev apveua$at, v e r b a l l y taken from 22b8) nor d e s i s t from reading the w r i -
t i n g s of wise men and l i s t e n i n g to proverbs and o l d t a l e s . Such apxauoAoyua
i s u s e f u l , i f not f o r the a c q u i s i t i o n of p e r f e c t e x c e l l e n c e , at l e a s t f o r c i -
vic excellence. But when God gives r i s e to new sprouts of s e l f - i n s p i r e d wis-
dom i n the s o u l , the knowledge derived from teaching i s immediately swept a-
s i d e . A l l of a sudden a beam of l i g h t f l o o d s i n and opens the eye of the soul
(from P l a t o Rep.533d2). What i s seen i n such a v i s i o n (oiKs) i s superio r to
what i s heard by hearsay (axon, cf.22b7). P h i l o confirms h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
by appealing to Lev.26:10, where i t i s s a i d that the o l d (itaAaua) should be
eaten, but must make way f o r the new ( v i a ) ( t h e same text and same a l l e g o r i c a l
exegesis at Her.279, where see H a r l 's note (FE) on the P h i l o n i c theme of the
sudden appearance of d i v i n e g i f t s )
 II 1.2.1. 53

We have analysed t h i s short passage not because i t i s i n i t s e l f so impor-

tant, but because i t presents us with a t y p i c a l example of P h i l o ' s exegetical
method, and moreover gives a f a s c i n a t i n g glimpse i n t o the workings of the
exegete's mind. The s k e l e t a l s t r u c t u r e of the passage i s formed by the four
Pentateuchal t e x t s (Lev.2:4, Lev.19:32, Num.11:16, Lev.26:10). Around these
texts are draped diverse themes from P h i l o ' s well-stocked allegorical store.
The r e s u l t i s , as was s a i d , much richness of thought, but at the same time a
c e r t a i n lack of c l a r i t y and thematic u n i t y . S t a r t i n g point i s the category
véa found i n the B i b l i c a l t e x t , which c l e a r l y t r i g g e r s o f f i n P h i l o ' s a s s o c i -
a t i v e mind the r e c o l l e c t i o n of P l a t o ' s words véou êoxè xàs c|>uxàs... These
words are not a c t u a l l y used, f o r the reason that P h i l o speaks of new thoughts
and not new s o u l s , but the r e s t of Plato' s sentence on ancient b e l i e f s and
hoary l e a r n i n g does prove u s e f u l . Because of the e x e g e t i c a l context P h i l o has
no choice but to give the concept of newness a p o s i t i v e connotation, whereas
in Plato's text the j u v e n i l i t y of the Greeks i s an i n d i c a t i o n of inferiority.
One can thus speak here of an example of e x e g e t i c a l c o n s t r a i n t . I t would be
wrong, however, to regard the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus text as being confined
to the l e v e l of an e r u d i t e piece of l i t e r a r y d e c o r a t i o n . This f o r at l e a s t
three reasons. (1) In a l l l i k e l i h o o d i t i s the r e c o l l e c t i o n of P l a t o ' s words
that causes P h i l o to r e c a l l to mind the a n t i t h e s e s véos/noÀtos and veos/naAau-
os and s e l e c t the i l l u s t r a t o r y texts Lev.19:23 and 26:10 in his exegetical
chain. (2) The r e c o l l e c t i o n of the Timaeus i s at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y responsible
f o r s t e e r i n g the e x e g e t i c a l comments i n the new d i r e c t i o n of a comparison b e t -
ween new i n s p i r e d thoughts and ancient learning ( i n §75 P h i l o was still spea-
king of the d i v e r s e powers of the soul harmoniously adjusted by n a t u r e ) . (3)
The r e l a t i v e l y a p p r e c i a t i v e a t t i t u d e towards the b e n e f i t s of âpxcxuoXoyta oc-
curs under the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus being u t i l i z e d .

Thus, i f our r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the a l l e g o r i s t ' s procedure i s on the r i g h t

t r a c k , h i s thought i s represented by the exegesis of four B i b l i c a l t e x t s , but
the concatenation and, to a l e s s e r extent, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the texts i s
strongly i n f l u e n c e d by the r e c o l l e c t i o n of a P l a t o n i c dictum found i n a q u i t e
different context.

We conclude w i t h two b r i e f observations.

1. The passage at Legate 1 i s of more than usual i n t e r e s t because i t has been
taken by many s c h o l a r s to supply information on the chronology of P h i l o ' s l i f e ,
1. e. that by the time of the embassy to Rome P h i l o was an o l d man with white
h a i r (e.g. Sandmel 3, c f . f u r t h e r P e t i t FE 28.35). Leisegang RE 20.1 1 and
Schwarz Melanges I.Lévy 598 are c o r r e c t i n concluding that the l i t e r a r y a l l u -
s i o n undermines any c h r o n o l o g i c a l deductions based on the t e x t .
2. P h i l o ' s use of Tim.22b i n the above-mentioned t e x t s i s i n each case a l l e -
g o r i c a l (except the t o p i c a l Legat.1). This stands i n marked c o n t r a s t to the
use of the t e x t i n the Jewish and C h r i s t i a n a p o l o g e t i c t r a d i t i o n i n order to
demonstrate the modernity of everything Greek and the a n t i q u i t y of the Jews
54 ANALYSIS

( c f . Jos.c.Ap.1.7, CI.Alex.Str.1.69.3, Eus.PE 10.4.19 e t c . ) . The preoccupa-

t i o n of Josephus and Clement with d e t a i l e d h i s t o r i c a l records i s q u i t e f o r e i g n
to the a b s t r a c t and a h i s t o r i c a l a t t i t u d e of P h i l o ( c o n t r a s t , f o r example, P h i -
lo Hypoth.8.6.9 and Jos.c.Ap.2.15-19). There are, however, s t r i k i n g p a r a l l e l s
between the Contra Apionem and the Hypothetica ( c f . Colson EE 9.409) and the
p o s s i b i l i t y cannot wholly be r u l e d out that Josephus a p o l o g e t i c a p p l i c a t i o n
1

of Tim.22b was i n s p i r e d by P h i l o i n a l o s t s e c t i o n of that work.

1.2.2. The t h e o r y o f p e r i o d i c a l l y recurring natural disasters

(22a-23c)

The reason f o r the r e l a t i v e j u v e n i l i t y and ignorance of the Greeks i s that

they have been unable to escape the d e s t r u c t i v e e f f e c t s o f p e r i o d i c a l l y r e c u r -
ring natural disasters. P l a t o mentions the two most c a t a s t r o p h i c types: des-
t r u c t i o n by f i r e , which i n c i n e r a t e s those l i v i n g on mountains and i n d e s e r t s ,
as m y t h i c a l l y described i n the s t o r y of Phaethon (22c); d e s t r u c t i o n by water,
which overwhelms those d w e l l i n g on the p l a i n s , as i n the p r o t o - h i s t o r i c a l a c -
count o f Deucalion's f l o o d (22d) . The r e s u l t i s that mankind p e r i o d i c a l l y
loses the t e c h n i c a l s k i l l s and c u l t u r a l achievements which i t has g r a d u a l l y
developed, and must s t a r t again v i r t u a l l y from s c r a t c h , as i n the case of the
Greeks a f t e r the f l o o d (23a-b). The Egyptians have been rescued from at l e a s t
the more recent catastrophes by the saving a c t i v i t y of the N i l e (22d-e). By
combining these t r a d i t i o n a l motifs and presenting a p l a u s i b l e schema i n the
manner o f a 'philosophy of h i s t o r y ' , Plato doubtless l a i d the foundation for
the theory's subsequent wide dissemination.

Other r e l e v a n t P l a t o n i c passages are found a t Crit.111-112, Laws 676-680 and

t
^ ie
P o l i t i c u s myth (a s p e c u l a t i v e s y s t e m a t i z a t i o n i s presented i n Gaiser P l a -
tons ungeschriebene Lehre 205-289). Cf. A r i s t . D e p h i l . f r . 8 Ross, 0c.Luc.41-43,
Ps.Arist.De Mundo 6 400a23ff., L u c r e t i u s 5.41 I f f . , Seneca NQ 3.27-30, Ovid.Met.
1.125 - 2.408, Lucian De Pea S y r i a 12, Dio Chry .Or. 36.39f f ., Jos.Ant. 1 .69-71,
CI.Alex.Str.5.9 e t c . The Stoa deviated by remodelling the theory, i n combina-
t i o n with other ideas, i n t o t h e i r d o c t r i n e of cosmic exTtupwats ( c f . Hahm 198f.).

The nucleus of P h i l o ' s adaptation of the P l a t o n i c theory i s the claim

that Moses i n the book Genesis gives one example of each type of n a t u r a l dis-
a s t e r , d e s t r u c t i o n by water i n Noah's f l o o d (Gen.6-8) and d e s t r u c t i o n by f i r e
i n the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen.19). The adaptation i s put to
use i n a number o f ways.
1. The s t r u c t u r e of the Pentateuch. At Abr.1-2 P h i l o gives a d e s c r i p -
t i o n , i n the most general terms, of the contents of the book Genesis, i n which
the f o l l o w i n g should be observed: (1) TCCS \ieyCoTa£ TWV etcU yfjs cpdopas 6ua nu-

pbg nai u6axos, d i r e c t l y reminiscent of Tim.22c2; (2) war, barrenness and fam-
ine as examples o f the small d i s a s t e r s l e f t u n s p e c i f i e d at 22c3; (3) the divi-
 I I 1.2.2. 55

s i o n of men i n t o v i r t u o u s and wicked (not s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d to the d i s a s -

t e r s but, as we s h a l l see, the connection is explicit). In two other texts,
Mos.2.46-47 and Praem.1-2, P h i l o discusses the s t r u c t u r e of the Pentateuch as
a whole (the minor d i f f e r e n c e s between them can be ignored h e r e ) . The 'histo-
r i c a l p a r t ' of the Mosaic code i s described as c o n t a i n i n g the l i v e s of v i r t u -
ous and wicked men and t h e i r concomitant rewards and punishments.
The m o t i v a t i o n behind t h i s unexpected p r e s e n t a t i o n i s made c l e a r i n the
wider context of Mos.2.45-65. Wholly s u p e r i o r to other nomothetes, Moses pre-
cedes h i s l e g i s l a t i o n with an account of the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos, thereby
i n d i c a t i n g that h i s laws are a most f a i t h f u l embodiment of the Law of nature
(§49-51, c f . Opif.1-3). Given the d i r e c t c o r r e l a t i o n between the cosmos' s t r u c -
ture and the p r e s c r i p t i o n s of the Law, i t i s f i t t i n g that God uses cosmic
d i s a s t e r s to reward or to punish those who l i v e v i r t u o u s l y or wickedly i n r e -
l a t i o n to that Law (§52-53). At t h i s p o i n t , when P h i l o i l l u s t r a t e s what he
means, Plato's theory becomes v i s i b l e i n the background (§53, note esp. u6a-
TOS xau nupos, xatp&v 7iepuo6ous (cf.22d2), xaxaxAuapoCs) . Those punished by
the two cosmic elements were the contemporaries of Noah and the i n h a b i t a n t s of
Sodom and Gomorrah (§54-57), those rewarded Lot and Noah (§58-65; the doctrine
of the pre-Mosaic p a t r i a r c h s as vopot ep4>uxot i s indispensable here, c f . Abr.
3-6). Also the mention of eTttTtpta at Praem.2 shows that P l a t o ' s theory is
l u r k i n g i n the background ( c f . a l s o §22-23). When, however, we t u r n to P h i l o ' s
a c t u a l d e s c r i p t i o n s of the two great catastrophes (Abr.39-46,133-141, Mos.2.
54-65, Spec.2.170, Virt.201-202, Praem.22-23), the n a r r a t i v e i s e v i d e n t l y
based on the t e x t of the LXX, though n a t u r a l l y with much r h e t o r i c a l expansion,
and any s i m i l a r i t i e s with P l a t o ' s text are of a general nature. Thus, f o r ex-
ample, at Abr.44 the whole e a r t h i s recorded as submerged ( c f . Gen.7:19),
q u i t e c o n t r a r y to Plato's theory at 22d8 (the d i f f e r e n c e i s noted, i n c i d e n t a l -
l y , by Theophilus ad Aut.18).

It i s necessary to conclude, t h e r e f o r e , that P h i l o ' s use of P l a t o ' s theo-

ry of p e r i o d i c a l l y r e c u r r i n g n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s i n the three passages with which
we s t a r t e d has a l i m i t e d and s p e c i f i c purpose, namely to c o n t r i b u t e to a de-
monstration that the macro-structure of the Pentateuch has a reasonable and
p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y v a l i d foundation. Because of t h i s l i m i t e d purpose, the dis-
crepancies between the two accounts do not perturb him at a l l . The Mosaic
v e r s i o n i s i n any case p r i o r .

2. Allegory. So f a r the t e x t s c i t e d have been located i n the Exposition

of the Law. But the L-QTOPLXOV pepos of the Pentateuch also provides the b a s i c
m a t e r i a l f o r the great A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary. In i t a small number of isola-
ted texts r e v e a l an a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the two great n a t u r a l d i s a s -
ters (Pet.170 (on the a l l u s i o n to the Timaeus see below), Conf.23, Fug.92,
56 ANALYSIS

Ebr.223). Detailed exegesis of the two relevant Biblical texts i n the Allego-

r i c a l Commentary, i f w r i t t e n , have not survived (except Deus 20-183 on Gen.6:

5-12, which says l i t t l e on the a c t u a l f l o o d ) . As compensation both sections

are present i n the Quaestiones i n Genesim, at 1.93-2.64, 4.36-56. P h i l o here

presents both l i t e r a l and a l l e g o r i c a l exegesis , paying great a t t e n t i o n to de-

tail. I t i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of h i s method i n the work that he at a l l times ad-

heres very c l o s e l y to the B i b l i c a l t e x t , proceeding verse by vers e and rarely

d i g r e s s i n g , and makes no concerted attempt to p l a c e h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i n a

wider framework of p h i l o s o p h i c a l or h i s t o r i c a l views. At the most we can point

to QG 2.43 (exeg. Gen.8:11), where P h i l o r e f l e c t s on the theme of God s bene- f

ficence. The mention of a 'residue of a n t i q u i t y 1

and a 'small and light seed

of ancient v i r t u e s ' probably r e c a l l s Plato's aiceppaxos 3p«xeos at Tim.23c1-2. 1

The 'memory of good persons (or b e n e f i t s ) ' h i n t s at the theme we are about to

discuss i n connection with Mos.2.263. And the c i t a t i o n of Is.1:9 shows that

P h i l o continues to a s s o c i a t e the two n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s , a t t r i b u t i n g to them a

p a r a l l e l cosmological and allegorical significance.

3. The transmission of knowledge. At Mos.2.263 the cultural/historical

rather than the cosmological aspect of P l a t o ' s theory comes to the fore. Al-

ready at the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos the seventh day was given h i g h honour as

the b i r t h d a y of the world (Opif.89, Dec.96). But P h i l o wonders why this fact

was unknown to the p a t r i a r c h s and the i n s t i t u t i o n of the Sabbath dated only

from the time the I s r a e l i t e s received manna i n the desert (Ex.16:23, c f . Mos.

1.207). In response to t h i s e x e g e t i c a l o n t o p u a he suggests t e n t a t i v e l y (xaxa

nou) that the answer may l i e i n the c o n t i n u a l n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s (6uot xcts ev

u6aat x a l i t u p u y e v o p e v a s a u v e x e C s nai e n a A A r i A o u s (pdopotg) which have prevented

the memory of the ordinance from being handed down. Here g r e a t e r emphasis i s

l a i d on the n a t u r a l p e r i o d i c i t y of the catastrophes , s u i t i n g the s o l u t i o n of

the a n o p u a . In the passages e a r l i e r discusse d t h i s v i t a l aspect of Plato's

theory was virtually ignored, f o r the B i b l i c a l data d i d not require it. An

otTiopua which we are i n c l i n e d to put to P h i l o i s how Moses comes to have such a

c l e a r and d e t a i l e d knowledge of a p x a u o A o y u a and y e v e a A o y L a , going back to the

f i r s t man. We may c o n j e c t u r e what h i s r e p l y would be from the further devel-

opment of the passage i n d i s c u s s i o n , with i t s pronounced s t r e s s on prophetic

i n s p i r a t i o n (§263 e u u ^ e u a a a g , §264 d e o c p o p n ^ e t s e d e a n u a e , §265 n p o c p n x e t a , SeCov

nveOpa). The o l d e s t records are thus possessed not by P l a t o ' s Egyptians but

by Philo's Jews! 2

4. P u r i f i c a t i o n of the e a r t h . A b e n e f i t of the c y c l i c a l l y recurring

floods i s that they r e f r e s h and p u r i f y the weary earth which has gradually

lost i t s youth and v i g o u r (Tim.22d6-7 x a ^ a o p o v x e s , c f . P s . A r i s t . De Mundo 5

397a34, SVF 2.1174 ( i n the exTtupwaus) ) . P l a t o ' s words are c e r t a i n l y r e c a l l e d

 II 1.2.2. 57

at Mos.2.64 (Noah's f l o o d ) , probably at Aet.62, Prov.2.109. At the beginning

of the cosmos the e a r t h was pure (Opif.136), u n t i l p o l l u t e d by Abel's blood

(Praem.68) . At Pet. 170 (exeg. Gen.6:5-7) we read: onoxe youv i r j v yfjv u6axu

xaSatpeuv o 6nyboupYO£ 6oevori§ri Mat xnv 4>uxnv T W V apudriTwv a6bMnyaxu)V nadap-

auv Aageuv... P l a t o ' s words are again r e c o g n i z a b l e ( o t %eoi becomes o 6nyt-

o u p y o s and i s given the d e l i b e r a t i v e verb from Gen.6:6), but the theme of pu-

rification i s here e x p l o i t e d f o r a l l e g o r i c a l purposes (see f u r t h e r below I I

7.1.2. on the imagery of i n u n d a t i o n ) .

5. The age of the cosmos. On the ' s c i e n t i f i c ' use of the theme of p e r i -

o d i c a l l y r e c u r r i n g n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s at Aet.146-149 see the f o l l o w i n g sub-

section.

Now that P h i l o ' s use of the theme has been analysed, an important differ-

ence between the P l a t o n i c source and h i s usage must be pointed out. In the

Timaeus P l a t o presents the p e r i o d i c a l l y r e c u r r i n g catastrophes as p u r e l y natu-

ral phenomena, without any suggestion that there i s a s p e c i f i c d i v i n e purpose

behind them. In the cataclysm recounted at Tim.25c both the h u b r i s t i c A t l a n -

teans and the v i r t u o u s Athenians are overwhelmed. Elsewhere P l a t o does admit

that c i v i l i z a t i o n causes man to d e c l i n e from h i s e a r l i e r p r i s t i n e innocence

(Laws 677-9), and i n the P o l i t i c u s myth he speaks of cosmic decay (273d), but

any n o t i o n of d i v i n e r e t r i b u t i o n by means of n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s i s e n t i r e l y

missing. P h i l o , on the o t h e r hand, remains t r u e to the B i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e and

regards d i v i n e punishment as the very r a i s o n d'etre of n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r .

God's anger i s k i n d l e d a g a i n s t the impious and i n i q u i t o u s and he makes use of

the elements of the cosmos as instruments of h i s punishment (Mos.1.96 e t c . , c f .

B r e h i e r 171), though from the s t r i c t l y c o r r e c t t h e o l o g i c a l viewpoint i t i s not

God h i m s e l f but h i s punishing power(s) who i s responsible. The heavy s t r e s s

on the theme of d i v i n e punishment, both r e t r i b u t i v e and paedeutic, which per-

vades P h i l o ' s works i s without doubt a legacy of h i s Judaism ( c f . Sap.Sal.5:20,

16:16-17, A r i s t e a s 188, 2 Mace.6:12 e t c . ; V o l k e r 94-95). There i s some e v i -

dence to suggest, however, t h a t by P h i l o ' s time the 'moralizing' i n t e r p r e t a-

t i o n was g a i n i n g favour a l s o among Greek and Roman t h i n k e r s .

The m a j o r i t y of t h i n k e r s i n the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d concurred with P l a t o

i n r e g a r d i n g catastrophes as p a r t of the n a t u r a l course of events and denying
them any moral s i g n i f i c a n c e ( A r i s t o t l e and P e r i p a t e t i c s , Epicureans and Lucre-
t i u s , author of Pe Mundo; but note H e r a c l i d e s P o n t i c u s , who a t t r i b u t e d the
earthquake at H e l i k e to §eu3v y f i v t g , f r . 4 6 Wehrli) . The Stoa regard the cosmic
EMTtuptoOLS as a p o s i t i v e event (see J . Mansfeld Stud . H e l l .Rel. 170-183). Justin
Martyr c o r r e c t l y d i s t i n g u i s h e s s h a r p l y between the determinism of the S t o i c
eKiupwaus d o c t r i n e and C h r i s t i a n eschatology (Apol.2.7.4.). In our sources
of the 1st and 2nd century A.P. a more a n t h r o p o c e n t r i c note i s heard. Ovid
and L u c i a n a s s e r t that P e u c a l i o n 's f l o o d took p l a c e because of man's wicked-
ness. Seneca says that a f t e r the u n i v e r s a l f l o o d (almost a watery e x n u p w a t s )
58 ANALYSIS

omne ex i n t e g r o animal g e n e r a b i t u r dabiturque t e r r i s homo i n s c i u s scelerum et

m e l i o r i b u s a u s p i c i i s natur (NQ 3.30.8). P h i l o s e x p l a n a t i o n of the events of
f

Genesis would have seemed p l a u s i b l e enough to h i s contemporaries. But h i s i n -

s i s t e n c e on the theme of d i v i n e punishment s e t s him a p a r t . His successors
must be l o c a t e d among the C h r i s t i a n a p o l o g i s t s , although t h e i r e s c h a t o l o g i c a l
p e r s p e c t i v e i s f o r e i g n to him (on the problematic c o n c l u s i o n to Prov.I see be-
low I I 3.2.2. I l l 1.4.f).

1-2.3. ^£i- 1 4 6
" 1 4 9 :
Philo and T h e o p h r a s t u s

So f a r we have set a s i d e the passage i n which P h i l o makes the most de-

t a i l e d and d i r e c t use of Tim.22a-23c, f o r the reason that i t occurs not against
the e x e g e t i c a l background sketched i n the previou s s e c t i o n , but i n a purely
'scientific 1
context. The passage forms the f i n a l s e c t i o n i n the second part
of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e , the De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi, i n which P h i l o p r e -
sents a long sequence of arguments i n favour of the A r i s t o t e l i a n d o c t r i n e that
the cosmos i s a y é v n x o s K a t acp-öapxos (§20-149) . The seemingly recent o r i g i n of
human c i v i l i z a t i o n cannot be used as a proof that the cosmos i s young and
h a r d l y more than a thousand years o l d . One need only look at the f a c t s of na-
tural history (töxopua). At t h i s p o i n t P h i l o turns to P l a t o ' s account of
p e r i o d i c a l l y r e c u r r i n g n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s , not only u t i l i z i n g the b a s i c thema-
t i c s , but a l s o interweaving many d e t a i l s of P l a t o ' s language i n h i s own account:

§ 146: c p d o p a t xo5v x a x a yf\v, oux a§pówv anavxwv a X X a xoav T t X e t a x w v , ó u a u x a ü s y e -

Ytoxaus auxuaus avaxtftevxau, ïïupos xat uöaxos a X é x x o t s c p o p a t s , paraphrase of
Tim.22c 1-2 ((paouv r e f e r r i n g as o f t e n to a s i n g l e source); è v Ttavu y a x p a u s è v u -
a u x a j v Tiepuóöobs, cf.22d2 ö b a y a x p w v x p ó v w v , but adding e x t r a emphasis on the
aspect of p e r i o d i c i t y ( c f . Mos.2.53).
§147: peöya audepuou itupós, cf.23a8 p e u y a oupavtov; naxaxXuayos, HaxaxXuCovxos,
cf.22a7,d7; the d e s c r i p t i o n of the a c t u a l c o n f l a g r a t i o n s and inundations i s
r h e t o r i c a l l y elaborated i n a manner h i g h l y reminiscent of Abr.42-45, Mos.2.
54-56.
§ 148: xous èv xous evavxtots oüxoüvxag xóitots a ï ï ó X X u a d a t . . . , paraphrase of
22d3-5; note how spot's (22d4) becomes ö u o u ó p o t s (only here i n P h i l o ) and eli-
c i t s a remark on l a c k of water which amounts to a g l o ss on P l a t o ' s t e x t .
§ 149: ötxa yupuwv aXXwv gpaxuxepwv, c f .22c3 y u p t o t s öè aXXots exepau 3potx^xe-
pat; v ó a o t cf.23a7 ( a l s o Laws 677a5).

But the procedure i n t h i s argument cannot be understood i n i s o l a t i o n from a

complicated context.

At Aet.117 P h i l o w r i t e s i n the b a l d manner of a doxographer that Theo-

phrastus d e c l a r e s that the proponents of the genesis and d e s t r u c t i o n of the
cosmos are deceived by f o u r main c o n s i d e r a t i o n s : the unevenness of the earth's
s u r f a c e , the d i m i n u t i on of the sea, the d i s s o l u t i o n of each of the universe's
parts and the d e s t r u c t i o n of e n t i r e species of animals. The four arguments here
r e f e r r e d t o , which undoubtedly c o n t a i n S t o i c elements (the passage i s taken up
as SVF 1.106), are set out i n more d e t a i l i n §118-131. The r e f u t a t i o n of each
argument f o l l o w s at §132-149. The e n t i r e s e c t i o n has provoked a century-long
 I I 1.2.3. 59

debate on whether P h i l o i s witness to a p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s p u t e , i n which the

young Zeno attacked A r i s t o t l e ' s theory of the e t e r n i t y of the cosmos and the
founder of the Lyceum was defended by h i s successor, the by then aged Theo-
phrastus (the S t o i c began teaching i n about 300, the P e r i p a t e t i c d i e d i n 288/7,
so c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y the d i s p u t e i s not i m p o s s i b l e ) .
Rather than g i v e a l l the b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l d e t a i l s we r e f e r the reader to the
most recent d i s c u s s i o n , A.Graeser, Zeno von K i t i o n : P o s i t i o n e n und Probleme
( B e r l i n 1975) Anhang I I : Zeno's Argumente gegen A r i s t o t e l e s ' These von der
Ewigkeit der Welt 187-206, where most ot the important c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the
controversy are l i s t e d (to which add Pepin 300-303, Hahm 197, Mansfeld Stud.
Hell.Rel.144).
I t i s c l e a r that much depends on one's e s t i m a t i o n of P h i l o ' s use of sour-
ces. Some s c h o l a r s consider that P h i l o adheres c l o s e l y to h i s source Theo-
phrastus (except some scanty personal c o n t r i b u t i o n s , such as the e x o t i c t a l e
i n §128-129), others p r e f e r to think that P h i l o himself has expanded a bare
doxographical o u t l i n e , yet others p o s t u l a t e between Theophrastus and P h i l o an
intermediate source which i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the c o n f r o n t a t i o n of the two ear-
l i e r philosophers i n the manner of a dialogus mortuorum. We s h a l l confine
ourselves to the f o u r t h argument, c o n c e n t r a t i ng on the question which c u r i o u s -
l y has not been posed by any of the c o n t r i b u t o r s to the controversy — i s P h i l o
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the extensive use of the Timaeus i n the argument, or d i d he
f i n d i t i n h i s source already? S i m i l a r problems with regard to the source
usage i n Aet. w i l l occupy us on a number of occasions i n our Commentary.

It i s true that the heading under which Zeno's ( i f i t i s h i s ) f o u r t h a r -

gument i s l i s t e d at §117, xepo"auu)v cpdopas nata yevr\ Ccjcov, corresponds imper-
f e c t l y with the way the argument i s presented at §130-131 and r e f u t e d at §145-
149. P h i l o gives the impression of haste i n wishing to wind up h i s long list
of arguments. But i f the assumptions of S t o i c l o g i c are recognized, the t r a i n
of thought can be made c l e a r ( c f . Graeser 203-206). To A r i s t o t l e ' s declara-*
t i o n that ' i f the cosmos i s e t e r n a l , a l s o i t s parts and what they c o n t a i n are
e t e r n a l ' , Zeno r e p l i e d that ' i f the parts o f the cosmos are not e t e r n a l , then
also the cosmos i s not e t e r n a l ' (cf.§124, the same argument at Prov.1.9-19 =
SVF 2.577-578,591-593). The argument must have been developed along approxi-
mately the f o l l o w i n g l i n e s .

1. The e a r t h i s part of the cosmos.

2. The e a r t h contains the genus of land animals.
3. Of the genus land animals man i s a s p e c i e s .
4. The xexvat, without which man cannot l i v e , are of recent origin.
5. Thus man himself i s not e t e r n a l a parte ante.
6. A l l that i s born must d i e ( a x i o m a t i c ) .
7. Thus man i s a l s o not e t e r n a l a parte post.
8. Thus the genus land animals i s not e t e r n a l .
9. Thus the earth i s not e t e r n a l .
10. Thus the cosmos i s not e t e r n a l , i . e . subject to d e s t r u c t i o n .
In order to r e f u t e the e n t i r e argument Theophrastus had only to n u l l i f y the
60 ANALYSIS

e m p i r i c a l l y based f o u r t h p r o p o s i t i o n . The theory of p e r i o d i c a l l y r e c u r r i n g

n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s was thus e s s e n t i a l f o r h i s r e f u t a t i o n of the Zenonian argu-
ment. 1
I t i s c e r t a i n that he subscribed to the theory himself (Tlept evoefieioig
fr.2 Potscher = Porph. De abst.2.5.). But i s i t l i k e l y that he would have
presented i t i n the way we have i t i n Aet.145-149, showing such manifest in-
debtedness to Plato's account i n the Timaeus? The answer must, I t h i n k, be i n
the negative. Not only i s i t l i k e l y that Theophrastus would have followed the
views o f h i s master ( A r i s t o t l e appears to have ignored o r r e j e c t e d cosmic con-
f l a g r a t i o n s and l a i d a l l s t r e s s on a Great Winter accompanied by c a t a c l y s m i c
f l o o d s and followed by a gradual d r y i n g up o f the r e s i d u a l marshes, c f . Meteo-
rol.1.14). I t i s a l s o safe to say that the s l a v i s h dependence on an a u t h o r i t a -
t i v e t e x t f o r the d e t a i l s o f a general and widely-held theory i s not the man-
ner of the f o u r t h o r e a r l y t h i r d century, but o f l a t e r times. Our strong sus-
p i c i o n i s that the importation of P l a t o i s the work o f P h i l o , who has replaced
a general referenc e to n a t u r a l catastrophes i n h i s source w i t h the s p e c i f i c
d e t a i l s of Plato's version. The s u s p i c i o n i s r e i n f o r c e d , though h a r d l y proven,
by the p r e d i l e c t i o n which the Alexandrian shows f o r P l a t o ' s v e r s i o n elsewhere,
as w e l l as by the copious use made of the P l a t o n i c dialogue i n the remainder
of t h i s treatise. 2

1.2.4. Atlantis (24e-25d)

P h i l o a l l u d e s to P l a t o ' s famous account of the r i s e and f a l l of the k i n g -

dom of A t l a n t i s e x p l i c i t l y only once, at Aet.141 i n the second of the four
Theophrastean arguments discusse d already i n I I 1.2.3. As an example of an
i s l a n d that sank i n t o the sea, the s t o r y of A t l a n t i s helps to disprove the
c l a i m of the proponents o f the d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y o f the cosmos that the sea i s
g r a d u a l l y receding (cf.§ 120-123). P h i l o c o n f l a t e s two P l a t o n i c passages:
Tim.24e6-7 r\ 6e vfjaos aya Au3unsfivxau Aet. 141 n 6e 'AxAavxuc; vnaoc;,
'Aauas y£u£wv... Tim. 25c6-d6 uaxepcp 6e aya AuSuns xau 'Aauas y£u£a)v,
Xpovtj) aeuauwv ££auauwv xau xaxaxAuayoav 5 cpnauv ev Tuyau^ IIAaxcov, iy£.p.a_
Yevoyevwv, yuas nplpas xau vuxxos x«A- _U.kQL iioti. jvuxx.u. aEuayoov £Eauaua3V
e%r\£ eneAdouariS".. • n T E 'AxAavxls v f i - xau xaxaxAuayfiv Y E V O U E V O J V 6uaa
aog oaaauxws xaxa xfjs $aAaxxns 6uaa xaxa xfic: daAaxxris e£au(pvns n(pa-
ricpavuadri* 6uo xau vuv aiopov xau a 6 u - vuafln, X£^0U£.^n_TC£A^Y.0S_a_ op
epeuvnxov yeyovev xouxeC neXayos, j^Awxov^ ^A^a_3^P^jP_w_6 .
unAou xapxa 3 p a x c o s £yTuo6u)V ovxos, ov
ri vfjaos L,£ou£vr) TtapeaxETo.
The q u o t a t i o n marks i n s e r t e d by a l l e d i t o r s are merely c o n f u s i n g, since Philo
does not quote P l a t o v e r b a t i m but gives a paraphrase which adheres very close-
ly to the t e x t and i n c o r p o r a t e s a number of P l a t o ' s phrases and words. In the
P h i l o n i c q u o t a t i o n given above we have d e l e t e d the quotation marks. The word
 II 1.2.4. 61

e£aucpvriS i s introduced by P h i l o without anything to suggest i t i n P l a t o ' s text.

It not only gives a touch of the dramatic, but a l s o helps i n the avoidance of
Plato's h i a t u s at 6uaa r i c p a v u a d n . It i s not impossible that P h i l o , i f he i s
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the paraphrase, composed t h i s passage without c o n s u l t a t i o n of
the a c t u a l Timaeus t e x t . But s i n c e , as we s h a l l see, the dialogue i s quoted
verbatim at Aet.13,25-27,38, we may s a f e l y assume that h i s copy was on h i s
desk, as i t were, when w r i t i n g the t r e a t i s e .
Many of the remarks made on the passage Aet.146-149 i n the previous sec-
t i o n w i l l a l s o apply to the referenc e to A t l a n t i s here. In a l l p r o b a b i l i t y i t
has been added by P h i l o to the examples already present i n h i s s o u r c e . 1
Theo-
phrastus' own view of the h i s t o r i c i t y of P l a t o ' s A t l a n t i s s t o r y i s unknown, i f
our passage i s l e f t out of c o n s i d e r a t i o n . 2
But again he i s more l i k e l y than
not to have followed A r i s t o t l e , who declared that the s t o r y was a f i c t i o n of
P l a t o , the d e s t r u c t i o n of the i s l a n d being simply the philosopher's way of r e -
moving h i s c r e a t i o n from the stage ( i n f e r r e d from Strabo 2.3.6, 13.1.36). So
once more our scanty evidence point s to a P h i l o n i c i n t r u s i o n , as suspected by
Colson E E 9.177 (but he gives no reasons f o r h i s s u s p i c i o n ) . That P h i l o should
consider the Timaeus to be recounting an a c t u a l h i s t o r i c a l event i s not at a l l
s u r p r i s i n g , s i n c e the ' f i r s t exegete of the Timaeus', Crantor, regarded i t as
straight history ( C o x o p u a v ( K A n v Proclus i n Tim.1.76.1), and a l s o Posidonius
appears to have shared t h i s view (fr.F49.294-303 E-K).

1.3. Final preliminaries (Tim.27a-d)

1.3.1. The s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f the c r e a t i o n a c c o u n t (27a)

As the f i n a l p r e l i m i n a r y task before Timaeus commences h i s long monologue

i t remains to i n d i c a t e which subjects w i l l be covered by the three speakers.
Timaeus, the expert %cpi cpuaews x o u T t a v x o s (27a4) , w i l l speak f i r s t , beginning
with the genesis of the cosmos and ending with the nature of man (27a6-7; c f .
the r e t r o s p e c t i v e glance at 90e1-2, x a V U V n y t v zE, o t p x n s T i a p a Y Y e A d e v x a 6 u e £ e A -
%eZv i t e p u x o u navxog u e x p t Y e v e a e w s avftpwTtuvns) • Critias (and Hermocrates a f -
ter him) w i l l take the av$pd)Ttous T<$ A O Y ^ Y ^ Y O V O x a g and show them i n a c t i o n ,
thus f u l f i l l i n g Socrates' request made at 19b-d.
The subject which P l a t o assigns to the Pythagorean philosophe r i s r e c a l l -
ed i n one of P h i l o ' s analyses of the s t r u c t u r e and content of the Pentateuch.
We r e t u r n to the passage at Praem.1 which has already been c i t e d above i n I I
1.2.2. The l i n e s which d e s c r i b e Moses' c r e a t i o n account are p a r t i c u l a r l y r e -
sonant with the c o n c e p t u a l i t y and language of the Timaeus. F i r s t some a t t e n -
62 ANALYSIS

t i o n must be paid to d e t a i l .
Praem.1 (text 'Colson EE 8.312; the emendation of the l a s t two phrases at
C-W 5.336 i s r e j e c t e d as unnecessary):
ri p e v o\5v x o a p o T t o u t a itayxaAws Ttaaa Mat deoTtpenws p e p n v u x a t , Aa3ouaa x r ) v
apxnv a%6 yeveaews oupavou x a u Xr\E,aoa ets av^pouiuou xaxaaxeuriv o pev yap
acpdapxwv xeAetoxaxos, o 6e §vnxu3v. a§avaxa 6e x a u d v r i x a ev yeveaeu auvu-
cpauvwv o TtOLTiTris eupyaaaxo xov nooyov, xa pev yevopeva riyepovuxa, xa 6'ws
UTtrixoa H a t yevriaopeva.

ri xoapoitouug: Used by P h i l o as a terminus technicu s not so much f o r the c r e a -

t i o n i t s e l f , but Moses' account of the c r e a t i o n ; c f . Opif.3,129,170, Fug.178,
Abr.2,258, ( £ 1 . 1 (Greek t e x t at FE 33.42) e t c .
7tayxaAa)S T t a a a x a t , d e o i t p e i i c o s p e p n v u x a t : Cf. the eulogy of Moses' c r e a t i o n ac-
count a t O p i f . 4 .
A a g o u a a x n v dpxnv arco y e v e a e u ) S o u p a v o u : Cf. Tim.27a5-6 a p x o p e v o v a u o x f j s T O U
xoapou yeveaews. In P l a t o and many other authors x o a p o s and o u p a v o s are i n -
terchangeable i n both meanings, i . e . as 'universe' and 'heaven', causing much
i n t e r p r e t a t i v e c o n f u s i o n ( c f . Tim.28b2-3, Pepin 145-146). P h i l o i s aware o f
these semantic p o s s i b i l i t i e s ( c f . Aet.4) and i n h i s own usage there are t r a c es
of such e q u i v o c a t i o n ( c f . the d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s at Nikiprowetzky 114). But
there i s no doubt that here he means 'heaven', as i s i n d i c a t e d by the r e s t of
the passage and a l s o by the c l o s e p a r a l l e l at Opif.82. P l a t o , on the other
hand, c e r t a i n l y uses x o a p o s i n the meaning 'universe ' at 27a6, i n accordance
with the sequence of h i s account, i n which the body and s o u l of the cosmos
come i n t o being before any o f i t s p a r t s .
nai Angqqq eJ£ a v d p a ) 7 i o u K a x a a x e u n v : Cf. Tim.27a6 x e A e u x t o v 6e e u s av$pd)Ttu)V c p u -
auv. A l l t r a n s l a t o r s take H a x a a x e u n v to mean ' c r e a t i o n ' or ' c o n s t r u c t i o n '
(Cohn GT 2.383, Colson EE 9.313, Beckaert FE 27.43), i . e . r e f e r r i n g i n general
terms t o the account o f man's c r e a t i o n at Gen.1:26-31, 2:7-8 ( c f . the usage at
Conf.168,179, where i n both cases Gen.1:26 i s a c t u a l l y c i t e d ) . See a l s o below
II 9.3.1. on QG 2.1-7. Wolfson 1.118, by a p p e a l i n g to QG 1.53, sees a r e f e -
rence to Gen.3.21 here, and so wishes to prove that f o r P h i l o the c r e a t i o n ac-
count continues t i l l the end of Gen.3, This view i s most l i k e l y c o r r e c t , but
the argument used to prove i t i s s o p h i s t i c .
o p e v y a p a ( p $ a p x a ) v. . . : Reminiscent of P l a t o ' s well-known formula a t 29a5-6, on
which see below I I 2.3.2. (where the t e x t u a l change proposed by Shorey i s d i s -
cussed) .
a d a v a x a 6e nal ftvnxa...: By 'immortals' P h i l o means e s p e c i a l l y the heavenly
bodies as i n h a b i t a n t s o f the heavens, by 'mortals' men as composite of body
and soul on e a r t h ( c f . O p i f . 8 2 ) . On the remainder of the sentence see f u r t h e r
below I I 6.2.2.
Opif.82, which has a l r e a d y been c i t e d a number o f times, i s l a r g e l y pa-
r a l l e l to Praem.1, but the use of Tim.27a5-6 i s s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d to the
e x e g e t i c a l a i o p u a of why man comes l a s t i n the c r e a t i o n a l sequence. God r e a -
soned (6uayor )$eLS, c f . Tim.32c8,39e9 etc.) that i t was f i t t i n g to u n i t e t o -
gether heaven as apxn of c r e a t i o n and man as i t s x e A o g , the former as x w v e v
a i ! , a § r | T o C s a c p d a p x w v x e A e u o x a x o s , the l a t t e r as x w v Y n y e v w v nai c p d a p x w v a p t a x o s ,
or, i f the t r u t h be s a i d , a (3paxus o u p a v o s .

Nikiprowetzky 198 w r i t e s on the text a t Praem.1: 'Cette d e f i n i t i o n de l a

HoapoTtouua correspond parfaitement a l a formule qu'emploie P l a t o n pour d e s i g -
ner l a n a r r a t i o n de Timee.' We e n t i r e l y agree, except that the adverb 'par-
faitement' goes too f a r . P h i l o changes P l a t o ' s xoapou yeveaews to yeveaews

oupavou and focusses on the comparison between heaven and man. At Opif.82 the
same comparison leads him to c a l l man a 'miniature heaven', the onl y time he
presents t h i s v a r i a n t of the macrocosm/microcosm theme (on f u r t h e r aspects of
 II 1.3.1. 63

the s i m i l a r i t i e s between heaven and man see below I I 5.2.1-2. 7.2.4.). There
can be no question that the motive behind the change i s to allow an improved
c o r r e l a t i o n with the c r e a t i o n account as presented by Moses. Leaving aside
the c r e a t i o n o f the i n c o r p o r e a l world on 'day one' (Opif.16-35, exeg. Gen.1:
1-5), the heaven i s created first on the second day (Opif.36-37, exeg. Gen.1:
6-8), while the last a ct of c r e a t i o n i s the framing o f man on the s i x t h day
(Opif.69-88, exeg. Gen.1.26-31). The problem of where the c r e a t i o n of the
animals and woman i s to be placed i n the c r e a t i o n a l sequence (on which see be-
low I I 10.2.1-2.) i s set a s i d e . P h i l o i s t a l k i n g i n general terms and the pa-
r a l l e l between Moses and P l a to i s too good to leave unused.

Once more we must conclude t h a t , i n P h i l o ' s view, the s t r u c t u r e and sub-

j e c t matter o f the Timaeus i l l u m i n a t e Moses' i n t e n t i o n s i n the composition of
the Pentateuch. By d e s c r i b i n g the Genesis account i n terms o f the s t r u c t u r a l
categories o f Plato' s celebrated cosmogony, P h i l o demonstrates i n a s u b t l e
manner the former's r a t i o n a l i t y and p h i l o s o p h i c a l p l a u s i b i l i t y . The exactness
of the p a r a l l e l i s not so important, hence the s l i g h t change i n f o r m u l a t i o n
noted above, which brings the d e s c r i p t i o n c l o s e r to the a c t u a l d e t a i l s o f the
Mosaic account. As i f to u n d e r l i n e the p a r a l l e l i n red ink he makes a p o i n t
of i n c o r p o r a t i n g as much o f the P l a t o n i c terminology and language as he can.
I t i s worth r e c a l l i n g that terms such as a^ctvaxa and ftvnxot are nowhere to be
found i n the Mosaic account b e i n g described.

It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to compare another adaptatio n o f the P l a t o n i c formula

of Tim.27a5-6. Introducing the ' t h e o r e t i c a l ' part o f P l a t o n i c philosophy the

Middle P l a t o n i s t Albinus writes at Did.8.1:

yexot 6e xauxa enopevws Ttepu xwv otpx&v xe x a i xwv $eo\oyLn&v Aeywuev §ew-
pnyctxwv, avw§ev onto xwv Ttpwxwv apxouevou nai ait'auxffiv xaxuovxes nai eitu-
axoitouvxes xnv xou xoauou yiveOLV, xeAeuxwvxes 6e eCs avdpasioov yeveauv
nai cpuatv. nai Tipwxov ye nepi uAns Aeywuev.

C l e a r l y the subject matter of the Timaeus has been expanded to i n c l u d e the

ctpxau and %eo\oyLna 9 which A l b i n u s , f o l l o w i n g the usual Middle P l a t o n i s t p r a c -
t i c e , c h i e f l y derives from the same d i a l o g u e . One might argue that the Timaeus
a c t u a l l y encourages such a transformation , f o r the account of the cosmogony i s
preceded by a d i s c u s s i o n of p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n 27d-29d ( i n which,
however, there i s no mention of uAn or the r e c e p t a c l e ) . I t i s perhaps not
too f a n c i f u l to d i s c e r n a s i m i l a r i t y with P h i l o ' s b r i l l i a n t s o l u t i o n to the
problems of the Mosaic 'day one', i n which the ' c r e a t i o n ' of one of P l a t o ' s
ctpxctu, the model, i s p a r t i a l l y included w i t h i n an account of the c r e a t i o n o f
the cosmos as a whole. Was P h i l o helped on h i s way by a precursor of Albinus'
s c h o l a s t i c handbook (perhaps A r i u s Didymus?)? Compare a l s o Tim.Locr.7: %piv
aw wpavov Xoyy yeveo%aL n'axnv i>6ea xe nai uAa nai 6 $eos 6ayuoupyos T W
ovos.
64 ANALYSIS

1.3.2. The i n v o c a t i o n o f God (27c)

Before Timaeus embarks on h i s undertaking he c a l l s on the gods and prays

that h i s d i s c o u r s e may be p l e a s i n g to them (such i n v o c a t i o n s appear to have

become a l i t e r a r y mannerism of the l a t e P l a t o , c f . a l s o Tim.48d, Crit.108c-d ,

Laws 712b,715e,893b, i m i t a t e d at Epin.980c). Although the invocation i s pre-

sented as l i t t l e more than a r i t u a l performance ( x a A e a a v x a x a x d v o u o v deous

27b9), i t serves to u n d e r l i n e the greatness and solemnity of the theme which

i s to be d i s c u s s e d . At the beginning of one of h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e s ,

Aet.1, P h i l o makes a p a r t i c u l a r l y elaborate and f e l i c i t o u s a d a p t a t i o n of t h i s

text. The exordium of the De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi i s a complex, densely written

passage, and not every aspect can here be analysed i n d e t a i l (for a discussion

i n the context of an a n a l y s i s of the t r e a t i s e as a whole see Runia 122-123).

P h i l o commences by p i c k i n g up the d i s t i n c t i o n made by P l a t o between the

invocation r e q u i s i t e f o r every undertaking great or small and the one now es-

p e c i a l l y necessary on account of the g r a v i t y of the s u b j e c t . He receives en-

couragement from the obvious connection between h i s t r e a t i s e ' s subject and

the thematics of the Timaeus, which i n P l a t o ' s words i s concerned nepi xou

TtavTOS... n yeyove n xau dyeves eoxuv (27c4-5, on the n . . . n see below). Phi-

l o ' s subject i s i n f a c t the d c p ^ a p a u a of the cosmos (§1,3), but as e a r l y as §7

he makes i t c l e a r that t h i s q u e s t i o n cannot be solved without t a k i n g i n t o con-

s i d e r a t i o n the r e l a t e d problem of the y e v e a b s / d y e v n a u a of the cosmos. The

v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s between the two passages are l i m i t e d i n scope (27c1-3 Soot...

eni lavxos opufj nai auuMpou nai ueydAou i t p d y u a x o s %eov deb nou x a A o u a t v -» e%i

uev rcavxos d6r|Aou nai aiou6auou i t p d y p a x o s $ e o v xaAeCv a£tov, 27c6 d v d y x n -> dv-

ayxatoxaxov). P h i l o ' s method i s r a t h e r to expand and make e x p l i c i t that which,

i n terms of h i s own thought, i s i m p l i c i t i n and can be read i n t o P l a t o ' s words.

We note the following.

(1) Whereas Plato i s q u i t e u n s p e c i f i c about the god/gods whom he is invo-

king (27b9 d e o u s , 27c3 $ e o v , 27c6 § e o u s x e nai d e d s ) , P h i l o i s c a r e f u l to be

precise. God i s the d y a d o s y e v v n x n s (on God's goodness c f . 29a3,29e1 and see

below I I 3.1.1.; the term y e v v n x r i s i s not found i n the Tim, but cf.37c7,41a5

and see below I I 2.2.2.), a f a c t which w i l l prove to be e n t i r e l y relevant to

the q u e s t i o n of the cosmos' i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y . Moreover God i s both possessor

and source of a l l knowledge ( c f . Migr.40-42, QG 3.43 (EES 1.236) e t c . , and see

below I I 2.4.1. 3.1.3.), a f a c t which i s here not implied by P l a t o but gives

Philo's invocation a l l the more p o i n t , as w i l l be seen i n the exordium's f u r -

ther development.

(2) The comparison between God (source of knowledge) and cosmos (object

of i n v e s t i g a t i o n ) i s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y worked out, with use of language drawn

 II 1.3.2. 65

from the Timaeus . o u x e . . . TtavxeAeaxepov X L . . . ouxe...xeAewxepov i s strongly

reminiscent of the p r a i s e of c r e a t o r and product at 29a5-6. The c o n t r a s t
between vonxd/vous/vonxov and aio%r)TOL/ai,o%r)OLg/aio%r)iov i s a rephrasing of the
b a s i c d i s t i n c t i o n introduced i n the Timaeus at 27d5~28a4, the i n t e l l i g i b l e
realm here being c l o s e l y i d e n t i f i e d with God.

(3) P l a t o does not r e l a t e the i n v o c a t i o n to the d i s p o s i t i o n s of the par-

t i c i p a n t s i n the dialogue, but says that they need to c a l l on themselves in
order to expound and l i s t e n p r o p e r l y (27d2-4). P h i l o , on the other hand, puts
forward as a c o n d i t i o n f o r those who labour to b e n e f i t from the d i v i n e l y p r o f -
fered knowledge ( r e t a i n i n g the mss. reading Ttovos) that they possess itodos

aAri^etas TtAetwv (the P l a t o n i c language of epws, uyepos and i t o £ o s from the Phae-
drus myth and the Symposium, so pervasive i n P h i l o ) , i n t h i s way making the
t r a n s i t i o n to the exordium's second p a r t .
Already i t can be concluded that P h i l o i s making every e f f o r t to give the
exordium a s p e c i f i c a l l y P l a t o n i c c o l o u r i n g . The reason must be l o c a t e d i n the
f a c t that the s o l u t i o n to the problem of the cosmos' cp^opa/acpdapaCa i n the De
a e t e r n i t a t e mundi i s b a s i c a l l y that o f the Timaeus, brought i n r e l a t i o n to the
view of Moses at §19. The P l a t o n i c dialogue gives the r i g h t p e r s p e c t i v e on
the r e l a t i o n between God and the cosmos. The P l a t o n i c c o l o u r i n g i s f u r t h e r
r e i n f o r c e d i n the second h a l f o f the exordium, which i s b u i l t up around an
adaptation of Tim.29b-d. I t w i l l be analysed below at I I 2.4.1.

A notable feature of the De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi i s that i t i s s t r u c t u r e d

along the l i n e s of a deaus, a l i t e r a r y genre which undertakes to examine a
problem by arguing f o r and against a c e n t r a l p r o p o s i t i o n such as ei (ptAooocpn-

xeov, E L 6u6axxov f\ apexr), o r i n our case here ei acpdapxos o xoayos (§3)(cf.

Runia 112-118). The f a c t that P l a t o speaks o f xous nepi xou Ttavxos Aoyous...

ri yeyovev n x a u oVyeves eaxuv, as i f having i n mind the §eaus p r o p o s i t i o n ei

yevnxos o xoayos rj o u , w i l l have made the passage even more a t t r a c t i v e f o r
P h i l o ' s purposes i n t h i s treatise, even i f a l l f u r t h e r formal resemblance i s
entirely lacking. So f a r I have l e f t the words n...n unaccented because there
are, depending on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and accentuation, a number o f p o s s i b i l i t i e s .
The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these l i t t l e words was a source of disput e i n ancient
Timaeus commentaries; c f . P r o c l . i n Tim.1.218.29ff. and F e s t u g i e r e 's notes ad
loc., a l s o J.Whittaker, 'Textual comments on Timaeus 27c-d' Phronesis 27(1973)
387-391, B a l t e s 73,97,112-115. P h i l o would doubtless have read e i t h e r e u . . . n
(the majority view i n a n t i q u i t y ) or ri...ri i n the meaning o f e C ' x e . . .el'xe, in-
t e r p r e t i n g that P l a t o here leaves the i s s u e open, but s e t t l e s i t at 28b4-7.
(Modern e d i t i o n s read ^ . . . r i , but are, as Whittaker demonstrates, most likely
incorrect.)
66 ANALYSIS

It should be noted t h at i t became almost a commonplace f o r P l a t o n i s t s to

begin works (or d i s c u s s i o n s of d i f f i c u l t problems) with i n v o c a t i o n s to God/the
gods which i n c o r p o r a t e an a l l u s i o n to Tim.27c-d. See the e x t e n s i ve l i s t com-
p i l e d by H.D.Saffrey and L.G.Westerink, P r o c l u s : Theologie P l a t o n i c i e n n e v o l .
1 (Paris 1968) 131. But the example that I c o n s i d er c l o s e s t to P h i l o i s not
cited. At Mor.351C-D P l u t a r c h commences the t r e a t i s e De I s i d e et O s i r i d e with
the f o l l o w i n g i n v o c a t i o n :

Ttdvxa y e v , ui K A e a , 6eu x a y a d d x o u s v o u v e x o v x a s a u x e u a d a u Tiapa xcov d e w v ,

y a A u a x a 6e x n s nepi a u x w v e i t u a x r i y r i s 6aov e c p t x x o v e a x t v a v ^ p w i t o t s yexoov-
x e s e u x o y e ^ a x u y x d v e u v i t a p ' a u x & v I x e u v w v , COS ou6ev dvdpwTiw Aa3eCv y e u C o v
ou6e x o t p t a a a d a u $eu> a e y v o x e p o v a.Xr\%eCag. xdAAa yev ydp av^pwnous o $eos
wv 6 e o v x a t 6 t 6 a ) a u v , v o u 6e n a t c p p o v n a e w s y e x a 6 u 6 c a a t v , o u x e u a x e x x n y e v o s
xauxa x a i xP^ycvos.

U n l i k e P h i l o P l u t a r c h s t a r t s o f f by speaking of gods i n the p l u r a l ( s i n c e boons

can come from d i v e r s e d e i t i e s ) , but i t i s noteworthy that he s h i f t s to the
s i n g u l a r when speaking of God as source of a A r i f t e t a , v o u s , cppovnats (since God
as v o u s i s one). P l u t a r c h s t r e s s e s the l i m i t a t i o n s of human knowledge, as
P h i l o w i l l do i n Aet.2. I n t e r e s t i n g too i s h i s remark that God does not give
man v o o £ and ( p p o v n o t s but allows man to share i n h i s own, a sentiment that r e -
c a l l s P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of God's ' i n b r e a t h i n g ' i n Gen.2:7. In s h o r t ,
would not an u n w i t t i n g reader who stumbled across the beginning of P h i l o ' s
t r e a t i s e i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d conclude that i t was the work of a 'true-blue ' P l a -
tonist?
 CHAPTER TWO

TIMAEUS 27D-29D: THE PROEMIUM

2.0. Introductory

2.1. The cosmos: has i t come into being? (Tim.27d-28a,28b-c)

2.1.1. Being and becoming (27d-28a)
2.1.2. A c l a s s i c t e x t (28b-c)
2.1.3. The problem of the yeveoig of the cosmos

2.2. The demiurge i s introduced (Tim.28a-b,c)

2.2.1. The cause of becoming (28a)
2.2.2. God as 'demiurge , 'maker and f a t h e r ' (28b,c)
1

2.2.3. A celebrate d t e x t l i t t l e used? (28c)

2.3. The model i s introduced (Tim.28a-b,28c-29b)

2.3.1. The model must be xaAov (29a)
2.3.2. 'Best of causes, most b e a u t i f u l of created t h i n g s ' (29a)
2.3.3. A most s u r p r i s i n g exegesis of Tim.29b

2.4. Methodological prelude (Tim.29b-d)

2.4.1. The probable account (29b-d)

2.0. Introductory

^ e
P r o e m
J-u m
(the d e s i g n a t i o n i s P l a t o ' s own, 29d5) lays the foundation
for the r e s t of Timaeus' long d i s c o u r s e , I t i s more than a methodological
prelude to the account of the cosmogony. W r i t t e n i n an extremely compressed
s t y l e , i t s c h i e f task i s to present the fundamental •philosophical principles
upon which the e n t i r e account i s b u i l t , and to which P l a t o returns on a number
of occasions i n some d e t a i l l a t e r on (37a-c,47e-49b,51c-52c). These p r i n c i p -
les, adhering to the b a s i c ideas of Platonism and themselves the r e s u l t of an
( i m p l i c i t ) e x e r c i s e i n d i a l e c t i c s , are f i r s t o u t l i n e d i n a b s t r a c t o , and then
s u c c e s s i v e l y a p p l i e d to the concrete phenomenon of the cosmos, once i t has
been f o r m a l l y introduced i n t o the d i s c o u r s e . The c a r e f u l l y reasoned and s t r u c -
tured sequence of P l a t o ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n i s made c l e a r i n an a n a l y s i s of the
proemium's contents.

1. Fundamental p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s (27d-28b):
(a) the d i v i s i o n i n t o the realm of being and the realm of becoming (27d5-
28a4;
68 ANALYSIS

(b) whatever comes i n t o being r e q u i r e s a cause (28a4-6);

(c) the degree of e x c e l l e n c e of the product i s determined by the nature
of the model to which the demiurgic c r e a t o r looks (28a6-b2).
2. Application of the p r i n c i p l e s to the cosmos (28b-29a):
(a) the cosmos has come i n t o being (28b4-c2);
(b) thus i t comes i n t o being by means of a cause (there f o l l o w s a b r i e f
excursus on the nature of t h i s cause)(28c2-5);
(c) the demiurge must have looked to an e t e r n a l model (28c5-29b1).
The remainder of the proemium i s devoted to the question of the kind of know-
ledge tha t we can have of the cosmos and the kind of account that can be given
of i t (29b1-d3). Here the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l aspect of the d i v i s i o n i n t o the two
realms i s brought forward and i t s 'methodological' i m p l i c a t i o n s are made c l e a r .
The three a p p l i c a t i o n s of P l a t o ' s p r i n c i p l e s to the cosmos and the d i s c u s s i o n
on our knowledge of i t each f i n d t h e i r way i n t o P h i l o ' s thought. This chapter
of our Commentary i s a c c o r d i n g l y d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r s e c t i o n s .

2.1. The c o s m o s : h a s i t come i n t o b e i n g ? (Tim.27d-28a,28b-d)

2.1.1. B e i n g and becoming (27d-28a)

Wishing to sweep h i s readers i n t o the very centre of h i s thought, Plato

commences by s t a t i n g the fundamental d i v i s i o n of r e a l i t y i n t o the intelligible
and s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e realms, a d i v i s i o n which has repercussion s f o r both on-
tology ( T O ov/yeveobs) and epistemology (vonats uexd Aoyou/6o£;a uex'aua^naews).

The d o c t r i n e of the two worlds formed a cornerstone of the Middle Platonist

system of P l a t o n i c philosophy, f o r i t allowed a c l e a r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n from the
Stoa and other r i v a l s c h o o l s . The t e x t Tim.27d5-28a4 was a locus c l a s s i c u s
f o r the b a s i c dichotomy between unchanging, transcendent being and the world
of f l u x and change, subject to the process of becoming.
I t i s a c c o r d i n g l y quoted, paraphrased and adapted on numerous occasions; c f .
Apul.De Plat.193, Nichomachus I n t r . A r i t h . 1 . 2 . 1 , Numenius f r . 7 , J u s t i n Dial.3.5,
Sex.Emp.Adv.Math.7.142 e t c . An i n t e r e s t i n g t e x t u a l aspect of t h i s usage i s
d i s c u s s e d by J.Whittaker, 'Timaeus 27dff.' Phoenix 23(1969)181-185; c f . a l s o
B a l t e s VChr 29(1975)268.
P h i l o accepts the d i v i s i o n i n t o the i n t e l l i g i b l e and s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e
realms as a b a s i c datum of the a n a l y s i s of r e a l i t y , given e x p r e s s i o n i n the
formula of the two worlds (vonxos xoauos, auadnxos xoauos) and i n the numerous
formulations of the paradeigma r e l a t i o n . One example out of hundreds i s found at
Plant.50. G i v i n g an exegesis of Ex. 15:17, where Moses sings of God's xaxotxrj-

xriptov and ayuaaua, P h i l o places these d e s c r i p t i o n s i n the cosmological per-

 II 2.1.1. 69

s p e c t i v e which i s predominant i n De plantations:

T O T O V xoayov euTpenn nai exotyov auq^nTov o£xov e£vat §eou, T O Kaxeup-
ydadau H a l yn dyevnTOV e ^ v a u , u>s o)n$rio'dv Ttves, T O "dyuaaya", ouov dyuwv
duauyaaya, yuynya dpxeTUTtou, inei TOL aia%r\aeL naXa T U J V vorioeu xaXoov
etKoves...

As almost always, the world of n o e t i c r e a l i t y i s (here by implication) associ-

ated with God himsel f or h i s Logos. The o p p o s i t i o n of T O \ aio%T\oeb xaXa and T C \
voriaet, waXa shows P h i l o ' s awareness of the intimat e connection between onto-
logy and epistemology i n the P l a t o n i c d i v i s i o n of r e a l i t y ; c f . other texts
such as Migr.103, Her.75, Spec.1.20, Praem.29-30, Aet.1,15, QE 2.96 etc. (see
a l s o below II 2.4.1.).

But i t i s above a l l i n the e x p l a n a t i o n , i n terms of the Timaeus, of the

Mosaic account of the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos that P h i l o ' s understanding of the
P l a t o n i c d i v i s i o n becomes c l e a r . In t h i s context, at Opif.12, we encounter a
more d i r e c t adaptatio n of the above-mentioned Timaeus t e x t . P r e s e n t i ng some
p r e l i m i n a r y comments before s t a r t i n g on h i s a c t u a l exegesis, P h i l o has just
polemicized against those t h i n k e r s who regard the cosmos as d y e v n T O s *au ai-
6uos (§7). This i s a worthless and u n p r o f i t a b l e d o c t r i n e , a t t r i b u t i n g anarchy
to the cosmos (§11). But the great Moses recognized the fundamental differ-
ence between TO OPCXTOV and TO dyevriTov. The former i s , i n c l o s e dependence on
P l a t o , explained as itav T O aCa-dnTOV ev yeveaet nai y e T a g o X a t s ou6e7ioT£ naToc
TauTot o v (cf.28a3 y ^ Y V o y e v o v ytai d i o X X y y e v o v , OVTOJS 6e OU6ETIOT£ ov) . To that
which i s aopciTOV nal V O H T O V Moses assigned at6toTris (equivalen t to TO ov deb

at 27d6), 1
while T O auadnTOV i s given the a p p r o p r i a t e name of yeveoug (cf.27d6
yeveotv). P h i l o then skips a few l i n e s i n the Timaeus. His words, knei o\5v
opotTos T E nai auodnTos o6e o x o a y o s , dvayKauws d v eun nai yevnTos 5 are a sim-
p l i f y i n g but e f f e c t i v e paraphrase of P l a t o ' s argument at 28b7-c2, to which we
s h a l l r e t u r n i n the next s u b - s e c t i o n . 2
I t i s t h e r e f o r e very much to the point
that Moses should begin h i s Law with an account of the cosmos' y e v e o u s . In so
doing he produced a f i n e p i e c e of theology (ydXa aeyvws OeoXoyriaas) .

As the above a n a l y s i s has shown, Opif.12 provides us with a p a r t i c u l a r l y

b l a t a n t example of P h i l o ' s p r a c t i c e of p l a c i n g d o c t r i n e s of the Greek p h i l o s o -
phers in the mouth of Moses. 3
Two t e x ts from the Timaeus are combined and ap-
plied to the Mosaic account of c r e a t i o n . Needless to say, P h i l o thinks he has
good grounds f o r t h i s move. But h i s t r a i n of thought i s not so easy to f o l l o w ,
f o r the reason that i n t h i s one passage three l i n e s of argument have been en-
twined together. Let us e x p l a i n them one by one.

1. In Opif.7-11 P h i l o has already given a theological argument defending

the d o c t r i n e that the cosmos i s y e v r i T O s . On t h i s argument see below I I 2.1.3.
He now adds an ontological argument, c l o s e l y a l i g n e d to the P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e
70 ANALYSIS

of the two worlds (which has so f a r not been mentioned, i f we except the h i n t
of the n o e t i c world given i n the words auxo T O aya§ov nai a\!)To T O xaAov i n §8).
If the d i v i s i o n i n t o y e v e a u g and ov i s accepted, i t i s evident that the cosmos,
being opaTog nai aua$r|Tog, belongs to the former and i s t h e r e f o r e yevrjTOg.
2. At the same time P h i l o i s very much aware of the f a c t that the first
book of the Law has r e c e i v e d the t i t l e r e v e a t g . Hence h i s statement that Mo-
ses gave the realm of sense the appropriate name (or word) y e v e a u g . Exegesis
of t h i s t i t l e force s the reader, i n P h i l o ' s view, to recognize that Moses pro-
pounds the dichotomy of i n t e l l i g i b l e and sense-perceptibl e r e a l i t y and empha-
t i c a l l y declares the cosmos to be yevriTog. As so o f t e n i n h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l
exegesis, the argumentation i s emphatically circular. The Platonic doctrine
allows one to understand the Mosaic t i t l e , but at the same time the Mosaic
t i t l e v a l i d a t e s the P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e .

3. But P h i l o i s a l s o looking ahead to the f o l l o w i n g part of h i s inter-

p r e t a t i o n of the Mosaic account. He i s about to e x p l a i n why Moses employs a
schema of s i x days i n order to recount the Hoauonouua (§13-14). Moreover one
of these days, namely day one' f
i s exceptional and must be d i s s o c i a t e d from
the r e s t (§15). P h i l o w i l l need the P l a t o n i c d i v i s i o n i n t o the two worlds
here — the hexad i s a s s o c i a t e d with y e v e a u g and the xoauog aoa$nTog, the monad
with ov and the xoauog vonTOg. The a t t r i b u t i o n of the d o c t r i n e of Tim.27d-28a
to Moses i n Opif.12 thus provides an indispensable t r a n s i t i o n to the next part
of the exposition.

2.1.2. A classic text (28b-c)

Having introduced h i s d o c t r i n e of the two realms of y e v e a u g and TO O V ,

Plato immediately a p p l i e s i t to the main subject of h i s d i s c o u r s e , the cosmos.
Has the cosmos always e x i s t e d (28b6 f^v cteu, c f . 27d6 T O ov aeu) , having no apxn
yeveaewg, or has i t come i n t o being (28b6 y e y o v e ) , s t a r t i n g o f f from some apxn?
The answer i s pronounced, not without a touch of drama, i n a s i n g l e word: y e -
yove (28b7) , i t has come i n t o being. The reason given f o r t h i s answer harks
back d i r e c t l y to the d o c t r i n e set out i n 27d6-28a4. Since the cosmos i s v i s -
i b l e , t a c t i l e and c o r p o r e a l , i t belongs to the domain of the a u a d n T a , and such
t h i n g s , apprehended by 6o£a with a u a S n a u g , appear as y u y v o u e v a and yevvriTa.

Already i n the previous sub-section i t was observed that i n Opif.12 P h i l o

paraphrases 28b7-c2 as a proof of the cosmos' y e v e a u g . The words of the T i -
maeus are d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t e d to Moses. In another passage, Prov.1.21, P h i l o
quotes the t e x t 28b4-c2 not as Moses' or h i s own o p i n i o n , but i n order to pre-
sent P l a t o ' s v e r d i c t on the question of whether the cosmos has or has not come
 II 2.1.2. 71

i n t o being. The f i r s t part of t h i s t r e a t i s e (§6-36) i s concerned with the

d o c t r i n e of Providence i n r e l a t i o n to the c r e a t i o n , maintenance and possible
d e s t r u c t i o n of the cosmos. P h i l o turns to P l a t o as a thinker with a c e r t a i n
a u t h o r i t y on such s u b j e c t s . He i s introduced as T
t h e Greek sage P l a t o 1
(§20).
On the p o s s i b l e d e s t r u c t i o n (cp$opd) of the cosmos Tim.38b6-7 i s quoted, on
which see f u r t h e r below I I 5.3.1. On the y e v e o u s of the cosmos, P h i l o c o n t i n -
ues, he has indicated his opinion i n an e a r l i e r part of the d i s c o u r s e . After
these i n t r o d u c t o r y words the t e x t 28b4-c2 i s quoted verbatim.

Because the Armenian t r a n s l a t i o n gives a very l i t e r a l rendering (to the extent

t h a t , according to Weitenberg, i t i s only comprehensible i f one adduces the
Greek t e x t ) , i t i s p o s s i b l e to determine whether P h i l o deviates from the r e -
ceived t e x t i n h i s quotation. Some b r i e f remarks on t h i s question were made
by F.C.Conybeare, 'Note on the Philonean reading of two passages i n the Timaeus,
38B and 28B' J P h i l o l 21(1893)71-72. Three t e x t u a l v a r i a t i o n s , a l l t r i v i a l ,
should be noted: ( i ) the word Ttpokov (28b5) i s deleted (note how Aucher r e s -
tores i t to h i s t r a n s l a t i o n ) ; ( i i ) f o r e v d p x f j 6 e u v (28b5) the Armenian reads
ev dpxrj Cfjv (hence the bracketed v i t a e i n Aucher's t r a n s l a t i o n ) , doubtless a
mistake on the part of the t r a n s l a t o r (Weitenberg) ; ( i i i ) instead of y e v v r i x d
(28c2) the t r a n s l a t o r probably found y e v r i x d i n h i s t e x t ( t h i s reading i s a l s o
found i n c e r t a i n P l a t o n i c mss., c f . Plut.Mar.1016E).

P h i l o attaches no commentary to t h i s t e x t . I t i s quoted as a p r o o f - t e x t and

allowed to speak f o r i t s e l f . In the l i n e s that f o l l o w other f e a t u r e s of the
Timaean cosmogony, such as the model, demiurge and pre-existent matter, are
introduced; see f u r t h e r below I I 2.3.3.
P h i l o was not alone i n u s i ng Tim.28b4-c2 as a p r o o f - t e x t . From the time
of A r i s t o t l e onwards i t was a classic text i n favour of a l i t e r a l reading of
Plato's cosmogonic account ( c f . Plut.Mor.1016E, A t t . f r . 3 7 , J u s t . D i a l . 5 . 2 ; also
Baltes 8,36,39,102,110 e t c . ) . Plato's emphatic y e y o v e v d i d not decide the
question of the cosmos' y e v e o u s , but instead provoked a long-standing contro-
versy among i n t e r p r e t e r s of the Timaeus, which even today i s not entirely set-
tled. To t h i s s u b j e c t , inasmuch as i t i s r e l e v a nt to P h i l o , we now turn.

2.1.3. The problem of the Y^veoiQ of the cosmos

The c e n t r a l place occupied by the problem of the y e v e o t s of the cosmos i n

the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus i n a n t i q u i t y already drew our a t t e n t i o n i n
the i n t r o d u c t o r y part of t h i s study (see I 4.b,d,g). In the Old Academy P l a -
to's successors favoured a metaphorical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , but A r i s t o t l e argued
otherwise. When renewed i n t e r e s t was shown i n the dialogue i n the 1st centu-
ry B.C., the l i t e r a l view of the cosmogony was at f i r s t popular, and also l a -
ter i t retained some supporters. But by the heyday of Middle Platonism i n the
2nd century A.D. the n o n - l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was g e n e r a l l y accepted. All
research on t h i s subject has now been superseded by the monograph of Baltes
72 ANALYSIS

(cf.I 4.n.104; the comments of Pepin 86-94 remain i n s t r u c t i v e ) .

The German s c h o l a r demonstrates that the proponents of a l i t e r a l interpre-

t a t i o n , arguing that c r e a t i o n took place as an a c t u a l event (though not neces-
s a r i l y in time), placed a good deal of emphasis on the wording of the Timaeus,
e.g. i n the use of p r o o f - t e x t s (cf .209-211.) . A l s o the d o c t r i n e s of a pre-
e x i s t e n t d i s o r d e r l y matter and/or p r e - e x i s t e n t i r r a t i o n a l cosmic soul (e.g.
i n P l u t a r c h , A t t i c u s , and perhaps Numenius) are c r u c i a l f o r t h i s view. The
i n t e r p r e t e r s who supported the opposing viewpoint showed, according to B a l t e s
( c f . 2 2 ) , a greater concern f o r the p h i l o s o p h i c a l i n t e n t i o n s of the work as a
whole. In defence of t h e i r p o s i t i o n that the cosmos d i d not come to be i n a
c r e a t i o n a l event, but always has been and always w i l l be i n a s t a t e of c r e a -
tedness ( i . e . c r e a t i o aeterna or c r e a t i o continua) three main agruments are
used (cf.82,21 I f f . ) :

(1) a methodological e x p l a n a t i o n — the cosmogony i s presented f o r d i d a c -

t i c reasons (6b6aoHaXuas xdpt-v) or as a hypothesis (e£ UTiodeoeoos), i . e .
i n order to show the s t r u c t u r e of the cosmos and the r e l a t i o n to i t s
source;

(2) a metaphysical-ontological e x p l a n a t i o n - the cosmos i s yevnxos i n

that i t i s dependent on, or c o n t i n u a l l y being created by, a higher cause;
(3) a physicalistic e x p l a n a t i o n - the cosmos i s yevrixos because i t i s
found i n a c o n t i n u a l s t a t e of becoming and change.

For h a l f a millenium these arguments were used over and over again, w i t h an
ever i n c r e a s i n g degree of refinement and s c h o l a s t i c subtlety.

The P h i l o n i c passage which gives the c l e a r e s t i n s i g h t i n t o h i s views on

t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i v e controversy i s Aet.14-16. Having j u s t given a verbatim
quote of Tim.41a7-b6 i n support of P l a t o ' s 6o£a that the cosmos i s yevr]i:6g nal
acpdapxos (on t h i s quote see below I I 6.1.1.), P h i l o c o n s i d e r s i t necessary to
add some e l u c i d a t o r y remarks. The passage f a l l s i n t o three b r i e f sections,
which w i l l be d e a l t w i t h one by one.
P h i l o s t a r t s o f f w i t h a p i e c e of polemic (§14):
xuves 6e ouovxat aocpucoyevou Maid nxdxwva yevrixov Xeyeo%aL xov xoayov ou
T<5 Xageuv yeveoews dpxnv, dXXd TO~), euitep eytWvexo, yf] dv exepws r\ xov
etpnyevov auaxnvat xpoitov, n 6td T O ev yeveoe^ nai yexagoXfj xd yepn dew-
peCa$au.

The word aocptCoyevou i n d i c a t e s h i s sharp disagreement with the i n t e r p r e t e r s

whose arguments he c i t e s . The i d e n t i t y of these men i s not made c l e a r . It is
not impossible that he has i n mind members of the Old Academy such as Speusip-
pus and Xenocrates; a f t e r a l l i n §16 he adduces A r i s t o t l e ' s view. But he may
a l s o be t h i n k i n g of contemporary commentators (perhaps Eudorus, c f . P l u t a r c h
Mor.1013B, B a l t e s 85). In the two arguments given f o r a n o n - l i t e r a l view the
 II 2.1.3. 73

first and t h i r d explanations o u t l i n e d above can e a s i l y be recognized. The

former i s the è £ u n o f t é o e w s argument (note the use of the c o n d i t i o n a l ) , going

back to the Old Academy. The l a t t e r i s based on the Y < - Y v ó y e v o v nal duoAAuyevov

of Tim.28a3 ( c f . a l s o 28c1-2). B a l t e s 86 a f f i r m s that i t occurs here f o r the

first time, but that i t s context i n d i c a t e s that i t i s o l d e r than Philo.

Two p o i n t s of d e t a i l r e q u i r e c l o s e r a t t e n t i o n . Colson's t r a n s l a t i o n (EE

9.195) of e t i e p lyiyveio as ' i f i t had been c r e a t e d ' f a i l s to convey the mean-
ing of the imperfect tense, which i n d i c a t e s that the s t a t e of becoming c o n t i n -
ues i n t o the present ( c f . Kühner-Gerth Ausführliche g r i e c h i s c h e Grammatik
2.470, Smyth Greek Grammar §2310). We should thus t r a n s l a t e : ' i f i t has come
and s t i l l i s coming i n t o b e i n g . . . ' .
The phrase with which P h i l o d e s c r i b e s the viewpoint h i s opponents r e j e c t ,
ou T(p A a g e C v yevéoe^g a p x n v , i s a l s o of great i n t e r e s t . It i s manifestly
based on P l a t o ' s words at 28b6, yevioeudg d p x n v Ixwv o u ó e y u a v . But the words
y e v é a e o j s dpxn are ambiguous. They can be understood temporally ( i . e . as 'be-
g i n n i n g of g e n e s i s ' , supporting the l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) , or ontologioally
(i.e. as ' p r i n c i p l e of becoming', f a v o u r i n g the metaphorical view). On no
l e s s than e i g h t occasions P h i l o uses these words as a k i n d of terminus t e c h -
n i c u s i n r e l a t i o n to the q u e s t i o n of the createdness of the cosmos (or i t s
p a r t s ) ; c f . Opif.54, Conf.114, Abr.162, Aet.14,53,118, Prov.1.6,21 ( t r a n s l a -
t i o n of Tim.28b6!) (cf .88) . Now at Leg.3.78 i t i s c e r t a i n that d p x n y e v é a e w s
i s meant i n the o n t o l o g i c a l sense (used of God's a y a ^ ó x r i S nai x d p t s ) • So P h i l o
was c e r t a i n l y aware of the second p o s s i b i l i t y . What about the e i g h t t e x t s
just cited? The combination with an a o r i s t verb i n Aet.14 and Conf.114 ( o u -
ïïoxe...eAapev) puts the temporal meaning beyond doubt. A l s o i n Aet.53,118,
Prov.1.6,21 there can be no d i s p u t e concerning the intended t e m p o r a l i t y . I am
thus persuaded that a l s o i n the two remaining t e x t s yeveceug dpxn means beginn-
ing of g e n e s i s ' and that P h i l o ignores the p o t e n t i a l ambiguity. There i s abun-
dant evidence that P l a t o ' s phrase at 28b6 was understood i n a temporal sense
by v a r i o u s Middle P l a t o n i s t s , C i c e r o and Alexander of A p h r o d i s i a s ( c f . B a l t e s
29,45-46,63,73). But P h i l o ' s ' t e c h n i c a l ' usage remains s t r i k i n g ( i t i s not
given any a t t e n t i o n by B a l t e s ) . Note a l s o that P h i l o nowhere makes any a t -
tempt to d e f i n e the term yevr\TÓ£. Contrast the s o p h i s t i c a t e d a n a l y s i s of the
P l a t o n i s t Taurus (ap. P h i l o p . A e t . 145.13ff., t r a n s l a t e d i n D i l l o n 242-243).

P h i l o c o n t i n u e s , with d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e to the Timaeus (§15):

3eAxuov ö è nai a A n ^ é o x e p o v u i t o v o e C v x o i t p ó x e p o v , o u y ó v o v O T U Óúd l a v x o g

x o u a u Y Y p d u u a x o s u a x é p a y è v nai l o u r i T r i v nai öriytoupYOV xov d e o u A a a x n v
è x e u v o v x a A e u , è p Y O V ö è nai I Y Y O V O V x o u x o v l xóv xóouov, dn'dpxexuiiou
< x a t > v o r i x o ö T i a p a o e u Y y o i x o s y u y n y a a u a d n x ó v , n d v d ' o a a è v èxeuvop v o n x d
ïïepüéxovxa a t a ^ r i x d èv auxóp, x e A e t o x d x o u itpog v o u v x e A e u ó x a x o v è x y a y e C o v
ïïpos atadriouv,. . .

Having given the o p i n i o n of h i s opponents, P h i l o now e x p l a i n s the more c o r r e c t

view of the cosmos' y é v e a ü s , which he f i n d s contained i n the passage j u s t quo-

ted i n §13 and i n the phrase xw A a g e C v yevéoeiüg dpxnv (hence x o T t p o x e p o v ) .

H i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n he sets out f i r s t of a l l i n a d i r e c t

appeal to the wording of the P l a t o n i c text (hence x a A e u ) . The last five lines

of t h i s paragraph thus amount to a l i t t l e 'compendium' of phrases and doc-

t r i n e s from the Timaeus. I t i s a unique l i t t l e passage, the only o c c a s i o n i n

P h i l o ' s oeuvre that he gives an e x p l a n a t i o n of the Timaeus not d i r e c t l y bound

to a quoted or paraphrased text. In s u b j e c t i n g these l i n e s to a b r i e f analy-

sis, I r e c o r d and add to the v a r i o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s already made by Bernays

74 ANALYSIS

Abh.Berl.Akad.1883 64-65, Colson EE 9.195, B a l t e s 32-33.

x o u a u Y Y p d y u a T o s : I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to observe that P h i l o d e s c r i b e s the T i -

maeus as a ' t r e a t i s e ' or 'discourse', not as a dialogue.
T t a t e p a uev'xat n o t r i T n v ' Cf. the famous p a i r i n g at 28c3; 6 r | U L - o u p Y o s , c f . 28a6,
29a3 e t c . , a l s o 41a7 6riPtoupYog m x r i p i e , j u s t quoted above at §13. yev...6e
i n d i c a t e s that the b a s i c c o n t r a s t i s between c r e a t o r and c r e a t e d .
d e o n A a o T P j V : The choice of word i s most unusual — i t i s not found i n the Timaeus
and nowhere e l s e i n P h i l o (see also I I 2.2.2.). Does i t r e f e r to the c r e a t i o n
of the a s t r a l d e i t i e s addressed i n the text j u s t quoted i n §13 (so Bernays,
Colson, Bormann GT, B a l t e s ) , or to the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos as o p q x o s 3 e o s
(§10,20, so Arnaldez FE) ? e x e ' C v o v , which harks back to §13, p o i n t s to the
former i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
I p Y o v : Cf.30b3,6; frequent i n P h i l o , e.g. Opif.9,171, Deus 106, Her.199 (exeg.
Ex.30:35) e t c .
£ Y Y Q V Q v • Not P l a t o n i c , but c f . enyovu at 50d4, cosmos as u o v o Y e v r j S at 31b3,
92c9. Compare Opif. 10 nai yap Tiaxrip enyovuiv . . . a x o x d c e x q u x f i s 6uauovfjs; cosmos
as God's (younger) son, Deus 31, Ebr.30, Spec.1.96 (on which see below I I 10.
3.1.). The word E Y Y O V O V i s used of the cosmos ( f o l l o w i n g Tim.50d4) at Tim.
Locr.2,5. The coupling e p y o v nai E Y Y O V O V i n d i c a t e s the complementarity of the
t e c h n o l o g i c a l and b i o l o g i c a l metaphor; see f u r t h e r below I I 2.2.2.
ctTi'qpxexUTiou < x a t > v o n x o u Ttqpq6eLYyaTos y i y n y a auadriTov: Cf. esp. 48c4-49a1 ,
a l s o 28a6-b2,28c5-29b2,92c7. P h i l o ' s use of the u n p l a t o n i c a d j e c t i v e q p x e x u -
TXOS reveals that he i s here employing f a m i l i a r Middle P l a t o n i s t terminology
f o r the paradeigma r e l a t i o n ; c f . Opif.16, Ebr.133 e t c . and below I I 3.4.2.
%av%' ooa.. . e v quxop: cf .30c7-d1 ,31a4-5; see below I I 3.4.1. on Opif . 16, P l a n t . 2
and t h i s t e x t .
x e A e u o x a x o v en\iayeZov: x e A e t o x a x o s , cf.68e3,92c9; i t i s P h i l o ' s f a v o u r i t e su-
p e r l a t i v e i n p r a i s e of the cosmos' p e r f e c t i o n . See below I I 2.3.2. on the
'language of e x c e l l e n c e ' which he draws from the Timaeus. ln\iayeZov of course
goes back u l t i m a t e l y to P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the r e c e p t a c l e (50c2), but here
i t does not mean ' p l a s t i c substance' or ' s t u f f (or space), but r a t h e r the
'imprint' from a s e a l or the ' c a s t i n g ' made from a mould i n such a substance;
see f u r t h e r below I I 3.4.2. 8.2.1.
x e A e u o x q x o u i t p o s v o u v : Sc. Tiqpq6etYyotxos from above ( c f . Leisegang 234; Baltes
33n.41 p r e f e r s to read i t as an independent neuter; Colson's sc. en\iayeiov i s
improbable) . npbg vouv/rcpos a u o S n o u v i s employed as v a r i a t i o f o r v o n x o u / q t a -
$ n x o v , but at the same time i n d i c a t e s P h i l o ' s p r o p e r l y P l a t o n i c concern f o r
the r e l a t i o n between ontology and epistemology; c f . esp. 27d5-28a4 and see II
2.1.1. 2.4.1.
In the t h i r d part of the passage (§16), P h i l o adds a f u r t h e r argument i n

favour of h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the P l a t o n i c 6 o £ q that the cosmos i s Y e v n x o s .

Such was the view of A r i s t o t l e , and the testimony of a p u p i l ( e s p e c i a l l y such

a conscientious and innovative one) concerning h i s teacher should be trusted.

P h i l o i s c l e a r l y acquainted with A r i s t o t l e ' s l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the

cosmogony (on which see Baltes 5-18); h i s i n f o r m a t i o n may have been derived

from a reading of the De philosophia (cf.§10-11 = fr.18 Ross). Balte s 33-34

considers that the laus A r i s t o t e l i s , together with the doxographicum on Hesiod

at §17 ( c f . De Caelo 3.1 298b29), i n d i c a t e s a P e r i p a t e t i c source f o r t h i s part

of P h i l o ' s doxography i n §8-19. Pepin 251-277, l o o k i ng at the doxography as a

whole, compares other doxographies i n L a c t a n t i u s and Ambrose and postulates a

t r a d i t i o n going back u l t i m a t e l y to A r i s t o t l e ' s De philosophia. I t seems to me

beyond doubt that P h i l o ' s doxography contains t r a d i t i o n a l elements. But a de-

 II 2.1.3. 75

t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of i t s contents shows that t h i s m a t e r i a l has been c a r e f u l l y

s e l e c t e d and systematized i n order to s u i t P h i l o ' s own purposes ( c f . Runia
124-130). The e n t i r e s t r u c t u r e would appear to c o l l a p s e i f P l a t o ' s opinion
that the cosmos was created amounted to no more than a 'rephrasing' of the
A r i s t o t e l i a n p o s i t i o n , as would be the case i f the arguments of the oocpucoue-
V O L were accepted.

Even so, a serious i n t e r p r e t a t i v e problem remains i n Aet.14-16. It was

noted above that i n §15 P h i l o appeals e x p l i c i t l y to the wording of the Timaeus
t e x t , a procedure that was customary among i n t e r p r e t e r s who favoured a literal
view of the cosmogony. Unlike i n Prov.1.21, however, he does not c i t e the us-
u a l texts that suggest a r e a l c r e a t i o n a l event (e.g. 27d6-28a4,28b2-c2,29b1-2,
30a2-6,41a7-b6). The words and phrases which he s e l e c t s f o r h i s l i t t l e com-
pendium are those which emphasize the r e l a t i o n between c r e a t o r and created
product, model and replica. Yet i t was p r e c i s e l y t h i s r e l a t i o n that was em-
phasized i n the m e t a p h y s i c a l - o n t o l o g i c a l argument i n support of the n o n - l i t e r -
a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( i . e . that one of the three main arguments which, we recall,
P h i l o d i d not mention i n §14). Nothing that P h i l o w r i t e s i n §15 would have
been found d i s t u r b i n g by P l a t o n i s t s such as A l b i n u s , Taurus, or even P l o t i n u s ,
who were opposed to the l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which P h i l o appears to favour.
The problem i s t h e r e f o r e : was P h i l o unaware of the metaphysical-ontological
explanation, or d i d he regard the view of yeveo^g as ' e t e r n al dependence on a
higher cause' as incompatible w i t h God's c r e a t o r s h i p ? 1
Bearing t h i s problem i n
mind, i t i s time that we s h i f t e d our a t t e n t i o n to some other texts.

The c r u c i a l d i f f e r e n c e between the texts i n O p i f . which we s h a l l now ex-

amine and Aet.14-16 i s that i n them P h i l o no longer f u r n i s h e s a direct inter-
p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus, but i s concerned with exegesis of the Mosaic account
of c r e a t i o n , f o r which task the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s of the Timaeus are
at most of i n d i r e c t relevance. Nevertheless i n f o u r texts these problematics
remain d i s t i n c t l y resonant i n the background.

Opif.7-10. G i v i n g some p r e l i m i n a r y comments on the f a c t that Moses be-

gins h i s Law with a xoauoTtoula, P h i l o d i r e c t s an attack against those thinkers
who d e c l a re the cosmos to be ayevrixos xe nai aCdLOg. These men show an exces-
s i v e admiration f o r created r e a l i t y , while impiously a t t r i b u t i n g to i t s c r e a -
t o r a vast i n a c t i v i t y (§7) . The reference to d i v i n e otipa^ua i n d i c a t e s that
P h i l o ' s prime t a r g e t among Greek philosophers is Aristotle; 2
but i t i s also
p o s s i b l e that he includes the Xenocratean i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus, f o r
the ' o n t o l o g i c a l ' or ' d i d a c t i c ' view of yeveaug leaves the cosmos au6uos (and
so from the temporal point of view ayevnxos) .

The a t t r i b u t i o n of degrees of admiration to God and the cosmos, which i n -

76 ANALYSIS

troduces a measure of contrast between c r e a t o r and created work, i s a new argu-

ment, not used (to my knowledge) i n r e l a t i o n to the Timaean controversy (its
importance i n P h i l o foreshadows a b r i g h t f u t u r e i n P a t r i s t i c thought; c f . Pepin
278-291). This i s not the case f o r P h i l o ' s f o l l o w i n g argument, which main-
t a i n s that b e l i e f i n cosmic uncreatedness e n t a i l s a d e n i a l of the d o c t r i n e of
Providence (§9, cf.171). More than a century l a t e r i t i s used by A t t i c u s ( f r .
4.2) i n support of a l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the cosmogony, but no doubt i t
was already c i r c u l a t i n g much e a r l i e r . 3
For P h i l o there i s an evident connec-
t i o n between the d o c t r i n e of c r e a t i o n and the d o c t r i n e of Providence, as can
be seen, f o r example, i n the f a c t that the yiveoLg of the cosmos i s d e a l t with
i n both books of h i s De P r o v i d e n t i a (1.6-8,21-23, 2.45-51; on ipovoua and the
d o c t r i n e of the cosmos 1
aySapoia see below I I 6.1.5.). At the same time one
cannot help n o t i c i n g the s i m i l a r i t i e s between P h i l o s d e s c r i p t i o n of
f
creator
and cosmos here and h i s e x p o s i t i o n of the Timaeus 1
contents i n Aet. 15 (§9 T O
xeAeuoxaxov epYOV, §10 xov itaxepa nai Tcounxriv, naxfip exyovoov nai 6nyuoupYos
xwv 6riyuoupYri$evxojv) 9 the main d i f f e r e n c e being that i n Aet. the d o c t r i n e of
Providence i s not e x p l i c i t l y mentioned (though s t r o n g l y i m p l i c i t i n §13) and
that i n O p i f . the r o l e of the n o e t i c model i s ignored (being reserved f o r the
d e t a i l e d expose i n §16ff.).

The e s s e n t i a l message which P h i l o wishes to convey i s , t h e r e f o r e , that

the cosmos must not be thought to be aYevrjxos, because that view amounts to a
d e n i a l of the r e l a t i o n between maker and created product. Just as i n Aet.14-
15, the m e t a p h y s i c a l - o n t o l o g i c a l argument ( i . e . i n favour of a n o n - l i t e r a l cos-
mogony) i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y d i s q u a l i f i e d . Dillon 157 concludes from t h i s text
that P h i l o presents ' c r e a t i o n i n the sense of dependence f o r i t s existence on
an e x t e r n a l c a u s e , which, he adds, 'was
1
the general P l a t o n i c view i n l a t e r
times'. I t i s understandable that D i l l o n reaches t h i s view, even though, be-
cause i t r e j e c t s an a c t u a l c r e a t i o n a l event, i t may w e l l be i n c o r r e c t . 4

Opif.13-14. Why i s c r e a t i o n s a i d to have taken place i n s i x days? The

c r e a t o r c e r t a i n l y d i d not need a length of time f o r h i s work, f o r i t i s probable
that both planning and execution were c a r r i e d out simultaneously (dya itdvxa) .
P h i l o f i n d s the reason i n the f a c t that things that come i n t o being require
order (xd^ts). Order i n v o l v e s number and the number most appropriate to yive-
Ob£ i s the number s i x . Philo's intentions receive further c l a r i f i c a t i o n a few
paragraphs l a t e r .

Opif .26-28. The words iv dpxf) i n Gen. 1:1 are not meant temporally, but
i n d i c a t e order and h i e r a r c h y , i . e . God made the heaven f i r s t (§28):
nai yap ei Ttdvd'dyoc o Ttouwv eTcotet, xd£tv ou6ev ?jxxov eZxe xd xaAwg Y ^ V O -
yevcr xaAov yap o\)biv iv dxa^ta. xd£ts 6'dxoAoudua nal eupyos eaxt i p o -
riYouyevwv xuvwv nal eioyevojv, et nai yr) xous ditoxeAeayaatv, dAAa X O L xaus
xujv xexxauvoyevojv e i t v o t a u s ' ouxws yap eyeAAov r)npL$&o%aC xe nai diAavets
e l v a t nai dauYXUTou.
 II 2.1.3. 77

The main idea of §13-14 i s repeated, but the xd£us i s now more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d
to the planning a c t i v i t y of the c r e a t o r . The c r e a t i o n a l sequence i n d i c a t e s
planned and ordered structure. Now, as we saw at the beginning of t h i s sub-
s e c t i o n , one of the explanations f o r a n o n - l i t e r a l reading of the Timaeus was
that P l a t o presented the cosmogony f o r d i d a c t i c reasons. A standard compari-
son, ever s i n c e the Old Academy, was the way i n which mathematicians 1
generate 1

diagrams f o r i l l u s t r a t o r y purposes, without;'wishing to a f f i r m that triangles

or squares come i n t o being ( c f . B a l t e s 20,211). P h i l o ' s e x p l a n a t i o n of the
six days of c r e a t i o n c e r t a i n l y bears a resemblance to the above-mentioned i n -
terpretation. In both cases the c r e a t i o n a l sequence i s a device, but the r e a -
sons f o r i t d i f f e r . P h i l o does not s t r e s s (as he e a s i l y could have done) the
d i d a c t i c aspect, but r a t h e r the h i e r a r c h i c a l or s t r u c t u r a l purpose of the se-
quence (perhaps because of i t s numerical f e a t u r e s , which are a l s o taken sym-
bolically) . Moreover the e x p l a n a t i o n i s placed i n the p e r s p e c t i v e of a c r e a -
tio simultanea, not a c r e a t i o aeterna.

Opif.67-68. P h i l o r e t u r n s b r i e f l y to the theme of s e q u e n t i a l e x p o s i t i o n

when g i v i n g exegesis of the f i f t h and s i x t h days of c r e a t i o n , i n which God
creates the animals i n the order f i s h e s — b i r d s — t e r r e s t r i a l animals - man
(cf. Gen.1:20-31)(§67):

TOTE uev o3v dua i d v x a a u v u a x a x o . auvuaxauevojv 6'opou Ttdvxwv, n xa£us

dvayHauoos Xoyy uiteYpdcpexo 6 t d xfjv eaopevnv au§us e£ aAAr|Au>v yeveoLV.
Here the n a r r a t i v e (AOYOS) r e f l e c t s the xa£us i n v o l v e d i n the process of yeve-
Ob£. This passage I f i n d some what confused. The i l l u s t r a t i o n of a seed de-
v e l o p i n g i n t o a fully-grow n animal does e x p l a i n the process of yeveoig, but i s
not so r e l e v a n t to the h i e r a r c h i c a l sequence of one genus being create d after
the other.

A comparison with the r i c h c o l l e c t i o n of m a t e r i a l made a c c e s s i b l e i n B a l -

tes' study shows how P h i l o ' s e x p l a n a t i o n s , because they are adapted to the r e -
quirements of the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l account, resemble the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of
the Timaeus exegetes only i n a r a t h e r general way. The P l a t o n i s t s , emphasi-
z i n g the d i d a c t i c nature of the account ( 6 b 6 a a x a A i , a s xdptv, §eojpuag evexa, a a -
(pnveCas xdpuv, e£ uiodeaews) , r a r e l y dwell on the ordered nature of the c r e -
ated product being d e s c r i b e d . But compare A l b i n u s ap. P r o c l . i n Tim.1.218.31f.
(ova Y e v o u e v o v auxo (xo itav) deoopnaavxes Triv ev auxcp cpuatv x a x u 6 a ) u e v (but i s
the cpuaus that of x d ^ t s or of y e v e a t s ? ) , B a l t e s 97); Taurus ap. P h i l o p . A e t . 146.
13-17 (the cosmos' yeveoLg demonstrates the f u n c t i o n a l i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p ( 6 u -
vapug) of i t s p a r t s , B a l t e s 107); P l o t i n u s Enn.3.5.9.24-29 (myth separates xd
opou o v x a and shows things d i s t i n c t i n xd£us and 6 u v d u e u s , B a l t e s 125). The
expression AoYtp uieYpdcpexo r e c a l l s the s i m i l a r use of Xoyy by Crantor, Timaeus
Locrus, P l o t i n u s (Baltes 211). F i n a l l y one should note that the P l a t o n i s t s
a l s o speak of y e v e o i g Max'euuvouav ( c f . B a l t e s 211), but that t h i s i s i n r e -
ference to an account i n the mind of the w r i t e r or the reader, not to a p l a n
i n the mind of the c r e a t o r , as P h i l o intends i n §28 ( x a u s xwv xexxauvouevoov
e i t u v o u a c s , i . e . with r e f e r e n c e to the a r c h i t e c t image i n §17-18, but b e a r i n g
i n mind the d i f f e r e n c e between God and human b u i l d e r s ) .
78 ANALYSIS

The subject of the c o r r e c t understanding of the cosmos' yeveoLg recurs

frequently i n Philo's writings. Other texts of l e s s e r importance are given at
Runia 132 & n.114-120. Three other r e l a t e d issues have yet to be discussed:
(1) P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the 'moment of c r e a t i o n ' (and esp. the controver-
s i a l passage Prov.1.6-8)(see below II 3.2.1-3); (2) C r e a t i o n and the nature of
time (5.3.1.); (3) the p o s s i b i l i t y of c r e a t i o ex n i h i l o (8.2.2.). Only when
these f u r t h e r questions have been taken i n t o account can we reach some f i n a l
conclusions on how P h i l o approaches the problem of the cosmos' yeveaus in its
double aspect, i . e . i n r e l a t i o n to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of P l a t o ' s Timaeus and,
more importantly, i n r e l a t i o n to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l
account. See below I I I 2.4. and 3.5.(2b).

F i n a l l y an appended note on P h i l o ' s mysterious Jewish-Alexandrian prede-

cessor A r i s t o b u l u s . Two passages i n h i s fragments are r e l e v a n t to the theme
of t h i s s e c t i o n and deserve a b r i e f n o t i c e . Eusebius PE 13.12.3-4 records him
as saying that the d i v i n e v o i c e i n the c r e a t i o n a l account should not be taken
l i t e r a l l y , but i s meant t o i n d i c a t e 'execution of works' ( H a x a a x e u d s e p y w v ) .
'It seems to me', he adds, 'that those t i r e l e s s i n v e s t i g a t o r s , Pythagoras, So-
crates and P l a t o , followed Moses when they say they heard the v o i c e of God,
contemplating the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the universe which was p e r f e c t l y created and
i s unceasingly maintained by God ( x n v x a x a o x e u n v x w v 6Xwv a u v d e w p o u v x e s a x p u -
U T C O $eov y e y o v u C a v nai a u v e x o u e v n v a 6 u a A e t u x o j s ) ' . I t must be agreed with
Hengel Judaism and Hellenism 165 that the a p o l o g i s t i s t h i n k i n g here of the
Timaeus ( w r i t t e n by P l a t o , t o l d by the Pythagorean Timaeus to S o c r a t e s ) , which
he regards as indebted to the Mosaic account. The implied c o r r e l a t i o n between
God's c r e a t i o n and maintenance of the cosmos uncannily a n t i c i p a t e s one of P h i -
lo's f a v o u r i t e themes.
A few pages l a t e r (PE 13.12.12) A r i s t o b u l u s , d i s c u s s i n g God's r e s t on the
seventh day (see below I I 6.3.2.), remarks that Moses s i g n i f i e s 'that God made
the heaven and the eart h and a l l i t s contents i n s i x days, i n order to r e v e a l
the times and i n d i c a t e the order of precedence of the things created ( u v a x o u s
X p o v o u s driAcaar,) nai x n v x a £ u v Ttpoeuitri x u X L V O S u p o x e p e u ) ' . Once again the no-
t i o n of x d t C u s appears to a n t i c i p a t e P h i l o ' s explanation i n O p i f . 13,27-28. P.
Wendland ( i n A . E l t e r , De Gnomologiorum Graecorum h i s t o r i a atque o r i g i n e (Bonn
1895) V I I I 233) points out the p a r a l l e l and, implying that a temporal view of
the s i x days i s r e j e c t e d , uses i t as an argument f o r h i s t h e s i s that these
fragments are the work of a l a t e r forger who made g r a t e f u l use of the ideas
developed by P h i l o ( i b i d . 2 3 4 ) . But there i s no reason to b e l i e v e that A r i s t o -
bulus denies the temporal sequence involved i n c r e a t i o n . Cf. N.Walter, Die
Thoraausleger A r i s t o b u l o s TU 86 ( B e r l i n 1964) 68: 'Aber auch d i e Ablehnung der
V o r s t e l l u n g , d i e Weltschopfung s e i i n der Z e i t vor s i c h gegangen, darf n i c h t
aus P h i l o n i n A r i s t o b u l o s ' Worte eingetragen werden.' There i s a marked d i f -
ference i n p h i l o s o p h i c a l s o p h i s t i c a t i o n between P h i l o and h i s predecessor.
The p r o b a b i l i t y that A r i s t o b u l u s was acquainted with the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e con-
t r o v e r s y concerning the Timaean cosmogony i s s m a l l .
 II 2.2.1. 79

2.2. The d e m i u r g e i s i n t r o d u c e d (Tim.28a-b,c)

2.2.1. The c a u s e o f b e c o m i n g ( 2 8 a )

P l a t o ' s second fundamental p r i n c i p l e i s that a l l that has come i n t o being

must n e c e s s a r i l y have done so by means of some cause (ui'auTuou TLVOS)(28a4-6).

A few l i n e s l a t e r t h i s p r i n c i p l e i s a p p l i e d to the cosmos. Plato describes

the cause as lObriTris naxnp, and d e c l a r e s that f

i t i s a hard task to f i n d

him and, having found him, i t i s impossible to t e l l everyone about him' (28c3-

5). Thus he i n t r o d u c e s i n t o h i s n a r r a t i v e a c r e a t o r god r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the

cosmos' yeveabs. Although A r i s t o t l e was of the o p i n i o n that P l a t o recognized

only two causes (the formal and the m a t e r i a l ) and n e g l e c t e d the e f f i c i e n t cause

( c f . Met.A 6 9 8 8 a 8 f f . ) , l a t e r i n t e r p r e t e r s found no d i f f i c u l t y i n equating the

auTUov i t w i t h the A r i s t o t e l i a n e f f i c i e n t cause ( c f . P r o c l . i n Tim.1.261.24).

This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y evident i n the ' p r e p o s i t i o n a l metaphysics 1

developed e a r -

l y on i n Middle Platonism, i n which God as the demiurge i s the abTbov ucp'ou

(see f u r t h e r I I 3.4.5. on Cher.126-127). At A l b i n u s Did.10.3 the h i g h e s t vous

i s TtaxfiP T $ auxuos eZvaL TCOIVTOOV, but the P l a t o n i s t has l e a r n t from A r i s t o t l e

Met.A that there are d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a t t r i b u t i n g demiurgic a c t i v i t y to the

F i r s t cause (10.2 evepyeb 6 e dxbvriTos).

6 otuxuos or T O a t T t o v i s one of the e p i t h e t s most f r e q u e n t l y employed by

P h i l o to d e s c r i b e God's r e l a t i o n to the cosmos and i t s p a r t s . E x p r e s s i o ns

such as T O i d v T w v a b T b O V (Deus 56), T O dvojTaTW nai itdvTwv dpbOTOV a b T b o v

( P l a n t . 6 4 ) , a b T b o v T O TtenobriHOs (Abr.78), are l o c a t e d at frequent i n t e r v a l s

throughout h i s works ( c f . Leisegang 69-71). They express God's c r e a t o r s h i p as

d e s c r i b e d i n the Mosaic x o o u o T c o b b a and assumed i n the exegesis of the remain-

der of the Pentateuch. The above-mentioned frequency i s not caused by P l a t o ' s

words at Tim.28a alone ( c f . a l s o 29a6 dpbOTos T W V otbTbuv), but r e s u l t s from

the combination of t h i s t e x t with l a t e r A r i s t o t e l i a n and S t o i c doctrines.

Three i n p a r t i c u l a r should be noted.

1. God as T O abTbov i s the f i r s t cause (Conf.123), the moving cause (Fug.8),

the highest and eldest cause (Spec.2.5). The i n f l u e n c e of A r i s t o t l e ' s Prime

mover i s patent.

2. God i s the active cause, opposed to p a s s i v e matter. As i s well-known, ( c f .

Weiss 38-44), P h i l o takes over the terminology of the S t o i c d o c t r i n e i n which

the a c t i v e and p a s s i v e p r i n c i p l e s ( T O iobouv xotb T O naoxov) are both qualifi-

c a t i o n s of the same ouoba. I t i s given eloquent e x p r e s s i o n i n the famous pas-

sage at O p i f . 8 , eyvu) [Moses] 6rj OTb dvayxabOTaTov eaTbV ev T O C S o5ab T 6 uev

elvab 6paoTnpbov abTbov, T O 6 e ia§r|Tov ( c f . a l s o Cher.77, Pet. 161, Spec.3.180,

QG 3.3. (EES 1.180) e t c . ) . There i s disagreement between the t r a n s l a t o r s of

80 ANALYSIS

t h i s passage on whether atxtov should be understood with TO Tiadnxov (Arnaldez

FE 1.147, c f . Weiss 42, F r i i c h t e l 12) or that T O nadrixov stands on i t s own and
means 'passive o b j e c t ' (J.Cohn GT 1.29, Whitaker EE 1.11). The l a t t e r view i s
c e r t a i n l y c o r r e c t , f o r , as we s h a l l see below i n our d i s c u s s i o n of Fug.8-13,
P h i l o denies any c a u s a l i t y to passive and formless matter ( c f . a l s o Fug.133).
Opif.8-9 a l s o shows that f o r P h i l o there i s a strong o p p o s i t i o n between the
a c t i v e cause (vous) and the passive object (uAn), not a complementarity as i n
the Stoa; see f u r t h e r below I I 3.2.1.

3. God as cause never ceases to be a c t i v e (Cher.87). It i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

("6tov) of God to a c t , j u s t as i t i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of that which has come

i n t o being to undergo a c t i o n (Cher.77). The n o t i o n of God as ever a c t i v e and

pure evepYeta i s once again Aristotelian.

The text i n P h i l o which most c l e a r l y a l l u d e s to Tim.28a4-6, Fug.12, i s

p a r t of a most i n t e r e s t i n g passage. The s t a r t i n g point of P h i l o ' s exegesis i s
the B i b l i c a l theme of f l i g h t undertaken on account of hatred (Fug.7, c i t i n g
Gen.31:19-21). In order to e x p l a i n the reason f o r the hatred the i n t e r p r e t e r
takes recourse to p h i l o s o p h i c a l a l l e g o r y , as i s p a r t i c u l a r l y suggested by the
text Gen.30:42, i n which Laban i s assigned the unmarked sheep ( d o n y a ) , Jacob
the marked (eituanua) . The n o t i o n of 'marking' brings to P h i l o ' s mind the XUTCOS

imagery, which has p h i l o s o p h i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e p a r t i c u l a r l y i n two areas, the

formation of the cosmos and the hsprint of sense-perception and thought upon
the mind. Here he concentrates on the former; i n a p a r a l l e l passage at Her.
180-181 the l a t t e r i s s t r e s s e d (see f u r t h e r below I I 3.4.2.).
The a l l e g o r y makes c l e a r that Laban belongs to the c l a s s who deify (§8
deoitAaoxouvxes) q u a l i t y l e s s , formless and shapeless matter (ououa under the
i n f l u e n c e of the Stoa r e f e r s to uAn, cf.§9 n ditobos uAri, Opif .21 etc.). Jacob,
i n c o n t r a s t , i s a member of the superio r company who d e c l a r e , with Anaxagoras
( c f . Pl.Phd.97c, Diog.Laert.2.6), that vous came and ordered a l l t h i n g s , con-
v e r t i n g them from oxAoHpaxta to uovapxua, from d x a ^ t a to xd£us (the language
of Tim.30a, c f . below I I 3.2.1.). 1
P h i l o thus perceives a B i b l i c a l attack on
that mode of t h i n k i n g which a t t r i b u t e s the form and s t r u c t u r e that i s v i s i b l e
i n the cosmos to m a t e r i a l f o r c e s or chance, and so e f f e c t i v e l y r e j e c t s the doc-
t r i n e that God has designed and created the cosmos and maintains i t s s t r u c t u r e
through h i s p r o v i d e n t i a l care. For t h i s same reason the eunuchs are expelled
from the holy congregation; c f . Spec.1.327-329 (exeg. Deut.23:2). Such a ma-
t e r i a l i s t i c philosophy (best represented i n Greek philosophy by the Epicureans
( c f . Aet.7, Fug.148, Somn.2.283ff.), but a l s o r e l e v a n t to proponents of scep-
t i c i s m ) i s q u i t e a d i s t a n c e f u r t h e r down the highway of impiety than the doc-
t r i n e of the Chaldeans, who at l e a s t recognized causes of order i n the universe
 II 2.2.1 . 81

( i . e . the c e l e s t i a l beings) but f a i l e d to perceive the one true supra-cosmic

Cause ( c f . V i r t . 2 1 2 , Migr.179, Abr.78 e t c . ) .
Jacob's task i s to teach Laban h i s e r r o r , namely that he recognizes no
efficient (6paoxripL0s) cause outside purely m a t e r i a l r e a l i t i e s (§11). F o r ,
a f f i r m s P h i l o dogmatically, the cosmos has come i n t o being and has assuredly
done so through the agency of some cause (§12). The phrase uit'auxuou xtvos

i n d i c a t e s i n the c l e a r e s t f a s h i o n the reference t o Tim.28a4-6, and i s combined

with the a s s e r t i o n , made a few l i n e s f u r t h e r i n 28b, that the cosmos has come
i n t o being (yeyove, cf.28b7). Now there comes an abrupt switch f o r which the
reader i s perhaps unprepared. P h i l o turns t o the Logos of the c r e a t o r ( T O U
TtououvTos, p i c k i n g up auxuou), who i s equated with the s e a l (ocppayts) by which
each part of the cosmos r e c e i v e s i t s xeXeuov eZ&og and i s p e r f e c t from the be-
ginning because i t i s the exyayeCov xau euxwv o f the p e r f e c t Logos (§12). The
switch t o the Logos i s only comprehensible i n the l i g h t of P h i l o ' s d e t a i l e d
e x p o s i t i o n at Opif.16-25 and e s p e c i a l l y the a s s e r t i o n that the xoayos V O H T O S

i s nothing e l s e than the $eou Aoyos f|6ri xoayoTtoi-ouvxos. The cosmos only pos-
sesses i t s r a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e because i t i s the image of the n o e t i c plan for-
med by the c r e a t o r ( i . e . the e f f i c i e n t cause) as h i s Logos before commencing
the c r e a t i v e a c t . Form i s the r e s u l t of and inseparabl y connected with c r e a -
tive activity. Laban i n h i s f o l l y recognizes n e i t h e r the Cause, nor h i s Logos,
nor the archetypa l n o e t i c p l a n , nor the form present i n the cosmos.

The term eZdog i n §12 i s at f i r s t p u z z l i n g . I t must be agreed with T h e i l e r

Vorbereitung 29 that i t i s used here i n the t e c h n i c a l Middle P l a t o n i s t meaning
of immanent form, separate from the Logos or a c p p a y t s as transcendent form ( c f .
Seneca Ep.58.20, Alb.Did.4.7,10.7). (On P h i l o ' s v a r i e d usage of the term eldog
see Nikiprowetzky's a n a l y s i s at REJ 124(1965)283-288; u n f o r t u n a t e l y our pas-
sage i s omitted.) Confirmation i s found i n the i l l u s t r a t i o n given i n §13,
where the y e v o y e v o v C $ o v i s described as q u a n t i t a t i v e l y incomplete — i t must
s t i l l grow - but q u a l i t a t i v e l y complete, f o r i t s I O L O X T I S (which determines the
eZdog) has been imprinted on i t from the unchanging Logos. 2

Two other texts are r e l e v a n t to P h i l o ' s use of Tim.28a4-6. In an i n t e r -

e s t i n g but r a r e l y c i t e d passage, QG 4.87, P h i l o gives an exegesis of Abraham's
double i n v o c a t i o n i n Gen.24:3. He concludes from the B i b l i c a l tex t that the
heavenly beings recognize God as both c r e a t o r ( § e o s ) and r u l e r (xuptos), 'while
we earthborn and c o r r u p t i b l e creatures cannot deny God ( § e o s ) , f o r he who comes
to create i s n e c e s s a r i l y imagined as the e f f i c i e n t cause, but we s t i l l do not
acknowledge h i s kingship and government...' As a p r o o f - t e x t Ex.5:2 i s added
( c f . Ebr.19). Pharaoh recognizes God 'because of n a t u r a l n e c e s s i t y , i n so f a r
as he perceives and admits that he was made by the Creator, but he denies that
he knows the Lord...' The phrase 'he who comes t o c r e a t e ' repeats the Anaxa-
gorean dicf|im employed i n Fug.10, while the words ' n e c e s s a r i l y ' and 'because
of n a t u r a l n e c e s s i t y ' r e c o l l e c t P l a t o ' s e£ otvayxns i n 28a4-5 and show that the
82 ANALYSIS

r e c o g n i t i o n of the e f f i c i e n t cause i s based at l e a s t p a r t l y on Tim.28a.

In a s i m i l a r way P h i l o attempts at Prov.1.12 to prove the e x i s t e n c e of
d i v i n e Providence. The t r a n s i t i o n from non-being to being cannot be explained
unless some cause ( i . e . atxuov xu) i s recognized, through which the change
takes p l a c e . Those things which have now come i n t o being have always had a
c r e a t o r , f o r the f i r s t e f f i c i e n t cause i s (by d e f i n i t i o n ) not created by some-
thing else. The argument, based on the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of an i n f i n i t e regres-
s i o n , i s w e l l p a r a l l e l e d i n an argument f o r the existence of God at Sex.Emp.
Adv.Math.9.75. The same argument can e a s i l y be read int o Tim.28a, but the Ar-
menian t r a n s m i s s i o n prevents us from determining a d e f i n i t e a l l u s i o n to that
text (Weitenberg). Prov.I i s d i r e c t e d against s c e p t i c s with the kind of t h i n -
k i n g represented by Laban. In the f o r e f r o n t of t h e i r ranks i s P h i l o ' s nephew
Alexander ( c f . Prov.2.45-46).

2.2.2. God a s ' d e m i u r g e ' , 'maker a n d f a t h e r ' (28b,c)

P l a t o was not the f i r s t Greek philosopher to describ e yeveaus i n terms of

a craftsman-creato r ( c f . Solmsen JHI 24(1963)474,480). His e x p l o i t a t i o n of
the conception i n the Timaeus was so o r i g i n a l and so thorough, however, that
i t was t h e r e a f t e r always a s s o c i a t e d with him and h i s cosmogonic account. Par-
t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g was h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of the c r e a t o r god as o 6nytoupYOS,
q u i e t l y introduced i n 28a6. There can be no doubt that i n P h i l o ' s time any
i n t e l l e c t u a l who came across the d e s c r i p t i o n of God as the demiurge would im-
mediately t h i n k of the Timaeus (one might hope that even today t h i s i s s t i l l
the case). P h i l o himself uses the term 6nytoupYos more than any other to des-
c r i b e God's c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y ; extensive l i s t s of references are given at L e i -
segang 176, Mayer 72. The repeated use of the term i s an unambiguous r e c o g n i -
t i o n of h i s debt to the d e p i c t i o n of the creator-god i n the Timaeus.

But the e p i t h e t 6riutoupYOS i s not given e x c l u s i v e r i g h t s . Philo also

uses other words to d e s c r i b e God's r o l e as demiurgic c r e a t o r , as can be seen
i n the f o l l o w i n g list:
xexvtxns: the most common a l t e r n a t i v e f o r 6 n y t o u p Y O s ; c f . Leisegang 776, Mayer
277. I t i s not found i n the Timaeus (but c f . the s t r e s s on d i v i n e x e x v n at
Laws 8 8 8 e f f . ) . I t s p o p u l a r i t y i s due to the i n f l u e n c e of the Stoa ( c f . Weiss
52-54).
T t A a o x r i s : suggested by Gen.2:7, but P h i l o uses i t only once, at Conf. 194, where
i t i s used of the f a s h i o n i n g of the parts of the soul and equated with x e x v t -
xns. The verb T i A o t x x e t v i s a l s o used only f o r the forming of man (Weiss 50).
But note the compound words H o a u o i t A d a x r i S (Plant .3, Congr .48, c f . Migr.6, Her.
166), $ e o T t A a a x r i S (Aet. 15, on which see above I I 2.1.3.); both are found only
i n P h i l o , and were doubtless coined by him.
1
^;
K x t o x r i S : t h i s word too has Pentateuchal backing ( c f . H T L C O J i n Deut.32:6 etc.)
though i t i s not used i n the account o f c r e a t i o n i n Gen.1-3. Much has been
 II 2.2.2. 83

w r i t t e n on the contrast made between d n u t o u p y o s and K T L O T F I S a t Somn.1.76. I t

i s to be agreed with Wolfson 1.301-302 and Weiss 55-58 that c r e a t i o ex n i h i l o
need not be i n f e r r e d . The word i s used of God r e l a t i v e l y i n f r e q u e n t l y , namely
6 times (Leisegang 476).
TCOurjTris :o n
t h i s P l a t o n i c e p i t h e t see below.
The word 6nuuoupYos i t s e l f means a 'craftsman' or 'manual worker'. That
the c r e a t o r s h i p of the cosmos should be r e l a t e d t o such a humble occupation
has o f t e n s u r p r i s e d commentators. B r i s s o n 29-31 points out that the c r a f t s -
man belongs t o the t h i r d and lowest c l a s s o f the i d e a l P l a t o n i c s t a t e . 2
Philo,
s e n s i t i v e t o t h i s problem, promotes him t o an a r c h i t e c t i n h i s explanation of
c r e a t i o n at Opif.16-18 (see below I I 3.4.3.). I suspect that dnutoupYOS i s
for him p r i m a r i l y a p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y respectabl e e p i t h e t f o r the c r e a t o r . It
suggests the process of making a product out of an unformed m a t e r i a l ready to
hand, but we are not immediately supposed to t h i n k of an u n s o p h i s t i c a t e d pot-
ter or brickmaker.
The word i s wholly devoid of a Pentateuchal background, and i s a l s o not found
i n the remaining books of the LXX (except a few t r i v i a l cases i n l a t e works
h e a v i l y i n f l u e n c e d by Hellenism, 2 & 4 Mace, and Sap.Sal.). Nevertheless, as
we s h a l l see below i n I I 3.4.4., P h i l o l o c a t e s the prototype of the demiurgic
workman i n B e z a l e l , whom the LXX describes as engaged i n the a c t i v i t i e s of
dpxLTGKToveCv, TioteCv, Xb%ovpyf\oab, naTepyoL€,eo%ab (Ex.35:32-33) . On P h i l o ' s
d e p i c t i o n of God as 6 r ] y L O U P Y O S see the sound d i s c u s s i o n at Weiss 44-52. On
the word i n Greek, Jewish and P a t r i s t i c thought see W.Theiler, Art.'Demiourgos'
RAC 3.694-711. Both give p a r a l l e l s i n Middle P l a t o n i c authors, e.g. Plut.Mor.
1014B, Alb.Did.12.1 e t c .

A few l i n e s f u r t h e r at Tim.28c3 the c r e a t o r god i s given another famous

description. He i s c a l l e d the 'maker and f a t h e r ' of t h i s u n i v e r s e. This spe-
cifically P l a t o n i c phrase a l s o occurs f r e q u e n t l y i n Philo's writings. I have
located no l e s s than 41 instances (the l i s t at B i l l i n g s 19n.6 i s very i n a c c u-
rate and incomplete):

(a) i n the P l a t o n i c order uounTris xau itaxrip: Opif.7, Post. 175, Conf. 144,170,
Her.98,236, Fug.177, Abr.58, Decal.105, Spec.1.34, 2.6, 3.199, 4.180, V i r t . 3 4 ,
> > Legat.293, Prov.2.62,72, QG 2.34 (Gr. text at FE 33.107), QE 2.33 (EES
6 4 7 7

2.75) - i n a l l 21 cases;
(b) i n the reverse order Tcaxnp nai ïïouriTns: Opif. 10,21, Her. 200, Fug. 84, Abr.
9, Mos.1.158, 2.48,256, Decal.51, Spec.2.256, 3.178,189, Praem.24,32, Contempl
90, Aet.15, Legat.115, QG 1.58, 4.130, fr.10 (Gr. text FE 33.223) - i n a l l 20
cases.
If there should be any doubt regarding P h i l o ' s awareness of the P l a t o n i c pro-
venance, i t i s proven by a t l e a s t two passages: Opif.21, where he c o n f l a t e s
Tim.28c3 and 29e1 and a t t r i b u t e s i t t o TÛJV âpxatojv T L S ( c f . Boyancé REG 76
(1963)106 and f u r t h e r below I I 3.1.1.); Aet.15, where i t i s i n c l u d e d i n the
b r i e f Timaeus compendium (see above I I 2.1.3.).

A d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of P h i l o ' s use of the phrase i n a l l the passages we

have l i s t e d would be tedious and u n p r o f i t a b l e . Aside from the philosophical
views read i n t o i t , the most i n t e r e s t i n g aspect i s that the phrase appears to
84 ANALYSIS

have f o r P h i l o the connotation of a public r e c o g n i t i o n of God s c r e a t o r s h i p of

!

the cosmos, presumably because i t comes from such an a u t h o r i t a t i v e source.

Two examples show t h i s c l e a r l y : (1) use of the phrase as the climax i n the i n -
v o c a t i o n of the cosmological argument, i n which God's existence i s demonstra-
ted from h i s works, c f . Spec.1.34, 3.189, QG 2.34 (see below I I 7.2.3.); (2)
i t s use i n a p o l o g e t i c passages on behalf of the Jewish race, which i s p o r t r a y -
ed as having a s p e c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p to the U n i v e r s a l God, c f . Spec.4.180, V i r t .
34,64, Legat.115.

That the p h i l o s o p h i c a l i n t e n t i o n of t h i s double d e s c r i p t i o n was a burning

i n t e r p r e t a t i v e issue i n Middle Platonism i s shown by P l u t a r c h , who devotes one
of h i s IIAaxa>vuxd Cnxripaxa to the question why P l a t o describes the highest god
(xov dvooxdxoo deov) as itaxepa xwv Ttdvxwv nai notriTriv (1000F-1001C; note the i n -
v e r s i o n of P l a t o n i c order, o c c u r r i n g a l s o at Mor.718C). The P l a t o n i s t gives
three suggestions i n response. (1) God i s f a t h e r of the gods and man, maker
of i r r a t i o n a l beings and inanimate t h i n g s . (2) God i s c a l l e d f a t h e r i n the
metaphorical sense, j u s t as one can be the f a t h e r of a l i t e r a r y work. (3)
P l a t o d i s t i n g u i s h e s between coming i n t o being (yeveous) and b i r t h (yevvnaos).

In the l a t t e r process God donates a part of h i s own self. The cosmos i s a

l i v i n g being and God is i t s father. 3

The d i s t i n c t i o n between the technological and the b i o l o g i c a l metaphor,

which provides the main i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t h r u s t i n P l u t a r c h 's solution, is clear-
l y recognized by P h i l o , as can be seen i n h i s e x p l i c a t i o n of P l a t o ' s phrase i n
Opif.10, Aet.15:
Opif.10 ( g i v i n g background comments on the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l account):
xou pev ydp yeyovoxos eTtupeAeCodau xov Ttaxepa nai Ttounxfiv aupeu Aoyog*
xal ydp Ttaxfip exyovGov nai 6npuoupyog XOJV 6riPioupyn$evTa)v axoxdcexat xns
6uauovfis • • •
Aet.15 (with d i r e c t r e f e r e n ce to the Timaeus): . . . O X L 6ud itavxos xou auy-
y p a p p a x o s Ttaxepa pev nai T t o i n x f i v HOLL 6npuoupyov xov deoitAdaxnv exefvov
xaAet, epyov 6e xau eyyovov xouxovl xov xoapov...

In another i n t e r e s t i n g example of the d i s t i n c t i o n the language adheres l e s s

c l o s e l y to the P l a t o n i c account:
Spec.1.41 (Moses addressing God, c f . Ex.33:13): x o u p e v eZvai oe nai ui-
apxetv 6 t 6 d a x a A o s x a t u q j n y r i x r i s p o u y e y o v e v o6e o x o a p o s , nai d)g u t o s dva-
6u6d£as pe Tiepu xou laxpos nai ws epyov lepu xou xexvoxou. . .

P h i l o ' s use of these two metaphors i n d e s c r i b i n g the process of c r e a t i o n (ac-

cording to Moses) i s a theme which must be c a r e f u l l y watched as our Commentary
proceeds. Other d e s c r i p t i v e e p i t h e t s i n P h i l o f o r God the c r e a t o r which de-
note the b i o l o g i c a l metaphor and have a P l a t o n i c background are yevvrixns (Aet.
1, Praem.46 e t c . , c f .41a5,68e4), cpuxoupyos (on which see below I I 3.4.1.).
What are the B i b l i c a l precedents f o r P h i l o ' s adoption of the P l a t o n i c
phrase? The word lotnxris does not occur i n the LXX, but Moses' d e s c r i p t i o n of
God's a c t i v i t y by means of the verb TtoueCv throughout Gen. 1-3 provides Philo
 II 2.2.2. 85

with a f u l l j u s t i f i c a t i o n . The n o t i o n of God's f a t h e r s h i p i s a l s o prominent

i n the Old Testament, though not as common i n the Pentateuch as one might ex-
pect. By means of a l l e g o r y P h i l o can d e r i v e God's c r e a t o r s h i p as f a t h e r from
unpromising m a t e r i a l , e.g. from Deut.21:18-21 at Ebr.30,42. A more s u i t a b l e
text i s Deut.32:6, oux auxog ouxos oou Ttaxfip exxnaaxo ae xat eTtounaev ae nau

exxuaev ae;. In Conf.144-145 these words are brought i n r e l a t i o n to the P l a -

t o n i c phrase Ttounxris nal Ttaxrip.

But what does God as Tiaxnp mean to P h i l o ? Volker (58) claims in this
context:

...und wenn er auch h a u f i g d i e p l a t o n i s c h e Formel vom Ttoonxris nai Ttaxrip

r e p r o d u z i e r t , so hat f u r ihn doch gerade dieses Wort Ttaxrip einen ganz
bestimmten Klang: T O Ttepas ou6ev f] e u a p e a x e u v xop dec3 xa$dtep uilous l a x p u
(Praem.167).
This remark i s one-sided and tendentious. Readily i t must be granted that
f o r P h i l o God's f a t h e r s h i p i s not l i m i t e d to what P l a t o intends i n the Timaeus
( c f . B i l l i n g s 22-23). Indeed one recognizes a fundamental b i v a l e n c e . God as
Ttaxrip on numerous occasions denotes the H e l l e n i c idea of o n t o l o g i c a l and crea-
t i v e source. No l e s s f r e q u e n t l y and no l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t l y , i t represents the
r e l a t i o n between f a t h e r and son, gracious f o r e b e a r i n g parent and wilful strug-
g l i n g o f f s p r i n g , i n which the B i b l i c a l background i s c l e a r l y resonant ( c f . Ps.
102:13, Prov.3:12 e t c . ) . To s t r e s s one aspect to the e x c l u s i o n of the other
i s to do v i o l e n c e to the r i c h n e s s of P h i l o ' s thought. Rather we should ob-
serve that i n the a s s o c i a t i o n of God's f a t h e r s h i p with the d o c t r i n e of d i v i n e
Providence the two s t r a i n s of thought merge together i n a manner which i s cha-
racteristically Philonic. A p a r t i c u l a r l y f i n e example of t h i s convergence i s
found at Prov.2.15 (where the a l l u s i o n to the Homeric Ttaxfip av6poov x e 3ewv x e
(II.1.544 etc.) i s bowdlerized away by Eusebius, but preserved i n the Armenian;
note that P l u t a r c h r e f e r s to the same phrase i n h i s e x p o s i t i o n of Tim.28c3
(Mor.1000F)!).

2.2.3. A celebrated text little used? (28c)

P l a t o ' s text on the d i f f i c u l t y of f i n d i n g God and t a l k i n g to others about

him (Tim.28c3-5) was one of the most widely used, indeed i n Chadwick's phrase
(Origen Contra Celsum 429n.1), 'perhaps the most hackneyed q u o t a t i o n ' drawn
from P l a t o ' s works i n the w r i t i n g s of the P l a t o n i c t r a d i t i o n and the C h r i s t i a n
apologists. The quotation was used i n d i v e r s e contexts and f o r d i v e r s e pur-
poses, of which the f o l l o w i n g are the most important:
(1) In support of a negative theology, which a f f i r m s that God i s unknowable,
o r , i f perhaps x a x a X n T t x o s f o r a few, c e r t a i n l y i n d e s c r i b a b l e ; e.g. Cic.DND
1.30, Corp.Herm.fr.1.1.
86 ANALYSIS

(2) In support of the c o n t e n t i o n (adhering c l o s e r to the text) that God s 1

transcendence makes the task of d i s c o v e r i n g him very d i f f i c u l t ; e.g. Apul.De

Plat.191, Celsus ap. Or.c.Cels.7.42-43.
(3) In support of the arcanum, i . e . that God s nature must not be revealed to
1

those not q u a l i f i e d to r e c e i v e i t ; e.g. Jos.c.Ap.2.224, Apul.Apol.64.8, CI.

Alex.Str.5.78 (drawing f u r t h e r support from Ex.20:21!).
(4) In support of the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t , s i n c e P l a t o declares the demiurge not
impossible to f i n d , he cannot be speaking of the h i g h e s t , supremely transcen-
dent God; e.g. Num.fr.17, P l o t , ap. P r o c l . i n Tim.1.305.25.
(5) As an a p o l o g e t i c device to show that the Greeks were not wholly ignorant
of the one true God; e.g. J u s t i n Apol.2.10.6, Athenagoras Apol.6, Min.Fel.0c_t.
19.14.
On the use of t h i s text and the a s s o c i a t e d question of God's transcendence and
unknowability c f . J.Geffcken, Zwei g r i e c h i s c h e n Apologeten ( L e i p z i g 1907) 174—
175, Wolfson 2.73,110-126,158-160, Festugière Révélation 4.92-140 (esp.94),
A.D.Nock, 'The exegesis of Timaeus 28C' VChr 16(1962)79-86. Wolfson's c l a i m
that P h i l o , i n s p i r e d by a number of Pentateuchal t e x t s , was the f i r s t p h i l o s o -
pher to extend P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e of God's i n c o r p o r e a l i t y and s i m p l i c i t y to that
of h i s unnameability and unknowability, and that he was t h e r e f o r e r e s p o n s i b l e
f o r a c r u c i a l i n n o v a t i o n i n the h i s t o r y of philosophy has been unanimously r e -
j e c t e d by s c h o l a r s , on the b a s i s of texts such as the above-cited Cic.DND 1.30
and P h i l o ' s own text Somn.1.184 ( c f . Festugière op.cit.307, Boyancé RPh 29
(1955)185-188, R.Mortley, Connaissance r e l i g i e u s e et herméneutique chez Clé-
ment d'Alexandrie (Leiden 1973) 5-11).

Given P h i l o ' s extensive preoccupation with the question of whether man

can gain knowledge of God, i t would be a p r i o r i most s u r p r i s i n g i f he wholly
neglected P l a t o ' s famous comment. Yet there are c e r t a i n l y no overt references
to the t e x t i n P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s . Wolfson 2.73 saw an a l l u s i o n at Post.167,
and A.Wlozok, Laktanz und d i e p h i l o s o p h i s c h e Gnosis (Heidelberg 1960) 254 ( c i -
ted by Nock a r t . c i t . 8 2 , who concurs), another at Abr.57-59, but n e i t h e r sug-
gestion i s convincing. More persuasive i s the view of F r i i c h t e l 156, who sees
an 'exegesis of Tim. 28c' at S p e d . 3 2 f f } P h i l o here declares that the itaxnp
nat r)Y£lJWV xwv auuitavxoov i s o u a x o n a a x o s x a l ouaxaxaAnTixos, but that does not
mean that the search f o r him should be abandoned (§32). There are two ques-
t i o n s i n v o l v e d , concerning God's existence (uixapCus) and concerning h i s essen-
ce (oùaua). The former o f f e r s no t r o u b l e , the l a t t e r i s not only xaÀeitov ( c f .
28c4 êpyov, xaXenov at 48c5,49a3, a l s o i n a paraphrase of 28c3-5 at Corp.Herm.
fr.1.1) but perhaps àôûvaxov (cf.28c5, though d i f f e r e n t l y used). After a brief
s e c t i o n which uses the cosmological argument to demonstrate God's existence
(§33-35), P h i l o returns at §36 to the question of God's essence. Even i f the
subject i s ôuodripaxov naù ôuaxaxàÀriitxov, even i f the d i s c o v e r y ( e u p e a u s , c f .
28c4 eûpeuv...eupovxa!) of the true God escapes human powers, nevertheless the
undertaking i s w e l l rewarded. Witness to t h i s are those who have feasted on
the doctrines of philosophy (§37), and above a l l Moses, as seen p a r t i c u l a r l y
i n h i s experience on the mountain recorded i n Ex.33:13-23)(§41-50).

P l a t o ' s i n c l u s i o n among these blessed banqueteers i s not e x p l i c i t l y sta-

ted — as so o f t e n P h i l o i s not very s p e c i f i c - but c e r t a i n l y i t i s probable
 II 2.2.3. 87

that h i s c e l e b r a t e d statement i s a t the back of P h i l o s mind i n t h i s passage.

f

There are a l s o q u i t e a number o f p a r a l l e l passages, mostly v a r i a t i o n s on the

same theme, almost a l l u t i l i z i n g the d i s t i n c t i o n between existence and essence
and c o n t a i n i n g exegesis of the t e x t Ex.33:13-23 ( a l s o Ex.20:21); c f . Post.13-
16,167-169, Migr.195, Fug.164-165, Mut.7-15, V i r t . 2 1 5 , Praem.36-46, QG 4.8,
QE f r . 3 (FE 33.282). I t would be going too f a r to say that an a l l u s i o n t o Tim.
28c l u r ks i n a l l these passages. The reader must be struck, however, by the
frequency with which P h i l o uses a d j e c t i v e s c o n t a i n i n g the p r e f i x 6uo- to des-
c r i b e the nature of the quest f o r knowledge of God - 6uaxo7taaxos, 6uaMaxdAnTC-
x o s , 6ua$r)paxos, 6uaitepbvor|Xos, 6uaopaxos, 6uadAwxos, 6uaxeKuapxos (references
at Mayer 84-85). Should i t not be concluded that t h i s group of a d j e c t i v e s
conveys f o r P h i l o the u s e f u l k e r n e l of Plato's c r y p t i c remark? t

But i s i t merely a coincidence that P h i l o does not put P l a t o ' s text to

more emphatic and e x p l i c i t use? I b e l i e v e that i t i s not. The reason f o r the
r e l a t i v e neglect i s that the t e x t i s located p r e c i s e l y midway between the two
poles of P h i l o ' s t h i n k i n g on the subject, which i s focussed on the admittedly
common ( c f . F e s t u g i e r e 4.6-17) but e f f i c a c i o u s d i s t i n c t i o n between God's e x i s -
tence and essence. The former i s evident, the l a t t e r incomprehensible, n e i -
ther of which i s unambiguously conveyed by P l a t o ' s remark (thus Spec.1.36 xdv
f| e u p e o t s auxou 6uacpeUYrj 6uvauuv a v ^ p w i u v r i v implies a c o r r e c t i o n o f P l a t o ,
probably c o n s c i o u s ) . I t s import would be more appropriate f o r the doctrine
of God's powers, a mystery d i f f i c u l t to expound ( c f . Cher.27). Philo i s i n
f a c t c o n s t r a i n e d , as were the f o l l o w e r s of P l a t o , to r e f l e c t on the relation
between the demiurgic c r e a t o r o f the Timaeus and God as wholly transcendent
Being. It was t h i s problem, to which we s h a l l r e t u r n on more than one occa-
s i o n , that l e d Numenius to h i s s u r p r i s i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Tim.28c (see
above and I I 2.2.2.n.3).

2.3. The m o d e l i s i n t r o d u c e d (Tim.28a-b,28c-29b)

2.3.1. The m o d e l m u s t be KaA6v ( 2 9 a )

P l a t o ' s t h i r d fundamental p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e i s that the craftsman,

i n making h i s product, must look to a model (7iapd6ebYua) , and that when he
looks to an e t e r n a l and unchanging model the product w i l l be xaAov, when t o a
model l o c a t ed i n the realm o f becoming ou xaAov (28a6-b2). There can be no
doubt to which of the two the demiurge looked i n c r e a t i n g the cosmos. Since he
i s the dpuoxos xwv atxuwv and the cosmos the KOtAAtoxos TWV Y E Y O V O X W V , he must
have used the model which i s e t e r n a l , always i n the same s t a t e and comprehen-
88 ANALYSIS

s i b l e by understanding and r a t i o n a l discourse (28c5-29b1). Philo coalesces

these two t e x t s when he commences h i s exegesis of day one f 1

i n Moses' c r e a t i o n

account ( Q p i f . 1 6 ):

TipoXa^wv yap b %ebg axe %eo£ O I L utunua naAov oux av itoxe yevobTO 6 t x a
xaAou 7 t a p a 6 e b Y u a T o s oi)6e x i xwv aua^riTwv avunauxtov, b yn ipos apxexunov
xat vonxfiv u 6 e a v aiieuxovua^ri. . .

Leaving aside c e r t a i n t e r m i n o l o g i c a l innovations (already observed above i n I I

2.1.3.), i t must be s a i d that the i n t e n t i o n s of P l a t o ' s p r i n c i p l e i s w e l l

brought out i n the P h i l o n i c rendering . The d i f f e r e n c e between the two lies in

the r e l a t i o n between the demiurge and the model. Both P l a t o and P h i l o agree

that the c o r r e l a t i o n between a good model and a good copy i s a s e l f - e v i d e n t

dialectical principle. But P l a t o presents the p r i n c i p l e as being wholly ab-

s t r a c t , and uses i t to deduce the nature of the model, which i s presumed a l -

ready to e x i s t . P h i l o , i n c o n t r a s t , considers the p r i n c i p l e a r e f l e c t i o n on

the p a r t of God the demiurgic c r e a t o r ( i p o A a g w v . . . O X L . . . ) , which leads to the

'formation' of the n o e t i c world. This d i f f e r e n c e i s i n t i m a t e l y connected with

the d o c t r i n e that the ideas are God's thoughts, a theme to which we shall re-

t u r n when P h i l o ' s use of the model i s more f u l l y discussed below at I I 3.4.1-4.

As Wolfson 1.181 p o i n t s out, P h i l o i s not unaware that the P l a t o n i c ,para-

deigma r e l a t i o n can c l a i m B i b l i c a l support. The word Ttapa6euYya occurs i n the

Pentateuch once only, at Ex.25:9 (cf.27:8, Num.8:4), where Moses i s describe d

as r e c e i v i n g the p a t t e r n of the tabernacl e and i t s contents before they are

a c t u a l l y made by the craftsman B e z a l e l . In the passages Leg.3.95-102 and QE

2.52 P h i l o i n d i c a t e s the important connection which he p e r c e i v e s between t h i s

t e x t and a c o r r e c t understanding of the c r e a t i o n a l process.

At the same time i t should not be overlooked that P h i l o f r e q u e n t l y uses the

r e l a t i o n between exemplar and copy i n a loose i m a g i s t i c sense, and not i n the
t e c h n i c a l p h i l o s o p h i c a l meaning intended by P l a t o . Thus the v e r n a l equinox i s
an image and copy of c r e a t i o n (Spec.2.151), the f i g u r e of Moses a p a t t e r n to
those w i s h i ng to copy him (Mos.1.158), and so on. See f u r t h e r the remarks at
B i l l i n g s 98-99.

2.3.2. 'Best o f c a u s e s , most b e a u t i f u l of created things' (29a)

Though l a r g e p a r t s of the Timaeus are concerned with i n t r i c a t e p o i n t s of

p h i l o s o p h i c a l and s c i e n t i f i c d e t a i l , P l a t o remains ever m i n d f u l of the gran-

deur of h i s s u b j e c t . O c c a s i o n a l l y he breaks out i n t o the exuberant language

that h i s theme might warrant, using a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c phraseology ( c h i e f l y com-

p r i s i n g a number of encomiastic s u p e r l a t i v e s ) which can be c o n v e n i e n t ly label-

l e d as a language of excellence. It i s f i r s t intimated at 29a5-6, where the

cosmos and the demiurge are described as o yev yap xaAAtaxos xfiv yeyovoxwv, o

6'apiaxos xffiv atxuwv. At 30a6-7 P l a t o a f f i r m s that deyts 6'oux'?iv oux'eoxov

 II 2.3.2. 89

TO) apuaxtp 6pav aAAo itAfjv T O KaAAuaxov. The result i s that the demiurge compo-
ses the universe oitws oxu KaAAuaxov eun x a x d cpuauv a p t a x o v xe epyov onteupyaa-
y e v o s (30b5-6). Further on i n the d i s c o u r s e , at 68e2-4, we encounter o xou
KaAAuaxou xe nai a p t a x o u 6 n y t o u p y o s • • • nvuna xov auxdpHri xe nai xov xeAecoxaxov
deov e y e v v a . . . The climax i s found i n the concluding l i n e s of the work (92c7-
9). This cosmos i s etKwv xou vonxo u %ebg a t a ^ n x o s , yeyuaxos nat apuaxos xdA-
Auaxos xe nau xeAeooxaxos y e y o v e v eus oupavog o6e yovoyevfis wv.
The i n f l u e n c e of these passages on P h i l o s thought and T
phraseology i s
q u i t e out of p r o p o r t i o n to the r e l a t i v e infrequency of t h e i r occurrence i n the
Timaeus. We commence with the two passages where P l a t o ' s words at 29a5-6 are
e x p l i c i t l y quoted.

Plant.131. The lengthy pericope, of which the P l a t o n i c c i t a t i o n forms a

small p a r t , i s set i n motion by the quotation of Lev.19:23-25 at Plant.95
( p a r t l y repeated at §117), where P h i l o commences an exegesis of the text !
in
the f o u r t h year a l l i t s f r u i t s h a l l be holy f o r g i v i n g p r a i s e to the Lord (ai-
v e x o s x(j) nvpiq v.24). P r e d i c t a b l y these f i n a l words induce a m e d i t a t i o n , com-
mencing at §126, on the theme of p r a i s e and thanksgiving . Contrary to h i s
usual methods, P h i l o here recounts a itaAauog Aoyos (resembling a myth), which
he thinks w i l l i l l u s t r a t e h i s theme w e l l . 1
When the c r e a t o r had brought the
c r e a t i o n of the e n t i r e cosmos to completion, he asked one of h i s subordinates
whether anything was still lacking. The r e p l y was that every p a r t was com-
p l e t e , except the Aoyos r e q u i r e d to s i n g the cosmos' p r a i s e s . God was pleased
with the r e p l y , and soon there appeared the Ttayyouaov nai uyvtp66v y e v o s sprung
9

from one of h i s powers, Memory (or Mnemosyne)(§127-129). The moral of the

s t o r y , P h i l o continues, i s that i t i s God's task to confer b e n e f i t s (euepye-
x e u v ) , while our only response can be to give thanks. This we must do by eve-
ry l i t e r a r y means at our d i s p o s a l , i n both poetry and prose, so that the crea-
t o r and the cosmos be given high honour, o y e v , ecpn x u s 9 dpuaxos xwv auxtwv,
o 6e x e A e u o x a x o s T W V yeyovoxwv (§130-131).
The c i t a t i o n of Tim.29a5-6 serves as the climax of P h i l o ' s b r i e f a p p l i c a t i o n
of the icaAauos Aoyos to the theme of p r a i s e and thanksgiving; the long sen-
tence i n §131 i s d r a f t e d i n such a way that P l a t o ' s words can be i n t e g r a t e d
i n t o i t s s t r u c t u r e with a minimum of adjustment. The author's name remains
anonymous ( c f . f u r t h e r P l a t o n i c anonymity at Opif.21, Her.181, Fug.63,82),
presumably because i t i s not r e l e v a n t to the e x e g e t i c a l task at hand. As
P o u i l l o u x (FE 10.83) r i g h t l y remarks, P h i l o i s r e l y i n g on h i s memory, so that
x a A A t a x o s i n the P l a t o n i c t e x t has been replaced by x e A e u o x a x o s , doubtless
under the i n f l u e n c e of 68e3,92c8. Moreover the order of the phrases has been
reversed so that they can f i t i n t o the s t r u c t u r e of the sentence b e t t e r , i t
being more reverent to mention the c r e a t o r before h i s product. Given these
divergences i t i s b e t t e r not to place the whole phrase i n quotation marks (as
done by C-W 2.159, Colson EE 3.278), even though i t c l e a r l y i s meant as a quo-
tation.

QG 1.6. In t h i s passage the context i s at f i r s t sight quite different.

90 ANALYSIS

P h i l o asks, w i t h regard to Gen.2:8, Why i s God

f
s a i d to have 'planted Paradise 1

and f o r whom, and what i s P a r a d i s e ? . 1

Symbolically Paradise represents wisdom

or knowledge of things d i v i n e and human and t h e i r causes (a common d e f i n i t i o n

of 0O(pta, c f . Congr.79 and Alexander's note at FE 16.242). I t was fitting
t h a t , a f t e r the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos was completed, the $Cog $eu)pr|xux6$ be
i n s t i t u t e d , f o r without wisdom the c r e a t o r of a l l things could not be praised.
But a f t e r the cosmos wisdom came i n t o being, s i n c e a f t e r the c r e a t i o n of
the cosmos Paradise was made i n the same manner as the poets say the cho-
rus of Muses (was formed), i n order to p r a i s e the c r e a t o r and h i s works,
j u s t as P l a t o s a i d , the c r e a t o r as the greates t and best of causes ( x o v
u e y o o x o v nal d p t a x o v T W V auxuojv) , the cosmos as the most b e a u t i f u l of
created things ( T O V xdAAuaxov xwv y e y o v o x w v ) . ( t r a n s l a t i o n Marcus EES 1.
4-5, modified i n order to correspond more l i t e r a l l y to the Armenian v e r -
s i o n ; r e t r a n s l a t i o n s Weitenberg)

C u r i o u s l y both Marcus (EES 1.5) and Mercier (FE 34A.69) consider that P h i l o i s
a l l u d i n g to Tim.92c, but i t i s evident t h a t , as i n the p a r a l l e l passage, he i s
u t i l i z i n g 29a5-6.
Though once again the sequence of the two phrases i s i n v e r t e d , t h i s time ndA-
Auoxos i s not replaced by x e A e u o x a x o s . The small expansion of the phrase d p t -
a x o s X O J V a t x u wv can again be traced to the i n f l u e n c e of 92c7-8, though i t i s
not impossible that the Armenian here uses a doublet.

What i s the r e l a t i o n between these two passages? Though having d i f f e r e n t

e x e g e t i c a l s t a r t i n g p o i n t s , they have more i n common than j u s t the Platonic
c i t a t i o n alone. In QG 1.6 the s t o r y of the b i r t h of the Muses, now presented
i n a very concise form, i s again coupled w i t h the theme of p r a i s e and the same
quote from the Timaeus. There i s c l e a r l y , i n the mind of the exegete, a c l o -
ser r e l a t i o n between the t e x t s Gen.2:8 and Lev.19:24 than might at f i r s t ap-
pear. Both are concerned with the p l a n t i n g of trees ( c f . Gen.2:8 ecpuxeuaev,
Lev.19:24 Kaxacpuxeuaexe), and t h i s has consequences f o r t h e i r a l l e g o r i c a l mea-
ning. The ' f r u i t . . . f o r g i v i n g p r a i s e to the L o r d ' i n Lev.19:24 i s a l l e g o r i -
c a l l y connected with the oocpua or dpexr) symbolized by the pleasaunce planted
i n Eden. Both i n d i c a t e the wisdom or logos given to man to enable him to c a r -
ry out the duty of p r a i s i n g and g i v i n g thanks to the c r e a t o r . 2
In the light of
the thematic and e x e g e t i c a l p a r a l l e l s between Plant.126-131 and QG 1.6, should
we postulate a common source, whether a ' s e c u l a r ' source which combines the
s t o r y of the Muses and P l a t o ' s quote, or an ' e x e g e t i c a l ' source which r e l a t e d
the two themes to the themes of p r a i s e and thanksgiving (as w e l l as of plan-
ting)? Such a hypothesis seems to me by no means compelling. Philo i s just
as l i k e l y g i v i n g here an example of a s e l f - r e m i n i s c e n c e , repeating a happy
combination of themes used p r e v i o u s l y . Such overlap and r e p e t i t i o n occurs
f r e q u e n t l y between the Quaestiones i n Genesim et Exodum and the Allegorical
Commentary.
 II 2.3.2. 91

In the above two passages three r e l a t e d themes of c e n t r a l importance i n

P h i l o s thought can be d i s c e r n e d : admiration
f
of the cosmos and i t s creator,
praise and hymn-singing of the cosmos and i t s c r e a t o r , thanksgiving to God the
c r e a t o r by man (and a l s o by the cosmos, c f . Mos.2.191). Compare the following
l i s t of passages, which could e a s i l y be extended: Deus 7, Agr.50-54, Her.110-
111,196-200, Mut.218-223, Mos.2.148,191,239, Spec.1.210-211, V i r t . 7 2 , QG 4.130,
Prov.2.63; c f . a l s o the etymology of the name Judah (references at Earp EE 10.
357), and the e x e g e t i c a l theme of f e a s t i n g at Spec.2.151-156,168,180, Abr.92
etc.
It would be a serious mistake, however, to conclude that P h i l o i s alone
i n reading these themes i n t o the Timaeus. A q u i t e remarkable p a r a l l e l to the
two P h i l o n i c passages discussed above i s found i n P l u t a r c h . 3
In propounding
h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaean cosmogony the P l a t o n i s t a f f i r m s (Mor.1014A-B):
3 e A x t o v ouv IIAdxwvb neu^ouevous xov pev noopov U K O deou y£Yovevau XeyeLV
nai $6euv "6 pev yap xaAAuaxos x65v yeyovoxoov o 6'apuaxos xtov auxuwv"...
The phrase A e y e t v nai $ 6 e t v i s uncannily reminiscent of P h i l o ' s formulatio n in
Plant.131. Having no doubt j u s t consulted the text of the Timaeus f o r h i s
exegesis, P l u t a r c h i s i n a p o s i t i o n to quote P l a t o ' s words at 29a5-6 with com-
p l e t e accuracy. Another P l a t o n i s t , P l o t i n u s , d e s c r i b e s P l a t o as having i n the
Timaeus p r a i s e d the cosmos and c a l l e d i t a 'blessed god'(34b8), who receives
i t s soul from 'the good demiurge'(29a3)(Enn.4.8.1.42-44). The same a t t i t u d e
of admiration f o r the cosmos and i t s source i s affirmed i n h i s own writings,
e.g. at Erm.3.2.3.21ff.(the cosmos' s o l i l o q u y ) , 2.9.9.32ff. (against the Gnos-
tics) . Galen too speaks of a u p v o s aAn^uvos i n honour of the demiurge ( c f . R.
Walzer, Galen on Jews and C h r i s t i a n s (Oxford 1949) 24-25 on UP 3.10 = 1.174.6-
13 Helmreich). The admiring and r e v e r e n t i a l a t t i t u d e towards the cosmos and
the c r e a t i n g d e i t y (or nature) was one of the Timaeus' most i n f l u e n t i a l lega-
c i e s to H e l l e n i s t i c and l a t e r thought, as F e s t u g i e r e amply demonstrated i n h i s
study Le dieu cosmique. But i n P h i l o ' s s t r e s s on the theme of thanksgiving a
more s p e c i f i c s t r a i n of B i b l i c a l and Judaic p i e t y can a l s o be perceive d (e.g.
Ps.145, Sap.Sal.16:28-29 e t c ; c f . Volker 205,332, H a r l FE 15.136, Alexandre FE
16.169), even i f the last-named scholar i s q u i t e c o r r e c t i n p o i n t i n g out that
the i n t e r i o r i z e d a t t i t u d e of thanksgiving i s not unknown i n Greek authors.

Returning f o r the l a s t time to P h i l o ' s words at Plant.130-131, we may de-

duce that P l a t o ' s e u l o g i s t i c phrases are not u t i l i z e d at the end of the pas-
sage merely f o r a splash of l i t e r a r y c o l o u r . They i n f a c t give a concrete il-
l u s t r a t i o n of the a t t i t u d e of p r a i s e and thanksgivin g which P h i l o wants to see
r e a l i z e d i n encomiastic compositions of poetry and prose. Read through P h i l o -
n i c s p e c t a c l e s the Timaeus i s a prose hymn i n p r a i s e and honour of the cosmos,
but a l s o i n p r a i s e of and i n thanksgivin g to God, the c r e a t o r of the cosmos
92 ANALYSIS

and the source of a l l being. Tim.29a i s p r e f e r r e d to the even more e f f u s i v e

92c f o r t h i s very reason, because i n i t the c r e a t o r too i s given high honour.

P l a t o ' s language of e x c e l l e n c e , as set out i n 29a5-6 and the other texts

mentioned at the beginning of t h i s s e c t i o n , i s found i n numerous passages
throughout P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s . Instances have already been noted i n Aet.1, Praem.
1, Qpif.82, Aet.15 (see above I I 1.3.1. 1.3.2. 2.1.3.). Another noteworthy
example i s Spec.1.210. In g i v i n g a symbolical exegesis of the whole burnt-
offering (Lev.1:3-13) and i n p a r t i c u l a r of the i n j u n c t i o n to d i v i d e the s a c r i -
f i c i a l animal i n t o i t s limbs (1:6), P h i l o e x p l a i n s that when the mind gives
thanks f o r the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos, he should do so both i e p t xou OAOU and
itept xwv oAooxepeoxdxujv auxou uepwv ws av Cwou xeAeuoxdxou ueAwv ( i . e . the ou-
pavos, fjAtos, oeArivn e t c . ) . The expression £$ov xeAetoxaxov immediately r e -
c a l l s the language of the Timaeus, and so gives the act of t h a n k s g i v i n g a
proper c o s m o l o g i c a l
1 1
background (see a l s o below I I 3.3.1.).

Compare a l s o the f o l l o w i n g passages: Qpif.9,14 (xov xeAeuoxaxov uev ovxa xwv

Yeyovoxwv), Deus 106, Plant.6,91, Conf.97,180, Her.199, Abr.2,74, Mos.2.267,
Contempl.5. The f l e x i b i l i t y with which P h i l o can use the Timaean language i s
i l l u s t r a t e d by the f o l l o w i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s : Congr.50 (oupavos), Aet.73 (itepu-
4

3oAos of heaven), Mut.223 (man), Migr.220 (cosmos as macro-anthropos). P l u -

t a r c h shows a comparable u t i l i z a t i o n and a d a p t a b i l i t y at Mor.720B n uev ouv
uAn x(J5v UTCOMetuevwv dxaxxoxaxov eaxtv, n 6 ' idea xwv n a p a 6 e L Y p a x a ) V K O L A A L O X O V , o
6 e $eos xwv atxuwv dpuaxov; 1014C exa£e (o $eos) HOLL 6Lexoauriae Mat auvrippoae,
xo KaAAuaxov aicepYaaapevos nai xeAeuoxaxov. .. l,§ov.
F i n a l note. In a b r i e f note i n CPh 7(1912)248 Shorey w r i t e s on Praem.1
o uev Y < * P dcpdapxu)V xeAetoxaxos, b 6 e ^vnxwv cpdapxos (cp^apxos i s not found i n
a l l mss. and i s d e l e t e d by C-W and C o l s o n ) : 'In p l a c e of the o b v i o u s l y corrupt
cpdapxos I would propose (pepxaxos. This r e s t o r e s the balanced s t r u c t u r e of the
two nouns and a p p r o p r i a t e a d j e c t i v e s , which P h i l o , f o l l o w i n g h i s master P l a t o ,
employs i n speaking of the c r e a t o r and the c r e a t i o n of the u n i v e r s e and man.
Cf. Timaeus 29A... and P h i l o De o p i f i c i o mundi 82...' Shorey i s q u i t e r i g h t
that a f i n a l a d j e c t i v e i s needed. Not having the a s s i s t a n c e of the two l e x i c a
a v a i l a b l e to us, however, he was no doubt unaware that P h i l o never uses the ad-
j e c t i v a l form cpepxaxos, and so h i s proposed emendation does not convince. But
u s i n g Qpif .82 as a p a r a l l e l , we may wonder whether cp$apxos i s not a c o r r u p t i o n
of dpuoxos, i n which case the passage i s even more reminiscent of i t s P l a t o n i c
model.

2.3.3. A most s u r p r i s i n g e x e g e s i s o f Tim.29b

At 29b1-2 P l a t o begins the f i n a l s e c t i o n of h i s proemium ( i n d i c a t e d by au,

a l s o used f o r purposes of t r a n s i t i o n at 28a4,c2), which w i l l d i s c u s s episte-
m o l o g i c a l and methodological problems a s s o c i a t e d with h i s account. Because of
the p e c u l i a r nature of P h i l o ' s usage, however, we must d e a l w i t h the f i r s t
sentence s e p a r a t e l y . We r e t u r n to the passage at Prov.1.21 where, as has a l -
ready been observed (above I I 2.1.2.), P h i l o , wishing to give P l a t o ' s o p i n i o n
 II 2.3.3. 93

on the yeveous of the cosmos, quotes Tim.28b4~c2 verbatim. In the l i n e s that

f o l l o w he continues to d e al w i t h the subject of the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos, as
portrayed i n the Timaeus, but the argument becomes exceedingly d i f f i c u l t to
follow. Our method w i l l be f i r s t to give a t r a n s l a t i o n of the passage (prepa-
red i n c o n s u l t a t i o n with Weitenberg), followed by some t e x t u a l and grammatical
notes (to which the small numbers i n the t r a n s l a t i o n r e f e r ) . On t h i s b a s i s an
attempt w i l l be made to read some sense i n t o the passage. I t must be granted
that the text makes such a d i s j o i n t e d impression that the p o s s i b l i t y that i t
i s c o r r u p t or badly misunderstood by the Armenian t r a n s l a t o r cannot be ruled
out. We have no c h o i c e , however, but to do the best we can with the t r a n s m i t -
ted text. The only study made of t h i s passage so f a r i s the b r i e f but v a l u -
able a n a l y s i s at B a l t e s 36-37, with which I d i s a g r ee on some p o i n t s .

Translation

§21. ...And they a f f i r m e d that the c r e a t i o n of the s e n s i b l e cosmos was a

1

demonstration (or proof) f o r (the e x i s t e n c e) of the i n t e l l i g i b l e cosmos.

And so he ( P l a t o ) says, 'Since these (two worlds) e x i s t , i t i s e n t i r e l y
necessary that t h i s cosmos be an image of something (or someone) , at 1 2

the same time c a l l i n g t h i s 3

(cosmos) a demonstration (or p r o o f ) of the 4

c r e a t o r and showing that the s e n s i b l e cosmos has come i n t o b e i n g . With

the r e s u l t that God i s always maker of the i n t e l l i g i b l e t h i n g s and a l s o
gives s e n s i b l e things the beginning (or p r i n c i p l e ) of t h e i r becoming. 5

And the cosmos according to P l a t o i s a concord of heaven and e a r t h and

the natures i n i t , c o n s i s t i n g of f i r e and of e a r t h and of water and of
a i r , and of gods and of demons and of men and of animals and of p l a n t s
and of m a t t e r . 6

§22. P l a t o recognized t h a t these things are constructed by God, and 7

that unadorned matter has been turned i n t o the cosmos with i t s adornment. 8

For these were the f i r s t causes, from which a l s o the cosmos came i n t o
being. Since a l s o the lawgiver of the Jews, Moses, d e s c r i b e d water,
darkness and the abyss as being present befor e the cosmos came i n t o be-
ing. 9
But P l a t o (spoke o f ) matter, Thales the M i l e s i a n water...

Notes
1. Aucher d i x e r u n t ; i n t h i s b a l d form at l e a s t the word appears c o r r u p t .
P h i l o uses cpaou impersonally w i t h great frequency, but i f he uses the past
tense he w i l l s p e c i f y the commentators he has i n mind at the very l e a s t with
xuves, but u s u a l l y i n greater d e t a i l (e.g. Leg.3.115, Aet.89 e t c . ) . I f the
3rd person p l u r a l i s c o r r e c t , we may agree with B a l t e s 36 that P h i l o r e f e r s
to contemporary P l a t o n i s t s . Aucher erroneously p l a c e d t h i s s e c t i o n i n quota-
t i o n marks, apparently wishing to recognize a q u o t a t i o n of Tim.92c ( c i t e d i n a
footnote). There i s no such a l l u s i o n , although we s h a l l see that that text
does p r o v i d e , i n P h i l o s eyes, a good p a r a l l e l f o r 29b1-2.
f

2. I.e. a d i r e c t t r a n s l a t i o n of Tim.29b1-2, xouxwv 6e unapxovxcav a\5 itaaa

avctYKn xov6e xov xoapov euxova xuvos eSvau. My t r a n s l a t i o n , which d i f f e r s
from the meaning intended by P l a t o , w i l l be j u s t i f i e d below.
3. P i c k i n g up ' t h i s cosmos' i n the P l a t o n i c quote. Aucher's t r a n s l a t i o n with
i t s t r i p l e isturn i s c o n f u s i n g .
4. The same word used i n the second l i n e . I t i s a common word w i t h a wide
semantic spectrum, used to t r a n s l a t e 6etypcx, o n t o 6 e b ^ u s , £ T I L 6 £ L ^ U S , Tiapa6euypcx,
ev6euYPa, XUTIOS.

5. Aucher's r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s a f r e e t r a n s l a t i o n . The o r i g i n a l probably

read nai 6 xous aua^nxots T T J V apxnv itapexwv xou yCyveo%ai v e l sim.
94 ANALYSIS

6. On t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of the cosmos see the a n a l y s i s below at I I 5.4.3.

7. The Armenian does not give the usual word f o r 'create' or 'come i n t o being'
here, but one that can mean Haxaaxeodcu), apuo£a> ( c f . the d e f i n i t i o n ) , xoauew
etc.
8. D i f f i c u l t to t r a n s l a t e . Weitenberg suggests et ornatu carentem (one word)
materiam i n mundum (cum) ornatu v e n i r e / p r o d i r e . The d e s c r i p t i o n of matter as
%
in i t s e l f unadorned' given by Aucher (and the t r a n s l a t o r s dependent on him)
i s not j u s t i f i e d . The c o n t r a st between d x a ^ t a and xd£us i s drawn from Tim.30a,
on which see below II 3.2.1.
9. On t h i s reference to Gen.1:1-2 see below I I 3.2.3.

In s p i t e of the many problems of d e t a i l , the general movement of P h i l o ' s

thought i n t h i s passage can be c l e a r l y d i s c e r n e d . In wishing to present Pla-
to's o p i n i o n on the createdness or uncreatedness of the cosmos, P h i l o has quo-
ted Tim.28b4-c2. On i t s own t h i s text can prove that P l a t o considers the cos-
mos Y e v n x o s , but says l i t t l e on how that yeveoig should be conceived. So now
P h i l o proceeds to r e l a t e the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos to the other important
elements ,in the Timaean account, i . e . the demiurgic c r e a t i o n , the intelligible
world as model, matter. At the end of the passage he a f f i r m s that 'these were
the f i r s t causes from which the cosmos came i n t o being'. B a l t e s 37 concludes
that he i s a l l u d i n g to the Middle P l a t o n i s t d o c t r i n e of three dpxau (God, form,
matter). I am i n c l i n e d to the view t h a t , s i n c e P h i l o e x p r e s s l y s t a t e s that
the ideas are made by God, there can only be two dpxau here (God, matter) .
This i s c o n s i s t e n t with h i s statement at Opif.8, analysed above at I I 2.2.1.).
(Note, however, that the d o c t r i n e of two causes i s a t t r i b u t e d to P l a t o , not to
Moses, who p o s i t s a pre-cosmic chaos.)

But the problem of two or three causes has l i t t l e bearing on the inter-
p r e t a t i o n of the remainder of the passage. The key question f o r that i s : Why
does P h i l o s e l e c t p r e c i s e l y Tim.29b1-2 to e l u c i d a t e P l a t o ' s understanding of
the cosmos' y e v e o u s ? The two s p e c i f i c problems are: (1) What i s the connec-
t i o n between the f i r s t sentence, i n t r o d u c i n g the views of the P l a t o n i s t s , and
the quote that follows i t ? (2) I t i s c l e a r that P h i l o bases two conclusions
on the quote, i n d i c a t e d by the p a r t i c i p l e s ' c a l l i n g ' and 'showing' which suc-
ceed i t . How can these be derived from P l a t o ' s words? Without wishing to
deny that other s o l u t i o n s are p o s s i b l e , I suggest the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
(1) The a f f i r m a t i o n of the P l a t o n i s t s i n the f i r s t sentence i s a rephra-
s i n g i n the most b a s i c terms of the a p p l i c a t i o n of the t h i r d fundamental p h i -
l o s o p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e presented i n the proemium, i . e . that there must be a mo-
del and that the e x c e l l e n c e of the cosmos d i c t a t e s that a most e x c e l l e n t ( i . e .
n o e t i c ) model was used i n i t s c r e a t i o n . Cf. Somn.1.188 (exeg. Gen.28:17!),
nai o v o n x o s duo xou atadriToO xoauos e v o n ^ n . . . The acceptance of the doctrine
of the 'two worlds' i s p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r what f o l l o w s . Hence I suggest that
P h i l o has read the d o c t r i n e i n t o the a c t u a l wording of the quote, namely i n
 II 2.3.3. 95

the words TOUTWV 6e uuapxovTwv (whereas P l a t o means 'these things being so',
i.e. 'these t h i n g s ' r e f e r t o the whole a p p l i c a t i o n of the three p h i l o s o p h i c a l
p r i n c i p l e s t o the cosmos ( c f . Cornford 23)).
(2) How can he now proceed t o e x t r a c t from the quoted text the conclusion
that P l a t o ' c a l l s t h i s cosmos a demonstration of the creator* ? The word ' c a l l '
suggests a l i t e r a l reference t o the Timaeus text ( c f . naXeZ Aet.15). Thus I
suspect that P h i l o i s e x p l a i n i n g the words etnova T U V O S i n 29b2. In t h i s case
T U V O S w i l l not mean 'something' and r e f e r t o the model (as P l a t o meant, c f .
29b4), but r a t h e r w i l l mean 'someone', s i g n i f y i n g God the c r e a t o r ( c f . auiL-ou
Ttvos at 28a4,c2). This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s aided by two other t e x t s i n the T i -
maeus which can be taken to i n d i c a t e an eimliv r e l a t i o n between God and the
cosmos: 29e3, i n which God makes ndvict rcapaiiAriata earner; 92c7, i n which a v a r i a
l e c t i o reads E L H W V TOU TIOLTITOU i n s t e a d of etxwv T O U VOTITOU (see f u r t h e r below
I I 3.5.1. 10.3.1.). At the same time the quoted t e x t 'shows' that the cosmos
i s yevnTOg because such i s the consequence of the o n t o l o g i c a l s t a t us of a ei-
xwv. The t r a n s i t i o n to the next sentence which c o n c i s e l y d e f i n e s God's r e l a -
t i o n to the two worlds — as e t e r n a l TCOUTITTIS of the vonxa and bestower of an
apxn T O U " yCyveo%ab on the aia%r\Ta — i s n a t u r a l enough (apxn p i c k s up yeveaeug
ctpxnv and di'apxns T U V O S ap£auevos i n the e a r l i e r quote). Then f o l l o w s an ab-
rupt switch t o the s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e cosmos, whose 'adornment' i s d e f i n ed i n
order t o u n v e i l the 'unadorned matter', i . e . the second 'cause' explained fur-
ther i n §22.

The most s t r i k i n g f e a t u r e of P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus i n our

passage, i f the a n a l y s i s given above i s on the r i g h t t r a c k , i s the way that
c r e a t o r , model and created product are c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d together. The cos-
mos proves the existence of a model, but i s a l s o the image of i t s c r e a t o r .
The same c l o s e a s s o c i a t i o n was already observed i n the b r i e f Timaeus compen-
dium found i n Aet.15 (see above I I 2.1.3.). The c l u e t o t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of the dialogue l i e s i n the d o c t r i n e that the n o e t i c world represents God's
thought when undertaking to c r e a t e the cosmos. More d e t a i l s are forthcoming
when P h i l o reads t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n t o 'day one' of the Mosaic account o f
c r e a t i o n (see below I I 3.4.1-4. on Opif.16-25). I t emerges there that the
cosmos i s only euxwv of God inasmuch as i t i s eilxwv of h i s Logos (equated with
the xoouos voriTos), which i n t u r n i s euxwv of God (see esp. Opif.24-25) . With
a l l due allowance made f o r the Armenian t r a n s l a t o r ' s l a c k of f a m i l i a r i t y with
the t e c h n i c a l i t i e s contained i n our passage, i t remains improbable that these
f u r t h e r d e t a i l s were presented i n i t . The d o c t r i n e of the Logos i s s i g n i f i -
c a n t l y absent i n the De P r o v i d e n t i a (except f o r a b r i e f mention en passant i n
1.23).

It may be concluded, t h e r e f o r e , that P h i l o gives the short sentence at

96 ANALYSIS

Tim.29b1-2 a most s u r p r i s i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . By applying a s u b t l e twis t to

the phrases xoúxwv óe únapxóvxwv and euxóva xuvós he f e e l s able to draw im-
portant conclusions on the r e l a t i o n of the cosmos to i t s c r e a t o r and noetic
exemplar. P h i l o ' s method i s c l e a r l y that of the proof-text. A text i s d i v o r -
ced from i t s context and used to confirm a presupposed d o c t r i n e . Certainly i f
P h i l o had taken i n t o account the argument of the p a r t of the Timaeus i n which
his quote occurs he could not p o s s i b l y have given the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o u t l i n e d
above. One i s reminded of the manner i n which he gives exegesis of the Bibli-
cal text. S c h o l a s t i c Middle Platonism d i d not h e s i t a t e to use s i m i l a r methods
i n t h e i r P l a t o n i c exegesis. But I have not come across any parallel interpre-
t a t i o n s of Tim.29b1-2 i n t h e i r w r i t i n g s . 1

2.4. Methodological prelude (Tim.29b-d)

2.4.1. The probable account (29b-d)

P l a t o , the 'philosopher of transcendence' (De Vogel), can only concern

himself wit h a ' s c i e n t i f i c ' account of the p h y s i c a l world under c a r e f u l l y c i r -
cumscribed c o n d i t i o n s . These are o u t l i n e d i n the f i n a l s e c t i o n of the proe-
mium (29b1-d3). There i s , he a s s e r t s , a d i r e c t c o r r e l a t i o n between the nature
of the i n t e l l i g i b l e and s e n s i b l e worlds on the one hand, and the a n a l y s i s or
account (Xoyous 29b4) that can be presented of them on the other. The account
of the i n t e l l i g i b l e paradigm w i l l have the same unchangeable and incontrover-
t i b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that the n o e t i c world i t s e l f possesses. An a n a l y s i s of
s e n s i b l e phenomena, however, i s concerned with an image of the paradigm and so
can r e s u l t only i n a probable account (wordplay on etHwv/eÚHÓs 29c2). Any at-
tempt at exact and irrefutable scientific explanation i s doomed to failure.
So don't be s u r p r i s e d , says Timaeus at 29c4-7, i f I can't d e l i v e r a wholly
c o n s i s t e n t and accurate account. Remembering that we are but men (cpúauv áv§p-
u)7ic.vnv exoyev 29d1), we should be content i f we produce a probable t a l e (ei-
Koxa uu$ov 29d2). P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e here contains two aspects which must be
c a r e f u l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from each other.

1. The kind of c o g n i t i o n that can be obtained on a given object i s de-

termined by that object's ontological status. I t i s simply not p o s s i b l e to
acquire t r u t h or knowledge concerning p h y s i c a l phenomena. P r o b a b i l i t y or be-
l i e f or o p i n i o n must be the aim (28a1-2,29c3). But one o p i n i o n can be sounder
and c l o s e r to the t r u t h than another, as P l a t o recognizes by introducing the
concept of 'true o p i n i o n ' (áAnSris óÓ£a, cf .37b9,51d4) . 1
His endeavour i s thus
to present the most p l a u s i b l e and t r u e s t account of the s t r u c t u r e of the cos-
 II 2.4.1. 97

mos that he can. The importance of the (most) probable account f o r P l a t o can
be gauged from the f a c t that he repeats i t no l e s s than 18 times throughout
the dialogue. The reader cannot p o s s i b l y miss i t .
2. The correctness or otherwise of a c o g n i t i v e a c t , whether of a s e n s i -
b l e or an i n t e l l i g i b l e o b j e c t , i s dependent on the nature and c a p a b i l i t y of
the subject of that a c t . This aspect i s given l e s s emphasis i n our passage.
P l a t o only b r i e f l y mentions the l i m i t a t i o n s imposed on us by our human nature
(29d1). Compare, however, the passage on the c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s of the cos-
mic soul (37a-c) . Concerning s e n s i b l e r e a l i t y i t possesses 6o£at nai nt-aieus
fiefiaioL nai dAndeus (37b9) , and i t i s safe to conclude that i t s knowledge of
the i n t e l l i g i b l e world ( c f . 37b3) i s a l s o s u p e r i o r . Other texts which empha-
s i z e the s u p e r i o r knowledge and true opinion of the gods and the imperfect
c o g n i t i o n of man are 34c2-4,48c6-e1,53d4-7,65b7-d1,68b6-8,d2-7,69a1-2,72d4-8
(but note that at 53d7 P l a t o speaks of knowledge possessed by §eog and men who
are dear to him).

P h i l o , as noted above i n I I 2.1.1., was w e l l aware of the i n t r i n s i c rela-

t i o n between ontology and epistemology, and repeats Plato's formulas on a num-
ber of occasions. Our task i n t h i s s e c t i o n w i l l be i n the f i r s t place to ex-
amine whether he makes use of the s p e c i f i c passage Tim.29b-d. In the process
i t w i l l be p o s s i b l e to make some observations on the a t t r a c t i o n which the
Alexandrian felt f o r P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e of the probable account.
The passage i n which P h i l o ' s use of Tim.29b-d i s most prominent i s the
second h a l f of the exordium of the De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi (§2); i t i s a d i r e c t
c o n t i n u a t i o n of the opening words, which are based on Tim.27c and were d i s -
cussed above at I I 1.3.2. First some a t t e n t i o n must be paid to the t e x t . Its
poor s t a t e has l e d to the proposal of a number of emendations. The text now
c i t e d i s that of C-W ( c f . a l s o Colson EE 9.184-186):

ei ye v o3v e v a o x r i ^ e v T e s t o t s (ppovriaewg nai awcppoauvris nai i d a n s a p e x e s

6oYyaauv dneppu^due^a i d s ex nadwv nai voanydTwv xr)AC6as, oux dv I'awg dn-
n^uojaev o %e6g dxpws x e x a ^ a p u e v a t g nai (pau6puvauevaus auYoeu6tos 4>uxaus 1

eTCLaxripriv T S V oupavCwv r\ 6u' oveupdxwv f| 6ud x p n c y u j v rj 6ud anyetwv ri xepd-

2

TWV ucpriYetcdau' eitet 6e T O U S dcppoauvris xoiu d6uxua s x a t twv dAAwv xaxtffiv

dvaua£dyevou [ a i o x a a y o u s x a t ]
3 4
T U I O U S 6uaexnAuTous e x o y e v , d y a i a v X P T I ,
xdv euxoau <aToxaayous> 6u'auTwv y u y n y d T L Tfjg d A r i ^ e t a s dveupuaxwyev.
5 6

1. auyoeudws Mangey: a \ J T O £ u 6 w s mss. 2. xpnoywv Cohn: xpnoewv mss. 3.

yoAuayous c o n i . Bernays. 4. s e e l . Cohn. 5. i n s e r u i t Cohn, euxoau <nai
aTOxaoyoLS> maluit Colson. 6. 6L'auT0)v Bernays: 6u auxwv mss.
A note on the t e x t . Bernay's conjecture yoAuoyous must be r e j e c t e d because
the word i s nowhere used by P h i l o . The dispute between Cohn and Colson ( c f .
EE 9.186) on whether we should read e t x o o u (nai) OToxotoyous can be s e t t l e d i n
Cohn's favour on the b a s i s of the f o l l o w i n g p a r a l l e l t e x t s : Ios.7,104,143, Mos.
2
- » Decal.18, Opif.72,157, Spec.1.334 (the l a s t three i n the s i n g u l a r ) .
1 2 2

The text c i t e d above i s thus s a t i s f a c t o r y .

98 ANALYSIS

P h i l o makes the a l l u s i o n to P l a t o ' s text apparent by means of the phrase

dyaitav XPH (29c8) . A l s o etKoau picks up 29c1,8,d2, but xov e i l x o x a yudov i s
replaced by yuyriyd T U T H S dXn^eucxs. P h i l o ' s o b j e c t i o n to the P l a t o n i c phrase
i s p r e d i c t a b l e on account of h i s d i s l i k e f o r myth, but the manner of i t s r e -
placement s u r p r i s e s because i t d e c l i n e s to u t i l i z e the opportunity f o r parono-
masia e x p l o i t e d by P l a t o at 29c2 ( c f . below on Praem.29). But not only v e r b a l
reminiscence is instructive. The e n t i r e c o n t r a s t between the e u t o x n y n xwv
oupavuwv perhaps accorded by God to p u r i f i e d souls and the ytynyct n xrjs aAn-
%eia£ with which we s i n - s t a i n e d mortals must be content i s surely a character-
i s t i c a l l y P h i l o n i c expansion of the h i n t of the l i m i t a t i o n s of human knowledge
given by P l a t o at 29d1.

What p r e c i s e l y , however, i s meant by the eituaxriyri xwv oupavuwv? All

t r a n s l a t o r s take i t to be an o b j e c t i v e g e n i t i v e , meaning 'knowledge of heaven-
ly t h i n g s ' ( c f . Bernays Abh.Berl.Akad.1876 219, Colson EE 9.185, Bormann GT
7.78, P o u i l l o u x FE 30.75). On t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n oupavuwv i s a l o o s e l y wor-
ded a l t e r n a t i v e f o r $EUUJV or vonxtuv, f o r the science of the heavens i s hardly
l i k e l y to have been the knowledge which God imparts to those whom he e s p e c i -
a l l y favours. I t was t h i s science which Abraham had to abandon i n h i s migra-
t i o n from Chaldea to the promised land. A more persuasive rendering can be
given i f the word i s read as a s u b j e c t i v e g e n i t i v e . Perhaps God w i l l grant to
s p e c i a l l y p u r i f i e d souls the knowledge possessed by those beings who dwell i n
the c e l e s t i a l regions, i . e . the heavenly bodies, angels or demons, disembodied
souls. Here we touch on one of the most fundamental and pervasive aspects of
P h i l o ' s thought, which one might term the 'hierarchy of r e c i p i e n t s of know-
ledge' .

In f a c t on c l o s e r i n s p e c t i o n t h i s h i e r a r c h y has a double aspect. Accep-

t i n g the theory of the 'great chain of being', P h i l o regards the cosmos as po-
pulated by a v a r i e t y of l i v i n g beings at d i v e r s e l e v e l s of c a p a b i l i t y and sig-
n i f i c a n c e , together forming an unbroken chain from the highest to the lowest
form of l i f e (see f u r t h e r below II 5.4.3.). Man i s the middle l i n k , higher
than p l a n t s and animals, lower than disembodied s o u l s , demons or angels, hea-
venly beings. C l e a r l y the higher the rank i n the sequence, the greater the
cognitive capacity. F o l l o w i n g P l a t o P h i l o argues that i n c a r n a t i o n of the r a -
t i o n a l sou l e n t a i l s a l o s s of c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y that can only p a r t i a l l y be
overcome i n t h i s l i f e ( c f . below I I 7.1.2.). Disembodied souls possess grea-
ter and purer knowledge than we can hope to gain i n the incarnated s t a t e .
Axiomatic i s that God i s the source of a l l knowledge ( s t r e s s e d , we recall, in
Aet.1), and that he grants i t to the whole chain of h i s creatures according to
the fundamental p r i n c i p l e a p h o r i s t i c a l l y placed i n God's mouth at Spec.1.43,
x a p t C o y a t 6'eyob xd ouxeua xuj Xn^oyevw. The r e s u l t i s a cosmic h i e r a r c h y of
 II 2.4.1. 99

r e c i p i e n t s of knowledge.
But a l s o among incarnated human beings there are various l e v e l s of know-
ledge and belief. At one end of the s c a l e are those who are so weighed down
by b o d i l y d e s i r e s that they can only grope i n darkness. At the other end are
those p r i v i l e g e d beings who are so l i t t l e hindered by the dead-weight of t h e i r
bodies that they a l l but f l o a t i n the a i r and j o i n t h e i r disembodied fellow-
souls. In between are those who must sweat and toil 2
to gain a measure of i n -
s i g h t i n t o the mysteries of created and uncreated r e a l i t y . At Gig.60-61 P h i l o
speaks of men of earth (ensnared by the body), men of heaven (the cpuAopafteCs,
e x e r c i s i n g t h e i r minds), men of God ( e n r o l l e d i n the n o e t i c world, c f . below
II 10.1.3.). Elsewhere other B i b l i c a l l y founded and a l l e g o r i c a l l y expounded
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are used, i n which the two upper l e v e l s are represented by Mo-
ses and B e z a l e l , Abraham and L o t , Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and I s r a e l , and so
on. Resultant i s now a human h i e r a r c h y of r e c i p i e n t s of knowledge.

In speaking of the emuGTripri xcov oupavuwv i n Aet.2 P h i l o b l u r s the boun-

d a r y - l i n e s of the two h i e r a r c h i e s which we have j u s t o u t l i n e d . It is implied
that s p e c i a l l y p r i v i l e g e d souls can r e c e i v e knowledge that s t r i c t l y speaking
belongs to beings higher on the cosmic s c a l e . But P h i l o does not c l a i m such
d i v i n e e l e c t i o n f o r himself. Too s o i l e d with wickedness and f o l l y , he and his
readers must content themselves with a l e s s than p e r f e c t apperception of the
truth.
Texts which i l l u s t r a t e the themes of the h i e r a r c h y of r e c i p i e n t s of know-
ledge and the l i m i t a t i o n s of human knowledge on account of s i n and b o d i l y im-
pediment are: Leg.3.97-103, Gig.31,60-61, Deus 51-68, Plant.26-27, Conf.176-
178, Her.63-74,98-99, Congr.50-52, Fug.161-163, Mut.16,33-34,70,218-232, Somn.
1.148-152,205-207, Mos.2.66-67, Spec.1.41-50, Praem.36-46, Q£ 1.54, 3.43 (EES
1.236), 4.30,196 (text EES 2.273), QE 2.29, fr.2-4 (FE 33.282-284).- To expa-
9

t i a t e on the p h i l o s o p h i c a l sources and context of these two themes would i n -

volve us i n too great a d i g r e s s i o n . But the immense i n f l u e n c e of the Phaedrus
myth (compare esp. 250b-c with our passage) should not be l e f t unmentioned.
An i n t e r e s t i n g p a r a l l e l i s found at Seneca NQ 7.29.3: Haec sunt quae aut a l i o s
movere ad cometas p e r t i n e n t i a aut me. Quae an v e r a s i n t , d i i ( c f . oupavuwv)
s c i u n t , quibus est s c i e n t i a v e r i ( c f . eTcuainpri, a A n d e b a s ) . Nobis r i m a r i i l i a
et c o n i e c t u r a ( c f . axoxaapots) i r e i n o c c u l t a tantum l i c e t , nec cum f i d u c i a
i n v e n i e n d i nec sine spe; c f . a l s o Plut.Mor.351C-E,382F, Max.Tyr.0r.37.5.
P h i l o ' s i n d i c a t i o n of the means by which eittOTripri T W V oupavuwv i s conve-
yed to the p u r i f i e d souls - through dreams or o r a c l e s or signs or wonders — i s
perhaps somewhat unexpected i n the P l a t o n i z i n g context. Unmistakably P h i l o
r e f e r s to the p r a c t i c e of prophecy and d i v i n e l y i n s p i r e d d i v i n a t i o n , so promi-
nent i n h i s w r i t i n g s ( c f . Mos.2.188-191, Congr.132, Somn.1.1-2, 2.1-2), to
which the P l a t o n i c theme of d i v i n e i n s p i r a t i o n i s r e l e v a n t but c e r t a i n l y not
equivalent ( c f . B i l l i n g s 66-69, Wolfson 2.11-22). P h i l o ' s own preoccupations
r i n g through loud and clear. Assuredly he has i n mind the Jewish prophet and
lawgiver Moses, whose v e r d i c t on the cosmos' i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y (Aet.19) forms
100 ANALYSIS

the climax of the t r e a t i s e ' s i n t r o d u c t o r y s e c t i o n (cf.Runia 16-17,20-21). The

words 6ju'auTajv at the end of the s e c t i o n r e t u r n to the means of c o g n i t i v e ac-
quisition. God remains the source of any knowledge we gain (Colson's trans-
l a t i o n by
f
our own efforts 1
could mislead on t h i s ) , but we are forced to ac-
quire that semblance of the t r u t h 'through o u r s e l v e s ' , i . e . by means of our
own (limited) cognitive resources.

In the phrase ytynyct i t xfis aXr\%eCag P h i l o employs the same paradeigma

r e l a t i o n which forms the b a s i s of P l a t o ' s methodological excurses i n 29b-d
( c f . a l s o uuunua napa6euYyotxos at 48e6). I t would seem, however, that P h i l o ' s
use of y u y n y a here i n v o l v e s a r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t use of the paradeigma r e l a t i o n .
He i s not saying t h a t , because the object of h i s enquiry i s the cosmos which
i s a v i s i b l e copy of the e t e r n a l paradigm, the r e s u l t s he w i l l gain can accor-
d i n g l y only be an i m i t a t i o n of the t r u t h . (Indeed i s i t not implied that i t i s
p o s s i b l e ( f o r some) to acquire t r u t h on cosmological questions?) Rather the
n o t i o n of i m i t a t i o n expresses i n metaphorical and non-technical terms the im-
p e r f e c t knowledge a v a i l a b l e under the c o n d i t i o n s analysed above (on P h i l o ' s
metaphorical use of the paradeigma r e l a t i o n see the b r i e f remark at II 2.3.1.).
This imperfect knowledge w i l l be formulated i n probable conjectures (eC-xoxes
axoxotcryou) .

As we observed above, P l a t o places so much emphasis on the n o t i o n of sci-

e n t i f i c p r o b a b i l i t y i n the Timaeus that i t w i l l s t i c k i n the mind of even the
most c a s u a l reader. P h i l o too i s on occasion keen to point out that scienti-
f i c e n q u i r i e s can make no c l a i m to absolute truth. The f o l l o w i n g two passages
are very much i n l i n e with P l a t o ' s emphasis on the 'probable account'.
Her.224 (on the symbolism of the c a n d l e s t i c k , exeg. Ex.25:31ff.) xnv 6e
xwv nXavrixwv xd^tv dvdpwuot rcaytws yfi xaxeuAricpoxes — i t 6'dAAo xwv xax'
oupavov Caxuaav xaxavoflaau 3 e 3 a u w s; ~ e t K o x o A o y o u a u , d p t a x a 6'eyot a x o x d -
Ceadat 6oxouauv oi...
Prov.2.72 ( i n r e p l y to Alexander): 'Don't go any f u r t h e r . I'm q u i t e w e l l
aware that those who love to argue f i n d i n the heavenly phenomena numer-
ous d i f f i c u l t questions and reasons f o r d i r e c t i n g accusations (against
Providence). But to f i n d i n human weakness a ground f o r accusing D i v i n i -
ty i s the height of i n j u s t i c e . I t i s only r i g h t that God, as maker and
f a t h e r ( c f . Tim.28c3) should know the true reasons f o r the various phe-
nomena, but that no mortal beings should a s c e r t a i n the s e c r e t s of nature;
f o r a l s o i n the area of knowledge there i s a h i e r a r c h y ( l i t . f o r a l s o
that looks to o r d e r ) . So, aiming at p r o b a b i l i t y , we s h a l l r e p l y to t h i s
insinuating accusation.'
Note, however, that i n these texts the P l a t o n i c c o r r e l a t i o n between p r o b a b i l i -
ty and c o g n i t i o n of s e n s i b l e phenomena i s not stressed. In f a c t the s t r a i n of
probabilism, or even s c e p t i c i s m , i n P h i l o ' s thought goes much f u r t h e r than
merely to warn against over-confidence i n the area of s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
As Nikiprowetzky has shown (183-191,209-214; see above I 2.2.c), such s c e p t i -
 II 2.4.1. 101

cism i s found not j u s t i n well-known passages such as Ebr.167-202, Somn.1.21-

33, los.125-142 (each of which make use of source m a t e r i a l ) , but occurs sur-
p r i s i n g l y o f t e n r i g h t throughout P h i l o s works.
f
Many questions i n science and
philosophy are beyond the reach of human understanding (an example below at I I
7.2.1.). On many issues we can only gain guidance through c o n s u l t a t i o n of the
knowledge revealed to the God-beloved prophet and contained i n the Law. But
a l s o i n the task of i n t e r p r e t i n g the sacred t e x t , P h i l o does not c l a i m to o f -
f e r b u l l e t - p r o o f exegeses of the o r a c l e s of Moses, only t e n t a t i v e e f f o r t s at
e x p l i c a t i o n , sometimes a s s i s t e d by moments of d i v i n e i n s p i r a t i o n . Two t e x t s
are e s p e c i a l l y s t r i k i n g i n our context.

Opif.72 (on the quaestio of why Moses uses the p l u r a l i n Gen.1:26): x n v

uev o\)v aAndeoTaTnv a u t t a v deov avdyxri uovov £u6evau, TT\V 6'euHOTt, G T O X C X -
au$ Ttudavfiv x a t euAoyov eZvaL 6owouaav ovn a i o x p u i T e o v .
Decal.18 (on the quaestio of why the Laws were given i n the desert and
not i n the c i t i e s ) : au6 ELOLV EV a i o x a a u o u s euKoauv a t l x t a u Aeyouevau itepu
T O U 6uontopr|\)e:vTOs• xdg y a p aAri^eCs o£6ev o % E O £ u o v o s .

These passages are reminiscent not only of Tim.29b-d, but even more of t e x t s
such as 53d6-7,72d5-7. The e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a p p l i e d by P l a t o to
the study of d i a l e c t i c s and science are t r a n s f e r r e d by P h i l o to problems of
exegesis. Compare a l s o Cher.55, Mos.2.122, Spec.1.214, QG 3.14. Note a s i m i -
l a r procedure on the part of P l u t a r c h when he embarks on P l a t o n i c exegesis at
Mor.430B,719F,1013B(Eudorus!),1014A.
It must be recognized, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t , although P h i l o e x p l i c i t l y utili-
zes the d o c t r i n e of Tim.29b-d, i n that u t i l i z a t i o n changes of emphasis can be
detected which cause i t to deviate from P l a t o ' s i n t e n t i o n s . This i s n o t i c e d
above a l l i n the f a c t that he i s c l e a r l y l e s s i n t e r e s t e d than P l a t o i n the on-
t o l o g i c a l status of the object of c o g n i t i o n . Only i n the realm of theology
does i t remain of paramount importance; man cannot come to know God's essence
( c f . above I I 2.2.3.). But the r i g i d d i v i s i o n between unshakable knowledge
of i n t e l l i g i b l e objects and (at the most) true o p i n i o n concerning s e n s i b l e ob-
j e c t s , though not wholly ignored, i s r e l e g a t e d to the background. On the other
hand, P l a t o ' s h i n t of the l i m i t a t i o n s of human knowledge i s h e a v i l y e x p l o i t e d .
I t gives support to the idea of a h i e r a r c h y of r e c i p i e n t s of knowledge.

A f i n e i l l u s t r a t i o n of these changes can be found at QG 1.54, a d i f f i c u l t

but f a s c i n a t i n g text which has not r e c e i v e d the a t t e n t i o n i t deserves. To the
question 'to whom does God say, "Behold, Adam i s as one of us, to know good
and evil"?' (Gen.3.22) P h i l o r e p l i e s : 3

'One of us' i n d i c a t e s p l u r a l i t y , unless he happens to be speaking with

h i s powers, which he used as instruments i n making the whole u n i v e r s e .
As f o r the word 'as', i t i s i n d i c a t i v e of an example and l i k e n e s s and
comparison, not of i d e n t i t y . For the i n t e l l i g i b l e and s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e
good and i t s contrary i s known by the gods i n one way, and by men i n an-
other. Indeed, j u s t as the natures of those who i n q u i r e and comprehend,
as w e l l as the natures of the things s e c u r e l y perceived and comprehended,
102 ANALYSIS

d i f f e r , so a l s o does the comprehending a b i l i t y . In men these things are

always l i k e n e s s e s and types and images, but i n the gods they are arche-
types, models and b r i l l i a n t paradigms of obscure t h i n g s . The unbegotten
and uncreated f a t h e r , however, does not mingle or a s s o c i a t e with anyone...

As i n Aet.2, the paradeigma r e l a t i o n i s used m e t a p h o r i c a l l y of the k i n d of

c o g n i t i o n possessed r a t h e r than of the object of c o g n i t i o n , producing a confu-
s i n g e f f e c t when viewed from the P l a t o n i c background.
There can be no doubt that the changes i n emphasis we have recorded d i s -
c l o s e the i n f l u e n c e of the p e r i o d i n the h i s t o r y of Platonism between A r c e s i -
laus and P h i l o of L a r i s s a , when i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of P l a t o the d o c t r i n e s
of s c e p t i c i s m and then p r o b a b i l i s m held sway. P h i l o s c o n s i s t e n t use of terms
1

such as G x o x a a y o s , u t ^ a v o s , T t u d a v o T r i S , e u x a a u a , etxobs A o y u a y o s , eitoxn e t c . i s

taken from the New Academy and the S c e p t i c a l school ( c f . the v e r s i o n of the
tropes of Aenesidemus given i n Ebr.170-202, and a l s o the t e x t s at De Vogel Gr.
Phil.3.184-230). The strong c o n v i c t i o n of the l i m i t a t i o n s of human reasoning
was a l s o f o s t e r e d i n t h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l environment (though not n e c e s s a r i l y r e -
s u l t i n g from the b e l i e f i n man's o u 6 e v e u a , as i n P h i l o ! ) . B u t , as Nikiprowet-
zky c o r r e c t l y emphasizes, P h i l o s s c e p t i c i s m i s a f a l s e s c e p t i c i s m , f o r i t
f

does not deny the p o s s i b i l i t y of g a i n i n g secure knowledge and by no means a t -

tempts to question God's e x i s t e n ce and other e s s e n t i a l d o c t r i n e s . P h i l o ' s Ju-
daism c o n t r i b u t e s here, but a l s o the r e t u r n of dogmatism i n i t i a t e d by A n t i o -
chus of Ascalon. A not d i s s i m i l a r mixture of s c e p t i c i s m and dogmatism i s pre-
sent i n P l u t a r c h , notably i n the well-known ' H e r a c l i t a n ' passage Mor.391E-394C.
Orthodox P l a t o n i s t s such as Albinus and Apuleius repeat the P l a t o n i c d i s t i n c -
t i o n between eTtuaxriyri and 6o£a without h e s i t a t i o n (Did.4.3-6, De P l a t . 194) .

A word must a l s o be s a i d about Praem.28-30, another passage which shows

independent-minded use of Tim.29b-d. P h i l o i s e x p l a i n i n g the s i g n i f i c a n c e of
the 'trust i n God' a t t r i b u t e d to Abraham (Gen. 15:6). Such TTLOTUS entails a
healthy distrust i n the powers of A o y t o y o s and a u a ^ n c u s , each of which i s ac-
c r e d i t e d , i n wholly P l a t o n i c terms, with an o b j e c t of c o g n i t i o n and a goal
(respectively vonxa, opaxd, aAn^eua, 6o£a). But n e i t h e r of these goals can
s a t i s f a c t o r i l y be reached.

T O yev dvu6puxov x a t itenAavripevov xfls 6o£riS evdev6e 6 f j A o v euxoau ydp x a t

u u ^ a v o t g ecpopuet* naoa de euxcov o y o u o x r i T u eunapaywyw (Jjeu6exau T O a p x e x u i o v .

Also Aoyuayos finds i t s e l f f a i l i n g and c o l l a p s e s l i k e an exhausted a t h l e t e

(§29). Only the man who passes beyond the owyctxa and dawyaxa and takes God as
h i s s o l e support r e c e i v e s 3e3aLOT<xTn TICOTUS and uoxupoyvwycov Aoyuoyos (§30).
The d e s c r i p t i o n of the short-comings of 6o£,a quoted above has been the subject
of much d i s c u s s i o n (Colson EE 8.328-329, Beckaert FE 27.56-57, Nikiprowetzky
142), focussed on the r e l a t i o n of the words e u x o o u . . . etxoov. The last-named
s c h o l a r p o i n t s out the P l a t o n i c background (Phdr.272e, Tht.163a, Soph.236a),
but s u r p r i s i n g l y does not mention Tim.29b-d. But t h i s passage i s s u r e l y r e l e -
vant, f o r i t s u p p l i e s both the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l schema of the two realms and
the wordplay on etxcov and euxog (29c2 e u x o v o s e t x o x a s ) . e i l x o a t i s here the
d a t i v e p l u r a l of e u x o s , and the j u x t a p o s i t i o n with etxwv r e f l e c t s Plato's word-
play (I f a i l to see how Colson can argue that E L X O O L i s meant here as 'coming
 II 2.4.1. 103

from both or e i t h e r [GILKOS and euxwv]').

The emphasis of P h i l o s passage, however, i s r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t than that

f

found i n P l a t o . Philo stresses the deceptiveness of 6 o £ a and the weakness of

A o y t a u o s , whereas P l a t o assumes the excellence of vorjaus and the limitations

of 6o£a (note P h i l o s use of the a d j e c t i v e

f
euiapdywYOs, used d i s p a r a g i n g l y by

P l a t o of eXnCg as Tta§os at 69d4) . Moreover the mloxus which P h i l o i s t a l k i n g

about (based on Gen.15:6) bears no r e l a t i o n to P l a t o ' s i t o x t s at 29c3, which

i s associated w i t h 6 o £ a and y e v e a u s . l u a x u s means here something l i k e 'firm

c o n v i c t i o n based on t r u s t ' . I t i s not opposed to secure knowledge (cf.§30),

but s u p p l i es the grounds f o r such knowledge by i m p e l l i n g the s o u l to depen-

dence on God. 5
Thus, i n s p i t e of the c l e a r use of Tim.29b-d i n Praem.28-29,

the passage i s i n f a c t f a r l e s s ' P l a t o n i c ' than the other text to which i t

at f i r s t s i g h t seems so s i m i l a r , Aet.2.
 CHAPTER THREE

TIMAEUS 29D-31B: THE ACT OF CREATION

3.0. Introductory

3.1. The goodness of the demiurge (Tim.29d-30a)

3.1.1. The goodness of God the c r e a t o r (29d-30a)
3.1.2. No envy i n the d i v i n e (29e)
3.1.3. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i v i n e beneficence
3.1.4. God's w i l l and the problem of theodicy

3.2. The act of c r e a t i o n (Tim.30a)

3.2.1. From d i s o r d e r to order (30a)
3.2.2. De P r o v i d e n t i a 1.6-8
3.2.3. Problems i n the exegesis of Gen.1:1-2

3.3. The cosmos as ensouled i n t e l l i g e n t l i v i n g being (Tim.30b)

3.3.1. The cosmos as £$ov

3.4. The model (Tim.30c-31a)

3.4.1. P h i l o and the P l a t o n i c vonxov Cuiov
3.4.2. P h i l o and the P l a t o n i s t xoouos vonxos
3.4.3. The extended image i n Opif.17-18
3.4.4. Aspects of e x e g e t i c a l application
3.4.5. P r e p o s i t i o n a l metaphysics

3.5. The u n i c i t y of the cosmos (Tim.31a-b)

3.5.1. God i s One, the cosmos i s one

3.0. Introductory

Having set out the p r i n c i p l e s necessary f o r h i s account, Plato now speeds

on to the act of c r e a t i o n , the p i v o t a l point around which the e n t i r e cosmogony
i s centred. But f i r s t a question i s r a i s e d . Why d i d the demiurge undertake
h i s c r e a t i v e act? The answer i s both s u c c i n c t and profound: because he was
good and wished to make everything as much l i k e himself as p o s s i b l e (navxa OTU
udAuoxa uapaitAriaua eauxcj) 29e3) . Confronted by a disharmonious and d i s o r g a n i -
zed realm of chaos, he l e d i t from d i s o r d e r to an ordered s t a t e (eus xa£uv en
xris <xxa£uas 30a5) . He moreover reasoned that i n t e l l i g e n t beings are superior
to t h e i r u n i n t e l l i g e n t counterparts, and so he gave the cosmos i n t e l l i g e n c e
 II 3.0. 105

(voug) and a l s o soul (cjjuxn) , because i n t e l l i g e n c e cannot be l o c a t e d i n body

without the mediation of s o u l . Through d i v i n e providence, t h e r e f o r e , the cos-
mos i s an ensouled, r a t i o n a l l i v i n g being (Ctpov eucjjuxov I v v o u v xe 30b8) . Keen
to pursue h i s craftsman metaphor as c o n s i s t e n t l y as he can, P l a t o asks what
stood before the c r e a t i n g god as model f o r h i s work. The model was the trans-
cendent and p e r f e c t l y complete idea of the l i v i n g being ( T O n a v x e A es C$ov 31
b1), c o n t a i n i n g w i t h i n i t the ideas of a l l other l i v i n g beings. The postula-
t i o n of t h i s unique model a l s o provides a ready-made answer to the question
why there should be only a s i n g l e cosmos. The cosmos must correspond as clo-
s e l y as p o s s i b l e to i t s p e r f e c t model, and thus must a l s o possess the charac-
t e r i s t i c of u n i c i t y .

It i s v i r t u a l l y impossible to avoid using the word ' c r e a t i o n ' when des-

c r i b i n g the main event of the P l a t o n i c cosmogony. Yet t h i s word, with i t s
r i c h overtones of c e n t u r i e s of C h r i s t i a n dogma, can e a s i l y give r i s e to mis-
understanding. In the German language a u s e f u l d i s t i n c t i o n can be made bet-
ween 'Weltbildung' and 'Weltschopfung'. C l e a r l y i t i s the former that P l a t o
intends. The demiurge, good craftsman that he i s , does not s t a r t with nothing,
but prepares and fashions a kind of ' m a t e r i a l ' that already l i e s to hand. The
reader of the Timaeus who i s eager to know more about that ' m a t e r i a l ' has to
e x e r c i s e a c e r t a i n amount of p a t i e n c e . P l a to returns to the subject i n 49a
(see below I I 8.0.).

3.1. The goodness of the demiurge (Tim.29d-30a)

3.1.1. The goodness o f God the c r e a t o r (29d-30a)

P l a t o ' s statement that the goodness of the demiurge i s the motive f o r h i s

c r e a t i o n of the cosmos i s considered by P h i l o to be d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e to the
c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y of God the c r e a t o r , and i s a c c o r d i n g l y r e f l e c t e d i n a large
number of P h i l o n i c t e x t s .
A first i n d i c a t i o n of the importance which P h i l o attaches to the doctrine
can be gained from the prominent place i t i s given i n h i s explanation of the
B i b l i c a l account of 'day one' of c r e a t i o n . The e n t i r e passage Opif.21-23 i s
an adaptation of Tim.29d7-30a7, as w i l l become c l e a r i n the a n a l y s i s given i n
t h i s and the two f o l l o w i n g sub-sections. Having concluded h i s d i s c u s s i o n on
j the Logos as place of the H O O U O S v o n x o s and God's powers (§20), P h i l o i n t r o d u -
ces i n §21 the 6uvapus x o a u o T E O L n x u M r i , which has as i t s source the t r u l y good
(xo itpos aXrideuav aya%ov) . T h i s statement r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r explanation:

ei yap x u s edeAriaeue xfjv auxuav ?is evena xo6e xo Tiav e 6 n y t o u p y e t x o 6t-

106 ANALYSIS

e p e u v a a $ a u , 6oneZ p o t pf) 6tapapxeCv axonou (papevos, onep nai xwv apxailwv

eZne x u s , ctyadov e£vau xov rcaxepa MaL Trounxriv. . .
The language used i s meant t o d i s c l o s e the source. Even before the a l l u s i o n
i s f o r m a l l y i n d i c a t e d , a C x t a v and xo6e xo %av r e c a l l 29d7, while the words
ceyadov eCvau xov Ttaxepa xau nourixriv amount to a paraphrasing c o n f l a t i o n of 29
e1 and 28c3. Plato's name i s not mentioned ( j u s t as the dv6peg cppovtpot whom
P l a t o followed (30a1) remain anonymous), but the a l l u s i o n to the Timaeus i s
made even more evident by the (obviously d e l i b e r a t e ) reference to the famous
d e s c r i p t i o n of the c r e a t o r i n 28c3 (on which see above I I 2.2.2.). A similar
statement i s found i n Cher. 127: eupnoeus... xfjs 6e xaxaoxeurls (xou xoapou) a t -
xuav xfjv d y a ^ o x r i x a xou 6rjptoupYou. The context of t h i s remark i s an exposi -
t i o n of Middle P l a t o n i s t ' p r e p o s i t i o n a l metaphysics', i n which the A r i s t o t e -
l i a n d o c t r i n e of causes i s adapted to the requirements o f P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e .
We s h a l l r e t u r n to t h i s theme below at I I 3.4.5., where i t s relevance to P h i -
l o ' s t r a i n of thought i n Opif.16-25 w i l l be observed.

In two more passages of the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary P h i l o returns to the

theme of God's motive i n c r e a t i n g the cosmos, Leg.3.78 and Deus 108 ( c f . also
Plant.91, c i t e d below i n I I 3.1.2.). S i g n i f i c a n t l y both i n v o l v e exegesis of
the text Gen.6:8, Nwe 6e eupev xdpuv evavx.tov xupuou xou d e o u . The righteous
man makes a t r u l y e x c e l l e n t f i n d , that a l l things i n the cosmos and the cosmos
i t s e l f are a xdpus or xdpuopa of God. I f one should ask what i s the a t x u a ye-
veaews (cf.29d7), says P h i l o at Deus 108, I s h a l l r e p l y what Moses teaches,
namely n xou o v x o s a y a d o x r i s . To those i n q u i r i n g a f t e r the otpxn yeveoeuig ( c f .
29e4 (!) and above I I 2.1.3.), he a f f i r m s at Leg.3.78, the c o r r e c t answer would
be the dycx^oxris nat, x ^ P ^ S xoO $eou. P l a t o 's d o c t r i n e i s now e x p l i c i t l y attri-
buted t o Moses, but i s at the same time connected with the unplatonic theme of
God's grace. Indeed the goodness and the grace of God are so c l o s e l y a s s o c i -
ated i n P h i l o ' s mind that the word xdp^S i n the B i b l i c a l tex t induces him,
without any support from the context, to r e c o l l e c t the c r e a t i o n a l account. As
c r e a t o r God shows h i s beneficence and kindness to a l l that he has made, whe-
ther great or s m a l l . Man's response must be to give thanks, but a l s o , should
the occasion r e q u i r e , to c a l l on God's mercy, coming as s u p p l i a n t s to the c r e -
ator to ask f o r the p e r p e t u i t y of h i s works (QG 2.13, c f . Mos.2.61). Charac-
t e r i s t i c a l l y P h i l o n i c i n these two passages i s a l s o the s h i f t from microcosm
to macrocosm. Grace t o the righteous man i s placed i n the l a r g e r context of
grace to the e n t i r e cosmos, of which man i s p a r t . 1

It i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o observe that i n the three main passages discussed so

f a r P h i l o introduces the question of God's motive f o r c r e a t i o n with a q u a l i f i -
catory phrase such as ' i f anyone should ask...'. Is t h i s i n r e c o g n i t i o n of
the f a c t that the question p r o p e r l y belongs to the s p e c u l a t i v e business of
philosophy, r a t h e r than t o d i r e c t exegesis of s c r i p t u r e ? In the Mosaic ac-
 I I 3.1.1. 107

count of c r e a t i o n no e x p l i c i t motivation , whether pronounced by God himself or

deduced by the w r i t e r , i s given f o r the c r e a t i v e a c t . A l l that we read are
the words i n Gen.1:31 that God saw f
a l l the things he had made, and behold,
they were very good (naXa, Abav, c f . xaAAbaxov Tim.30a7, a l s o 30b1,5 e t c . ) . 1

P h i l o makes s u r p r i s i n g l y l i t t l e use of t h i s text (only at Migr.42,135, Her.

159). 2
But he has up h i s sleeve another means of l o c a t i n g P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e of
God's goodness i n the noauoiobba of Moses.

As was noted above i n r e l a t i o n to Opif.21, P h i l o a s s o c i a t e s the concep-

t i o n of God's goodness with the d o c t r i n e of the d i v i n e powers, thereby i n t r o -
ducing the P l a t o n i c theme i n t o one of the most c o n s i s t e n t l y presented and sys-
t e m a t i c a l l y developed areas of h i s thought (on which see Wolfson 1.217-226,
Bormann 45-65). For a concise summary of the d o c t r i n e we may t u r n to one text
out of many, Cher.27 (exeg. Gen.3.24):

x a x a T 6 V eva ovxws o v x a %ebv 6vo xdg avwxdxw eZvaL nal i p w x a s 6 u v a u e u s

ayadoxnxa nal i ^ o u a u a v , nal aya$6xr|Xb uev xo itav yeyevvr\nevab, e£ouata
6e xou y e v v r j d e v x o s d p x e b v . . .
One of the two powers i s c o n s t a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h God's c r e a t i v e activity
and given the t i t l e nobnxbHri 6 u v a u b s or euepYexuKn/xapuaxtKn 6 u v a u b s . In a
large number of texts the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of d i v i n e goodness and/or b e n e f i -
cence are mentioned as an i n t r i n s i c aspect of the c r e a t i v e power; c f . Opif.21,
Leg.3.73, Cher.27, Migr.183, Her.166, Somn.1.162-163,185, Spec.1.209, QG 1.57,
2.51,75 (sometimes the b e n e f i c e n t power i s seen as subordinate to the creative
power, e.g. i n QE 2.68). A p i l l a r of support f o r P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of the d i -
vine powers i s t h e i r correspondence with God's two c h i e f names (Abr.121, Mos.,
2.97, QE 2.62 etc.). God's c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y and h i s goodness are represented
by the name %eog, while the name wupbos i n d i c a t e s h i s sovereignty. Philo has
observed, as he makes c l e a r at Plant.86, QG 2.16, that the name %eog i s used
r i g h t throughout the c r e a t i o n account i n Gen.1 ( f i r s t appearance of xupuos in
Gen.2:8, when paradise i s planted and man placed there). Therefore, as the
r e s u l t of h i s i d i o s y n c r a t i c e x e g e t i c a l methods, he can deduce that the d o c t r i n e
of d i v i n e goodness i s found r i g h t throughout the c r e a t i o n account, even though
it i s not e x p l i c i t l y mentioned.
In two other passages, which c e r t a i n l y show the i n f l u e n c e of Tim.29e-30a,
the theme of the c r e a t o r ' s goodness i s given a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t twis t on ac-
count of the e x e g e t i c a l context. Mut.46 d i s c l o s e s an e t h i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n
(exeg. Gen.32:28). The aoxeuos should emulate God, who has shown h i s bounty
to h i s creatures i n the act of c r e a t i o n and continues to care f o r them. In
Spec.4 .186-188 the a p p l i c a t i o n i s s i m i l a r , but with p o l i t i c a l overtones (exegw
Lev.19:16). The r u l e r should aim to i m i t a t e the c r e a t o r i n b e n e f i t i n g h i s
subjects r a t h e r than doing them harm, and so become a s s i m i l a t e d to God. The
celebrated P l a t o n i c x e A o s , ouobwobs d e $ , i s thus brought i n r e l a t i o n to God's
108 ANALYSIS

creational activity. We glimpse here an i n t e r e s t i n g e x t r a p o l a t i o n on P h i l o ' s

p a r t , f o r nowhere i n the Timaeus does P l a t o a f f i r m that we must t r y to become
l i k e the demiurge. See f u r t h e r our d i s c u s s i o n on Tim.90d below at I I 10.1.6.
Once again we have here an exceedingly popular and much c i t e d text i n
Middle P l a t o n i s t authors; c f . Diog.Laert.3.72, Plut.Mor.1015A-B,1102D, Ps.Plut.
De f a t o 573C, Alb.Did.12.1, Att.fr.3.2,4.13, Num.fr.20. As the Numenian text
v i v i d l y shows, the P l a t o n i s t s could hardly avoid c o n f r o n t i n g the question of
how the goodness of the demiurge i n Tim.29e was r e l a t e d to xayadov, described
i n Rep.509b as not ouata but exu IneneLva xris ouauas. D o r r i e EH V 211 has
c o n v i n c i n g l y argued that r e f l e c t i o n on these two texts was d e c i s i v e i n the de-
velopment of a h i e r a r c h i c a l transcendental theology i n l a t e r Platonism ( c f .
a l s o J.Whittaker, ' 'Enexeuva vou nai ouaoas' VChr 23(1969)91-104, B a l t e s VChr
29(1975)259). Already i n P h i l o we f i n d h i n t s of such d i s c u s s i o n , though the
d e t a i l s lack coherence. In Opif.8 the vous xwv oXwv i s xpeuxxwv r\ auxo xo
ayadov (Wolfson 1.201 sees here a piece of upmanship v i s - a - v i s P l a t o ) . In
Opif .21 the 6 u v a u u s xoauoiotrixuxri has as i t s source xo upos aArideuav aya$ov.
In Deus 108 the c r e a t o r dispenses h i s b e n e f i t s , omu&wv etg xf|V a t 6 t o v aya^oxn-
xa (a c l e a r adaptation of the way the demiurge looks to the model, cf.29a3
Ttpos xo a u 6 u o v egAeiev) . P h i l o e v i d e n t l y regards xayadov as equivalent to or
an a t t r i b u t e of God as xo ov. I t i s emphatically not p a r a l l e l to God, l e t
alone at a higher l e v e l of transcendence. The formulas eitexeuva ouauas and
etiexeuva vou are not found i n P h i l o ( W h i t t a k e r s c i t a t i o n ( a r t . c i t . 102) of
f

Leg.2.46 i n order to show that God i s above the vous i s unfortunate, since the
context shows that the human vous i s meant).

According to the sources a v a i l a b l e to us, P h i l o i s the f i r s t t h i n k er to

a s s o c i a t e the goodness of P l a t o ' s demiurge with the J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n concep-
t i o n of God the c r e a t o r , an event of enormous s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the h i s t o r y of
ideas. Even twenty c e n t u r i e s l a t e r P h i l o ' s (and P l a t o ' s) words continue to
f i n d echoes i n C h r i s t i a n theology. We give two examples:
K.Barth, Church Dogmatics I I I 1 (Eng.trans. Edinburgh 1958) 330: 'The
c r e a t i o n of God c a r r i e s with i t the Yes of God to that which He c r e a t e s .
D i v i n e c r e a t i o n i s d i v i n e b e n e f i t . What takes shape i n i t i s the good-
ness of God.'
H.Berkhof, C h r i s t e l i j k geloof (Nijkerk 1975 ) 161 : ' I f created r e a l i t y ,
3

which can give us so much d e l i g h t but a l s o make us so t e r r i f i e d , came

i n t o existence through the e x c l u s i v e i n i t i a t i v e of the Father of Jesus
C h r i s t , then d e s p i t e everythin g i t must be a benefit. The c r e a t i o n i s
good because the c r e a t o r i s good.' (my t r a n s l a t i o n )
I f the theme of God's goodness can s t i l l be used even i n a time when so much
of P l a t o ' s (and P h i l o ' s ) t e l e o l o g i c a l optimism has evaporated away, i s i t any
wonder that Tim.29e e x e r c i s e d such a powerful a t t r a c t i o n on P h i l o and, later
on, on C h r i s t i a n thinkers? Texts such as t h i s one are among the c h i e f moti-
v a t i n g f o r c e s which l e d to the P l a t o n i z i n g tendencies of P a t r i s t i c theology.
Examples of the use of Tim.29e i n P a t r i s t i c authors are: J u s t i n Apo1.1.10.2,
Iren.Adv.Haer.5.4.2, Aug.DND 11.21 etc. Such an i l l u s t r i o u s h e r i t a g e should
not, however, cause us to overlook the f a c t that P h i l o ' s conception of God's
goodness might not n e c e s s a r i l y correspond to what P l a t o had i n mind i n the
Timaeus .
 II 3.1.2. 109

3.1.2. No e n v y i n t h e d i v i n e (29e)

In two c e l e b r a t e d passages P l a t o , r e a c t i n g against ideas of d i v i n e venge-

ance and nemesis i n e a r l y Greek theology, a f f i r m s that there i s no room f o r a
grudging or envious s p i r i t i n the d i v i n e : Phdr.247a7, with an epistemologioal
purport; Tim.29e1-2 with a eosmological purport. P h i l o , r e g a r d i ng the e p i s t e -
m o l o g i c a l and eosmological aspects as complementary, echoes both statements on
frequent o c c a s i o n s. On h i s a l l u s i o n s to Phdr.247a see the l i s t at P e t i t FE
28.146, to which can be added Congr.122, Praem.39, QG 4.103,107,142. The i n -
f l u e n c e of the Timaeus text makes i t s presence f e l t i n the f o l l o w i n g t e x t s :

Opif .21: ou xdpuv Tns dpuaxris cpuaews oux ecpdovnaev ouaua pn.6ev e£ a u x n s exouarj
x a A o v , 6uvauevri 6e ndvxa yuvea£au.
Deus 108 (exeg. Gen.6:8): depdova xd d y a d d . . .
Plant.91 (exeg. Gen.28:21): o 6eatoxr)s «ai nyeywv xwv oAoov ou6ev x n s eauxou
cpuaews yexapaAAoov, yevwv 6e l v oyouw, d y a d o s eaxu (Tim.29e1) auvex&s xau cpuAo-
6wpos dveAAbnajs, xwv ovxws dya$cJ5v d(pdova)V xau devvdwv a u x u o s x e A e u o x a x o s x o u s
eu6auyovouau (text Colson EE 3.258).
Migr.183 (exeg. Deut.4:39 and brought i n t o r e l a t i o n with the d o c t r i n e of the
powers): auxn 6e xupuws eaxuv d y a d o x r i s , cp$oyov yev xov y u a d p e x o v xau yuaoxaAov
dneAnAaxuua d(p' e a u x r j s , x d p u x a s 6e yevvwaa a u s xd yfi o v x a eus y e v e a u v d y o u a a
(cf._Ii_m.30a5) dvecpnvev ( f o r m u l a t i o n here i n f l u e n c e d by Phdr.247a7, c f . Fug.62,
De Deo 12).
Congr. 171 (exeg. Gen. 16:6, Deut.8.2-3): x u s O U V O U X W S d v o a u o s e a x u v , u>s uitoAa-
3euv xaxwxnv xov §eov...; d y a $ o s ydp (Tim.29e1) xau dyadffiv a u x u o s , e u e p y e x n s ,
awxrip, xpocpeus, nAouxocpopos, yeyaAo6u)pos, x a x u a v opoav uepwv diieAnAaxws (again
the i n f l u e n c e of Phdr.247a7).
QG 1.55 (exeg. Gen.3.22): The D e i t y , however, i s without part i n any e v i l and
f

i s not envious of immortality or of the good of anyone e l s e . And here i s a

most c e r t a i n proof. Without being urged by anyone, he created the cosmos as a
benefactor, g r a n t i n g unsubdued, d i s o r d e r e d and p a s s i v e substance ( o u a u a ) the
b e n e f i t of a great and harmonious order and array of b l e s s i n g s ( t r a n s l a t i o n
Marcus, a l t e r e d to i n c l u d e the improvements of M e r c i er FE 34A.125). 1

The words i n Opif.21 c i t e d above (which f i n d a s t r i k i n g p a r a l l e l i n QG

1.55) form p a r t of the a d a p t a t i o n of Tim.29e-30a which P h i l o introduces i n o r -
der to expound the Mosaic d o c t r i n e of the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos ( s u c c e s s i v e l y
analysed i n our Commentary i n I I 3.1.1-3. 3.2.1.). God's lack of envy and un-
s t i n t i n g b o u n t i f u l n e s s , presented by P l a t o i n a q u a s i - a b s t r a c t manner as cha-
r a c t e r i s t i c of one who i s good, i s brought by P h i l o i n d i r e c t r e l a t i o n to the
unformed matter confronted by the c r e a t o r i n the process of c r e a t i o n (on the
term ouaua see below I I 3.2.1.) . The e f f e c t i s to heighten the a c t u a l i t y of
God's c r e a t i v e a c t , which takes p l a ce by means of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of h i s
benefits.

3.1.3. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of divine beneficence

God, because he i s good, devoid of envy and u n s t i n t i n g l y b o u n t i f u l , does

110 ANALYSIS

not wish to withhold d i v i n e beneficence from h i s c r e a t i o n . And yet the cosmos

which he c r e a t e d , though p e r f e c t i n i t s k i n d , does not share the f u l l perfec-
t i o n which he himself possesses. In h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of the act of c r e a t i o n
P l a t o i n c l u d e s two q u a l i f y i n g phrases - óxu ydAuoxa 29e3, x a x d öuvauuv 30a3 —
which i n d i c a t e a measure of l i m i t a t i o n i n the t r a n s f e r r a l of the demiurge's
goodness to the cosmos he b r i n g s i n t o being. These q u a l i f y i n g phrases can be
i n t e r p r e t e d i n two ways, which we may d e s c r i b e as 'from above' or 'from below'.
E i t h e r the d i v i n e beneficence i s too great f o r the m a t e r i a l realm f u l l y to ac-
cept, or the i n t r a c t a b i l i t y of the c h a o t i c matter p a r t i a l l y f r u s t r a t e s the d i -
v i n e purpose.

It i s c l e a r from P h i l o ' s words at Opif.23 that he opts f o r the f i r s t a l -

t e r n a t i v e , more c o n s i s t e n t as i t i s with the d o c t r i n e of d i v i n e omnipotence: 1

...o %ebg eyvo) öeüv euepyexeüv d x a y t e u x o u s nai n A o u a t a u s xdpuau xriv d v eu

öwpeas %eiag cpuatv ouöevós dyadou öuvauévriv kiibXaxeZv eE, èauxfjs. dAA'ou
ïïpos T O péyedos evepyexeZ xöv èauxoü x a p t x w v - diteptypacpou ydp auxau ye
nai d x e A e u x n x o t -, Ttpós öè x d s xwv euepyexouyévwv öuvdyets' ou ydp <Ls
Tié(puxev ó %eog eu loueüv, O U X O J S x a t xó ytvóyevov eu i t d a x e t v , knel xoö yèv
ai Öuvdyeus Uïïep$dAAouab, xó 6'dadevéaxepov óv n waxe öé^aadau xó yéyedos
auxwv aneZitev d v , ei yn óteyexpnaaxo a x a d y n a d y e v o s euapyóaxws èxdaxw xó
êiugdAAov.
Once again epistemology and cosmology are seen to run p a r a l l e l . Here i s ap-
p l i e d to the cosmogonic s i t u a t i o n the same fundamental p r i n c i p l e noted above
at I I 2.4.1. i n r e l a t i o n to God's bestowal of knowledge, xotpL-Coyau 6' èya) xd
ouxeCa xcp An^oyevw (Spec.1.43, c f . Post.145, Deus 80 e t c . ) . God's goodness
has to be d i s t r i b u t e d and measured out to i t s r e c i p i e n t s i n a manner commensu-
r a t e to t h e i r c a p a c i t y f o r accepting i t .
In t h i s text P h i l o speaks i n r a t h e r general terms. He i s not s p e c i f i c
about who i s doing the d i s t r i b u t i n g and measuring and what measurements are
involved. But the context demands that the process of d i s t r i b u t i o n and mea-
surement be r e l a t e d to the work of c r e a t i o n , i l l u s t r a t e d i n the image of the
d i v i n e a r c h i t e c t who plans and c o n s t r u c ts the megalopolis. The measurer i s
thus the d i v i n e Logos o r , i n more a b s t r a c t terms, the n o e t i c cosmos as d i v i n e
plan f o r the cosmos' s t r u c t u r e ( i n the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs, §24-25, the Logos
and the n o e t i c cosmos are seen to amount to the same). Other P h i I o n i c texts
confirm t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . At QG 1.4 the Logos i s d e s c r i b e d as ' f i r s t prin-
c i p l e , a r c h e t y p a l idea , premeasurer of a l l things (upoyexprixris , r e t r a n s l a t i o n
Marcus)'. At QG 4.23 the name Gomorrah (Gen.18:20), meaning 'measure', i s t a -
ken to r e f e r to the d i v i n e Logos, 'by which have been measured and are measured
a l l things that are on e a r t h - p r i n c i p l e s (or r a t i o s ) , numbers and proportions
i n harmony and consonance being i n c l u d e d , through which the forms and measures
of e x i s t e n t s are seen'. In other passages i t i s the ideas or forms which do
the measuring; c f . Opif.130, Spec.1.327, QE 2.33,52 e t c . ) . In Sacr.59 and QG
 II 3.1.3. 111

4.8 P h i l o undertakes to give an exegesis of the Tpua u e i p a (of wheat-flour!):

the three measures are God ( i n the guise of the Logos), the c r e a t i v e and the
r e g a l powers, measuring the n o e t i c , supra-lunary and sub-lunary realms respec-
tively (a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of e x e g e t i c a l convenience). These are seen as three,
but i n r e a l i t y God i s one and alone the measure of a l l things (cf.Laws 716c). 2

On the r o l e of the ideas as g i v i n g measurement i n Middle Platonism compare A l -

binus Did.9.1:
eoxu 6e f| u6ea ihg pev rcpos §eov vonau s a u x o u , oos 6e itpos ripas v o n x o v Tcpco-
T O V , a)s 6e Ttpos T H V uAnv u e i p o v , oog 6e npbg T O V aLo%T)Tov xoapov 7iapa6ebY _

p a , d)s 6e %pbg a\)TT)\) i ^ e x a C o p e v r i o u a t a

See a l s o Calc.339, Plot.Enn.2.9.3.5.
What k i n d of measurements does P h i l o have i n mind? In many of the above-
c i t e d texts he describes measurement i n a q u i t e general sense, i . e . goodness
and beneficence being channelled i n t o order and s t r u c t u r e by means of measure-
ment ( t h i s i s the i n t e n t i o n i n Opif.23). But i n some t e x t s (e.g. QG 4.23), he
envisages, j u s t l i k e A l b i n u s , the s p e c i f i c process of informing matter with
number, r a t i o and p r o p o r t i o n , i . e . the process described by P l a t o i n h i s ac-
count of the geometrical shapes of the primary bodies (Tim.53c-57d). To this
subject we s h a l l r e t u r n below at I I 8.3.1.

3.1.4. God's w i l l and t h e p r o b l e m o f theodicy

One of the features of the anthropomorphic ( i . e . mythical) presentation

of the demiurge i n the Timaeus i s that he i s a c c r e d i t e d with c e r t a i n 'psycho-
l o g i c a l ' t r a i t s , not only thought but a l s o v o l i t i o n and emotion ( c f . B r i s s o n
33-34). Three times i n the account of the act of c r e a t i o n P l a t o emphasizes
that the god willed, not (note well!) that the cosmos should or should not
come i n t o being, but that i t be as good as p o s s i b l e (29e3,30a2,d3). In h i s
commentary on the c r e a t i o n a l account P h i l o eagerly takes over the n o t i o n of
God's w i l l , but, i n contrast to P l a t o , a p p l i e s i t to the a c t u a l d e c i s i o n to
create the cosmos. God willed to create t h i s v i s i b l e cosmos (Opif.16 3ouAn-
%eig T O V opaTov Koopov T O U T O V U 6np ooupYnoau, cf.§19 a>£ dpa Trjv peyaAoTtoAuv
K T b ^ e t v 6Lavor)§£bs, Conf. 175 et i%e\ob 6npboupyfjaau e t c . ) . When a f f i r m i n g
that God $ouAeTau pova Taya§a (Spec.4.187), P h i l o immediately f o l l o w s with the
i l l u s t r a t i o n of the cosmos' y e v e a u s (and a l s o i t s 6uotMrious; see f u r t h e r below
II 6.1.3.).

The a s s e r t i o n that God i s good and wished to make the cosmos as good as
p o s s i b l e r a i s e s the problem of theodicy. Can God be held r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the
shortcomings of the cosmos and the e v i l things that undeniably occur i n i t ?
At Tim.29e-30a P l a t o c e r t a i n l y expects h i s reader to r e c a l l Rep.379b-c, where
he had proven to h i s own s a t i s f a c t i o n that the good (and thus a l s o o $ e o s ) was
112 ANALYSIS

oux apa itdvxwv ye auxuov, aAAot xwv yev eu Ixovxwv auxuov, xwv 6e xaxwv avau-
xuov (b15-16). For P h i l o too i t i s an axiomatic p r i n c i p l e that God i s the
source of good things only , and that the cause of e v i l w i l l have to be sought
elsewhere. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s h i s comment on the words spoken to Cain by God
i n Gen.4:7, opdws 6e \ir\ 6 t e A n g . To say that a l l t h i n g s , both what i s b e a u t i -
f u l and i t s opposite, came i n t o being through the agency of God i s to f a i l to
make c l e a r - c u t and necessary d i s t i n c t i o n s i n one's t h i n k i n g (Agr.128-129).
That the words i n Tim.29e2-3,30a2-3,6-7,d1-3 were read as r e f l e c t i n g t h i s axi-
omatic p r i n c i p l e can be seen i n P h i l o ' s manner of formulation i n passages such
as Conf. 180 lyTipeieaxaxov 6e xa oilxeua xf) eauxou cpuaeu 6 n u t o u p Y e t v apuaxa xw
aptaxw, Abr.268 $ouAoyevw 6e d x apuaxa, Spec.4.187 ( c i t e d above). Note a l s o
the t e x t s Congr.171 and QG 1.55, already discussed above i n I I 3.1.2., i n
which the a f f i r m a t i o n of God's otcpdovta has theodical intent. Other t e x ts ab-
s o l v i n g God from a l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e v i l are Plant.53, Fug.69, Praem.32,
Prov.2.82 (here matter i s designated the cause of e v i l ) , QG 1.89, f r . 5 (FE 33.
219). The theme of theodicy i s p a r t i c u l a r l y prominent i n the t r e a t i s e s De
Providentia ( c f . Hadas-Lebel FE 35.92-1 14). I t i s a concern which P h i l o shares
with Jewish Wisdom l i t e r a t u r e , though i t i s there expressed i n terms l e s s i n -
fluenced by P l a t o and Greek philosophy ( c f . J.Laporte 'Phil o i n the tradition
of B i b l i c a l Wisdom l i t e r a t u r e ' 109). Further aspects of the problem of theo-
d i c y which are r e l e v a n t to the Timaeus w i l l be discussed below at I I 6.1.3.
6.2.1.

A much more s p e c u l a t i v e subject i s the p o s s i b l e contingency of the cosmos.

I f God w i l l e d to create t h i s cosmos, then i t i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y p o s s i b l e that he
may have w i l l e d not to c r e a t e i t . P h i l o nowhere addresses t h i s problem, and
to f o r c e i t on him i s to run the r i s k of anachronism. Nevertheless a s t a t e -
ment such as we f i n d i n Spec.4.187, xaxeuvw ($e$) 6UVCXULS yev eoxu 6pav exaxe-
pa (xo xe e5 nal xo xeCpov) , 3ouAexau 6e yova xayadct ( c f . Abr.268 and the fre-
quent formula x$ deep itotvxa 6 u v a x a i n Opif.146, Abr. 175 e t c . ) , undeniably i n -
troduces an emphasis on d i v i n e omnipotence and conscious v o l i t i o n that i s f o r -
eign to P l a t o ' s demiurge. Is the good good because God has determined i t and
does i t , or does God do the good because i t i s good? P l a t o would c e r t a i n l y
agree with the l a t t e r a l t e r n a t i v e ( c f . Euthyph.6e-11a). I t i s f a r l e s s easy
to decide where P h i l o * s sympathies l i e .

The theme of God's w i l l was to become an important subject i n l a t e r C h r i s -

t i a n Platonism ( c f . D i l l o n 284). The issues involved are already i l l u s t r a t e d
i n a p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g tex t found i n Galen UP 11.14 (= 2.158 Helmreich,
text and t r a n s l a t i o n i n Walzer Galen on Jews and C h r i s t i a n s 11-13), where the
subject of the unchanging length of the eyelashes leads to a d i s c u s s i o n of the
divine w i l l . Galen has no qualms i n i d e n t i f y i n g the Mosaic c r e a t o r and P l a t o -
n i c demiurge. But the a f f i r m a t i o n that ' a l l things are p o s s i b l e to God',
which he a t t r i b u t e s to Moses and which i s , as we saw, o f t e n found i n P h i l o , he
d e c l a r e s to be q u i t e unacceptable. I t i s absurd to think that God could make
 II 3.1.4. 113

a b u l l or a horse out of ashes should he wish to do so.

3.2. The act of c r e a t i o n (Tim.30a)

3.2.1. From d i s o r d e r to order (30a)

P l a t o describes the 'act 1

or 'moment' of c r e a t i o n as t a k i n g place when
the demiurge Zed ( n y d y e v ) a l l that was v i s i b l e from d i s o r d e r to order (30a5).
The disordere d s t a t e was inherent i n the p r e - e x i s t e n t realm of chaos, des-
c r i b e d as oux n o u x t a v dyov OLXXOL Htvouuevov TiAnyyeAuJs nai dxdxxwg (30a4-5) .
The choice of the verb r i y a y e v i s r e v e a l i n g . In i t s s i m p l i c i t y i t suggests
guidance and persuasion ( c f . 4 8 a ) , not the peremptory commandeering of the Gene-
s i s account. The b a s i c theme of 30a i s r e c a p i t u l a t e d i n 69b3-5; the god i n -
troduces d v a A o y o a and auuuexpta (cf.31b-32c) i n t o a primal chaos which i s d x d -
KTWS e'xovia.
The i n f l u e n c e of Tim.30a i s d i r e c t l y p e r c e p t i b l e i n a large number of
P h i l o n i c passages: Opif.8-9,21-22,28, Plant.3,5, Her.133-134,140,157,160, Fug.
8-10, Somn. 1.76,241 , 2.45 ( c f . Mut.135), Mo_s.2.100, Spec. 1.48,328-329, 4.187,
Aet.40,106 ( c f . 7 5 ) , Prov.1.7-8,22 (cf.2.48-50), QG 1.55,64, 2.13, De Deo 6-7.
Before we proceed to analyse these t e x t s , i t i s worth p o i n t i n g out that the
c o n t r a s t between xd£ts and dxa£ta i s undoubtedly a P h i l o n i c s t y l i s t i c manner-
ism. At Legat.147 he d e s c r i b e s the Emperor Augustus i n terms worthy of (and
derived from!) the P l a t o n i c demiurge (the commentaries of Smallwood and Pelle-
t i e r FE both miss these resonances):
ouxos o x d s TtoAets d i d o a s etg eXevbepiav e£eAoyoveos, o xfjv dxaguav e i s
x d ^ t v dyayoov, o xd d y t x x a e%vr\ nai $nptu>6r| ftdvxa riyepwaas nai dpyoadye-
v o s , . . . o x a s x d p u x a s d x a y t e u x o u s eig y e a o v i p o d e t s ( c f . Opif.23), o yn6ev
dioKpu(i»dyevos aya%bv r) naXbv ev duavxu x$ eauxoij guw.
The same c o n t r a s t i s used i n §94, but now s a r c a s t i c a l l y , of another Emperor,
the despised Gaius C a l i g u l a (other examples at Leisegang 762b-764a). The an-
t i t h e s i s corresponds, one may surmise, to deep-seated metaphysical, psycholo -
g i c a l and p o l i t i c a l c o n v i c t i o n s , as expressed s e n t e n t i o u s l y at Spec.4.210,
(o $ e o s ) xd^uv en d x a ^ t a s e u a n y o u y e v o s • xa£eu yev yap a u y y e v e g n o a y o s , dxa£ta
6e xo d x o a y o v (word-play on ordered world-system and seemliness, as noted by
Colson EE 8.138; c f . a l s o Opif .28 MCXAOV ydp ou6ev ev dxa£ua).

We commence with Opif.21-22. This passage i s the only part of the leng-
thy adaptation of Tim.29e-30a i n §21-23 which so f a r has not been analysed
(see f u r t h e r above I I 3.1.1-3). God's goodness i s u n s t i n t i n g l y bestowed on an
ouaila yn6ev e£ auxfis exouan x a A o v , 6uvayevn 6e i d v x a y u v e a d a u . Creation takes
114 ANALYSIS

place when that ouaua r e c e i v e s (e6exexo) xporcnv xctu yexagoAnv t r iv eLs xdvavxta

nau xd ( 3 e A x u a x a . In order to i l l u s t r a t e the c o n t r a s t between the s i t u a t i o n

before and a f t e r the c r e a t i v e a c t , P h i l o gives a l i s t of seven opposed p a i r s

of terms, the one term i n each case a d j e c t i v a l l y d e s c r i b i n g the q u a l i t i e s of

the o u a u a , the other r e v e a l i n g by means of nouns the r e a l i z e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

of the created product:

dxaxxos xd^us
duouos Tiouoxris
d^uxos ey^uxta
<dvoyouos> oyouoxns
exepouoxnxos - xauxoxns
dvapyoaxuas - T O eudpyooxov
dauycpwvuas yeaxri xo ouycpwvov
Tiav oaov xns x p e t x x o v o s u 6 e a s .
First some a t t e n t i o n must be paid to detail.

o u a i a : The term i n d i c a t e s n e i t h e r P l a t o n i c 'being nor A r i s t o t e l i a n 'substance',

1

but i s equivalen t to uAn ( c f . Opif.171). This usage occurs under the i n f l u -

ence of the Stoa (cf.SVF 1.85ff., Hahm 40, Weiss 28). P l u t a r c h recognizes the
term as S t o i c (Mor.1085EF), but a l s o uses i t of ' P l a t o n i c ' uAn himself (430E,
720B,1014B xf)v o u o t a v xau u A n v ) .
e 6 e x e x o : The language of P l a t o ' s r e c e p t a c l e (i)7io6oxn 49a6); see f u r t h e r below
II 8.2.1 .
xporcnv nal yexagoAriv: Cf. P o l . 270b 1 Q-c2. The p a r a l l e l i s s i g n i f i c a n t , f o r the
P o l i t i c u s myth was used to shed l i g h t on the Timaeus ( c f . Plut.Mor.1015A,C,
1026E-F, Witt 131). P l a t o i s being explained v i a P l a t o !
xd g e A x t o x a : The 'language of e x c e l l e n c e ' ; c f . above II 2.3.2.
d x a x x o s / x a g u s : The b a s i c c o n t r a s t , drawn from 30a5 (cf.69b3).
dcjjuxos/gy^uxba: Cf.30b2-5 and b8 C&ov ep^uxov.
<avoyouos>/oyobQxns: The emendation, f i r s t suggested by a c e r t a i n Markland, i s
r e q u i r e d f o r the balance between the two sets of p a i r s . Moreover i t a p t l y r e -
c a l l s not only d v o y o u o x a x a i n 53a4 ( c f . a l s o dvwydAws 52e3), but a l s o the f a -
mous image of the Tf\g dvoyouoxnxos d n e t p o s Ttovxos derived once again from the
P o l i t i c u s myth (273d6). oyotoxns i s used by P l a t o esp. of the s p h e r i c a l shape
of the cosmos; cf.33b6-7 and below I I 4.2.3.
e x e p o b o x r i s / x a u x o x r i S : The usage here i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t to that of P l a t o i n Tim.
35-37 (and i n the S o p h i s t ) . See below II 5.2.1. on Decal.102ff.
d v a p y o a x u a s . • . y e a x n : Cf.30a4 nAnyyeAws and the harmony r e c e i v e d by the cosmic
soul (35a-c), on which see below II 5.1.1. Once again c f . the P o l i t i c u s myth,
273c7 xo xfjs naAauas d v a p y o a x u a s Ttddos. P l u t a r c h Mor. 1015D quotes both P o l .
273c7,d6 i n connection wit h exegesis of Tim.30a, but r e l a t e s the d i s o r d e r to
the pre-cosmic soul. At Prov.1.21 P h i l o d e f i n e s the 'cosmos according to
P l a t o ' as a d p y o v t a or auycpwvta; see below I I 5.4.3.
xpebxxovos u 6 e a s : I.e. the model, introduced p r e v i o u s l y i n §16.

Despite one or two small d i f f e r e n c e s the nominal expressions give an ade-

quate impression of the s t r u c t u r e d o r g a n i z a t i o n r e c e i v e d by the cosmos as c r e -

ated product i n the Timaeus. But what about P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the pre-

e x i s t e n t ouaua? Although the verb idexETO r e c a l l s the r e c e p t a c l e , what i s

portrayed i n t h i s passage i s not the 'realm of chaos' intended by P l a t o i n the

Timaeus, i . e . a ' p l a s t i c ' s p a t i a l continuum i n which random events take place

and i n which/out of which body i s c o n s t r u c t e d . 1

Nor i s matter meant to be con-

ceived as an A r i s t o t e l i a n primal passive substrate or a S t o i c passiv e ^ p r i n c i p l e ,

 II 3.2.1. 115

representing an ever-present (and mentally abstracted) c o n s t i t u e n t of reality.

The emphasis f a l l s on negativity (as i n d i c a t e d by the sequence of a l p h a - p r i v a - \
t i v e s ) and a l s o on p o t e n t i a l i t y ( 6 u v a u e v n itdvxa Y t v e a d a u — t h i s i s A r i s t o t e -
l i a n ) , but not on total passivity. Thus the 'positive 1
aspects of Plato's
chaos ( o p a x o v , x t v o u u e v o v ) are set a s i d e , while i t s other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (oux
nauxCav d y o v , itAripueAfts, d x d x x w s , dvwpdAws, d v o p o u o x a x a ) supply the b a s i s f o r
the long l i s t of negatives . The p r e - e x i s t e n t matter i s p a t e n t l y regarded as a
kind of d i s o r d e r e d and unformed ' s t u f f , l y i n g ready to hand (we might imagine)
as c l a y f o r the brickmaker or unhewn stone f o r the s c u l p t o r ( c f . Prov.2.50-51). 2

The d e s c r i p t i o n dcjjuxog i s h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t , because from i t must be de-

duced that the d i s o r d e r l y movement ( i m p l i ed by e p i t h e t s such as d x c t x x o s , d v a p -
u o o x t a s u e a x r i , and the absence of the e p i t h e t a x u v n x o s ) i s due not to the pre-
sence of an i r r a t i o n a l s o u l , but to an inherent ' q u a l i t y ' of the matter itself.
This i s i n marked c o n t r a s t to the view of Middle P l a t o n i s t s such as Plutarch,
A t t i c u s and Numenius, who, p l a c i n g much emphasis on the d e s c r i p t i o n i n Tim.30a
sought to e x p l a i n the pre-cosmic i r r e g u l a r motions by p o s t u l a t i n g an irration-
a l pre-cosmic soul which the demiurge converts to o r d e r l i n e s s and rationality. 3

But does not the e p i t h e t d i o u o s suggest the conception of a q u a l i t y - l e s s , ever-

present m a t e r i a l substrate (the term i s f r e q u e n t l y used of the S t o i c passive
p r i n c i p l e , c f . SVF 2.301,304,309 e t c . ) ? In the context i t appears that dicouos
r e f e r s to the lack of form (due to the absence of the Ttotoxnxes or immanent
forms, on which see above I I 2.2.1.), and does not exclude the negative cha-
r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p r e - e x i s t e n t d i s o r d e r ed matter.

A few pages e a r l i e r i n Opif .8-9 P h i l o a l s o speaks of a pexagoAri from mat-

t e r i n an unordered s t a t e to the cosmos as x e A e u o x a x o v epyov. But there are
d i s t i n c t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h i s text and §21-22. Moses, having reached the
p i n n a c l e of philosophy, perceived that i n r e a l i t y ( e v xous ot5ou) there i s xo
6potaxripuov atxtov (the d i v i n e Nous) and xo Ttadnxov (matter) . Once again P h i l o
gives a ( t h i s time shorter) sequence of c o n t r a s t s , a d j e c t i v a l l y d e s c r i b i n g the
matter, p a r t i c i p i a l l y the o r d e r i n g a c t i v i t y of the Nous:

TO Tiadnxov
dcj^uxov ^ 4>uxw$ev
* * > e£ eauxou a x n y a T u a d ev > \)%6 xou vou
dxovnxov ' xuvn^ev *
Given P h i l o ' s fondness f o r compiling l i s t s of contraste d p a i r s (we s h a l l come
across more examples soon), one might consider the p o s s i b i l i t y that an adjec-
t i v e <doxnyctxbaxov> has f a l l e n out. But u n l i k e i n the case of <dvopotos> in
§22 no e d i t o r has included i t i n the text (the word i s used of ououa in Fug.
8, Somn.2.45, c f . Spec.1.48). In c o n t r a s t to §22 P h i l o include s here the op-
p o s i t i o n between d x L v n x o s and xuvndev. Matter appears to have no ' p o s i t i v e '
116 ANALYSIS

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i t s own, not even d i s o r d e r l y movement.

As has been noted by many s c h o l a r s (e.g. Z e l l e r 435, Weiss 41, F r u c h t e l
12), P h i l o s d i s t i n c t i o n between an a c t i v e cause and a passiv e object i s i n -
f

debted, f o r i t s terminology at l e a s t , to the S t o i c d o c t r i n e of two p r i n c i p l e s

( c f . an e x c e l l e n t p a r a l l e l at Sex.Emp.Adv.Math.9.75 (= SVF 2.311), other texts
at SVF 2.299-328). But i t must not be thought that S t o i c cosmology causes the
Timaeus to recede i n t o the background. The b a s i c schema of the Timaeus i s
s t i l l being used to e x p l a i n Mosaic d o c t r i n e , but with the a i d of S t o i c terms.
Compare the f o l l o w i n g account of the Timaeus i n the P l a c i t a P l a t o n i s at Diog.
Laert.3.69 (cf.76-77):
6uo 6e xwv TtavTWV diecpnvev (o IIAaxoov) d p x d s %eov nai uAriv, ov nai vouv
9

Ttpoaayopeueu nai a t i u o v . e l v a u 6e xfjv uAnv d a x n y d x u a x o v nai diteupov, eB,

1)£ y b v e a d a u xd a u Y H p t y a x a . dxaxxoos 6e noxe auxfiv x u v o u y e v n v uito xou deoO"
cpnauv eus e v a a u v a x ^ n v a u X O T I O V xd£tv dxa£t,as Hpeuxxova riYnoayevou.
Here a r a t h e r u n s a t i s f a c t o r y compromise i s attempted between the S t o i c doc-
t r i n e of the passive p r i n c i p l e and Plato' s d i s o r d e r l y chaos i n Tim.30a. The
uAn i s d a x n y d x u a x o s nai d n e u p o s , but i s not c a l l e d d n t v i i x o s because of Plato' s
e x p l i c i t words ( x t v o u y e v n v -*30a4). P h i l o avoids such problems by r e t a i n i n g
only the s k e l e t a l frame of P l a t o ' s t e x t , namely the t r a n s i t i o n from l a c k of
order to order r e s u l t i n g i n the p e r f e c t product. How the orthodox Middle P l a -
t o n i s t d o c t r i n e of three dpxott could be a l t e r e d to only two becomes c l e a r i n a
text such as Hippolytus Philos.19.2-3 ( D i e l s Pox.Gr.567). The 7iapd6euYya i s
the 6udvoua $ e o 0 , so that there remain two fundamental p r i n c i p l e s , God and
matter (the same tendency i s v i s i b l e at times i n P l u t a r c h , e.g. Mor.1014A-B).

As we observed above i n I I 2.2.1., P h i l o r e j e c t s the n o t i o n of a passive

p r i n c i p l e or cause, l e s t i t be thought that God and matter were on the same
level. Neverthless i n Opif.8-9 matter i s regarded as an ever-present consti-
tuent of r e a l i t y (ev xous o u a t ) . I t i s the t o t a l p a s s i v i t y of matter that i s
stressed. The d i s o r d e r l y motion of Tim.30a i s l a c k i n g , and yet the context
(the yeveoLg xou xooyou) and the a o r i s t verb yexegcxAev do suggest a c r e a t i v e
moment, when a change occurs from a pre-cosmic s i t u a t i o n to the cosmos as we
know i t .

I t i s not so easy, t h e r e f o r e , to envisage p r e c i s e l y what P h i l o intends

with h i s conception of unformed matter used by God in creation. On the one
hand i t i s depicted with the n e g a t i v i t y of a d i s o r d e r l y m a t e r i a l , as sugges-
ted by the metaphor of the craftsman or a r t i s t . But matter can a l s o be regar-
ded as a wholly passive, q u a l i t y - l e s s substrate u n d e r l y i n g c o r p o r e a l reality
and remaining present a l s o a f t e r c r e a t i o n had taken p l a c e . The problems here
are a legacy of the d i f f i c u l t i e s posed by the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the receptacle
and the pre-cosmic chaos i n the Timaeus, compounded by A r i s t o t l e ' s identifica-
t i o n of the r e c e p t a c l e with h i s concept of uAn ( c f . Phys,209b12) and the i n -
fluence of the S t o i c d o c t r i n e of body as q u a l i f i e d matter. Another complica-
t i n g f a c t o r which needs to be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s that the view taken
by an i n t e r p r e t e r of the Timaeus on the c o n t r o v e r s i a l question of whether the
cosmos was or was not c r e a t ed i n a c r e a t i o n a l event was l i k e l y to have impor-
tant consequences f o r h i s conception of matter. 5
The problems found i n P h i l o ' s
account are matched by Middle P l a t o n i s t u n c e r t a i n t i e s and dispute s on the na-
 II 3.2.1. 117

ture of matter; see f u r t h e r below I I 8.2.2. I l l 3.5.2a. The c e n t r a l question

that must be asked of P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of matter i s the extent to which he
supports a d u a l i s t i c view which a t t r i b u t e s to matter an a c t i v e maleficence; to
t h i s subject we r e t u r n i n I I 8.1.1. 8.2.2. I l l 2.8.

It w i l l not be p o s s i b l e to analyse to the same depth a l l the other passa-

ges i n which the i n f l u e n c e of Tim.30a i s f e l t . These texts add l i t t l e to our
understanding of what P h i l o considers matter to be, but are of i n t e r e s t be-
cause the b a s i c n o t i o n of a t r a n s i t i o n from d i s o r d e r to order i s combined with
other, o f t e n non-Platonic i d e a s .

Plant.3,5: Tim.30a i s adapted to the requirements of the 'phyto-cosmolo-

g i c a l excursus' given as exegesis of Gen.9:20. The pre-cosmic ouaua which i s
dxaxxos xaL G U Y K E X ^ y E v n auxris, i s l e d (dywv)
E L S xd^uv zE, dxa£uas
ex Ö U Y X U O " £ Ü ) S eus öüdxptötv.
The second c o n t r a s t e d p a i r , suggesting a process of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and separa-
t i o n , has c l e a r B i b l i c a l overtones (Gen.1:4,11:9, c f . Conf.187,191, Spec.2.
151); but f o r O U Y X U O L S c f . SVF 2.317, otdxpuous Tim.52e6, Tim.Locr.7.
Her.133ff. (exeg. Gen.15:10): The change from d i s o r d e r to order i s adap-
ted to the d i a e r e t i c a c t i v i t y of the Logos-cutter. The c r e a t o r , having whet-
ted h i s X O Y O S Toueus, d i v i d e s (öurJpEu) xnv xe dyopcpov xau drtouov xwv O X W V ou-
atav, producing the four elements, and so on (§140). At §160 the primal mat-
ter i s d e s c r i b e d i n terms more reminiscent of the Timaeus and Opif.22: xnv
önuuoupYn^etaav uXnv, xnv dcj^uxov xat TtXnuueXfj (cf.30a4) nai ötaXuxnv, E X U 6 E
cpdapxnv iE, eauxfjs (see below I I 6.1.2.) dvwyaXov X E nai dvuaov (cf.52e2-3 ynxE
. .. baoppOTtetv, dXX 'dvwydXws). A s i m i l a r account i s given at QG 1.64, t h i s
time as exegesis of Gen.4:7 (Cain's s a c r i f i c e ) .
Fug.8-10: Already analysed above at I I 2.2.1. Laban represents those who
d e i f y xnv duouov nai dvELÖEov xaL doxnydxuaxov ouatav, Jacob those who a f f i r m
that mind came and organized a l l t h i n g s , xnv iE, oxXoxpaxLas E V xous ouatv dxa-
£uav E L S dpxns voyuyou, ßaauXeuas, xd£uv aYaYOVxa. Here the c o n t r a s t between
d i s o r d e r and order i s r e i n f o r c e d by the ' p o l i t i c a l ' image of k i n g s h i p (opposed
to mob-rule) with i t s manifold B i b l i c a l and metaphysical a s s o c i a t i o n s .
Somn.1.241: 'I am God', Moses w r i t e s (Gen.31:13), meaning that 'I alone
am standing ( c f . Ex. 17:6) and e s t a b l i s h e d the nature of the u n i v e r s e , xriv dxa-
£uav nai dxoayuav eig xoayov xau xd£tv aYotYwv, and g i v i n g i t support so that
i t can r e s t s e c u r e l y on my v i c e r o y (üitapxos) , the Logos'. God creates the
cosmos and s u s t a i n s i t through the agency of the Logos.
Spec.1.48,328-329, Mut.135, Somn.2.45: In these t e x t s (exeg. Ex.33:13ff.,
Deut.23:2, Gen.38:25,38:18 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) the r o l e of the ideas or forms i n im-
posing order on the c h a o t i c s t a t e of matter i s emphasized. The method of con-
t r a s t i n g a d j e c t i v e s and p a r t i c i p l e s i n Spec.1.48 r e c a l l s Opif.9 (though both
ideas and m a t e r i a l (things) are put i n the p l u r a l ) :
xd dxaxxa xdxxouaau
xd ditELpa TiEpaxouaat
dopuaxa TCEpuopuCouaau
doxnydxuaxa axnyaxLCouaaL.
At Somn.2.45 i t i s God who shapes by means of h i s ocppaYbS, the Logos:
(xnv ououav) daxnydxuaxov (o § E O S ) EaxnydxLae
xat dxuiwxov EXUTIWOE

xat ditouov Eyopcpwae . . .

Note, f i n a l l y , that i n Spec. 1 .328-329 matter i s not only dyopcpog nai diouos
but a l s o diEupos xau lEcpupysvn. Those p h i l o s o p h e r s who r e j e c t the d o c t r i n e of
ideas reduce a l l things ( i n t h e i r theory at l e a s t ) to dxa£ta and O U Y X U Ö Ü S ( c f .
the charge against Laban i n Fug.8-10).
 118 ANALYSIS

Spec.4.187 (exeg. Lev.19:16): I l l u s t r a t i n g God's c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y , Philo

gives h i s longest l i s t of c o n t r a s t s :
id \ir\ ovxa enaXeoev eig T O eZvab
EE, dxa£tas xa£uv
nal EE, anolusv Ttotoxnxas
xai zE, dvoyot-wv oyotoxnxas
nal EE, e x e p o u o T r i T w v xauxoxnxas
nal EE, dxotvcovrixwv xouvwvLas
xai dvapyoaxwv dpyovuas
nal E M . . .dvuaoxrixos Laoxnxa
E X . . . G X O X O U S cpws (epyaadpevos).
The s i m i l a r i t i e s with the l i s t at Opif.22 are immediately apparent. The a n t i -
t h e s i s non-being/being w i l l be discussed f u r t h e r below. The p a i r dxouvwvrixwv/
xouvwvCas are doubtless based on the Empedoclean (puXta, a l s o e x p l o i t e d by P l a to
at Tim.32c ( c f . below I I 4.1.1.). The f i n a l p a i r , as w e l l as the verb ExdXE-
OEV ( i n s t e a d of nYotyev), r e c a l l the B i b l i c a l account of c r e a t i o n at Gen. 1:3-5
(cf. Her.163, Somn.1.76). The extensive l i s t of c o n t r a s t s suggests the Pyth-
agorean d o c t r i n e of opposites ( c f . Goodenough By L i g h t , L i g h t 66-67), but the
l i s t s o f opposites given i n t r e a t i s e s such as Ps.Archytas Ilepu dvxuxEtyEVwv and
IlepL dpxwv are i n t r a - c o s m i c , not p r e - and p o s t - c r e a t i o n a l .
Aet.40,75,106: The a s s e r t i o n that God must b r i n g about change from d i s o r -
der t o order (rcpos xd£tv dxa£uav yexagdXXeuv §40) and not v i c e v e r s a i s part
of A r i s t o t l e ' s famous argument i n the De p h i l o s o p h i a (fr.19c Ross), i n which
he uses the d i a l e c t i c s of Rep.378-379 to r e f u t e P l a t o ' s a f f i r m a t i o n i n the
Timaeus that the cosmos i s yevnxos and p o t e n t i a l l y (though not a c t u a l l y ) (pdapxos.
P h i l o gives two v e r s i o n s of the argument (§40,106), i n both of which the key
words o f Tim.30a, xa£us and dxa£la, are prominent. I t i s probable that A r i s -
t o t l e was the source f o r the a l l u s i o n i n §40, f o r the S t a g i r i t e would have en-
joyed u s i n g P l a t o ' s words against himself (see f u r t h e r below I I 4.2.7.). On
t h i s argument, which had enormous i n f l u e n c e i n H e l l e n i s t i c theology, see the
remarks o f Mansfeld S t u d . H e l l . R e l . 1 4 2 f f . In §75 the e t e r n i t y of the cosmos i s
deduced by the P e r i p a t e t i c C r i t o l a u s from i t s statu s as xrjv xd£tv xwv dxdxxwv,
xfiv dpyovlav xwv dvapyoaxwv e t c . , i . e . Tim.30a makes way f o r the d o c t r i n e of
| an immanent concordia oppositorum (cf. Ps.Arist.De Mundo 5 396b22ff., J.P.Ma-
guire YCS 6(1939)133-147). The use of Tim.30a here ( i f we can c a l l i t that)
i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t to the way that P h i l o employs i t elsewhere, and he could
not have found i t c o n v i n c i n g unless t h e o l o g i c a l l y q u a l i f i e d i n the c o r r e c t
manner; c f . Runia 133.
Prov.1.7-8: On the reference s to Tim.30a i n t h i s d i f f i c u l t but important
text see the f o l l o w i n g s u b - s e c t i o n . In Prov.1.22, which d i s c u s s e s P l a t o ' s
view of the yeveous of the cosmos, the i n f l u e n c e of Tim.30a can a l s o be f e l t ;
see above I I 2.3.3.
QG 1.55: Quoted above i n I I 3.1.2. Even through the Armenian t r a n s l a t i o n
the adaptation of Tim.30a i s c l e a r l y p e r c e p t i b l e .
As was observed above, P h i l o i n Spec.4.187 sums up the whole process of
reducing chaos t o order as a t r a n s i t i o n from xd yr) ovxa eus xo e£vau. Other
t e x t s which combine t h i s f o r m u l a t i o n with Tim.30a ( i n d i c a t e d e s p e c i a l l y by the
choice o f the verb) a r e :
Migr. 183 xd yr) ovxa EL£ JEVEOLV ayovoa (n 6uvayts lounxtxri)
Mos.2.100 yovos ydp itpos dXridetav wv nal notrixris eaxtv d(jjeu6o5s (o deos) 9

erceu6ri xd yri ovxa r\yayEV EL£ T O £^vau...

Cf. a l s o Leg.3.10, Deus 119, Somn.1.76, Mos.2.267, QG 2.13. Such language of
being and non-being f i n d s no precedent i n the Timaeus, where the o p p o s i t i o n i s
between being and becoming (though at Soph.265c P l a t o does speak of dXXou x t ^
vos x] %EOV 6nyuoupyouvxos uox£pov Y^YVEa^au upox£pov oux ovxa). P h i l o ' s usage
 II 3.2.1. 119

of xd ufi OVTCX and TO yf| ov has been examined at some length by Weiss 60-68 (cf.
a l s o Baeumker op.cit.(n.5) 382-383, May 16-17). He p o i n t s out t h a t , i n con-
t r a s t to P l o t i n u s (and Clement of A l e x a n d r i a ) , P h i l o does not explicitly
equate non-being and matter. He argues that Tot yr) OVTCX simply means 'das was
noch n i c h t i n d i e ihm zukommende Form gebraucht worden i s t ' ( 6 2 ) , but that T O
yn ov i n Deus 119 and Mos.2.267 could be meant to r e f e r to p r e - e x i s t e n t matter.
This view a l s o appeals to Winston 8.

Reviewing the large number of passages analysed i n t h i s sub-section, we

may conclude that P l a t o ' s account of the c r e a t i v e moment i n Tim.30a a t t r a c t e d
P h i l o f o r two main reasons: (1) the d e p i c t i o n of c r e a t i o n as a change from
d i s o r d e r to order; (2) the d e s c r i p t i o n of the prima l chaos or, as P h i l o took
it, the p r e - e x i s t e n t matter. One i s struck by the l a r g e supply of a d j e c t i v e s
used by P h i l o to portra y the nature of that matter. Only some, as we have
noted, go back to P l a t o ; many others are found i n Middle P l a t o n i s t authors, as
i n d i c a t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g list: 6

<ku6eos Aet.Plac.1.9.4, Alb.Did.8.2

axooyos Plut.Mor.1014B
dyopcpos Diog.Laert.3.69, P l u t .Mor. 1014B, Alb.Did.8.2
avoyouos Diog.Laert .3.76
aopuoTOs Plut.Mor.1Q03B, Tim.Locr.7, Num.fr.4
diteupos Diog.Laert.3.69, P l u t .Mor. 719C, Num.fr.4
ctTtouos Plut.Mor. 1015A, Alb.Did.8.2
aoxriydTLGTos Aet.Plac. 1.9.4, Diog.Laert.3.69, Tim.Locr.4
aTaxTos Plut.Mor.719E, Num.fr.4
TtAnyyeAns c f . P l u t .Mor. 719D, Alb .Did. 12.2.
The s i n g l e most outstanding f e a t u r e of P h i l o ' s adaptations of Tim.30a - i t i s
found nowhere e l s e to the same degree - i s h i s p r e d i l e c t i o n f o r enumerating
p a i r s of contraste d terms i n order to i l l u s t r a t e the d i f f e r e n c e between aTcx£ua
and Tct^us. N a t u r a l l y allowance must be made f o r P h i l o ' s r h e t o r i c a l flair.
But at the same time t h i s f e a t u r e gives eloquent expression to h i s deep-seated
c o n v i c t i o n that i t i s above a l l order i n the broadest sense that characterizes
the cosmos as the p e r f e c t masterpiece of i t s c r e a t o r .
Two aspects of P h i l o ' s use of Tim.30a remain to be d i s c u s s e d . Firstly,
i t w i l l be necessary to take a c l o s e r look at Prov.1.6-8, a passage which has
wider i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r P h i l o ' s view of c r e a t i o n , but poses many problems f o r
the i n t e r p r e t e r . Secondly, more a t t e n t i o n must be paid to the p o s s i b l e r e l a -
t i o n of Tim.30a to the l e t t e r of the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l account. Does Moses i n
f a c t speak of a p r e - e x i s t e n t d i s o r d e r l y m a t e r i a l ? Could P h i l o use Gen.1:2 to
t h i s end, as d i d the Church Fathers? These subjects w i l l occupy us i n the
f o l l o w i n g two sub-sections.
120 ANALYSIS

3.2.2. De Providentia 1.6-8

Given the c e n t r a l importance of the d o c t r i n e of c r e a t i o n i n P h i l o * s

thought and the c o n t r o v e r s i a l p h i l o s o p h i c a l and e x e g e t i c a l problems associated
with i t , the P h i l o n i s t can h a r d l y a f f o r d to overlook a passage which s p e c i f i -
c a l l y addresses the q u e s t i o n of whether the cosmos i s created or e t e r n a l . Un-
f o r t u n a t e l y , on account of the Armenian transmission , the t e x t and meaning of
Prov.1.6-8 are decidedl y problematic. A f t e r years of r e l a t i v e neglect — i n
the s t u d i es of Drummond, B r e h i er and Wolfson i t i s ignored — three scholars
have i n recent years given independent i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the passage. We
s h a l l commence with a review of these recent contributions, adding f o r the
sake of completeness a b r i e f report of some e a r l i e r attempts to solve the puz-
z l e s that the three paragraphs contain.

P.Wendland, P h i l o s S c h r i f t über d i e Vorsehung ( B e r l i n 1892) 4-5 ( r e l y i n g

c h i e f l y on Aucher's t r a n s l a t i o n , but aided a l s o by the H e l l e n i s t and Armenolo-
g i s t F.C.Conybeare). The arguments i n favour of the createdness of the cosmos
i n §6 and 9 f f . stand i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n to the arguments i n favour of a c r e a t i o
aeterna i n §7-8. But the unmistakably P h i l o n i c language makes i t u n l i k e l y
that these two paragraphs are i n t e r p o l a t e d . Wendland suggests that they could
represent an e a r l i e r phase of P h i l o s thought. f

W.Bousset, Jüdisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb (1915) 143-146 (based on

Aucher), agrees that i n §7-8 P h i l o i s arguing i n favour of the p o s i t i o n that
i s attacked i n §6. He suggests that the anomalous contents of §7-8 can be ex-
p l a i n e d i f we assume that P h i l o c a r e l e s s l y allowed some source-material to r e -
main i n a context which a c t u a l l y argues f o r the opposite p o i n t of view.
H.F.Weiss, (1966) 32,69-70 (based on Aucher), follows Wendland, but adds
that §8, i n arguing that on account of God's e t e r n a l a c t i v i t y matter can never
e x i s t i n an unordered s t a t e , perhaps allows the p o s s i b i l i t y of a c r e a t i o ex
nihilo.
M.Baltes, (1976) 88-93, i s p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the passage because i t
could y i e l d i n s i g h t s on how the cosmogony of the Timaeus was being i n t e r p r e t e d
i n the time of P h i l o . Recognizing the inadequacies of Aucher's t r a n s l a t i o n ,
he based h i s comments on a new and more l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n supplied by h i s
colleague C.Hannick (not i n c l u d i n g §8, which Balte s does not d i s c u s s ) . Baltes
argues that the 3rd person p l u r a l s i n §6-7 r e f e r to P l a t o n i s t s who i n t h e i r
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus use the A r i s t o t e l i a n d o c t r i n e that God as pure
evepyeta can never be i n a c t i v e i n support of the n o n - A r i s t o t e l i a n view of
c r e a t i o aeterna. He thus f o l l o w s Bousset i n regarding §7 as s e t t i n g out the
viewpoint which P h i l o had attacked i n §6. The r e a l break i n the argumentation
occurs halfway through §7 (at the words at Creator j u g i t e r istam i n t e l l i g e n d o
adornavit i n Aucher's v e r s i o n ) , when P h i l o a l l of a sudden, instead of repor-
t i n g a view to which he i s opposed, now appears to put forward that viewpoint
himself. B a l t e s appeals (90n.38) to the suggestion f i r s t made by D i e l s (Pox.
G r . I f f . ) that Prov.I was o r i g i n a l l y a dialogue, but was converted i n t o a t r e a -
t i s e at some stage b e f o re the Armenian t r a n s l a t i o n was made. In the process
the c o n t i n u i t y of the t e x t may have been d i s t u r b e d .
G.Reale, Paradoxos p o l i t e i a (1979) 277-280, takes a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t view,
basing h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o l e l y on Aucher's L a t i n . In Prov.1.6-8 P h i l o gives
no l e s s than f i v e d i f f e r e n t s o l u t i o n s to the problem of the o r i g i n of the cos-
mos: (1) the A r i s t o t e l i a n view that the cosmos i s uncreated and e t e r n a l (§6);
(2) the cosmos i s created by God, but from e t e r n i t y (§6); (3) the cosmos i s
created by God out of a matter which he d i d not create and which amounts to a
 II 3.2.2. 121

p r i n c i p l e c o - e t e r n a l with God (§7); (4) God produces and orders matter simul -
taneously by means of thought, i . e . t h i n k i n g and c r e a t i n g c o i n c i d e (§7); (5)
God f i r s t creates matter and then proceeds to give i t ordered s t r u c t u r e (§8).
It i s the f i n a l s o l u t i o n , i n which the d o c t r i n e of the Timaeus i s modified i n
the l i g h t of s c i p t u r e , that represents P h i l o ' s own view.
D.Winston, (1981) 16-18, basing h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p a r t i a l l y on a t r a n s -
l a t i o n s u p p l i e d by A.Terian, considers i t p o s s i b l e to e x t r a c t from the passage
a 'consistent P h i l o n i c d o c t r i n e ( n . 3 8 ) .
1
P h i l o ' s c h i e f o b j e c t i o n to the P l a t o -
n i s t s ' view that God has created the cosmos from e t e r n i t y i s that matter i s
elevated to an autonomous p r i n c i p l e c o - e t e r n a l with God. But P h i l o i s a reso-
l u t e monist. God by t h i n k i n g e t e r n a l l y brings matter i n t o being and s i m u l t a -
neously orders i t ( c f . Reale no.4). There i s thus no need to p o s t u l a t e a p r i -
mordial formless s t a t e of matter. For Winston t h i s passage, d e s p i t e i t s ' s t y -
l i s t i c gaucherie'(n.38) i s a key witness to P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of e t e r n a l c r e a t i o n .

It goes without saying that the divergence of s c h o l a r l y o p i n i o n which we

have observed i s as u n s a t i s f a c t o r y as i t i s remarkable. It f u l l y justifies
our t a k i n g another look at the passage. The f i r s t desiderandum i s an accurate
t r a n s l a t i o n , f o r without a secure p h i l o l o g i c a l b a s i s i t w i l l not be possible
to reach any worthwhile conclusions on the way the passage should be read and
interpreted. The t r a n s l a t i o n which I s h a l l now give has been prepared i n c o l -
l a b o r a t i o n with Weitenberg (and with reference to Aucher's v e r s i o n and the i n -
complete t r a n s l a t i o n s of Conybeare and Hannick). Foregoing any c l a i m to l i t e -
rary pretensions, i t aims at a l i t e r a l , almost s l a v i s h rendering of the d i f f i -
c u l t Armenian t e x t . I t w i l l be followed by some notes r e l a t i n g to the text
and its translation. (When my manuscript was already i n i t s completed form I
r e c e i v e d a complete t r a n s l a t i o n of the passage which Prof.A.Teria n had been
k i n d enough to prepare f o r me. This t r a n s l a t i o n , on account of the author's
wide experience i n the Armenian P h i l o , must be taken very s e r i o u s l y . Unfor-
t u n a t e l y i t was too l a t e to take i t s contents i n t o account i n my t r a n s l a t i o n
and i n t e r p r e t a t i v e comments. I have added important divergences, where pos-
s i b l e , to my notes.)

Translation
§6. For o f t e n a l s o he who wanders i n s u p e r f i c i a l observatio n thinks that
t h i s cosmos e x i s t s and i s c o n s t i t u t e d from an e t e r n i t y without beginning, 1

as i f i t i n no way had a beginning ( a p x n ) of genesis but always e x i s t e d

and i s not at a l l to be destroyed by anyone. When, however, these c l e a r
2

5 observations of mine are adduced, then at the same time that u n i v e r s a l

s o p h i s t i c argument which deceives with a r t i f i c i a l words i s disproved and
3

r e j e c t e d , (namely) that God d i d not begin the cosmos before the c r e a t i o n

of the cosmos, * but was always engaged i n making t h i s most b e a u t i f u l cos-
1

mos. For i t i s u n f i t t i n g , they s a i d , f o r the D e i t y ever to be i n a c t i v e

5 6 7

10 — s i n c e t h i s i s i n d i c a t i v e of l a z i n e s s and i n a c t i v i t y — but they s a i d

that without beginning God made a l l t h i n g s , not having p r e v i o u s l y r e a l i -
8

zed the a b s u r d i ty of such an hypothesis; f o r i n wishing to c l e a r God of a

t r i v i a l a c c u s a t i o n, they d i r e c t a very s e r i o us accusation against him. 9

§7. The contrary view comes, s i n c e there i s no a l t e r n a t i v e , (namely) to

s a y that matter, l a c k i n g adornment, form or shape, was given form and
10 11

shape by him, r e c e i v i n g forms that were not i n i t . For according to them 12

122 ANALYSIS

he d i d not begin to c r e a t e . But i f the i n t e l l i g i b l e c r e a t i o n (which i s )

1 3

5 from him made the b e a u t i f u l form of the cosmos and matter r e c e i v e d i t s 14

l o v e l y form, how then d i d God begin to create the cosmos? Matter being
15

i n a s t a t e of d i s o r g a n i z e d , unordered and e r r a t i c motion and the cosmos

then r e c e i v i n g beauty together with adornment, he was t a k i n g matter as
a p x n ; but the c r e a t o r adorned i t by always t h i n k i n g .
1 6
For God d i d not
1 7

10 f i r s t begin to t h i n k and then to c r e a t e ; nor was there ever a time when

1 8

he d i d not c r e a t e , the forms being with him from the beginning. The w i l l
of God does not happen l a t e r , but i s always with him, f o r n a t u r a l move-
ments never cease. And so i t w i l l happen that he creates by always t h i n -
k i n g and gives beginning ( a p x n) of b e i n g to s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e t h i n g s , so
19

15 that both of them e x i s t together, (namely) the always a c t i n g with d i v i n e

counsel and the g i v i n g the beginning (otpxn) of being to sense-perceptible
things. For i t i s impossible that something should b e n e f i t from an act
20

of goodness and that those b e n e f i t s d i d not come from a b e n e f a c t o r ; so 21

that the one who gave i s benefactor and the one who r e c e i v e s p a r t i c i p a t e s
20 i n the good.
§8. But i f someone refuses to concede t h i s and d e c l a r e that these (are)
together, how was matter long ago, that which never e x i s t s i n the cosmos 2 2

unadorned? 23
But i f there was a time when i t was unadorned, the beginning
( a p x n ) of the cosmos would have been when i t was adorned. For i f we con-
5 s i d e r matter to be an unadorned substance d e s t i t u t e of a l l o r d e r , how
24

could matter not have r e c e i v e d a beginning ( a p x n ) of adornment, (that

matter) which now e x i s t s i n t h i s cosmos? 25

Notes
1. L i t e r a l l y 'from beginning-less ages (= e£ avapxwv auwvoav? — but P h i l o ne-
ver uses auwv i n the p l u r a l ) . ( T e r i a n renders: 'For there are many who go
about s u p e r f i c i a l l y t h i n k i n g . . . ' )
2. Or 'by anything' (= UTto x u v o s ) .
3. Cf. Aet. 14 (on the same s u b j e c t ! ) , x u v e s 6e ol'ovxau aocpuCopevot. . .
4. S i c ! Cf. Hannick, 'Gott hat d i e Welt vor der Weltschopfung n i c h t angefan-
gen'.
5. ( T e r i a n renders: '...the attempt to show that the c r e a t i o n of the world i s
not p r i o r to God's g i v i n g the world a beginning and that He i s c o n s t a n t l y c r e -
a t i n g t h i s most b e a u t i f u l world...')
6. ( T e r i a n here and i n the next l i n e gives the present tense, 'they say'.)
7. No doubt rendering T O \teZov.
8. ( T e r i a n renders: ' . . . i t i s f o r God who i s without beginning to create a l l
things...)
9. The word f o r 'accusation' i s a p l u r a l e tantum, so both a s i n g u l a r or a
p l u r a l rendering i s p o s s i b l e (Hannick and T e r i a n give the p l u r a l ) . The theme
of a c c u s a t i o n ( i . e . accusing God of not being p r o v i d e n t i a l ) i s very prominent
i n De P r o v i d e n t i a I & I I (cf.1.2-3,6,66,69, 2.24,34,102,109). Note the same
theme i n P l o t i n u s ' I l e p l Tipovouas (Enn.3.2.3.10, 3.2.14.7, 3.3.3.6).
10. Meaning obscure. Cf. Aucher 'superest itaque ut d i c a n t . . . ' , Hannick 'Es
steht im G e g e n t e i l , denn n i c h t s b l e i b t (!): Sie sagten...' But the l a s t verb
i s an i n f i n i t i v e , so that Hannick's 'Sie sagten' i s d o u b t f u l . I t i s thus most
l i k e l y not c o r r e c t to suppose, as B a l t e s does, that the words that f o l l o w give
the view of P h i l o ' s opponents. ( T e r i a n renders: 'It i s c o n f l i c t i n g , because
i t can no longer be s a i d that...')
11. Probably rendering uAnv axoapov nai apopcpov nai a a x n p d x u a x o v , the e p i -
thets of matter discussed above i n I I 3.2.1. In the f o l l o w i n g l i n e s both syn-
tax and meaning become desperatel y obscure.
12. I.e. the opponents attacked i n §6.
13. Does t h i s r e f e r to the xoopos v o n x o s (or even the Logos)? But the n o e t i c
world never i t s e l f makes the s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e cosmos. ( T e r i a n renders more
f r e e l y : 'Now, the wise c r e a t i o n i s by Him, He wrought the b e a u t i f u l form of
the world, c o n c e i v i n g the most b e a u t i f u l idea of matter.')
14. Probably rendering e6e£axo, c f . P l a t o ' s r e c e p t a c l e and Opif.22 e 6 e x e x o .
 II 3.2.2. 123

15. According to Conybeare (at Wendland op.cit.42) one ms. reads when . f f

16. Two absolut e c o n s t r u c t i o n s followed by a main c l a u s e . A l l t r a n s l a t o r s

so f a r ( a l s o T e r i a n ) render the sentence as a q u e s t i o n , but t h i s i s by no
means c e r t a i n . According to Conybeare ( i b i d . ) matter i s d e s c r i b e d as d x a x x o s
nal d x o a u o s nal auYHexuuevn.. The o r i g i n a l might have been more reminiscent of
Tim.30a4-5. The f i n a l words are most problematic . Conybeare t r a n s l a t e s them
l i t e r a l l y as dpxnv TT\V uÄr)V e X a u ß a v e (or Xdßou dv, he adds), dpxxi could mean
p r i n c i p l e here, but i t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e that the two Armenian words r e n d e r i n g
dpxnv X a u ß d v e t v simply mean ' i n i t i a t e ( T e r i a n renders 'taking f i r s t ) .
1
Bal- 1

tes remarks (89n.35):'Wahrscheinlich stand im g r i e c h i s c h e n Text d p x n s y e v o u e -

vns xns u X n s , welches vom armenischen Ubersetzer missverstanden wurde.'
17. 'Always' (deu) can go with e i t h e r the verb or the p a r t i c i p l e .
18. ( T e r i a n r e n d e r s: 'Yet God d i d not begin to t h i n k f i r s t but to c r e a t e . ')
19. These words could render dpxn xoö eZvab or dpxn xou ylyveoSab.
20. Probably two s u b s t a n t i v a l i n f i n i t i v e s j o i n e d together, e.g. x6 ael %eiy
XoY^cyui Öpäv xe nal xo x o u s a t a d n x o t s xqv xou euvau dpxnv ö t ö o v a u ve1.sim.
The i m p l i e d s u b j e c t i s God. Cf. Hannick, 'dass Gott nach göttlichen Rat immer
handelt und dass den wahrnehmbaren Dingen e i n Beginn gegeben w i r d * .
21. No doubt the terminology of e u e p Y e x e t v , evepyeola; c f . Opif.23.
22. The Armenian could perhaps a l s o mean l y e v e x o .
23. ( T e r i a n renders : '...how c o u l d p r i m o r d i a l matter e x i s t a l t o g e t h e r d i s -
t i n c t from the world and without adornment?')
24. Substance s u r e l y t r a n s l a t e s ouaCa ( c f . above I I 3.2.1. on O p i f . 2 1 ) . Here
again uXn i s given the e p i t h e t s common i n Middle Platonism; ' d e s t i t u t e ' i n
p a r t i c u l a r r e c a l l s Plut.Mor. 1014F, xr]v uXnv ael duopcpov nal d o x n p d x u o x o v nal
fcdaris n o u o x n x o s nal ö u v d u e w s olnelag epnuov. . .
25. ( T e r i a n renders: ' I f , however, we were to understand p r i m o r d i a l matter as
unadorned substance l a c k i n g every q u a l i t y , how i s i t that the matter now e x i s -
t i n g i n the world i s not without a beginning of adornment?')

Much remains unclear i n t h i s passage, and the d e t a i l s could be e n d l e s s l y

discussed. Our comments w i l l be c o n f i n ed to four o b s e r v a t i o n s .
1. The context i n which the three paragraphs are s i t u a t e d sheds much
l i g h t on t h e i r i n t e n t i o n . P h i l o ' s theme i s d i v i n e Providence, d i s c u s s e d both
i n r e l a t i o n to the wider dimension of cosmic order and design and i n the more
l i m i t e d p e r s p e c t i v e of i n d i v i d u a l r e t r i b u t i o n . His c h i e f method w i l l be through
o b s e r v a t i o n of s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e r e a l i t y (§5) . §6-36 d e a l with the cosmic d i -
mension, of which §6-23 concentrate on the s u b j e ct of the createdness and po-
t e n t i a l d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y of the cosmos. In §9-19 S t o i c i z i n g arguments are p r e -
sented i n favour of t h i s view, arguing from p a r t to whole. §9 i s c l e a r l y a
continuation of one or more e a r l i e r arguments on b e h a l f of the cosmos' c r e a -
tedness, as i n d i c a t e d by the word 'furthermore'. 1
In §20-22 P h i l o appeals to
the a u t h o r i t y of P l a t o ' s Timaeus as support f o r the view of the yeveobg and
p o t e n t i a l cp$opd (!) of the cosmos (see a l s o I I 2.1.2. 2.3.3. 5.3.1.). The i n -
t e g r a l plac e of the arguments f o r the cosmos' p o t e n t i a l d e s t r u c t i o n i n the
t r e a t i s e as a whole can be seen i n the f a c t that P h i l o twice r e t u r n s to an a l -
most a p o c a l y p t i c d e p i c t i o n of what w i l l happen i f man's mores do not improve
(§34-36,89-92). God's p r o v i d e n t i a l concern f o r the cosmos i s thus double-
edged. Note e s p e c i a l l y §90, i n which the elements lose t h e i r f i n e appearance
and matter 'hastens to cast a s i d e i t s form', i . e . the reverse process to what
124 ANALYSIS

occurs i n §7-8. The context alone shows that Winston's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of §6-8

i n terms of a d o c t r i n e of e t e r n a l c r e a t i o n cannot p o s s i b l y be r i g h t . But we
are l e f t w i t h a grave problem. How can t h i s t r e a t i s e be r e c o n c i l e d w i t h the
view of the De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi, i n which God's itpovoua ensures the cosmos'
à(p%apata (§13; see below I I 6.1.1-5.)?
2. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of §6 does not g i v e r i s e to insurmountable prob-
lems. As B a l t e s has shown, P h i l o argues ( d i f f e r e n t l y than i n Aet.14) against
t h i n k e r s who recognize God's c r e a t o r s h i p but consider t h i s c r e a t o r s h i p to have
been e x e r c i s e d from e t e r n i t y . 2
According to these men the cosmos has had no
âpxn yevéaews (1.3; âpxn must mean 'beginning' here, c f . I I 2.1.3.). The
words 'not to be destroyed by anyone'(I.4) gain e x t r a f o r c e i n the l i g h t of
the c o n t e x t u a l aspects d i s c u s s ed above. But what then are the two accusations
of which P h i l o speaks i n Z.13? The ' t r i v i a l a c c u s a t i o n ' must be the reproach
of d i v i n e i n a c t i v i t y put forward by the opponents. But the 'very s e r i o u s
charge' i s l e f t u n s p e c i f i e d . At t h i s point i t becomes very tempting to adduce
P h i l o ' s statement i n Opif.7-10 (discussed above I I 2.1.3.) that the d o c t r i n e
of cosmic ayevr\oLa means a f a l s e a t t r i b u t i o n of TtoÀÀri ôntpctÇua to God and a de-
n i a l of d i v i n e Providence. Hadas-Lebel FE 35.132n.2 r i g h t l y remarks (though
without reference to O p i f . 7 - 1 0 ) : 3

Sous prétexte de rétablir l'activité éternelle de Dieu, i l s remettent en

cause cet aspect e s s e n t i e l de l a providence qu'est l a création; car selon
P h i l o n , s ' i l n'y a pas eu de commencement, i l n'y a pas eu à proprement
p a r l e r de création.
To t h i s must be added t h a t , i n P h i l o ' s view, i f the cosmos were uncreated God
would be t r u l y i n a c t i v e , because he i s then not p r o v i d e n t i a l l y concerned with
i t s maintenance. But t h i s argument i s c e r t a i n l y not made e x p l i c i t . 4
I t seems
far l e s s p l a u s i b l e that the 'very s e r i o us charge' c o n s i s t s i n regarding matter
as a p r i n c i p l e c o - e t e r n a l w i t h God, as Winston argued. 5

3. But the p a r a l l e l s w i t h P h i l o ' s most extensiv e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the

d o c t r i n e of cosmic yeveobg, i n Opif.7-28, are by no means exhausted.
(a) On four occasions i n §7-8 P h i l o presents c r e a t i o n as a t r a n s i t i o n from
d i s o r d e r or unadorned matter to ordered or adorned cosmos (§7/^.2-3,6-8, §8/7-.
3-4,5-7), the same a d a p t a t i o n of Tim.30a so prominent i n Opif.8-9,21-22. These
passages i n Prov.1.7-8 can thus be added to the long l i s t of t e x t s discussed
above i n I I 3.2.1. Moreover the same f a m i l i a r e p i t h e t s are used to d e s c r i b e
matter (§7/1.6-8 i s esp. reminiscent of O p i f . 2 2 ) .

(b) The r o l e of the xoouos vorjxos or the forms i n c r e a t i o n , b r i e f l y mentioned

i n §7/^.4-6,11, remains r a t h e r obscure. But i t appears not i n c o n s i s t e n t with
the d o c t r i n e a t t r i b u t e d to P l a t o ' s Timaeus i n §21 and the r o l e of the xoauos
vonxos as paradigm f o r the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos i n Opif.16-20. The 'crea-
tion 1
of the i n t e l l i g i b l e world i n Opif.16 does not preclude i t s e t e r n i t y , f o r
 II 3.2.2. 125

already i n O p i f . 12 Moses was declared to a s s i g n at6uoTriS to T O aopaTov nai

vonTOv (see above II 2.1.1.). At Prov.1.21 God i s 'always maker of the intel-
ligibles 1
(see above II 2.3.3.).
(c) The r e c i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n between the c r e a t o r as euepyeTns and the cosmos as
euepyeTouuevov (§7/1.17-20) i s a l s o s t r e s s ed i n Opif.23 (see above II 3.1.3.). 6

Given these extensive correspondences between Prov.1.6-8 and Opif.7-28,

can i t be a f f i r m e d that the theory of the yeveous TOO MOGUOU i n §7-8 i s essen-
tially the same as that put forward i n the commentary on the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l
account? The statements i n §7/Z.1-9 pose no problems, but the s t r e s s on never-
ceasing c r e a t i o n i n 1.9-17 are c e r t a i n l y awkward and might e a s i l y be taken to
i n d i c a t e a c r e a t i o aeterna (note the quadruple use of 'always 1
i n I.9,12,13,15.
Nevertheless I consider that, allowing f o r the o b s c u r i t i e s of the transmission,
§7 may be read as p r e s e n t i ng a c r e a t i o continua c o n s i s t e n t with P h i l o ' s usual
thought. God e t e r n a l l y thinks the MOOUOS vonTog ( s i t u a t e d i n the Logos) and
i n h i s c r e a t i v e act simultaneously (dua itdvTa, Opif . 13,28) creates the sense-
p e r c e p t i b l e cosmos out of a p r e - e x i s t e n t d i s o r d e r l y matter, thereby initiating
time. 7
God's never-ceasing c r e a t i v e and p r o v i d e n t i a l a c t i v i t y i s shown by his
maintenance of the cosmos through the agency of the Logos and symbolized by
his ' r e s t ' on the seventh day ( c f . Leg.1.5; but t h i s p r o v i d e n t i a l concern i s -
perplexingly — given an e x t r a dimension i n the a p o c a l y p t i c s of Prov.I). 8

I would t e n t a t i v e l y suggest, t h e r e f o r e , that the hypothesis of Baltes

that the views reported i n §7 belong to P h i l o ' s opponents i s unnecessary. Such
a lengthy e x p o s i t i o n of h i s opponents' arguments i s a l s o contrary to the liter-
ary methods used i n the t r e a t i s e . 9
The manner of p r e s e n t a t i o n i s much more
g r o s s l y ignored by Reale. P h i l o does not give f i v e s o l u t i o n s but two, that of
his opponents and h i s own. Moreover §8, though i t s p r e c i s e meaning remains
d i f f i c u l t to construe, c e r t a i n l y does not propound a double c r e a t i o n , f i r s t of
matter and then of the cosmos.

4. The most important question that the passage under d i s c u s s i o n r a i s e s

i s of a methodological nature, and can be formulated as f o l l o w s . Even though
allowance must be made f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y that P h i l o changed h i s mind on a
p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e or that he presented t h e o r i e s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h each other,
i s i t l e g i t i m a t e to use a text which i s as poorly preserved and as problematic
as Prov.1.6-8 to make dogmatic pronouncements on t e c h n i c a l aspects of P h i l o ' s
theory of c r e a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y when these c o n f l i c t with well-preserved state-
ments i n t r e a t i s e s such as the De o p i f i c i o mundi or De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi? My
answer to t h i s question i s r e s o l u t e l y i n the negative. The informatio n sup-
p l i e d by Prov.1.6-8 i s i n t e r e s t i n g and v a l u a b l e ; i t finds i t s r i g h t f u l place
not i n the main text but i n the footnotes of Philonism.
126 ANALYSIS

3.2.3. Problems i n the exegesis o f Gen.1:1-2

The task of reading the f i r s t chapters of Genesis i n terms of a cosmology

that was wholly a l i e n to the thought-world of i t s author(s) was by no means
straightforward. In attempting to e x p l a i n Moses by means of P l a t o ' s Timaeus
P h i l o c e r t a i n l y d i d not solve a l l the e x e g e t i c a l problems i n v o l v e d . Greek
cosmology could not d i s c u s s the process of c r e a t i o n without i n t r o d u c i n g the
concept of matter. Consequently P h i l o introduces matter i n Opif.8-9,21-22 and
i n numerous other t e x t s . But where does Moses mention matter i n h i s c r e a t i o -
n a l account? E a r l y C h r i s t i a n thinkers a l s o wrestled with t h i s problem and at-
tempted to l o c a t e a mention of matter i n Gen.1:1-2. 1
P h i l o ' s c h i e f s o l u t i o n to
the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these v e r s e s, presented at length i n Opif. (cf. also
Somn.1.75-76), i s to take the whole of Gen.1:1-5 as r e f e r r i n g to the intelli-
g i b l e world, l e a v i n g no room f o r mention of p r e - e x i s t e n t matter. 2
Nevertheless
i n a few s c a t t e r e d passages he gives h i n t s that t h i s text can be read i n other
ways.

At Prov.1.22 ( t r a n s l a t i o n above i n II 2.3.3.) P h i l o a f f i r m s that the

first cause which P l a t o c a l l s matter i s p a r a l l e l to what the Jewish lawgiver
described as water, darkness and the abyss. This must r e f e r to Gen.1:2, nai
o x o x o s eitavu) xfjs a g u a a o u , xau icveuua deou eitecpepexo endva) xou u6axos. Thus
the verse i s , i n d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n to Opif.29, i n t e r p r e t e d as d e p i c t i n g a
kind of unformed d i s o r d e r l y matter. P h i l o ' s exegesis here i s most p u z z l i n g .
How could unformed matter have the a t t r i b u t e of a formed element such as water?
Is he t h i n k i n g of the "xvn i n Plato's r e c e p t a c l e (Tim.53b2; see f u r t h e r below
II 8.2.2.)? Or i s Moses g i v i n g a symbolic d e s c r i p t i o n of matter ( c f . perhaps
Augustine at Conf.12.4, but he r e f e r s to the more s u i t a b l e ' i n v i s i b l e and un-
constructed earth')? At Plant.3 (ex ouyxuaeoos eus dudxpuauv) P h i l o a l s o ap-
pears to take 'day one' as i n d i c a t i n g the c r e a t i o n of the sense-perceptible
cosmos. Another e x e g e t i c a l v a r i a n t i s found at Gig.22 ( c f . QG 4.5), where the
Ttveuua §eou moving above the water i s understood as d e s i g n a t i n g the elements
of a i r and water, i . e . a p h y s i c a l i s t i c (perhaps S t o i c i z i n g ) exegesis of Gen.1:
2 (there i s no h i n t that these elements are n o e t i c ) . F i n a l l y we should note
the i n v o c a t i o n of Gen.1:1 at Aet.19, where i t i s used to show that according
to Moses the cosmos i s y e v n x o s . No reader of t h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e
could p o s s i b l y suspect that t h i s text a c t u a l l y r e f e r s to an oupavog daojuatos
xat yf\ d o p a x o s (Opif.29) , as part of the i n t e l l i g i b l e cosmos.

How can we e x p l a i n these a l t e r n a t i v e exegeses of the opening words of the

Pentateuch? The p o s s i b i l i t i e s cannot be excluded that he changes h i s mind on
a p a r t i c u l a r point of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , or that he i s not e n t i r e l y sure of him-
s e l f and gives m u l t i p l e exegeses. But I would wish to suggest that he may
 II 3.2.3. 127

w e l l have considered that i n the case of such a v i t a l text as Gen.1:1-2 the

B i b l i c a l record was from the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e p o i n t of view polyvalent, i.e. i f
looked at from d i f f e r e n t angles the same words could give e q u a l l y v a l i d mean-
ings. Thus the text i n question could r e f e r to both the i n t e l l i g i b l e world
and p r e - e x i s t e n t matter. We may compare the e f f o r t s of a man who had c a r e f u l -
l y read P h i l o ' s works, Clement of A l e x a n d r i a . At Str.5.90.1 he quotes part of
Gen.1:2 i n order to show that the Mosaic words had inspired Plato, A r i s t o t l e
and the S t o i c s to p o s t u l a t e the uAtxr) ouata. Two pages l a t e r (94.1) he quotes
the very same verse to demonstrate that the yf\ aopaxos was part of the monadic
archetypal world. But whether P h i l o would accept such an ' i n t e r p r e t a t i v e po-
l y v a l e n c e ' as hermeneutically p o s s i b l e or not, one thing i s certain. He i s
wholly convinced that Gen.1 cannot be understood i n the c o r r e c t manner without
the i n v o c a t i o n of the n o t i o n of a p r e - e x i s t e n t \j\r\.

3.3 The c o s m o s as e n s o u l e d i n t e l l i g e n t living being (Tim.30b)

3.3.1. The cosmos as Cyov

The d o c t r i n e that the cosmos i s a C $ o v

endowed with l i f e , s o u l and reason
i s part of P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l baggage, derived from P l a t o (Tim.30b8,32d1-
34a1,92c6, c f . Pol.269d) and the Stoa ( c f . SVF 1.110, 2.633-634 e t c . ) . Some-
times i t i s seemingly accepted without much c r i t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n , e.g. i n Aet.
where i t i s c l e a r l y taken over from source-books (26,74,94-95). At Her.154-
155 the d o c t r i n e i s implied i n P h i l o ' s e x p l i c i t use of the macrocosm/microcosm
analogy: the cosmos i s a 'great man', f o r both i t and man have a oGua and a
<\>vxh AoYbxn. The text i n which the c l e a r e s t r e f e r e n c e i s made to the notion
that the cosmos i s a l i v i n g being i s found at QG 4.188, i n an e d i f y i n g exege-
sis of Isaac and Rebecca's lovepla y (Gen.26:8):

The v i r t u o u s . . . h a p p i l y enjoy ( t h i s game)... So a l s o (do) the d i v i n e be-

ings (6cetpoves) which the sacred word of Moses i s wont to c a l l "angels",
and the s t a r s . For these are, as i t were, i n t e l l i g i b l e , marvellous and
d i v i n e natures, having acquired e t e r n a l joy unmixed with sorrow. Simi-
l a r i s the u n i v e r s a l and whole heaven and world since i t i s both a r a t i o -
nal animal and a virtuous animal and philosophical by nature. And f o r
t h i s reason i t i s without sorrow or f e a r , and f u l l of j o y . Moreover, i t
i s s a i d that even the Father and Creator of the universe c o n t i n u a l l y r e -
j o i c e s i n h i s l i f e and plays and i s j o y f u l . . . (my emphasis)
In d e s c r i b i n g the cosmos as £ $ o v
Aoytxov nal £cpov onou6auov 6td cpuaeu (puAoao-
cpov (retransl'atio n Marcus EES 1 .472) P h i l o shows the i n f l u e n c e of S t o i c t e r m i -
nology (QG 4.188 i s p a r t l y taken up by Von Arnim as SVF 2.635). Plato's care-
ful d i s t i n c t i o n between vous, owua and (|>dxn as intermediary i s somewhat ob-
scured (30b3-5; on t h i s text see f u r t h e r below I I 10.1.3.). In Her.200 P h i l o
 128 ANALYSIS

speaks of the $6os of the cosmos, f i t t i n g l y spent i n continuously g i v i n g thanks

to i t s c r e a t o r . The symbolical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the s a c r i f i c i a l v i c t i m i n
Lev.1:6 i n cosmic terms at Spec.1.210, already discussed above i n I I 2.3.2.,
i s no doubt f a c i l i t a t e d by the p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e that the cosmos i t s e l f
i s a l i v i n g animal with l i v i n g parts that move and grow and die.
These t e x t s having been noted, i t must nevertheless be concluded that
P h i l o makes s u r p r i s i n g l y infrequent use of t h i s common d o c t r i n e . Horovitz 76
surmises that i t i s not used i n Opif. - d e s p i t e that t r e a t i s e ' s great debt to
t n e
Timaeus - because the B i b l i c a l text provided no opportunity. This c o n s i -
d e r a t i o n w i l l c e r t a i n l y have c o n t r i b u t e d , but the reason f o r P h i l o s lack of
f

enthusiasm may w e l l l i e deeper ( c f . f u r t h e r below I I 4.2.8. 5.1.2. I l l 3.2.).

The d o c t r i n e of the cosmos as £<pov was to some extent c o n t r o v e r s i a l i n H e l l e -

n i s t i c philosophy. The S t o i c Boethus (Diog.Laert.7.143), the P e r i p a t e t i c
Straton (Plut.Mor.1115B) and the Epicureans (Cic.DND 1.18) r e j e c t e d i t . A
remnant of such disputes i s preserved i n the f i n a l words of Prov.1.22: 'Except
that c e r t a i n other wise men thin k the cosmos i s not a l i v i n g being, but a har-
moniously arranged composite whole.' The f i n a l two words almost c e r t a i n l y
^ render ouoxnya (cf.Aet.4 , Ps.Arist.De Mundo 2 391b9, Diog.Laert.7.138 e t c . ) .
Aucher's v e r s i o n gives the impression that P h i l o r e j e c t s the d o c t r i n e that the
cosmos i s a l i v i n g being. But the Armenian (though rather obscure) appears to
i n d i c a t e that P h i l o i s merely appending an observation rather than making a
c r i t i c a l comment (Weitenberg, c f . Hadas-Lebel FE 35.147). In P a t r i s t i c thought
too the t o p i c of whether the cosmos i s a £$ov or not i s a c o n t r o v e r s i a l sub-
j e c t ( c f . Pease ad Cic.DND 1.18).

3.4. The m o d e l (Tim.30c-31a)

3.4.1. P h i l o a n d t h e P l a t o n i c v o n x o v £(Jjov

No aspect of P h i l o ' s use of P l a t o ' s Timaeus i s as complex and as surpri-

s i n g as h i s adaptation of the d o c t r i n e of the vorjxov C$ov used by the demiurge
as a model f o r h i s c r e a t i v e work. In 1900 J.Horovitz devoted an e n t i r e d i s -
s e r t a t i o n , e n t i t l e d Das p l a t o n i s c h e Nonxov Z$ov und der p h i l o n i s c h e Koouos No-
rj_x££, to the s u b j e c t , which today s t i l l makes extremely worthwile reading. In
the b r i e f e r space at our d i s p o s a l we w i l l have to be more s e l e c t i v e i n the as-
pects of t h i s f a s c i n a t i n g and important theme which we choose to d i s c u s s .

I t was already observed above at I I 2.3.1. that P h i l o i n Opif.16 takes

over P l a t o ' s d i a l e c t i c a l p r i n c i p l e that the demiurge must look to an e t e r n a l l y
unchanging model, but that he considers t h i s p r i n c i p l e as part of God's pre-
cosmic r e f l e c t i o n . According to P h i l o s account God
f
'struck out i n advance'
(itpoeCexuitou) the n o e t i c cosmos,
uva, xpwuevos aaooydxcp nai § e o e u 6 e a x a x ( j ) T i a p a 6 e t Y P a x t xov awuaxtxov aitepya-
anxai,, upeaftuxepou vewxepov aneuxovtaua, xoaauxa uepue^ovxa auadnxd yevn
oaaicep ev ewetvcp vonxd.
 I I 3.4.1. 129

In the l i t t l e Timaeus compendium set out i n Aet.15 (discussed above i n I I 2.1.

3.) the cosmos i s described as the arc 'dpxexunou <xal> v o n x o u T t a p a d e u y u a T o g \iC-
ynyot a u a d n x o v , Ttdv^'oaa ev eneivod v o n x d Tteptexovxa a u a d n x d ev a u x $ . Although
these two t e x t s , expounding Mosaic and P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e r e s p e c t i v e l y , do not
contain a l i t e r a l c i t a t i o n from the Timaeus, they must have the e f f e c t of r e -
minding every a t t e n t i v e reader of those places where P l a t o d e s c r i b e s the con-
tents of h i s model (30c7-d1,d3-31a1,4-8,39e7-9) or the contents of the cosmos
as image of that model (33b2-3,69c2-3,92c6-7). Compare the f o l l o w i n g P l a t o n i c
phrases:

30c5 ou 6'eaxuv xdXXa c&a xad'e v x a t x a x d y e v n y o p t a

30c7 xd ydp 6r) vorixd £$a n a v x a exeCvo ev eauxffi 7tepbXa3ov e x e t xadditep 9

o6e 6 x o a y o s riyas o a a xe aXXa S p e y y a x a a u v e a x n x e v opaja

30d3 Cv o v
^ A ° L £ > Ttavd'oaa auxou x a x d cpuauv auYyevri cfia e ° S e'xov
v P T V v T

eauxoO
31a4 xo ydp Tteptexov Ttdvxa o i o a a vonxd C$a
33b2 xcp 6e xd rcdvxa ev auxij) Ccj3a Tcepuexeuv yeXXovxu c<j«p
69c2 £(pov ev exov xd Ttdvxa ev eauxfo d v n x d a S d v a x d xe
92c6 £(3ov o_pa,Tov_XQ_ _opc__T_a i t e p i e x o v .
The t h i r d and f i n a l P h i l o n i c passage which i s d i r e c t l y reminiscent of P l a t o ' s
d e s c r i p t i o n of the vonxov £(pov i s Plant.2, i n which the c r e a t o r i s d e s c r i b e d
as o xwv cpuxoupywv y e Y ^ a x o s and the cosmos as cpuxov 6e a\5 Ttepuexov ev eaux$
xd ev y e p e t cpuxd d y a itayyupila xadditep x X n y a x u 6 a s ex y t a s d v a ^ X a a x d v o v x a puCns.
The e x e m p l a r i s t i c emphasis of P l a t o ' s account i s d e l e t e d here, but the p o r t r a -
y a l of the cosmos r e v e a l s the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaean phraseology. The title
of (puxoupYos given to God i s d i r e c t l y i n s p i r e d by the context of the 'phyto-
cosmological excursus'(exeg. Gen.9:20). But, as H o r o v i t z 77 notes, i t may
a l s o r e c a l l the famous P l a t o n i c passage (Rep.597d) where the god who i s said
to make the idea of the bed i s named (puxoupYos ( c f . a l s o Tim.80e1, Num.fr. 13),
a passage which would have been known to P h i l o because i t so l u c i d l y legiti-
mated the d o c t r i n e that God t h i n k s the ideas as h i s thoughts.
P h i l o * s debt to P l a t o i s c l e a r , both with regard to the d o c t r i n e of the
n o e t i c exemplar, and i n h i s use of phraseology (note esp. the t r i p l e use of
Tteptexetv). But a s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e i s e q u a l l y apparent. P h i l o does not
take over P l a t o ' s t a l k of a £tuov and Cqia, both at the n o e t i c and the v i s i b l e
l e v e l of being. To place t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n p e r s p e c t i v e i t w i l l be necessary
to examine the r o l e of the P l a t o n i s t t r a d i t i o n .

3.4.2. Philo and t h e P l a t o n i s t K6O"MOQ vonioc.

I t i s f o r t u n a t e that we have at our d i s p o s a l q u i t e a number of t e x t s which

show how Middle P l a t o n i s t authors understood the r o l e of the model (derived
from the Timaeus) i n the c r e a t i v e process. Of these t e x t s the most v a l u a b l e i s
130 ANALYSIS

the only s u r v i v i n g fragment of A r i u s Didymus 1

account of P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e i n
his Epitome of p h y s i c a l d o c t r i n e s , a book that undoubtedly was a v a i l a b l e to
Philo. This fragment i s c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l e d i n a chapter of A l b i n u s * Didaska-
likos (both t e x t s c o n v e n i e n t l y set out at D i e l s Dox.Gr.447). By way of i n t r o -
duction i t w i l l be i n s t r u c t i v e to make a comparison of the language and t e r m i -
nology used by P l a t o , P h i l o and Middle P l a t o n i s t s , as set out i n the f o l l o w i n g
t a b l e (the words are a l p h a b e t i c a l l y ordered with regard to t h e i r r o o t , i . e .
p r e f i x e s are ignored).

Texts P l a t o : Timaeus
P h i l o : Opif.16-20,24-25, Aet.15
Middle P l a t o n i s t s : A r i u s Didymus E p i t . p h y s . f r . 1 D i e l s (= AD)
Albinus D i d a s k a l i k o s (= A)
Timaeus Locrus (= TL)
Diogenes L a e r t i u s V i t a P l a t o n i s 3.69-76 (= DL)
Hippolytus Philosophoumena, D i e l s Pox.Gr. (= H)
Aetius P l a c i t a , D i e l s Pox.Gr. (- Aé)
Nichomachus I n t r o d u c t i o a r i t h m e t i c a 1.4-6 (= N)
A t t i c u s (= A t t . )

P l a t o Tim. Philo Opif. Middle P l a t o n i s t s

aYOtXuaTOcpopew" 18
ápxéxuTtos 16,25,Aet.15 AP447.20 N4.2
ano-ßXeTtü) (towards cf.29a3,Rep. 18 A12.1
the ideas) 484c9

óriyboupYéw 16. . . AP447.25 A12.1 TL30 PL 71

29a7...t N6.1
eúxwv (= image) 25 A12.1 TL30 PL73
29a7,92b7
eúxwv (= model)** Somn.2.45? TL43
ónt-etMCtCü) 39e4 cf.A12.3 etxaouevov
aTt-euxovbaua 16,Mos.2.127.. cf.H567.13 ebxovuaua
áTi-epYáíouau 28a8,29a1, 16 AD447.25 A12.1 TL43
39e3
árc-epeúóü) cf.Rep.508d5! N4.2

voriTov £<¡JOV cf.30c7,39e8

TtavxeAes C$ov 31b1 PL74 cf.TL11

(vonxn) loéa ( s i n - - (but 16

gular = model) cf.28a7) AP447.23 A12.1 TL10
tóéa TG5V uöewv 25

xaxaaKeuácw...(of A12.1 TL8 PL72

the cosmos)

Ttpo-xévxr)uot 18,cf.Aet.39. N4.2

xóauos vonxós - (but c f . A4.8 Ae1.7.31,2.6.4
Rep.509b2,*
Phil.64b7) 16,19,24,25
 II 3.4.2. 131

ó in TÜJV uöewv nóo- 17,20 ( c f . cf.TL30 xóv uöavLHÓv nóayov

yos Somn.1.186)
ïïpo-Aay$dvw 16,cf.45
Aoyos 20,24-25 cf.N4.2,6.1
èH-yayeuov (= im- cf.50c2, Aet.15 ( c f . AD447.10 A12.1
print) Tht.191c9 Fug.12)
48e6, c f . 16,19,25,
38a7 Aet.15
voéa) 37e6,cf.30d2 Att.fr.9
öua-voóyau 39e9 19,24
èv-voéw cf.Tht.191d5 19
óyouóxriSs óyouóxa- 30c3,6,38b8, - (cf. Att.fr.9
39e1 Praem.29)
óyoüócü 30d3
acp-oyouóa) 31a8, c f . AD447.25 A12.1
50d1,51a2
è^-oyouóü) (cf.90d4) 18 (cf.171) Att.fr.13
Hau-opdü) 39e9 cf.TLIO acpopaa)

(vonxri) ouaua cf.Spec.1 . AD447.23 TL10 Aë1.3.21 N6.1

(model) 327,QE 2.122 cf.A1.2,7.4
OUGUCX (matter) 21 (cf.18) AD447.27 DL76
ïïapaÖ£UYya 28a7,37c6, AD447.23 A12.1 TL3,8,30 Aë
48e5... 16,Aet.15 1.3.21 N4.2,6.1 A t t . f r . 9
npóvoua 30c1 AD447.26 A12.1 N6.1 c f .
cf.9,171 H567.8
Guvtaxnyu (God, cf.30d1.
model) 31a1... 17,19...

acppayüs 25 (cf.Fug.12, AD447.9 A12.1

Somn.2.45
èv-Gcppayu^w 18,20
xeAeuóxaxog (model, 92c8,cf. Aet.15... AD447.23 cf.TL11
cosmos) 30d2...
aïïO-xeAéü) 28b1,37d2 17,19 N6.1 Att.fr.13
XUÏÏOS cf.Tht.192a4 18,19,cf.34
TUÏÏÓO) cf.50c5 cf .6,14,Migr.103
aïïo-xuuóo) 39e7,cf.Tht.
191d6
öua-xuTców 25
ÉK-xurcwya (50d4) cf.QE 2.122
ÈK-XUTtÓü) (50d6)
ïïpo-óba-xuïïów 20
ïïpo-eK-xuïïó(jü 16
üAn cf.171... A12.2(cf.9.1) DL76 Aë 1.7.31
N4.2 cf.TL8
132 ANALYSIS

UTto6ebYua DL71 Ae1.7.4

xapaxxnp - (cf.Pol. 18 ( c f . E b r . N6.1 Tipoxapaypa

289b4) 133)
* On t h i s word see below I I 10.1.4.
** On the double meaning of euxwv see below n.2
t Three dots i n d i c a t e many more examples.

Although there are c o n s i d e r a b l e s t y l i s t i c d i f f e r e n c e s between P l a t o ' s

compressed and d i d a c t i c prose, P h i l o s f l u e n t and f
r h e t o r i c a l l y embellished ac-
count and the crabbed doxographical or i s a g o g i c r e p o r ts found i n the other
sources, the general u n i f o r m i t y of language and terminology i s q u i t e remar-
kable. The t a b l e shows that P h i l o s debt to P l a t o goes f a r beyond the mere
1

concept of a n o e t i c model and the d e s c r i p t i o n of i t s contents. Indubitably

the whole process of c r e a t i o n , regarded as t a k i n g place when the c r e a t o r looks
to or employs a n o e t i c design, i s described i n terms u l t i m a t e l y d e r i v e d from
t n e
Timaeus. This a p p l i e s not only to P h i l o s account i n O p i f . (and elsewhere),
f

but a l s o to the Middle P l a t o n i s t r e p o r t s . Nevertheless there are a number of

p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y pregnant issues i n which unmistakable signs of r e i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n can be detected. On these issues P h i l o , as might be expected, stands
c l o s e r to h i s contemporaries than to the o r i g i n a l source.

1. The n o e t i c cosmos. P h i l o i s not alone i n d i s r e g a r d i n g the f

animality f

of the P l a t o n i c model. The t a b l e shows t h a t , except f o r a f o s s i l i z e d r e f e -

rence to the v o n x o v Ccpov and vorjxd Ctpa i n Diogenes L a e r t i u s and Timaeus Locrus
r e s p e c t i v e l y , the Middle P l a t o n i s t s p r e f e r , l i k e P h i l o , to t a l k of the model
as the idea or ouaua or the a p x e x u u o v Ttapa6euYua or the x o a u o s v o n x o s . The
last-named term — i t becomes the standard d e s c r i p t i o n i n Middle and Neoplato-
nism — i s i n f a c t recorded f o r the f i r s t time i n P h i l o , who uses i t not only
i n O p i f . but on numerous occasions elsewhere ( c f . Leisegang 464b-465a, a l s o
f r e q u e n t l y i n QG & QE). H o r o v i t z a s s e r t s r a t h e r dogmatically (73-77) that t h i s
i n n o v a t i o n was made by P h i l o h i m s e l f, because there was nothing to correspond
to the expression v o n x o v £$ov £ n the B i b l i c a l account of c r e a t i o n (he f i n d s a
supporter i n Wolfson 1.228). But the presence of the term i n A e t i u s and the
use of the s i m i l a r t,6avbxos x o a u os i n Timaeus Locrus, works which are themsel-
ves e a r l y or use e a r l y sources, argue against h i s t h e s i s , which would i n v o l v e
a gross o v e r e s t i m a t i o n of the i n f l u e n c e that P h i l o could have p o s s i b l y had on
the development of P l a t o n i s t thought. I t i s more p l a u s i b l e to argue that P h i l o
found the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the concept of the xoauos v o n x o s agreeable because
i t allowed a b e t t e r i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l account than the
o r i g i n a l P l a t o n i c term.

What does P h i l o have i n mind when he speaks of the xoauo s v o n x o s which

God the c r e a t o r composed before the c r e a t i o n of the v i s i b l e u n i v e r s e ? 1
Here
 I I 3.4.2. 133

we must again take issue with H o r o v i t z , who argues (79ff. ) f o r l i m i t e d concep-

t i o n of the xoouos voriTOS i n the sense of a 'Planwelt' p a r a l l e l t o the schema-
t i c plan of the c i t y i n the a r c h i t e c t ' s mind. But the voriTr) TIOAUS only repre-
sents an (recognizabl y imperfect) image or comparison drawn from s e n s i b l e r e a -
lity. I t i s more persuasive t o view the xooyos VOTITOS as equivalent t o the
e n t i r e s t r u c t u r e d world of i d e a s , the meaning found r e g u l a r l y elsewhere i n
P h i l o ' s works u s u a l l y i n terms of an o p p o s i t i o n between the xooyos vonxos and
the xooyos atodriTOS ( c f . D i l l o n 159; the d e s c r i p t i o n T O V en T W V t6ewv auveaxaj-
xa xoayov at Opif.17 (cf.20, Conf.172 etc.) supports t h i s view). This i s whol-
l y i n l i n e with developments i n the ancient i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of P l a t o ' s thought.
The heart of the Middle P l a t o n i c system i s the d o c t r i n e of the three princi-
p l e s — -deog, idea, uAn. — i n which the world of ideas i s subsumed i n t o fulfill-
ing the f u n c t i o n of p e r f e c t p a t t e r n f o r the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos, while
other p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y charged aspects of P l a t o ' s theory of ideas tend to suf-
f e r neglect ( c f . D i l l o n 48).

2. A s h i f t i n imagery. When d e s c r i b i n g the demiurge's use of the model,

P l a t o ' s imagery i s c h i e f l y visual (Tiapd6euyua, euxwv, OUOLOW, verbs of seeing).
Our t a b l e showed that t h i s imagery i s e x t e n s i v e l y employed by P h i l o 2
and the
Middle P l a t o n i s t s , but that i t has been supplemented (not supplanted) by the
more physical imagery of s e a l and imprint (TUTCOS and compounds, exuayefov, acp-
p a y l s , xapaxxnp, ipoxdpayya). The ideas are regarded as seals which can have
t h e i r form stamped on unformed matter an i n f i n i t e number of times without un-
dergoing any change or d e t e r i o r a t i o n ; c f . a l s o Plut.Mor.373A-B,1024C, Apul.De
Plat.193. The model, c o n t a i n i n g the forms of the cosmos i n i t s . e n t i r e t y , i s
thus the apxeTUios idea or oqpayCg imprinted on the p r e - e x i s t e n t uAn t o form
the xooyos auadnTos. P h i l o , who regards the Logos as the a r c h e t y p a l seal,
uses t h i s imagery on frequent occasions; c f . Ebr.133, Migr.103, Fug.12, Somn.
2.45, Spec.3.207, QG 4.138 e t c . I t must be s a i d that the P l a t o n i c t e x t encou-
raged the development of s e a l / i m p r i n t imagery ( c f . esp. 39e7 aitoxuiouyeyos and
the r e c e p t a c l e at 50d-e). But the d e s c r i p t i o n of the ideas as s e a l s and the
model as the a r c h e t y p al seal i s quite unPlatonic, and i s to be a t t r i b u t e d t o
Middle P l a t o n i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 3

P h i l o ' s use of T U I O S imagery, however, proceeds beyond what has so f a r

been d i s c u s s e d. In the account of c r e a t i o n at Opif.16 he d e s c r i b es God as
' s t r i k i n g out i n advance' (ipoe£eTUTiou) the n o e t i c cosmos ( c f . §19 evevonoe
ipoxepov xous t u i o u s ) . Noteworthy too i s h i s p o r t r a y a l o f the a r c h i t e c t who
plans the n o e t i c c i t y by r e c e i v i n g i t s impressions (TUIOUS) i n h i s s o u l as i n
wax (§18, cf.§20 n ev iqj apxtxexTovuxtl) 7tpo6baTU7ca)§euaa I O A U S . . . eveacppdytaTO
xfj T O U xexvuTou 4>uxrj). The referenc e to the r e c e i v i n g o f impressions i n wax
makes i t c e r t a i n that the use of the TUTIOS imagery here i s i n s p i r e d by the
134 ANALYSIS

well-known passage i n P l a t o s Theatetus 191c-192a, i n which the mind that per-

f

ceives or r e c a l l s i s compared to a block of wax which r e c e i v e s imprints from a

s e a l ( P h i l o r e f e r s to the passage at Her.181; c f . a l s o Plut.Mor.373A and D i l -
lon 200). I t would appear that P h i l o , i n e x p l o i t i n g the Middle P l a t o n i s t doc-
t r i n e of the ideas as God's thoughts, i s a p p l y i n g Plato' s p s y c h o l o g i c a l theory
to the workings of the d i v i n e mind i n the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos. I am not
c e r t a i n whether t h i s coalescence of demiurgic c r e a t i o n i s m and P l a t o n i c psycho-
logy i s d e r i v e d from Middle Platonism or not ( c e r t a i n l y the method i s charac-
t e r i s t i c , f o r P l a t o i s being explained via Plato!). The only h i n t that I can
f i n d i s when Nichomachus d e s c r i b e s the model as a rcpoxapayiiot and a i p o x e v x n y a
i n the mind of the x o a y o i t o u os %ebg ( I n t r o . a r i t h . 1 . 4 . 2 , 6.1). 4

Two i n t e r e s t i n g consequences of P h i l o ' s double use of the xuitos imagery

should be noted. (1) I t i s implied t h a t , i f God s t r i k e s out the xooyos vonxos,
he must have, somehow or other, a higher s e a l i n order to make the impression.
This sheds l i g h t on P h i l o ' s remarkable double paradigm theory, which he reads
i n t o Gen. 1:27, namely that the Logos as xooyos vonxos i s both image of God and
paradigm of the s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b le cosmos ( c f . Opif.25, Leg.3.96, Somn.1.75
e t c . ) . At Her.231 he even speaks of man's mind as a xpuxos xunos from the
maker. (2) Furthermore the theory of the ' s t r i k i n g out' of the n o e t i c world
i n O p i f . 16 implies the concept of i n t e l l i g i b l e matter, since the xuitoo must be
struck in something. At QE 2.122, i n an exegesis of Ex.28:36 xau exxuTCooaets
ev auxai exTUTtwua acppaytSos a y t a a y a xupuou, P h i l o w r i t e s : ' I t pleases him that
the i n c o r p o r e a l and i n t e l l i g i b l e substance (vorixnv ououotv) should be unimpres-
sed by i t s e l f and without shape but be formed and shaped l i k e a seal-impres-
s i o n by the Logos of the e t e r n a l l y E x i s t e n t One.' In Opif., however, there i s
no mention of vonxn. ouaua at a l l . P h i l o p r e f e r s to speak of the place of the
ideas, namely i n the d i v i n e Logos (§20,36).
3. The model as p r e - c r e a t i o n a l r e f l e c t i o n . I t i s well-known t h a t , where-
as P l a t o l e f t the r e l a t i o n between the demiurge and the model undefined, the
Middle P l a t o n i s t s regarded the ideas as God's thought (see above I 4. &n.102),
the d o c t r i n e being expressed sometimes r a t h e r n a i v e l y (e.g. a t Hippolytus Phi-
l o s . 19.2 (567.12-14 D i e l s ) , T O 6e uapa6etYlia xf|v 6uavouav x o u %zov e l v a u , b
nal Ldeav xaAeu (o IIAaxoav) o l o v euxovuayci TL,(I) Ttpooexwv ev xfj 4>uxrj b %ebg xot
itavxa e6r)yuoupYet) , at other times i n a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d manner (e.g. at A l -
binus Did.9.1 quoted above i n I I 3.1.1.). As we have already noted, P h i l o ' s
e x p l o i t a t i o n of t h i s d o c t r i n e i s b a s i c to h i s account of c r e a t i o n i n the De
o p i f i c i o mundi.
When P h i l o ' s usage i s compared w i t h that of the Middle P l a t o n i s t authors,
it i s p a r t i c u l a r l y h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n of God's formation of the n o e t i c cosmos as
the r e s u l t of pre-creational reflection that s t r i k e s the eye. Note the verbs
used of God's (and the a r c h i t e c t ' s ) a c t i v i t y : TcpoAagoiv, rcpoegexurcou (§16), e v -
evono'e rcpoxepov (§19), Ttpo6uaxuTtu)^euaa (§20). The quasi-temporal aspect thus
introduced underlines the f a c t that God creates the n o e t i c cosmos. Compare
t e x t s such as Abr.88, V i r t .214, Prov.1.21, where God i s c a l l e d uourixris, nyeydsv,
uaxrip of the i n t e l l i g i b l e realm. Although t h i s emphasis on c r e a t i o n goes be-
 I I 3.4.2. 135

yond anything we find i n the accounts of contemporaries, one might compare the

statement of the Neopythagorean Nichomachus that number (as the model) p r e-

e x i s t e d i n the mind of the c r e a t o r (TtpouTtooTdvia; c f . npoKevTn.ua, TtpoxdpaYua?

but n o e t i c number i s not s a i d to be 'created ). 1

A t t i c u s too d e c l a r e s (fr.9.5)

that God first thought (TtpoTepov v o n a a u ) what he was going to c r e a t e and that

God's thoughts are o l d e r than the (created) t h i n g s ; but he does not explicitly

s t a t e that these thoughts c o n s t i t u t e the ideas as model ( c o n t r a s t f r . 2 8 ; there

has been much d i s p u t e on t h i s p o i n t , c f . E.Des P l a c e s , A t t i c u s ( P a r i s 1977) 86,

D i l l o n 254). As we s h a l l see below i n II 3.4.4. and I I I 2.6., Philo's insis-

tence on the pre-cosmic c r e a t i o n of the xoouos vonTOS i s the r e s u l t of h i s ex-

egesis of Gen.1, but at the same time makes an important p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o i n t . 5

3.4.3. The e x t e n d e d image i n O p i f . 1 7 - 1 8

I t i s time to look more c l o s e l y at the manner i n which P h i l o makes use of

the xoouos VOTITOS as cosmic model i n h i s e x p l a n a t i o n of Moses' c r e a t i o n ac-

count. I t should not be thought, he says at Opif.17, that the n o e t i c world i s

l o c a t e d i n a place (ev T O icy T U V O i n the way that the s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e cosmos

is. Why i s t h i s problem r a i s e d ? In the Timaeus P l a t o had not spoken of the

l o c a t i o n of the model (though note 52b-d, where true being i s d e c l a r e d not to

s u b s i s t i n any medium or space), but expressions found elsewhere i n h i s d i a -

logues f o r the p l a c e of the i d e a s , such as the UTtepoupdvtos TOTIOS (Phdr,247C)

or the von,Tos TOTIOS (Rep.508C) , might have given r i s e to erroneous i d e a s . 1

In

order to e x p l a i n where the xoouos VOTITOS i s s i t u a t e d , P h i l o r e s o r t s to an image

(§18-19).

Although P h i l o himself calls the comparison which he makes between the

c r e a t i o n of the cosmos and the founding of a c i t y an etxwv T W V Ttap'n.uuv, the

word 'image' i s h a r d l y an adequate d e s c r i p t i o n . I t i s more l i k e an extended

analogy or metaphor, devised i n such a way as to correspond as c l o s e l y as pos-

s i b l e to the p h i l o s o p h i c a l problematics requiring elucidation. I t s task i s

thus not only to i n d i c a t e the l o c a t i o n of the model, but a l s o to shed l i g h t on

the way that the e n t i r e process of c r e a t i o n must be understood.

The b a s i c contents of the image can be summarized as f o l l o w s . When a

c i t y i s being founded, as the r e s u l t of the great ambition and magnificence of

a king (gaouAeus), an a r c h i t e c t (avnp apxtTexTovuxos) comes along and, taking

topographical and geographical f a c t o r s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , conceives a design

c o n t a i n i n g the d i v e r s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the f u t u r e c i t y . Having impressed

t h i s design on h i s mind and c a r r y i n g i t around as a 'noetic c i t y ' , he looks to

t h i s model and, l i k e a good craftsman (6nytoupyos), executes the p l a n by making

 136 ANALYSIS

the m a t e r i a l s he has at h i s d i s p o s a l correspond to the immaterial forms of h i s

mental b l u e p r i n t .
Let us examine the most important feature s of t h i s image. In the process
of founding the c i t y three p r o f e s s i o n s or f u n c t i o n s are i n v o l v e d : the king,
whose magnificence s u p p l i e s the c o n d i t i o n s that make the c i t y ' s establishment
p o s s i b l e ; the a r c h i t e c t , whose knowledge enables the c i t y to be well-designed;
the craftsman, whose s k i l l ensures that the design i s p r o p e r l y executed. The
r e l a t i o n between the a r c h i t e c t and the craftsman i s made c l e a r enough. Philo
combines them i n the one person, but emphasizes that the a c t i v i t y of the a r c h i -
t e c t precedes that of the craftsman-builder. What about the r e l a t i o n between
the k i n g and the a r c h i t e c t ? These are c l e a r l y not combined i n the one person.
The d e c i s i o n to found the c i t y i s not taken by the a r c h i t e c t , but presumably
by the k i n g (though, note w e l l , P h i l o does not t e l l us t h i s ! ) . I t i s only
then that the a r c h i t e c t comes forward (TiapeAdwv eaxuv O T E ) .

At §19 P h i l o proceeds to e x p l a i n what he means by a p p l y i n g the image to

the a c t u a l c r e a t i o n of the universe. Two p o i n t s must be observed. Firstly
the answer i s given to the problem of the l o c a t i o n of the xoouos VOTITOS. It
has i t s place i n the Logos of the c r e a t o r , j u s t as the design of the c i t y was
l o c a t e d i n the mind or s o u l of the a r c h i t e c t (§20; note that the xoouos vonios
i s not placed i n God's mind or soul, but i n h i s Logos). A few paragraphs l a -
ter P h i l o a m p l i f i e s t h i s statement by demonstrating, i n a formal argument that
i s not easy to f o l l o w on a f i r s t reading, 2
that the xoouos VOTITOS i s nothing
e l s e than the Logos of God as he i s a c t u a l l y engaged i n the act of c r e a t i o n
(§24-25). Secondly, when d e s c r i b i n g how God creates the cosmos as megalopolis
(§19), P h i l o a t t r i b u t e s to the c r e a t o r a l l three functions i n the image. The
^ c r e a t o r decides to found the c i t y (xxuCeuv 6Lavon.3ei-s), composes the xoouos
f vonxos as cosmic design i n h i s Logos (evevorioe ipoTepov. ..) , and f i n a l l y , using
that design as model, completes the v i s i b l e cosmos (aTtoxeAeu xau T O V auadnxov).
It i s a l s o worth observing that the u n l i m i t e d beneficence of God emphasized i n
§23 i s b e t t e r c o r r e l a t e d with the magnificence of the k i n g than with the limi-
ted s c i e n t i f i c e x p e r t i s e of the a r c h i t e c t .

If our a n a l y s i s of P h i l o ' s extended image i s c o r r e c t , i t must be conclu-

ded that two opposite tendencies, of separation and coalescence, are at work.
When the process of c r e a t i o n i s explained the three f u n c t i o n s of benefactor,
designer and executor are c a r e f u l l y separated, but i n the image and even more
so i n i t s explanatio n they are assigned, as much as p o s s i b l e , to the same 'cre-
ator'. The reason f o r such a p r e s e n t a t i o n i s , I think, s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . Fol-
lowing the Timaeus and P l a t o n i s t accounts of c r e a t i o n , P h i l o recognized the
d i f f e r e n t stages or l e v e l s i n v o l v e d , as expressed above a l l i n the relation
between model and copy. But at the same time he i s a l s o aware of the danger
 II 3.4.3. 137

that a m u l t i p l i c i t y of f u n c t i o n s and stages might give r i s e to the s e r i o u s e r -

r o r of t h i n k i n g that there was more than one c r e a t o r involved i n c r e a t i n g the
cosmos, or that i t involved a temporal process. God had no one to a s s i s t him
( f o r who e l s e was there? §23), and a l l things were done simultaneously (§13,
28). This perhaps explains too the curious f a c t that P h i l o , though elsewhere
s t r o n g l y emphasizing that God does not come i n t o d i r e c t contact with matter
(Spec.1.329), does not dwell on t h i s aspect i n O p i f . and a l s o does not utilize
the d o c t r i n e of the Logos as instrument of c r e a t i o n ( i . e . equivalen t to the I
6n,uuoupYOS otyados i n §18, c f . below I I 3.4.5.; the only h i n t of 'intermedia-
tion 1
i s found i n the b r i e f referenc e to the 6UVCXULS n. xoouoTtouriTLMr) i n §21).
One l a s t question remains. In the extended image P h i l o d e c l i n e s to say that
the king decides to found the c i t y or that he appoints an a r c h i t e c t to do the
task f o r him. 3
Why does he so c a r e f u l l y d i s s o c i a t e the k i n g from d i r e c t parti-
c i p a t i o n i n the founding of the c i t y ? Is he not aiming to convey that God's
I
c r e a t o r s h i p , which i s so c e n t r a l to the whole passage, does not exhaust the
f u l n e s s of h i s Being, that h i s Being i s transcendent and remains beyond the
grasp of t h e o r e t i c a l c i r c u m s c r i p t i o n ?

Among the many s k i l l s which P l a t o ' s demiurge possesses i s the a r t of

b u i l d i n g (cf.28c6,30b5,36e1,68e5, B r i s s o n 42-44). In P h i l o s image the
r
func-
t i o n of 6n.uboupYos i s emphatically r e t a i n e d , but at the same time the c r e a t i n g
God has been promoted to an a r c h i t e c t , or i n more modern terms, a town p l a n -
ner. 4
This promotion i s of course c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r o b l e -
matics that have so f a r been e x t e n s i v e l y d i s c u s s e d . A builder-craftsman must
f o l l o w the b l u e p r i n t he i s given, an a r c h i t e c t designs the b l u e p r i n t himself
and then executes i t (or has someone execute i t f o r him). But a l s o other as-
pects of H e l l e n i s t i c philosophy should be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n when P h i -
l o 's adaptation of the P l a t o n i c craftsman metaphor i s analysed.
An extensive l i s t of examples of the images of house and c i t y a p p l i e d to
the s t r u c t u r e of the cosmos i s given by Wendland Vorsehung 10. Historically
the most important are unquestionably the examples (found mostly i n P h i l o , c f .
Leg.3.98, Spec.1.33, Praem.41) d e r i v e d from A r i s t o t l e ' s De p h i l o s o p h i a . I f
one enters a well-designed and w e l l - o r g a n i z e d house or c i t y , one cannot avoid
coming to the c o n c l u s i o n that a god e x i s t s who i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s design
( c f . F e s t u g i e r e R e v e l a t i o n 2.229ff., Chroust AC 44(1975)565; E f f e Studien 93
r e j e c t s these fragments on i n s u f f i c i e n t grounds ( c f . a l s o fr.18 Ross = P h i l o
Aet.10-11). The Stoa encouraged the use of the image of the c i t y with i t s
emphasis on the cosmos as a s u p e r - c i t y r u l e d by the s i n g l e law of the logos.
The Epicureans, i n c o n t r a s t , used the image of the a r c h i t e c t to make P l a t o
look r i d i c u l o u s (Cic.DND 1.19): 'How could P l a t o i n h i s mind's eye have com-
prehended so vast a piece of a r c h i t e c t u r e as the b u i l d i n g of the Universe?
What t o o l s , what machines d i d he use? How were the four elements able to obey
and c a r r y out the w i l l of the a r c h i t e c t ? . . . ' Middle P l a t o n i s t t e x t s d e s c r i -
bing God as b u i l d e r or a r c h i t e c t are Att.fr.4,12,13, Apul.De Plat.194, C a l c .
137,337,343 ( c f . a l s o Cher.126, on which see I I 3.4.5.). Another important
antecedent f o r P h i l o ' s image i s the d i s t i n c t i o n between Texvn and eitbaxriur) made
 138 ANALYSIS

i by A r i s t o t l e i n Met.A 1 981b26ff. The apxtxexxcov i s s u p e r i o r to the x e ^ p o x e x -

' v r i S the t h e o r e t i c a l science s are s u p e r i o r to the productiv e s c i e n c e s . I f we

3

| add the p e r f e c t v o n o x g of the highest God (Met.A 7) we gain a t r i a d which

seems on the way to P h i l o ' s image, even i f the A l e x a n d r i an does not f u l l y work
out the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l aspect. And so we come to the image of the k i n g .
The monarchic emphasis of A r i s t o t l e ' s theology ( c f . Met.A 10 1076a4) i s
taken over i n the P s e u d o - A r i s t o t e l i a n t r e a t i s e De Mundo (which P h i l o may have
known, c f . below I I I 2.11.n.2&4), where i t i s i l l u s t r a t e d w i t h the famous
image of the Great k i n g (6 398a11-b6). I n v i s i b l e to a l l i n h i s mighty palace,
he does not administer h i s kingdom p e r s o n a l l y , but uses h i s satraps to do the
' d i r t y work' ( a u x o u p y e C v ) . There i s no room f o r an a r c h i t e c t here, f o r the
cosmos does not have to be c r e a t e d , only administered. The P l a t o n i s t s had
P l a t o ' s own references to the 'king of a l l ' and k i n g s h i p to r e f l e c t upon: esp.
Ep.2 312e, a l s o Rep.509d,597e, Laws 904a. Cf. A t t . f r . 4 . 1 2 (who does not d i s -
t i n g u i s h between the TtaugaotAeos and a p t a x o x e x v n s ) , Num.fr. 12 ( $ a a t A e u s as a p -
ybg e p y w v ) , Max.Tyr.Or.11,12, Plot.4.8.2,5.5.3. The image of the (Great) k i n g
i s p a r t i c u l a r l y common i n P h i l o ; c f . Opif.71, Cher.99, Conf.170, Decal.61,178,
Spec.1.18-19, QG 3.34, QE 2.44 e t c .
I t i s abundantly c l e a r that P h i l o ' s extended image i n Opif.17-18, with
i t s complex reworking of the b a s i c demiurgic metaphor of the Timaeus, 5
pro-
ceeds along well-trodden paths. Nevertheless I am sure i t would be mistaken
to conclude that he has merely lifted i t from a P l a t o n i s t t r e a t i s e or commen-
tary. The image i s tailor-made to f i t the requirements of P h i l o ' s own exege-
t i c a l and p h i l o s o p h i c a l concerns. I am prepared to c r e d i t him with a c o n s i d -
erable measure of o r i g i n a l i t y and p h i l o s o p h i c a l competence i n i t s conception
and composition.

3.4.4. Aspects of exegetical application

The reason f o r the prominence of the conception of the model i n the open-
ing part of O p i f . i s that P l a t o ' s theory s u p p l i e s P h i l o with a b r i l l i a n t solu-
t i o n to the formidable problems involved i n the exegesis of the f i r s t verses
of Genesis (problems that were to be repeatedl y d i s c u s s ed i n the P a t r i s t i c
p e r i o d ; on the Nachleben of P h i l o ' s s o l u t i o n c f . J.Pepin, 'Recherches sur l e
sens et l e s o r i g i n e s de l ' e x p r e s s i o n "caelum c a e l i " dans l e l i v r e XII des "Con-
f e s s i o n s " de s. Augustin' ALMA 23 (1953)185-274 and esp. 2 4 4 f f . ) . Gen.1:1-5
i s taken to d e s c r i b e the c r e a t i o n not — as the naive reader might t h i n k - of
the world as we know i t , but of the i n t e l l i g i b l e cosmos which served as a mo-
d e l f o r the c r e a t o r i n the act of c r e a t i o n . Moses shows that the xoouog von. -

xos, though e t e r n a l and unchanging, must be considered dependent f o r i t s e x i s -

tence on God (see a l s o above I I 2.1.1. on O p i f . 1 2 ) . The heaven and earth men-
tioned i n the opening verse are not the same as the heaven and earth created
on the second and t h i r d days of c r e a t i o n , but are i n f a c t t h e i r intelligible
prototypes.
 I I 3.4.4. 139

P h i l o i s keen to show that the r a d i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which he suggests

and which gives the Mosaic account such p h i l o s o p h i c a l depth can be p e r s u a s i v e -
l y derived from the B i b l i c a l t e x t . His c h i e f trump-card i s the Hebraism nyépa
yúa (§15, i . e . day one
f 1
i n s t e a d of f i r s t d a y ) , which i n d i c a t e s
f 1
( f o r those
i n the know) the monadic and thus non-sensible nature of the things created on
that day. A l s o the clause ¿s ó iepu aúxfjs Aoyos ynvúeu i n §15 most likely
draws a t t e n t i o n to the e x e g e t i c a l background of P h i l o s e x p l a n a t i o n i n §16-25.
1

The words are d e c i d e d l y ambiguous and v a r i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s can be proposed.

(1) I f the a l t e r n a t i v e readin g ynvuoeu i s accepted they w i l l mean 'as our ac-
count ( i . e . i n §16-25) concerning i t ( e i t h e r the monad or 'day one ) w i l l show . 1 1

H o r o v i t z 70 p e r s u a s i v e l y argues against t h i s view, put forward by Miiller and

Wendland. The v e r s i o n of the Loeb t r a n s l a t o r s (EE 1.15), a s i s shown i n t h e j
f

t r e a t i s e d e a l i n g with the "One ", i s q u i t e improbable. (2) As the account

1 f

(of the B i b l e or Moses) concerning i t ('day one') shows'; c f . H o r o v i t z 70, J .

Cohn GT 1.32, Arnaldez FE 1.151). (3) The p a r a l l e l use of the phrase 6 Ttepu
aúxoü Aoyos at Spec.1.209 might suggest 'as our reasoning concerning i t shows'.
In my view the second a l t e r n a t i v e i s the most l i k e l y candidate. If this i s
accepted, i t i s remarkable that P h i l o does not make more of the second h i n t of
n o e t i c status i n these v e r s e s , the d e s c r i p t i o n of the earth as áópaxos i n Gen.
1:2 ( c o n t r a s t Clement c i t e d above i n I I 3.2.3.).
I t i s important to observe that the whole s e c t i o n §16-25 i s intended to p r o -
v i d e background p h i l o s o p h i c a l comments p r i o r to the exegesis of Gen.1:1-5 i n
§26-35. These comments proceed to a depth of p h i l o s o p h i c a l p e n e t r a t i o n f a r
beyond the requirements of d i r e c t exegesis. But i f the words of Moses were
f o r P h i l o no more than a springboard f o r independent p h i l o s o p h i c a l reflection,
§16-25 would c e r t a i n l y not have been followed by §29-35 (on which see below I I
8.2.2.).

Three other e x e g e t i c a l aspects of P h i l o ' s account i n Opif.16-25 r e q u i r e a

b r i e f mention.
1. P h i l o ' s choice of the image of a c i t y to i l l u s t r a t e the xooyos vonxos
i s a l s o i n f l u e n c e d by the f a c t that he commences O p i f . by comparing Moses' Law
with the laws of other philosophers and c i t y - f o u n d e r s . The opening chapters
of the Mosaic l e g i s l a t i o n c o n t a i n a xooyoTtotua, showing that the cosmos and
the Law are i n harmony with each other and that the man who lives according
to the Law i s a w o r l d - c i t i z e n . There i s an undeniable resemblance to the no-
t i o n of the p r e - e x i s t e n t Torah developed i n P a l e s t i n i a n Judaism, even though
the xóoyos vonxós i s d e f i n i t e l y not meant to represent a n o e t i c Law and i s
above a l l h e a v i l y i n f l u e n c e d by Greek philosophy ( c f . Nikiprowetzky 154-155).
2. Aside from the Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l precedents o u t l i n e d i n the p r e v i -
ous s u b - s e c t i o n , the images of a r c h i t e c t and craftsman have an important
B i b l i c a l background. As already noted above i n I I 2.3.1., Moses i s recorded
as being shown the Ttapaoeuyya of the tabernacle on the mountain (Ex.25:9).
P h i l o q u i t e l o g i c a l l y connects up t h i s text with Ex.31:2-4,35:30-35, i n which
B e z a l e l the master-craftsman i s summoned by God to construc t the tabernacle
140 ANALYSIS

and i t s furnishings. Moses and B e z a l e l are t h e r e f o r e seen i n the same dpxt-

xexxu)v/6nyuoupY6s r e l a t i o n as i s found i n the image i n Opif. 17-18 ( c f . Leg.3.
95-102, Plant.26-27, Somn.1.206, Mos.2.74-76). Note how extensively the lan-
guage of the image i s r e c a l l e d at Mos.2.76 (a number of terms are r e l e v a n t to
the t a b l e above i n I I 3.4.2.):
o yev ouv TUTtos xoO i a p a 6 e i . Y u a T o s eveacppaybCeTO xfj j5uxv£ua_ xou Ttpocprixou
6uaCwYpa(pouyevos xotl 7tpo6uaiXaxxoyevo s dcpavws a v e u uXns A £"I. Ji _ ii^£ ii' 0 0 s E: a

T O 6 ' ^ £ X £ X £ o y a icpos T O V x u i o v "e6riyuoupyeLXO , evarcoyaxxoyevou i d s OippayZ-

6as T O O x e x v t x o u Tats tpoacpopous endoxajv _UX_UKO^U_S_ ouabaus.
U n f o r t u n a t e l y f o r P h i l o the language used by the LXX does not integrate very
w e l l with h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , f o r B e z a l e l i s s a i d to be f i l l e d by God with oo
(pta and liuoxriyri and to f u n c t i o n as an ' a r c h i t e c t ( i . e . master-builder) i n
1

c a r r y i n g out h i s task ( c f . Ex.35:32 a p x ^ x e n x o v e u v Kaxd itdvxa xd epyot Tfj s dpxt-

xexxovtag...).

3. The aspect of P h i l o ' s e x p o s i t i o n i n Opif.16-25 that deviates most

from both P l a t o and the P l a t o n i s t s i s the important place assigned to the doc
t r i n e of the Logos as the place of the ideas. L.Cohn, 'Zur Lehre vom Logos
b e i P h i l o ' Judaic a 324-325, i s s u r e l y too p r e c i p i t a t e i n denying that the doc
t r i n e of the Logos here has anything to do with the 'and God s a i d ' of Gen.1.
On t h i s point the only other text i n P h i l o which s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r s to the
exegesis of 'day one' i n terms of the n o e t i c world, Somn.1.75-76, i s most il-
luminating. We c i t e part of §75, accepting Colson's conjecture:

o §eos (p&s e o x t . . . nai OV yovov (pws, dXXd HOLL rcavxos exepou cpwxos d p x e -
X U T C O V , yaXXov 6e Ttavxos dpxexuTtou icpeaguxepov nai d v w x e p o v , Xoyov exov
Ttapa6etYyaxos < n a p a 6 e u Y y a x o s > . T O yev yap Tcapd6etYya o i X n p e a x a x o s ?)v
a u x o u X O Y O S , cpws - "e^Tte" yap (pnatv "o $eos* yevea%u cpo5s" — , a u x o s 6e
ou6evu xcov Y E Y O V O X W V o y o u o s .
The j u x t a p o s i t i o n of X O Y O S and e^rce i s c l e a r l y d e l i b e r a t e . Note how Philo as
sociates X O Y O S and prjya (which unambiguously denotes the spoken word) at Sacr
8 (here the Logos i s instrument). On the Logos as God speaking (o Xeywv) c f .
Fug.95,101, QE 2.68 ( a l l exeg. Ex.25:22).

3.4.5. P r e p o s i t i o n a l metaphysics

In h i s important study Die Vorbereitun g des Neuplatonismus T h e i l e r gave

the apt title 'metaphysics of p r e p o s i t i o n s ' to the p r a c t i c e , f r e q u e n t l y found
i n both Middle and Neoplatonism, of using p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases to express
the causes r e q u i r e d f o r an objec t (and e s p e c i a l l y the cosmos) to come i n t o be
ing ( 1 9 f f . ) . Central to Middle P l a t o n i s t usage are three phrases correspon-
ding to the three dpxau — by which (ucp'ou, e f f i c i e n t cause), towards which
(jtpos o, formal cause), out of which (e£ o5, m a t e r i a l cause). A l u c i d exampl
 II 3.4.5. 141

of the simplest schema i s A e t i u s Plac.1.11.2. When other phrases are added -

a f o u r t h at Albinu s Did.12.1-2 ( i m p l i e d , see below), two more at Seneca Ep.65.
7-10 — the neat correspondence between d p x a u , causes and p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases
is spoilt. Thus we f i n d that the f i n a l cause ( Ö L ' 6 or ou e v e x a ) i s the good-
ness of the demiurge. In another s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n H.Dörrie, 'Präposi-
tionen und Metaphysik: Wechselwirkung zweier P r i n z i p i e n r e i h e n ' MH 26(1969)217-
228, postulates a r i v a l schema which on account of i t s o r i g i n and main place
of c i r c u l a t i o n he c a l l s the 'Stoic-Gnostic s e r i e s ' . C o n s i s t i n g p r i m a r i l y of
the phrases eE, o u , ev w or öu'ou and eig o v , t h i s schema reacts against a mul-
t i p l i c i t y of dpxau and a t t r i b u t e s the various causes to one chief p r i n c i p l e .
It i s of t h i s s e r i e s , he proposes, that v a r i a n t s are found i n the New Testa-
ment (Rom.11.36, Col.1.16-17, John 1.1-4). Dörrie argues that considerabl e
interchanges took place between the two s e r i e s , of which the one had a philo-
s o p h i c a l - d i d a c t i c b a s i s , the other a more r e l i g i o u s o r i e n t a t i o n .

In P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s there are three texts which are among the earliest
witnesses to the p r e p o s i t i o n a l metaphysics sketched above.
Cher.124-127. Cain goes a s t r a y when he d e c l a r e s "I have gained a man
through God (6ud T O U d e o u ) " (Gen.4:1), f o r God i s not the instrument but the
( e f f i c i e n t ) cause of c r e a t i o n . In order to e x p l a i n t h i s exegesis P h i l o must
fill i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l background. He does so i n a r a t h e r d i d a c t i c fashion,
s e t t i n g out the b a s i c schema, then g i v i n g a l i m i t e d example and finally apply-
ing i t to the yeveobg of the cosmos. We can s u c c i n c t l y present i t i n the fol-
lowing t a b l e :

phrase TO U(p OU TO eE, ou TO ÔU'OU TO 6u 0

identification TO aUTUOV n. uXn TO e p y a X e t o v Y) auTua

(matter) (instrument) (motive)
(cause)
example stones and instruments shelter and
demiurge
(house or c i t y ) wood safety
application God the four e l e - Logos of God goodness of
(to the cosmos) creator ments the c r e a t o r
Cain's grievous e r r o r i s that he thinks that God i s the instrument and that he
or the human mind i s the cause.
QG 1.58 ( c f . Greek fragment at FE 33.56). G i v i n g exegesis of the same
t e x t , t h i s passage i s wholly p a r a l l e l to the previous one and adds no new
material.
Prov.1.23. P h i l o concludes h i s b r i e f survey of Plato' s views on the cre-
a t i o n and p o s s i b l e d e s t r u c t i o n of the cosmos with a rather bald r e c i t a l of the
causes of the cosmos' genesis. Apparently the schema i s so well-known that i t
s c a r c e l y r e q u i r e s explanation . Aucher's t r a n s l a t i o n i s inaccurat e here and
p a r t l y misses the p o i n t . 1
The text reads:
142 ANALYSIS

By whom: God. Out of which: matter. Through whom: the instrument. The
instrument i s the Logos of God. And towards what was i t made: the model.
Once again four causes are given, but when we compare the l i s t with Cher.126
we f i n d that the f i n a l cause has been delete d and replaced by the formal cause,
i.e. the model towards which the c r e a t o r looks when c r e a t i n g the cosmos (pro-
minent i n the d i s c u s s i o n i n §21; see I I 2.3.3.). Noteworthy i s that here too
the instrumental cause i s included ( i n the other two texts the exegesis deman-
ded i t s presence). It f i t s l e a s t w e l l i n t o the P l a t o n i s t s e r i e s and P h i l o
f e e l s o b l i g e d to e x p l a i n what he i s r e f e r r i n g t o .

It i s not my i n t e n t i o n to make a d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o P h i l o s use f

of the metaphysics of p r e p o s i t i o n s , although the subject has by no means been

exhaustively researched; see the accounts at Pepin 348-355, Weiss 269-272,
Farandos 267-271. The aspect which concerns us i n t h i s study i s the intimate
connection between the p r e p o s i t i o n a l schemas presented by P h i l o and the i n t e r -
p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus. This i s made p e l l u c i d l y c l e a r i n the b r i e f exposi-
t i o n i n Cher.126-127. The use of the image of a house or c i t y and the a p p l i -
c a t i o n t o the cosmos demonstrate that i t i s the conception of a craftsman ma-
k i n g an a r t e f a c t which provides the foundation f o r the p r e p o s i t i o n a l metaphy-
s i c s , and that that conception i s derived from the Timaeus. I f proof be r e -
quired, one can note f u r t h e r how the f i n a l cause ( a t x u a ) i s the a y a ^ o x r i s T O U
6riuboupYou, taken d i r e c t l y from Tim.29d7-e2 (esp. 29d7 6i/fivTuva a t x u a v ; Sene-
ca Ep.65.10 quotes the P l a t o n i c passage). When Albinus Did.12.1-2, f o l l o w i n g
A r i u s Didymus E p i t . p h y s . f r . 1 D i e l s , recounts P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e of the yeveoLg
TOU x o o u o u , he formulates i t i n such a way as to make the r e l a t i o n to the meta-
physics of p r e p o s i t i o n s p a r t i c u l a r l y obvious:

a v a y x a u o v x a t T O xaAAtOTov Haxaaxeuaaua T O V H O O U O V U T I O T O U deou 6e6r)Ub-

oupYfjadab i p o s Tuva u6eav xoouou aTto$AeTtovTos. . . 6 t O T t aya$bg ?iv. e_x
Tfis ndans o3v uAns a U T O V e6n.uLOVpyeL . . .
It was observed above i n I I 3.4.2. how Albinus'account shares a number of f e a -
tures i n common with the passage that has been at the centre of our a t t e n t i o n
i n t h i s chapter, Opif.16-25. In order to e x p l a i n the r o l e of the xoouos vorj-
T O S as model created on 'day one', P h i l o has c l e a r l y made use of a P l a t o n i s t
explanation of c r e a t i o n which has the same i n t e r p r e t a t i v e b a s i s as that pos-
sessed by the schema o f the p r e p o s i t i o n a l metaphysics. This emerges c l e a r l y
when we note i t s main c o n s t i t u e n t elements:

ucp' o u God the creator

upos o xoouos v o r i T O g as model
e£ o£> p r e - e x i s t e n t matter
6u'6 God's goodness (note §21 a t T t a v f\g e v e x a ) .
The P l a t o n i s t schema o f f e r s at l e a s t a p a r t i a l explanation f o r the f a c t that
P h i l o i n c l u d e s the themes of God's goodness and p r e - e x i s t e n t matter, even
 II 3.4.5 143

though these are n e i t h e r r e q u i r e d to e x p l a i n the f u n c t i o n of the model nor

suggested by the B i b l i c a l text.
At the same time i t cannot be denied that P h i l o adapts the P l a t o n i s t
schema to h i s own requirements, as becomes e s p e c i a l l y apparent i n the r o l e of
the d i v i n e Logos. In a l l three accounts of the p r e p o s i t i o n a l metaphysics the
Logos was i d e n t i f i e d with the instrument of c r e a t i o n . But as we observed in
II 3.4.3. the instrumental r o l e of the Logos i s not emphasized i n Opif.16-25,
and i n s t e a d the Logos i s presented as c o i n c i d i n g with the model as xoouos vor\-
TOS.

The f o l l o w i n g t e x t s i n P h i l o p o r t r a y the Logos as the instrument through

which (6u'ou) or with which (§) God c r e a t e s : Leg.3.96, Cher.28, Sacr.8, Deus 57,
Conf.62, Migr.6, Fug.12,95, Somn.2.45, Spec.1.81. The d o c t r i n e of the Xoyos
T O U E U S a l s o presumes that the Logos i s i n s t r u m e n t a l ; God sharpens h i s c u t t i n g
word and d i v i d e s the unformed o u o t a of the u n i v e r s e (Her.160). The same i n -
strumental f u n c t i o n i s assigned to Zoqjta (Pet.54, Fug. 109) and the powers (QG
1.54). P i l l o n considers the d e p i c t i o n of the Logos as instrument of c r e a t i o n
to be 'orthodox Middle P l a t o n i s t d o c t r i n e ' . I am not so sure of t h i s , f o r the
examples that I can f i n d are scarce; c f . Plut.Mor.373C,720C, A t t . f r . 4 . 7 ( 6 u v a -
uus 6u'rjs) . On the other hand the use of the instrumental cause i n order to
' l i b e r a t e ' God from the manual labour of c r e a t i o n was a concern f o r most Mid-
dle P l a t o n i s t s and l e d to the d o c t r i n e of a f i r s t and second god ( c f . a l s o
P r o c l . i n Tim.1.4.26ff., who speaks of a 6nuuoupYbHov aCxuov which works with
6n.uboupYbxau xouau i n shaping matter, i . e . h i g h l y reminiscent of the X O Y O S T O -
ueus). T h e i l e r Vorbereitung 2 7 f f . (and, f o l l o w i n g him, Weiss 269) argues that
P h i l o sees a connection between the paradeigmatic and the instrumenta l cause,
which allows him to a s s o c i a t e the Logos with the model, a connection that was
taken over from the P l a t o n i s t t r a d i t i o n . C e r t a i n l y i n three t e x t s , Leg.3.96,
Fug.12 and Somn.2.45, the Logos i s both paradigm or s e a l and instrument. In
the l a s t two the s e a l i s the instrument with which (§) the cosmos i s formed.
The greater (and u n p l a t o n i c ) use of seal-imagery i n Middle Platonism (pointed
out above i n I I 3.4.2.) has, according to these s c h o l a r s , encouraged P h i l o to
a s s i g n the Logos a double f u n c t i o n . In a l a t e r a r t i c l e (Parousia 215) T h e i l e r
r e v i s e s h i s o p i n i o n and concludes that P h i l o h i m s e l f i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the
change from the model (and Logos) as paradeigmatic cause to the Logos as i n -
strumental cause. This i s s u r e l y more probable, given P h i l o ' s i n c l i n a t i o n to
a t t r i b u t e a number of d i v e r s e f u n c t i o n s to the d i v i n e Logos. See f u r t h e r be-
low I I I 2.7.

3.5 The u n i c i t y o f t h e cosmos (Tim.31a-b)

3.5.1. God i s One, t h e cosmos i s one

Whether there i s one cosmos or many or an i n f i n i t e number was one of the

c l a s s i c questions of Greek philosophy. As the doxographical r e p o r t i n A e t i u s
Plac.2.1.2-3 shows, i t was recognized by P h i l o s time that most of the b i g
f

names (Pythagoras, H e r a c l i t u s , Parmenides, P l a t o , A r i s t o t l e , Zeno) supported

the d o c t r i n e of the u n i c i t y of the cosmos, while only a few, n o t a b l y Democri-
tus and E p i c u r u s , a f f i r m e d that there were an i n f i n i t e number of worlds (on
144 ANALYSIS

the e n t i r e question see Pepin 72-78).

On t h i s issue P h i l o has no qualms i n f o l l o w i n g the m a j o r i t y view put for-
ward i n Greek philosophy. In the concluding paragraphs of the De opificio
mundi (170-172) he r a t h e r s u r p r i s i n g l y ( f o r the theme had not so f a r been
touched upon) includes the d o c t r i n e of the u n i c i t y of the cosmos among the
f i v e Mosaic dogmata which he claims w i l l , i f accepted and imprinted on the
s o u l , give man a b l e s s e d and b l i s s f u l l i f e . When the reasons f o r s u b s c r i b i n g
to the d o c t r i n e are given (§171), the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus i s pronounced.

1. The cosmos i s one because i t s c r e a t o r ( 6 r ) u t o u p y o s ) i s one, e^oyouwoas a U T $

xaxd TTIV yovwotv TO epyov. The phrase naxd TT)V uovwauv i s taken d i r e c t l y from
P l a t o ' s d i s c u s s i o n on the u n i c i t y of the cosmos (31b1), while e^oyotwoas re-
f l e c t s acpwyotwyevov (31a8; c f . a l s o 29e3, where the demiurge wants to make a l l
things lapaiArioua eauTw; see f u r t h e r I I 2.3.3. 10.1.6.(oyotwaus, and esp. Opif.
151), 10.3.1 . (euMotv T O U v o n T O U , v . l . TtotriTOu) . But P l a t o ' s d i a l e c t i c a l argu-
ment that the cosmos i s one because the model must be unique (31a3-b1) has
been r e v i s e d and made compatible with the theory that the nooyos vor)TOS i s
equivalent to God's thoughts or h i s Logos. The model and demiurge are identi-
f i e d and thus one can now speak of an e ^ o y o u w o t s r e l a t i o n between the cosmos
and God the c r e a t o r ( c f . the same r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the same terminology at
Plut.Mor1014B,1015B, A t t . f r . 1 3 ) .

This i s not to say, of course, that f o r P h i l o God's oneness (another of the

f i v e dogmata) i s derive d from the Timaeus. I t i s a fundamental c o n v i c t i o n of
Judaism, i n s i s t e d upon by Moses i n the very f i r s t commandment of the Decalogue
( c f . Decal.64). Pythagorean d o c t r i n e on the nature of the monad i s a l s o o f t en
used to emphasize God's oneness ( c f . H a r l FE 15.101). At Opif.35 the u n i c i t y
of the Kooyog V O T I T O S i s a s s o c i a t e d with i t s c r e a t i o n on 'day one', but the
u n i c i t y of the s e n s i b l e cosmos i s not deduced from i t .

2. God used up a l l the uAn. i n the process of c r e a t i o n . P l a t o ' s statement at

33a1-2 has been modernized i n terms of the conception of a p r i m a l matter out
of which the cosmos was made. See a l s o below I I 4.2.1. on Prov.2.50-51.
3. The cosmos i s complete because i t i s made of complete p a r t s ; c f . 32d1-33a1,
a7 and below I I 4.2.1.
4. The wordplay on otTceupou worlds and aTceupot thinker s a l s o f i n d s i t s o r i g i n
i n the Timaeus, namely 55d1-2 where P l a t o returns to the problem of the unici-
ty of the world i n connection with the f i v e r e g u l a r solids.
Other P h i l o n i c t e x t s which r e v e a l h i s c o n v i c t i o n of the u n i c i t y of the
cosmos are Migr.180 (where i t i s a t t r i b u t e d d i r e c t l y to Moses) and Spec.3.189.
In Aet.8 he commends the S t o i c s f o r teaching that the cosmos i s one ( i n con-
t r a s t to the Atomists and E p i c u r u s ) , but r e j e c t s t h e i r conception of i t s cyc-
l i c a l d e s t r u c t i o n and regeneration. At Conf.170 he takes a d i f f e r e n t course
and argues from the u n i c i t y of the cosmos to the oneness of the 'maker and f a -
t h e r ' (quoting I l i a d 2.204-205, the same t e x t used by A r i s t o t l e as the final
 II 3.5.1. 145

words of Met.A). In none of these passages i s B i b l i c a l evidence given i n sup-

port of the d o c t r i n e that the cosmos i s unique, f o r the good reason that there
i s no evidence to give. Rabbinic Judaism, as pointed out by Wolfson 1.181,
took a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t view. Augustine r e f l e c t e d on a supposed c l a s h between
d i v i n e omnipotence and cosmic u n i t y , but r e f r a i n e d from c o n t e s t i n g the t r a d i -
t i o n a l view of Greek philosophy that there i s but a s i n g l e cosmos (PCD 11.5).
 CHAPTER FOUR

TIMAEUS 31B-34B: THE BODY OF THE COSMOS

4.0. Introductory

4.1. The elements bound together i n geometrical p r o p o r t i o n (Tim.31b-32c)

4.1.1. The bonding of the elements (31b-32c)

4.2. The features of the body of the cosmos (Tim.32c-34b)

4.2. . 1 . Completeness and p e r f e c t i o n (32c-33a)
4.2, .2. Unassailability (33a)
4.2, .3. Sphericity (33b-c)
4.2. ,4. Self-sufficiency (33c-d)
4.2. .5. C i r c u l a r motion (34a)
4.2, ,6. Divinity (34b)
4.2, .7. A r i s t o t l e , P l a t o and P h i l o i n Aet.20-44
4.2.8. Cosmos or body of the cosmos?

4.0. Introductory

The demiurge now sets out to create the cosmos i n i t s c o r p o r e a l , sense-

p e r c e p t i b l e aspect. In order that i t may possess i t s c h i e f p r o p e r t i e s of
v i s i b i l i t y and s o l i d i t y , i t must be made out of the elements f i r e and earth.
But i f the cosmos i s to be bound together with the geometrical p r o p o r t i o n
(avaXoyia 31c3) r e q u i r e d f o r three-dimensional bodies, there i s need f o r two
more elements i n between, namely a i r and water. By means of t h i s geometrical
p r o p o r t i o n the body of the cosmos obtains the s t a t e of f r i e n d s h i p (cptAua 32c2),
and can only be d i s s o l v e d by him who bound i t together. P l a t o proceeds to
enumerate the v a r i o u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e cosmos. (1) It
i s complete and a l l - i n c l u s i v e , c o n t a i n i n g w i t h i n i t the e n t i r e amount of a l l
four elements. (2) I t i s unageing, not prone to d i s e a s e , u n a s s a i l a b l e from
without and w i t h i n . (3) I t has been given the most p e r f e c t shape p o s s i b l e ,
the sphere. (4) I t i s t o t a l l y s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t , c o n t a i n i n g i t s nourishment
w i t h i n i t and needing no arms, f e et or o r i f i c e s . 1
(5) I t s motion i s c i r c u l a r ,
because, of the seven motions, that motion i s the most a p p r o p r i a t e to reason
and intelligence. (6) To sum up, the demiurge brought i n t o being a blessed
god (eu6ailuova deov 34b8) .

P l a t o does not make c l e a r what the numbers or q u a n t i t i e s of the geometri-

 II 4.0. 147

c a l p r o p o r t i o n between the four elements a c t u a l l y represent. Cornford 51 sug-

gests the t o t a l volumes of the four elements present i n the cosmos. Brisson
367-368 more p e r s u a s i v e l y proposes the r e l a t i o n between the r e s p e c t i v e volumes
of the p e r f e c t geometric shapes of the four primary bodies o u t l i n e d l a t e r i n
Tim.53c-55c. 2
Whatever the answer may be, i t i s evident that geometric c o n f i -
guration i s seen by P l a t o as the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c manner i n which order i s i n t r o -
duced i n t o the corporeal realm. P l u t a r c h perceive d this well i n his instruc-
t i v e l i t t l e essay on the question why God i s s a i d always to geometrize (Mor.
718B-720C).

4.1. The elements bound t o g e t h e r i n g e o m e t r i c a l p r o p o r t i o n

(Tim.31b-32c)

4.1.1. The bonding of the elements (31b-32c)

Although P h i l o nowhere makes a d i r e c t use of t h i s P l a t o n i c passage, on a

number of occasions i t s i n f l u e n c e can be detected. These passages w i l l be
b r i e f l y reviewed.
Opif.36-37. P h i l o gives here a s u r p r i s i n g l y b r i e f explanation of the se-
cond day of c r e a t i o n (Gen.1:6-8). The c h i e f aspect of t h i s day which he wishes
to emphasize i s the t r a n s i t i o n from the c r e a t i o n of the i n c o r p o r e a l n o e t i c
world to the c r e a t i o n of the corporea l v i s i b l e cosmos. The Mosaic account
speaks of the f a s h i o n i n g of the oxeplwpa (Gen.1:6). This word would have see-
med strange to the Greek reader, f o r the B i b l i c a l conception of the firmament
i s not found outside Judaeo-Christia n l i t e r a t u r e ( c f . TDNT 7.612). But f o r
P h i l o a s o l u t i o n i s w i t h i n reach. He a s s o c i a t e s the word with three-dimensio-
n a l i t y , and hence with the s o l i d i t y of body ( c f . Opif.98, Decal.25 e t c . ) . God
c a l l s the oxepewpa which he has created oupavos (Gen.1:8), which P h i l o c o n s i -
ders from the etymological p o i nt of view a most appropriate name, e i t h e r be-
cause the oupavos i s the opos of a l l t h i n g s , or because i t i s f i r s t of the opaxd.

On the f o l l o w i n g points the i n f l u e n c e of Tim.31b-32c can be detected:

(1) s t r u c t u r a l l y , i n the t r a n s i t i o n from the n o e t i c world ( P l a t o ' s model) to
the cosmos which i s ou)paxoeo6es nai opaxov dnxov xe 31b4; (2) the emphasis on
s o l i d i t y and three-dimensionality at 31b4,32b1-3, where Plato a s s o c i a t e s these
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with the element earth and geometrical dvaXoyta; (3) the phrase
at 32b7 ouveoxnoaxo oupavov opaxov nai omxov, where the play on words oupavos/
opaxos i s i m p l i c i t ( c f . Rep.509d). P h i l o remains true to the B i b l i c a l account
i n regarding the oupavos as part of the cosmos, whereas P l a t o i s d e s c r i b i n g
the cosmos as a whole. For t h i s reason he makes no use at a l l of P l a t o ' s idea
148 ANALYSIS

of the p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y of the elements i n O p i f . On the other hand, the Bibli-

c a l conception of the oxepewua a r i s i n g iv xou u6axos and causing a divi-
s i o n otvot ueoov u 6 a x o s nal u6axos (Gen. 1:6) i s only comprehensible i n terms of
Jewish cosmology ( c f . f o r example Ps.103:2ff.), and i s q u i t e impossible to
rhyme w i t h the Greek cosmology of the Timaeus. P h i l o saves himself a l o t of
t r o u b l e by simply deleting this aspect.

Her.144-146,152. In the lengthy excursus on the d i v i d i n g a c t i v i t y of the

Logos tomeus, P h i l o a f f i r m s that there are d i f f e r e n t forms of e q u a l i t y , as ap-
p l i e d to numbers, s i z e and f o r c e ( i . e . weight or content)(§144). Proportional
equality (n. 6ua avaXoytas uaoxns) r e c e i v e s a s p e c i a l mention (§145) and is il-
l u s t r a t e d wit h an example from the p o l i t i c a l realm ( s i m i l a r procedure at P l u t .
Mor.719B). In i l l u s t r a t i n g these forms of e q u a l i t y as seen i n the process of
c r e a t i o n , P h i l o twice turns to the example of the elements. They r e v e a l nume-
r i c a l e q u a l i t y , because the two heavy elements are opposed to the two light
ones (§146). This statement c o n f l i c t s with the Timaeus, f o r P l a t o does not
accept the n o t i o n of weight i n absolute terms ( c f . Tim.63a-e). l
At §152 he
f u r t h e r w r i t e s that 1
those who have most a c c u r a t e l y examined the f a c t s of na-
ture 1
a s s e r t that the four elements are p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y equal, and that the
cosmos, having i t s p a r t s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y d i s t r i b u t e d , w i l l endure f o r e v e r .
P l a t o too a s s o c i a t e s avaXoyua with cosmic i n d i s s o l u b i l i t y (32b8-c4) . At the
very l e a s t he must be i n c l u d e d among the above-mentioned s c i e n t i s t s . It i s
not impossible that the Timaeus i s the c h i e f source, since the Hellenistic
works which s t r e s s cosmic iloovouua (e.g. the De Mundo, O c e l l u s Lucanus) do
not mention the analogic e q u a l i t y of the elements. 2
P h i l o i s not interested i n
working out the a c t u a l mathematical d e t a i l s of avaXoyua, though at Spec.4.168
h i s acquaintance with geometric p r o p o r t i o n and the use of the term 6eouos to
i n d i c a t e a p r o p o r t i o n a l bond ( c f . Tim.31c1-2) i s revealed.

In other t e x t s P h i l o shows a more pronounced tendency to theologize the

theme of the bonding of the elements. At Plant.10 he confronts the problem
of what i t i s that keeps the elements apart yet l i n k e d together, so that the
h o t t e s t element ( f i r e ) i s the neighbour of the c o l d e s t ( a i r ) , and the earth i s
not washed away and d i s s o l v e d by the water i n i t s hollows. The answer i s that
the d i v i n e Logos i s s t a t i o n e d i n the middle l i k e a vowel i n between consonants,
a c t i n g as a mediator and p e r s u a s i v e l y r e c o n c i l i n g the t h r e a t s of the opposites.
Thus here the Logos i t s e l f f u n c t i o n s as a k i n d of bond, whereas i n Her, it di-
v i d e s the elements on the p r i n c i p l e of geometric p r o p o r t i o n . In two similar
passages on the p h i l o s o p h i c a l symbolism of the tabernacle and the h i g h - p r i e s t l y
robes, QE 2.90 (exeg. Ex.26:28-30), 2.118 (exeg. Ex.28:28), the Logos i s des-
c r i b e d as 'the strongest and most s t a b l e bond ( 6 e o u o s ) of a l l t h i n g s , 1
who
'binds the elements with a l l - w i s e and most p e r f e c t adaptation ' ( c f . Marcus'
 II 4.1.1. 149

suggested r e t r a n s l a t i o n (EES 2.140) Guv6eovTOg. . .itavaocpip lexvn. xau TeAeuoiaTr)

appovua v e l sim.). It i s l i k e l y that the n o t i o n of geometric p r o p o r t i o n is
i m p l i c i t here, but a l s o other f a c t o r s must be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , as w i l l
become c l e a r when we r e t u r n to the subject below i n II 5.1.3. 6.1.4. The pas-
sages at Aet.108-116, which p o s i t a natural uoovopua of the elements and so
attempt to prove the i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y of the cosmos, must t h e r e f o r e be regar-
ded by P h i l o as t h e o l o g i c a l l y d e f e c t i v e . See Runia 135-137 and esp. n.154.
At Prov.2.60 Alexander, arguing from the viewpoint of a mechanistic cosmology,
sharply c r i t i c i z e s h i s uncle f o r a t t r i b u t i n g the p o s i t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n of
the elements to the workings of d i v i n e Providence, but i n h i s r e p l y (§62) P h i l o
i s not i n the least d e t e r r e d.

In u n r a v e l l i n g the p h i l o s o p h i c a l symbolism of the ark at QE 2.68 (exeg.

Ex.25:22) P h i l o describes the Logos as follow s (Greek text at EES 2.255):
o T O U deou Aoyog peaog a>v ou6ev ev Tfj (puaeu xaiaAebTtei, x e v o v , Ta oAa itAn-
pujv xau peauxeueu xau 6uauxqi xoug i t a p ' e x a x e p a 6ueaxavau 6oxouau, (puAuav
xau opovouav epyaCopevog• aei yap xouvwvuag auxuog xau 6npuoupYOg euprivng.
The theme of cosmic cpuAua, taken over by P l a t o i n Tim.32c2 from Empedocles and
the Pythagoreans ( c f . Gorg.508a), i s t r a n s f e r r e d to the a c t i v i t y of the Logos.
The same theme i s found i n the text c i t e d e a r l i e r , QE 2.118:
. . . i n order that i t [the d i v i n e Logos] might bind and weave together the
parts of the universe and t h e i r c o n t r a r i e s , and by the use of f o r c e b r i n g
i n t o u n i t y and communion and l o v i n g embrace those things which have many
i r r e c o n c i l a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s by t h e i r n a t u r e s.

4.2. The features o f t h e body o f t h e cosmos (Tim.32c-34b)

4.2.1. Completeness and p e r f e c t i o n (32c-33a)

P h i l o i s wholly i n agreement with the P l a t o n i c viewpoint that the demi-

urge uses up the e n t i r e amount of the four elements i n h i s c r e a t i v e work, that
no elemental fragment or p h y s i c a l power i s l e f t remaining o u t s i d e the cosmos,
and that the cosmos i s complete i n i t s c o n s i s t i n g of complete p a r t s (note that
the a d j e c t i v e xeAeuog used i n 33d1 means both complete and p e r f e c t ) . Already
above i n I I 3.5.1. we saw that P h i l o , f o l l o w i n g Tim.33a1, uses these ideas as
proof of the cosmos 1
unicity. Three other P h i l o n i c passages are manifestly
indebted to t h i s s e c t i o n of the Timaeus f o r ideas and phraseology, i n each
case i n d i f f e r e n t contexts and with a d i f f e r e n t purpose i n mind.

Pet.153-155. P h i l o i s e x p l a i n i n g Cain's words to God i n Gen.4:14, eu ex-

3aAAeug pe oripepov onto Ttpoou>itou trig yf\£, xau onto xoO Ttpoawitou aou xpu3naopat.
Cain i s the man of f a l s e o p i n i o n and devious arguments (Sacr.5, Post.52, c f .
Earp EE 10.295). A l l h i s statements must be c a r e f u l l y examined f o r t h e i r de-
150 ANALYSIS

v i a t i o n from the t r u t h ( c f . above I I 3.4.5. on Cher.124-127). Does he r e a l l y

mean to say that a man, or any created b e i n g , can hide himself from God (§153)?
Even i f God had decided to create a being that could dwell i n a l l the regions
of the cosmos ( c f . below I I 5.4.3.), i t would s t i l l have to remain w i t h i n the
cosmos (§ 154),
eueudfi xou Ttavxos e£w 6payeuv ?jv d 6 u v a x o v , Ttpos xw yn.6e e x x o s urtoAeAeucp-
%aC x t xov 6npuoupYOV oAas 6 L ' O A C O V i d s x e x x a p a s dpxds eus xriv xou Moayou
a u o x a a u v d v a A w a a v x a , t v a ex yepwv xeAeuwv xeAeuoxaxov drcepYndarixat xo nav.
If one cannot escape the cosmos, i t i s e n t i r e l y impossible that one could flee
from i t s maker and r u l e r (§155). The words i n §154 quoted above can almost be
regarded as a loose paraphrase of Tim.32c8-33a1. We note e s p e c i a l l y : e£u> c f .
32c8; UTtoAeAeucpdaL cf.32c8,33a1 ; oAag 6t'oAtov cf.33a5; auoxaauv cf.32c6,7; en
yepwv xeAetwv x e A e u o x a x o v cf.33d1. The Timaeus f u n c t i o n s here as a standard
textbook on c o s m o l o g i c a l matters, to which the exegete can appeal,when e l u c i -
dating the B i b l i c a l text.

Plant.5-9. Here we r e t u r n to P h i l o ' s 'phyto-cosmological excursus.1

Though the passage i s not without i t s d i f f i c u l t i e s , the r o l e that Tim.32c-33a

plays i n the argument i s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . In what does God cause the roots of
the cosmic p l a n t to s t r i k e (§5)? In cosmologica l terms t h i s means — does the
universe have a base, l i k e the pedestal of a statue, to prevent i t from fal-
ling? C a l l i n g i n the evidence of the Timaeus f o r support, P h i l o shows that the
n o t i o n of a p h y s i c a l extra-cosmic prop i s q u i t e absurd, s i n c e there i s no e l e -
mental m a t e r i a l l e f t o u t s i d e which could be used f o r such a purpose (§6). The
restatement of Tim.32c5-33a1 i s s i m i l a r to that i n Pet.154 but a l i t t l e freer.
It should be observed that the c o r r e l a t i o n of the p e r f e c t i o n of the cosmos
with the greatness of the c r e a t o r extends beyond the a c t u a l P l a t o n i c t e x t , i n
a manner s i m i l a r to the argument on yovwaus discussed above at I I 3.5.1.

But now P h i l o ' s argumentation takes a s u r p r i s i n g t u r n . I f there i s no

matter o u t s i d e the cosmos, there can only be a v o i d or nothing whatsoever. If
there i s a v o i d , the cosmos would s u r e l y s i n k on account of i t s great weight.
The mind, searching f o r a c o r p o r e a l support, seems to encounter only a phantom
(§7). The embarassing problem can only be r e s o l v ed i f the Logos of God i s r e -
garded as the firmest and securest prop of the e n t i r e u n i v e r s e (§8-9).

The t r a i n of thought here i s only comprehensible when viewed against the back-
ground of a S t o i c c o s m o l o g i c a l problem, namely what keeps the cosmos i n the
centre of the v o i d and stops i t from s i n k i n g at horrendous speed. The problem
had not t r o u b l e d P l a t o and A r i s t o t l e f o r the simple reason that they denied an
extra-cosmic v o i d ( c f . Tim.33d5, De Caelo 1.9). The Stoa d i d accept the v o i d
as a consequence of t h e i r exTcupwaus d o c t r i n e and c e r t a i n changes i n t h e i r l o -
g i c . In a p e n e t r a t i n g study Hahm 103-126 ( c f . a l s o 166-168) e l u c i d a t e s the
1

arguments, both c o s m o l o g i c al ( c e n t r i p e t a l motion, balance of the elements) and

c o s m o - b i o l o g i c a l (pneumatic t e n s i o n ) , which the Stoa put forward i n response
to the problem. Such arguments overlap with t h e i r cosmo-theological s t a t e -
ments on the same problem; c f . Cic.DND 2.115 and our f u r t h e r remarks below at
 II 4.2.1. 151

II 6.1.4. In t h i s passage P h i l o b r i n g s forward the Logos as s o l u t i o n to the

problem more t h e o l o g i c o , without g i v i n g the reader much i n s i g h t i n t o the cos-
mo l o g i c a l i s s u es i n v o l v e d .
The passage as a whole thus has a hybrid character. Tim.32c-33a i s used
to prove that nothing e x i s t s o u t s i d e the cosmos, but there f o l l o w s a question
which i n P l a t o n i c cosmology i s wholly unnecessary. Is the t r a i n of thought to
be a s c r i b e d to P h i l o , or i s i t the r e s u l t of h i s f o l l o w i n g a source? The for-
mer seems to me more l i k e l y . The question of the cosmos' support i s r a i s e d i n
the f i r s t place because P h i l o wants to draw out the i m p l i c a t i o n s of h i s p l a n t
image. The i n t r o d u c t i o n of the S t o i c problem allows him to s t r e s s the crucial
r o l e played by the Logos i n the cosmos 1
preservation. I t i s c e r t a i n l y not
l i k e l y that a S t o i c source (e.g. Posidonius, suggested by F r u c h t e l 60) 2
would
appeal to Tim.32c-33a. The S t o i c cosmos a f t e r the process of 6baxooyr)OUS i s
v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l to the P l a t o n i c u n i v e r s e . But i n the c o s m o - b i o l o g i c al
c y c l e great changes occur i n the r e l a t i v e q u a n t i t i e s of the elements ( c f . Diog.
Laert. 7. 136,142), so that the cosmos could not be describe d as xeAeuoxaxov on
account of i t s xeAeta yepn. 3

Prov.2.50-51. The context now s h i f t s to P h i l o ' s contest of w i t s with the

s c e p t i c a l l y minded Alexander. Refusing to accept any form of teleological
argument, the l a t t e r asks why the cosmos i s the s i z e i t i s and not smaller or
larger (§46). In h i s r e p l y P h i l o returns to the craftsman metaphor. I f the
xexvtxau of l i m i t e d o b j e c t s , such as s c u l p t o r s (§48), know how to measure out
p r e c i s e l y the r i g h t amount of m a t e r i a l , s u r e l y God d i d the same i n construc-
t i n g the cosmos. Philo declares (§50, Greek text (preserved by Eusebius) at
FE 35.278):

Ae£w 6n yexd rcappnotas oxu oux'eAaxxovos ouxe lAeuovos ouauas e6eu xq>
xooyu) rcpos xaxaaxeun,v, e n e u o U K dv eyeyevrixo xeAeuog ou6'ev Tiaau xoug ye-
peau oAonAripos, e5 6e 6e6n.yLoupYn.yevos ex xeAeuas ououas dTtexeAeaSn.
Plato's words at Tim.32c-33a can s t i l l h a z i l y be discerned in this sentence,
but a considerable shift i n terminology has taken p l a c e . Not found i n P l a t o ,
f o r example, are the words xaxaoxeun., oAoxAnpos, (xeAeta) ouaCa. Unmistakable
a l s o i n the whole passage i s the emphasis on the non-Timaean concept of uAn;
note auxapxeoxdxns uAns, T O I V uAaus auxapxes axaftyriaaadau, xnv uxavfiv t6euv
uAnv. I t i s apparent that the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the process of c r e a t i o n i n
t n e
Timaeus as i n v o l v i n g a p r e - e x i s t e n t matter out of which the cosmos i s f o r -
med has encouraged a view of matter i n terms of i t s quantity, and so i t must
be granted that Alexander's q u e s t i o n is entirely logical. Philo's assertion
that God 'aimed at a p r e c i s e l y s u f f i c i e n t amount r e q u i r e d f o r the cosmos' c r e -
a t i o n ' , i f combined with the assumption that there i s no matter o u t s i d e the
cosmos, might give r i s e to the s u p p o s i t i o n that God was responsible for crea-
t i n g that matter i n an e a r l i e r stage of the c r e a t i v e process, i . e . a creatio
152 ANALYSIS

ex n i h i l o . See the f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n below at I I 8.2.2. The e n t i r e passage

Prov.2.50-51 i s a s p l e n d i d example of the way i n which the b a s i c creationistic

metaphor of the Timaeus was discussed and reworked i n the H e l l e n i s t i c period,

to the p o i n t of becoming almost unrecognizable.

At Spec.2.59, i n d e s c r i b i n g the hebdomad as the b i r t h d a y of the universe

(cf. Gen.2:1-3), P h i l o d e s c r i b e s the cosmos completed on that day as T O X O U

itosTpos epyov xeAeuov ex xeAeuu)V uepwv (cf.32d1). The c a s u a l manner i n which

the phrase i s used r e v e a l s , even b e t t e r than the passages d i s c u s s e d above, how

P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e of the completeness and p e r f e c t i o n of the cosmos i n Tim.32c-

33a was an e n t i r e l y n o n - c o n t r o v e r s i a l aspect of P h i l o s cosmologica l

f
ideas.

4.2.2. Unassailability (33a)

The a s s e r t i o n that the cosmos i s f r e e from o l d age and disease (aynpwv

xdu dvoaov 33a2,7) flows d i r e c t l y from the arguments showing i t s completeness

and perfection. The two aspects of cosmic completeness and unassailability

are found i n t e r t w i n e d i n the passage Aet.20-27, i n which P h i l o presents the

f i r s t of h i s long l i s t of arguments i n favour of the i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y of the

universe. For reasons that soon w i l l be apparent, t h i s i s one of the passages

i n P h i l o best known to students of ancient philosophy.

The argument i s r i g o r o u s l y s t r u c t u r e d i n the form of a dilemma. There

are two forms of d e s t r u c t i o n , from without and from w i t h i n . A f t e r some exam-

ples (§20), these two forms are a p p l i e d to the h y p o t h e t i c a l d e s t r u c t i o n of the

cosmos (§21). Destruction from without i s impossible, s i n c e there i s nothing

outside the cosmos which could a t t a c k i t . This s e c t i o n of the argument i s r e -

i n f o r c e d by a somewhat expanded paraphrase of Tim.32d1-33a6, which, though

h e a v i l y dependent on P l a t o and u s i n g many of the same words and terms, manages

to use j u s t s u f f i c i e n t v a r i a t i o to avoid a c t u a l l y c i t i n g the Timaeus at any

stage, as i s made c l e a r i n the f o l l o w i n g comparison:

Tim.33a3 ws ouoxdxq) adouaxu Aet.21 eTtet6r) xd v o o o u s x a l yr\pa aaiuaxa

de£ya _xau ^uxpct. x a t uavd'oaa aAwxa §e£uo_xrj_a_L X C X L _ 4^xea_L xau x a u s aAAaus
d u v d u e i s uaxupds e x e t nepbbo- evavxboxn.o't TtpoaeuTintxouaais ega)$ev Coxv-
x d u e v a e£a)$ev x a t TtpoaTttnxov- p&S a v a x p e T i e x a i , &v ou6euia 6uvapts ¿ 1 1 0 -
xa axaupa)s A u e t . . . 6paaa x u x A o u x a u . . .

We note that three r e l a t i v e l y s l i g h t a l t e r a t i o n s or a d d i t i o n s are made: (1)

i n s t e a d of a second cosmos being impossible (33a1-2) a d u p l i c a t i v e cosmos made
out of h y p o t h e t i c a l l y remaining p a r t s of m a t e r i a l i s envisaged (perhaps under
the i n f l u e n c e of Tim.31a); (2) the cosmos i s oAos not because i t s p a r t s are
complete but because a l l i t s o u o t a has been used up; (3) the p o s s i b i l i t y of an
e x t e r n a l v o i d i s l e f t open. The f i n a l two a l t e r a t i o n s r e c a l l what was obser-
ved i n the passages analysed above i n the previous sub-section.

In §22 the second horn of the dilemma i s t a c k l e d . Also d e s t r u c t i o n from w i t h -

 II 4.2.2. 153

i n i s out of the question, f o r i n that case the part would be more powerful
than the whole. Moreover i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l d e s t r u c t i o n are always coupled
together, so that i f a t h i n g i s not subject to the one, i t i s a l s o f r e e from
the other (§23-24).
The. formal argument has been brought to a c o n c l u s i o n , and now Philo calls
as witness (uapxupu a nai xd ev TLUOCLW) the very same s e c t i o n of the Timaeus
which had been paraphrased i n §21. The e n t i r e passage Tim.32c5-33b1 i s quoted
verbatim (§25-26), with only the f o l l o w i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between P h i l o ' s v e r s i o n
and the r e c e i v e d P l a t o n i c text ( l e a v i n g aside a few t r i v i a l differences in
spelling):
Plato Philo
33a2 uv 'dyripwv uva dyripwv
33a3 cuaxdxw mss. xd T W (or xd
by Bernays
33a5 Aueu AuTteu
yflpds xe nai ynpots
33a6 6 t d 6f| xrjv 6 t d xn.v
33a7 xov6e I v a oAov xov6e $eos 6Aov
oAwv e£ ditdvxwv e£ oAwv aTidvxwv
On these d i f f e r e n c e s see the comments of J.Bernays Abh.Berl.Akad.1883 66, C o l -
son EE 9.527. The emendation to auaxdxw would seem to be j u s t i f i e d .
1
Colson
i s i n c o r r e c t when he says that the word i n the P l a t o n i c text i s a modern c o r -
r e c t i o n , s i n c e i t i s supported by a reading i n P r o c l u s . I do not see how i t
i s p o s s i b l e with any c e r t a i n t y to determine whether AuiieC and %eog are P h i l o -
n i c a l t e r a t i o n s , or were already present i n h i s t e x t , or are s c r i b a l changes.
C e r t a i n l y , even a l l o w i n g f o r the resources of a formidable memory, the passage
as a whole would seem too long and the t r a n s c r i p t i o n too accurate to be
achieved without reference to a copy of the dialogue.
P h i l o concludes the e n t i r e s e c t i o n by saying that t h i s i s P l a t o ' s witness to
the dcpdapauot of the cosmos (already affirme d at Aet. 13 where Tim.41a7-b6 i s
quoted), while proof of the f a c t that the cosmos i s d y e v n x o s f o l l o ws en cpuau-
n?)g dxoAouduas (§27) .

In 1886 V.Rose, A r i s t o t e l i s fragmenta 33 (= f r . 1 9 ) , declared Aet.20-24

to be a fragment of A r i s t o t l e ' s l o s t dialogue, the De P h i l o s o p h i a . The attri-
b u t i o n has never been s e r i o u s l y cast i n doubt, and i s today g e n e r a l l y accepted
(= Walzer f r . 1 9 a , Ross f r . 1 9 a , U n t e r s t e i n e r fr.29). I t i s proven by close
p a r a l l e l s such as C i c e r o Acad.2.119 and 0c.Luc.13. In Aet.74,78,106 C r i t o l a u s
and Boethus are recorded as having r e c a st and rephrased the same argument.
This i l l u s t r a t e s i t s great p o p u l a r i t y i n the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d ( c f . R.Harder
'Ocellus Lucanus' ( B e r l i n 1926, repr.1966) 69), during which the De Philoso-
phia r i v a l l e d the Timaeus i n i n f l u e n c e , But the f a c t that P h i l o i s p r e s e n t i n g
a widely disseminated p h i l o s o p h i c a l argument, together with the complicating
f a c t o r of the double usage — paraphrase and quotation - of the Timaeus, makes
i t necessary to r e f l e c t on what h i s purposes were i n r e c o r d i n g i t and what h i s
own c o n t r i b u t i o n may have been. We s h a l l a c c o r d i n g l y r e t u r n to t h i s passage
154 ANALYSIS

below at I I 4.2.7.
Even i f the passage i n Aet. i s d i s r e g a r d e d , i t i s not l i k e l y that P h i l o
would wish to q u a r r e l with the P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e that the cosmos i s not sub-
j e c t to o l d age and d i s e a s e . At Spec.2.5 there i s a r e v e a l i n g remark i n the
context of a d i s c u s s i o n of the t h i r d commandment. I f one should wish to add
to one's Yes or No, l e t not the highest cause be added but the e a r t h , sun,
s t a r s , heaven, the whole cosmos; a^toAoyooxaxa yap x a u x a axe nai Ttpeapuxepa xfjs
Hpexepas yeveaewg Hat itpooext ayripa) 6 u a t a ) V b o u v x a xrj xou TceTcounHoxos yvcoun.. It
i s not doubted that the cosmos and i t s most important p a r t s w i l l continue to
l i v e f r e e from o l d age. But the f i n a l four words, 'according to the purpose
of him who made them', are a t y p i c a l l y P h i l o n i c a d d i t i o n of great significance;
see f u r t h e r below I I 6.1.1. 2

4.2.3. Sphericity (33b-c)

Nowhere i n P h i l o ' s works i s the s p h e r i c i t y of the cosmos, or of i t s hea-

venly r e g i o n the o u p a v o s , a bone of c o n t e n t i o n . P h i l o i s happy to accept the
Greek cosmologica l d o c t r i n e , presented i n a l l i t s metaphysical grandeur by
P l a t o i n the Timaeus, but a l s o espoused by philosophers of a wholly different
stamp, such as the Atomists and Epicurus (Aet.Plac.2.2). Heaven may have sent
no sure i n d i c a t i o n of i t s nature (Somn.1.21), but i t s s p h e r i c i t y i s not called
into question (ibid.).

In the p h y s i c a l a l l e g o r y employed by P h i l o to u n v e i l the deeper meaning

- i n terms of accepted Greek cosmological ideas - of Pentateuchal passages
which d e s c r i b e the making and f u r n i s h i n g of the t a b e r n a c l e , the s p h e r i c i t y of
the cosmos and heaven i s not s u r p r i s i n g l y brought i n t o p l a y . But i t does
cause us some s u r p r i s e to observe that even i n the case of t h i s d o c t r i n a l com-
monplace P h i l o p e r c e i v e s a s u b t l e connection between the a c t u a l words of Moses
and those of P l a t o ' s Timaeus.

Her.227-229. Why does Moses say nothing about the measurements of the
lampstand i n Ex.25:31-39? Perhaps i n t e r a l i a because i t symbolizes heaven
which i s x u x A o x e p n s nat dxpws etg acpatpav a i o x e x o p v e u u e v o s and has no length
or breadth (§229). The d e s c r i p t i o n i s taken from Tim.33b5 x u x A o x e p e s auxo
exopveuaaxo. As we s h a l l see, P h i l o i s reminded of these words by the B i b l i -
c a l text i t s e l f , though i n Her, the connection i s not made c l e a r .
QE 2.73. In the LXX i n Ex.25 the a d j e c t i v e x o p e u x o s (meaning 'chased'
'embossed') occurs three times (v.18,31,36). From Her.216 and QE 2.63 (Greek
text EES 2.254) i t i s c e r t a i n that i n the f i r s t and t h i r d of these verses
P h i l o d i d read x o p e u x o s i n h i s t e x t . But i n QE 2.73 (exeg. Ex.25:31) he appa-
r e n t l y reads x o p v e u x o s (meaning 'turned' ' l a t h e d ' ) , a v a r i a l e c t i o found only
i n one c u r s i v e ms., i n C y r i l and a l s o i n the Armenian, E t h i o p i a n , Old L a t i n
and S y r i a c t r a n s l a t i o n of the LXX ( c f . A.E.Brooke and N.McLean, The Old T e s t a -
ment i n Greek (London 1902) 2.238). The Armenian e q u i v a l e nt f o r the root
x o p v e u - i s found four times i n our passage (Weitenberg). There i s no need to
 I I 4.2.3. 155

assume that the Armenian t r a n s l a t o r imposed the reading of his LXX text on
P h i l o , f o r h i s B i b l i c a l quotations o f t e n remain f a i t h f u l to P h i l o rather than
f o l l o w the Armenian B i b l e ( c f . Lewy De Jona 10n.39). The words ' i l l u m i n a t e d 1

(or 'adorned ) and 'described' i n P h i l o ' s text might seem more s u i t e d to the
1

process of embossing, but the p a r a l l e l ( i n q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t context) at Post.

104, n cpuats• • . T O ous nywv H U H A O U S ypdcpouoa ocpaupLKov eTopveue, removes t h i s
objection. Marcus ad l o c . i s thus c o r r e c t i n suggesting that P h i l o read Top-
veuTos i n t h i s t e x t . Now P h i l o i s not averse to manipulating a B i b l i c a l text
i f i t s u i t s h i s e x e g e t i c a l purposes, p a r a d o x i c a l as that may seem ( c f . f o r ex-
ample the problems at Sobr.51-58 and Colson's notes ad l o c . ) . One i s thus i n -
c l i n e d to conclude t h a t , because P h i l o regards the lampstand as a symbol of
heaven, h i s choice of v a r i a n t s i n the B i b l i c a l text has been i n f l u e n c e d by
Plato's a s s o c i a t i o n of the process of l a t h i n g with the c r e a t i o n of the s p h e r i -
c a l cosmos.
QE 2.81. In the exegesis of Ex.25:39 the lampstand i s once more regarded
as symbolizing heaven. The way heaven i s described i s c l e a r l y indebted to the
Timaeus: 'But heaven moves not i n a s t r a i g h t l i n e but i n a c i r c l e , having a
f i g u r e that i s equal on a l l sides and most p e r f e c t . ' Cf. Tim.33b3-6, oxnpa...
in ueoou itavTri npos Tcts TeXevxag uaov a i t e x o v . . . TeAeuoTaTOV. Note a l s o QE 2.
1

76 (exeg. Ex.25:33 ocpatpwTrip) : 'whatever i s i n heaven i s wholly s p h e r i c a l , be-

ing given a p e r f e c t form j u s t as i s the cosmos'.
It i s c l e a r from these texts that P h i l o , when g i v i n g exegesis of Ex.25,
was struck by c e r t a i n words which caused him to r e c o l l e c t d e s c r i p t i o n s found i n
the P l a t o n i c dialogue which he knew so w e l l . Hence the a l l u s i o n s to the T i -
maeus which we have found.

Only at Prov.2.53-56 i s the s p h e r i c i t y of the cosmos a subject of c o n t r o -

versy. Alexander does not deny that the cosmos i s s p h e r i c a l , but refuses to
a t t r i b u t e that p e r f e c t shape to the workings of d i v i n e Providence. He argues
that the v o i d , being i n the s t r i c t e s t sense nothing, i s not dependent on Pro-
vidence f o r i t s e x i s t e n c e . The v o i d i s p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r space, shape and sur-
face. Thus ' i f n e i t h e r space nor surface owe t h e i r existence to Providence,
then a l s o the shape of the cosmos, p o l i s h e d i n t o a p e r f e c t sphere, i s not due
to Providence' (§53). 2
P h i l o ' s r e p l y i s t y p i c a l of h i s manner i n t h i s dialogue.
He does not launch i n t o a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l axioms and
doctrines on which Alexander's arguments are based - the independence of the
v o i d i n r e l a t i o n to God i s granted - but immediately counters w i t h t e l e o l o g i -
c a l arguments of h i s own. The v i r t u e s of the cosmos' s p h e r i c a l shape are so
great that i t would be absurd not to a t t r i b u t e t h i s design to Providence. The
basic l i n e of argumentation i s taken from the S t o i c s ( c f . Wendland Vorsehung
63), 3
but f o r h i s c l i n c h i n g argument he appeals to the Timaeus (§56):
We encounter i n the Timaeus of P l a t o an admirable encomium p r a i s i n g the
p e r f e c t shape of the sphere and i t s u t i l i t y , so that no a d d i t i o n a l p r a i s e
is further required.
Here we can see very c l e a r l y the high rank that P h i l o has accorded Plato's
dialogue. I t i s the highest philosophical authority i n the realm of t e l e o l o -
g i c a l reasoning.
156 ANALYSIS

4.2.4. Self-sufficiency (33c-d)

When P l a t o d e s c r i b e s the cosmos as s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t (33c1-34a1, esp. 33d2),

he n a t u r a l l y does not wish to imply that the cosmos i s not dependent on a
higher cause. He means s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t i n terms o f p h y s i c a l requirements,
g i v i n g the examples of p e r c e p t i o n , r e s p i r a t i o n , nourishment, e x c r e t i o n , self-
defence and b o d i l y support. Although except i n Aet. P h i l o never s p e c i f i c a l l y
a c c r e d i t s the cosmos with s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , we may surmise that he would not
object t o the i n c l u s i o n o f t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c as p a r t o f the cosmos 1
perfec-
t i o n and completeness, provided f u l l r e c o g n i t i o n was given to the cosmos t o - 1

t a l dependence on i t s c r e a t o r and p r o v i d e n t i a l maintainer.

In Aet. P h i l o on a number of occasions a s s o c i a t e s the s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y of

the cosmos wit h i t s i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y . The most s i g n i f i c a n t passage i s §35-38,
the t h i r d o f h i s long sequence o f arguments. I t can be summarized as f o l l o w s .
The nature o f i n d i v i d u a l things endeavours to preserve and immortalize them,
but cannot wholly succeed because of the e x t e r n a l agents o f d e s t r u c t i o n to
which they are exposed. The nature o f the e n t i r e cosmos, being not i n f e r i o r
to the nature o f the p a r t s , a l s o d e s i r e s the p r e s e r v a t i o n o f the whole. Suc-
cess i s assured because i t s overwhelming s t r e n g t h p r e v a i l s over a l l p o s s i b l e
forms of i n j u r y and d e s t r u c t i o n . Thus the cosmos i s i n d e s t r u c t i b l e . The a r -
gument i s concluded wit h a verbatim quotation o f Tim.33c6-d3, which remains
almost wholly f a i t h f u l t o the P l a t o n i c t e x t . 1
The manner o f ending with a quote
from the Timaeus i s s i m i l a r to the e a r l i e r passage §20-27, but the connection
with the d e t a i l s of the a c t u a l argument i s not as c l e a r . The quote says noth-
ing about the nature o f the whole. Nor have the examples o f nourishment or
e x c r e t i o n contained i n the quote been used i n the argument.

U n l i k e the two arguments that precede and the one that f o l l o w s i t , A e t .

35-38 has been declared by v i r t u a l l y a l l s c h o l a r s not t o be d e r i v e d from the
De P h i l o s o p h i a o f A r i s t o t l e . 2
Nevertheless the question of i t s a t t r i b u t i o n and
p o s i t i o n i n the context o f Aet., as w e l l as the question o f the relevance of
the P l a t o n i c c i t a t i o n , remain s u f f i c i e n t l y p r o b l e m a t i c a l to warrant a separate
d i s c u s s i o n below i n I I 4.2.7. The theme o f cosmic s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y i s a l s o
found a t Aet.74, where C r i t o l a u s i s reported t o argue that the cosmos s u f f e r s
no want:

auxapxeaxaxov xe auxov auxcj xat aveitu6ea Tiavxos Yeyovevau, un6evos Q X V

eus 6uauovfiv uaxepuCovxa, xas xevwaeoos nat, TtAripwaews ev uepet 6ta6oxds

aiwaduevov, aZg 6bd xn.v auouaov auXnaxuav xd Cqkx xpfiodat.
On the f i n a l phrase, which a l l u d e s to the Timaeus, see below I I 9.3.1.
 II 4.2.5. 157

4.2.5. C i r c u l a r motion (34a)

The c i r c u l a r motion of the cosmos, and i n p a r t i c u l a r of i t s outermost r e -

gion the heaven, i s another of those cosmological d o c t r i n e s found i n the Tim-
aeus and u n i v e r s a l l y accepted i n the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d ( c f . De Mundo 2 391b
15ff.). I t i s never f o r a moment questioned by P h i l o ( c f . Decal.57, QE 2.81
etc.). Furthe r d e t a i l s w i l l emerge when the movements of the heavenly beings
are discussed below i n II 5.2.1. P l a t o d i s c l o s e s at 34a1-3 f o r the first time
i n the dialogue h i s theory of the i n t r i n s i c r e l a t i o n between c i r c u l a r motion
and i n t e l l i g e n c e and thought, an idea that w i l l play an important r o l e i n the
work (see f u r t h e r below I I 7.2.4.). 1
P h i l o s words at Gig.8, HuxAip H u v o u v x a t
f

TT)\) a u Y Y e v e a x d x n v v$ Muvnauv, i s perhaps a d i s t a n t r e c o l l e c t i o n of t h i s tex t

(aUYYEveaxaxnv under the i n f l u e n c e of 47b8,d2,90c8), though they r e f e r to the
c i r c u l a r motion of the s t a r s r a t h e r than the heaven (on the context of t h i s
text see f u r t h e r I I 5.4.3.).

The d o c t r i n e of the seven movements - s i x s t r a i g h t , the seventh c i r c u l a r —

p r e d i c t a b l y appeals to P h i l o s numerological f a n c i e s ( c f . Opif.122, Leg.1.4,12,
f

Staehle 34,48, Nikiprowetzky REJ 124(1965)295). Other e x e g e t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s

at Ebr.111 (exeg. Ex.14:7, Conf.139 (exeg. Ex.17:6). The d e s c r i p t i o n of the
s i x s t r a i g h t movements as mechanical (opYotvbHau Leg.1.4,12 ( a l s o Ebr.111), c f .
Ar.Nic.Eth.3.1 111Oa16) i s an a d d i t i o n to the information s u p p l i e d by the
Timaeus ( c f . a l s o 43b2-5, w i t h reference to the c h a o t i c movements of the new-
born baby).

4.2.6. Divinity (34b)

Plato's d e s c r i p t i o n i n 34a8-b9 of the cosmos as a eu6atuo)V deos i n posses-

s i o n of a p e r f e c t body and wholly envelopped by a soul serves not only as a
t r a n s i t i o n to the next s e c t i o n on the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos' s o u l , but also
as a f i t t i n g climax to the s e c t i o n on the cosmos' body. The a f f i r m a t i o n of
the cosmos' d i v i n i t y i s repeated at 55d5,68e4,92c7. I t i s one of those doc-
t r i n e s that P l a t o d i d a c t i c a l l y repeats at r e g u l a r intervals. What i s P h i l o ' s
r e a c t i o n to such an apotheosis? In h i s w r i t i n g s d e s c r i p t i o n s of the cosmos as
%eog are d e c i d e d l y infrequent.

The best-known examples are found i n Aet.10,20 (cf.78,108), where the

cosmos i s d e s c r i b ed as a opaxos §eos. Here P h i l o i s almost c e r t a i n l y f o l l o w -
ing a passage i n A r i s t o t l e ' s dialogue , the De p h i l o s o p h i a ( f r . 1 8 Ross; c f .
Festugiere Revelation 2.239, Pepin 144,257-263). In both passages he is voic-
ing the o p i n i o n of the S t a g i r i t e , not expressing h i s own views ( c f . Runia 125,
129&n.102). The d i v i n i t y of the cosmos was a l s o a prominent theme i n the
Stoa ( c f . Cic.DND 2.30,45). The attack on the Chaldeans who regard the cosmos
158 ANALYSIS

as god and not as the epyov or 6nuuoupynpa of God w i l l have been made with the

S t o i c s i n mind (Migr.181,194, Her.79, Congr.49, Abr.69,75,88; c f , Wolfson 1.

176, Dillon 114). In a number of these t e x t s the complaint i s that the cosmos

i s designated as the TtpcoTos %eog. This leaves open the p o s s i b i l i t y that the

cosmos may be regarded as a 6euxepos or x p u i o s §£OS ( c f . Num.fr.21).

But i n other contexts P h i l o can be openly p o l e m i c a l when r e f e r r i n g to

those who worship the cosmos as a whole or v a r i o u s of i t s p a r t s (Decal.53,66

(exeg. f i r s t and second commandment!), Spec.2.255 (exeg. Deut.17:2-5)). The

only time that P h i l o uses the expression auodriTOS %eog, directly reminiscent

of P l a t o ' s s t r i k i n g doxology at 92c7, i n order to d e s c r i b e the cosmos i s at

Congr.103 (exeg. Gen.16:3, Lev.6:20), and t h i s i s an h i g h l y i l l u m i n a t i n g t e x t :

Touxobs auvoj6eu nai r\ T W V tepewv ev6eAexn.s S u a t c r T O yap 6eKaxov T O T O U

o£<pu 0£UL6aAews aei 6betpr)TOiL Ttpoa(pep£LV auToCs. epa-^ov yap T O V e v a x o v
unep|3oiUvoVT££ aio%r)ibv 6oKn,a£u %ebv T O V 6 £ K C X T O V nai p o v o v ovTa a(Jjeu6ws
TCpOGHUV£LV .

I f the cosmos i s to be c a l l e d a v i s i b l e god, then i t i s wise to add a qualifi-

c a t i o n i n order to avoid misunderstanding.

P h i l o i s i n f a c t not at a l l s t r i c t or p u r i t a n i c a l i n h i s use of the word

I f used of God, i t i s only one of h i s names. I f the evidence presented

below i n I I 5.4.2. 6.2.2. i s added to the above o b s e r v a t i o n s , i t i s c l e a r that

P h i l o i s more s e n s i t i v e about using the word %eog to d e s c r i b e the cosmos as a

whole than when i t i s used f o r c e r t a i n of i t s p a r t s . The universe i n i t s en-

t i r e t y could be thought a ' r i v a l ' f o r God, but not s t a r s and demons. The

background of the H e l l e n i s t i c ' r e l i g i o n eosmique', which has i t s roots i n P l a -

to's Timaeus and A r i s t o t l e ' s De p h i l o s o p h i a , i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h i s cautious

attitude.

4.2.7. Aristotle, Plato and P h i l o i n Aet.20-44

The difficulties encountered above i n Aet.20-27 and 35-38 cannot be view-

ed i n i s o l a t i o n from the problems r a i s e d by the e n t i r e s e c t i o n §20-44, and

these i n t u r n are i n e x t r i c a b l y r e l a t e d to an e v a l u a t i o n of the s t r u c t u r e and

purpose of the t r e a t i s e as a whole. In §20-149 P h i l o presents twenty-four a r -

guments i n favour of the uncreatedness and i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y of the cosmos,

which i l l u s t r a t e the p o s i t i o n of A r i s t o t l e set out i n the doxographical sec-

t i o n at §10-11. The first four arguments (§20-44) stand apart on account of

t h e i r t i g h t , r i g o r o u s l y argued s t r u c t u r e and the t o t a l absence of a n t i - S t o i c

polemic. For some mysterious reason P h i l o d e c l i n e s to name A r i s t o t l e as source

of these arguments, although i t can perhaps be i n f e r r e d from the d e l i b e r a t e

v e r b a l s i m i l a r i t y between §10 and the beginning of §20. The d i v e r s e problems

 II 4.2.7. 159

a s s o c i a t e d w i th the arguments w i l l be i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g sequence:

(1) To what extent must the f i r s t four arguments be seen as a group? Is the
e n t i r e s e c t i o n §20-44 derive d from the De p h i l o s o p h i a ?
(2) Does the reportage of these arguments r e s u l t from a d i r e c t reading of the
De p h i l o s o p h i a , or v i a an intermediate source (or sources)?
(3) Who has been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the i n s e r t i o n of the. paraphrase and the two
quotes from the Timaeus i n §21,25-26,38?
(4) What i s P h i l o ' s own viewpoint with regard to these arguments?
N a t u r a l l y the answers to the l a s t two questions are the most c l o s e l y related
to our theme, but they are l a r g e l y dependent on answers given to the f i r s t two.
In the d i s c u s s i o n that follows I s h a l l s e v e r a l times r e f e r to three r e l a t i v e l y
recent s t u d i e s which, though c h i e f l y i n t e r e s t e d i n A r i s t o t e l i a n m a t e r i a l , do
make some remarks on the P h i l o n i c t r a n s m i s s i o n : J.Pépin, Théologie cosmique et
théologie chrétienne; B . E f f e , Studien zur Kosmologie und Théologie der A r i s t o -
t e l i s c h e n S c h r i f t "Uber d i e P h i l o s o p h i e " , A.H.Chroust, Some comments on P h i l o
T

of A l e x a n d r i a , De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi LThPh 31(1975)135-145 (these w i l l i n t h i s

1

subsection be r e f e r r e d to by the author's name o n l y ) ; c f . a l s o the b r i e f e r r e -

marks by J.Mansfeld, Stud.Hell.Rel.141-143, 'Bad world and demiurge: a 'Gnos-
t i c ' motif from Parmenides and Empedocles to L u c r e t i u s and P h i l o ' Stud.Gnos.
Hell.Rel.299-303,308.

1. The standard view, shared by v i r t u a l l y a l l s c h o l a r s , i s that the

e s s e n t i a l part of Aet.20-44 goes back to A r i s t o t l e , but that the o r i g i n a l
chain of reasoning i s broken at at l e a s t two p o i n t s , §25-27 and 35-38. Hence
Ross i n c l u d e s i n h i s e d i t i o n of A r i s t o t l e ' s fragments Aet.20-24,28-34,39-43
(also the l a s t part of §43 and §44 i s regarded as a P h i l o n i c a d d i t i o n ) . On
the imputed i n t e r r u p t i o n at §25-27 see below part (3) of our d i s c u s s i o n . The
r e j e c t i o n of §35-38 e n t a i l s that one of the four arguments i s u n A r i s t o t e l i a n
and that i t breaks up the sequence of thought of the other three. This i s not
what one would i n the f i r s t i n s t a n ce expect — why should P h i l o or a h y p o t h e t i -
cal source wish to break up a c l o s e l y connected group of A r i s t o t e l i a n argu-
ments? — and good grounds must be given f o r i t .

The f i r s t of such grounds i s not an argument but an assumption. It i s

o f t e n assumed that P h i l o ' s sources and above a l l P h i l o himself were a team of
'botchers' and any twist i n argumentation or l i t e r a r y s t r u c t u r e which does not
meet up to our expectations i s due to t h e i r , or more p a r t i c u l a r l y h i s , incom-
petence. To t h i s question of source usage we s h a l l r e t u r n f u r t h e r below.
The f o l l o w i n g s p e c i f i c arguments are presented i n favour of regardin g the
t h i r d argument as u n A r i s t o t e l i a n ( c f . E f f e 10-12, Chroust 141-143).
(a) Arguments 1, 2 and 4 a l l have the same method of argumentation, each of
them showing the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of a cause of d e s t r u c t i o n when a p p l i e d to the
cosmos. In the f i r s t argument the e f f i c i e n t cause, 1
i n the second the mate-
r i a l cause, i n the f o u r t h the f i n a l cause i s d e a l t with. In the sequence the
160 ANALYSIS

t h i r d argument with i t s a n a l o g i c a l deduction i s a 'Fremdkörper . 1

(b) The content of the t h i r d argument i s not p u r e l y A r i s t o t e l i a n . The concept

of nature shows S t o i c ( E f f e 11, Chroust 142) or P l a t o n i z i n g (Arnaldez FE 30.
98) tendencies.
(c) When l a t e r i n Aet. r e v i s e d v e r s i o n s of A r i s t o t l e ' s arguments are presented
(§74,78-84,106), the t h i r d argument i s not i n c l u d e d .
The combined f o r c e of these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s does not convince. Let us
s t a r t w i t h the method of argumentation. A l l four arguments use an a p r i o r i
method of argumentation; a l l f o u r use analogy between p a rt and whole, i n each
case the p a r t being i n f e r i o r to the whole. The reason that the t h i r d argument
d i f f e r s somewhat from the others i s that ( i ) the p o s i t i v e and negative poles
of the analogy are r e v e r s e d , and ( i i ) the l o g i c a l method of the dilemma i s not
used. I f A r i s t o t l e , as seems probable, i s r e l a t i n g h i s arguments to the types
of causes, i t i s strange to say the l e a s t that he should s e l e c t three of h i s
causes and d e l e t e the f o u r t h . I consider i t l i k e l y that the t h i r d argument i s
meant to prove the i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y of the cosmos from the p o i n t of view of
the format cause. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the nature of a t h i n g with i t s form
(as w e l l as i t s purpose) i s a fundamental A r i s t o t e l i a n d o c t r i n e ( c f . Phys.2.1
193a30-b21, 2.8 199a30-33. Met.Z 7 1032a16ff., W.D.Ross A r i s t o t l e (London 1923,
1974 ) 68,74).
5
I t i s the nature of a t h i n g to d e s i r e to r e a l i z e i t s own form,
and i f immortalit y i s denied i t , i t can only f u l f i l t h i s s t r i v i n g by means of
r e p r o d u c t i o n , i n which the m a t e r i a l , formal and f i n a l causes coincide.

But i s i t A r i s t o t e l i a n to a t t r i b u t e to the nature of the cosmos not only

dynamism but a l s o f i n a l i t y and purpose, i n an almost anthropomorphic way? The
S t a g i r i t e indeed uses such language o f t e n ( c f . De Vogel G r . P h i l . 498-501), es-
p e c i a l l y , accordin g to A.Mansion, i n the e x o t e r i c works ( i b i d . 5 0 1 ) , without
wishing to imply r a t i o n a l d e l i b e r a t i o n i n the manner of the P l a t o n i c soul.
The Stoa was d e c i s i v e l y i n f l u e n c e d by the two above-mentioned A r i s t o t e l i a n
d o c t r i n e s , the impersonal t e l e o l o g i c a l dynamism of nature and the coincidence of
m a t e r i a l , formal and f i n a l causes i n b i o l o g i c a l r e p r o d u c t i o n ( c f . Hahm 45,205-
206). That Aet.35-38 should resemble S t o i c statements i s thus h a r d l y s u r p r i -
s i n g , but i t i s perhaps sooner a c o n f i r m a t i o n of A r i s t o t e l i a n o r i g i n than a
r e f u t a t i o n of i t .

A f i n a l , and very important, reason f o r the r e t e n t i o n of the t h i r d argu-

ment as p a r t of A r i s t o t l e ' s o r i g i n a l sequence i s the f a c t that i t covers up a
s i g n i f i c a n t lacuna i n the argumentation. In the f i r s t argument the cosmos has
s u f f i c i e n t s t r e n g t h to overcome both e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l causes of d e s t r u c -
t i o n , but the p o s s i b i l i t y must be l e f t open that i t lacks the s t r e n g t h to pre-
vent i t s own d e t e r i o r a t i o n and eventual d e s t r u c t i o n ( c f . H.Von Arnim, Quellen-
s t u d i e n zu P h i l o von A l e x a n d r i a ( B e r l i n 1888) 7, Arnaldez FE 30.90). The
 II 4.2.7. 161

t h i r d argument, the c l o s e r e l a t i o n of which to the f i r s t i s e v i d e n t, excludes

t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y by appealing to nature's i n t r i n s i c d e s i r e to preserve i t s own
form. To show t h i s A r i s t o t l e could not, or d i d not wish t o , use the dilemma-
t i c method of the other arguments. But we may be c o n f i d e nt that he found a
hole i n h i s argumentation more annoying than an i n t e r r u p t i o n i n the supposedly
' e i n h e i t l i c h e S t r u k t u r ' ( E f f e 11) of h i s arguments. I t i s t r u e that the con-
c e p t i o n of nature endeavouring to preserve the cosmos i s absent from Aet.74,
78-84,106. But i t should be noted that the way i n which the i n v i n c i b l e strength
of the cosmos i s presented i n §80 i s much c l o s e r to §36-37 than to §21-22, and
that a l s o the language i n §74 and 106 i s reminiscent of the t h i r d argument. 2

It should be concluded, t h e r e f o r e , that the p r o b a b i l i t y that Aet.35-38 i s

o r i g i n a l l y d e r i v e d from A r i s t o t l e , and that the sequence of four arguments i s
complete, i s c o n s i d e r a b l y greate r than that the sequence i s i n t e r r u p t e d by the
a r b i t r a r y i n s e r t i o n of an unfortunate 'Fremdkörper'.

2. I t i s d o u b t f ul whether even the most s k i l f u l use of a l l the p h i l o l o -

g i c a l t o o l s a v a i l a b l e can s e t t l e beyond dispute whether P h i l o has d e r i v e d h i s
A r i s t o t e l i a n arguments (as w e l l as the m a t e r i a l at Aet.10-11,15-16) d i r e c t l y
from a reading of the De p h i l o s o p h i a , or i n d i r e c t l y v i a the mediation of a
H e l l e n i s t i c source, e.g. a P e r i p a t e t i c t r e a t i s e d i r e c t e d a g i n s t the S t o i c doc-
t r i n e of the c y c l i c a l r e g e n e r a t i o n of the cosmos. Norden — and we may accept
the author of Die antike Kunstprosa as a sound guide on such matters — c o n s i -
dered that P h i l o has so thoroughly converted the words of h i s source into his
own idiom that one only seldom gets a v e r b a l c l u e to the i d e n t i t y of the ori-
g i n a l author. A r a r e example he found at the beginning of §28, which i n h i s
view could only be w r i t t e n by a P e r i p a t e t i c ( J a h r b . k l . P h i l o l . Supplbd.19(1893)
440). E f f e (17n.55) has p o i n t ed out n o n - A r i s t o t e l i a n vocabulary i n fr.19a
Ross, and examples of t y p i c a l l y P h i l o n i c language could e a s i l y be m u l t i p l i e d
(cf. a l s o Cumont's e d i t i o n ) . Most s c h o l a r s c o n s i d e r i t u n l i k e l y that P h i l o
consulted the o r i g i n a l dialogue at f i r s t hand ( c f . Pepin 432, B a l t e s 34; E f f e
9,21 remains a g n o s t i c ) . Chroust's o p i n i o n , however, i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t (143):
' i n view of the high esteem P h i l o has f o r A r i s t o t l e , i t i s reasonable to sur-
mise that he quotes the S t a g i r i t e verbatim or almost verbatim'

Now i t can be considered c e r t a i n that the De p h i l o s o p h i a was available in

such a centre of i n t e l l e c t u a l a f f a i r s as A l e x a n d r i a , even though P h i l o l i v e d
at the time when the e x o t e r i c works were s t a r t i n g to y i e l d ground to the r e -
c e n t l y r e d i s c o v e r ed acroamatic corpus. The q u e s t i o n before us i s thus l a r g e l y
a matter of making a q u a l i t a t i v e judgment. For a long time Aet. was regarded
as a very poor e f f o r t indeed, an undigested c o m p i l a t i o n of one or two inferior
source books ( c f . Runia 107-112). But a f t e r a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s i t was con-
162 ANALYSIS

eluded t h a t , i f i t s s t r u c t u r e and i n t e n t i o n s are understood, a more favourable

judgment must be reached (ibid.121-139).
It i s thus eminently p l a u s i b l e , but at the same time q u i t e unprovable,
that P h i l o , i n t a c k l i n g the question of cosmic otcp^apaua, turned to the best
p o s s i b l e source f o r A r i s t o t l e ' s p o s i t i o n , j u s t as he d i d f o r P l a t o . 3
A pos-
s i b l e i n d i c a t i o n of a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n between Aet.20-44 and the De philosophia
i s suggested by the f a c t that i t contains no l e s s than f i v e quotes or a l l u s i o n s
to p o e t i c works (§27,30,37,41,42). Such concessions to the t a s t e s of a wider
reading p u b l i c are one of the c h i e f s t y l i s t i c features of the lost exoteric
works. Further s t y l i s t i c observations are r i s k y due to the s c a r c i t y of com-
parative material. We may be c e r t a i n that P h i l o , i f making use of A r i s t o t l e ' s
work, allowed himself the same freedom to r e w r i t e , abbreviate and interpolate
which he showed elsewhere i n h i s use of source m a t e r i a l ( c f . Plant.142-167,
Ebr.166-202. Somn.1.21-24). The a d d i t i o n to the f i r s t argument of the p o s s i -
b i l i t y of an e x t e r n a l v o i d i s e x a c t l y the kind of a d d i t i o n that P h i l o might
have made ( c f . above I I 4.2.1. on P l a n t . 7) .** A merely mechanical t r a n s c r i p t i o n
of source m a t e r i a l , even i f the author i s A r i s t o t l e , i s f o r a w r i t e r of P h i l o ' s
l i t e r a r y pretensions strictly infra dignitatem.

3. Even i f the paraphrase and the two quotes from the Timaeus are d i s r e -
garded, the passage Aet.20-44 i s f u l l of P l a t o n i c reminiscences and language
(cf. Pepin 265). Jaeger concluded i n h i s famous book on A r i s t o t l e ' s develop-
ment ( A r i s t o t e l e s 127,141 etc.) from t h i s and other evidence that i n the De
p h i l o s o p h i a he set out to show the great debt he owed to h i s master, but at
the same time to d i s c l o s e by means of p e n e t r a t i n g c r i t i c i s m the new philoso-
p h i c a l paths which he intended to pursue. P l a t o may have even been a p a r t i c i -
pant i n the dialogue, though the c h i e f speaker we know to have been the author
himself.

Is i t l i k e l y , t h e r e f o r e , that A r i s t o t l e would include a paraphrase of the

Timaeus i n the f i r s t argument, or i s i t to be regarded as an 'Einschub i n den
A r i s t o t e l i s c h e n Gedankengang' ( E f f e 18)? 5
The change of l i t e r a r y method which
A r i s t o t l e introduced i n h i s dialogues c e r t a i n l y allowed such an i n c l u s i o n . 6

Moreover h i s attempt i n the De p h i l o s o p h i a to improve on the Timaeus would

gain credence i f he could show that P l a t o had given sound physical reasons f o r
a s s e r t i n g the aepdapota of the cosmos, and that the dependence of that acpdapoua
on the w i l l or pronoia of the demiurge (Tim.32c,41a-b) was mythologizing non-
sense. 7

The quotation from the Timaeus i s n a t u r a l l y a d i f f e r e n t matter. That

A r i s t o t l e should wish to c i t e the words of P l a t o as a kind of p r o o f - t e x t at
the end of h i s argument seems to me from both the l i t e r a r y and the p h i l o s o p h i -
 II 4.2.7. 163

cal point of view d o u b t f u l . The paraphrase has already made the reference to
t n e
Timaeus so obvious that a f u r t h e r c i t a t i o n o f Tim.32c-33a would be e n t i r e -
l y superfluous. On the other hand P h i l o , f o r whom i n Aet. the r e l a t i o n be-
tween P l a t o and A r i s t o t l e i s of c e n t r a l importance, may w e l l have had good
reasons f o r i n s i s t i n g on A r i s t o t e l i a n dependence, as w i l l become apparent i n
the f i n a l part of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . I am i n c l i n e d t o agree, t h e r e f o r e , wit h
Pepin 265, E f f e 10,18 and Mansfeld Stud.Hell.Rel.141, that he has recognized
the P l a t o n i c element i n the argument and appended the f i r s t P l a t o n i c quotation
himself.

The concluding words of the f i r s t argument (§27) provide an a d d i t i o n a l

complication. A l l four arguments are d i r e c t e d against the suggestion that the
cosmos i s subject to d e s t r u c t i o n , but here acpdapoua i s coupled w i t h ayevr\oCa
as the r e s u l t of (puotxfi axoAoudua. For P h i l o the f a c t that A r i s t o t l e denies
the yeveots as w e l l as the (p$opd of the cosmos c o n s t i t u t e s the e s s e n t i a l d i f -
ference between him and P l a t o ( c f . Aet.10-16). The coupling o f uncreatedness
and i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y i s demonstrated by A r i s t o t l e i n De Caelo 1.10 (note esp.
280a29-31 on the Timaeus and 280a32 (puotxws. . . eupnxau), a chapter thought by
many scholars to contai n m a t e r i a l from the De p h i l o s o p h i a (e.g. Bignone L ' A r i -
s t o t e l e perduto... 2.487, E f f e 20; c f . a l s o 1.9 279a31 and fr.16 Ross). I t
would appear, then, that §27 i s not merely a P h i l o n i c a d d i t i o n , but i s drawn
from a u t h e n t i c a l l y A r i s t o t e l i a n m a t e r i a l (note the p o e t i c quote), though the
p o s s i b i l i t y must be l e f t open that P h i l o has to some extent broken up A r i s t o -
t l e ' s chain of reasoning ( c f . E f f e 21).

The second quote from the Timaeus at §38 remains to be examined. As was
noted above i n I I 4.2.4. t h i s quotation i s more problematic because i t s d i r e c t
r e l a t i o n to what precedes i s l e s s obvious. Indeed at f i r s t s i g h t i t would
seem to i l l u s t r a t e the f i r s t argument much b e t t e r than the t h i r d , s i n c e i t
does not even mention the conception of an a l l - p o w e r f u l cpuous r e s p o n s i b l e for
the cosmos' p r e s e r v a t i o n . And the mention o f a d i v i n e composer (o a u r e u s c f .
33d2) i s c l o s e r to the f o u r t h argument than the t h i r d . As i t stands the quote
can only i l l u s t r a t e the s t r e n g th possessed by the nature of the cosmos as the
r e s u l t of the cosmos' s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y .

But at t h i s point three passages which are a l s o probably dependent on the

De p h i l o s o p h i a may provide a c l u e : A e t . 7 4 ( C r i t o l a u s ) , the cosmos i s aoxapxlo-
xaxov xe auxov aux$ nai aveTit6ea itavxos; Oc.Luc.10, the parts o f the cosmos
have xr]V cpuouv ( !) oux auxoxeAfj, but the cosmos has xrjv ouvapuoynv...upos ou6ev
Ixepov aAA'auxos rcpos auxov; Aet.Plac.2.5.1, 'ApuoxoxeAris* si xpecpexau o xoa-
uos, xau (pdapnaexau * aAAd unv ou6epuas enb6euxau xpocpns* 6ud xouxo xaL au6uos
(probably from the De p h i l o s o p h i a , c f . Pepin 266). The f i r s t two passages
c l e a r l y echo P l a t o ' s auxo. . .eaux(p. . .ev auxcj) xaL ucp'eauxou i n the passage
164 ANALYSIS

quoted at Aet.38. The argument of the t h i r d i s a l s o indebted to the same pas-

sage. I t would thus appear that A r i s t o t l e d i d discuss the subject of the cos-
mos 1
s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , but that P h i l o d e l e t ed t h i s part and that only the T i -
maean quote remains to remind us of i t s presence. Since I regard i t as un-
likely that A r i s t o t l e would quote P l a to verbatim i n a p o l i s h e d l i t e r a r y d i a -
logue, I i n c l i n e to the view that P h i l o has again recognized Aristotelian de-
pendence on the Timaeus and i n s e r t e d the P l a t o n i c quote ( c f . Pepin 266n.4).
Any f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h i s subject would transpor t us i n t o the realm of
pure s p e c u l a t i o n .

4. But from the p o i n t of view of the P h i l o n i s t the most important fact

i s that the quotations from the Timaeus are indeed l o c a t e d i n arguments put-
t i n g forward the A r i s t o t e l i a n p o s i t i o n . Even i f a w r i t e r i s c l o s e l y f o l l o w i n g
a source, he has the f r e e choice of i n c l u d i n g or d i s c a r d i n g what he wishes i n
accordance with h i s own perception and p r e s e n t a t i o n of the problem under d i s -
cussion. The obvious q u e s t i on thus presents itself. Has P h i l o already for-
gotten that he presented A r i s t o t l e and P l a t o as the c h i e f p h i l o s o p h i c a l repre-
s e n t a t i v e s of r i v a l viewpoints i n h i s doxographical s e c t i o n Aet.8-19? Or must
we conclude that he i s here t r y i n g to r e s o l v e the d i f f e r e n c e s between the two
as a foreshadowing of l a t e r Middle and Neoplatonist e f f o r t s i n the same d i r e c -
tion?

I f our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the incomplete and somewhat enigmatic t r e a t i s e i s

correct, neither conclusion i s warranted. P h i l o i s keen to p o i n t out that the
sound aspects of A r i s t o t l e ' s defence of cosmic otcpdapaua are d e r i v e d from Plato,
but at the same time he i s convinced that the S t a g i r i t e ' s defence of the com-
p l e t e autonomy of the cosmos, as expressed i n the f a c t that i t i s uncreated as
w e l l as i n d e s t r u c t i b l e , shows an unfortunate lack of t h e o l o g i c a l i n s i g h t ( c f .
Runia 136-139). God i s the c r e a t o r of the cosmos. The u l t i m a t e reason f o r
its indestructibility lies i n h i s w i l l , which f i n d s expression i n the binding
a c t i v i t y of the d i v i n e Logos. This p o s i t i o n , foreshadowed i n the doxography,
would have been e l u c i d a t e d , somehow or other, i n the missing second h a l f of
the treatise.

4.2.8. Cosmos o r b o d y of the cosmos?

In the a n a l y s i s of P h i l o s use of that s e c t i o n of the Timaeus which i s

f

devoted to the body of the cosmos i t has become apparent that the cosmological
d o c t r i n e s found there are r e g u l a r l y echoed i n P h i l o s works. f
It i s therefore
a l l the more remarkable how r a r e l y P h i l o a c t u a l l y speaks of the 'body of the
 II 4.2.8. 165

cosmos 1
or uses expressions that imply that phrase. I have l o c a t e d only three
i n s t a n c e s : Aet.51 ( i n the r e p o r t of a purely S t o i c argument (= SVF 2.397));
Her.155 (the macro/microcosm i d e a i s a t t r i b u t e d to bold s p i r i t s , i . e . that
both the cosmos and man c o n s i s t of a body and a r a t i o n a l s o u l ) ; QE 2.120 (a
rather p u z z l i n g exegesis of Ex.28:34, i n which P h i l o appears to concede more
to S t o i c physic s than i s h i s wont). Thus, where P l a t o speaks of the body of
the cosmos, P h i l o p r e f e r s to r e f e r simply to the cosmos. N a t u r a l l y t h i s does
not mean that he wishes to p l a y down the aspect of cosmic c o r p o r e a l i t y , as a
glance at t e x t s such as Opif.36, Plant.7 w i l l show. The avoidance of the no-
t i o n of the body of the cosmos would seem q u i t e d e l i b e r a t e . I t i s an observa-
t i o n worth bearing i n mind as we pass on now to the subject of the P l a t o n i c
cosmic s o u l .
 CHAPTER F I V E

TIMAEUS 34B-41A: THE COSMIC SOUL AND THE HEAVENLY BODIES

5.0. Introductory

5.1. The c r e a t i o n of the cosmic soul (Tim.34b~36b)

5.1.1. A n o t o r i o u s l y d i f f i c u l t text s c a r c e l y used
5.1.2. Cosmic s o u l i n P h i l o
5.1.3. Cosmic soul and the Logos

5.2. The heavenly r e v o l u t i o n s (Tim.36b-37c)

5.2.1. The c i r c l e s of the same and different (36c-d)
5.2.2. The r a t i o n a l i t y of the heavenly c i r c u i t s

5.3. The c r e a t i o n of time (Tim.37c-38b)

5.3.1. Time and the cosmos
5.3.2. Time and e t e r n i t y
5.3.3. P h i l o on t ime

5.4. The c r e a t i o n of the heavenly bodies (Tim.38b-41a)

5.4.1. The Timaeus and the f o u r t h day of c r e a t i o n
5.4.2. The astronomy of the Timaeus
5.4.3. The genera of animals (39c-40a)

5.0. Introductory

So f a r P l a t o ' s cosmos, f o r a l l the p e r f e c t i o n of i t s body, lacks the soul

and mind which was promised i n 30b3-5. I t has yet to r e c e i v e l i f e , a source
of movement and the a b i l i t y to think r a t i o n a l l y . Accordingly the demiurge
completely envelops and permeates the body of the cosmos with s o u l . The cos-
mic s o u l i s mixed together from three i n g r e d i e n t s — being, sameness, d i f f e r -
ence - each of which i s i n an intermediate s t a t e between the i n d i v i s i b i l i t y of
the n o e t i c world and d i v i s i b i l i t y of p e r c e p t i b l e phenomena. In t h i s way Plato
i n d i c a t e s soul's intermediate ontological status. The primal soul-substance
i s mathematically and harmonically s t r u c t u r e d by the demiurge, and then d i v i -
ded i n t o the c i r c l e s of the same and the d i f f e r e n t , which enable the cosmic
soul to c a r r y out i t s k i n e t i c and cognitive functions. Because these c i r c l e s
run p e r f e c t l y t r u e , i t possesses both r a t i o n a l understanding (vous eTitaxnyn xe
37c2) concerning the n o e t i c world and true o p i n i o n (6o£au nai Ttuaxeus 3e3otuob
nai a\r)%eZg 37b8) with regard to s e n s i b l e t h i n g s . Consequently the cosmos
 II 5.0. 167

leads a p e r f e c t l y ordered and r a t i o n a l l i f e f o r ever and ever.

True e t e r n i t y , however, could not be c o n f e r r ed on the cosmos, f o r that
can only belong to the model. The demiurge conceived instea d a 'moving image
of e t e r n i t y ' which we c a l l time. Time i s i n d i c a t e d by the c i r c u l a r motion of
the heavenly bodies which the demiurge placed i n the c i r c u i t s of the cosmic
soul. In d e s c r i b i n g the l o c a t i o n s and movements of the s t a r s and planets Pla-
to's aim i s not to w r i t e an astronomical textbook. He presents j u s t enough
evidence to show, to h i s own s a t i s f a c t i o n , that i t i s p o s s i b l e to 'save the
phenomena' of the movements of the heavenly bodies, that i n f a c t the heavens
provide man wit h the most s p l e n d i d demonstration of the r a t i o n a l i t y bequeathed
to the cosmos by i t s r a t i o n a l l y t h i n k i n g maker.

5.1. The c r e a t i o n of the cosmic soul (Tim.54b-36b)

5.1.1. A notoriously difficult text scarcely used

Sextus Empiricus, endeavouring to show that grammarians, d e s p i t e their

s k i l l s i n l i n g u i s t i c matters, are unable to comprehend d i f f i c u l t p h i l o s o p h i c a l
t e x t s , gives as examples of these the sayings of H e r a c l i t u s and the words of
Plato on the c r e a t i o n of the s o u l (Adv.Math.1.301). He quotes Tim.35a1-5 and
a f f i r m s that on these words and t h e i r context the i n t e r p r e t e r s of P l a t o are
reduced to s i l e n c e . That h i s f i n a l remark, though i n d i c a t i v e of the difficul-
t i e s encountered i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the passage, should not be taken too literal-
l y i s shown by the copious evidence s u p p l i e d by P l u t a r c h on t h i s very subject.
The P l a t o n i s t from Chaeronea w r i t e s h i s t r e a t i s e ITepu xfjs ev Ttuauw 4>uxoyovuas
— f o r m a l l y an exegesis of Tim.35a1-36b5 - p a r t l y on account of the unusual
views he holds on the passage (1012B) and p a r t l y on account of the dissension
among P l a t o n i c exegetes (1012D). He records the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Xenocrates
and Crantor, members of the Old Academy, and a l s o of exegetes who lived only
one or two generations before P h i l o , Posidonius and Eudorus of A l e x a n d r i a . He
himself had discussed the passage so o f t e n that h i s sons urged him to set h i s
opinions down i n w r i t i n g .

Against t h i s background of d i s p u t a t i o u s e f f o r t s at i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n the

c i r c l e s of p r o f e s s i o n a l p h i l o s o p h e r s , i t i s a l l the more noteworthy that P h i l o
never makes any d i r e c t r e f e r e n ce to P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the c r e a t i o n and
composition of the cosmic s o u l [but now see my appended comment at the end of
this sub-section]. Only the r e l a t i o n between the s t r u c t u r e given to the cosmic
soul and the nature of the heavenly movements f i n d s a place i n h i s w r i t i n g s ,
as we s h a l l observe below i n I I 5.2.1-2. In a d d i t i o n there are three aspects
168 ANALYSIS

of the P l a t o n i c text which leave marginal t r a c e s and need to be b r i e f l y men-

tioned. *
1. The contingent account. P l a t o recognizes that h i s account, which de-
s c r i b e s the yeveoig of the cosmos 1
body before that of i t s s o u l , whereas the
order o f o n t o l o g i c a l p r o p r i t y i s the r e v e r s e , r e t a i n s a contingent and random
element (34b10-35a1). P h i l o i s confronted with a s i m i l a r problem i n h i s exe-
gesis o f the t h i r d and f o u r t h day of c r e a t i o n (Opif.45-46). Why d i d God c r e -
ate the e a r t h and v e g e t a t i o n before the heavenly bodies, whose r e g u l a r move-
ments cause the things on earth to grow and develop? The answer i s that God's
motive i n bypassing the expected order was paedeutic, i n order to teach men of
f u t u r e ages not to r e l y on p l a u s i b i l i t i e s , but on sheer t r u t h (xwv euxoxwv nai
Ttuftavwv/xris axpatcpvous aXn^euas). Not the heavenly bodies are the ultimate
cause o f the growth but God, to whom a l l things are p o s s i b l e (on the formula
c f . above I I 3.1.4.). P l a t o thought h i s account was contingent, but d i d not
r e a l i z e that there was a r e a l danger that h i s own e s t i m a t i o n of o n t o l o g i c a l
p r i o r i t y placed too great a r e l i a n c e on the probable.

2. Older/younger. The a n t i t h e s i s Ttpeoguxepos/vewxepos used by P l a t o to

d e s c r i b e the r e l a t i o n between soul and body (34c2) i s a l s o one of P h i l o ' s f a -
vourites. Some of i t s e x e g e t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s were already noted above a t I I
1.2.1. In Post.62 the o n t o l o g i c a l p r i o r i t y of soul over body i s perceived, by
means o f the gymnastics o f the a l l e g o r i c a l method, behind an innocuous h i s t o -
r i c a l aside a t Num.13:22. Hebron, treasure-house of wisdom and knowledge, i s
o l d e r than Zoan and the whole of Egypt:

ipeopuxepav n cpuaus 4>uxnv uev awpaxos, A L Y U T I X O U , otpexrjv 6e xaxuas, Tdve-

ws ... ebpydcexo, xo Ttpea$uxepov a^uwyaxb yaAAov r\ xpovou ynxeu 6oxuua-
s

aaaa.
Soul's p r i o r i t y with regard to body i s general Platonic doctrine ( c f . a l s o the
important text Laws 896c). It is difficult to assess to what extent the i n -
fluence of Tim.34c can be s p e c i f i c a l l y f e l t i n P h i l o ' s constant use of the
formula. What, f o r example, should we think of Wolfson's attempt to use t h i s
text to give d e c i s i v e support f o r a systematizing i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Opif.16
(1.205; c f . a l s o H o r o v i t z 72)?
P h i l o speaks of the i n t e l l i g i b l e world as o l d e r i n comparison with the
v i s i b l e world of which he speaks as younger. This d e s c r i p t i o n q u i t e ob-
v i o u s l y r e f l e c t s P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the u n i v e r s a l s o u l as not being
younger than the world but r a t h e r o l d e r . Now i n P l a t o the d e s c r i p t i o n of
the soul and the world r e s p e c t i v e l y as o l d e r and younger means a compari-
son between two things both of which were created, f o r the s o u l , accor-
ding t o P l a t o , was created. Consequently, we have reason t o b e l i e v e that
P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the i n t e l l i g i b l e world and the v i s i b l e world r e s -
p e c t i v e l y as o l d e r and younger a l s o means a comparison between two things
each of which was c r e a t e d .
In other words, P h i l o makes i t q u i t e c l e a r , by means of an a l l u s i o n t o the T i -
maeus, that 'the i n t e l l i g i b l e world of ideas was created by God as something
 II 5.1.1. 169

r e a l outside h i s m i n d . 1
Bormann 15 i s without doubt too hasty i n d i s m i s s i n g
the a l l u s i o n out of hand, f o r the notion of s e q u e n t i a l c r e a t i o n presented i n
t n e
Timaeus i s of fundamental importance f o r P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the
Genesis account. It i s important that the noopog voriTOS i s created before the
Koopos atodriTos. Yet Wolf son does, i n my view, give the a l l u s i o n a greater
s p e c i f i c weight than i t can c a r r y . The comparison i n P l a t o i s between soul
and body, not between cosmic p l a n and cosmic product. We note too that P h i l o
i s q u i t e capable of using Tcpeo3uxepos/vewTepos to describe the r e l a t i o n bet-
ween c r e a t o r and created, as Spec.2.166 proves.

3. Arithmology. The Plutarchean t r e a t i s e mentioned above a l s o shows us

that the numbers and r a t i o s set out by P l a t o i n Tim.35b-36a were incorporated
i n the extensive a r i t h m o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e composed i n the l a t e H e l l e n i s t i c
period. P l a t o ' s numbers (1,2,3,4,8,9,27) are not j u s t meant to i n d i c a t e r a -
t i o s , but a l s o have value and i n t e r e s t of t h e i r own, g i v i n g r i s e to 'specu-
l a t i o n that has a charm not u n p h i l o s o p h i c a l ' , i . e . arithmology (1027E). On a
number of occasions P h i l o gives a r i t h m o l o g i c a l information that can be a s s o c i -
ated with s p e c u l a t i o n on P l a t o ' s numbers:

Spec.2.40, QE 2.87 (exeg. Ex.26:2; measurements of the t a b e r n a c l e ) : the r e l a -

t i o n between the numbers 4 and 7; c f . Plut.1027E.
QG 3.49 (exeg. Gen.17:12, c i r c u m c i s i o n on the eight h day): the Pythagorean
t e t r a k t y s (36); c f . Plut.1027F.
QG 1.91 (EES 1.58, exeg. Gen.6:3), QG 3.38 (exeg. Gen.16:16)(cf. Opif.107-110):
the double s c a l e of a r i t h m e t i c and geometric p r o g r e s s i o n , i . e . 8 + 27 or 6 + 8 +
9 + 12 = 35; c f . Plut.1017E-F.
Opif.91 ( c f . 106,48): xaxct T O U S 6bTiAaououg r\ TpuitAaauous r e c a l l s 35b5-6,36a1,
though P h i l o takes the numbers to the seventh term (not the f o u r t h as i n
P l a t o ) ; c f . Plut.1028B.
The last-named P h i l o n i c text i s of i n t e r e s t because i t i s included i n a
long excursus on the a r i t h m o l o g i c a l q u a l i t i e s of the hebdomad, which was cer-
t a i n l y derived from an a r i t h m o l o g i c a l source ( c f . Robbins CPh 16(1921)99).
The number seven can be a s s o c i a t e d with P l a t o ' s account i n two ways: there are
seven numbers used f o r the soul's harmonic s t r u c t u r e ; the c i r c l e of the diffe-
rent i s d i v i d e d i n t o seven. As Robbins p o i n ts out, P h i l o ' s account, though
the longest and most d e t a i l e d that has s u r v i v e d , d e l e t e s the referenc e to Tim.
35aff. found i n other authors who draw on the same t r a d i t i o n ( c f . Theon Expos.
math.103.16 H i l l e r , [iambi.] Theol.arith.55-11 De F a l c o , A n a t o l i u s 36.23 H e i -
berg, Lydus De mensibus 35.17 Wunsch). I t must be i n f e r r e d that P h i l o has de-
l i b e r a t e l y omitted a r e f e r e n ce to Plato' s d o c t r i n e of the c r e a t i o n of the cos-
mic soul i n h i s enumeration of the q u a l i t i e s of the hebdomad, the reason no
doubt being that the d o c t r i n e does not harmonize with the Mosaic cosmogony
being commented on, which nowhere speaks of a cosmic s o u l .

Having reached the above conclusions on the b a s i s of the evidence i n the

170 ANALYSIS

P h i l o n i c corpus h i t h e r t o a v a i l a b l e , I now f i n d they have to be modified i n the

l i g h t of some new i n f o r m a t i o n. In a recent l e t t e r Prof.A.Terian has communi-
cated to me h i s discover y of an unknown fragment of P h i l o preserved only i n
an Armenian t r a n s l a t i o n . I t had been published i n the 1892 e d i t i o n of the Ar-
menian t r a n s l a t i o n s of P h i l o n i c works s t i l l preserved i n the Greek (p.222-223),
but was not t r a n s l a t e d and thus remained wholly unnoticed. In Terian's trans-
l a t i o n the part of the fragment that i s r e l e v a n t to our i n q u i r y here reads:
The number generated by the sum of the decad i s 55, which of i t s e l f i s
b e a u t i f u l . F i r s t of a l l , i t i s c o n s t i t u t e d of the sum of doubles and
t r i p l e s taken s u c c e s s i v e l y , i n the f o l l o w i n g manner: the doubles 1,2,4,8
make 15; the t r i p l e s , by 3, 1,3,9,27 make 40, and when added these make
55, which Plat o mentions i n the Timaeus with reference to the construc-
t i o n of the s o u l , beginning thus: ' F i r s t he took one p o r t i o n from the
whole, and what f o l l o w s t h i s .
1

In order to i l l u s t r a t e the beauty of the number f i f t y - f i v e P h i l o r e f e r s to the

numerical composition of the cosmic soul i n the Timaeus and makes the reference
doubly c l e a r by a c t u a l l y quoting the words puav dcpeCAev T O ipwTov duo navTOS
poupav (35b4-5).
Once again the context i s an a r i t h m o l o g i c a l passage, but i n s t e a d of the
connection with Plato's account remaining concealed as i n the texts c i t e d
above, i t i s now made e n t i r e l y e x p l i c i t . We can be a b s o l u t e l y c e r t a i n that
P h i l o drew t h i s information from a source, f o r an almost i d e n t i c a l v e r s i o n of
t h i s a r i t h m o l o g i c a l observatio n i s found i n A n a t o l i u s ' account of the decad
(39.21-40.3 Heiberg, c f . a l s o Theol.arith.86.10-17 De F a l c o ) :
exu n 6exds dpududv yevvq, T O V e nai v' daupotOTa TtepuexovTa naXXr\' npwTov
pev ayveoTriMev en T O U 6unAaaLOU nai T O U TptnAaauou T W V xotTa T O e£,r\g auv-
Tb$eueva)v, <6uTiAaotu)v pev> a'(3'6'n'* TauTa 6'eoTt ue' • TpuTiAaauwv 6e a'y'
%'nz,', anep eoTt p'* TauTa auvTU§epeva <TtoueC T O V > ve'. wv nai IIAaTtuv ev
Tupabw pepvriTau Tns ^uxoyovtas dpxopevos O U T O O S * ptav <dcpeCAev> dfco TiavTos
potpav nai T O e C n s -
I have r e s t i t u t e d the verb i n the P l a t o n i c quote to the text ( i t i s found i n
T h e o l . a r i t h . , whose anonymous author i s quoting A n a t o l i u s ; Heiberg does not
note the d i f f e r e n c e , so perhaps the omission i s an o v e r s i g h t on the part of
the e d i t o r ) . Note that both A n a t o l i u s and T h e o l . a r i t h . i n the P l a t o n i c quote
do omit the two words T O T I P & T O V , which P h i l o r e t a i n s .
Once again this p a r t i c u l a r piece of a r i t h m o l o g i c a l information i s used by
P l u t a r c h i n h i s comments on Tim.35b-36a; c f . Mor.1018E-1019A. The fact that
P h i l o i n c l u d es the reference to Plato's psychogony i n t h i s fragment makes the
omission i n O p i f . noted above a l l the more s t r i k i n g .
Where i n P h i l o ' s oeuvre was t h i s fragment located? T e r i a n i s convinced
that i t i s derive d from the l o s t t r e a t i s e IlepL dpu^ptov, to which P h i l o r e f e r s
at Opif.52, Mos.2.115, QG 4.110. I think i t more l i k e l y that i t i s a remnant
of a m i s s i ng part of the Quaestiones, i n the s u r v i v i n g p a r t s of which we find
a number of s i m i l a r a r i t h m o l o g i c a l catalogues. On the fragment see a l s o f u r -
ther below I I 8.3.1.
 II 5.1.2. 171

5.1.2. Cosmic s o u l i n Philo

The e x p r e s s i o n 'soul of the cosmos' (n xou xoouou (Jjuxn, n xwv OAOJV c|;uxn)
occurs so i n f r e q u e n t l y i n P h i l o that i t must be concluded that he d e l i b e r a t e l y
avoided i t . In the texts Aet.47,50,73,84, Somn.2.2, Prov.1.33,40,45, he i s
e i t h e r t a l k i n g i n the accepted terms of h i s opponents (note xaxd xous dvxu6o-
£ouvxas at Aet.84) or p a t e n t l y taking over the language of h i s source m a t e r i a l .
Revealing i s the s e l f - c o r r e c t i o n at Mut.223. Man's reason (Aoyuouos) i s not
so much a fragment (diooTiaaua) of the cosmic s o u l , but r a t h e r , f o r those who
f o l l o w Moses i n t h e i r p h i l o s o p h i z i n g , an imprint of the d i v i n e image (exuayeu-
ov euxovos, i . e . the Logos; but c f . a l s o Pet.90, on which see below I I 10.1.2.).
At Leg. 1.91 we read: n yap xwv oAwv (|>uxn o $eos eaxu xaxd evvotav. As Colson
EE 1.478 remarks, the r e s t r i c t i v e f o r c e of the l a s t two words i s i l l u m i n a t e d
by the t r a i n of thought at Migr.179-181, where P h i l o takes e x c e p t i o n to the
Chaldean viewpoint that the cosmos or i t s soul i s the primal god. In a l l
these passages P h i l o has above a l l the S t o i c conception of the cosmic s o u l i n
mind. He o b j e c t s to the f a c t that i n i t s theology the Stoa makes no e s s e n t i a l
d i s t i n c t i o n s between a l l the f o l l o w i n g : God, Logos, cosmic vous, cosmic 4>uxn,
providence, f a t e , itveuua ( c f . SVF 1.102,160 e t c . ) . P h i l o ' s avoidance of the
n o t i o n of the cosmic soul must be set beside h i s avoidance of the p a r a l l e l no-
t i o n of the cosmos' body, as noted above i n I I 4.2.8. Instead he gives a much
greater prominence to the f i g u r e of the d i v i n e Logos. This p r e f e r e n c e must
now be placed i n a wider p e r s p e c t i v e .

5.1.3. Cosmic s o u l and t h e Logos

In a number of passages P h i l o describes the nature and a c t i v i t y of the

d i v i n e Logos i n terms which are reminiscent of the way i n which P l a t o speaks
of the cosmic s o u l being ' s t r e t c h e d ' by the demiurge so that i t completely en-
velops the cosmos' body and at the same time wholly permeates i t (34b3-4,36d9-
e3).

Plant.8-10: The Aoyos du6uos §eou xou auwvuou i s d e s c r i b e d i n no l e s s

than seven ways (prop, permeator, c o n t r o l l e r of nature's course, compactor,
bond, separator, r e c o n c i l e r ) , of which the second and f o u r t h i n t e r e s t us here.
The words duo X U J V ueotov enu xd T t e p c t x a nai duo xwv dxpwv ercu xd u e a a x a $ e t s are
e v i d e n t l y an e l a b o r a t i o n of Tim.34b3-4,36e2(cf. Van Winden VChr 32(1978)209;
A l b i n u s ' paraphrase at P i d . 14.4 i s s i m i l a r , TT\£ 4>uxns xadebons ex xou u e a o u
enl xd rcepaxa). xadeus r e c a l l s exeuvev (34b4) , but a l s o the S t o i c conception
of xovos ( c f . Sacr. 68) . ouvdywv xd uepn T t d v x a xat, acptyywv i n t u r n r e c a l l s Tim.
58a7 (where iepuo6os xou Ttavxos could be r e l a t e d to the f u n c t i o n i n g of the
cosmic s o u l ) , probably v i a the Stoa ( c f . SVF 2.447, Hahm 143).
Fug.110-112 (exeg. Lev.21:10): In an e l a b o r a te symbolic exegesis of the
172 ANALYSIS

High p r i e s t s robes i n terms of the p h y s i c a l elements of the universe ( c f . Mos.

f

2.117-130, Spec.1.84-96), but a l s o a symbol of the r e l a t i o n between the cosmos

and the Logos ( c f . Wolfson 1.332). P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the f i t t i n g of cos-
mic s o u l to cosmic body i s w e l l s u i t e d to c l o t h i n g metaphors (note esp. itepu-
xaXunxeuv 34b4,36e3), though he himself had the. c r a f t of tent-making i n mind.
At Fug.112 the Logos i s d e s c r i b e d i n the same say as at Plant.9 (ouvlxet...xau
0(pCyyei>).
Conf.136 (exeg. Gen.11:5), Migr.181: S i m i l a r language, but now used of
God's powers which he extends (xeuvas, ditexeuve) throughout the e n t i r e cosmos
( c f . a l s o De Deo 9) and by which he holds the universe together (ouvaYaywv ( c f .
36e1) eacpuY£e auvexeodat).
9

Her.188, QE f r . 1 (text FE 33.281) ( c f . Sacr.67) : The Logos completely

permeates and f i l l s the u n i v e r s e , i n the way that a body completely occupies
i t s p l a c e o r space. On the metaphor of bond or glue used i n Her.188 and other
above-cited t e x t s see below I I 6.1.4.
We note a l s o i n p a s s i n g two r a t h e r abstruse t e x t s i n the Quaestiones
which speak o f the d i v i n e Logos i n terms of musical harmony, reminiscent of
the manner i n which P l a t o gives the cosmic soul an a r i t h m e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e f o r -
ming the notes of a musical s c a l e : QG 4.110 (exeg. Gen.24:22), QE 2.120 (exeg.
Ex.28:30).

Before we evaluate the r e l a t i o n between P l a t o ' s cosmic s o u l and the P h i -

Ionic Logos, three other f a c t o r s of h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n must be taken
i n t o account.
1. The Stoa. I t has been observed by many s c h o l a rs that P h i l o ' s concep-
t i o n of the Logos has been s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by the Stoa, even when allow-
ance i s made f o r the f a c t that he emphatically s t r i p s i t of m a t e r i a l i s t i c char-
acteristics ( c f . B r e h i e r 82-89, B i l l i n g s 35-37, 1
Weiss 257-265 e t c . ) . The
founders o f the Stoa were c l e a r l y indebted t o the concept of the cosmic soul
such as P l a t o had developed i t ( c f . J.Moreau, L'ame du monde de P l a t o n aux
S t o i c i e n s ( P a r i s 1939), Hahm 42-43,137ff.). The p a r a l l e l i s m between cosmic
soul and Logos was f u r t h e r encouraged by l a t e r S t o i c s such as Panaetius, P o s i -
donius and Antiochus, who r e t a i n e d the b a s i c d o c t r i n e s of S t o i c p h y s i c s , but
were a l s o a v i d readers of P l a t o ( c f . esp. Posid.fr.F8 5 E-K, 395a T h e i l e r , An-
tiochus apud Cic.Acad.1.29, D i l l o n 82-83). Not only the use o f the term ' l o -
gos', but a l s o features of P h i l o ' s Logos such as i t s t e n s i o n , permeation and
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the workings of cpuous are stimulated by S t o i c developments
of P l a t o ' s o r i g i n a l idea.

2. Middle Platonism. In a passage p o l e m i c i z i n g against the f a c t that

A r i s t o t l e dispenses with the conception o f a cosmic soul A t t i c u s w r i t e s (fr.8):
exu xou IlXdxwvos Xeyovxos xnv ^uxriv 6uaxooueuv xd idvxa '6ur|xouoav 6ud
Ttavxwv', xau xauxnv i)(p'?is xau oil Xouiou 6uouxeua$au auyxwpouev dv exaaxa,
xau unoev aXX'e£vau xf^v cpuauv n ci>uxnv xau 6nXovoxu (Jjuxnv oux aXoyov, xau
en xouxwv auvdyovxos oxu itdvxa xaxd ipovouav yuvexau, ei' ye nai xaxd cpu-
auv... ei yap uf| uua xus sun 6uvauus eu(t>uxos '6unxouaa 6td xou i a v x o s f

nai Ttdvxa auv6o0aa xau ouvexouaa', oux'dv euXoyws xo l a v ouxe xaXws 6u-
f

ouxouuevov elvau 6uvauxo...

The phrase 6unxouoa 6ud idvxoov i s S t o i c i z i n g (Des Places ad l o c . c i t e s SVF 2.
1029; c f . a l s o Plut.Mor.1026C and C h e r n i s s ' note ad l o c . ) . For auv6ouoa xau
 II 5.1.3. 173

ouvexoucra c f . Pl.Phd.99c6, and a l s o Fug.112, Migr. 181 , Alb .Did. 14.4) .

As D i l l o n 252 p o i n ts out, the cosmic soul here i s described i n terms which de-
l i b e r a t e l y evoke the d o c t r i n e of the S t o i c Logos and are i n d i c a t i v e of the way
Middle Platonism absorbed c e r t a i n aspects of S t o i c thought i n t o t h e i r reading
of the Timaeus. The passage a l s o s t r o n g l y reminds us of P h i l o ' s language
(note esp. the d e s c r i p t i o n 6 u v a u u s ) . C e r t a i n Middle P l a t o n i s t s even speak of
God's Logos without reference to the cosmic soul (Plut.Mor.369C,371A-B,377F,
Celsus apud Or.c.Cels.5.14, Max.Tyr.Or.11.5, c f . Corp.Herm.1.6,10), but this
remains r e l a t i v e l y uncommon ( c f . a l s o Andresen ZNW 44(1952-53)188ff. on J u s t i n
Apol.1.60.1, where the Chi of the s t r u c t u r e of P l a t o ' s cosmic s o u l i s r e l a t e d
to the cross of C h r i s t the Logos!). 2

3. Jewish Sophia/Logos s p e c u l a t i o n . The p a r a l l e l s between the LXX trans-

l a t i o n of Prov.8:22-31 and the Timaeus (esp. v.30 dpuoCouoct and the joy i n
c r e a t i o n (eucppauvounv, cf.37c7) have l e d Hengel Judaism and Hellenism 162-163
to r a i s e the i n t r i g u i n g question of a p o s s i b l e connection between P l a t o ' s ac-
count of the cosmic soul and Jewish s p e c u l a t i o n on the f i g u r e of Sophia, c r e -
ated or begotten as the beginning of God's works ( c f . Gen.1:1) and a s s i s t i n g
him i n the task of c r e a t i o n . Before P h i l o ' s time the a t t r i b u t e s of Sophia had
already been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h God's word or Logos. Thus the same ( P l a t o n i c /
S t o i c ) language used by P h i l o of the Logos or Sophia i s a l s o found i n other
documents of Alexandrian H e l l e n i s t i c Judaism. Cf. A r i s t o b u l u s f r . 4 (= Eus.PE
13.12.4) cpwvfis § e o u . . . nai a u v e x o u e v n v d d u a A e u i x w s ; Sap.Sal.8:1 6uaxeuveb 6e
(r) aocpua) onto n x p a x o s eitt itepas eupcoaxws x a t 6LouxeC xd Ttdvxa xpncxfts (° n
this
text see Winston Wisdom 189-190); S i r a c i d e s 43:26 xau ev Aoyw a u Y K e t x a b xd
ndvxa e t c . On the r e l a t i o n of P h i l o ' s conception of the d i v i n e Logos and So-
phia to Jewish Sophia/Logos s p e c u l a t i o n and Greek philosophy see above a l l the
d e t a i l e d account of Weiss 181-282 (but no mention i s made of a p o s s i b l e r e l a -
t i o n to P l a t o ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n of the cosmic s o u l ) . 3

I t must be agreed with Wolfson 1.327-328 t h a t , though P h i l o avoids the

expression 'soul of the cosmos' and shows almost no i n t e r e s t i n P l a t o ' s des-
c r i p t i o n of the c r e a t i o n of the cosmic s o u l , he nevertheless gives the Logos,
s i t u a t e d at the intra-cosmi c l e v e l , c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of that s o u l . In-
deed we can s a f e l y say that the immanent Logos takes over the r o l e given by
P l a t o to the cosmic s o u l . I t cannot, however, simply be i d e n t i f i e d with that
P l a t o n i c cosmic s o u l .
For P l a t o soul has an intermediate s t a t u s , a c t i n g as a bridge between no-
e t i c and sense-perceptible reality. The cosmic soul i s the d p t o x n yevouevn
xc7)V Y£vvri$evxu)v (37a2), the highes t being i n the created order, brought f o r t h
by the demiurge, who belongs to the n o e t i c realm and from whom i t d e r i v es i t s
174 ANALYSIS

A o Y ^ c y o s and d p y o v t a (cf.36e6-37a2) . P h i l o too gives the Logos an i n t e r m e d i -

ate or mediating r o l e . I t i s uitepdvu) rcavios xou xoayou nai Ttpeo$uxaxos nai
Y£VLKwxaxos xtov oaa Y^YOve (Leg.3.175, exeg. Deut.8:3 (manna as God s mostf f

generic 1
word)). As God's archangel i t stands midway between the uncreated
and the c r e a t e d , ouxe d Y e v n x o s u»s o deos u)V ouxe Y e v n x o s ws u y e C s (dvdpcjTcob)
(Her.206, exeg. Deut.5:5 (symbolized by Moses)).

But P h i l o does not give the Logos a c a r e f u l l y worked out intermediate

s t r u c t u r e , such as P l a t o a t t r i b u t e d to h i s cosmic s o u l . Consequently i t always
remains d i f f i c u l t to determine the extent to which the Logos becomes a hypo-
stasis, i . e . an e n t i t y having a r e a l e x i s t e n c e separate from God h i m s e l f .
Further d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s e when one r e c a l l s the r o l e of the Logos as p l a c e of
the Kooyos v o n x o s or as a r c h e t y p a l paradigm i t s e l f (idea, xwv b6ec5v Opif.25) .
At Migr.6 (exeg. Gen.28:17) the Logos i s 7ipeo$uxepos xwv yeveoLV ebAncpoxwv, a
status higher than that given to the cosmic s o u l by P l a t o ( c f . the pre-cosmic
c r e a t i o n i n the Jewish Sophia/Logos s p e c u l a t i o n ) . At Fug.101 the Logos i s
ebxtbv § e o u , xwv vonxwv ditaC arcdvxtuv o 7tpea3uxaxos (exeg. Ex.25:22). In terms
of the Timaeus the Logos i s equated with both the model and the cosmic s o u l .
Is P h i l o not opening up the p o s s i b i l i t y of c o n f u s i o n by speaking of God's Lo-
gos at more than one l e v e l and i n more than one f u n c t i o n ?

5.2. The h e a v e n l y r e v o l u t i o n s (Tim.36b-37c)

5.2.1. The c i r c l e s o f t h e same a n d d i f f e r e n t (36c-d)

I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g , i n the l i g h t of the f o r e g o i n g , that P h i l o remains

s i l e n t on the c l o s e c o r r e l a t i o n which P l a t o makes between the c o n s t i t u t i o n of
the cosmic soul and the nature of the heavenly motions which take p l a c e i n i t
(36b,38c-d). But when he has o c c a s i o n to e x p a t i a t e on the s t r u c t u r e of the
heavens, he does, without mentioning the r o l e of the cosmic s o u l , r e f e r to ba-
s i c f e a t u r e s of P l a t o ' s astronomy, notabl y the c i r c l e s of the same and the
different. The manner i n which he makes use of the Timaeus i n the f o l l o w i n g
four passages i s more than u s u a l l y instructive.

Cher.21-25: The m o t i v a t i o n f o r P h i l o ' s t u r n i n g to the Timaeus here l i e s

i n h i s exegesis of Gen.3:24, i n which the two Cherubim and the flaming sword
are posted to guard the entrance to p a r a d i s e . P h i l o suggests that the two
Cherubim symbolize the r e v o l u t i o n of the e n t i r e heaven. The passage i s d i v i -
ded i n t o two s e c t i o n s : §21-22 give a summary of the r e l e v a n t astronomica l i n -
formation from the Timaeus; §23-25 apply t h i s i n f o r m a t i on to the e x e g e t i c a l
theme.
 I I 5.2.1 . 175

F i r s t we must pay a t t e n t i o n to a l a r g e number of p o i n t s of d e t a i l .

§21. at, x a x ' o u p a v o v a c p a u p a u : P l a t o does not speak of spheres but r e v o l u t i o n s .

P h i l o reduces P l a t o ' s cosmic psychology to pure astronomy, as do A l b i n u s Did.
14.7, Apuleius De Plat.203
x a u x o u x a x d 6 £ g b d , d a x e p o u xax ' eucovuua: Cf.36c5-6, but the t e c h n i c a l phrases
used by P l a t o , x a x a nAeupav and x a x a 6bdu£xpov are l e f t out. HOLT ' e u i o v u u a r e -
places P l a t o ' s £ i t ' d p b O X E p d i n l i n e with P h i l o ' s r e g u l a r word usage. He o n l y
uses the 'unlucky' word f o r ' l e f t ' when e x e g e t i c a l l y c o n s t r a i n e d i n connection
with Num.20:17 (Post.101-102, Deus 163).
§22. d u o xfiv ecooov eni x d e o r c e p i a : An i n t e r p r e t a t i v e a d d i t i o n to P l a t o ' s t e x t
(which only says eitb 6 e £ u a ) , found a l s o at Tim.Locr.25, Alb.Did.14.5. Compare
QG 1.7 (exeg. Gen.2:8), where the statement that the cosmos moves from East to
West i s complemented by another saying that the r e g i o n of the East i s r i g h t
and the r e g i o n of the West l e f t . This i s incompatible with P l a t o ' s account,
and the Homeric verse c a l l e d i n f o r support by P h i l o (II.12.239) i s c r i t i c i z e d
i n C a l c i d i u s ' commentary (§93).
efteAouoiov x e x a b g e g i a o u e v r i v U T t e v a v T b o u g dua nai 6bxxdg K b v n o e t s . . . n u e v
a M o u a b o s . . . n 6e o b x e b a : The double nature of p l a n e t a r y motion i s here set out
much more c l e a r l y than i n the Timaeus i t s e l f ( c f . Cornford 78, who c i t e s the
commentators D e r c y l i d e s and A d r a s t u s ) . But the d e s c r i p t i o n of the p l a n e t s '
motions as both v o l u n t a r y and under compulsion i s a d e f i n i t e (and unwarranted)
e x t r a p o l a t i o n from P l a t o ' s t e x t , found i n none of the extant P l a t o n i c hand-
books or commentaries. Compare Cleomedes De motu 1.3 28.24 Z i e g l e r , x d 6e
( i . e . the p l a n e t s ) xbveCxab uev HOLL auv xcp xoaua) x b v n a b v dvayHabtos. .. x b v e b x a b
6e nai e x e p a v T t p o a b p e x b x r i v . P o s s i b l y A r i s t o t l e ' s statement i n the De p h i l o s o -
phia (fr.21b Ross=Cic.DND 2.44), r e s t a t i g i t u r ut motus astrorum s i t v o l u n t a -
r i u s , helped give r i s e to t h i s e x t r a p o l a t i o n . Wolfson's r e f e r e n c e (1.314) t o
Arist.Met.A 8 1074a1ff. i s not cogent.
xds yev boodpopous...: The names of the three p l a n e t s are f i l l e d i n from 38a
1-3. The 'modern' name f o r Mercury, o ExbAgwv, has r e p l a c e d xov ilepov 'Epuou
AeyouEvov. In the l i g h t of P h i l o ' s polemic a g a i n s t m y t h o l o g i c a l names at
Decal.54-55, i t i s l i k e l y that we have here a P h i l o n i c m o d i f i c a t i o n , boodpo-
u o u s , cf.38d3. dvaAoYL-av 6'£xovxa, cf.36d6-7.
§23. xnv x a x d x d a u x d a30auxa)s £XQi>crav %eCav a)g dAndols xopzLav: Unmistakably
P h i l o n i c language ( c f . Opif.54, Leg.1.8, 3.99, Her.87), though o f course u l t i -
mately d e r i v e d from P l a t o ( x a x d x a u x d 40a8, xop£ba 40c3). e t a ^ e v , xd^tv
(twice) suggest that P h i l o has the t e x t under exegesis (Gen.3:24) i n mind, and
that Cohn's d e l e t i o n (C-W 1.170.2) of xab £xa££ i n Cher.1 i s not j u s t i f i e d .
n egaxn a x b o a s £itxd xuxAous d v a A o y o u v x a s l a u x o b s : Cf.36d2-3.
§24. x a b x a f r a i E p £Ttoxov £v oxnpaTb: The imagery used f o r the human s o u l at 41 e2
( P l a t o n i c s e l f - r e m i n i s c e n c e of the Phdr. myth) i s here a p p l i e d t o the heavenly
bodies.
TtAnuu£Afj 6£boas e i b a x a a b a v , a T t d a a s 6 ' £ g r ) p x r ) g £ V E a u x o u : Thought and language
c l o s e r to A r i s t o t l e ( c f . De Caelo 1.9 279a29, Me_t.A 7 1072b14, 10 1076a4) than
Plato. See A.P.Bos P h i l . I n q u i r y 1 (1979)150-151 on De Mundo 6 379b25ff. and the
image of the golden chain; c f . a l s o Agr.49, Conf.170.
§25. axp£(pou£vnv: This d e s c r i p t i o n of the flaming sword i n the B i b l i c a l t e x t
(Gen.3.24) may w e l l have suggested the a l l e g o r y , s i n c e the verb i s f r e q u e n t l y
used by P l a t o of the cosmic and c e l e s t i a l motions; cf.34a4,b5,36e3,39a6,40b6.
The x u u d x b a a x p E i x d xpuoa xuxAw at Ex.25:11 evoke t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n , f o r they
are a l l e g o r i c a l l y explained i n terms of the movement of the heavens and the
c e l e s t i a l bodies (QE 2.55, G r . f r a g . a t FE 33.273).

The d e t a i l e d examination of P h i l o ' s passage has shown that there are con-

nections between the B i b l i c a l t e x t and the Timaeus ( I x a ^ e , axp£cpou£vnv) which

could give rise to the e x e g e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n put forward. The e n t i r e pas-

sage remains c l o s e l y t i e d t o the P l a t o n i c t e x t which i s adstrued. Especially

the mention of the motions of the same and the d i f f e r e n t w i l l o n l y be compre-

176 ANALYSIS

h e n s i b l e to readers acquainted with the Timaeus. As was observed in detail,

P h i l o has (without being e x e g e t i c a l l y constrained) both added to and subtrac-
ted from P l a t o ' s t e x t . T h i s f a c t , combined with the i n c l u s i o n of some t e c h -
n i c a l astronomical terms and d o c t r i n e s , leads one to suspect that he has based
his account not only on h i s own reading of the Timaeus, but a l s o on the infor-
mation s u p p l i e d by a P l a t o n i c handbook of the type of A l b i n u s ' D i d a s k a l i k o s or
Theon's E x p o s i t i o (see f u r t h e r below I I 5.4.2.).

Of great i n t e r e s t i s the f a c t that P h i l o gives i n Cher.21-30 three symbo-

l i c exegeses of the Cherubim and the flaming sword. Our passage i s the first.
The second (§25-26) takes the Cherubim to symbolize the two hemispheres. The
third (§27-30) i s t h e o l o g i c a l r a t h e r than p h y s i c a l i s t i c (the powers and the
Logos), and P h i l o regards i t as more i n s p i r e d than the other two. Although
P h i l o does not a l l u d e to e x e g e t i c a l predecessors, Bousset S c h u l b e t r i e b 29 a r -
gued that i n t h i s m u l t i p l e exegesis he records t r a d i t i o n a l interpretations.
If he i s r i g h t the use of the Timaeus must be a t t r i b u t e d t o e a r l i e r exegetes.
At Mos.2.98-100 (exeg. Ex.25:22, a d i f f e r e n t t e x t ! ) there i s a p a r a l l e l pas-
sage which might be thought to support t h i s view. The f i r s t e x p l a n a t i o n of
Cher.21-30 i s not mentioned t h e r e , the second i s a c c r e d i t e d to anonymous i n -
t e r p r e t e r s , while the t h i r d i s again p r e f e r r e d . Nevertheless, given P h i l o s !

love f o r the Timaeus (not to mention the f a c t that one would have to know i t
p r e t t y w e l l to make the e x e g e t i c a l connection) and the f u r t h e r p a r a l l e l pas-
sages below, I c o n s i d e r i t probable that §21-25 represents a p o s s i b i l i t y
thought up by P h i l o h i m s e l f , and that the substance of §21-30 as a whole must
be P h i l o n i c , even i f a previous symbolic exegesis i s i n c l u d e d i n §25-26, 1

Decal.102-104: Thi s passage i s not i n s p i r e d by a p a r t i c u l a r B i b l i c a l text,

but r e s u l t s from a d i s c u s s i o n of the f o u r t h commandment, i n which a day of
r e s t i s ordained on the seventh day. The hebdomad i s honoured f o r many r e a -
sons, not l e a s t because the number of p l a n e t s i s seven. The complementarity,
or even i d e n t i t y , of the hebdomad and monad was particularly significant for
P h i l o i n r e l a t i o n to the Mosaic account of c r e a t i o n ( c f . Nikiprowetzky FE 23.
153; a r i t h m o l o g i c a l p a r a l l e l s f o r the r e l a t i o n monad/hebdomad and the illus-
t r a t i o n of the planet s i n P h i l o and other sources at Staehle 35-37,41-42 ( c f .
a l s o Moehring 205-209); on the Pythagorean background c f . Boyance REG 76(1963)
90ff.). What b e t t e r way to i l l u s t r a t e i t than by means of P l a t o ' s theory of
c i r c l e s of the same and the d i f f e r e n t ?

P h i l o does not name the two c i r c l e s as such i n t h i s t e x t , but speaks of

the a u e p u o T O S and u e p u o T r ) cpuous. As Colson EE 7.59 observes, d u e p u a x o s and u e -
p u a x r i have been imported from 35a1-6 to r e p l a c e doxooTos and ox^oag e^ax? at
36d1-2. Now t h i s i s not at a l l what P l a t o meant by the terms i n d i v i s i b l e and
d i v i s i b l e , which a l l u d e to the worlds of n o e t i c and s e n s i b l e r e a l i t y respec-
 II 5.2.1. 177

t i v e l y , and are p r e d i c a t e d of both the same and the d i f f e r e n t r a t h e r than iden -

t i f i e d with them ( c f . Cornford 60-64 on the c r u c i a l exegesis of Tim.35a1-b1).
Presumably P h i l o ' s memory i s p l a y i n g t r i c k s on him, but at the same time he
demonstrates i n a p a r t i c u l a r l y b l a t a n t f a s h i o n the almost u n i v e r s a l tendency
among ancient commentators to s i m p l i f y P l a t o ' s account of the composition of
the s o u l . Misreading Tim.35a, they allowed f o r only two stages of mixing i n -
stead of f o u r , and so were i n c l i n e d to d i v i d e the components of s o u l i n t o two
groups and make c e r t a i n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s which P l a t o d i d not i n t e n d :

indivisibility divisibility
same different
monad/unity dyad/plurality
rest motion
form or model matter
rationality irrationality
This tendency goes r i g h t back to the Old Academy and p a r t i c u l a r l y Xeno-
crates ( i n d i v i s i b l e = monad, d i v i s i b l e = dyad, same = p r i n c i p l e of r e s t , d i f -
f e r e n t = p r i n c i p l e of motion (fr.68 Heinze = Plut.Mor 1012D-E); c f . B r i s s o n
275-313 (who s t r e s s e s the p e r n i c i o u s i n f l u e n c e of A r i s t . D e anima 404b18-30),
B a l t e s Timaios Lokros 70-73. For P h i l o ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of duepuoxos and ueptoxri
to the c e l e s t i a l motions I have found no exact p a r a l l e l , but i t i s perhaps im-
p l i e d by the d e s c r i p t i o n of á xw exepoo cpopd ueueptauéva i n Tim.Locr.26. rixus
¿£ax5 ótaveuri^eSoa (§103) i s based on 36d2 ( c f . A l b . D i d . 14.4, where zE, dpxñs
veundeuoa should be emended to i^axfl veun§e£aa). P h i l o ' s comment that the
word TtAcxvnxes i s m i s l e a d i ng (§104) i s d e r i v ed from P l a t o Laws 821c-d, as C o l -
son notes. But the E n g l i s h s c h o l a r confuses matters by suggesting that xau-
xóxnxa (§104) i s a reminiscence of the motion of the same, f o r i t r e f e r s p r i -
m a r i l y to the planets which, though moving i n the r e v o l u t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t ,
nevertheless adhere to the same course f o r a l l e t e r n i t y .
Her.230-236: Another B i b l i c a l t e x t , Gen.15:10 xd ó'opvea oú oueCAev, sets
t h i s passage i n movement. The b i r d s , being winged and s o a r i n g above, symbo-
l i z e two l o g o i or minds, the one the mind of man, the other i t s paradigm,
God's Logos (§230-231). In order to e x p l a i n why the b i r d s were not d i v i d e d ,
i . e . the mind's i n d i v i s i b i l i t y , P h i l o turns to the analogy between man's soul
and the heavens, f o r , as he s u c c i n c t l y affirms., b év dv^pwiw 4^xn 9 xouxo oúpa-
vós év xóouw (§233). The analogy i s worked out as f o l l o w s :

i r r a t i o n a l part inner sphere

{
divided into 7 parts r divided into 7 c i r c l e s

heaven i - - - - - - - - - - -
r a t i o n a l part outer sphere
undivided undivided
P h i l o introduces the r e f e r e n c e to P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the two spheres by an
anonymous Aoyos exe^ 9 but the words doxtoxov (36d1) and xfiv ó'évxos ¿£cxx?í xun-
detoav éitxd xúxAous (cf.36d2) d i s c l o s e h i s source.
The analogy i s , of course, based on the macrocosm/microcosm relation,
which i s one of the fundamental d o c t r i n e s i n the Timaeus. But i s P h i l o ' s par-
t i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n of i t here a l s o i n the s p i r i t of P l a t o ' s dialogue? The
178 ANALYSIS

sevenfold d i v i s i o n of the i r r a t i o n a l s o u l i s purely S t o i c (to c a l l i t irra-

t i o n a l i s post-Chrysippean), but P h i l o considers the d o c t r i n e i n fundamental
agreement with P l a t o (see below I I 9.2.2.). But i n what way can one speak of
an analogy between the seven parts of the i r r a t i o n a l soul and the seven c i r -
c l e s of the inner sphere of heaven? Such an analogy i s not S t o i c , f o r they
regard the riyepovuxov of the cosmos as the oupavos i n i t s e n t i r e t y or ( i n the
m i n o r i t y view of Cleanthes) as the sun ( c f . Diog.Laert.7.139), not making a
d i s t i n c t i o n between the sphere of the f i x e d s t a r s and the p l a n e t a r y spheres.
The analogy could r e c e i v e support from P l a t o n i s t quarters i f the Timaeus i s
i n t e r p r e t e d i n the way suggested by P l u t a r c h i n Mor.441D-442B (cf.1024Dff.),
namely that both the soul of the cosmos and the soul of man have a r a t i o n a l
and an i r r a t i o n a l component, and that the c i r c l e of the d i f f e r e n t represents
the beginning of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and change (and, by i m p l i c a t i o n , of irration-
ality) . This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r e s u l t s from the same i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s which we
tabulated above with regard to Decal.102. I t i s i n f a c t untenable because the
cosmic s o u l i s wholly r a t i o n a l and, u n l i k e man, possesses no irrational parts
(cf.36e4 and the comments of V l a s t o s CQ 33(1939)78, B r i s s o n 500 on Cornford 76,
208). Moreover the analogy, as suggested by P h i l o and P l u t a r c h , endangers the
d o c t r i n e that the p l a n e t a r y movements are ordered and wholly r a t i o n a l , which
we saw P h i l o c o n f i d e n t l y a f f i r m i n Decal.104 ( c f . Gig.8, Somn.1.135) and the
d e n i a l of which would encourage a s t r o l o g y and Gnostic deprecation of the cosmos.

P h i l o ' s use of the analogy between the seven c i r c l e s of the planets and
the seven p a r t s of the i r r a t i o n a l soul can be explained i n two ways. Either
we must conclude that we are p r e s s i n g P h i l o s text too hard.
f
His primary aim
i s to show that man s vous i s i n d i v i s i b l e .
f
The analogy with the outer sphere
of heaven s u i t s him n i c e l y , and the numerical equivalence of the part s of the
i r r a t i o n a l s o u l and the p l a n e t a r y c i r c l e s i s too neat to r e s i s t , p h i l o s o p h i c a l
systematics not being h i s concern at the moment. Compare a p a r a l l e l tex t such
as QG 4.110, where he a l s o juggles with numbers i n seeing an analogy between
the s t r u c t u r e of man and the cosmos. 2
Or the p o s s i b i l i t y can be entertained
that P h i l o i s f o l l o w i n g a current i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the d o c t r i n e of soul i n
the Timaeus s i m i l a r to P l u t a r c h ' s , without wishing to put any emphasis on a
p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n that there i s an i r r a t i o n a l element i n the movement of
the c i r c l e of the d i f f e r e n t . In the a r i t h m o l o g i c a l accounts of the hebdomad
the two d o c t r i n e s of the seven planetary c i r c l e s and the seven parts of the
i r r a t i o n a l s o u l are o f t e n mentioned together, but to my knowledge never placed
i n an a n a l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n ( c f . Staehle 41,47, an example at Leg.1.8,11). Such
a procedure would be f o r e i g n to the c a t a l o g u i n g methods of such accounts. If
it i s necessary to decide between the two a l t e r n a t i v e s put forward, my prefer-
ence would l i e with the former. 3
To the subject of the r e l a t i o n between man's
 II 5.2.1. 179

mind, the outer sphere of heaven and the d i v i n e Logos we s h a l l r e t u r n i n the

next sub-section of our Commentary. On Her.230-236 see f u r t h e r the excellent
remarks of H a r l FE 15.92-97,331-332.
QG 3.3 (EES 1.180): The same t e x t , Gen.15:10, i s discussed as i n Her.230-
236, but the r e s u l t s are not e n t i r e l y the same, the d i s c r e p a n c i e s being caused
by the f a c t that i n Her, the s a c r i f i c i a l animals are a l l e g o r i z e d i n terms of
human and divine cognition ( c f . a l s o §125-126), but i n QG i n terms of cosmic
parts. So i n the former passage the pigeon and the t u r t l e - d o v e symbolize hu-
man logos and d i v i n e Logos, i n the l a t t e r the spheres of the planets and the
fixed stars. The l a t t e r exegesis has the advantage of not doing i n j u s t i c e to
the r a t i o n a l i t y of the p l a n e t a ry motions, but lacks the a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l and
e t h i c a l relevance of the former. I t i s somewhat d i s c o n c e r t i n g to witness the
same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the b i r d s , tameness and s o l i t a r i n e s s , being confident-
l y used to demonstrate the v a l i d i t y of both i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . The reason f o r
the divergence must be a t t r i b u t e d to the t e n t a t i v e , p r o v i s i o n a l nature of Phi-
l o s e x e g e t i c a l endeavours, but
f
i n t h i s case the method seems p a r t i c u l a r l y a r -
bitrary.

5.2.2. The rationality of the heavenly c i r c u i t s

In Her.230-236 the p h y s i c a l i s t i c a l l e g o r y of the two b i r d s i n Gen.15:9-10

leads P h i l o to d e l i n e a t e an analogy between man and the cosmos:
man s s o u l
f
heaven
man's mind outer sphere of heaven
The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the 'mind above us' (§236) w i t h a part of heaven and not
the whole, i s , as we have seen, somewhat s u r p r i s i n g , and we suggested above
that i t was p r i m a r i l y motivated by the d e s i r e to see a p a r a l l e l between the
seven p l a n e t a r y c i r c u i t s and the seven parts of the i r r a t i o n a l s o u l . More r e -
presentative f o r P h i l o ' s t h i n k i n g on t h i s subject i s , I would argue, h i s r e -
mark at QG 4.215 (exeg. Gen.27:28): 'In man the mind i s l i k e heaven, f o r they
are both r a t i o n a l p a r t s , the one of the world, the other of the soul.'

The analogy between man and the cosmos i s important i n r e l a t i o n to the

way that P h i l o deals with P l a t o ' s cosmic s o u l . The f a c t that P l a t o places the
c e l e s t i a l bodies i n the r e v o l u t i o n s of the cosmic soul (cf.38c7) i s meant to
i n d i c a t e that the r a t i o n a l i t y of the cosmic s o u l i s e s p e c i a l l y l o c a l i z e d i n
the heavens, j u s t as the s o u l pervades the whole of man's body but its ratio-
n a l part i s e s p e c i a l l y l o c a l i z e d i n the head (see below I I 7.2.1.). This idea,
which provides the foundation f o r the p h i l o s o p h i c a l ' R e l i g i o n cosmique' i n the
H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d , has l e f t i t s mark on P h i l o . The heavens represent a realm
180 ANALYSIS

of unswerving, purely r a t i o n a l movement, sharin g i n none of the d i s o r d e r and

malignancy of e a r t h l y things ( c f . Ios.145 e t c . ) . In the cosmos heaven i s the
palace of highest s a n c t i t y , whereas e a r t h , which appears to be at the centre,
should a c t u a l l y be c a l l e d the outermost r e g i o n of the d i v i n e kingdom (Mos.2.
194). I t i s e n t i r e l y f i t t i n g that a part of the High p r i e s t ' s robes, the
Reason-seat ( A o y e u o v ) , should c o n t a i n twelve stones symbolizing the twelve
signs of the Zodiac, f o r the whole of heaven i s framed on r a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s
(Hard T O V ev dpuduous dadAeuxov nai $ e 3 a t o x a x o v xau deuov OVXOJS Aoyov Mos.2.
124 (exeg. Ex.28:15-21), c f . Spec.1.88). I f the analogy between man's mind
and heaven i s to have any r e a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , i t must be man's task to conform
h i s mental processes and h i s behaviour to the r a t i o n a l i t y and unswerving con-
stancy of the c e l e s t i a l world above him. Here we a r r i v e at the theme of the
contemplation of the heavens (Tim.47a-c); i t w i l l be analysed i n d e t a i l below
i n I I 7.2.3-4., where we s h a l l f i n d that one of the t e x t s to which P h i l o r e -
l a t e s the theme i s God's address to Abraham i n Gen.15:5. Abraham's double mi-
g r a t i o n i s a p a r t i c u l a r l y pregnant symbol f o r the soul's quest ( c f . H a r l FE 15.
103-129 on Her.), though h i s s t o r y a l s o emphasizes the danger of l o o k i n g only
to the heavens and not r e c o g n i z i n g the handiwork of God the c r e a t o r .

In Her.230-236 P h i l o goes f u r t h e r and i d e n t i f i e s the AoyuHr) cpuous xou

navTOS w i t h the Aoyos of God (§230,234). I t i s symbolized by the t u r t l e - d o v e ,
the l o v e r of s o l i t u d e , because i t spends i t s time i n attendance on the One
(§234). At the same time, as Aoyos x o u e u s , i t has separated and d i s t r i b u t e d
e v e r y t h i n g i n nature (§235). Now i t would seem l o g i c a l , i f the immanent Logos
takes over some of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of P l a t o ' s cosmic s o u l , that i t be es-
p e c i a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with that part of the cosmos which P l a t o places i n the
c i r c u i t s of the cosmic s o u l , namely heaven. A s t r a i g h t - o u t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of
heaven and the Logos i n the l i t e r a l sense i s s u r e l y problematic, because the
Logos permeates and holds together the e n t i r e cosmos. Heaven i s r a t h e r the
highest and c h i e f r e s i d e n c e of the d i v i n e Logos i n the cosmos. P h i l o l i k e s to
i l l u s t r a t e t h i s w i th the image of the c h a r i o t , f a m i l i a r to him from both the
P l a t o n i c Phaedrus myth and Judaic t r a d i t i o n ( c f . H a r l FE 15.122-127). 'Heaven
is a f l y i n g chariot ( c f . Phdr,246e) because of i t s very s w i f t revolution,
which surpasses i n speed even the b i r d s i n t h e i r course' (QG 3.3 EES 1.181).
Of t h i s c h a r i o t the Logos i s the reinsman ( n v t o x o s ) and God i t s c h a r i o t e e r
(eioxos). The c h a r i o t e e r passes on to the reinsman the d i r e c t i o n s necessary
f o r the c o r r e c t guidance of the universe (Fug.101, c f . Her.301, Somn.1.157, QG
4.51 etc.). Here the Logos i s without doubt f u l f i l l i n g p r e c i s e l y the task of
P l a t o ' s cosmic soul (Zeus i n the Phaedrus myth), seated on the c h a r i o t of the
heavens, o r , i n the p r e c i s e r e v e r s a l of that image found i n the Timaeus, c a r -
r y i n g the heavenly bodies i n the embrace of i t s own revolutions.
 II 5.3.1. 181

5.3. The c r e a t i o n o f t i m e ( T i m . 3 7 c - 3 8 b )

5.3.1. Time a n d t h e c o s m o s

In h i s account of the yeveobg of time P l a t o enunciates two fundamental

doctrines. F i r s t l y , the concept of time i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the movement
of the cosmos and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , to the ordered movement of the heavenly bo-
dies who are the guardians (cf.38a6) or instruments (42d5) of time. Conse-
quently time came i n t o being with the cosmos and w i l l only cease i f the u n i -
verse undergoes d i s s o l u t i o n . Secondly, the temporal aspect of the cosmos cau-
ses i t to f a l l short, a l s o i n t h i s r e s p e c t , of i t s model, the world of ideas.
The demiurge could not confer completely the e t e r n i t y of the cosmic paradigm
on the created product. Time i s thus !
a moving image (einuiv) of e t e r n i t y
(atd>v) proceeding according to number' (37d5-7) . A f t e r P l a t o other concep-
t i o n s of time were developed i n ancient thought ( c f . J . F . C a l l a h a n , Four views
of time i n ancien t philosophy (Cambr.Mass. 1948), R i s t S t o i c philosophy 273-
288). Nevertheless the two d o c t r i n e s o u t l i n e d above continued to e x e r c i s e an
extraordinary influence. Our task i n t h i s and the f o l l o w i n g s u b - s e c t i o n i s to
determine the extent to which P h i l o too came under t h e i r spell.

In a number of passages s c a t t e r e d throughout both h i s e x e g e t i c a l and p h i -

l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e s , P h i l o makes i t a b s o l u t e l y c l e a r that i n h i s view time i s
dependent f o r i t s e x i s t e n c e on the ordered movement of the cosmos, as i n d i c a -
ted by the movement of heaven and the c e l e s t i a l bodies. What e l s e , he asks i n
Spec.1.90, showed ( a v e 6 e t £ e v ) n i g h t s , days, months and years , and time i n gen-
e r a l than the harmonious r e v o l u t i o n s of the moon and sun and the other s t a r s ?
At Leg.1:2 (exeg. Gen.2:2), i n d i s c u s s i n g the way that the seven days of the
Mosaic cosmogony should be i n t e r p r e t e d with regard to the c r e a t i o n of the cos-
mos, P h i l o proceeds step by step i n an almost s y l l o g i s t i c fashion:

1. every p e r i o d of time i s a c o l l e c t i o n (ouaxriua) of days and n i g h t s ;

2. these are n e c e s s a r i l y brought about by the movement of the sun above
and below the e a r t h ;
3. the sun i s part of heaven;
4. thus time i s more recent (vewxepos) than the cosmos;
5. thus the cosmos cannot have been created i n time.
Summing up, he s t a t e s that time was c o n s t i t u t e d by means of the cosmos, f o r
the movement of heaven r e v e a l ed (e6eu£e) the nature of time. A s i m i l a r argu-
ment i s given i n the exegesis of the words ev apx? (Gen.1:1) at Opif.26. Time
d i d not e x i s t before the cosmos, but came i n t o being e i t h e r with the cosmos or
after i t , so that i t i s n e c e s s a r i l y e i t h e r as o l d as or younger than the cos-
mos. To dare to say that time i s o l d e r than the cosmos i s to show o n e s e l f
182 ANALYSIS

l a c k i n g i n p h i l o s o p h i c a l sense. At Deus 31 the cosmos i s c a l l e d the f a t h e r of

time, f o r the c r e a t o r brought the cosmos i n t o movement and that movement cau-
sed the yeveoig of time (on t h i s text see f u r t h e r II 5.3.2.).
The P l a t o n i c source of t h i s conception of time i s e x p l i c i t l y state d at
Aet.52, where P h i l o d e c l a r e s :
. . . O T U , 5 cpricuv o ueyas IIAdxu)v, nuepau nai vunxes ufives i e nal evuauxwv
iepuo6ou xpovov e 6 e u £ a v . durixavov 6e xu xouxwv auaxfivau 6uxot nAuou x u v n -
aecas nau xfjs xou Ttavxos oupavou itepucpopas.. .
The word cpnoL-v introduces not a l i t e r a l quote but r a t h e r a loose paraphrase of
Tim.37e1-2,38b2-c5. The s e r i e s of measures of time — days and n i g h t s and
months and years - i s meant to r e c a l l the i d e n t i c a l s e r i e s at 37e1 and 39c1-5
(the same ' P l a t o n i c ' s e r i e s a l s o at Plant.118, Spec.1.90, Prov.2.53; on Opif.
60 and the 'Mosaic' s e r i e s i n Gen.1:14 see below I I 5.4.1.). Despite the P l a -
t o n i c i n v o c a t i o n , however, other p a r t s of the argument at Aet.52-54 are l e s s
f a i t h f u l to the P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e , and we s h a l l r e t u r n to t h i s problematic
passage below.
A noteworthy f e a t u r e of the passages so f a r discussed i s the t r i p l e oc-
currence of the e x p r e s s i o n 'show time' or 'show the nature of time', i n v o l v i n g
the verb 6etKvuvau or dva6£LKvuvau (Leg.1.2, Spec.1.90, Aet.52). Cf. a l s o Aet.
19 ot x p d v o v uexpnoews (puouv e d e t C a v , 1
P l a n t . 118 and Opif.60 (both of number,
but i n d i r e c t a s s o c i a t i o n with time), a l s o S i r a c i d e s 43:6 d v d 6 e u £ u v xpovtov.
This e x p r e s s i o n i s not d e r i v e d d i r e c t l y from the Timaeus (though cf.38c6,47a
6-7), nor have I found i t i n the s u r v i v i n g Middle P l a t o n i s t handbooks. But
P h i l o ' s repeated use suggests that i t may have a s c h o l a s t i c background. The
s i g n i f i c a n c e of the phrase l i e s i n the f a c t that i t makes q u i t e c l e a r that
time i s not simply equivalent to the movement of the heavens, but i s i n d i c a t e d
by the measurement of that movement ( c f . P l o t i n u s ' c r i t i c i s m of those who fail
to make t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n at Enn.3.7.7,12.25ff.). At Spec.1.88-90 P h i l o can
e x p l o i t the e x p r e s s i o n f o r e x e g e t i c a l purposes. Fastened to the reason-seat
of the h i g h - p r i e s t l y robes are two p i e c e s of c l o t h , one of which the LXX de-
s c r i b e s as 6r|Aa)Ous (Ex.28:30). Using the method of p h y s i c a l i s t i c symbolism,
P h i l o sees here an obvious r e f e r e n c e to the task of the heavenly beings to re-
veal- to us those things which otherwise would remain unknown, i n c l u d i n g the
nature of time. 2

On a number of occasions P h i l o presents the S t o i c d e f i n i t i o n of time, ac-

c o r d i n g to which time i s the extension (6bdaxr)ua) of the movement of the cos-
mos. At Aet.4 i t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y a t t r i b u t e d to the Stoa, but at Opif.26 and
Aet.52 he appears to support the d e f i n i t i o n h i m s e l f . Does the espousal of
t h i s d e f i n i t i o n e n t a i l a departure from the P l a t o n i c conception of time? It
should be observed that the S t o i c school was not unanimous i n i t s d e f i n i t i o n
 II 5.3.1. 183

of time. Zeno defined i t as the 6uaaxnua xrjs xtvriaeu>s tout c o u r t , but Chry-
sippus i n s i s t e d that the motion involved was the motion of the cosmos ( c f . SVF
1.93, 2.509-519, R i s t op.cit.273-282). I t i s the l a t t e r d e f i n i t i o n , much c l o -
ser to P l a t o ' s view, which P h i l o propounds. At the same time P h i l o declares
at Aet.54 that the d e f i n i t i o n must be refused i f the motion of the universe
includes the p e r i o d of c o n f l a g r a t i o n and regeneration , when the cosmos departs
from i t s present order and the r e l a t i o n between time and the heavenly bodies
i s n e c e s s a r i l y severed, i f only temporarily. Wolfson i s t h e r e f o r e entirely
c o r r e c t i n concluding (1.319) that f o r P h i l o the S t o i c d e f i n i t i o n was merely a
restatement i n formal language of the P l a t o n i c (and Mosaic) conception of time.
He d i d not add, however, that i n so doing P h i l o was f o l l o w i n g the p r a c t i c e of
doxographers and Middle P l a t o n i s t s , as the examples at Aetius Plac.1.21.2 and
Albinus Did.14.6 show. 3

An e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n i s encountered when we look at the argu-

ment i n Aet.52-54 as a whole. P l a t o ' s a u t h o r i t y i s invoked and the S t o i c i z i n g
d e f i n i t i o n of time i s given i n order to show that time i s dependent f o r i t s
existence on the movement of the cosmos and that the cosmos and time are co-
eval (§52). But i n §53 the argument r e c e i v e s an A r i s t o t e l i a n t u r n . The cos-
mos i s i n f a c t uncreated (and i n d e s t r u c t i b l e ) because time has no beginning
(and no end). I t i s the height of a b s u r d i ty to suppose that there was ever a
time that time d i d not e x i s t , 4
f o r the very words 'was' and 'ever' i n d i c a t e
time. The view that time i s dvapxos x a l axeXeuxnxos i s d e r i v e d , whether d i -
r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , from A r i s t o t l e ( c f . Phys.8 1 251b19-28). Nowhere i n the
extant works does the S t a g i r i t e present the a c t u a l proof given by P h i l o ( i t i s
perhaps implied i n Met.A 6 1071b7-10), but i t i s not u n l i k e l y that i t was put
forward as an argument against the Timaeus i n the dialogue De p h i l o s o p h i a , the
source of other arguments i n Aet. ( c f . above I I 4.2.7. on §20-44). Note the
p a r a l l e l at Sex.Emp.Adv.math.10.189 (who a l s o drew on the De p h i l o s o p h i a , wit-
ness fr.9,12ab Ross). I f the c i t a t i o n of the Timaeus i n §52 i s the work of
A r i s t o t l e or a P e r i p a t e t i c , then P l a t o ' s words are being used against h i s own
view of the yiveobg xou xoouou ( i f taken l i t e r a l l y ) . Baltes 88 t e n t a t i v e l y
suggests, however, t h a t , because Plato's Timaeus i s invoked, the argument as a
whole i n §52-54 could be a P l a t o n i s t r e p l y to the l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
the P l a t o n i c cosmogony, u s i n g A r i s t o t l e ' s own conception of time to r e f u t e h i s
c r i t i c i s m of the Timaeus.

A more important question f o r us i s whether P h i l o f i n d s the argument

which he records here p l a u s i b l e . The a s s e r t i o n that time i s dependent on the
movement of the heaven poses no problems, but what about the d e n i a l of the ye-
veots of the cosmos and of time with i t ? Nowhere e l s e does P h i l o a f f i r m that
time i s without beginning and end ( i n Fug.57 and QG 1.1 the context and his
184 ANALYSIS

i n t e n t i o n s are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t ) . I have argued elsewhere (Runia 134) that

P h i l o does not i n f a c t subscribe to the argument at Aet.52-54. But a full
d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s question can only be undertaken i f i t i s a s s o c i a t e d with
the problem of how P h i l o i n t e r p r e t s the P l a t o n i c and Mosaic accounts of c r e -
ation. See f u r t h e r below I I I 2.4.
The question of the nature of time i s a l s o r a i s e d i n the dispute between
Alexander and P h i l o i n Prov.II , but the exchange i s too b r i e f to be very en-
lightening. Alexander argues t h a t , s i n c e time i s i n f i n i t e , i t i s not the work
of providence, and the same must be s a i d f o r the u n i t s of time's measurement
(§53). P h i l o r e p l i e s that God i n no way created i n f i n i t e and i n c o r p o r e a l time
(doubtless dietpos nai dawpaxos xpovos), but r a t h e r days, months and years, as
measured by the r e v o l u t i o n s of the heavenly bodies (§57). This statement can
be i n t e r p r e t e d as l e a v i n g room f o r an i n f i n i t e pre-cosmic time uncreated by
God. Hadas-Lebel FE 35.79 thinks of the P l a t o n i c d i s t i n c t i o n between time and
eternity. Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s the d i s t i n c t i o n put forward at C i c e r o DND 1.
21 between measured time ( i . e . by the motion of heaven) and time as pure ex-
tension. But P h i l o s words can a l s o be i n t e r p r e t e d i n a way
f
c o n s i s t e n t with
the P l a t o n i c view of time to which he subscribes elsewhere, i . e . that there i s
no room f o r a n o t i o n of time separated from the b o d i l y motion of the celestial
realm. As so o f t e n i n t h i s dialogue, the b r e v i t y of the exchange precludes
any depth of p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s c u s s i o n . Wendland's c o n c l u s i o n (Vorsehung 64)
that P h i l o s views here d i f f e r from elsewhere i n h i s w r i t i n g s i s s u r e l y
f
pre-
mature.

A f i n a l text gives the question of the r e l a t i o n between the cosmos and

time a d i f f e r e n t s l a n t . Time's i n t r i n s i c i n s e p a r a b i l i t y from cosmic movement
e n t a i l s , according to P l a t o , that i t not only came i n t o being with the heaven
but a l s o can only come to an end together with i t s d i s s o l u t i o n (38b6-7). Philo
quotes these two l i n e s at Prov.1.20, i n t r o d u c i n g them with the words: 'Fur-
thermore on the subject of the d i s s o l u t i o n of the cosmos and the c o n d i t i o n of
i t s creatures the Greek sage P l a t o himself speaks i n the Timaeus thus'.

According to Conbeare J P h i l o l 21(1893)71 the quote deviates from the receive d

P l a t o n i c text i n three not very important r e s p e c t s : (1) i t reads ouxt instead
of ouv (so that the sentence becomes a q u e s t i o n ) ; (2) yevndevxes i n s t e a d of
yevvndevxes; (3) auxcov Auats i t s i n s t e a d of XVOLZ i t s auxwv. Conybeare as-
sumes, on account of the s l a v i s h n e s s of the Armenian rendering, that these
changes were present i n P h i l o s t e x t , but of t h i s we cannot be c e r t a i n (yevr)
f -

devxes at Philop.Aet.15.2 555.21 Rabe).

P h i l o c i t e s these l i n e s as a p r o o f - t e x t not because he i s concerned about
the intimat e r e l a t i o n between time and the cosmos (contras t the use of the
t e x t by Plut.Mor.1007D, Apul.De Plat.201), but because i t i n d i c a t e s more c l e a r -
l y than any other text i n the Timaeus that P l a t o makes allowance f o r the pos-
s i b l e d i s s o l u t i o n of the cosmos. The p o t e n t i a l character of the tex t i s of
 II 5.3.1. 185

course a l l - i m p o r t a n t . I t i s P l a t o n i c a l l y h e r e t i c a l to say that the cosmos ac-

t u a l l y will come to an end (see below I I 6.1.1.). P h i l o ' s i n t e n t i o n s i n quot-
ing these words can only be gauged i n r e l a t i o n to h i s i n t e n t i o n i n Prov.I as a
whole. P l a t o ' s text was taken up with enthusiasm i n C h r i s t i a n a p o l o g e t i c s ( c f .
Eus.PE 11.32.3).

5.3.2. Time a n d eternity

In three passages P h i l o makes reference to the paradeigmatic r e l a t i o n be-

tween time and e t e r n i t y which i s fundamental to P l a t o ' s account i n Tim.37d-38c.
Mut.267: Exegesis of Gen.17:21, i n which i t i s w r i t t e n that Isaac w i l l be
born ev xtp evuauxcp xtf exlpw. This s i g n i f i e s not the normal extension of time
( x o u xpovou 6udoxnua) measured by monthly and y e a r l y r e v o l u t i o n s , but a t r u l y
mysterious year, d i s s o c i a t e d (exepov) from v i s i b l e and sense-perceptibl e things.
It has i t s p l a c e i n the i n c o r p o r e a l realm and has r e c e i v e d the Ttapddeuyua nai

apxexuitov of time, namely auuv. The word auwv P h i l o explains as s i g n i f y i n g

the 3^os of the xoouos vonxos, j u s t as xpbvog represents the 3L-OS of the H O O -

U O S aCo^nxos. (In the p a r a l l e l passage QG 3.60 the e t e r n a l nature of the

'other year' i s not mentioned.)

Deus 31-32: R e f l e c t i n g on the apparent repentance of God i n Gen.6:5-7,

Philo declares that there i s no need f o r God ever to change h i s mind, f o r the
course of f u t u r e events i s p e r f e c t l y c l e a r to him (Deus 29-30). A b r i e f com-
ment on God's r e l a t i o n to the phenomenon of time i s then appended (§31-32).
God has, as i t were, two sons — the n o e t i c cosmos, which as o l d e r son he keeps
to h i m s e l f , and the younger son, our v i s i b l e cosmos. Since the cosmos i s the
f a t h e r of time, God can be s a i d to be i t s grandfather. With God there i s no
f u t u r e , s i n c e he has marked out the l i m i t s of time. God's l i f e (3^os) i s not
time but aucuv, xo apxexurcov xou xpovou nai Ttapa6ebyua. P h i l o does not tell us
here whether auwv i s a l s o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the n o e t i c cosmos, as a f f i r m ed i n
Mut.267. The f a c t that the n o e t i c cosmos i s e x p l i c i t l y s a i d to remain with
God and a l s o the strong i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus renders such a conclusion
probable. In the f i n a l sentence P h i l o e x p a t i a t e s on what he means by the e t e r -
n i t y which c h a r a c t e r i z e s God's l i f e : ev aucovu 6e ouxe TtapeAr|Au§ev oi)6ev ouxe
ueAAeu, aAAa uovov ucpeoxnxev. A l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n reads: 'and in eternity
nothing has passed away or i s s t i l l to occur, but i t i s only i n a s t a t e of
present existence'. J.Whittaker, God Time Being: two studies i n the transcen-
d e n t a l t r a d i t i o n i n Greek philosophy (Oslo 1971) 38-39 has shown that ucpeoxnxe
i s taken from S t o i c terminology on the subject of time ( c f . SVF 2.509). The
remark must a l s o s t r o n g l y remind us, however, of P l a t o ' s a s s e r t i o n i n 37e4-
186 ANALYSIS

38b5 that only the present (eoxu, e t v a i ) can be l e g i t i m a t e l y predicated of

the du6uos ouota, the hallmark of which i s aiLwv.
Her.165: In d i s c u s s i n g the a c t i v i t y of the Logos tomeus P h i l o demonstra-
tes that a l s o Moses i s a great e u l o g i s t of e q u a l i t y (§161ff.). An illustra-
t i o n i s provided by the s i x days of God's c r e a t i v e a c t , as o u t l i n e d i n the
Mosaic cosmogony. There were three days before the sun's c r e a t i o n and three
days a f t e r . Thus three days must be assigned to aucav and three days to x p o v o s ,
the uuunya a u f i v o s . E x e g e t i c a l l y the thought i s n e a t l y c o n t r i v e d , but philoso-
p h i c a l l y i t i s not very i n f o r m a t i v e , e s p e c i a l l y i f we r e c a l l that f o r P h i l o
the days are meant only d i d a c t i c a l l y , not literally. Once again, however, we
see how f i r m l y P h i l o a s s o c i a t e s time with the heavenly bodies, following the
lead of both Moses and Plato.

atd)V i s thus the $uos of both God and n o e t i c cosmos. Such a formulation
does not i s s u e d i r e c t l y from Tim.37c-38c. P l a t o , i n d e s c r i b i n g the model i n
terms such as r) xou Ctpou cpuous auwvtos (37d3, cf.37e5,38b8), has clearly laid
the foundation f o r i t . But the demiurge i s never c a l l e d aucovtos, only wv aet
34a8, cf.37a1). Between P l a t o and P h i l o important i n t e r p r e t a t i v e developments
have taken p l a c e . A text such as Soph.248e-249a stimulated the idea that
( s p i r i t u a l ) l i f e and motion and i n t e l l i g e n c e must be a t t r i b u t e d to the world
of i d e a s . 1
Moreover A r i s t o t l e ' s l y r i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n of h i s highest god was in-
f l u e n t i a l : cpauev 6e xov %eov etvau Cwov a t 6 u o v dpuaxov, woxe Cwri Kat auwv ouv-
I x n s nat du6uos undpxet Tip %e§' xouxo yap o £eos (Met .A 7 1072b29-31, c f . De
Caelo 1.9 279a23-30). Thus, when i n e a r l y Middle Platonism the world of ideas
was presented as thoughts i n God's mind, i t was only l o g i c a l to regard the
auwv which P l a t o had a t t r i b u t e d to the model as the measure of God's existence.
See Tim.Locr.24,30 and B a l t e s ' comments ad l o c . , Plut.Mor.1007C-D,392E-393B.
The last-named passage speaks of God's transcendence above time with a s u b l i m i t y
and awe that would have done P h i l o proud. I t i s against t h i s background of
developments i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Tim.37c-38c that P h i l o ' s b r i e f remarks
on the r e l a t i o n between auoov and xpovos, made i n e x e g e t i c a l contexts, can be
seen i n f u l l clarity.

It must not be overlooked that those P h i l o n i c texts which speak of attLv

as d e s c r i b i n g God's l i f e or that of the M O O U O S V O T I T O S are much l e s s frequent
than those i n which the word r e f e r s to an u n s p e c i f i e d long or endless period
of (cosmic) time, a usage c l o s e r to that of the LXX ( c f . esp. Leg.3.25 (exeg.
Gen.35:4), Fug.57 (exeg. Deut.4:4) and the comments of Whittaker op.cit.33-35;
other exx. of a temporal use of atcLv at Wolf son 1.321). P h i l o i n t h i s follows
the example of P l a t o , who refused to p i n himself down to a r i g i d terminology
with regard to expressions of time, sometimes to the p e r p l e x i t y of h i s i n t e r -
p r e t e r s ( c f . Cornford 98 on 37d6). Thus when P h i l o speaks at Plant.8 of Aoyos
o du6bos $eou aluvCox), and at Conf .41 of the Logos as a § d v a x o v dvdpu)7tov § e o u
os T O U d t 6 u o u Aoyos wv e£ dvdyHriS nau auxos eoxtv d(p$apxos we may be c e r t a i n 9
 II 5.3.2. 187

that he i s attempting to d i s t i n g u i s h between the t e m p o r a l i t y which can be as-

signed to God and to h i s i n t r a - c o s m i c Logos, but that he uses d i f f e r e n t sets
of terms to do so. Wolfson 1.234-235 &n.53 has d i f f i c u l t y s y s t e m a t i z i n g these
passages.
Twice a l r e a d y we have r e f e r r e d to the exemplary monograph of Whittaker,
the bulk of which c o n s i s t s of a chapter devoted to 'God and time i n P h i l o of
A l e x a n d r i a ' . His p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t l i e s i n what P h i l o p r e c i s e l y means by
the e t e r n i t y of God and the n o e t i c cosmos. B a s i c to the study i s the d i s t i n c -
t i o n between e t e r n i t y as i n f i n i t e , non-temporal d u r a t i o n , which i s regarded as
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the P l a t o n i c forms and A r i s t o t l e ' s Unmoved mover, and non-
d u r a t i o n a l e t e r n i t y , as conceived i n the oAov dua of the N e o p l a t o n i s t s ( c f .
P r o c l . E l . T h e o l . 5 3 ) and the semper praesens a e t e r n i t a s of Augustine (Conf.11.
13). His t h e s i s i s that the second conception was developed as the r e s u l t of
equating conscious d e i t y with P l a t o n i c r e a l i t y , as seen f o r example at P l u t .
Mor.393A (12-13). Tim.37c-38c provided the i n s p i r a t i o n and terminology f o r
the change, though i t s e l f not e x p r e s s i n g the conception of n o n - d u r a t i o n a l
e t e r n i t y (48). Is t h i s conception found i n P h i l o , as one might expect on the
b a s i s of the above t h e s i s ? Whittaker reviews the texts we have c i t e d so f a r
and f i n d s no grounds f o r such an a s s e r t i o n . But the words of another t e x t ,
Sacr.76 (on which see above I I 1.2.1.) un6ev. . .nap'auxcp (§etp) naAauov n rcape-
AriAudos, aAAa y t v o u e v o v xe axpovwg wau ucpeoxnxos, seem to him to c o n s t i t u t e 'a
somewhat c l u m s i l y expressed v e r s i o n of the Neoplatonic d o c t r i n e of non-dura-
t i o n a l e t e r n i t y ' (45). The same can be s a i d i n my view, pace Whittaker 35, of
the ev T(p %pb ailwvos at Mut. 11-12 (exeg. Ex.3:14-15, c f . Mut .27-29) . I t can-
not be the task of t h i s commentary to pass judgment on the v a l i d i t y of Whitta-
ker 's main t h e s i s , f o r such a judgment w i l l depend more on one's i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n of the r e l a t i o n between time and e t e r n i t y i n Parmenides, P l a t o and A r i s -
t o t l e than on the a n a l y s i s of s c a t t e r e d passages i n P h i l o .

5.3.3. Philo on time

P h i l o has f i r m l y - h e l d and g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t views on the s u b j e c t of

time, f o r which he i s g r e a t l y , i f not e x c l u s i v e l y , indebted to the Timaeus.
His conception of time has a s t r o n g o b j e c t i v e emphasis ( i n t h i s following
Plato). I t i s considered i n s e p a r a b l e from, though not i d e n t i c a l w i t h , the
movement of the heavenly b o d i e s . Man gains a sense of time because God has
enabled him to contemplate these movements. From our a n a l y s i s i t can be seen
that these views have to be gathered together from passages scattered through-
out h i s works, most of which have a B i b l i c a l text as s t a r t i n g p o i n t . There are
no s u b s t a n t i a l and p e n e t r a t i n g d i s c u s s i o n s on the nature of time, nothing even
remotely resembling Augustine's r e f l e c t i o n s i n book XI of the C o n f e s s i o n s . On
the other hand, i t i s unwarranted to conclude that P h i l o has never taken the
t r o u b l e to t h i n k through the q u e s t i o n of what time i s , f o r i n that case the
c o n s i s t e n t views which emerged i n our a n a l y s i s could not be e x p l a i n e d . The
subject of time i s above a l l important because of i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the un-
derstanding of what i t means to a f f i r m that the cosmos i s c r e a t e d . For an un-
derstanding of what yeveobg means P l a t o ' s great work can serve as a guide.
But the p a r a l l e l s between the two c r e a t i o n accounts with regard to the subject
of time extend f u r t h e r , as we s h a l l see i n the f o l l o w i n g s u b - s e c t i o n .
188 ANALYSIS

5.4. The c r e a t i o n o f t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s ( T i m . 5 8 b - 4 1 a)

5.4.1. The T i m a e u s a n d t h e f o u r t h d a y o f creation

Nowhere, i t might be argued, are the p o i n t s of resemblance between P l a -

to's cosmogony and the c r e a t i o n account of Moses so apparent as i n the c r e a -
t i o n of the heavenly bodies, which according to Moses takes p l a c e on the fourt h
day and accordin g to P l a t o a f t e r the c r e a t i o n of the cosmic s o u l . Surely no
educated Greek who happened to read the words eoxwoav.. .eiLs nyepas nai tig
evtauTOUs at Gen.1:14 could f a i l to be reminded of Tim.37e1,39c1-5. Converse-
l y every devout Jew who was confronted with the statement that the heavenly
bodies obeyed the demiurge's command (TO Tipooxax^ev eucx^ev 38e6) must have im-
mediately thought of the commands that God the c r e a t o r i s s u es on the v a r i o u s
days of c r e a t i o n account. 1

If we look at Gen.1:14-19 and Tim.38~40d through the eyes of a contempor-

ary of P h i l o , the s i m i l a r i t i e s can be summarized as f o l l o w s :
1. The heavenly bodies are created by God/the demiurge as p a r t of an ordered
sequence.
2. They are created to serve a purpose, i . e . overt t e l e o l o g y .
3. The f u n c t i o n of the heavenly bodies i s r e l a t e d to the measurement of time
(Gen. 1:14 i n s n u e p a s , xfjs v u x x o s , eus nuepas nai e t s e v u a u x o u s , though the
word x p o v o s i s not used).
4. The heavenly bodies l i g h t up the heavens (cf.39b6 cpauvou, Gen. 1:15,17 cpau-
veuv) and d i v i d e the day i n t o day and n i g h t .
5. The sun has a s p e c i a l task (cf.39b4-c1, Gen.1:16).
6. The heavenly bodies e x e r c i s e r u l e r s h i p (Gen.1:16,18, 42e2, c f . below I I
6.2.2. ) .
But i f our f i c t i o n a l reader was at a l l observant, he might a l s o n o t i c e
the f o l l o w i n g d i f f e r e n c e s :
1. The g r e a t e r part of the language r e f e r r i n g to the heavenly bodies i n the
LXX - cpwoTnpes, oxepewuwa, cpauous xng yfjs e t c . - i s not found i n the Timaeus.
2. In the Genesis account the heavenly bodies do not teach man number.
3. Moses shows no i n t e r e s t i n the science of astronomy. The names of the sun
and the moon are not given, the other p l a n e t s are not mentioned. That which
for P l a t o i s most important of a l l , the p e r f e c t i o n and pure r a t i o n a l i t y of the
heavenly motions, i s of no concern to Moses.
4. Moses r e s o l u t e l y d e c l i n e s to d e i f y the heavenly bodies ( c f . Deut.4:19),
whereas to P l a t o they are %eol opotxou (40d4) .
 II 5.4.1. 189

P h i l o discusses Gen.1:14-19 on only two occasions, i n Opif.45-61 as part

of h i s commentary on the Mosaic c r e a t i o n account, and b r i e f l y at Plant.118
when d i s c u s s i n g the B i b l i c a l v i r t u e s of the number f o u r . Against the back-
ground of the a f f i n i t i e s and d i s p a r i t i e s between Moses and P l a t o which we have
j u s t o u t l i n e d , the former passage can serve as an e x c e l l e n t t e s t c a s e f o r the
adjudication of the extent to which P h i l o allows h i s knowledge of the Timaeus
to i n f l u e n c e the way he i n t e r p r e t s the B i b l i c a l account.

§45-46: P h i l o s comments on the seemingly i l l o g i c a l and u n p h i l o s o p h i c a l

f

sequence of the c r e a t i o n account (earth and i t s v e g e t a t i o n created before the

heavenly bodies) have already been discussed above i n I I 5.1.1.
§47-52: The d i s c u s s i o n o f the a r i t h m o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the num-
ber four n a t u r a l l y has no equivalen t i n the Timaeus.
§53-54: The mention of the i l l u m i n a t o r y task of the heavenly bodies (eus
cpauauv Tfjs Yns Gen. 1:14) encourages P h i l o to make a d i g r e s s i o n on the b e n e f i t s
of l i g h t . L i g h t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y b e n e f i c i a l to man i n t h a t , being the p r e r e -
q u i s i t e f o r s i g h t , i t s t a r t s man on the path to philosophy (a topos derived
from TTim.47a-c and discussed below at I I 7.2.3.). I t i s a d i g r e s s i o n here be-
cause i t c l e a r l y extrapolates beyond the B i b l i c a l t e x t . Moreover i t s l o g i c a l
place i n the commentary must be after the c r e a t i o n of man, as i n P l a t o ' s a c -
count ( c f . Opif.77-78,147).
§55: P h i l o commences h i s d i r e c t paraphrase/explanation of the Mosaic text,
beginning here with v.14. The c r e a t o r looks to the form of i n t e l l i g i b l e l i g h t
belonging to the aawuaxos xoauos and creates the v i s i b l e heavenly bodies. We
are meant to r e c a l l , of course, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Gen.1:4 at Opif.31 i n
terms of the n o e t i c model of the Timaeus. But the reason that P h i l o r e i t e r -
ates i t p r e c i s e l y here has more to do with the s t r u c t u r e of the Mosaic account
than the P l a t o n i c dialogue. Gen.1:14 s t r o n g l y r e c o l l e c t s the language o f Gen.
1:4-5 and P h i l o i n f e r s a d e l i b e r a t e reference to the paradeigmatic l i g h t c r e -
ated on 'day one'. The Mosaic d e s c r i p t i o n cpwaxripes ev x$ axepewuaxu xou oupa-
vou i s converted to xous aio%r)TOVg aaxepas, dydAuaxa %eZa nai iteptxaAAeaxaxa,
oi>s waiep ev Cepcp xadapwxdxw xrjs awuaxuxf]s ouatas u'6pue x$ oupavtp. The temple
imagery here i s i n s p i r e d by Tim.37c6, A r i s t o t l e De p h i l . f r . 1 4 , 1 8 Ross, and a
long l i n e of H e l l e n i s t i c i m i t a t o r s ( c f . F e s t u g i e r e Revelation 2.233ff., Boy-
ance REG 76(1963)105f.; other examples of temple imagery used f o r the heaven
or the cosmos at Plant.50, Her.75, Spec.1.66, Aet.73, QE 2.85 e t c . , on which
see F r u c h t e l 6 9 f f . ; the f i r s t of these t e x t s , exegesis of Ex.15:17, reminds us
that P h i l o ' s conception of the cosmos o r the heaven as a temple a l s o has s i g -
n i f i c a n t B i b l i c a l and Judaic r o o t s , e.g. Ps.10:4). At the same time i t must
be noted that P h i l o makes no attempt to avoid the d e i f i c a t i o n of the heavenly
bodies ( c f . the d e s c r i p t i o n %eoi ailadnxot. at Opif.27, Spec. 1.19-20 (note the
context!) e t c . ) . The f u n c t i o n s of the heavenly bodies are d e r i v ed d i r e c t l y
from Gen. 1:14 and are four i n number: T O cpwacpopeuv, to be anueua, to f i x the
xaupot, to i n d i c a t e the uexpa xpovou and the apuduou cpuaus. In the paragraphs
that f o l l o w P h i l o deals with these one by one.
§56-57: The l i g h t - b e a r i n g heavenly bodies are d i v i d e d i n t o two groups.
On i t s own the sun r u l e s the day l i k e a great k i n g ( c f . Gen.1:16, the compari-
son i s a t y p i c a l l y P h i l o n i c a d d i t i o n ) , while the night i s entrusted to the
moon and the s t a r s . P h i l o i s paraphrasing Gen.1.16-18.
§58-59: B r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f the f u n c t i o n of the heavenly bodies as pro-
v i d i n g anueCa. P h i l o i n t e r p r e t s anpeua as r e f e r r i n g to m e t e o r o l o g i c a l phenom-
ena, not a s t r o l o g i c a l information (of such d o c t r i n e s he i s f r e q u e n t l y c r i t i c a l ,
c f . Prov.1.77-88 and below I I 6.2.2.). Compare P l a t o ' s c r i t i c a l remark on
cpo$ous nai anueuot xGJv yexd xauxa yevn.aouevu)v at 40c9-d1, which i s d i r e c t e d at
both s u p e r s t i t i o u s b e l i e f s and a s t r o l o g i c a l p r a c t i c e s . P h i l o ends by a l l u d i n g
d i r e c t l y to the B i b l i c a l t e x t , ihg a(l>eu6eaxaxa AeAex$au oxt yeYovaauv "eus an-
ueua" ot aaxepes (v.14). Only the words eus anueua are Mosaic (C-W's p l a c e -
190 ANALYSIS

ment of yeyovaaLV eug or)\ieZa i n quotation marks i s i n c o r r e c t ) . We suddenly

r e a l i z e that he i s q u i e t l y a v o i d i n g the crude vocabulary of the LXX, such as
(pojOTfipes and the phrase eoxwoav eus omieZa. The use of cpwaxnpes to denote the
s t a r s would seem as u n c u l t i v a t e d i n the educated ears of P h i l o as the words
' t w i n k l e r ' or 'beamer' would to us. The word i s replaced by the conventional
(and P l a t o n i c ) a o x e p e s ( a l s o found i n v. 16).
§59: Even b r i e f e r d e s c r i p t i o n of the f u n c t i o n of the heavenly bodies to
i n d i c a t e xaupou . Once again P h i l o l i f t s the i n o f f e n s i v e phrase eus xaupous
from the B i b l i c a l text (v.14).
§60: P h i l o ' s treatment of the f u n c t i o n of the heavenly bodies as i n d i c a -
t i n g the measurement of time and number i s a l s o very b r i e f . Here the i n f l u -
ence of the Timaeus r e t u r n s . The expression nyepau xau yfjves evuauxou i s
K a u

a c t u a l l y a ' c r o s s between the Mosaic eig riyepas xau eus e v u a u x o u s (v. 14) and
1

the P l a t o n i c n y e p a s xau v u x x a s xau yrjvas xau e v u a u x o u s (37e1, cf.39c1-5). For

y e x p a x p o v o u cf.39b2, f o r n apuSyou cpuaus cf.39b6,47a6. The LXX speaks of day
and n i g h t , days and years, but not, as we noted above, of time and number.
P h i l o as commentator introduces these concepts — the Greek cosmological back-
ground i s assumed, c f . esp. x e x a y y e v o u s Tiepu66ous ~~ but decides not to d i g r e s s
i n t o the r e l a t e d p h i l o s o p h i c a l thematics.
§61: Concluding summary. Not a l l the f u n c t i o n s of the heavenly bodies
can be comprehended by man's l i m i t e d understanding, but we may be sure that
they a l l c o n t r i b u t e to the p r e s e r v a t i o n of the whole, o p e r a t i n g according to
God's immutable ordinances.
Plant.118 paraphrases Gen.1:14-19 i n a manner very s i m i l a r to Opif.55,60.
Mosaic language i s wholly avoided (note uepiLxaxov xopov xwv a a x e p w v ) .

On the b a s i s of the above a n a l y s i s we must conclude that P h i l o , though

q u i t e w e l l aware of the s i m i l a r i t i e s between Moses' and P l a t o ' s accounts, cho-
ses to adhere r a t h e r c l o s e l y to the text on which he i s commenting. To be sure,
the language of the LXX i s d e l i b e r a t e l y avoided and the f a m i l i a r terms and
phrases from the Timaeus and l a t e r H e l l e n i s t i c w r i t i n g s take i t s p l a c e . But
when expounding the f u n c t i o n s and general s i g n i f i c a n c e of the heavenly beings
P h i l o r e t a i n s the demarcations of the B i b l i c a l account. The a b s t r a c t concep-
t i o n s of time and number are b r i e f l y introduced, but they are not used as a
springboard f o r p e n e t r a t i n g d i s c u s s i o n s or s p e c u l a t i o n on astronomical or p h i -
losophical subjects. And so the reader who turns to these comments on the
f o u r t h day of c r e a t i o n i n the hope that he w i l l d i s c o v e r there P h i l o ' s answers
to the problem of the r e l a t i o n of time to the c r e a t i o n a l process, f o r example,
w i l l f i n d h i s expectations disappointed.

5.4.2. The a s t r o n o m y o f t h e T i m a e u s

P l a t o d i d not w r i t e the Timaeus with the i n t e n t i o n of p r e s e n t i n g an as-

tronomical text-book. His aim i s s t r i c t l y p h i l o s o p h i c a l . In order to demon-
s t r a t e the p e r f e c t i o n and r a t i o n a l i t y of the movements of the heavenly bodies,
he crams a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of astronomical i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o the space of a
few pages. Much of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was technically d i f f i c u l t . In l a t e r
 II 5.4.2. 191

a n t i q u i t y i t was the task of commentaries and handbooks to make these doc-

t r i n e s a c c e s s i b l e to readers l e s s w e l l versed i n the t e c h n i c a l i t i e s of Greek
astronomical s c i e n c e . The best example of such works s t i l l extant i s the work
of Theon of Smyrna, whose t i t l e c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s i t s purpose: Ta x a T a T O ya-
^nyaTuxov x p n a u y a e u s Triv ITXaTwvos avayvwoLV (the commentary of Cornford fills
the same need today).
P h i l o c a l l s astronomy 'the queen of the s c i e n c e s ' , because i t i s concer-
ned with the study of the heavens, 'the best and greates t of c r e a t e d t h i n g s '
(Congr.50, from the etymology of M i l c a h Gen.22:23). His knowledge of astrono-
my, as i n d i c a t e d by s c a t t e r e d r e f e r e n c es i n h i s w r i t i n g s , i s more than ade-
quate, and no doubt i s t y p i c a l of the knowledge of the well-educated gentleman
of h i s time.

See the i n f o r m a t i v e remarks of Alexandre PAL 121-123. Festugière underrates

his competence i n the comments at Révélation 2.530-533. T r a n s l a t o r s too are
sometimes unable to a p p r e c i a t e P h i l o ' s acquaintance with t e c h n i c a l astronomi-
cal expressions . An example at Spec.3.188, where Mangey, Heinemann and Colson
have overlooked the f a c t that nai a T I X O I T O S i s a t e c h n i c a l term f o r the l a t i t u -
d i n a l movement of the sun (and other p l a n e t s ) along the c i r c l e of the e c l i p t i c
between the t r o p i c s of Cancer and C a p r i c o r n ( c f . Theon Expos.math.134.18,135.
12,19 H i l l e r ) ; the t r a n s l a t i o n of Mosès FE 25.179 i s c o r r e c t . Another example
i s Whitaker's t r a n s l a t i o n (EE 1.41) of Opif.54 T W V ô'âvoyouws iz nai vnevavT-
uoos ô u T T a u s Ttepuoôous xpwpévwv as 'sped round i n two r e v o l u t i o n s out of har-
mony with each other', which i s very wrong when one r e a l i z e s that the f o l l o w -
ing words speak of 'the rhythmic dances of a l l these...'. A r n a l d e z ' v e r s i o n
(FE 1.175 i s to be p r e f e r r e d : 'les autres dissemblablement et en sens con-
t r a i r e avec une double révolution'), à v o u o t w s i s used here s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t -
l y than at 36d6; f o r ù n e v a v T t w s as t e c h n i c a l term c f . Theon 163.18 H i l l e r e t c .
(derived from 38d4,39b1, but the aspect of rétrogradation i s i g n o r e d ) .
This knowledge would seem to have been s u f f i c i e n t to allow him to f o l l o w the
d e t a i l s of P l a t o ' s hypothesis that the movements of the heavenly bodies are
p e r f e c t l y r e g u l a r and mathematically determinable. O c c a s i o n a l l y i n a fragment
of exegesis we glimpse a term or phrase that P h i l o may have drawn from P l a t o ' s
account. At QE 2.75, i n g i v i n g an e x p l a n a t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the can-
d l e s t i c k , he i s reminded by the phrase in TtXayCwv (Ex.25:32) of the o b l i q u i t y
of the Z o d i a c a l e c l i p t i c i n r e l a t i o n to the t r o p i c s . We r e c a l l that P l a t o de-
s c r i b e s the motion of the c i r c l e of the d i f f e r e n t ( i n the plane of the e c l i p -
tic) as o b l i q u e (itXayuav 39a1) to the motion of the c i r c l e of the same ( i n the
same plane as the t r o p i c s and the equator). Cf. a l s o the exegesis of OTpécpo-
yau and O T p e i i T O S noted above i n II 5.2.1. on Cher.25.

But the Timaeus i s c l e a r l y not P h i l o ' s only or even main source of infor-
mation on astronomical matters. This i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d by the names and the
order which he gives the p l a n e t a r y bodies. P l a t o adopts the Pythagorean order
and gives them the m y t h o l o g i c al names (38d1-6). P h i l o p r e f e r s the Chaldean
order ( i t s u i t s the symbolism of the c a n d l e s t i c k much b e t t e r , c f . Her.224 and
H a r l FE 15.274n.3) and the s c i e n t i f i c names introduced a f t e r P l a t o ' s death ( c f .
192 ANALYSIS

on Cher.22 above at I I 5.2.1.; a l s o used at QE 2.75, on which F e s t u g i e r e Reve-

l a t i o n 2.533 i s m i s l e d by Aucher's t r a n s l a t i o n ) . P h i l o i s f o l l o w i n g the gen-
e r a l consensus of o p i n i o n i n the astronomical science of h i s day ( c f . P.Boyan-
ce, etudes sur l e songe de S c i p i o n (Bordeaux 1936) 59-65,97-100, Alexandre PAL
122). At the same time he a l s o had r e l i g i o u s reasons f o r p r e f e r r i n g the s c i e n -
t i f i c names.

5.4.3. The g e n e r a o f a n i m a l s (39e-40a)

The cosmos must have, a c c o r d i n g to P l a t o , j u s t as many genera of animals

as the n o e t i c model possesses, namely f o u r : uua uev oupavuov Sewv yevos, aAAn.
6e TITHVOV xau aepoiopov, xpuxn 6e evu6pov eZdog, te^ov 6e xai, xepoaCov xexap-
TOV (39e6-40a2). That P l a t o has i n mind the correspondence of the yevn £u)wv
with the four elements, and by i m p l i c a t i o n the four regions of the cosmos, i s
c l e a r not o n l y from the way he d e s c r i b e s them, but a l s o from the f a c t that he
d i r e c t l y goes on to say that the d i v i n e genus was made f o r the most part from
fire. P l a t o ' s schematic p r e s e n t a t i o n of the correspondence between animal
genera, elements and cosmic regions thus has a p l e a s i n g s i m p l i c i t y . In P h i -
lo 's w r i t i n g s a more complex s i t u a t i o n i s encountered.

From the texts Pet.151-154 (exeg. Gen.4:14), Her.139-140 (exeg. Gen.15:

10), 238 (exeg. Gen.15:11), Spec.3.8, 4.118 (Lev.11:13ff.) i t i s apparent that
P h i l o too sees a correspondence between the elemental regions of the cosmos
and the animal genera that i n h a b i t them. In these texts the genera, i n as f a r
as they are mentioned, agree with P l a t o ' s q u a r t e t .
Of g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t and importance i s the way that P h i l o deals with the
c r e a t i o n of the yevn c$wv as recounted i n the Mosaic account of c r e a t i o n .
Aside from the heavenly bodies made on the f o u r t h day (which Moses does not
regard as C^a), these are created on the f i f t h and s i x t h days (Gen.1:20-31).
Once again the p a r a l l e l s between Moses and P l a t o must have s t r u c k P h i l o . Just
l i k e Moses P l a t o d i s c u s s e s the v a r i o u s genera of animals j u s t a f t e r the coming
i n t o being of the c e l e s t i a l bodies (39e-40a), even though t h e i r a c t u a l c r e a -
t i o n i s l e f t to 91d-92c (and then only i n r e f e r e n c e to the d o c t r i n e of metemp-
sychosis) . Moreover he appears to have taken Moses' repeated use of the phrase
HOttd yevos or xaxd yevn as at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y p a r a l l e l to P l a t o ' s r e f e r e n c e to
the v a r i o u s yevn. or eu6n of animals at 39e10 (§62 i d dvnxd yevn. e t c . ; c f . A l b .
Did. 16.1 xpua xd Aotud yevn. C$wv... drcep eueAAe $vr)xd eaeaSau). 1
Thus i n Opif.
62-68 eager use i s made of P l a t o ' s theory of a correspondence between the gen-
era of animals and the elements and regions of the cosmos. I t provides a
 II 5.4.3. 193

t h e o r e t i c a l framework, i n which the exegete can i n s e r t f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n r e -

levant to the B i b l i c a l account (and mostly drawn from other sources than the
Timaeus). The f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s are of i n t e r e s t f o r our i n q u i r y .
1. When P h i l o d e s c r i b e s the c r e a t i o n of the £ipa i n §62-64 the generic
names he uses are v i r t u a l l y the same as those found i n the Timaeus (cf.39b10-
40a2 quoted above): §62 i d evu6pa, §63 t d yevn. xwv TITTIVUJV, T W V depoitopwv, §64
i d xepoaua. Once again we note the tendency to avoid the e x o t i c and crude
language of the LXX. Only twice does P h i l o make any r e f e r e n c e to the termino-
logy and nomenclature of the Mosaic t e x t : the r e f e r e n c e to yevri xn-raJv i n §63,
cf. v.21 (but ilx$uu)v yevr) not found there, c f . Tim.92b6); the paraphrase of v.
24-25 i n §64, i^ayayeTia n yfj xirivri nai $r\pCa nai epneia H a d ' exaaiov yevog (the
strange e x p r e s s i on 4>uxn,v C&oav i s omitted; i n Leg.2.11 the verse i s more accu-
r a t e l y quoted). A l s o i n §65-68 the P l a t o n i c g e n e r i c names continue to be used.

2. I t i s a p p r o p r i a t e , says P h i l o , that the mortal genera of animals

should be c r e a t ed on the f i f t h day (§62). There i s a strong ovyyeveia between
animals and the number f i v e , f o r i t symbolizes auadnots and the f i v e senses.
But Moses records the animals as being created on both the f i f t h and s i x t h
days. This i s awkward, on account of the numerical symbolism and on account
of the ( P l a t o n i c ) schema of the three mortal genera grouped together . Conse-
quently P h i l o makes no reference at a l l to the f a c t that the land animals and
man were c r e a t e d on the s i x t h day.

3. In §65-68 P h i l o makes much of the b e a u t i f u l 'chain of sequence 1

which
Moses used i n d e s c r i b i n g the c r e a t i o n of the animals. Man i s the climax of
c r e a t i o n ( c f . a l s o §77-88), and before him the animals are created i n an ascen-
ding sequence of i n c r e a s i n g e l a b o r a t i o n and s o p h i s t i c a t i o n — f i s h e s , b i r d s ^
land animals. In P l a t o ' s account the c r e a t i o n of man i s the climax from the
l i t e r a r y and p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o i n t of view, but the a c t u a l c r e a t i o n a l sequence
i s c l e a r l y descending - cosmic s o u l , heavenly b o d i e s , l e s s e r gods, man, woman,
b i r d s , b e a s t s , r e p t i l e s , f i s h e s ; see f u r t h e r below I I 10.2.1-3.

There are, however, i n P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s three other passages which, pro-

ceeding from the same schematic correspondence between elements, cosmic r e -
gions and animal genera, reach r e s u l t s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the Timaeus.
Gig.6-11 (exeg. Gen.6:2): The cosmos must be wholly f i l l e d with l i f e
(i<\)\)x&o%ab) and each part must have i t s a p p r o p r i a t e t,ya - e a r t h i d xepoata,
water i d evu6pa, f i r e xd Tiupuyova, heaven the s t a r s . The a i r , as the only r e -
gion not y e t mentioned, cannot be deserted, and i n f a c t contains the i n v i s i b l e
souls which p h i l o s o p h e rs c a l l demons and Moses angels (hence the exegesis, f o r
P h i l o reads aYYeAot, not uuou i n the LXX t e x t ; on the e n t i r e passage see now
V.Nikiprowetzky, 'Sur une l e c t u r e demonologique de P h i l o n d'Alexandrie , De
194 ANALYSIS

gigantibus 6—18 f
Hommage à Georges Vadja (Louvain 1980) 43-71). The b a s i s of
t h i s schema i s the A r i s t o t e l i a n universe with f i v e elements and as many cosmic
regions. The semi-divine ô a û u o v e ç replace P l a t o ' s winged creatures ( i . e .
birds).
Somn.1.134-141 (exeg. Gen.28:12, Jacob's l a d d e r ) : This passage i s almost
e n t i r e l y p a r a l l e l to the f i r s t ( i t i s perhaps derived from the same source),
except that the f i r e - d w e l l e r s are l e f t out, i . e . the universe here has only
four elements and as many x y r i y o t T a (§135). The a i r i s the abode of incorporeal
s o u l s , i n v i s i b l e to the eye, of which some are disembodied human s o u l s , other
demons or angels (§138-141).

Plant.12-14: The f i n a l passage, part of the ' p h y t o l o g i c a l excursus', d i f -

f e r s only m a r g i n a l l y from the e a r l i e r two, and once again could come from the
same or a s i m i l a r source. P h i l o r e v e r t s to a f i v e element/cosmic r e g i o n sche-
ma and the T t u p u y o v a make a reappearance. But t h i s time the a i r has two kinds
of i n h a b i t a n t s , v i s i b l e winged creatures and i n v i s i b l e incorporeal souls. Cf.
a l s o Aet.45 where f i v e types of çtoa are mentioned.

It i s apparent that the d i r e c t i n s p i r a t i o n of these three passages i s not

the Timaeus. C e r t a i n l y P l a t o s u p p l i e d the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s . But i t must have
been f e l t that the Timaeus d i d not a s s i g n a s u f f i c i e n t l y d i s t i n c t i v e place to
the demons, whose existenc e i s v i r t u a l l y ignored i n the work ( b r i e f mention
only at 40d4). Yet demonology had r e c e i v e d P l a t o ' s imprimatur, f o r i n Symp.
202e he had attached much importance to the mediating f u n c t i o n of demons.
Thus soon a f t e r P l a t o ' s death m o d i f i c a t i o n s were made to h i s schema, making
room f o r demons and a l s o a l l o w i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y of a five-element universe :
c f
- Epinomis 984a-985b ( P h i l i p of Opus?), A r i s t o t l e (De p h i l . f r . 2 1 Ross, c f .
fr.21-22 U n t e r s t e i n e r ) , Xenocrates (see above I 4.&n.27). There r e s u l t e d a
long and complex t r a d i t i o n of development which has proved extremely d i f f i c u l t
to u n r a v e l . The r e s u l t a n t confusion i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d by Albinus Did.15.1,
16.1 and Apuleius De Plat.204-205, De Deo Socr.137-140, both of whom are P l a -
t o n i s t s p r o f e s s i n g to adhere to the d o c t r i n e s of P l a t o . The similarities be-
tween P h i l o and Apuleius suggest that P h i l o ' s source could have been a Middle
P l a t o n i s t work, but the l i n e s of development are so obscure that t h i s cannot
be considered certain.

On the t r a d i t i o n of development see f u r t h e r : Bousset S c h u l b e t r i e b 14-22; Jae-

ger A r i s t o t e l e s 146-149; K.Reinhardt, Kosmos und Sympathie (Munich 1926) 61-
86; W.Lameere, 'Sur un passage de P h i l o n d'Alexandrie (De p l a n t a t i o n e 1-6)'
Mnemosyne 4.4(1951)73-80; J.Beaujeu, Apulée: Opuscules philosophiques et f r a g -
ments ( P a r i s 1973) 219-222; L.Taran Academica 43-47,159-163; J.Den Boeft, C a l -
c i d i u s on demons (Commentarius ch.127-136) P h i l o s o p h i a antiqua 33 (Leiden 1977).

We conclude, t h e r e f o r e , that i n P h i l o ' s use of the d o c t r i n e of the corre-

spondence between animal genera, elements and cosmic regions, the Timaeus
makes i t s i n f l u e n c e f e l t i n two ways. In O p i f . the i n f l u e n c e can be d i r e c t ,
 II 5.4.3. 195

because Moses makes no mention o f the c r e a t i o n o f angels (or demons) i n h i s

c r e a t i o n a l account. In other t e x t s the i n f l u e n c e i s f e l t p r i m a r i l y v i a an i n -

t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n , j u s t as i n the case of the P l a t o n i s t s mentioned above.

E x e g e t i c a l c o n s t r a i n t plays a d e c i s i v e r o l e here. In the exegesis o f the pas-

sages i n Gig, and Somn.I i t i s c r u c i a l that the p l a c e of the angels i n the

universe be i n d i c a t e d , so P h i l o reproduces the schema which gives them t h e i r

own cosmic r e g i o n . On the s u b j e c t of the yi\)X) Cipojv i n P h i l o see a l s o the use-

f u l d i s c u s s i o n a t Schmidt 17-28 (with r e f e r e n c e s to many t e x t s ) .

A basic p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e involved i n Plato's doctrine i s l u c i d l y

expressed at Prov.2.110, where P h i l o r e p l i e s t o Alexander's a c c u s a t i o n that

the purposeless extravagance o f nature forms an i n v i t a t i o n to the (unphiloso -

p h i c a l ) d e s i r e s of the p a l a t e (Greek preserved by E u s e b i u s ) : 2

avayxauov U E V yap rjv eus x n v T O U O A O U O U U T I A u p w a u v , uva y e v r i x a u x o a u o s , E V

E X C X G T W uepeu cpuvat £(J>a>v L.6eag a-rcavTOJV.

Here i s a testimony to what A.O.Lovejoy i n h i s c e l e b r a t e d study, The great

chain of being (52) , c a l l e d the p r i n c i p l e of plenitude, i n i t i a t e d by the Timaeus

(39e-40a,41b,92c) and d e s t i n e d t o have a long and b r i l l i a n t career i n the h i s -

t o r y of i d e a s . The cosmos, as image of the model, manifests as many genera of

l i v i n g beings as exhaust the p o s s i b i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e with the l i m i t a t i o n s of

the cosmos' s t r u c t u r e . P h i l o ' s words c i t e d above echo at a d i s t a n c e Tim.92c

5-6, §vn.Td yap xau adavaia £cj>a Aaftojv Mat auuTtAn.pw$£us O6E o xoauos OUTGO. See

a l s o Gig.7, Conf.179 (here c f . a l s o Tim.41b), Somn.1.135, 2.116, Abr.2 T E A E L -

OTCXTOV n a i TcAnpeoxaTov 6 x o a u o s . The Jewish d o c t r i n e of the f u l n e s s of God's

creation (e.g. Ps.23:1,49:12,103:24-25) i s a l s o r e l e v a n t here. It i s reflec-

ted i n the copious l y r i c i s m of P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n s of the cosmos and i t s p a r t s

(e.g. Spec.3.185-188). But h i s c o n v i c t i o n that the p e r f e c t i o n and complete-

ness of the cosmos i s the r e f l e c t i o n of i t s rational s t r u c t u r e — as seen i n t e r

alia i n the correspondence of elements, cosmic regions and genera of animals —

i s p e c u l i a r l y Greek, and i s u l t i m a t e l y d e r i v e d from the Timaeus.

A f i n a l text which i s o f i n t e r e s t i n t h i s context i s the d e f i n i t i o n of

the cosmos a t t r i b u t e d to P l a t o i n Prov.1.21. We give an E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n

and a Greek r e t r a n s l a t i o n (aided by Weitenberg), followed by some notes.

And the c o s m o s a c c o r d i ng t o P l a t o i s a c o n c o r d of heaven and e a r t h and

1

the natures i n i t , c o n s i s t i n g of f i r e and of e a r t h and o f water and of

2

air, 3
and of gods and of demons and of men and of animals and of p l a n t s
and of m a t t e r . 4

x o a u o s uev ouv E O T L xai d IIAdTwva ouovoua T U S ¿5 oupavou xai, E X yrjs n a i in

T W V E V aura) (or auxfj) cpuoEwv, auvEOTnxuua E X nupos n a i en yf\Q n a i iE, u 6 a -
TOS XCXL a s p o s , n a i i n $£6JV n a i in 6auuovwv n a i it, av^pwitcav n a i in
•dpEuycxTOJV n a i in (puxaiv n a i eE, uAns.

Notes

1. A l l p a r a l l e l d e f i n i t i o n s use the word o u o T n u a ( c f . Aet.4, Diog.Laert.7.138,

Ps.Arist.De mundo 2 391b9). Aucher c i t e s an Armenian v e r s i o n o f the l a s t t e x t
196 ANALYSIS

which t r a n s l a t e s auGxn.ua w i t h a d i f f e r e n t word than that used i n Prov.1.21.

That word i n d i c a t e s the u n i t y and coherence of the cosmos, r e p r e s e n t i n g óuó-
vota, óuoAoyta, auucpojvila v e l sim.
2. L i t e r a l l y i n i t (gender i n d i s t i n c t , so i t can r e f e r to cosmos, heaven or
f 1

e a r t h ) ; but the p a r a l l e l passages have èv a u x o C s or êv x o u x o u s , so the emenda-

t i o n i n them i s probable.
! 1

3. As B a l t e s 36 notes, t h i s i s the P l a t o n i c sequence; c f . Tim.32b3.

4. Aucher's t e x t gives the word f o r 'and i n i t a l i c s , i . e . i t i s h i s own con-
1

jecture. I t i s q u i t e unexpected t o f i n d uAn, concluding the l i s t of contents

(presumably i n the meaning of 'inanimate m a t e r i a l ' ) . Should we c o n j e c t u re
'and p l a n t s , <made> out of u A n ? 1
The use of êx or è£ t h i r t e e n times and nai
ten or eleven times i n one sentence i s not f l u e n t , and seems h a r d l y P h i l o n i c .
Hadas-Lebel FE 35.144 comments on t h i s text:
'Bien qu'une semblable d e f i n i t i o n de 1'univers se r e t r o u ve chez Chrysippe
et P o s i d o n i o s , on ne peut d i r e que son a t t r i b u t i o n a P l a t o n s o i t Íe f r u i t
d'une inadvertance ou d'un anachronisme, c a r e l l e e s t tout a f a i t dans 1'
e s p r i t du Timée.'
This remark i s b a s i c a l l y c o r r e c t , but two aspects make the d e s c r i p t i o n 'tout
a f a i t ' exaggerated: (1) the mention of the demons shows the i n t e r p o s i t i o n of
the interpretative tradition; (2) no attempt i s made to l o c a t e a correspon-
dence between the elements out of which the cosmos i s made and the genera of
animals l o c a t e d i n them, as P l a t o had done i n the Timaeus.
 CHAPTER S I X

TIMAEUS 4 1 A - 4 2 E : THE DEMIURGE'S SPEECH AND F I N A L C R E A T I V E ACT

6.0. Introductory

6.1. The demiurge addresses the assembled gods (Tim.41a-d)

6.1.1. The cosmos w i l l not be destroyed (41a-b)
6.1.2. yeveous and cpdopcx
6.1.3. pouAnous
6.1.4. 6eouos
6.1.5. npovoua

6.2. The young gods (Tim.41c-d,42d-e)

6.2.1. The c r e a t o r ' s assistants
6.2.2. The heavenly bodies as apxovxes (42e)
6.2.3. Parents as subordinate c r e a t o r s

6.3. The demiurge's f i n a l a c t and retirement (Tim.41d-42e)

6.3.1. Some use of imagery
6.3.2. The seventh day of c r e a t i o n

6.0. Introductory

The demiurge addresses the assembled v i s i b l e and i n v i s i b l e gods which he

has created i n a solemn and s t a t e l y speech. True immortality cannot be con-
f e r r e d on them, he d e c l a r e s , but n e v e r t h e l e s s they w i l l not d i e , f o r h i s w i l l
i s a stronger bond than the f o r c e s of d i s s o l u t i o n . T h e i r task i s now to com-
p l e t e the demiurge's work. They are commanded to create the mortal genera of
animals, which the demiurge cannot create ( f o r i n that case these would become
equal to the gods). The demiurge's f i n a l task i s to create man's d i v i n e part
(detov 41c7), the r a t i o n a l part or vous (made from the same i n g r e d i e n t s as the
cosmic s o u l , but i n an impurer mix). P l a t o d e s c r i b e s the c r e a t i o n of the r a -
t i o n a l s o u l and i t s p r e - i n c a r n a t e education i n h i g h l y m y t h i c a l terms, d e l i b e -
r a t e l y reminiscent of the e s c h a t o l o g i c a l myths i n the Republic and Phaedrus
and c o n t a i n i n g the same emphasis on theodicy (41e4,42d3). Having c a r r i e d out
the c r e a t i v e tasks appropriat e to him, the demiurge r e t i r e s and continues to
abide i n h i s accustomed s t a t e .

At t h i s p o i n t we should remind the reader that the primary aim of t h i s

study i s to examine the i n f l u e n c e on P h i l o of the Timaeus as an account of the
198 ANALYSIS

creation and structural organization of the cosmos and man (see above I 5.1.c).

My i n t e n t i o n i s not to dwell at length on the e s c h a t o l o g i c a l or e t h i c a l as-

pects of P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e of man, f o r there he mainly r e c a p i t u l a t e s what he

had w r i t t e n i n the Phaedo, Republic and Phaedrus. In these areas P h i l o has

l e a r n t more from those dialogues than from the Timaeus, as the study of Bil-

l i n g s has amply shown.

6.1. The d e m i u r g e a d d r e s s e s t h e a s s e m b l e d gods (Tim.41a-d)

6.1.1. The cosmos will n o t be d e s t r o y e d (41a-d)

The first part of the demiurge's speech — i n which he a f f i r m s that what

has been bound together cannot be i n d i s s o l u b l e , but assures the gods that they

w i l l not t a s t e death, because h i s w i l l ($ouXn.ous) i s a stronger bond (6eoyos)

than the bonds with which they were bound at b i r t h (ox'eyiyveo%e 41b6) — is

one of the t e x t s of the Timaeus to which P h i l o most f r e q u e n t l y a l l u d e s . In

analysing t h i s usage our procedure w i l l be as f o l l o w s . We s h a l l commence by exa-

mining the one text where P h i l o a c t u a l l y quotes Tim.41a-b verbatim. This pas-

sage can show us the major themes which are e x t r a c t e d from P l a t o ' s words.

Having given a l i s t of other passages which a l l u d e to Tim.41a-b, we shall pro-

ceed to i n v e s t i g a t e these themes one by one i n the sub-sections that follow.

At Aet.13 the words of Tim.41a7-b6 are quoted as p a r t of the doxography

presented i n the i n t r o d u c t o r y s e c t i o n of that p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e . Philo

seems anxious to give chapter and v e r s e , f o r he not only introduces the cita-

t i o n w i th P l a t o ' s name ( r e q u i r e d i n the doxographical sequence), but a l s o adds

the l o c a t i o n s ev T t u a t o j and 6ud xfjs deoipETtous ennXr]oCa£.

For the second of these reference s I have not been able to f i n d any d i r e c t
parallels. In l a t e r a n t i q u i t y the scene was g e n e r a l l y r e f e r r e d to as the 6n.u-
nyopua (CI.Alex.Str.5.102.3, P r o c l . i n Tim.3.199.11). Here i s undoubtedly pre-
sent the tendency to Homericize the s e t t i n g of P l a t o ' s myth ( c f . esp. the d i s -
course of Zeus i n 11.8.5-27). The n o t i o n of the d i v i n e assembly i s a l s o not
f o r e i g n to the LXX, e.g. at Ps.81:1 o d e o s eoxri ev ouvaywyri detov, ev ueaop 6e
deous d t a x p b v e t ( c f . Job 1:6,2:1, Or.c.Cels .8.3) . We s h a l l see below i n II
6.2.1. that P h i l o regards the p l u r a l s at Gen.1:26,3:22,11:7 as i n d i c a t i n g that
God i s conversing w i t h a team of a s s i s t a n t s . The word he uses to d e s c r i b e
t h i s a c t i v i t y (dLaXeyEO^ab, Conf.168, Fug.69) i s a l s o used by Neoplatonist s to
d e s c r i b e the P l a t o n i c d i s c o u r s e ( c f . Boyance c i t e d on Fug.69).

If we take the text given i n C-W P h i l o ' s quotation differs from the re-

ceived P l a t o n i c text i n four respects:

Plato Philo

41a7 öu'euoö yevóueva a X u x a aXuxa

41a8 E%ÉXOVTOS §éXovxos
 II 6.1.1. 199

41b3 ouxu pev 6n ouxu y e pnv

41b5 ox'eyuyveode o x e eyuyveo$e

Of these d i f f e r e n c e s only the f i r s t i s important. Burnet's r e a d i n g i s suppor-

ted by a l l the P l a t o n i c mss., but the m a j o r i t y of ancient c i t a t i o n s share P h i -
lo's omission of 61/epou yevopeva. The t h i r d change no doubt occurred under
the i n f l u e n c e of 41b1. I f , however, we take a c l o s e r look at the f i r s t few
l i n e s of P h i l o ' s quote, i t becomes apparent that P h i l o n i c e d i t o r s have tended
to c o r r e c t the mss. readings by i n t r o d u c i n g readings taken from the P l a t o n i c
t e x t . We c i t e these l i n e s as given i n C-W:

%eoi $ewv, <wv> eyu) 6 n p t o u p y o s naxnp xe epywv, dAuxa epou ye pn $eAovxos.

T O pev o\5v 6f) 6e%ev nav Auxov, x o ye pnv xaAws dppoadev...

%eoi $etiv: A l l mss. have %ebg dewv.

<o)V>: Added by Turnebus from P l a t o .
dAuxa: Colson EE 9.526 c o n j e c t u r es <d> dAuxa, together w i t h the punctua-
t i o n $eou, $ewv... and the d e l e t i o n of <Sv>.
epou ye pf| freAovxos: Thi s r e a d i n g , given by Cohn on the b a s i s of the P l a -
t o n i c t e x t , i s i n f a c t found i n none of the mss.; MHP (and a l s o Bernays
and Cumont) read epou pn deAovxos, U (and Mangey) epou ye deAovxos* The
P l a t o n i c mss. are d i v i d e d between epou ye pn edeAovxos and epou y e e$e-
Aovxos. Burnet wrongly c i t e s P h i l o i n favour of the former r e a d i n g .
C u r i o u s l y the P h i l o n i c t e x t i s c o r r e c t e d on the b a s i s of the P l a t o n i c
t e x t , but an e d i t i o n of that t e x t c i t e s the c o r r e c t e d P h i l o n i c text f o r
support.
6n 6e$ev: A l l mss. have pn 6e§ev, c o r r e c t e d by Turnebus.

The f i r s t two changes are c e r t a i n l y d e f e n s i b l e , but not compelling. The word

wv could have e a s i l y dropped out by a c c i d e n t . I t i s eminently l i k e l y that
C h r i s t i a n s c r i b e s changed %eoC to the s i n g u l a r (the same has happened to the
same quote at Hippolytus Philos.19.7-8 ( D i e l s Dox.Gr.568.2,7 twice emends to
$ e o u ) ; c f . the u n r e l i a b i l i t y of P a t r i s t i c c i t a t i o n s of P h i l o noted by H a r l FE
15.158-159). At Ebr.150 a quote from Hesiod has been a l t e r e d i n three ways i n
order to convert § e o u t o § e o s . I t i s very d i f f i c u l t to determine whether t h i s
was done by P h i l o or by the mss. t r a d i t i o n . In the text now b e i n g d i s c u s s e d
P h i l o i s c e r t a i n l y endeavouring to reproduce P l a t o ' s words. But the opening
sentence of the quote i s n o t o r i o u s l y d i f f i c u l t to construe ( c f . Cornford 367-
370). I t i s not impossible that P h i l o may have been i n c l i n e d to make a small
change to make the meaning c l e a r . I t e n t a t i v e l y suggest that he read %ebg
§eG3v e y w 6 n p t o u p y o s Ttaxnp xe epyouv, <d> dAuxa... ( p a r t i a l l y f o l l o w i n g Colson;
P l a t o ' s statement would then become somewhat s i m i l a r to well-known Pentateu-
c h a l t e x t s such as Deut.5:6,10:1.7) . C f . Spec. 1 .20, os o u povov 3 e o s $eoov eoxu
vonxwv x a i aL-odnxwv aAAa x a i ndvxwv 6 n p u o u p y o s . With regard to the t h i r d
change I would p r e f e r to f o l l o w the m a j o r i t y of the mss., as Bernays and Cu-
mont d i d . The f o u r t h c o r r e c t i o n i s e v i d e n t l y necessary.

The reason that P h i l o quotes t h i s P l a t o n i c t e x t i s to prove that a c c o r-

ding to P l a t o the cosmos i s c r e a t e d (yevnxos) but not to be destroyed (dcp$ap-

xos). The words of the demiurge are thus a p p l i e d not only to the created gods

but to the cosmos as a whole, an e n t i r e l y j u s t i f i a b l e e x t r a p o l a t i o n i n the

l i g h t of the p a r a l l e l statement at 32c3-4, oooxe eig xauxov auxop ouveAdov aAu-

xov uito x o u dAAou %\r)v \)%6 xou auv6n.aavxos yeveadau. I t i s moreover c l e a r

that there i s no d i f f e r e n c e of view between P l a t o and Moses on t h i s i s s u e , f o r

a l s o Moses a f f i r m s (Gen.1:1, 8:22) that the cosmos i s yevnxos nal dcpdapxos

(§19). Indeed P h i l o ' s e x p l a n a t i o n of Gen.8:22, i n which he l o c a t e s Moses 1

d o c t r i n e of the dcpdapoua x o u K o o p o u , contains an echo of P l a t o ' s words (potpas

ddavdxou A^Ynvxec. rf.41b2.4).

200 ANALYSIS

The only comment given on the P l a t o n i c quotation by P h i l o i s that he re-

fuses to accept a d i d a c t i c or h y p o t h e t i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of P l a t o ' s doctrine
of genesis (§14; see above I I 2.1.3.). But a n a l y s i s of the doxography and of
other P h i l o n i c passages shows that he has chosen these p a r t i c u l a r words with
d e l i b e r a t e care, because to h i s mind they c o n t a in no l e s s than f i v e doctrines
w i t h i n the space of a few l i n e s , a l l of which are r e l e v a n t to the problematics
of the De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi ( c f . Runia 126): (1) the cosmos as a whole, i f not
a l l i t s contents, i s created by God as ónuuoupYÓs and Ttaxrip ( c f . a l s o 28c3);

(2) a l l that has been created and bound together i s fundamentally p e r i s h a b l e ;

(3) the i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y of the cosmos as a whole and of some of i t s parts i s
nevertheless guaranteed by the gouXnats of the c r e a t o r ; (4) the c r e a t o r i s (or
possesses) a óeapós which binds the cosmos together and holds the f o r c e s of
d i s s o l u t i o n at bay; (5) the i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y of the cosmos i s the r e s u l t of
God's p r o v i d e n t i a l a c t i v i t y . The f i r s t of these d o c t r i n e s we have already
d e a l t w i th at some length i n r e l a t i o n to Tim.28b-c,29e-30a. The other four
themes w i l l be examined i n more d e t a i l i n I I 6.1.2-5.

The remaining P h i l o n i c t e x ts i n which these themes are mentioned and in

which the i n f l u e n c e of Tim.41a-b i s p e r c e p t i b l e can be d i v i d e d i n t o two groups:
(1) passages which v e r b a l l y a l l u d e to P l a t o - Conf.166 (exeg. Gen.4:13 xou
ácpedñvau), Migr. 181, Her.23 (etymology Óecntóxns, Gen. 15:2), 246, Decal.58, Aet.
19; (2) passages which do not r e f e r d i r e c t l y to the P l a t o n i c text but utilize
the themes found there - Sacr.4Q, Her.188, Fug.112, Somn.1.158, Mos.2.61, Spec.
2.5, Prov.1.19, QG 2.15 (exeg. Gen.7:4), QE 2.106 (cf.89-90). It i s interest-
ing to observe t h a t , although the m a j o r i t y of the above passages are located
i n the e x e g e t i c a l t r e a t i s e s and are found i n e x e g e t i c a l contexts, they are on
the whole not c a l l e d f o r t h i n order to e x p l a i n s p e c i f i c B i b l i c a l texts or words
(exceptions Conf.166, Her.23, QG 2.15) but to place B i b l i c a l passages i n the
p e r s p e c t i v e of the d o c t r i n e of the i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y of the cosmos, which at
Aet.19 i s s p e c i f i c a l l y a s c r i b e d to Moses on the b a s i s of Gen.8:22.

A f i n a l aspect of Aet.13 must not escape our n o t i c e , namely that the P l a -

t o n i c doxographicum i s introduced by an anonymous (paaú. Without doubt P h i l o
i s i n d i c a t i n g the t r a d i t i o n a l nature of h i s doxographical material (cf.§12
evuou Xeyouou, §17 evtou vopúíouot; see above I I 2.1.3.). We s h a l l not go
a s t r a y , however, i f we see i n t h i s l i t t l e word a l s o a r e f e r e n ce to the popula-
r i t y of the text Tim.41 a-b i n demonstrating P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e of the dcpdapaúa
of the cosmos. The same can be deduced from Her.246, where P h i l o does not re-
port h i s own o p i n i o n or that of P l a t o , but the endless wranglings of the so-
p h i s t s who cannot s e t t l e among themselves whether the cosmos i s uncreated or
c r e a t e d , d e s t r u c t i b l e or e t e r n a l . P h i l o ' s words — (pdotpxóv. . ..cpúaeu, pnóéiioxe
 II 6.1.1. 201

ó è cpdaprjoóuevov ö t a T O KpaTatOTÉpoj öeaucp, Tfj T O U TteiourixÓTos gouAricreu, ouvéx~

ea$au — are very s i m i l a r to the manner i n which the doxographer Aëtius records
P l a t o ' s view on the t o p i c ei acpdapTOS ó x ó a u o s (Plac.2.4.2), except that i n

the l a t t e r ïïpóvota has r e p l a c e d óeoutp and $ov\r)oei ( c f . Tim.Locr.9). Here too

the emphasis has s h i f t e d from the heavenly bodies to the cosmos as a whole.
The d o c t r i n e of cosmic acp^apoua and the use of Tim.41a-b occur together f r e -
quently i n Middle P l a t o n i s t w r i t i n g s ; c f . Seneca Ep.58:27-29 ( c i t i n g a P l a t o -
n i s t s o u r c e ) , Diog.Laert.3.72 (on which see B a l t e s 7 0 f . ) , Plut.Mor.393F,927E,
1002C, Alb.Did.15.2, Apul.De Plat.198 ( r e f e r r i n g to the p a r a l l e l text Tim.32c),
Iuncus apud Stob.Ecl.5.1107.19ff, Att.fr.4(§5,14),25,32. I t must be agreed
with B a l t e s 37 that P h i l o i n h i s use of Tim.41a-b i s r e f l e c t i n g Middle P l a t o -
n i s t 'Schuldogma', which formulated the r e s u l t s of d i s c u s s i o n s that go back to
A r i s t o t l e and the Old Academy. 'Schuldogma should not, however, be taken to
1

mean that the subject was no longer a matter f o r d i s c u s s i o n or controversy, as

the v i o l e n t polemic of A t t i c u s against A r i s t o t l e and h i s f o l l o w e r s shows. A l -
so i n P a t r i s t i c l i t e r a t u r e Tim.41a-b was c o p i o u s l y used; c f . J u s t i n D i a l . 5 . 4 ,
Qr.c.Cels.6.10, Geffcken Zwei g r i e c h i s c h e n Apologeten 175.

6.1.2. v é v e o i Q a n d (pOopa

Axiomatic i n Greek philosophy s i n c e the time of Parmenides of E l e a are

the two fundamental p r i n c i p l e s : (1) yiveobg e n t a i l s cpdopcc; (2) o u v d e o u s / o u v o e -
GUS entails öuaAuous. The l a t t e r p r i n c i p l e P l a t o e x p l i c i t l y d e c l a r e s at 41a8-
b1 ( T O Ör) 6e$£\) Ttav A U T O V ) , the former i s not s t a t e d i n as many words but may
be recognized i n the words êxet-vwv (sc. öeouwv) oZg O T ' i y C y v e o % e ovv6eZo%e at
41b5-6 (cf.28a3 Y ^ y v ó p e v o v nai aitoAAuuevov).

P h i l o i s not one to q u a r r e l with such venerable p r i n c i p l e s , and both are

i n d i c a t e d with referenc e to the P l a t o n i c passage: (1) Decal.58 yéveoLg öe cp$o-
p a s a p x n , xdv... ( c f . Fug. 161 , Spec.2.166, QG 1.10); (2) Her.23 óuaAuTOt è£
èauTÖv ( c f . Her.188 x a ö v a è£ lauTöv). A t h i r d r e l a t e d p r i n c i p l e , of the same
remote a n t i q u i t y , cannot be d i r e c t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Tim.41a-b, but i s i m p l i -
cit there and i s no l e s s important f o r the nature of P l a t o ' s cosmological ac-
count. P h i l o s t a t e s i t with warm approval at Aet.5, in TOÖ yfj O V T O S ouöèv
YL-vcTOtt, o u ó ' e u s T O un. ov c p d e u p e T a t ( c f . Spec. 1 .266) . The cosmos, i f cre-
ated, can only be created from a p r e - e x i s t e n t chaos, and, i f destroyed, can
only be reduced to a p o s t - e x i s t e n t chaos. As we saw above i n I I 3.2.2., P h i l o
remains t r u e to t h i s p r i n c i p l e when he envisages the p o s s i b i l i t y of the des-
t r u c t i o n of the cosmos at Prov.1.90. See f u r t h e r below I I 8.2.2.
202 ANALYSIS

6.1.3. ftoúAnaic.

In a number of texts P h i l o a s s o c i a t e s God's w i l l or purpose with the f a c t

that the cosmos w i l l not be destroyed. How t e r r i b l e i t i s f o r the soul to be
abandoned by God ( c f . Gen.4:13), who binds a l l things w i t h the chains of h i s
powers, a u s x d n á v i a acpúyCas aAuTa e l v a u 3e3ooAn.Tat (Conf. 166, acpuy^as c f . Tim.
58a7, dAuToi 41a8). The e a r t h , heavenly bodies and whole u n i v e r s e w i l l remain
f o r e v e r untouched by age, being preserved a c c o r d i n g to the purpose (YVOJUTI) of
t h e i r c r e a t o r (Spec.2.5). See a l s o Mos.2.61, QG 2.15 (both t e x t s w i t h regard
to the f l o o d ! ) , and the view of cosmic dcpdapoua disputed by the s o p h i s t s at
Her.246 (quoted i n I I 6.1.1.) .

That there are not more t e x t s can be explained by the f a c t that P h i l o

c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e s the theme of God's p r e s e r v i n g w i l l with the d o c t r i n e of pro-
vidence. 3oÚAnoLS and Tcpovoua are r e a l l y two ways of d e s c r i b i n g the same d i -
v i n e a c t i v i t y , both i n t i m a t e l y connected with the c r e a t i o n and the p r e s e r v a -
t i o n of the cosmos. The passage at Spec.4.187, already d i s c u s s e d above i n I I
3.1.4. i n r e l a t i o n to God's w i l l e x e r c i s e d i n the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos, i s
most instructive:
TO yap eneodau deop T O U T ' e o T t v , enei xáxeúvoo ó ú v a y u s y é v I O T Ü ó p a v éxctTepa,
BoúAeTai óe y ó v a T a y a d á . y n v ú e t óe n T O O x ó a y o u yéveoíg T E nal ouoixnoiS'
TCÍ yap uf] O V T O Í ¿ x á A e a e v e ú s T O e í v a u T C X ^ Ü V e £ aia^íag... á e u yáp ¿ O T L V

é i t y e A e s aÚT(¡) xau TaCs e ú e p Y ¿ T u a t v a Ú T O U ó u v á y e O L T O nAnyyeAes T ñ s x e ^ p o -

vos o ú o ú a s yeTaTcoueCv xau y e d a p y ó c e a d a u npos Tr\v áyeí-vu).

God's w i l l and goodness are shown i n the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos and continue
unabated i n the p r o v i d e n t i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of what he has made, being r e v e a l -
ed i n the perpetual process of c o n v e r t i n g the worse to the b e t t e r . The perpe-
t u i t y of God's works, inasmuch as they are not subject to the processes of
genesis and decay i n the sublunary world, i s thus guaranteed, i n f u l l agree-
ment with the words spoken by the demiurge i n Tim.41a-b.

At the same time we cannot avoid the q u e s t i o n of whether God's w i l l to

preserve the cosmos from decay and d e s t r u c t i o n i s absolute and u n c o n d i t i o n a l .
Does God's goodness prevent him from e x e r c i s i n g h i s f u l l powers, f o r example
i n wishing to punish the cosmos f o r i t s wickedness, as i n the days of Noah
(Gen.6:3-7)? Such a l i m i t a t i o n i s indeed implied i n the beginning of the pas-
sage j u s t quoted, which seems to make a compromise between the P l a t o n i c doc-
t r i n e of non-contingency and the Jewish conception of d i v i n e omnipotence (ac-
cording to which God's people must s u p p l i c a t e God f o r mercy and the p r e s e r v a -
t i o n of h i s works; c f . Ps.137:8, QG 2.13). This problem i s p a r t i c u l a r l y acute
i n r e l a t i o n to the t r e a t i s e Prov.I. In §19 P h i l o w r i t e s : 'Since a l l created
bodies ( i . e . a l l the parts of the universe) are of t h i s nature, they e a s i l y
undergo the necessary change of c o r r u p t i o n , when he who created them wishes
 II 6.1.3. 203

to b r i n g d e s t r u c t i o n upon them. 1
Hadas-Lebel FE 35.142 c o r r e c t l y remarks: 'La
c o r r u p t i o n dépend donc, avant t o u t , du v o u l o i r du Créateur. C'est un point
sur l e q u e l notre auteur s'écarte de l a Stoa pour r e j o i n d r e P l a t o n . ' But i f
the threatened cpdopd i s a p p l i c a b l e a l s o to the heavenly bodies and the cosmos
as a whole (as i s i m p l i c i t ) , then P h i l o unquestionably departs from orthodox
Platonism. The e s c h a t o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e of t h i s t r e a t i s e i s d i f f i c u l t to
rhyme with the d o c t r i n e of acpdapoua a c c r e d i t e d with great c l a r i t y and some
f o r c e to P l a t o and Moses i n Aet.13-19.

Some comparisons can e l u c i d a t e P h i l o ' s p o s i t i o n . The Middle P l a t o n i s t

A t t i c u s , arguing against A r i s t o t l e and A r i s t o t e l i a n i z i n g P l a t o n i s t s , twice
c i t e s Tim.41a-b and h e a v i l y emphasizes the importance of the n o t i o n of God's
(SouAriObs ( f r . 4 ) . y i v e o L g and (pdopd c e r t a i n l y belong together, but i f something
has come i n t o being, that does not mean i t w i l l p e r i s h , and i f something does
not p e r i s h , that does not mean that i t i s uncreated (§8). I t i s the w i l l of
the demiurgic c r e a t o r that ensures that what i s created does not p e r i s h . As a
good P l a t o n i s t he refuses to e n t e r t a i n the thought that the cosmos might ever
undergo d e s t r u c t i o n , f o r to wish to destroy something that has been w e l l c r e a -
ted i s a proof of e v i l (§14, based on 41b1-2). A t t i c u s ' thought i s very c l o s e
to what we f i n d i n Aet.13-19 and the m a j o r i t y of P h i l o n i c t e x t s .
C e r t a i n e a r l y C h r i s t i a n w r i t e r s , by way of c o n t r a s t , are a t t r a c t e d to the
P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e that the cosmos' c o n t i n u i n g existence i s due to God's w i l l ,
but, because of t h e i r b e l i e f i n the end of the world which w i l l take place on
judgment day, they give P l a t o ' s words a reverse emphasis. Hippolytus P h i l o s .
19.8 quotes Tim.41a with regard to the created gods and comments, OJS dv Xu$n>
vau aùxà déXeu, paôuws Xu^naoueva. Minucius F e l i x Oct.34.4 remarks on the
same t e x t , i t a n i h i l mirum e s t , s i i s t a moles ab eo, quo e x s t r u c t a e s t , des-
t r u a t u r . These two texts s t r o n g l y remind us of Prov.1.19 (note esp. paôuojs) •
But other P a t r i s t i c authors — e.g. Clement of A l e x a n d r i a ( c f . S t r . 5 . 9 ) , I r e -
naeus (Adv.haer.4.63.1), Origen (c.Cels.4.61) - adhere to the d o c t r i n e of cos-
mic dcpdapoua such as we f i n d i t i n Aet .13-19.

6.1.4. 5£0M0C.

Even i f a l l that i s bound together must d i s s o l v e , says P l a t o w i t h r e f e r -

ence to the heavenly bodies, the demiurge's w i l l i s a stronger 6eouos than
those d i s s o l u b l e bonds with which they were bound together (ovve6eZo%e). The
image of bond and b i n d i n g i s one of the most pervasive and s i g n i f i c a n t i n the
Timaeus, as can be seen from the occurrences at d i v e r s e l e v e l s of the cosmos 1

structure:

the four elements of the cosmos' body 31c1-3,32b1,7,32c4

the harmonic s t r u c t u r e of the cosmos' s o u l 36a7,37a4
the heavenly bodies 38e5,41b1,6
man's s o u l 43b6-7
man's body 43a2,74b5,d7,75d3,77e3,84a1,3
man's s o u l j o i n e d to i t s body 73b4-5,d6,81d7.
When speaking of b i n d i n g i n Tim.41b1-6 Plat o i s i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d t h i n k i n g
p r i m a r i l y of the bond between s o u l and body (cf.38e5), an unnatural union
g r e a t l y to the detriment of s o u l , but to which the cosmos as Ctjiov ey^uxov and
 204 ANALYSIS

the heavenly bodies must submit. 1

From our evidence i t emerges, however, that
P h i l o and the t r a d i t i o n of P l a t o n i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n gave the statement T O 6r\
dexfkv nav Xuxov a wider scope. They understood i t to i n c l u d e other types of
6 e o y o s as w e l l , notably that of the b o d i l y elements and the composition of the
soul i t s e l f . No doubt they took t h e i r cue from the f a c t that at 32c3 and 43d7
P l a t o a l s o describes these two types of bonds as i n d i s s o l u b l e except by t h e i r
binder (who w i l l not d i s s o l v e them). The opening words of the demiurge's
speech can thus be taken to r e l a t e to the cosmos as a whole and i t s parts.

The n o t i o n of a 6eouos b i n d i n g the cosmos and/or i t s p a r t s together i s

very common i n P h i l o . In almost a l l cases (but note QG 2.4 s o u l b i n d i n g body,
QE 2.106 weaker e x t e r n a l bonds) the bond i s t h e o l o g i z e d and a t t r i b u t e d to the
divine a c t i v i t y ( c f . above I I 4.1.1.), i n accordance with and i n frequent re-
ference to Tim.41a-b. The dependence on P l a t o ' s text i s strongest at Her.246,
where the xpaxauoxepos 6 e o y o s i s the gouXnaus of the c r e a t o r . When Abraham
addresses the Cause as 6 e o t o x r i s (Her.23, exeg. Gen. 15:2), he recognized the
xwv oXoov 6 e a y o s . • .ouvex^v auxd aXuxa (41a8) nau acpuyywv (58a7) 6 t a X u x d ovxa e£
eaUT&v. In the m a j o r i t y of texts the d i v i n e b i n d i n g a c t i v i t y i s a t t r i b u t e d to
the Logos or the d i v i n e powers. For the Logos see Her.188, Fug.112 (o xoO ov-
xog Xoyog 6eoyos wv TOJV didvxojv... x a i auvexeu xd yeprj itdvxa nai oqCyyei xwXu-
^wv auxd 6baXuea$ab nal 6uapxaadau, followed by a comparison with the u n i f y i n g
power of the soul), and,the passages P l a n t . 9 , QE 2.89-90,118 already discussed
above at I I 4.1.1. For the powers see Conf.166 (God embraces a l l things with
h i s powers as 6eoyoL dppnnxou, c f . a l s o 136), Migr.181 (the c r e a t o r ' s 6uvdyebs
as 6 e o y o t dppnxxou).

I t w i l l not have escaped the n o t i c e of the reader that a number of these

passages were c i t e d above i n I I 5.1.3., when we endeavoured to show that P h i l o
assigns to the i n t r a - c o s m ic Logos (or d i v i n e powers) the r o l e which P l a t o had
reserved f o r the cosmic s o u l . P h i l o ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the Logos with the
P l a t o n i c 6eoyos only serves to increase our confidence i n t h i s a s s e r t i o n , f o r
it i s s u r e l y l e g i t i m a t e l y P l a t o n i c to a f f i r m that the cosmic s o u l i s the agent
through which the demiurge's w i l l as cosmic 6 e o y o s i s e x e r c i s e d on the cosmos
as composite of soul and body. Just as the s o ul i s self-moved (Phdr.245a,
Laws 896a), but i t s movement i s m y t h i c a l l y and o n t o l o g i c a l l y i n i t i a t e d by the
demiurge, so the soul i s s e l f - b i n d i n g but i t s bonds are m y t h i c a l l y and onto-
l o g i c a l l y t i e d by i t s creator.

Although i t i s apparent that P h i l o , i n h i s frequent use of the concept of

a cosmic 6 e o y o s , has recognized the importance of the image i n the Timaeus,
not a l l questions have herewith been answered. P a r a l l e l s i n Middle P l a t o n i s t
w r i t i n g s are not copious. P l u t a r c h i n Mor.393F a s s e r t s that God ouv6eu xnv
 II 6.1.4. 205

o u o u a v , but remains d e l i b e r a t e l y vague on how i t takes place (ooov aywayenws

iyyeyove xq) Moayw; c f . a l s o 927C, Num.fr. 18). A t t i c u s f r . 4 (§15) merely para-
phrases P l a t o . 2

The combination of 6 e o y o s with terms such as o u v e x e u v , aqCyyeLV, noAAa

have l e d s c h o l a r s to p o s t u l a t e that the thought i s b a s i c a l l y S t o i c ( c f . M.
Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos i n der griechischen Philosophie (Oldenburg 1872)
235ff., Brehier 85-86, Weiss 258). The closest p a r a l l e l i n a S t o i c text i s
C i c e r o DND 2.115 (= SVF 2.549), where the coherence and permanence of the cos-
mos is explained:

Maxime autem corpora i n t e r se i u n c t a permanent cum quasi quodam v i n c u l o

circumdato c o l l i g a n t u r ; quod f a c i t ea natura quae per omnem mente et
r a t i o n e c o n f i c i e n s f u n d i t u r et ad medium r a p i t et c o n v e r t i t extrema.

The 6eoyo s image i s here a p p l i e d to the f u n c t i o n of the S t o i c a c t i v e cause or

Logos. The emphasis of the text on the s t a b i l i t y and cohesion of the cosmos
makes i t s i g n i f i c a n t l y p a r a l l e l to P h i l o n i c passages such as Plant.8-10, Conf.
136, Migr.220, Fug.112, Somn.1.158,241. The permanence of which C i c e r o ' s text
speaks, however, cannot be the same as P l a t o n i c otcpdapota, f o r i t does not pre-
clude the p e r i o d i c c o n f l a g r a t i o n affirme d i n orthodox S t o i c i s m (§118). In
other words the connection which we have observed P h i l o making between the
theme of 6 e o y o s , Tim.41a-b and the d o c t r i n e of cosmic i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y cannot
be a s c r i b e d to the i n f l u e n c e of the Stoa. Moreover our fragmentary S t o i c
sources, when speaking of the cohesion of the cosmos, use the terms xovos and
e£us, not the image of b i n d i n g ( c f . SVF 2.439-462). On the other hand i t must
be observed that P h i l o three times describes the bond as a 6 e o y o s appriHxos
(Plant.9, Conf.166 ( p l u r a l ) , M i g r . 181 ( p l u r a l ) , c f . Det.158 of the human body).
H a r l FE 15.90, adducing H e r a c l i t u s Alleg.Horn.40.14, p l a u s i b l y suggests S t o i c
exegesis of the 6eoyos x p u o e o s appnxxos with which Zeus bound Hera ( I I . 15.20) .

We conclude, t h e r e f o r e , that n e i t h e r the Middle P l a t o n i s t use of Tim.41

a-b, nor the S t o i c d o c t r i n e of cosmic cohesion, can f u l l y e x p l a i n P h i l o ' s fre-
quent use of the image of the 6 e o y o s i n r e l a t i o n to the Logos and the powers
of God. So i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine whether we are d e a l i n g w i t h a personal
predilection (at l e a s t p a r t l y r e s u l t i n g from h i s reading of the Timaeus), or
with one of the many gaps i n our knowledge of P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l reading
material. 3

There remain the r e f e r e n c e s to the image of 6eoyos i n Aet. In §30,36

6eoyos i s used of the b i n d i n g f o r c e which holds parts of the cosmos together
but sooner or l a t e r i s s h a t t e r e d . Unshatterable, however, i s the power of the
cosmic 6 e o y o s at §75: ei 6'r) x o u x o o y o o (puoug o t y e v r i x o s x e nai a t p $ a p x o s , 6nAov
o x t x a l o K o o y o S j auojvuoj o u v e x o y e v o s x a t , 6 t a x p a x o u y e v o s 6eayq>. This passage,
part of an argument a t t r i b u t e d to C r i t o l a u s , i s d i f f e r e n t to the ones we have
so f a r d i s c u s s e d . It i s affirmed that the cosmos i s a y e v n x o s , and that view
206 ANALYSIS

must have consequences f o r the nature of i t s 6eouos (what i t i s i s not made

precisely clear). Could the theme of the 6eouos of the cosmos and the c o r r e c t
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Tim.41a-b (quoted, we r e c a l l , at §13) have been a t o p i c of
d i s c u s s i o n i n the m i s s i n g second half?

6.1.5. np6vo ta

The f i n a l theme which P h i l o a s s o c i a t e s with Tim.41a-b i s that of d i v i n e

Providence. A maker must e x e r c i s e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the product he has made.
The cosmos as God's c r e a t ed product i s so e x c e l l e n t that i t s c r e a t o r would not
wish i t destroyed, and thus assures i t s i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y through h i s p r o v i -
d e n t i a l care. In two passages P h i l o r e l a t e s the d o c t r i n e of d i v i n e Providence
to P l a t o ' s words i n Tim.41a-b.

Migr. 181 : T O O un. d v e $ n v a u t d 6edevxa naAcos Ttpouri^ouuevos; t h i s amounts to a

loose r e p h r a s i n g of 41b1—2.

Decal.58 (exeg. f i r s t commandment): The cosmos should not be thought the auxo-
Kpaxfis d e o g , f o r i t has come i n t o being (ye-vove cf.28b7) and y e v e o u s i s the
beginning of (p§opd, even i f i t i s immortalized through the c r e a t o r ' s upovoua.

For P h i l o the d o c t r i n e of providence - xo ojcpeAuuwxaxov xat, d v a y K a t o x a x o v

XOJV eus euoepeuav (Opif.9) — i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y connected to both the d o c t r i n e s
of the c r e a t i o n and the i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y of the cosmos. J u s t as the r e f u s a l
to regard the cosmos as c r e a t ed e n t a i l s a d e n i a l of the d o c t r i n e of providence
(see above I I 2.1.3.), so a l s o the view that the cosmos w i l l be subjec t to
d e s t r u c t i o n r e s u l t s from a f a i l u r e to recognize the p r o v i d e n t i a l a c t i v i t y of
the c r e a t o r . Numerous other P h i l o n i c passages t e s t i f y to the c o n v i c t i o n that
God p r o v i d e n t i a l l y d i r e c t s and maintains the cosmos, p r o t e c t i n g i t from decay
and d e s t r u c t i o n : c f . Opif.171, Agr.51, Ebr.199, Conf.98, Abr.70, Spec.2.260,
3.189, Praem.32-34, QG 4.88, QE 2.64 etc. Though i n the m a j o r i t y of these
t e x t s the p r o v i d e n t i a l a c t i v i t y i s a s c r i b e d to God, we must c e r t a i n l y regard
the Logos as the agent of d i v i n e Providence ( c f . above I I 5.2.2.). In Agr.51
the p r o v i d e n t i a l task i s a c t u a l l y delegated to the Logos; i n QE 2.64 i t i s the
task of the two c h i e f powers.

If P l a t o ' s words i n Tim.41a-b are taken at t h e i r l i t e r a l v a l u e , there i s

i n f a c t no mention of d i v i n e Providence. Ttpovota i s e x p l i c i t l y mentioned only
a few times i n the dialogue (30b8,44c7,73a1), each time i n connection with
the t e l e o l o g y of the u n i v e r s e ' s and man,'s d e s i g n . But d i v e r s e Middle P l a t o -
nist t e x t s show that the d o c t r i n e of providence was r e g u l a r l y a s s o c i a t e d with
the words of the demiurge's speech. Once again Seneca ( i . e . h i s source) i s
instructive (Ep.58.28): manent enim cuncta, non quia aeterna s i n t , sed quia
 II 6.1.5. 207

defendimtur cura (= eituyeAeua?) r e g e n t i s ( c f . Aet.Plac.2.4.1, ov ynv <p-\>apnoo-

y e v o v ye upovoua nai auvoxfj Seou). P l u t a r c h Mor.927A-C, d i r e c t i n g h i s remarks
against the Stoa, declares t h a t , i f they f o l l o w the ( A r i s t o t e l i a n ) d o c t r i n e of
n a t u r a l place and argue that elements n a t u r a l l y ( x a x a cpuauv) r e t u r n to t h e i r
p o s i t i o n , they eliminate the need for providence. The P l a t o n i c p o s i t i o n i s
that the x d ^ t s T W V OVTOJV must be a t t r i b u t e d t o God and that the n a x d Aoyov
6eayos i s stronger than the 6eoyos x a x d (puauv . Apuleius De Plat.205-206 and
Ps.Plut.De f a t o 573A-C a l s o r e l a t e the d o c t r i n e o f providence to the demiurge's
speech, but are e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n e s t a b l i s h i n g l e v e l s of p r o v i d e n t i a l
activity (see f u r t h e r IT 6.2.2.). The staunchest proponent o f the d o c t r i n e of
d i v i n e Providence, i s A t t i c u s , i n the a n t i - A r i s t o t e l i a n d i a t r i b e ( f r . 4 , esp.§2,
13-15) to which we have r e f e r r e d s e v e r a l times already i n this section. It i s
evident that to speak of the u p o v o t a T O O n e i o t r i x o T O S , as P h i l o does i n Decal.
58, was a short-hand method of a l l u d i n g not t o P l a t o ' s a c t u a l words, but to
what was g e n e r a l l y considered t o be h i s meaning.

6.2. The y o u n g g o d s (Tim.41c-d,42d-e)

6.2.1. The c r e a t o r ' s assistants

The t r a d i t i o n a l designation f o r the gods whom the demiurge addresses i n

Tim.41a-d was the 'young gods' (based on 42d6 T O U S veous deoCs). Introducing
P l a t o ' s words i n Aet.13, P h i l o c a l l s them T O U S vewxepous §eous, w i s h i n g by
means of the comparative to emphasize the d i f f e r e n c e i n rank between them and
the !pea$\JTaTos nai riYeywv. 1
In the e x e g e t i c a l t r e a t i s e s there are no l e s s
than f i v e passages which show P h i l o ' s i n t e r e s t i n the way i n which the demi-
urge i s d e s c r i b ed as consigning part of the c r e a t i v e task to a team of a s s i s -
tants. The d e c i s i v e i n f l u e n c e which the Timaeus has e x e r c i s e d on these pas-
sages has long been recognized. The most thorough a n a l y s i s was made by P.Boy-
ance i n a paper e n t i t l e d 'Dieu cosmique et dualisme: l e s archontes et P l a t o n ' ,
which he presented at the c e l e b r a t e d colloquium o f Messina h e l d i n the s p r i n g
of 1966 (U.Bianchi (ed.), The o r i g i n s of Gnosticism (Leiden 1967) 340-356).
This paper, though c o n t a i n i n g many e x c e l l e n t remarks and observations on P h i l o ,
i s more concerned with p u t t i n g forward a general t h e s i s on the h i s t o r y of
ideas than w i t h d e l i n e a t i n g what P h i l o ' s own p r e c i s e i n t e n t i o n s were. No apo-
l o g i e s are r e q u i r e d , I consider, f o r our undertaking to analyse the r e l e v a n t
passages once again.

Opif.72-75. The f a m i l i a r quaestio method of exegesis i s a p p l i e d to the

208 ANALYSIS

words which Moses places i n God's mouth at Gen.1:26, Ttourjowyev avdpojitov Max'
euxova ripeTepav xau na%'oyouwauv. Why i s i t that only the c r e a t i o n of man i s
a t t r i b u t e d to more than one c r e a t o r , as i n d i c a t e d by the use of the p l u r a l
verb? P h i l o s t r e s s e s that h i s answer can only be considered probable (see
above I I 2.4.1.), presumably because he r e a l i z e s that he i s v e n t u r i n g on t h i n
theological ice. Man - u n l i k e the heavenly beings on the one hand and unrea-
soning creature s on the other - has a yuxxr) cpuatSs being capable of both good
and evil. God makes use of a s s i s t a n t s so that man's good a c t i o n s can be a t t r i -
buted t o him, man's bad a c t i o n s to them; e 6 e t yap a v a t x u o v euvat xaxou xov 1 a -
x e p a xous exyovots. These l a s t words are a d i r e c t reminiscence of Tim.42d3.
The i d e n t i t y o f the a s s i s t a n t s i s l e f t u n c e r t a i n (exepoov w s otv ouvepywv, exe-
pot xwv uicnxoojv §75) . On the question of what part of man the a s s i s t a n t s
(help to) make P h i l o i s a l s o r a t h e r vague. Man's vous and Aoyos are l i k e a
xaxCas nai apexfjs ouxos (§73). Do they help make man's r a t i o n a l p a r t , or do
they make the i r r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l which causes the vous to go astray?
But there i s no mention of an i r r a t i o n a l s o u l here, so the former i s more
likely. Note t h a t , when man as an object of sense-perception c o n s i s t i n g of
body and s o u l i s created (§134-135), the shared task i s not r e i n t r o d u c e d (but
i n Gen.2:7 there are no troublesome p l u r a l s ) .

Fug.68-72. From Fug.53 onwards P h i l o i s preoccupied w i t h the problem of

manslaughter, e s p e c i a l l y as d e a l t with i n the law of Ex.21:12—14. God himself
extends h i s b e n e f i t s , but punishment i s meted out through the agency of others
(6b'aAAojv, i . e . i n c l u d i n g mans l a y e r s ) , though not without h i s permission. The
general p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e i n v o l v e d i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the c r e a t i o n of man
i n the Mosaic c r e a t i o n account. The word noun.o'wyev at Gen. 1:26 i n d i c a t e s a
plurality (lAfidos).

Philo's explanation of t h i s text i n §69 v i r t u a l l y amounts to a P l a t o n i c

and P l a t o n i s t medley:
duaAeyexab: C f . Aet.13, Conf.168 and the remarks of Boyance a r t . c i t . 3 4 9 , who
gives Neoplatonis t p a r a l l e l s and suspects a Middle P l a t o n i s t source.
xo dvnxov nycav T T J S tNxfjs l ^ P ^ Cf.69c7-8 ( y e p o s replaces eldog) .
0

e6ojxe 6 b ( X T t A d x x e b v : Cf.42d6 iape6o)xev. . .itAaxxeuv.

y t y o u y c v a b S : Cf,41c5,42e8.
xo Aoyixov: Normal Middle P l a t o n i s t terminology, c f . Tim.Locr.46 and B a l t e s
Timaios Lokros 148.
xo nyeyoveuov: Cf.41c7 SeCov A e y o y e v o v n y e y o v o u v .
nyeyoyos: C f . our remark above (n.1) on Phdr.246e4.
xo uinxoov: The word seems a r b i t r a r i l y chosen, but at Rep.441e6 (cf.440d6) i t
i s used o f the s p i r i t e d p a r t of the s o u l ( c f . a l s o 70b7).
UTinKoojv: C f . the obedience of the young gods at 42e7.
I n t n e
Timaeus the 'young gods' create both man's body (42d6,e8ff.) and
the i r r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l r e q u i r e d so that body and s o u l can have a tem-
porary a s s o c i a t i o n (42e7, more c l e a r l y at 6 9 c 7 f f . ) . P h i l o i s only interested
i n the c r e a t i o n of the s o u l and systematizes P l a t o ' s account, n e a t l y corre-
 II 6.2.1. 209

l a t i n g the p a r t s of the s o u l with t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e makers. The s o u l of man

alone was to have understanding of good and e v i l ( c f . Gen.2:9,3:22). There-
f o r e God, as source of the good o n l y , creates the r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l ,
the i r r a t i o n a l part being l e f t to others (§70). P h i l o f i n d s h i s exegesis con-
firmed by the f a c t that i n Gen.1:27 ( s i n g u l a r verb, i . e . God only) Moses uses
the a r t i c l e when speaking of man's c r e a t i o n (the man as h i s A O Y U O U O S ) , whereas
i n the previous verse (where the p l u r a l i t y of c r e a t o r s i s i n d i c a t e d ) i t i s de-
leted (man as composite of the r a t i o n a l and irrational)(§71-72). In t h i s pas-
sage God's a s s i s t a n t s are d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s : O J S ctv ueid ouvepvwv eiepwv,
TiAridous (§68), TCXCS eauxou 6uvaueauv, uurixowv (§69), xaCs u e ^ ' e a u x o u 6uvaueauv,
e i e p o u s 6nuLoupYOts (§70), nAfjdos (§71, twice).

Mut.30-32. This passage adds l i t t l e to what has been s a i d i n the p r e v i -

ous two (much l e s s use i s made of language from the Timaeus). God's words to
Abraham i n Gen. 17:1, eyu e t u i , %ebg oog ( i . e . i n d i c a t i n g h i s c r e a t i v e power),
are a great compliment to the person addressed. God i s not the maker of evil,
so the soul of the worthless man i s not h i s product ( c o n t r a s t Deus 70), and
the intermediate s o u l was a j o i n t venture between him and o t h e r s , as Gen.1:26
shows. But the onou6aCos was e n t i r e l y made by God without the a s s i s t a n c e of
others. We observe that i n t h i s passage no mention i s made of d i f f e r e n t parts
of the s o u l , only of d i f f e r e n t types. The a s s i s t a n t s are only d e s c r i b e d twice
i n the vaguest terms as e x e p o t .

Conf.168-183. The longest of the f i v e passages immediately s t r i k e s the

reader on account of the coherence of i t s thought and i t s c a r e f u l l y planned
structure. Every step i s c l e a r l y marked out.
§168: The e x e g e t i c a l quaestio i s introduced. What i s implied by the words i n
Gen. 11:7, 6euTe nai Kaxagotvies O U Y X S W U E V ineZ autwv xnv Y^WTxav, i n which God
i s apparently conversing with fellow-workers?
§ 169: Two p a r a l l e l passages i n which p l u r a l s occur are given, Gen.1 .26,3:22.
§170: A p r e l i m i n a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n . God i s one, the supreme c r e a t o r and r u l e r .
§171: F i r s t sequence of premisses. God i s surrounded by countles s powers,
both s a l u t a r y and p u n i t a r y . God's army has v a r i o u s ranks — the powers through
whom the worlds of n o e t i c and s e n s i b l e r e a l i t y were formed, the heavenly bo-
d i e s , the i n c o r p o r e a l angels — and they a l l have the task of s e r v i n g him. It
i s f i t t i n g that he should converse with h i s powers and use them i n tasks which
he should not do alone, though they are kept under s u p e r v i s i o n and are not
given autonomous knowledge or a u t h o r i t y .
§ 176: Second sequence of premisses. Of the v a r i o u s types of Cqkx - i r r a t i o n a l ,
r a t i o n a l and m o r t a l , r a t i o n a l and immortal - only man has knowledge of good
and e v i l , and can be c o n v i c t e d of premeditated s i n .
§179: Return to Gen.1:26 and f i r s t c o n c l u s i o n . A p p r o p r i a t e l y God assigns part
of the c r e a t i o n of man to h i s l i e u t e n a n t s , namely the eni xanuav ¿60s ev 4>uxfl
A o Y t x p ; f o r the cosmos can only be complete ( c f . above I I 5.4.3.) i f a v o l u n -
t a r y part i s created as a counterbalance to the i n v o l u n t a r y .
§180: Return to the theme of punishment. An a d d i t i o n a l explanatory point must
be made. God i s the cause of b e n e f i c i a l things o n l y . D e s t r u c t i o n and punish-
ment are assigned to h i s angels, though they too are not autonomous.
§ 182: Return to Gen.11:7 and f i n a l e x p l a n a t i o n .
 210 ANALYSIS

The i n f l u e n c e of the thought and language of the Timaeus i s somewhat r e -

duced here, the reason being that the passage i s set i n motion by Gen.11:7 and,
even though Gen.1:26 i s c a l l e d i n as a p a r a l l e l , the emphasis i s on the theme
j of punishment throughout. Hence also the s t r e s s on man's f r e e w i l l (§178-179),
, f o r only v o l u n t a r y wrong-doing must be punished ( i n contrast to the Fug, pas-
n sage, which i s concerned with men who are the involuntary agents of d i v i n e r e -
t r i b u t i o n ) . God's a s s i s t a n t s are described i n t h i s passage as x t o u v cas dv a u v -
epyous a u x o u (§ 168) , T i A f j d o s , i t A e u o v e s (§ 169) , x a u s eauxou 6uvdueoLV, e x e p o t ,

xaus U T t r i x o o L S 6 u v d u e a u v (§ 1 75) , x o t s UTidpxobs a u x o u (§179).

QG 1.54. In an exegesis of Gen.3:22 (the same verse c i t e d at Conf.169),

u6ou A6au yeyovev ojg e t s e £ nyaiv x o u Y ^ v w a x e u v M a A o v x a u rcovnpov, P h i l o writes :
"One of u s " i n d i c a t e s p l u r a l i t y , unless he happens to be speaking with
h i s powers, which he used as instruments i n making the whole u n i v e r s e .
P h i l o keeps h i s e x p l a n a t i o n of the awkward p l u r a l very b r i e f . H i s words imply
that i f God converses with h i s powers, no r e a l p l u r a l i t y i s i n v o l v e d . The
B i b l i c a l text here does not c o n s t r a i n him to dwell on the a s s i s t a n c e c a l l e d i n
by God elsewhere f o r the c r e a t i o n of man (which i s p o i n t l e s s i f there i s no
plurality).

The first common f e a t u r e of these f i v e passages i s that they a l l address

the e x e g e t i c a l problem raised by the p l u r a l s i n three Genesis texts (1:26,
3:22,11:7). I t i s the Mosaic text which provides the s t a r t i n g point f o r the
discussions. Moreover the p r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s i s c a r r i e d out so f a r r e v e a l s a
common l i n e of thought, wit h two L e i t m o t i f s : (a) God uses helpers only i n the
c r e a t i o n of man; (b) God has no share i n e v i l . Under the magnifying g l a s s ,
however, a complex s i t u a t i o n i s encountered. This complexity i s only increa-
sed i f we adduce the passage of the Timaeus which has been P h i l o ' s source of
inspiration.

1. A v i t a l d i f f e r e n c e between P l a t o and the Mosaic account as explained

by P h i l o i s that i n the former the demiurge delegates a l a r g e part of the c r e -
a t i v e task ( a l l the mortal genera, i n c l u d i n g man's i r r a t i o n a l soul and body)
to the 'young gods', whereas i n the l a t t e r God only c a l l s in assistance for
the l i m i t e d task of c r e a t i n g man. 2
P h i l o leaves us i n no doubt i n Qpif. that
Moses i s h i s guide. God himself creates the other mortal genera (cf.§62-68).
Nowhere does P h i l o deny that God creates man's body, on which the B i b l i c a l
text (Gen.2:7) i s q u i t e unambiguous. 3

2. God's helpers do not a s s i s t i n c r e a t i n g the whole of man, but only

that part which i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r wrong-doing. Which part i s t h i s ? Philo's
v a r i o u s d i s c u s s i o n s do not achieve consistenc y on t h i s p o i n t . C e r t a i n l y the
helpers do not create the body. In three t e x t s (Qpif. Conf. Mut.) i t appears
that they a s s i s t i n c r e a t i n g the r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l , which possesses a
 II 6.2.1. 211

f r e e w i l l and thus has a choice f o r good o r e v i l . *

1
In the other t e x t (Fug., c f .
Leg.1.41) t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e i s u t i l i z e d f o r the c r e a t i o n of the i r r a t i o n a l part
of the s o u l . P h i l o i s i n f a c t caught between l o y a l t y to the B i b l i c a l account,
which i s s i l e n t concerning the i r r a t i o n a l s o u l and so encourages the f i r s t po-
s i t i o n , and a t t r a c t i o n to the Timaeus which s u p p l i e s the b a s i c i d e a . In Fug,
he presents an e x p o s i t i o n more c l o s e l y a l i g n e d to P l a t o ' s views (cf.42d,69c),
but the s o l u t i o n f o r the nouriacoyev/eTiotriae of Gen. 1.26-27 d i f f e r s from the
exegesis i n O p i f . (see f u r t h e r below I I 10.1.5.).

3. A c o n s i s t e n t f e a t u r e o f the passages i s that they use the theme of

God's helpers to show that God i s i n no way r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e v i l , i . e . i n an
attempt at theodicy. Does such a t h e o d i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n rhyme w i t h P l a t o ' s
i n t e n t i o n s as portrayed i n the words of the demiurge's speech? H o r o v i t z 108,
Boyance REG 76(1963)107 and Nikiprowetzky REJ 124(1965)294 t h i n k i t does, but
a c a r e f u l reading of both P l a t o and P h i l o r e v e a l s that t h i s o p i n i o n must be
qualified. The reason that P l a t o gives f o r e n t r u s t i n g a part o f the c r e a t i v e
task to the 'young gods' i s t h a t , i f the demiurge were to create a l l t h i n g s ,
there could be no mortal genera of animals and the universe would l a c k the
completeness of i t s model (41b7-c4, c f . 3 9 e ) . M o r t a l i t y i s c e r t a i n l y an e v i l ,
and the c r e a t i o n of mortal beings i s a work unworthy of the demiurgic c r e a t o r .
But i t i s a weak ' s t r u c t u r a l ' e v i l , q u i t e d i f f e r e n t to the a c t i v e 'volitional'
e v i l perpetrated by man which i s P h i l o ' s concern.
As the reminiscence i n Opif.75 shows, P h i l o has derived the theme o f the-
odicy from P l a t o ' s words i n 42d3-4. The demiurge gives ordinances to the new-
l y created r a t i o n a l s o u l s , so that he w i l l be absolved from any blame f o r the
e v i l that might r e s u l t from wrong choices ( C v a xfls e n e u x a eun x a n t a s exdaxoov
avabTLOs). This i s e n t i r e l y p a r a l l e l to P h i l o ' s s t r e s s on the double tendency
of the soul i n O p i f . and Conf. But, note w e l l , P l a t o does not r e l a t e h i s the-
o d i c a l statement to the d e l e g a t i o n of the c r e a t i v e task to the 'young gods'
(the mythica l choice between good and e v i l i s made by the souls before the
'young gods' s t a r t t h e i r work). 5
P h i l o ' s use of the theme of theodicy with r e -
gard to the a c t i v i t y of God's helpers i n c r e a t i n g man thus i n v o l v e s a (very
understandable) e x t r a p o l a t i o n of P l a t o ' s t e x t .

4. But who, according to P h i l o , are the beings whom God c a l l s i n to help j

him i n the c r e a t i o n of man? From the l i s t given at Conf.171-174 i t would seem 1

that there are three contenders — the d i v i n e supra-cosmic powers, the c e l e s -

t i a l bodies, the i n c o r p o r e a l angels. D i l l o n 172 argues that P h i l o has i n mind
the planetary gods, appealing to Opif.46 and suggesting that the f a c t that at-
Fug.69 he c a l l s them h i s powers i s not a c o n t r a d i c t i o n but an i n d i c a t i o n of
where he was i n c l i n e d to rank the planets ( c f . Boyance's h e s i t a t i o n , a r t . c i t .
351). Horovitz 112-114 and Wolfson 1.273,387 i d e n t i f y the h e l p e r s with God's
 212 ANALYSIS

subordinate powers (though the former refuses to accept a rigorous distinction

between 'impersonal* powers and angels).
. In our p r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s i s we c a r e f u l l y l i s t e d a l l P h i l o ' s references to
"God's a s s i s t a n t s . Twice they are c a l l e d h i s powers (Fug.69, Conf.175 c f . QG
1.54), once the powers a s s o c i a t e d with him (Fug.70). A l l the other descrip-
t i o n s are l e s s d e f i n i t e . Our c o n v i c t i o n i s that P h i l o d e l i b e r a t e l y avoids ma-
king a concrete i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of God's h e l p e r s , thus p r e s e r v i n g to a c e r t a i n
extent the r e t i c e n c e of the B i b l i c a l t e x t . Most c l e a r l y t h i s can be seen at
Conf. 179, where the notriawyev of Gen. 1:26 i s taken to i n c l u d e God's UTiapxou,
with no attempt being made to i d e n t i f y these with any of the v a r i o u s types of
subordinates l i s t e d i n Conf.171-174. Also P h i l o ' s s i l e n c e on the subject i n
the cosmogonic context of Opif.72-75 i s an i n d i c a t i o n that he does not wish to
be drawn i n t o unwarranted s p e c u l a t i o n . Without doubt he was aware that the
veot §eou were g e n e r a l l y i d e n t i f i e d with the planetary gods i n the P l a t o n i s t
tradition. To a s s i g n these a r o l e i n the c r e a t i o n a l process would have seemed
i n h i s view to i n v o l v e the r i s k that t h e i r importance i n the cosmos might be
g r o s s l y overestimated (but see f u r t h e r below I I 6.2.2.).

5. P h i l o ' s preoccupation with the p l u r a l s i n Gen.1:26 and other texts

was shared by the Rabbis i n t h e i r e x e g e t i c a l labours ( u s e f u l summaries of the
Rabbinic t r a d i t i o n at Kahn FE 13.183, S t a r o b i n s k i - S a f r a n FE 17.273, M.A.Kasher,
Encyclopedia of B i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (New York 1953- ) 1.58-59, R.McL.Wil-
son 'The e a r l y h i s t o r y of the exegesis of Gen.1:26' Studia P a t r i s t i c a I (Ber-
lin 1957) 421ff.). Among the d i v e r s e Rabbinic explanations there i s no p a r a l -
l e l f o r the heavy t h e o d i c a l emphasis which marks the P h i l o n i c passages. 6
The
r e a l i n f l u e n c e of Greek philosophy on P h i l o i s evident, not so much i n the
theme of the c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n v o l v e d i n the work of c r e a t i o n ( a l s o found i n some
Rabbinic t e x t s , though they show a greater concern with the t h r e a t to God's
aloneness, c f . Weiss 3 2 7 f f . ) , but i n the f a c t that t h i s conception i s brought
i n r e l a t i o n to a philosophical problem which had taxed Greek minds ever since
P l a t o had a f f i r m e d the u n c o n d i t i o n a l goodness of the gods and God i n Rep.379b,
Phdr.247a, Tim.29e,42d and other texts.

6. The B i b l i c a l t e x t at Gen.1:26 a l s o e x e r c i s e d a great f a s c i n a t i o n on

Gnostic thinkers ( c f . Iren.Adv.Haer.1.24.1-2, Nag.Hamm.Cod.1.5.105,112,2.4.87,
Pearson SPh 6(1979-80)217). P h i l o ' s remarks i n Opif.72-75 and the other texts
have o f t e n been used to show i n him a proto-Gnostic tendency (e.g. C.H.Dodd
The B i b l e and the Greeks (London 1954 ) 155, 2
Chadwick 145, Weiss 321, M.Simon
'Elements gnostiques chez P h i l o n ' i n U.Bianchi op.cit.359-376 (esp.366ff.)).
This i s i n our view u n j u s t i f i e d . I t could be argued that P h i l o i s l e s s 'Gnos-
tic 1
than P l a t o , f o r he consigns a much smaller part of the c r e a t i v e task to
subordinate c r e a t o r s . These are not described as malevolent, and the s t a t e -
 II 6.2.1. 213

merit that they are not given any form of autonomy (Fug. 175, cf.181) r e f u t e s
any proto-Gnostic imputations i n advance. The e s s e n t i a l goodness of the c r e -
a t i o n i s not i n f r i n g e d by the manner i n which man i s created. On P h i l o ' s r e -
l a t i o n to Gnostic t h i n k i n g see the j u d i c i o u s remarks of R.McL.Wilson, 'Philo of
A l e x a n d r i a and G n o s t i c i s m 1
Kairos 14(1972)213-219, Sandmel 134-139.

6.2.2. The h e a v e n l y b o d i e s as a p x o v i e c . (42e)

Whereas Albinus Did.16-18 f o l l o w s P l a t o ' s text i n a s s i g n i n g the secondary

c r e a t i v e tasks to the exyovou %eoC, Timaeus Locrus records the demiurge as
handing over par t of h i s work to the aAAouwiLxd cpuats (44, c f . Plut.Mor.550D,
B a l t e s Timaios Lokros 137-140). I t i s apparent that these two accounts deal
with the theme of the 'young gods' i n c o n t r a s t i n g ways. A l b i n u s , adhering to
a l i t e r a l reading of the Timaeus, regards the theme from a protologioal view-
p o i n t , i . e . as an account of the p r i m o r d i a l c r e a t i o n a l event (even though \in
f a c t he does not take the myth l i t e r a l l y , cf.§14.3). This i s a l s o P h i l o ' s man-
ner i n the passages discussed i n the previous s u b - s e c t i o n. Timaeus Locrus, on
the other hand, adopts a n o n - l i t e r a l reading and views the d i v i s i o n of labour
between the demiurge and h i s subordinates as an attempt at analysis of the
c a u s a t i v e and generative f a c t o r s present i n the cosmos as we know i t . cpuaus
i s thus the c r e a t i v e power r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the process of b i r t h and decay i n
the sublunary world. But i t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e — and here we come to understand
why P l a t o introduced the added c o m p l i c a t i o n of the d e l e g a t i o n of c r e a t i v e ac-
t i v i t y to the 'young gods' - to a s s i g n t h i s secondary task to the heavenly
bodies. The c y c l i c a l process of generation and d e s t r u c t i o n on e a r t h cannot
take p l a c e without the motions of the planets and e s p e c i a l l y of the sun.
Moreover P l a t o himself gives a s o l i d h i n t that the 'young gods' have a c o n t i -
nuing d i r e c t i v e f u n c t i o n when he says t h a t , when they have fashioned the parts
of man a l l o t t e d to them, they must rule (dpxetv) over the mortal c r e a t u re and
guide i t i n the best way that l i e s w i t h i n t h e i r power, 'except inasmuch as i t
would be the cause of e v i l s to i t s e l f ' ( 4 2 e 1 - 4 ) .

In two P h i l o n i c t e x t s t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r o l e of the heavenly

bodies can be d i s c e r n e d.
Praem.1 (text and comments already given above at I I 1.3.1.). The con-
t r a s t between immortals (a$otvaxa) and mortals (dvnTa), a s i n g l e genesis (yevo-
peva) and perpetua l genesis (yevnaopeva), r u l e r s (nyepovuxd) and subjects (uit-
rixoa) , i s o b v i o u s l y based on Tim.41-42. U n l i k e the P l a t o n i c demiurge God cre-
ates both immortal and mortal l i v i n g beings, but the r u l e r / s u b j e c t r e l a t i o n
between them i s derived from Tim.42e2-4 and not from the Genesis account
214 ANALYSIS

(where the sun and moon do r u l e (1:16), but over the day and night).
Spec.1.13-14. The cosmos i s compared to a megalopolis which has rulers
and subjects. The a p x o v x e s are the s t a r s and p l a n e t s , the uitrixoou the crea-
tures who dwell beneath the moon. This i s a s i g n i f i c a n t passage i n the his-
tory of ideas, f o r i t i s the f i r s t known example of the d e s c r i p t i o n of the
heavenly bodies as d p x o v x e s , which was to become one of the most c h a r a c t e r i s -
t i c d o c t r i n e s of Gnostic thought ( c f . Boyance D i e u cosmique
f 1
352, citing Gun-
del RE 20.2 2122). The d e s c r i p t i o n i s i n the f i r s t place i n s p i r e d by the
commonplace image of the cosmos as a s u p e r - c i t y or kingdom, but i t i s clear
that Tim.41 -42 was a l s o i n P h i l o ' s mind. The subordinates (uitapxou) of the
f a t h e r of the universe i m i t a t e (uuuouuevoug, cf.41c5,42e8) him i n h i s govern-
ment of a l l created beings x a x a 6tHnv nai vouov (cf.41c8). The utunaLs of the
heavenly beings l i e s i n t h e i r government and d i r e c t i o n of the sub-lunary realm,
through which they c o n t r i b u t e to the p r e s e r v a t i o n of the whole (cf.§16). As
i f f o r e s e e i n g the p e r v e r s i o n of the d o c t r i n e of the c e l e s t i a l d p x o v x e s that
would l a t e r take p l a c e , P h i l o immediately adds that they are not %coi auxoxpd-
xopes or auxe^ouotou or a u x o u p y o t , f o r t h e i r d i r e c t i v e task i s performed un-
der the s u p e r v i s i o n of the supreme c h a r i o t e e r (§14; c f . the v i r t u a l l y identi-
cal remark on God's x a x ' o u p a v o v exyovou i n the exegesis of the fourth day of
c r e a t i o n at O p i f . 4 6 ) . 1
The d i v i s i o n i n t o the supra- and sub-lunary realms r e -
c a l l s the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Tim.41-42 i n Tim.Locr.44 noted above (but there no
mention i s made of the a c t i v i t y of the heavenly b o d i e s ) . The context of the
P h i l o n i c passage i s c r u c i a l l y important. P h i l o i s e x p l a i n i n g the f i r s t com-
mandment and appeals to Moses' words at Deut.4:19 (quoted i n §15). He concedes
the important task of the heavenly beings i n the f u n c t i o n i n g of the universe
and does not object to t h e i r being c a l l e d %eoC (as i n the Timaeus). But he i s
adamant that these heavenly bodies must not be objects of worship, which i s
the s o l e p r e r o g a t i ve of God the c r e a t o r and %eo£ dewv (§20; cf.41a7 and above
II 6.1.1.). See the p e r c e p t i v e remarks of Goodenough I n t r o d u c t i o n 80-83, who
discerns i n t h i s passage the d e c i s i v e i n t e r p o s i t i o n of Jewish monotheism.

P l a t o never doubts f o r a moment, when he speaks of the ctpxn of the hea-

venly bodies, that t h e i r i n f l u e n c e on e a r t h l y a f f a i r s i s benign and beneficent.
This a t t i t u d e was continued and strengthened i n the H e l l e n i s t i c ' R e l i g i o n cos-
mique'. But by P h i l o ' s time developments were taking p l a c e which placed that
assumption i n jeopardy. The widespread p o p u l a r i t y of a s t r o l o g y (imported from
Babylonia and Egypt) and the b e l i e f i n the inexorable causal nexus of f a t e (a
misunderstanding of S t o i c d o c t r i n e ? ) caused people to regard the power attri-
buted to the s t a r s and planets as a s i n i s t e r and p o t e n t i a l l y t e r r i f y i n g force
(Prov.1.79 ' v i o l e n t l y dragged along by the tyrannical power of the heavenly
 II 6.2.2. 215

b o d i e s , Plot.Erin.2.9.13; see H.Dorrie, Der B e g r i f f "Pronoia" i n Stoa und

1 f

Platonismus 1
FZPhTh 24(1977)60-87, esp. 65-69; one cannot help comparing pub-
l i c o p i n i o n on n u c l e a r armament and n u c l e a r energy i n our own t i m e ). The
planets thus become the malevolent guardians of Gnosticism ( c f . Corp.Herm.
1.24-26).

Against t h i s background i t becomes comprehensible t h a t , when P h i l o speaks

of the heavenly bodies, he accords them power and i n f l u e n c e , but always s t r o n g -
l y emphasizes that such powers are secondary and subordinate (against the C h a l -
deans (!) at Migr.179, Her.97-99, Mut.16, Abr.69, V i r t . 2 1 2 , QG 3.1; i n defence
of providence against an unknown opponent at Prov.1.77-88). He thus f i n d s i n
P l a t o ' s views on the ' r u l e 1
of the heavenly bodies much with which he can con-
cur. But h i s own p r e s e n t a t i o n has an added p o l e m i c a l focus, d i r e c t e d at the
two erroneous a t t i t u d e s of worship and fear. 2

6.2.3. P a r e n t s as s u b o r d i n a t e creators

Nikiprowetzky FE 23.154-155, i n a note of great p e r s p i c a c i t y on Decal.106,

observes that the manner i n which P h i l o d e s c r i b e s the p r o c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y of
parents i s d e l i b e r a t e l y r e m i n i s c e n t of the i n s t r u c t i o n s which the demiurge
gives to the 'young gods' i n the Timaeus. The r e l e v a n t passages i n P h i l o are
Decal.106-107,111,119-120, Spec.2.224-225, Her.171-172 ( c f . a l s o Her.115 (exeg.
Ex.25:1-2), Spec.2.2, QG 3.48 (EES 1.246, exeg. Gen.17:12)). In these three
texts he i s engaged i n e x p l a i n i n g the f i f t h commandment, i n which c h i l d r e n are
enjoined to honour t h e i r p a r e n t s . Just as t h i s commandment i s on the border-
l i n e between the f i r s t f i v e d e a l i n g with euae$eua and the second f i v e d e a l i n g
with cpbAavdpwuua, so the nature of parents i s on the b o r d e r - l i n e between im-
mortal and m o r t al b e i n g. They are mortal because of t h e i r c o r p o r e a l i t y and
s u b j e c t i o n to the process of b i r t h and death, immortal because they i m i t a t e
God i n c r e a t i n g what was not there b e f o r e , thereby ensuring the immortality of
the human r a c e . In so doing they become a s s i m i l a t e d to God (Decal.107 e£ouou-
ojats; on t h i s theme see f u r t h e r below I I 10.1.6.).

P h i l o ' s remarks on the p r i v i l e g e d r o l e of parents and the high deference

owed to them by t h e i r c h i l d r e n draw on both J u d a i c and Greek antecedents ( c f .
Heinemann 253ff., Nikiprowetzky l o c . c i t . ; both r e f e r i n t e r a l i a to P l a t o Laws
717,931). In the Timaeus the process of r e p r o d u c t i o n i s only b r i e f l y touched
on at 91a-d and the r e l a t i o n between parents and c h i l d r e n f a l l s o u t s i d e the
dialogue's subject matter. But P h i l o has observed that the r o l e of parents i n
p r o c r e a t i o n i s analogous to that of the 'young gods'. The l a t t e r r e c e i v e the
souls sown (41c9,e4,42d4) by the demiurge, and as h i s agents c r e a t e the a d d i -
216 ANALYSIS

t i o n a l p a r t s require d f o r man's mortal e x i s t e n c e . S i m i l a r l y human parents r e -

c e i v e man's d i v i n e part 'from o u t s i d e ' ( c f . Opif.67, Her.184), and as agents
of God o r n a t u r e 1
complete the task by 'moulding the l i v i n g being' (CqjoTiAaa-

TEZV Decal.120) i n the womb. E s p e c i a l l y the repeated emphasis on the d i v i s i o n

between mortal and immortal (Decal.107, Spec.2.225, Her.172) and on the i m i t a -
t o r y nature of the parents (Decal. 111,120, Spec.2.225 (uuuouuevou. ..xn,v eneC-
vou 6uvautv, cf.41c5 uuuouuevou xn.v euriv 6uvautv!), Her. 172) i n d i c a t e beyond
a l l reasonable doubt that P h i l o has Tim.41-42 i n mind. As Nikiprowetzky sug-
gests, i t i s l i k e l y that he saw a p a r a l l e l between God's exhortatory words on
the subject of reproduction at Gen.1:11-13,20-23,28-30 and the demiurge's i n -
s t r u c t i o n s at 41c4-5,d2-3.

At Decal.120 P h i l o d e c l a r e s that c e r t a i n bolder persons, wishing to honour

the name o f parenthood, a f f i r m that a f a t h e r and a mother are i n f a c t gods r e -
vealed to sight (eucpotveus %eoC) . The a s s i m i l a t i o n of parents to P l a t o 's se-
condary c r e a t o r s i s v i r t u a l l y complete, f o r they too are v i s i b l e gods (cf.41a
3-4). P h i l o v o i c e s no c r i t i c i s m here. But from other passages we d i s c e r n
t h a t , i n a t y p i c a l l y P h i l o n i c manner, the c l a i m that parents are d i v i n e i s
thought t o r e q u i r e q u a l i f i c a t i o n . God i s the true c r e a t o r , parents a r e h i s
helpers i n the c r e a t i v e work. God i s the t r ue cause of the immortality of
man's genus, parents are the accessory causes (Her.115) 2
o r the instruments of
generation (Her.171). At t h i s point P h i l o ' s symbolic e x p l a n a t i o n of the Jewish
custom of c i r c u m c i s i o n i s d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t . C e r t a i n persons, regarding them-
s e l v e s as otyadou C^OTtAaaxat, boasted that they were r e s p o n s i b l e for creating
the f i n e s t of l i v i n g beings ( i . e . man) and were so puffed up w i t h t h e i r own
importance that they thought themselves to be gods (eauxous e£e$euwo"av). Thus
they concealed the f a c t that God i s the true cause (Spec.1.10, c f . QG 3.48,
Migr.92). Because of t h i s r e a l danger of s e l f - o v e r e s t i m a t i o n man should be
circumcised, and so bear on h i s sexual organ the symbol of h i s r e c o g n i t i o n
that not he but God i s the true cause of immortality through p r o c r e a t i o n .

In the passages c i t e d i n the preceding paragraph P h i l o twice makes an

anonymous reference to groups of t h i n k e r s , the f i r s t time without criticism
(Decal.120), the second time i n a c r i t i c a l v e i n (Spec.1.10). We can only spe-
c u l a t e on whom these groups represent. The second might w e l l i n c l u d e Greek
philosophers who speak of man's s e l f - g e n e r a t i o n and the immortality of the
species without t a k i n g God i n t o account (e.g. A r i s t o t l e Met.A 3 1070a8, 5 1071
a14ff., De anima 2.4 415b1ff.). The f i r s t group could r e f e r to Greek sources
as w e l l (e.g. P l a t o Laws 931a), but a l s o p o s s i b l y to e a r l i e r exegetes who had
discussed the f i f t h commandment. I see l i t t l e reason, however, to cast doubt
on our assumption that the connection between Plato's secondary c r e a t i o n and
parenthood was made by P h i l o .
 II 6.3.1. 217

6.3. The d e m i u r g e ' s f i n a l a c t and r e t i r e m e n t (Tim.41d-42e)

6.3.1. Some u s e o f i m a g e r y

When P l a t o describes the demiurge's f i n a l c r e a t i v e a c t , the c r e a t i o n of

man's immortal r a t i o n a l s o u l , the v e i l of myth becomes t h i c k e r ( c f . Cornford
143) and not a l l the d e t a i l s should be pressed w i t h equal r i g o u r . Philo i s
above a l l a t t r a c t e d t o the d i v e r s i t y of imagery, as can be seen from the fol-
lowing instances.
1. The mixing bowl (41d4). In the exegesis of Ex.24:6 at Her.182-185
and QE 2.33 P h i l o gives the Mosaic x p a x f l p e s a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e .
Plato's image o f the mixing bowl of the soul i s echoed, but e x e g e t i c a l con-
cerns have the upper hand. The c o n t r a s t between the unmixed ( v o u s ) and mixed
( a L o S n o b s ) p a r t s of the s o u l departs from P l a t o ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n . At Opif. 74
(note the context) man's r a t i o n a l soul i s d e s c r i b e d as a mixture (dvaMexpaue-
v r ) g ) of the b e t t e r idea and the opposite and i n f e r i o r idea (is Philo thinking
of the i n g r e d i e n t s i n d i v i s i b l e / d i v i s i b l e ? - c f . above I I 5.2.1-2.). Cf. a l s o
Somn.2.248.

2. Equal i n number t o the s t a r s (41d8). H a r l FE 15.209 r i g h t l y suspects

that T O U S d o i p o t s u o d p u ^ u o v a t Her.86 i s an a l l u s i o n to the Timaeus. Philo
cannot read a text such as Gen.15:5 without immediately t h i n k i n g of P l a t o ' s
dialogue. But the a l l u s i o n t o 41d8 i s no more than v e r b a l , f o r he wishes t o
give a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i on of the text ( c f . Leg.3.40), and so i n t e r p r e t s
it i n terms of Tim.47b-c (see f u r t h e r below I I 7.2.4.). At Somn.1.137 the
phrase u o a p u d u o u s d a x p o u s again occurs, but here the context i s quite differ-
ent. P h i l o i s drawing on cosmological doctrines ( o r i g i n a l l y based on the T i -
maeus , but c o n s i d e r a b l y m o d i f i e d; see above I I 5.4.3.) to e l u c i d a t e the symbol
of Jacob's ladder (Gen.28:12). The a i r i s l i k e a f l o u r i s h i n g c i t y , populated
with immortal souls equal i n number to the s t a r s . This i s an obvious attempt
to systematize the d o c t r i n e o f the Timaeus i n r e l a t i o n to f u r t h e r data on de-
mons and i n c o r p o r e a l souls i n the Symposium, Republic, Phaedrus and Epinomis.
The souls created by the demiurge are sown onto the planets and the earth (41
e4-5,42d4-5), so that i t i s n a t u r a l to deduce that i n the process of r e i n c a r -
n a t i o n there must be a c o n t i n u a l procession of i n c o r p o r e a l souls i n the a i r .
But, as we s h a l l see below i n I I 10.2.2., P h i l o i s not so keen on the doctrine
of metempsychosis. The e n t i r e s e c t i o n Somn.1.134-141 i s c l e a r l y d e r i v e d from
an intermediate source, and so there i s a good chance that the a l l u s i o n was
a l s o l o c a t e d there and that P h i l o simply took i t over.

3* Sowing. P l a t o four times describe s the demiurge as 'sowing' the r a -

t i o n a l souls (41c8,e4,42d4,6), a n a t u r a l extension of the image of the demiurge
218 ANALYSIS

as f a t h e r and p r o g e n i t o r . The prominence of the image w i l l have aided P h i l o

i n reaching the c o n c l u s i o n that parents i m i t a t e God i n t h e i r p r o c r e a t i v e acti-
vity (see above I I 6.2.3.), but that the r e a l cause of p r o c r e a t i o n i s God (Her.
1 7 1
" 1 7 2
» Decal.119, c f . Leg.3.180, Pet.147). The image of sowing i s most o f -
ten used i n P h i l o to d e s c r i b e the impregnation of the v i r t u o u s soul by God or
h i s Wisdom ( c f . Baer 55-64).

4. The demiurge as magistrate and lawgiver. As B r i s s o n has pointed out,

the word 6nytoupYOS, though p r i m a r i l y used to denote the humble craftsman, was
a l s o used as the t i t l e of a magistrate i n many Greek c i t y - s t a t e s ( c f . LSJ 386a
I I ; P h i l o s acquaintance wit h t h i s meaning i s shown at Somn.2.187, c f . Colson
f

EE 5.529). P l a t o has e x p l o i t e d the double meaning. The demiurge i s not only

craftsman and b u i l d e r , but a l s o c o l o n i z e r and lawgiver. He gives legislation
to the newly created souls before they are incarnate d (42d2 6ua$eoyo$exr|oas).
In A l b i n u s ' paraphrase of t h i s passage i n Did.16.2 the demiurge i s unambigious-
l y compared to a voyodexns ( c f . Num.fr.13, B a l t e s VChr 29(1975)262, a l s o De
Mundo6 400b8). The appeal of such a p r e s e n t a t i o n to P h i l o i s immediately ap-
parent. The f a c t that the Mosaic l e g i s l a t i o n commences w i t h the account of
c r e a t i o n demonstrates that the naxrjp nai Ttourixris of the cosmos i s at the same
time t r u l y i t s voyodexriS (Mos .2.48) . God, by means of h i s voyodexunfi 6uvayts,
i s the lawgiver par e x c e l l e n c e ( c f . Sacr.131, Fug.66,95ff.). At Her.167 (exeg.
Ex.32:16) he i s c a l l e d the §eoyo§exriS (cf.42d2). L e g i s l a t i o n i s seen as tak-
ing p l a c e on two l e v e l s - at the cosmic l e v e l i n the c r e a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of
the cosmos ( i . e . the v o y o s xfjs cpuoews) and at the l e v e l of the race or commu-
n i t y i n the Law of the d i v i n e prophet Moses. The p a r a l l e l wit h the d i p t y c h of
P l a t o ' s o l d age, the Timaeus and the Laws, would not have escaped P h i l o . But
the Law of Moses, which a c t u a l l y recognizes the cosmic p e r s p e c t i v e at i t s be-
g i n n i n g , i s f a r s u p e r i o r to what other l e g i s l a t o r s have produced ( c f . Opif.1-3,
Mos.2.48-52). On the more p r e c i s e equivalent of the i n s t r u c t i o n s of the demi-
urge to the newly create d souls which P h i l o detects i n the c r e a t i o n account i n
Gen.1-3, i . e . the p l a n t i n g of paradise i n Gen.2:8, see f u r t h e r below I I 7.1.3.

Weaving. The use of the image of weaving to denote the c o n j u n c t i o n

of body and soul or r a t i o n a l and i r r a t i o n a l s o u l at Ehr.101. Fug.72, Praem.1,
i s based on the demiurge's i n s t r u c t i o n s to the 'young gods' at Tim.41d1. Philo
a l s o a p p l i e s the image of weaving to the i n t r i c a t e s t r u c t u r e of the cosmos,
c h i e f l y i n s p i r e d by the B i b l i c a l symbolism of the speckled sheep (Gen.31:10,
c f . Fug.10, Somn.1.200ff.), the c u r t a i n s of the tabernacle (Ex.26:1-14, c f .
Mos.2.84-88, QE 2.86) and the h i g h - p r i e s t l y robes (Ex.28:4-9, c f . Mos.2.109-
121, Spec.1.84ff., QE 2.118). In p a r t i c u l a r we should not overlook P h i l o ' s
emphasis on the a r t of v a r i e g a t i o n or embroidery (n T t o u H u A x u x r i x e x y n Somn. 1 .
203), which i s not j u s t concerned with the lowly c r a f t of weavers, but must
 II 6.3.1. 219

be imagis t i c a l l y extended to t h i s cosmos as the T t a y i o u K u A o v uqxxaua ( i b i d . ) .

The theme of T t o u x t A u a , l i m i t e d i n the Timaeus to the heavens (39d2,40a7, c f .
Rep.592c-d, Opif.45) or the elements (57d5,61c4), i n d i c a t e s i n P h i l o s f
writings
above a l l the astounding d i v e r s i t y and decorative splendour of the e n t i r e cos-
mos as God's c r e a t i o n ( c f . Plot.Enn.3.2.11.7,13.23,15.32).

6.3.2. The s e v e n t h day of creation

In a note on Plato's words at Tim.42e5-6, nai 6 y e v d i t a v x a x a O x a 6uaxd£as

eyevev ev T $ eauxou xaxd xpoiov T\$EL 9 Cornford writes (147):
e y e v e v i s hard to render. The word does not mean r e s t or c e s s a t i o n of
a c t i v i t y (contrast Gen.ii,1 [my emphasis; the reference should be Gen.2:
2], x a x e i t a u o e TT) n y e p a xf) e36ourj a i t o i t d v x w v x w v epywv a u x o u ) : 40B the
stars oxpecpoyeva y e v e u . The meaning seems to be that the Demiurge l e f t
these f u r t h e r operations to the created gods, c o n f i n i n g himself to h i s
own proper a c t i v i t y .
e y e v e v appears to be an i n c h o a t i v e imperfect ( c f . Festugier e ad P r o c l . i n Tim.
3.315.8), so, though i t does not i n d i c a t e a t o t a l c e s s a t i o n of a c t i v i t y , i t
does imply a retirement on the part of the demiurge from the tasks on which he
had been engaged, and t h i s f i t s p e r f e c t l y i n t o the Timaeus' mythical framework.
The point which we wish to make i n t h i s sub-section i s that the c o n t r a s t be-
tween P l a t o and the LXX text which Cornford p o i n t s out i s e f f a c e d by P h i l o
when he comments on the very same words of Moses.
This would not n e c e s s a r i l y be our c o n c l u s i o n i f we only took P h i l o ' s exe-
gesis of the seventh day at Decal.96-101 i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n (explained in re-
l a t i o n to the f o u r t h commandment, c f . als o QG 2.41, Opif.128). Man should
'follow God', who i s the archetype of the best way of l i f e and sets man an ex-
ample i n h i s c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . Six days were devoted by God to itpa^ts, the
seventh to d e w p u a . Likewise man should work f o r s i x days, and on the seventh
devote himself to contemplation and the p u r s u i t of wisdom. 1
But, P h i l o appends
i n §101, the p r e c i s e way we must understand the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos i n s i x
days has been expounded elsewhere with use of the a l l e g o r i c a l method.
The cross-reference i n Decal.101 r e f e r s the reader to Leg.1.2-4, where
Philo declares that no time was involved i n the c r e a t i v e process, but that the
numbers of the days have a symbolic s i g n i f i c a n c e (see above I I 2.1.3. 5.3.1.).
In §5-7 (cf.16) an exegesis i s then given of the Mosaic words i n Gen.2:2 c i t e d
by Cornford above. The passage i s rather d i f f i c u l t to f o l l o w because P h i l o
combines two separate ideas i n h i s explanation. F i r s t l y he observes that there
i s an important a r i t h m o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n between the monad and the hebdomad ( c f .
above II 5.2.1.), and that i n the words that f o l l o w at Gen.2:4 Moses r e v e r t s to
the c r e a t i o n of heaven and e a r t h which took place on the f i r s t day ( c f . Post.
220 ANALYSIS

64-65). Thus God, having f i n i s h e d the c r e a t i o n of §vnxd, turns to the forma-

t i o n of deuotepa, f o r i t i s h i s nature (l'6uov) to be ever a c t i v e (§5, c f . 1 6 ) . 2

Secondly P h i l o p o i n t s out that Moses does not say eiauoaxo (middle v o i c e ) ,

which would i n d i c a t e t r u e c e s s a t i o n of a c t i v i t y , but xaxenauoev wv fip^axo (ac-
t i v e v o i c e ) , which means he caused to r e s t those ( c r e a t u r e s ) which he had
f
be-
gun . 1
God's products once created do not stand s t i l l but begin to move. By
p u t t i n g these to r e s t God can begin with the c r e a t i o n of other (more d i v i n e )
t h i n g s , f o r i n the endless process of yeveobg and (p$opd the end of one thing
i s the beginning of the other (§6-7, c f . a l s o §18). Both ideas converge i n
emphasizing the continuity of c r e a t i o n and God's never-ceasing activity.* The
l a t t e r theme i s a l s o h e a v i l y s t r e s s e d i n an exegesis of the od33axov (the
f o u r t h commandment again) at Cher.87-90 ( c f . Migr.91, Her.170). Only God tru-
l y r e s t s ; h i s r e s t , however, i s not dupa^ua, but an e t e r n a l and effortless
evepyeua. And i n t h i s unwearying a c t i v i t y he remains ever dxpenxos xau duexd-
3Xnxos (§90).

The extent to which P h i l o has Tim.42e i n mind i n the above passages i s

d i f f i c u l t to determine. Such h e s i t a t i o n i s not r e q u i r e d , however, with regard
to the remark at Mut.46 (cf.27, Somn.2.221).
T L - S Y«P O U K ou6ev, oxt xau itpo xfjs xou xooyou yeveoews uxavos rjv auxos
eauxtj) o %ebg xat uexd TT\V X O U X O O U O U yeveouv o auxos eyevev, ou uexapaAwv;
The l a s t three words d i s c l o s e the d i s c r e e t presence of P l a t o ' s words i n the
background. A proper understanding of the c r e a t i o n a l account leads to the
c o n c l u s i o n that i n Moses' view there can be no t a l k of a demiurgic retirement
i n the manner suggested by P l a t o (even i f i t should be m y t h i c a l l y intended).
God's s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t transcendence e n t a i l s that h i s c r e a t o r s h i p does not pose
a t h r e a t to h i s i m m u t a b i l i t y .
 CHAPTER SEVEN

TIMAEUS 4 2 E - 4 7 E : MAN'S DESCENT INTO THE BODY

7.0. Introductory

7.1. The i n c a r n a t i o n of the s o u l (Tim.42e-44c)

7.1.1. The borrowing of the elements (42e-43a)
7.1.2. The soul i s engulfed (43a-d)
7.1.3. The A l l e g o r y of the soul

7.2. The t e l e o l o g y of s i g h t (Tim.44d-47e)

7.2.1. The head and face (44d-45b)
7.2.2. The mechanism of v i s i o n (45b-d)
7.2.3. The encomium of s i g h t (47a-c)
7.2.4. The r e v o l u t i o n s of the heavens and the c i r c u i t s of the
mind (47b-c)

7.0. Introductory

In obedience to the demiurge's command h i s a s s i s t a n t s commence t h e i r a l -

l o t t e d task. Man's body i s put together out of small p o r t i o n s of the four
elements and r i v e t e d i n t o a whole. Into t h i s mortal body the immortal r a t i o -
n a l s o u l , already created by the demiurge, must be placed. In a d e s c r i p t i o n
of great imaginative power P l a t o presents the conjunction of soul and body i n
terms of the motions and sensations of a new-born baby. The s o u l i s plunged
i n t o the turbulen t streams of the body and i s overwhelmed by the multitude of
sensations to which i t i s exposed. The c i r c u l a r r e v o l u t i o n s of the mind are
dented and deformed, with the r e s u l t that the body cannot be kept under con-
t r o l and becomes convulsed by i r r e g u l a r and v i o l e n t movements. Only when the
current of growth and nourishment dimlhishes i n strength can the c i r c u i t s of
the r a t i o n a l soul be r e s t o r e d to t h e i r n a t u r a l s t a t e . Nurtured by sound edu-
c a t i v e p r i n c i p l e s man can proceed to lead a l i f e i n which h i s movements and
actions are d i r e c t e d by reason.

The a c t u a l d e t a i l s of the body's c o n s t r u c t i o n are not describe d until

l a t e r , at 69e-81e. At t h i s p o i n t P l a t o i s c h i e f l y concerned w i th what happens
to man's r a t i o n a l p a r t . The mind i s placed i n a s p h e r i c a l enclosure, the
head, which i n turn i s given an elongated body with limbs. Of a l l the b o d i l y
instruments which the soul r e c e i v e s through the reasoning f o r e s i g h t of the
222 ANALYSIS

gods, P l a t o s e l e c t s the sense of s i g h t f o r s p e c i a l treatment. I t i s by means

of s i g h t that man can contemplate the o r d e r l y and r a t i o n a l movements of the

heavens and, by i m i t a t i n g them, set h i s own mental c i r c u i t s i n good order.

Contemplation of the cosmos leads to knowledge of number and time, a l s o to

r a t i o n a l enquiry concerning the nature of the u n i v e r s e . The sense of s i g h t

i s thus instrumental i n producing the god's g r e a t e s t gift to man, philosophy.

A l s o hearing i s a s e r v i c e a b l e g i f t , being necessary f o r speech and an appreci-

a t i o n of harmony.

7.1. The incarnation of the soul (Tim.42e-44c)

7.1.1. The b o r r o w i n g o f t h e e l e m e n t s (42e-43a)

Man's body i s but a temporary c o n s t r u c t . The young gods borrow small am-

ounts ( 6 a v e u t ; o u e v a 42e9) from each of the four elements i n order to construc t

i t , but i t i s a loan that man must repay at death (d7io6o^no6ueva 43a1). There

i s a d i r e c t p a r a l l e l between macrocosm and microcosm i n that both have a body

composed out of,the four elements ( c f . Opif.146 and in a slightly different

v e r s i o n Her.152-153). The great d i f f e r e n c e i s that the combination of e l e -

ments of the microcosm i s not permanent. As was observed above i n I I 6.2.1.,

P h i l o does not a t t r i b u t e the c r e a t i o n of the body to God's subordinates, Gen.

2:7 being q u i t e unambiguous on t h i s score. The theme of borrowing, however,

he f i n d s appealing, as emerges from the f o l l o w i n g t e x t s .

Post.5: Cain cannot 'go out' (Gen.4:16) from the cosmos, f o r a l l created
things are c o n s t r i c t e d ( n e p L O c p u Y C c s , c f . Tim.58a7) by the c i r c l e of the o u p a -
vos. The p a r t i c l e s of those who d i e are r e d i s t r i b u t e d to the powers of the
universe ( P h i l o sometimes gives the elements the d e s c r i p t i o n 6 u v d u e u s , which
goes back to P r e s o c r a t i c times; c f . Det.154, Her.281), each man paying h i s
loan back a f t e r a longer or s h o r t e r p e r i o d .
Her.281-283: Who are Abraham's f a t h e r s a l l u d e d to i n Gen.15:5? P h i l o r e -
views s e v e r a l suggestions of other exegetes, i n c l u d i n g one that proposes that
the f o u r d p x o x xott 6uvaueus of the cosmos are meant. Man borrows u u x p d u o p u a
(cf .43a1) from the ovoCa of each, a debt which he must repay na.%'wpuouevas
nepuo6ous x a t p a j v . In t h i s exegesis the body i s equated w i t h the four elements,
the s o u l w i th the A r i s t o t e l i a n quintessence. P h i l o makes no d i r e c t comment, but
appears to f i n d t h i s a d d i t i o n a l d o c t r i n e s u f f i c i e n t to escape the charge of a
m a t e r i a l i s t psychology. Contrast QG 3.11, however, where he r e j e c t s the exe-
g e s i s of the f a t h e r s as the four elements. B r e h i e r 163 regards as a s i g n i f i -
cant p a r a l l e l Marc.Aurel. 10.7.2 and e s p e c i a l l y the phrase x a x d 7iepuo6ov I X T I U -
pouuevou. But P h i l o ' s i n s p i r a t i o n i s P l a t o n i c r a t h e r than S t o i c . A b e t t e r
p a r a l l e l i s l o c a t e d i n A l b i n u s ' paraphrase of the Timaeus at Did.16.1, a u x o t
6f] 6aveuoauevo b onto xfjs TtpwxriS uAns u o p u a d x x a Ttpos d ) p u o u e v o u s x p o v o ^ S ws e u s 9

a u x o TtaAuv aTio6o^r|o6yeva, e6riy b o u p y o u v x d § v n x d Cipa ( c f . a l s o 17.1, where the

four elements are enumerated instead of the Ttpwxn u A n ) .
Decal.31: As part of an encomium of the decad prompted by exegesis of the
Decalogue, P h i l o l i s t s the ten ( A r i s t o t e l i a n ) c a t e g o r i e s , which he i l l u s t r a t e s
 I I 7.1.1. 223

with the standard example, man. Man p a r t i c i p a t e s i n substance, because he has

borrowed what he needs f o r h i s own composition from the four elements. On
t h i s text see f u r t h e r D i l l o n 178-180 and below I I I 3.1.
Aet.29: The borrowing of the elements i s here l o c a t e d i n an A r i s t o t e l i a n
argument i n favour of the i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y of the cosmos, based on the (non-
P l a t o n i c ) d o c t r i n e of n a t u r a l p l a c e and again using man as an example. Here
too the problem occurs which we have encountered already on a number of occa-
s i o n s . Who has include d the P l a t o n i c a l l u s i o n , P h i l o or h i s source (Arist.D e
p h i l . f r . 1 9 b Ross)? The f a c t that four elements are l i s t e d and the f i f t h e l e -
ment ignored speaks i n favour of P h i l o , but the argument i s not d e c i s i v e ( c f .
E f f e Studien 19-20).
On o c c a s i o n P h i l o , i n subservience to the B i b l i c a l t e x t , gives the body
other c o n s t i t u e n t s , e.g. eart h (Opif.135, Her.57, exeg. Gen.2:7), or e a r t h and
water (Spec.1.263-266, exeg. Num.19:17); see f u r t h e r Gross 10-13, Schmidt 31.
What he considers important are the twin d o c t r i n e s that the body i s corporeal
i n nature, and has only a temporary duration. Man's mind i s r e l a t e d to the
d i v i n e Logos, but h i s body i s compounded from the elements of the cosmos, each
of which makes i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n (Opif.146). Cf. a l s o QG 2.61: 'For the body
i s d i s s o l v e d i n t o those (parts) out of which i t was mixed and compounded, and
i s again r e s o l v e d i n t o i t s o r i g i n a l elements.' P l a t o ' s image of the loan of
the elements i s a t t r a c t i v e p r e c i s e l y because i t i l l u s t r a t e s these two doc-
t r i n e s i n a s u c c i n c t manner.

7.1.2. The s o u l i s engulfed (43a-d)

In order to d e s c r i be the disturbances which take place when the soul en-
t e r s the body, P l a t o makes extensive use of the image of r a p i d l y f l o w i n g water
(43a6 r i v e r , b6 b i l l o w , d1 channel). This P l a t o n i c image i s one of P h i l o ' s
f a v o u r i t e s , and i s used i n a large number of d i f f e r e n t contexts and c o n f i g u r a -
t i o n s ( o f t e n , f o r example, the r i v e r becomes a s w i r l i n g eddying t o r r e n t f o r
heightened r h e t o r i c a l e f f e c t ) . At Gig.13, i n a passage saturated w i t h P l a t o -
n i c language ( c f . B i l l i n g s 42-43), the r i v e r i s i d e n t i f i e d wit h the body, into
which souls descend (also at Somn.1.147; cf.43a5-6). Elsewhere the r a g i ng
current symbolizes the objects of perception which f l o o d i n on the mind or r a -
t i o n a l soul and threaten to overwhelm i t (Pet.199, Ebr.7Q, Fug.91, Mut.107; c f .
43c5-7,44a5). Most o f t e n P h i l o employs t h i s imagery to represent the c o n t i n u -
a l stream of the passions which inundate the s o u l so that i t can h a r d l y keep
i t s head above water ( c f . Deus 181, Agr.89, Ebr.22, Conf.23, Mut.186, Somn.2.13,
QG 2.9,75 e t c . ; cf.44a8).

Rather than p i l e up examples of P h i l o ' s copious use of the image (a by no

means exhaustive l i s t i s given at B i l l i n g s 70), i t w i l l be more i n s t r u c t i v e
f o r us to examine t h i s usage i n r e l a t i o n to (1) h i s e x e g e t i c a l labours, and
224 ANALYSIS

(2) other i n f l u e n t i a l imagery drawn from the p h i l o s o p h i c a l tradition.

Given the high i n c i d e n c e of references to r i v e r s , f l o o d i n g and so f o r t h

in the n a r r a t i v e s e c t i o n s of the Pentateuch, i t i s only to be expected that

P h i l o should f i n d P l a t o ' s imagery most h e l p f u l f o r h i s a l l e g o r i c a l exegesis.

We give some of the more s i g n i f i c a n t examples.

1. Noah's f l o o d . Noah (the soul) i s b u f f e t e d i n the ark (the body) by the

f l o o d (of the p a s s i o n s ) . C f . Pet-170, Conf.23-25,105, Fug.191-192, QG 2.1-55,
esp.9,18,25. A c o m p l i c a t i n g f a c t o r f o r a P l a t o n i z i n g a l l e g o r y i s that the wa-
t e r of the f l o o d i s brought f o r t h by both the fountains of the deep and the
c a t a r a c t s of heaven (Gen.7:11). Heaven and e a r t h symbolize vous and auadrjots
respectively. Thus the f l o o d i n g i s caused by the wickedness of the mind and
the passions induced by the senses (Conf.25, Fug. 192, QG2.18). Moreover at
Pet.170 a p u r i f y i n g e f f e c t i s a t t r i b u t e d to the f l o o d (cf.22d7 and above I I
1.2.2.). The p a r a l l e l s between Gen.6-8 and Tim.43a-d are thus f a r from per-
f e c t , but P h i l o n e v e r t h e l e s s f i n d s them u s e f u l .
2. Jacob goes to (Gen.28:2) and Balaam comes from (Num.23:7) Mesopotamia, the
land of the r i v e r s ; c f . Fug.49, Conf.66.
3. Jacob crosses the r i v e r Jordan (Leg.2.89, exeg. Gen.32:10). Jordan means
'descent* ( x a x d f S a o t s , c f . Gig. 13 wanep eus Tioxayov T O owua x a x a g a o a t ) , i . e .
down to the world of wickedness and passion which the p r a c t i s i n g s o u l must
overcome or c r o s s . P l a t o ' s r i v e r image i s i m p l i c i t here.
4. Egypt and i t s mighty r i v e r are P h i l o ' s most constant B i b l i c a l symbols f o r
the body and i t s passions ( c f . Earp EE 10.303). The a l l e g o r i c a l exegesis of
Ex.13:19 at Somn.2.109 i s more than u s u a l l y c l o s e to the P l a t o n i c passage:
...layxaXeiov n y o u y e v o s (Mwuofjs) , e t i t fjvdnoev f) c|>uxn x a A o v , x o u x ' l a o a t y a -
p a v d f j v a t xau x a x a x A u o d e v dcpavuodfjvab TiAriyyupats, a s o xwv itadwv A t y u T t x t o s T C O -
x a y o s T O otioya, 6ud Ttaowv xwv atoSrioewv pewv ev6eAex&s e x 6 t 6 a ) O u v (cf.43c5-d1,
9

esp. xou p e o v x o s IvdeAex^s o x e x o u ) . Cf. a l s o Conf.29-30, Somn.2.278 (both

exeg. Ex.7:15), Her.315, Somn.2.255 (both exeg. Gen.15:18). In the l a s t two
passages the B i b l i c a l t e x t c o n s t r a i n s P h i l o to present r i v e r s of v i r t u e (Eu-
phrates) as w e l l as r i v e r s of b o d i l y passions ( N i l e ) .
5. The E g y p t i a n s, l o v e r s of body, are drowned i n the Red sea, the stream of
the p a s s i o n s . Cf. Conf.70 (exeg. Ex.14:27); the same scene i s i m p l i c i t at Mut.
186.
Secondly i t must observed that P h i l o o f t e n combines the r i v e r image of

Tim.43a-d w i t h other well-known images which had been e x p l o i t e d i n the p h i l o -

sophical tradition.

1. The descent or f a l l of the s o u l ( x a x a g a o t s , c f . Gig.13, Leg.2.89) and i t s

submergence so that i t can no longer look around ( c f . Pet.100, QG 4.234 etc.)
show the i n f l u e n c e of the f l i g h t imagery of the Phaedrus myth (esp. 248a-d).
2. In a number of passages P h i l o ' s imagery i s more a p p r o p r i a t e to s a i l i n g on
the u n p r e d i c t a b l e seas than to swimming i n a t u r b u l e n t r i v e r (Sacr.90, Agr.89,
Mut.215 e t c . ) . P a r t i c u l a r l y v i v i d i s the d e s c r i p t i o n of h i s own experience at
Spec.3.3-6. The 'golden twined wavelets ( x u y d x u a ) ' around the ark (Ex.25:11)
symbolize both the running stream of the body and the b i l l o w i n g storms of the
course of human l i f e (QE 2.55). P i l l o n SPh 6(1979-80)37 has p l a u s i b l y sugges-
ted that P h i l o i n these t e x t s i s a witness to the H e l l e n i s t i c a l l e g o r i z a t i o n
of Odysseus' n a u t i c a l adventures, and i n p a r t i c u l a r h i s shipwreck o f f the i s -
land Phaeacia, i n terms of the s t r u g g l e to s u r v i v e the storms and shipwrecks
of m a t e r i a l e x i s t e n c e . Note how Numenius f r . 3 3 combines t h i s Homeric theme
w i t h the 'sea of d i s s i m i l i t u d e ' (Pol.273d) which represents the realm of matter.
3. The r i v e r a l s o symbolizes f o r P h i l o the H e r a c l i t a n f l u x , the r e s t l e s s flow
of s e n s i b l e e x i s t e n c e ( c f . los.140-142, Conf.105, Somn.1.192,2.258 e t c . ) . The
connection which he p e r c e i v e s between t h i s d o c t r i n e and Tim.43a-d i s a p p r o p r i -
ate, f o r i t was the H e r a c l i t a n background of the r i v e r image (fr.B12,49 PK)
 II 7.1.2. 225

which i n s p i r e d P l a t o to use i t i n h i s dialogue ( c f . a l s o Crat.402a).

At Tim.43c5-7 Plat o h i n t s at an etymology f o r a t o ^ n o L S based on i t s r a p i d ,
a s s a i l i n g motion, but does not say what v e r b a l root he has i n mind. Proclus'
suggestion ( i n Tim.3.332.6) that he derives i t from auooeuv (to d a r t , rush) i s
l i k e l y t o be c o r r e c t . In h i s exegesis of Gen.15:9 at Her.126 P h i l o r e f e r s to
t h i s etymology, connecting i t w i t h the she-goat (aZya) of the B i b l i c a l text,
which i s n a t u r a l l y seen as a symbol of a t o d n o t s . I t i s p o s s i b l e that the e t y -
mology i s once again e x p l o i t e d at QG 3.3 (EES 1.183), where the same symbolism
i s extracte d from the same t e x t . 1
At Deus 42 a d i f f e r e n t (and less persuasive)
etymology i s given f o r a u o d n o u s , namely from euodeous (emplacement). It i s
claimed f o r the Stoa by Von Arnim at SVF 2.458.

Completely opposite t o the s w i r l i n g of the body and b a t t e r i n g of the sen-

ses i s the s t a t e of calmness and t r a n q u i l l i t y reached by the mature soul ( y a -
Anvn Tim.44b3) . The metaphor of calmness and c l e a r weather ( y a A r i v n , v n v e y u a ,
eu6ua e t c . ) , used t o portra y the d i s p o s i t i o n of the man who has brought h i s
passions under c o n t r o l , i s almost as common i n P h i l o as the images o f turbu-
l e n t t o r r e n t s and stormy seas discussed above. C f . Sacr.16,90, Deus 26, Conf.
32,43, Congr.92-93, Somn.2.229, Abr.30,207 e t c . The s p e c i f i c i n f l u e n c e of the
Timaeus should not be overestimated, since the image had become a commonplace
in philosophical literature (a f i n e c o l l e c t i o n of examples i n P l u t a r c h 1
trea-
t i s e Ilept e u ^ u y t a s , Mor.464E-477F; t r a n q u i l l i t a s animi i s one of the c h i e f a t -
t r i b u t e s of the S t o i c sage, c f . SVF 3.570,632, Marc.Aurel.8.28,12.22; see a l s o
Volker 320).

7.1.3. The A l l e g o r y o f the soul

The d u a l i t y of body and s o u l i s one of the cornerstones of P h i l o ' s thought.

The body i s a p r i s o n or tomb f o r the soul ( P l a t o ' s Phaedo, Phdr.250c, Gorg.
493a ( o w y a / o n y a ) , c f . Leg.1.108, Somn.1.139, QG 2.69, 4.153 e t c . ) . The s o u l
must spend i t s l i f e t i e d to a corpse ( A r i s t o t l e ' s Eudemus or P r o t r e p t i c u s ) .
The body as corpse which the s o u l must c a r r y (veHpocpopeuv) i s symbolized by Er
(exeg. Gen.38:7), meaning ' l e a t h e r n ' , whom God puts t o death witho '*" brinoi'~~ 1

an open charge against him (Leg.3.69-74, c f . Agr.25, Somn.2.237 etc.,

p a s s i v i t y of the body e n t a i l s that the r e a l c o n f l i c t i n man takes p l a c e
tween the r a t i o n a l and i r r a t i o n a l parts of the s o u l , the l a t t e r part being re-
quired so that the soul can accommodate i t s e l f t o the demands n e c e s s a r i l y made
on i t by the body. Through the f u n c t i o n i n g of the i r r a t i o n a l p a r t of the soul
the r a t i o n a l part i s exposed t o the onslaught of the senses and the raging of
226 ANALYSIS

the passions. Warfare i s the most s u i t a b l e metaphor f o r t h i s mighty conflict

i n man's s o u l . Now the one s i d e p r e v a i l s , now the other, as symbolized by the
r a i s i n g and lowering of Moses 1
arms i n the b a t t l e between I s r a e l and Amelek
(Leg.3.186, exeg. Ex.17:11).
The predominant i n f l u e n c e of P l a t o n i c philosophy in Philo's formulatio n
of the above d o c t r i n e s i s immediately obvious ( c f . Volker 74-76, Wolfson 1.
424-427). He i s f o l l o w i n g the i n t e l l e c t u a l trends of h i s time. Already the
Middle Stoa had come under P l a t o ' s s p e l l and had r e j e c t e d the u n i t a r i a n psy-
chology of t h e i r school's founders. In Middle Platonism the b i p a r t i t e divi-
s i o n of the s o u l i a t o a r a t i o n a l and an i r r a t i o n a l part was standard dogma;
see f u r t h e r below I I 9.2.1-2. Wolfson 1.427 a c c r e d i t s the Timaeus with a great
deal of i n f l u e n c e on the forming of P h i l o ' s views on psychology:

P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the two souls i n man, the r a t i o n a l and the i r r a -

t i o n a l , and the c o n f l i c t between them, though c o n t a i n i n g elements from
other dialogues of P l a t o as w e l l as from other non-Platonic sources, i s
e s s e n t i a l l y based upon P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n i n the Timaeus of the r a t i o n a l
and i r r a t i o n a l souls (42eff.; 69c), of the c o n f l i c t between them (42e-
44d), and of the p o s s i b l e v i c t o r y of the r a t i o n a l s o u l over the i r r a t i o n -
a l s o u l by the s t r e n g t h which i t may gain through knowledge acquired by
means of t r a i n i n g (86b-87b).
The c o n t r i b u t i o n of the Timaeus i s , i n my view, somewhat exaggerated here. On
the subject of the soul's quest to achieve apetri, 6uKauoouvn and eu6auuovua
other P l a t o n i c w r i t i n g s , such as the Phaedo, Republic and Phaedrus, have as
much, i f not more, to say. The c h i e f c o n t r i b u t i o n of the Timaeus i s twofold:
(1) i t attempts to r e l a t e the s t r u g g le of the soul to man's p s y c h o l o g i c a l and
p h y s i o l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e ; (2) i t places the s t r u c t u r e of the microcosm i n a
cosmic perspective.
The problem, t h e r e f o r e , i s to determine whether there i s any evidence
that the Timaeus has had an i n f l u e n c e on P h i l o ' s psychology more s p e c i f i c than
i n h i s use of images and motif s examined i n the previous two sub-sections, but
less general than i n Wolfson's statment quoted above. The most prominent ex-
ample of such i n f l u e n c e i s to be found, I submit, i n the 'Allegory of the soul'
which P h i l o works out i n a s t o n i s h i n g d e t a i l i n the f i r s t three (and to a l e s s e r
extent i n the next four) t r e a t i s e s of h i s A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary. It must be
emphasized at the outset that P h i l o i s not engaged on a systematic t r e a t i s e of
psychology, nor on a s p i r i t u a l and m y s t i c a l i t i n e r a r y of the soul ( c f . the
c r i t i c i s m of Massebieau and B r e h i e r at Nikiprowetzky 168), but a scriptural
commentary which gives a v e r s e - f o r - v e r s e exegesis of Gen.2-4. We consider i t
c e r t a i n , however, that he has attempted to place the v a r i e g a t e d t a p e s t ry of h i s
exegesis i n the framework of a coherent d o c t r i n e of the s o u l , and in this at-
tempt he i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y indebted to the account at Tim.41d-44c. By means of
the a l l e g o r i c a l method P h i l o can show that the s t o r y of Adam and Eve and their
 I I 7.1.3. 227

sons i s a p p l i c a b l e to the development of each i n d i v i d u a l human s o u l .

Let us now review P h i l o s a l l e g o r y of the s o u l i n the p e r s p e c t i v e of i t s
f

r e l a t i o n to the d o c t r i n e s of Tim.41d-44c, b e a r i ng i n mind that i n t h i s part of

h i s account P l a t o already a n t i c i p a t e s the e f f e c t s of the i r r a t i o n a l s o u l ( i . e .
the senses and the p a s s i o n s ) , the c r e a t i o n of which i s not recounted u n t i l
45b-47e,64a-65b,69c-72d.

1. Leg.1.1. The v o u s , the heavenly man, has been created (Gen.1:26-28),

but i s not y e t embodied. Compare the c r e a t i o n of the r a t i o n a l s o u l i n Tim.41d-e.
2. Leg.1.31. The vous becomes incarnated as e a r t h l y man by being given
a body moulded out of c l a y . God s breath makes the v o us i n t o a l i v i n g
f
soul
(Gen.2:7). Compare the c r e a t i o n of man's body by the young gods at 42eff. As
noted e a r l i e r , P h i l o follows the B i b l i c a l t e x t i n having God himself creat e
the body of man. I t i s c l e a r from the development of the a l l e g o r y that man's
body i s so f a r u n f e a t u r e d , i . e . i t s p a r t s and t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s must
1 1

s t i l l be e x p l a i n e d.

3. Leg. 1 .43. God p l a n t s the garden of Eden (Gen.2:8), e a r t h l y oocpua or

d p e x r i , 'to b r i n g succour and a i d to the diseases of the s o u l ' (Leg. 1.45) .
Eden i s s y m b o l i c a l l y equivalent to the law-giving of the demiurge at 42d, but
that takes p l a c e before i n c a r n a t i o n , not a f t e r i t as i n the a l l e g o r y . The
t r e e of l i f e i s generic v i r t u e (Leg.1.59), but the t r e e of knowledge repre-
sents man's i n c l i n a t i o n to e v i l (Leg.1.60-62,100ff., c f . Tim.42b2).
4. Leg.1.63. The four r i v e r s that flow from Eden (Gen.2:10-14) are the
c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s which w i l l ward o f f the d i v e r s e passions. Compare the itpwxn
nai dpuoxn e^us of 42d2, the yaXfivn of 44b3. dpexri i s the necessary concomi-
tant of a w e l l - r e g u l a t e d vous.
5. Leg.1.100. On the day that the man eats of the t r e e of knowledge of
good and e v i l , he w i l l 'die the death' (Gen.2:17). The death must be i n t e r -
preted s y m b o l i c a l l y as the death of the s o u l , f o r the p r o t a g o n i s t s evidently
keep on l i v i n g (Leg.1.105). P l a t o achieves the same r e s u l t w i t h h i s d o c t r i n e
of metempsychosis (42b5-d2, c f . a l s o 44c3 dxeXris HCLL d v o n x o s £L-s "Au6ou rcdXuv
e p x e x a t ; see f u r t h e r below I I 10.2.2.). P h i l o ' s dualism i n Leg.1.100-108 i s
more extreme that that which the Timaeus p o r t r a y s . But i n the very next verse
of s c r i p t u r e a m o d i f i c a t i o n of such r a d i c a l dualism i s introduced.

6. Leg.2.1. I t i s not good that man should be alone. He needs a helper

(Gen.2:18). But there are i n f a c t two species of h e l p e r . In the f i r s t place
the w i l d beasts are c r e a t e d, r e p r e s e n t i n g the passions (Leg.2.9-11). Compare
Tim.42a6-8,42c3 (metempsychosis),70d-e and our comments below a t I I 9.2.3.
Secondly God creates Eve, the symbol of a t o ^ r i o t s (Leg.2.24) . Compare Tim.42a5,
43c6,44a5. P h i l o d e s c r i p t i o n of al'odnobs and Trd$n as helpers i s n a t u r a l l y de-
228 ANALYSIS

termined by the B i b l i c a l word, and he has h i s doubts about i t s appropriateness

(Leg.2.10 ou KUpucos.. .aXAd x a x a x P n O T U x & s ) . But i t does e f f e c t i v e l y convey the

P l a t o n i c viewpoint t h a t , when the s o u l descends i n t o the body, i t r e q u i r e s

atadnats and a moderate dose of itadriuaxa, so that the auvaucpoxepov (87e5) can

l i v e out i t s a l l o t t e d p e r i o d . In n e i t h e r account i s the female sex given a

very flattering role. Which i s p r e f e r a b l e - to be the symbol of atodnaus, or

to represent the f i r s t stage on the downward ladder of metempsychosis?

7. As the a l l e g o r y unfolds P h i l o attempts, where the B i b l i c a l text w i l l

allow, t o r e l a t e h i s psychology to the physiology of the human body: Leg.1.28,

the f a c e as p l a c e of the senses (exeg. Gen.2:6, c f . I I 7.2.1.); Leg.1.70, the

l o c a t i o n of the s o u l i n three p a r t s o f the body (exeg. Gen.2:10-14, c f . a l s o

Leg.3.115 and I I 9.2.2.); Leg.2.35-39, the change from a"o%r)OLg na%'l£tv to

aCadrjaus x a x ' evepyetav (exeg. Gen.2:21); Leg.3.56, the dependence o f the mind

on the b o d i l y senses (exeg. Gen.3:12). But i t i s c l e a r tha t physiology plays

a wholly subordinate p a r t i n the a l l e g o r y , i n c o n t r a s t to P l a t o ' s intentions

•*- n t n e
Timaeus, where, a f t e r d e s c r i b i n g the descent of the s o u l i n t o the body,

he devotes more than a q u a r t e r of the e n t i r e dialogue to the s t r u c t u r e and

p o s s i b l e malfunction s o f the body (44d-46e,64a-86a).

8. The main p a r t i c i p a n t s have been introduced. The remainder of the a l -

legory o f the s o u l i s concerned with man's moral s t r u g g l e , which takes place

in the garden of Eden and l a t e r outside i t , and i n which a s p e c i a l r o l e i s a s -

signed t o the seductiveness of p l e a s u r e , symbolized by the serpent (Leg.2.71;

cf.42a6,90b2 and below I I 10.2.2. on 92a7). Adam the vous i s n e u t r a l . He can

i n c l i n e to e i t h e r v i r t u e o r v i c e , depending on how he r e a c t s to the a s s a u l t s

of sense-perception and the p e r n i c i o u s i n f l u e n c e s of the passions (Leg.2.53,

64). This moral contest i s p r e c i s e l y p a r a l l e l to what P l a t o envisages at 42b2

- Sv (auadnats and i a § n ) eu uev xpaxriaotev 6uKn 3 ^ w a o u v x o , xpaxndevxes 6e a 6 u -

nCq - and which i s b r i e f l y a l l u d e d to at 44a5-c4,86b-87b, 90a-d without being

worked out i n f u l l d e t a i l . The two poles of the c o n t e s t , otpexri and a 6 u x u a ,

are represented, a f t e r Adam's c a p i t u l a t i o n and e x i l e , by h i s descendants, Abel

and Seth on the one s i d e , Cain and h i s progeny on the other. The b i r t h of

Seth i s the t u r n i n g p o i n t (Post.,124-125,170-174, exeg. Gen.4:25). The long

journey o f the improvement and ascent of the soul begins, proceeding v i a the

two p a t r i a r c h a l t r i a d s to i t s c u l m i n a t i o n i n the example of Moses ( c f . Praem.

10-66).

9. F i n a l l y i t should be noted that the thematics o f the 'Allegory of the

s o u l ' a r e repeated i n a c o n c i s e form i n another important P h i I o n i c t e x t . Us-

ing the image o f the cosmos as a giant p l a n t i n Plant.1-27 (exeg. Gen.9:20),

Philo s k i l f u l l y i n d i c a t e s man's place i n the s t r u c t u r e of the u n i v e r se (see

below I I 10.1.2. on §17-27). But he goes d i r e c t l y on to add that the p l a n t

 I I 7.1.3. 229

imagery i s a l s o a p p l i c a b l e to man the microcosm (§28) . The trees of paradise

(Gen.2:8-9) symbolize the growths of the v i r t u o u s soul (§37). The p l a n t i n g of
the n e u t r a l vous i n the garden shows how man s l i f e can go i n two
T
opposite d i -
rections. I t can choose f o r the b e t t e r and gain immortality, or i t can choose
f o r the worse and r e c e i v e dishonourable death ( i . e . expulsion from the garden)
as i t s l o t (§45) .

The p o i n t s of congruence between the Timaeus and the 'Allegory of the

soul 1
are s u f f i c i e n t , I c o n s i d e r , to j u s t i f y the a s s e r t i o n that P h i l o ' s grand
a l l e g o r i c a l scheme has r e c e i v e d a s t r u c t u r a l foundation from the d e t a i l s of
Plato's mythical anthropogony. For a much more d e t a i l e d attempt to t r a c e the
i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus on the s t r u c t u r e of the De o p i f i c i o mundi and Legum
a l l e g o r i a e the reader i s r e f e r r e d to the a r t i c l e of V.Nikiprowetzky, 'Prob-
lèmes du "Récit de l a création" chez P h i l o n d'Alexandrie', REJ 124(1965)271-
306, esp. 289-302. We s h a l l r e t u r n to t h i s subject below i n I I I 1.4.a-c,
where i n n.22 a d e t a i l e d c r i t i q u e w i l l be given of t h i s r i c h and h i g h l y stimu-
lating article.

7.2. The teleology of s i g h t (Tim.44d-47e)

7.2.1. The head and face (44d-45b)

When P h i l o c a l l s the face T O X O U owuaxos riYeyovbMwxaxov at Spec.4.123, he

i s r e f e r r i n g to an idea that u l t i m a t e l y goes back to P l a t o . The head, and in
p a r t i c u l a r the face, i s the most p r i n c i p a l part of the body because i t i s the
l o c a t i o n of the r a t i o n a l soul and of the senses which serve the mind. Cf. Tim.
44d5 (xecpaAri as deuoxaxov.. .nai xo5v ev riutv itdvxoov 6eoioxouv), 45b2 (rjYepo-
vuas). P h i l o u t i l i z e s t h i s theme i n connection with the exegesis of a number
of B i b l i c a l t e x t s which i n each case have to do w i t h the f a c e:
Gen.2:6 (a s p r i n g waters the face of the e a r t h ) : Leg.1.28, Post.127, Fug.
182, Q£ 1.3.
Gen.2:7 (God breathes i n t o man's f a c e ) : Leg.1.39, Spec.4.123, QG 1.5.
Ex.28:38 (the l e a f placed on the High p r i e s t ' s forehead): QE 2.124.
The passage at Leg.1.28 i s i n t e r e s t i n g on account of P h i l o ' s a s s e r t i o n that
the senses were assigned to the face because nature, e x e r c i s i n g forethought,
considered t h i s p l a c e , out of a l l the l o c a t i o n s of the body, most s u i t a b l e f o r
their special activities. The t e l e o l o g y of P l a t o , which i s extremely overt i n
Tim.44c-45b (cf.44c7 upovouots. . .§ewv, 44d8 %eoi naxavorioavxes 45a4 vouu£ovxes 9

%eoL) i s taken over. The same p r o v i d e n t i a l r o l e i s assigned to nature i n C i c -

ero DND 2.140, as part of a long s e c t i o n e x t o l l i n g the t e l e o l o g y of the cosmos
and man (§115-153) placed i n the mouth of the S t o i c Balbus. The p o s s i b i l i t y
must be e n t e r t a i n e d that P h i l o obtained t h i s commonplace idea v i a an i n t e r -
230 ANALYSIS

mediate source rathe r than d i r e c t l y from P l a t o , e s p e c i a l l y when we consider

that the theory of v i s i o n o u t l i n e d i n Leg.1.28-30 (and a l s o i n Fug.182) i s
S t o i c r a t h e r than P l a t o n i c (see below I I 7.2.2.). Cf. a l s o the d e t a i l e d d i s -
cussion on the metaphor of the head as the body's c i t a d e l (70a6) below at I I
9.2.3.

The c h i e f term i n most of the t e x t s c i t e d above i s the word nyepovuKov.

This way of r e f e r r i n g to the r u l i n g f a c u l t y i n man's s o u l i s S t o i c (but the
S t o i c s almost c e r t a i n l y d e r i v e d i t from the Timaeus, cf.41c7,70c1). Zeno and
Chrysippus disagreed with P l a t o on the l o c a t i o n of the nyeuovunov, d e c l a r i n g
it to be not i n the head but i n the heart (SVF 1.148,2.885). Posidonius agreed
with P l a t o against the Old Stoa that the s o u l i s not u n i t a r y , but refused to
speak of parts of the s o u l as P l a t o does ( i n t h i s f o l l o w i n g A r i s t . D e anima 1.5,
3.9). The s o u l has v a r i o u s f a c u l t i e s , which have t h e i r source i n the heart
(fr.F146 E-K). C i c e r o , on the other hand, a f f i r m s that the place of the soul
i s the head (TP 1.70) .

A number of t e x t s i n P h i l o i n d i c a t e that the l o c a t i o n of the r u l i n g part

of the s o u l was a controversial topic i n philosophical c i r c l e s (Pet.90, Post.
137, Somn.1.32). Philo himself tends to f o l l o w P l a t o and the Middle P l a t o -
n i s t s i n l o c a t i n g man's dominant part i n the head, or more s p e c i f i c a l l y i n the
b r a i n ( c f . Schmidt 51 and f u r t h e r below I I 9.2.2.). At Leg.1.59 he reports
other exegetes who regard the t r e e of l i f e i n Gen.2:9 as symbol of the heart,
s i n c e i t i s the source of l i f e and the r u l i n g p r i n c i p l e . In a passage such as
Fug.182 i t i s not s a i d e x p r e s s i s v e r b i s that the r u l i n g f a c u l t y i s located i n
the h e a r t , but the image of the s p r i n g and the theory of p e r c e p t i on presented
there assume i t (the text i s taken up at SVF 2.861).

A d i f f e r e n t l i g h t i s thrown on the question , however, by two other texts,

Sacr.136 and Spec.1.213, both of which give an exegesis of Lev.3:3. I t appears
that the lawgiver Moses l o c a t e s the nyepovuHov i n either the head or the heart,
i.e. that he does not take s i d e s i n the above-mentioned p h i l o s o p h i c a l contro-
versy. Such problems of physiology are not to be given a high p r i o r i t y , and
can s a f e l y be l e f t to c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s t s . Moses', and thus P h i l o ' s , concern i s
with the e t h i c a l consequences of what that r u l i n g part i s and does. As was
o u t l i n e d i n the A l l e g o r y of the s o u l (see above II 7.1.3.) , the vous or rjyeuo-
V U K O V can i n c l i n e to good or e v i l . On account of t h i s ambivalence i t i s not
included among the parts of the s a c r i f i c i a l v i c t i m placed on the a l t a r of God
i n the p r e s e r v a t i o n o f f e r i n g .
 II 7.2.2. 231

7.2.2. The m e c h a n i s m o f v i s i o n (45b-d)

There are two reasons why i n the Timaeus a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the

mechanism o f v i s i o n i s given so e a r l y i n the account of man's, c r e a t i o n , long
before the other aspects of h i s physiology are d i s c u s s e d . F i r s t l y Plato i s
convinced of the great importance of s i g h t f o r man's i n t e l l e c t u a l development,
and so gives i t a p l a c e among the works of t e l e o l o g i c a l reasoning. Secondly
the mechanism of sigh t and a s s o c i a t e d phenomena provide a f i n e i l l u s t r a t i o n of
the d i s t i n c t i o n between t r u e r a t i o n a l causes (al'TLa) and accessory p h y s i c a l
causes (ouvaCxua). P l a t o has r e f i n e d the viewpoint set out i n that memorable
passage, Phd.96-99, but not e s s e n t i a l l y changed i t . Though i t i s u s e f u l to give
explanations of the p h y s i c a l workings of b o d i l y phenomena, such explanations
w i l l not r e v e a l what i s most important, namely t h e i r purpose. On the impor-
tance and e x c e l l e n c e of s i g h t P h i l o i s i n hearty agreement w i t h P l a t o , as we
s h a l l see i n the f o l l o w i n g s u b - s e c t i o n . The d i s t i n c t i o n between auxta and
ouvatTua i s not e x p l o i t e d (one instanc e a t Her.115, on which see above I I

6.2.3. n.2). But he does f o l l o w P l a t o i n h i s abhorrence f o r the mechanisti c

d o c t r i n e s of a m a t e r i a l i s t i c philosophy, symbolized by Laban, from whom Jacob
the p r a c t i s e r was wise to f l e e . . . ( c f . Fug.7-13 analysed above at I I 2.2.1.).

Only on one o c c a s i o n does P h i l o give an account of the mechanism o f v i -

s i o n which i s c l e a r l y based on Tim.45b-d, at Deus 79 i n an exegesis o f Gen.6:
7-8. God condemns s i n f u l mankind, but Noah f i n d s grace with him (§74). The
f a c t that mercy i s mingled w i t h h i s judgment leads P h i l o t o give a b r i e f r e -
f l e c t i o n on the subject of mixture (§77-85). God's powers are unmixed i n r e -
spect t o h i m s e l f , but mixed i n r e l a t i o n t o c r e a t e d beings ( i l l u s t r a t e d by Ps.
74:8), f o r mortal nature cannot r e c e i v e them unmixed (§77). By i n t r o d u c i n g
the example o f s u n l i g h t (§78) P h i l o a r r i v e s a t the subject of human v i s i o n
(§79). T h i s paragraph w i l l repay c l o s e r examination.

We commence with some p o i n t s of d e t a i l .

avaHepaoaTO: The theme of m i n g l i n g which i s the main concern of the passage.

The b r i l l i a n c e of the sun's rays i s m i t i g a t e d by the mixture of c o o l a i r .
T O auYoei6es. . . xriv y e v . . . T n v 6e: Cf. Tim.45b4 T O U rcupos o o o v T O y e v naeLV own
eoxe 5 T O 6e i t a p e x e t v cpws r i y e p o v . From 58e we l e a r n that P l a t o recognizes
three main v a r i e t i e s of f i r e — flame, l i g h t , and the glow from c o a l s e t c . He
a f f i r m s that l i g h t does not burn, but nowhere a t t r i b u t e s t h i s propert y to the
tempering e f f e c t of a i r .
T a y t e u o y e v c p : A f a v o u r i t e metaphor of P h i l o ( c f . Leisegang 762a), but i t s usage
p r e c i s e l y here i s almost c e r t a i n l y i n s p i r e d by Rep.508b6, TrjV 6uvayuv r\v e x e ^
(TO o y y a ) in T O U T O U ( T O U r|At.ou) Tayueuoylvnv.
Q U Y Y e v e u C X U T O U nai (puAtp: Cf .45b6 T O yap I V T O S n y w v a6eAcpov o v T O U T O U ir.up, 45d4
T O U ouYYevous iiupos. Plut.Mor.39QB speaks of o u Y Y e v e u a .
ouvo66s T £ nai d e g t o o o i s : P l a t o ' s s c i e n t i f i c vocabulary i s converted i n t o the
quasi-metaphorical language of the meeting and g r e e t i n g of f r i e n d s ( c f . a l s o
Abr.157 e v o y u A e u ) , i n c o n t r a s t to the more t e c h n i c a l approach o f P l u t a r c h , w h o w
232 ANALYSIS

r e g u l a r l y speaks o f ouyTinCbs and o y o t o T i a $ n s x p a a u s (Mar.390B,433D,626C,921E)

derived from 45b4,7.
dvTtXrn|jus' P o s t - p l a t o n i c usage, c f . Baltes Timaios Lokros on Tim.Locr.48.
Very common i n the meaning o f apprehension, p e r c e p t i on i n P h i l o ( c f . use i n a
s i m i l a r context at Opif.53, Abr.157, Aet.86).
I t i s apparent that P h i l o has preserved the main p o i n t o f P l a t o ' s expla-
n a t i o n , namely that s i g h t i s caused by the coalescence o f two kinds o f light,
s u n l i g h t and a kindred v i s u a l current i n the p u p i l o f the eye. His account
contains v i r t u a l l y no d i r e c t v e r b a l a l l u s i o n s to the Timaeus t e x t . E i t h e r he
i s recounting the theory from memory, or he i s u t i l i z i n g a l o o s e l y worded
paraphrase i n a handbook (much l o o s e r , f o r example, than at A l b i n us Did.18.1).
I f we compare Plutarch's paraphrase o f the theory at Mor.626C, we may reason-
ably conclude that the second p o s s i b i l i t y i s the r i g h t one:

nueCs 6e xriv IIAaxwvuHnv cpuAaxxovxes dpxnv eAeyouev O T U rcveuya T W V oyydxwv

a u Y o e t 6 e s exituTtxov d v a M u p v a x a i x$ nepi i d owyaxa cpwxu K a u A a y 3 d v e t o u y -
itn£uv, ojod'ev e£ dycpouv owya 6u'oAou o u y u a d e s y e v e o d a i , , K e p a v v u x a i 6 ' l x e -
pov e x e p t p o u y y e x p u a s Aoytp xe x a u ir.oooxnxos. . .
Indeed i n a l l f i v e cases where P l u t a r c h r e f e r s to P l a t o ' s theory he speaks o f
a mixture of the two kinds o f l i g h t ( c f . a l s o 390B,433D,436D,921E). The fact
that P l a t o ' s theory was explained i n terms o f mixture (as such not a c t u a l l y
found i n the Timaeus) caused P h i l o to r e c a l l i t when that theme occurred i n his
exegesis.
But there remains a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between P l u t a r c h ' s version of
the theory and the P h i l o n i c adaptation. The P l a t o n i s t speaks o f mixture i n
r e l a t i o n to the coalescence o f the two s o r t s o f l i g h t , but Philo applies the
theme of mixture to the tempering o f the s u n l i g h t by the c o l d a i r . 1
I t appears
that the ' P l a t o n i c mixture' was not so appropriat e f o r i l l u s t r a t i n g the tem-
p e r i n g of God's powers. 2
P h i l o , we conclude, has in a l l probablity introduced
an a l t e r a t i o n i n t o the P l a t o n i c and P l a t o n i s t theory o f v i s i o n to make i t more
s u i t a b l e f o r the ( t h e o l o g i c a l ) thematics o f h i s d i s c u s s i o n . At Deus 84 another
example o f mixture i s found i n the mechanism o f hearing; see below II 9.1.1.

P h i l o f r e q u e n t l y a f f i r m s that the eyes need the cooperation of light

(ouvepytp cpwxu Mut.4) i n order to c a r r y out t h e i r f u n c t i o n ; c f . a l s o Opif .53,
Sacr.36, Ebr.190, Migr.60, Abr.157, QG 2.34 etc. As we saw above i n the com-
ments on Deus 79 ( x a y u e u o y l v q ) ) the theme o f Rep.507c-508d i s combined with the
more s c i e n t i f i c explanatio n at Tim.45b-d ( c f . a l s o A r i s t . D e anima 2.7, 3.4).
Plato's s t r i k i n g phrase cpwocpopa o y y a x a (45b3) i s found once i n P h i l o , at Plant.
169» where i t i s used i n the s i n g u l a r o f the mind's eye.
B i l l i n g s 63-64 i n a l u c i d e x p o s i t i o n shows that there are a l s o a number
of passages i n which P h i l o presents a S t o i c theory o f the mechanism o f v i s i o n .
The most e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between i t and the P l a t o n i c view i s that the
 II 7.2.2. 233

Stoa gives the mind or nyeyovuxov a more important r o l e i n the process of sen-
sation. From the nyeyovuxov a v i s u a l nveuya i s extended i n the f a s h i o n of an
i n v e r t e d cone through the a i r as medium to the objects of v i s i o n . Sight oc-
curs when the mind imparts a movement of t e n s i o n to the v i s u a l itveuya (SVF 2.
863-871). Notable i s that the S t o i c s i n t h i s theory accord much l e s s signifi-
cance to the r o l e of l i g h t , s t r e s s i n g instead the importance of the mind as
a c t i v a t o r and of the a i r as medium. P h i l o u t i l i z e s the S t o i c theory of v i s i o n
in the f o l l o w i n g passages: Leg.1.28-30 (exeg. Gen.2:6), Leg.2.35-39 (exeg. Gen.
2:21-23), Post.126-127 (exeg. Gen.4:25, 2 :6) , Fug.182 (exeg. Gen.2:6)(note the
overlap with passages discussed above i n II 7.2.1.) . B i l l i n g s i s correct i n
concluding: 'Where P h i l o uses the S t o i c theory... i t i s i n the i n t e r e s t of the
e x u l t a t i o n of the mind as the only a c t i v e power. 1
But he f a i l s to add that i n
each case P h i l o uses the theory with reference to the A l l e g o r y of the soul
which he e x t r a c t s from Gen.2-4. Since the e n t i r e a l l e g o r y i s b u i l t on the re-
l a t i o n between vous and al'odrious, the S t o i c theory has d i s t i n c t and obvious
advantages, e s p e c i a l l y when we observe that P h i l o does not speak of the rela-
t i o n between s i g h t and mind at Tim.45b-d.

It cannot be denied that P h i l o , i n h i s e x e g e t i c a l use of the t h e o r i e s con-

cerning the mechanism of v i s i o n , has shown himself somewhat of an o p p o r t u n i s t.

7.2.3. The e n c o m i um o f s i g h t (47a-c)

In s p i t e of the harsh a t t i t u d e which P h i l o o f t e n d i s p l a y s towards sense-

perception i n general, there are numerous passages where he s i n g l e s out the
sense of s i g h t f o r p r a i s e ( u s e f u l s e l e c t i o n s at B i l l i n g s 65, Schmidt 75-78).
Sight and hearing are the p h i l o s o p h i c a l senses. Together with the other sen-
ses they make l i f e (Cnv) p o s s i b l e ; on t h e i r own they supply the e x c e l l e n t life
(eu" Cnv), the l i f e r e a l l y worth l i v i n g ( c f . Abr.150, Spec.1.339, QG 1.32, 2.5
(EES 1.187)). But a l s o between the two highest senses one must discriminate.
Swift s i g h t i s f a r s u p e r i o r to s l u g g i s h hearing (Sacr.78, Abr.150 e t c . ) . The
evidence which s i g h t f u r n i s h e s i s more trustworthy than that given by hearing
(Ebr.82, Conf.140, Spec.4.60). Ishmael means anon %eov (Gen.16:11), I s r a e l i s
t r a n s l a t e d opwv $eov ( c f . Gen.32:29). The q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e between hea-
r i n g and s i g h t i n d i c a t e s the d i f f e r e n c e between the man of moderate achieve-
ments and the man who reaches p e r f e c t i o n (Fug.208, Mut.201-205, QG 3.32, cf.
3.59, 4.245). For P h i l o p r a i s e of s i g h t i s B i b l i c a l l y founded.

In Tim.47a-c the sense of s i g h t r e c e i v e s a p a r t i c u l a r l y l a v i s h encomium.

Without s i g h t the cosmological account of the Timaeus i t s e l f could not have
been w r i t t e n (47a2-4). Through s i g h t man received from the gods h i s greatest
234 ANALYSIS

g i f t and highest c a l l i n g , philosophy (47b1-2). By means of s i g h t man can con-

template the unswerving c i r c u i t s of the heavenly bodies and, by emulating them,
set h i s own mind i n order (47b7-c4). The encomium of s i g h t i s a f i t t i n g cli-
max to the f i r s t part of Timaeus' d i s c o u r s e , i n which the works of reason ( x d
óud vou óeóriuLOupYnyéva 47e4) are outlined.
Plato's celebrated passage d i d not fail to impress P h i l o , as can be gauged
from the f a c t that i t has l e f t i t s imprint on at l e a s t a dozen passages s c a t -
tered through h i s oeuvre. At the same time i t must be recognized at the out-
set that we are d e a l i n g w i t h themes that had become commonplace i n H e l l e n i s t i c
l i t e r a t u r e of both the p h i l o s o p h i c a l and n o n - p h i l o s o p h i c a l variety. ByPhilo's
day the themes of the p r a i s e of s i g h t and the b l e s s i n g of philosophy had lost
a l l pretence to o r i g i n a l i t y , even of the d e r i v a t i v e kind when a l l u d i n g to the
words of the dpxaCou.
The r o l e of the Timaeus i n the development of the d o c t r i n e of the dewpua xoü
Koopou a f t e r Plato was b r i e f l y commented on above i n I 4.be, with p a r t i c u l a r
reference to Festugiére's c l a s s i c study Le dieu cosmique ( i b i d . n . 5 1 ) . For
Posidonius' debt to the themes of Tim.47a-c see the remarks on fr.F186 E-K at
Nock JRS 49(1959)12. C i c e r o describes philosophy as the gods' greates t g i f t
to man on at l e a s t seven occasions ( c f . P.Boyancé, 'Le platonisme á Rome: P l a -
tón et Cicerón' Assoc. G.Budé Actes du Congrés de Tours et P o i t i e r s ( P a r i s
1954) 195-221, esp.215). I t i s no coincidence that h i s t r a n s l a t i o n of the
Timaeus ends p r e c i s e l y at 47b2. The passage i s n a t u r a l l y a l s o r e f e r r e d to i n
Middle P l a t o n i s t w r i t i n g s ; e.g. Plut.Mor.550D (cf.958E), Apul.De Plat.211,
cf. Justin Dial.2.1). Yet i t i s p o s s i b l e to detect a d e c l i n e i n i t s p o p u l a r i -
ty i n the p e r i o d a f t e r P h i l o . The reason, i f I am not mistaken, i s the new
awareness that the d e w p ú a x o u H O O U O U was l e s s important than the d e w p u a xwv
v o r i x w v and the concomitant theology. A l b i n u s ' preference f o r Rep.529-531
above Tim.47 i n Did.7.4 i s very r e v e a l i n g i n t h i s context.

P h i l o ' s use of t h i s passage was one of the examples that l e d Festugiére

to conclude that he was a conscientious student unable to do more than repeat
t o p o i and e d i f y i n g b a n a l i t i e s (Revelation 2.519). But the French scholar
overlooks the f a c t that i t i s advisable to examine the use of well-known
themes c r i t i c a l l y . Small changes of emphasis and nuances of meaning may dis-
c l o s e important points of r e o r i e n t a t i o n . The use of t o p o i does not automati-
c a l l y r e v e a l a poverty of thought. In the f o l l o w i n g b r i e f remarks on the pas-
sages i n which P h i l o u t i l i z e s the themes of Tim.47a-c we s h a l l concentrate
e s p e c i a l l y on examining the extent to which P h i l o adds to or s u b t r a c ts from the
thematics of the P l a t o n i c t e x t .

Opif.53-54: The context i s the exegesis of the f o u r t h day of c r e a t i o n

(Gen.1:14-19), which e x p l a i n s the f a c t that the encomium of s i g h t i s subordi-
nated to the encomium of l i g h t . Just as the eye needs l i g h t to see the aio%r\~
x á j t h e v o u s needs eTiuoxriun to see the vor¡xá. L i g h t i s the cause of many b l e s -
sings to mankind, but e s p e c i a l l y of the greatest b l e s s i n g of a l l , philosophy.
C l e a r l y the themes of Rep.507-509 and Tim.47a-c have been fused together. In
d e s c r i b i n g how philosophy o r i g i n a t e s due c r e d i t i s given to s i g h t , which con-
templates the ordered heavenly movements ( x a x u ó o ü o a cf.47b7, x o p e ú a s cf.40c3,
 II 7.2.3. 235

pououxfis xeAeuas cf.47d2). But the arcAnoxua xou dewpeuv and the image of ban-
queting are imported from the Phaedrus myth and the Symposium (the l a t t e r
image a l s o having a strong J u d a i c undertone, c f . Nikiprowetzky 22). The p r o -
gress of man's thought towards philosophy i s i n d i c a t e d by a sequence of p h i l o -
s o p h i c a l q u e s t i o n s , g i v i n g the passage a l e s s a b s t r a c t character than P l a t o ' s
b r i e f words at 47a6-7. The f i n a l words, en 6e xns xouxwv Cn^rioews xo (puAooo-
(puas auveaxn yevos, o5 xeAeuoxepov aya^ov own r\X%ev eus xov a v d p w T i u v o v 3^ov,
amount to a loose paraphrase of 47a7-b2.
Opif.77-78: One of the reasons that man comes l a s t i n the c r e a t i o n of the
cosmos i s that God, l i k e the o r g a n i z e r of a banquet or an a t h l e t i c s f e s t i v a l ,
wished to have a l l things i n readiness f o r the c r e a t u r e to whom he had given
the best of g i f t s , k i n s h i p to h i m s e l f . Two P l a t o n i c themes, the g i f t of the
gods (47a1,b2 e t c . ) and the ouyyeveua of man's mind with the heavenly bodies
(47b8,d2) have been adapted to s u i t the B i b l i c a l anthropology of Gen.1:26 as
Philo interprets i t . The dewpua of the heavenly bodies gives the mind epws
and Ttodos f o r knowledge of them, 6%ev xo cpuAooocpuas av£(3Adoxnoe yevos, ocp'
o u xauxou dvnxos a>v av^pwitos aitadavaxuCexau (again cf.47a7-b2, aiadavaxuCexau
cf.90c3). In §78 the language used to d e s c r i b e the wonders of the cosmos be-
comes exceedingly baroque, even f o r P h i l o . The c o n c l u s i o n , i n which the i a p a -
6euypaxuxfi pououxr) i s l o c a t e d i n the harmony of the heavenly movements and
i m i t a t e d by man i n the d i s c o v e r y of the a r t of music i s p a r t l y adapted from 47d.
Abr.156-164: The longest of the passages on the e x c e l l e n c e of s i g h t i s
set i n motion by the apparently t r i v i a l e x e g e t i c a l question of why one of the
f i v e c i t i e s i n the land of Sodom was not destroyed i n the c o n f l a g r a t i o n (Gen.
14:2,19:20-25). The f i v e c i t i e s symbolize the f i v e senses, of which s i g h t i s
s u p e r i o r to the r e s t . In d e s c r i b i n g the most e s s e n t i a l b e n e f i t (wcpeAeua, c f .
46e8,47a2)gained from s i g h t P h i l o again emphasizes the i n d i s p e n s a b i l i t y of
l i g h t (§156-158). By u s i n g l i g h t , the best of g i f t s , man can contemplate the
beauties of the cosmos and e s p e c i a l l y the %eZa ayaApaxa of heaven (§159).
Sight bring s the understanding i n t o a c t i o n . A s e r i e s of p h i l o s o p h i c a l ques-
t i o n s are posed (§161-163 ), c u l m i n a t i n g i n the question — i f the cosmos i s c r e a -
ted who i s i t s c r e a t o r and what i s h i s way of l i f e ? Thus oocpua and cpuAooocpua
have t h e i r o r i g i n i n the sense of s i g h t (§164). The thematics of the e n t i r e
passage are o b v i o u s l y i n s p i r e d by Tim.47a-c, but v e r b a l reminiscences are a l -
most e n t i r e l y l a c k i n g and there i s much r h e t o r i c a l expansion of the main ideas.
Spec.3.184-192: Exegesis of a law commanding a master, i f he knocks out
h i s servant's eye, to set him f r e e (Ex.21:26). Once more the Mosaic Law draws
a t t e n t i o n to the e x c e l l e n c e of s i g h t . The greatest b e n e f i t that i t gives i s
that i t enables the mind to accept the philosophy which heaven showers down on
i t (§185; on the metaphor see below on Her.78-79). By means of s i g h t the mind
contemplates the cosmos, d e s c r i b e d here i n P h i l o ' s most l y r i c a l v e i n (§187-
188), and comes to the probable c o n c l u s i o n (Aoyuopov euxoxa) that such s p l e n -
d i d order i s not the r e s u l t of random and i r r a t i o n a l f o r c e s , but must be a t -
t r i b u t e d to the 6udvoua of the rcaxrip xau nounxris (§189, c f . 2 8 c 3 ). Other ques-
t i o n s on God, the n o e t i c world, the cosmos and i t s contents f o l l o w (§189-190).
Such i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s the work of philosophy and r e v e a l s a cpuAopa^n xau cpuAo-
$eapova xau xtp ovxu cpuAoaocpov 6uadeouv (§191, cf.90b6). The f i n a l words,
peyuoxov pev 6n xouxo xtp $¿0) xwv av^pwrcwv ayadov 6(l>us itapexexau (§192) are
once more a l o o s e l y worded reminiscence of P l a t o ' s c e n t r a l theme. In t h i s
passage the f a m i l i a r thematics of Tim.47a-c are combined with the 'cosmologi-
c a l argument', i n which the e x i s t e n c e of a supreme being i s deduced from the
ordered design of the u n i v e r s e (other examples i n P h i l o at Leg.3.97-99, Spec.
1.33-35, Praem.41-43, Prov.1.33,42-45; an exhaustive l i s t of ancient examples
i s compiled by A.S.Pease, ' C a e l i enarrant' HThR 34(1941)163-200).
QG 2.34 (almost e n t i r e l y preserved i n Greek, c f . FE 33.106-107): Exegesis
of the window of the ark which o 6uxauos (Noah) opened (Gen.8:6). The ark
symbolizes the body (QG 2.1-7), so the window, i n the language of a l l e g o r y ,
could h a r d l y represent anything e l s e but the sense of s i g h t . Sight i s r e l a t e d
to soul and a k i n to l i g h t . I t cut the f i r s t path to philosophy. Once again
236 ANALYSIS

P h i l o combines the theme of Tim.47a-c w i t h the c o s m o l o g i c a l argument, climax-

i n g i n r e c o g n i t i o n of xd dvwxepw nai T t a p a 6 e u Y u a x u w d eb6ri nai xwv aixdvxcav a t -
xtov, the nobnxfig nai T i a x r i P . Most s u r p r i s i n g i s that P h i l o should w r i t e that
s i g h t sees xov xou xooyou yovov d<|jeu6eoxaxov xooyonotov, a p r i v i l e g e i n f a c t
a c c e s s i b l e only to the eye of the s o u l . Has our author made a s l i p here?
(Note t h a t , although the Greek fragment and the Armenian t r a n s m i s s i o n i n broad
l i n e s c o n f i r m each other, the e n t i r e passage shows a remarkably e x c e s s i v e use
of p a r a t a x i s q u i t e f o r e i g n to P h i l o s u s u a l s t y l e (nai
!
used twenty times to
j o i n nouns or verbs i n a p p o s i t i o n ) . Has something gone wrong e a r l y on i n the
mss. t r a d i t i o n ? )
The remaining passages r e v e a l a l e s s expansive usage of Tim.47a-c.
Plant.118: Exegesis of the f o u r t h day of c r e a t i o n , i . e . a shortened v e r s i o n of
Opif.53-54. In the phrase oZg xo yey^oxov ^ u x n s aya%6v dvdxeuxau (cf.47b1)
ayadov i s Turnebus 1
c o n j e c t u r e f o r the mss.
1
ontdxn (the w i l f u l emendation of a
Christian scribe?). Wendland s a d d i t i o n a l suggestio n (C-W 2.157) otya^ov <cpu-
f

Aoao(pLa> i s p l a u s i b l e ( c f . Opif .53, Spec. 1 .336).

Her.78-79 (exeg. Gen.15:5): J u s t as the prophets of o l d were seers (1 Sam.9:9),
so I s r a e l i s the man who sees God. The s o u l which looks up to the n e p t o 6 o u
xou oupavou i s educated and r e c e i v e s the manna of the d i v i n e Logos (on t h i s
important theme based on Ex.16:4 see below I I 10.1.6.).
Congr.21 (etymology of Hagar, c f . Gen.16:1-2): Hagar i s E g y p t i a n by race, so
the man who spends time on the e n c y c l i c a l s t u d i e s must n e c e s s a r i l y be involve d
with the body ( i . e . E g y p t ) , a u o d n o u s , which makes p o s s i b l e the knowledge of
the s e n s i b l e world that forms the c h i e f p a r t of p h i l o s o p h y, i s the b o d i l y part
of the s o u l . The sense which P h i l o i s mainly t h i n k i n g of here i s s i g h t ( i . e .
from Tim.47a-c).
Abr.57-58: I s r a e l means opwv $eov. Sight i s the best of the senses, f o r by i t
the contemplation of the heavens takes p l a c e . But the eye of the s o u l allows
the mind to see the n a x n p nai itounxris (28c3) , which i s the peak of eu6auyovL.a
(cf.90d6). Cf. a l s o Abr.60-61.
Spec.1.322: R i g h t l y Moses bans o c c u l t r i t e s and mysteries from the h o l y con-
g r e g a t i o n (Deut.23:18). These are works of darkness, not l i g h t . Compare how
nature conceals n o t h i n g , d i s p l a y i n g the whole of heaven e u s xe xriv 6u'o4>ea)s
xep4»tv naL ipog (puAoaotptas uyepov.
Spec.1.336,339: The champions of the mind and the senses are a l s o excluded
from the h o l y congregation ( c f . Deut.23:4), but P h i l o c e r t a i n l y gives them a
f a i r h e a r i n g . The unmistakable a l l u s i o n s to Tim.47a-c serve t o u n d e r l i n e the
seductiveness of t h e i r p o s i t i o n , i n which man r e l i e s on the autonomy of h i s
own f a c u l t i e s (cpuAauxua §333). Cf. a l s o QG 3.43 (EES 1 .237).

On the b a s i s of the above c o l l e c t i o n of passages a comparison can now be

made between the P l a t o n i c source and the P h i I o n i c a d a p t a t i o n .

A. Three themes are r e p e a t e d l y taken from P l a t o . One or more i s found i n

every passage and thus e f f e c t u a t e s the reminiscence.

1. The encomium of the sense of s i g h t .

2. The contemplation of the heavenly beings by means of s i g h t (but P l a t o does

not use the term dewpila favoured by P h i l o ) .

3. The o r i g i n of p h i l o s o p h y , the yey^oxov dyotdov given to man.

Noteworthy i s that P h i l o s d e s c r i p t i o n s of the splendour of the heavens and

f

the heavenly beings are much more e l a b o r a t e and r h e t o r i c a l than i n P l a t o ' s ac-

count which, though p r o t r e p t i c i n c h a r a c t e r , remains r e l a t i v e l y abstract and

'scientific'.

15. A number of themes and a d d i t i o n s , drawn from elsewhere, are super-

 II 7.2.3. 237

imposed on the above-outlined P l a t o n i c i d e a s .

1. The encomium of l i g h t , r e q u i r e d so that s i g h t can f u n c t i o n p r o p e r l y . This
motif i s imported from Rep.507-509.
2. The s i g h t of the eye of the body i s regarded as preparatory to the v i s i o n
of the eye of the s o u l , i . e . the mind, which concerns i t s e l f with the vonTct.
The i n f l u e n c e of the Phaedrus myth (esp. 247c-e) and Rep.533a-e i s f e l t here.
3. On three occasions the o r i g i n of philosophy i s not d e s c r i b e d i n purely ab-
s t r a c t terms but i l l u s t r a t e d w i t h examples of p h i l o s o p h i c a l q u e s t i o n s. This
i s not merely a r h e t o r i c a l expansion, f o r the questions tend i n a d e f i n i t e d i -
r e c t i o n - what i s the nature of the cosmos, and what i s i t s r e l a t i o n to the
highest cause, God the c r e a t o r ?
4. The theme of the contemplation of the heavens i s given an e x t r a dimension
by the a d d i t i o n of the c o s m o l o g i c a l argument'.
1
P l a t o nowhere suggests i n Tim,
47a-c that s i g h t u l t i m a t e l y leads to knowledge of the demiurge.
5. I t i s no coincidence t h at i n three passages the climax i s reached i n the
r e c o g n i t i o n of God as itaxnp nau Ttounxris ( c f . a l s o Abr. 164 T L S o 6nuUOUPYOS ; ) .

As P h i l o reads i t , the goal of philosophy i n s t i t u t e d i n Tim.47a-c i s given i n

the d i f f i c u l t task set i n 28c.
6. P h i l o shows an unashamedly a n t h r o p o c e n t r ic tendency which goes f u r t h e r than
P l a t o would allow ( c f . Laws 903c). The heavenly bodies have been created f o r
the s p e c i f i c purpose of p r o v i d i n g l i g h t and m i n i s t e r i n g to s i g h t (Abr.158, c f .
Opif.77).

7. In a d d i t i o n to the a l l - i m p o r t a n t e x e g e t i c a l contexts, P h i l o a l s o merges Tim.

47a-c with B i b l i c a l themes, e.g. the name I s r a e l , the showering of manna e t c .
£ . Two themes prominent i n the P l a t o n i c text are downplayed or d i s r e g a r -
ded by Philo.
1. Although P h i l o emphasizes the order and harmony of the heavenly movements,
there i s no mention of the kinship between the heavens and man's mind, nor i s
it suggested that man should become r a t i o n a l by i m i t a t i n g the p e r f e c t motions
of the c e l e s t i a l bodies. In Opif.77 P h i l o f o l l o w s Gen.1:26 i n speaking of the
ovyyeveLa between the c r e a t o r and man. But see a l s o I I 5.2.2. 7.2.4. 10.1.6.
2. P l a t o d e s c r i b e s s i g h t , philosophy, hearing e t c . as the g i f t of the c r e a -
t i n g gods on no l e s s than seven occasions (47a1,b2,6,c6,d1,7,e2). With the
p a r t i a l exception of Opif.77-78 P h i l o s u r p r i s i n g l y ignores t h i s theme, although
the idea of God's beneficence i s one of the most pervasive i n h i s thought.

I t i s time to make up a balance. Some of the a l t e r a t i o n s and a d d i t i o n s

d e l i n e a t e d i n our a n a l y s i s are more important than others. A number of r e l a -
ted themes have been brought i n from other 'purple passages' i n Plato's wri-
tings. The most s i g n i f i c a n t change, i n my view, i s that P h i l o repeats the
238 ANALYSIS

f a m i l i a r themes i n i t i a t e d by Tim.47a-c with the emphasis that these must be

o r i e n t a t e d towards a search f o r God as the h i g h e s t cause. Tim.47a-c i s j o i n e d
up with Tim.28c, a s i g n i f i c a n t c o u p l i n g which P l a t o had d e c l i n e d to make.
Yet the d i f f e r e n c e between the two t h i n k e r s must be seen i n the r i g h t perspec-
tive. In Rep.529-531 P l a t o had made i t q u i t e c l e a r that study of the heavens
should be no more than a stepping-stone to higher knowledge. P h i l o agrees.
Sewpua i s p o i n t l e s s or even p o t e n t i a l l y i d o l a t r o u s i f not d i r e c t e d towards
knowledge and experience of the Source of a l l being. What i s new i s the overt
theocentrism, an approach which P h i l o shares with contemporary P l a t o n i s t s . 1

But the question remains. How important a c t u a l l y are these themes f o r

Philo? Volker's answer t o the question i s r e s o l u t e (188):

P h i l o bedient s i c h d i e s e r Anschauungen, aber mehr a l s B i l d e r und l i t e r a -

r i s c h e Reminiszenzen s i n d s i e f u r ih n m.E. n i c h t gewesen, i n n e r l i c h hat
er ihnen f e r n gestanden.
P h i l o s repeated use of the themes might indeed be explained as motivated by
f

a p o l o g e t i c aims or r e s u l t i n g from the weakness of the ' i n v e t e r a t e rambler'

(Colson). I t i s e q u a l l y p o s s i b l e to reach the opposite c o n c l u s i o n . The fact
that P h i l o chooses to a t t a c h such long excursus to unimportant e x e g e t i c a l sub-
j e c t s as the f i f t h c i t y and the servant's eye i s an i n d i c a t i o n of how much
s i g n i f i c a n c e he i s prepared to a t t r i b u t e to the themes of s i g h t and light,
contemplation and the o r i g i n of philosophy. We i n fact f i n d ourselves i n
agreement with the view of Nikiprowetzky that the r e p e t i t i o n of these themes
drawn from Tim.47a-c form a k i n d of L e i t m o t i v g i v i n g e x p r e s s i on to h i s respect
for the achievements and value of Greek philosophy (98-99). But, the French
s c h o l a r adds some pages l a t e r (107), i t would be a mistake to t h i n k that these
passages are on the same l e v e l as those d e s c r i b i n g the form of contemplation
p r a c t i s e d by the I s r a e l i t e s , Issenians or Therapeutae. Their character i s
historical and abstract, not addressed to the immediate concerns of P h i l o ' s
exegesis focussed on the hidden depths of the Law. Clearly Nikiprowetzky
here at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y r e t u r n s to the viewpoint of Volker quoted above. The
impact of the study of nature and Greek philosophy i n general on P h i l o i s r e -
garded as r e a l but s t r i c t l y l i m i t e d . But could i t not be e q u a l l y argued that
the k i n d of i d e a l i z e d contemplation a s c r i b e d by P h i l o to h i s heroes i s pro-
foundly i n f l u e n c e d by the i d e a l s propagated i n Greek philosophy? It w i l l be
important to bear i n mind the problems encountered here, f i r s t as we study
the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus on P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of man i n I I 10.1.1-6., and
l a t e r i n the more e v a l u a t i v e part of our study (see esp. below I I I 2.12 IV
2.2.) .
 II 7.2.4. 239

7.2.4. The revolutions o f t h e heavens and t h e c i r c u i t s of the

mind (47b-c)

As Guthrie 5.297 has remarked, the a s s o c i a t i o n of c i r c u l a r motion with the

processes of thought i s perhaps the strangest f e a t u r e of P l a t o ' s psychology.
Under the i n f l u e n c e of A r i s t o t l e ' s trenchant criticisms ( c f . De anima 1.3) i t
recedes i n the psychology of the Stoa and the l a t e r Academy. The d o c t r i n e i s
m i s s i n g i n the Middle P l a t o n i s t handbooks of A l b i n u s and Apuleius (and a l s o i n
Timaeus L o c r u s ) , but does appear i n c e r t a i n passages i n P l u t a r c h and A t t i c u s
(cf. C h e r n i s s ' note ad Mor.10Q4C). I t i s thus a l i t t l e s u r p r i s i n g to observe
that P h i l o a l l u d e s on a number of occasions to the c i r c u i t s of the mind and to
the p a r a l l e l between heavenly motions and man's mental processes. We may be
confident that t h i s i s due to the d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus.
In the t r e a t i s e Quis heres the theme i s p a r t i c u l a r l y prominent. God's
words to Abraham i n Gen.15:5, c i t e d at §86 (see a l s o above I I 6.3.1.), are the
s t a r t i n g p o i n t : d v d 3 A e c l j o v eus xov oupavov nai apu$ynoov xous d o x e p a s , ei 6uvr|-
ori e^apu^yfioaL a u x o u g . xau eurcev ouxws eoxau xo o i e p y a oou. Philo's descrip-
t i o n of the sage (§88) c l e a r l y r e c a l l s the terminology of the Timaeus.
3ouAexau yap d v x u y u y o v o u p a v o u , ei 6e xPn nai Ttpoouiep3dAAovxa euTieCv,
oupavov eTtuyetov anocpflvat xnv xou oocpou c|a>xnv exouoav <ev eauxfj xa$dit£p>
ev auftept xadapds cpuoeus, x e x a y y e v a s x u v n a e u s , x o p e d a s e y y e A e C s , %eCag
n e p t o d o u s , dpextov d o x e p o e u 6 e o x d x a s nai icepuAayTteoxdxas a u y d s .

x e x a y y e v a s x u v n o e u s : Cf.90c8, p o s s i b l y a l s o a d i s t o r t e d r e c o l l e c t i o n of
47c1 x e x a p a y y e v a s .
X Q p e t a s e y y e A e i s : Cf.40c3 and the harmony of 47d.
fteuas Ttepuo6ous: Cf.47b7,c3.
dpex&v. . . : A t y p i c a l r h e t o r i c a l expansion by P h i l o .
A s i m i l a r exegesis of the same t e x t i s given at Leg.3.40, though the reminis-
cence of the Timaeus i s l e s s c l e a r (note a l s o QG 4.181, exeg. Gen.26:4, a para-
llel text to Gen.15:5). At §185 (exeg. Ex.24:6, c f . I I 6.3.1.) the mss. read:
o uepos Aoyos xou a u y a x o s a£u63v xo aAoyov riytov y e p o s (Jjuxw$nvau nai xpoiov
x u v d Aoyuxov y e v e a d a u , x a u s yev v o u ^ e o t a u s i e p u o 6 o u s d x o A o u d f i o a v . . .
Wendland's conjecture vou fteuaus i s c o n v i n c i n g and has been accepted by Colson
EE 4.374, H a r l FE 15.256. At §233 once again a p a r a l l e l i s drawn between man's
4>uxu and the o u p a v o s , t h i s time with deviant f e a t u r e s discusse d above i n I I 5.
2.1-2. Three separate reference s to the r e l a t i o n between the mind and the hea-
venly r e v o l u t i o n s i n the one t r e a t i s e i s unexpected. The presence of the text
Gen.15:5 i n the pericope d e a l t with i n the t r e a t i s e i s p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s i b l e .

Other t e x t s that compare man's mind to heaven and the heavenly r e v o l u -

t i o n s are: Opif.82 (on which see a l s o above I I 1.3.1.), man i s a 3p«xuv oupa-
vov itoAAas ev auxtp cpuoeus d o x e p o e b 6 e C s dyaAyaxocpopoOvxa x e x v a u s nai eitboxriyaus
xau x o t s x a d ' e x d o x n v dpexnv d o u 6 u y o us §ea)pnyaouv ( c f . Leg.3.40 and the note of
J.Cohn at GT 1.57); V i r t . 12, the mind of man i s i t s e l f an d o x r i p . . . nai oxedov
240 ANALYSIS

xi XUJV GTtoupavuwv aieuxovboua n a i yilynya, f o r u n l i k e the eye i t does not need

the a i d of l i g h t ; Pet.85, the mind i s l o c a t e d i n the body i n such a way as to
have maximum contact w i t h the immortal c i r c u i t s of the a i r (!) and the heaven
( c l o s e r here to Tim.90a-d, see f u r t h e r below I I 10.1.2.).
With h i s customary perceptiveness Nikiprowetzky FE 23.137 observes that
i n Pecal.49 the P l a t o n i c m o t i f of the c i r c u i t s of the mind i s adapted to J u -
daic realities:
o i yev t o t s xpnoyous a^bouvxes elvau xaxomeLfteus ws ev aoxucp cpwxu xov oteu
Xpovov (S^woovxat xous voyous auxous aoxepas e'xovxes ev 4JUX5 cpwocpopouvxas.
The r a t i o n a l c i r c u i t s have been replaced by the laws which i l l u m i n a t e the soul
l i k e stars ( c f . a l s o Legat.210, Mos.2.11). As Nikiprowetzky remarks, f
i l y a
a i n s i une equation entre c i e l - r a i s o n - L o i de Moise, dont l e " p o u v o i r s" p a r t i e l s ,
a s t r e s , i d e e s , commandements, f o u r n i s s e n t des symboles i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e s ' .
Somewhat s i m i l a r i s P h i l o s e x p l a n a t i o n of the High p r i e s t ' s b r e a s t p i e c e (Xo-
!

y e Z o v ) , which has twelve stones c o n t a i n i n g the names of the twelve p a t r i a r c h s

engraved upon them. QE 2.114 gives exegesis of Ex.25:21:
...the twelve stones are r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of the twelve p h y l a r c h s , whose
names he cuts and engraves i n them, wishing to make them s t a r s and, i n a
c e r t a i n sense (to make) each p a t r i a r c h h i m s e l f become a c o n s t e l l a t i o n
(and) heavenly image i n order that the t r i b a l leaders and p a t r i a r c h s may
not go about on the e a r t h l i k e mortals but become heavenly p l a n t s and
move about i n the e t h e r , being f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d there.
The f i n a l words of t h i s passage are dependent on P l a t o ' s f u r t h e r development
of the theme i n Tim.90a-d; see below I I 10.1.1.

The combination with two other adjacent themes or m o t i f s , o f t e n found i n

P h i l o should be b r i e f l y observed here. The one, drawn i n the f i r s t place from
t n e
Phaedrus myth and immensely popular i n H e l l e n i s t i c times, i s that the mind
leaves the body and on s o a r i n g wing a c t u a l l y j o i n s the harmonious r e v o l u t i o n s
of the c e l e s t i a l beings (expressed with c h a r a c t e r i s t i c verbs such as ouyitepu-
TtoXetv, ouyxopeueuv, yexewpoitoXeuv, audepo^axeCv). Examples at Opif.70, Spec.1.
207, 3.1, QG 3.3 (EES 1.184), c f . Volker 181, F e s t u g i e r e R e v e l a t i o n 2.558-351,
Boyance REG 76(1963)101-104, H a r l 96-97. The second theme has a more d i r e c t
p h i l o s o p h i c a l background, namely the A r i s t o t e l i a n f i f t h element. I f both the
heavenly bodies and man's s o u l are made of the quasi-element which n a t u r a l l y
moves i n a c i r c l e , the a f f i n i t y between them i s r e a d i l y e x p l a i n e d . Examples
a t
Her.283, Pecal.134; c f . B i l l i n g s 56, H a r l 90-92, P i l l o n 171. Both these
themes f a l l o u t s i d e the scope of the present study.

The reason, i n c o n c l u s i o n , that P h i l o r e f e r s to the c i r c u i t s of the mind

when t h i s idea was d o c t r i n a l l y not very f a s h i o n a b l e i s not f a r to seek. It
i l l u s t r a t e s man's p l a c e i n the cosmos, h i s a f f i n i t y as microcosm to the un-
swerving and awesomely impressive motions of the heavens i n the macrocosm.
P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of man's mental c i r c u i t s i s thus p r i m a r i l y i m a g i s t i c . It
t e l l s us more about man's s t a t u s i n the cosmos than about the a c t u a l nature of
the processes of c o g n i t i o n and thought i n h i s mind.
 CHAPTER EIGHT

TIMAEUS 48A-61C: THE RECEPTACLE AND THE PRIMARY BODIES

8.0. Introductory

8.1. v o u s and dvaYxri (Tim.48a)

8.1.1. The two opposed cosmic and psychic powers

8.2. The receptacle (Tim.48e-53c)

8.2.1. P h i l o ' s references to the receptacle
8.2.2. Wolfson and other s c h o l a rs on P h i l o ' s adaptation of the
Platonic receptacle

8.3. The physics of the c o r p o r e a l world (Tim.53c-61c)

8.3.1. The primary bodies (53c-57d)
8.3.2. Varia

8.0. Introductory

Now that P l a t o has begun to d e s c r i b e aspects of man's body, i t becomes

c l e a r that another f a c t o r must be included i n h i s a n a l y s i s . The r a t i o n a l pur-
pose f o r which the gods created the eyes i s so that man i s introduced to the
concepts of number and time and can embark on philosophy. But i n the actual
f u n c t i o n i n g of the eyes mechanistic forces come i n t o play (cf.46c-e). In
Plato's account xd 6ud vou 6e6r|utoupYnyeva must be complemented by xd 6u'dvaY-
HTIS Y t Y v o p e v a (47e4-5) . The yeveOLg of the cosmos takes place as the mixed
r e s u l t of the conjunction of mind and necessity (the 'wandering cause' 48a7),
a process i n which mind persuades n e c e s s i t y to guide most of the things that
come to be towards the best. The i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h i s new causative factor
means that the account must make a f r e s h s t a r t .
The two o n t o l o g i c a l genera introduced i n 27d-28a are i n s u f f i c i e n t . To
them i s now added a xpuxov dXAo Y e v o s , g e n e r a l l y known today as P l a t o ' s recep-
t a c l e (uTto6oxn 49a6), but that i s only one of the names which he gives i t .
Plato warns us that i t i s a 'dim and d i f f i c u l t conception'(49a3), and this
d i f f i c u l t y i s made abundantly c l e a r i n the l a r g e number of names and images he
needs to d e s c r i b e i t (conveniently l i s t e d at Guthrie 5.263). The nature and
f u n c t i o n of the r e c e p t a c l e are e s s e n t i a l l y r e l a t e d to the theory of ideas. If
the world of s e n s i b l e r e a l i t y i s an image or r e f l e c t i o n of the transcendent
ideas, there must be a t h i r d e n t i t y i n which that image or r e f l e c t i o n can take
242 ANALYSIS

p l a c e , but which has no q u a l i t i e s of i t s own to impede the image's expression.

Thus the d e s c r i p t i o n of the r e c e p t a c l e as space (52a8) might seem the most
s u i t a b l e , except that i t could e a s i l y encourage one to d i s r e g a r d the c o n s t i t u -
t i v e aspect of the r e c e p t a c l e which Plato a l s o emphasizes (e.g. i n the sexual
imagery; c f . above I 4.n.15).
The r e c e p t a c l e must not, however, be i d e n t i f i e d with the primal chaos
confronted by the demiurge i n the act of c r e a t i o n (30a), f o r i t has no quali-
t i e s , ordered or d i s o r d e r e d , of i t s own. The primal chaos c o n s i s t s of the r e -
c e p t a c l e and the d i s o r d e r ed events and motions that take place i n i t . I t sym-
b o l i z e s the realm of n e c e s s i t y , wholly deprived of the i n t e r v e n t i o n of ordering
mind. The f a c t that i t i s described as having v e s t i g e s (uxvn 53b2) of the
primary elements i s P l a t o ' s f u r t h e s t concession to the mechanistic theory of
Democritus. I f chance or n e c e s s i t y were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the genesis of the
cosmos, we might expect the s l i g h t e s t t r a c e s of order, but never* the ordered
p e r f e c t i o n of the cosmos as we know i t .
Also i n h i s theory of the primary bodies Plato's aim i s to demonstrate
the d e f i c i e n c i e s of the theory of the Atomists. Each of the elements i s as-
signed the shape of one of the p e r f e c t geometric s o l i d s , formed by marking out
surfaces c o n s i s t i n g of t r i a n g l e s on the continuum of the r e c e p t a c l e . Each of
these t r i a n g l e s possesses sides of r a t i o n a l and i r r a t i o n a l length (1,2,/3;
1,1,/2; see the e x c e l l e n t a n a l y s i s i n G.Vlastos, Plato's universe (Oxford 1975)
66-97). P l a t o i s i n d i c a t i n g that i r r a t i o n a l i t y i s located i n the very s t r u c -
ture of c o r p o r e a l r e a l i t y . The f u r t h e r subject of the a p x a t of the l i n e s i s
d e l i b e r a t e l y excluded from the Timaeus (48c,53d, r e f e r r i n g to the d o c t r i n e of
the u l t i m a t e p r i n c i p i a developed by P l a to i n h i s l a t e r y e a r s ) .

8.1. vouc. and a v d v K n (Tim.48a)

8.1.1. The two opposed c o s m i c and p s y c h i c powers

The o p p o s i t i o n between v o u s and a v d y x n which Plato gives a c e n t r a l place

i n the Timaeus and which many modern exegetes regard as p r o v i d i n g the vital
clue to the understanding of the dialogue's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( c f . Cherniss Se-
l e c t e d papers 255-259, Taran 'Creation myth' 385, B r i s s o n 467-513) i s not found
in Philo. The reason f o r t h i s l i e s not i n the causation a t t r i b u t e d to v o u s ,
but i n P h i l o ' s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the term a v d y x r ) . He o f t e n a s s o c i a t e s otv-
aynr] with the p h y s i c a l n e c e s s i t i e s caused by man's c o r p o r e a l nature (e.g. Leg.
2.28, Spec.2.124, QG 2.45 (EES 1.124) e t c . ; see f u r t h e r below II 9.2.1.). But
he does not use the term to denote a p r i n c i p l e of causation. At Somn.2.253
 I I 8.1.1. 243

God is called true peace and a e x o u o L o v , w h i l e matter (n o u o u a ) i s equated

w i t h war, a v d y x r i , yevzoLg nai cpdopot. T h i s , however, i s an i s o l a t e d passage

( c f . Volker 74). Sometimes avdyKn i s regarded as p a r a l l e l to e u u a p u e v n , i . e .

representing the inexorable sequence of cause and effect ( c f . Migr.179, Her.

300, Somn.2.44, QG 1.21 e t c . ) , a S t o i c i z i n g d o c t r i n e which he explicitly re-

jects. Because of these connotations — s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t to those i n -

tended by P l a t o 1
- the concept of n e c e s s i t y i s not used i n o p p o s i t i o n to vous.

Instead the c o n t r a s t proposed by P l a t o i s t r a n s l a t e d i n t o the o p p o s i t i o n bet-

ween v o u s as a c t i v e cause and matter as p a s s i ve o b j e c t (Qpif.8; see above II

2.2.1. 3.2.1.).

There i s one h i g h l y c o n t r o v e r s i a l t e x t i n which a d i s t a n t echo of Tim.48a

i s p e r c e p t i b l e and which should not be overlooked i n the present context. At

QE 1.23 P h i l o gives a complex a l l e g o r i c a l exegesis of the words i n Ex.12:23,

xau o u x dcpnoeu ( o x u p u o s ) T O V oAedpeuovxa elaeX%eZv e u s xds otxuas uuajv iaxa£au.

But as f o r the deeper meaning t h i s must be s a i d . Into every s o u l at i t s

b i r t h there enter two powers ( 6 u v a p e u s ) , the s a l u t a r y (awxnpua) and the
d e s t r u c t i v e (<p$opoTtouos?) . . . Through these powers the cosmos too was
created. People c a l l them by other names: the s a l u t a r y power they c a l l
powerful ( 6 u v a x o g ? ) and b e n e f i c e n t (euepyexus) and the o p p o s i t e one (evav-
T i a ) they c a l l unbounded (aueupos) and d e s t r u c t i v e (same word as above) .
Thus the sun and moon and the a p p r o p r i a t e p o s i t i o n s of the other s t a r s
and t h e i r ordered f u n c t i o n s and the whole heaven together come i n t o being
and e x i s t through the two powers. And they are created i n accordance
with the b e t t e r part of these, namely when the s a l u t a r y and b e n e f i c e n t
power b r i n g s to an end (exeAetwoe?) the unbounded and d e s t r u c t i v e nature,
wherefore a l s o to those who have a t t a i n e d such a s t a t e and a nature s i m i -
l a r to t h i s i s immortalit y given. But the race (yevos, i . e . the human race)
i s a mixture ( u e u e L Y P e v r i ? ) of both these powers, from whom the heavens
and the whole cosmos have r e c e i v e d t h i s mixture... ( t r a n s l a t i o n Marcus
EES 2.32-33, s l i g h t l y a l t e r e d ; r e t r a n s l a t i o n s Marcus, Weitenberg).
Although t h i s s t r i k i n g passage was ignored by some of P h i l o s more s y s t e m a t i - f

z i n g i n t e r p r e t e r s (e.g. Drummond, B r e h i e r , Wolfson), more r e c e n t l y i t has r e -

ceived a great deal of a t t e n t i o n ; c f . Goodenough By L i g h t , L i g h t 205, Danielou
53-57, Boyance BEG 72(1959)378, H a r l FE 15.108, Hengel Judaism and H e l l e n i sm
229-230, Nikiprowetzky 255-259, D i l l o n 173-174, Winston 335-336. Our p o i n t of
departure i s the p e n e t r a t i n g d i s c u s s i o n of Nikiprowetzky, who a f f i r m s that the
d u a l i s t i c emphasis of the passage has nothing to do w i t h P e r s i a n (or Essenian)
i d e a s , but must be seen i n the l i g h t of P l a t o n i c and P l a t o n i s t d o c t r i n e s .

The B i b l i c a l tex t r e q u i r i n g e x p l a n a t i o n encourages P h i l o to i n t e r p r e t the

'destroyer* on the l e v e l of the s o u l , f o r the 'houses' i n the t e x t are taken to

r e f e r a l l e g o r i c a l l y to souls ( c f . QE 1.22, Leg.2.34). No unsurmountable prob-

lems are encountered here. In terms of the P l a t o n i s t psychology which P h i l o

employs, the d e s t r o y i n g power that enters the s o u l i s the f o r c e of irration-

ality l o c a t e d i n or represented by the i r r a t i o n a l p a r t of the s o u l . The dua-

lism involved i s i n d i s p u t a b l y P l a t o n i c ( c f . II 7.2.1. on Tim.43a-d, 9.2.1-2 on

Tim.69aff.). As Nikiprowetzky 257 observes, the c h i e f rescuer is vous, the

c h i e f destroye r auodnots. But, ever conscious of the p a r a l l e l between micro-

244 ANALYSIS

cosm and macrocosm, P h i l o a l s o endeavours t o e x p l a i n the presence of the two

powers on the cosmic l e v e l . They cannot be equated with h i s customary doc-
t r i n e o f the two d i v i n e powers, f o r those form a p o l a r i t y , not an o p p o s i t i o n
as i n the case of the s a l u t a r y and the d e s t r u c t i v e power.

An important c l u e to what P h i l o might mean by the cosmic d e s t r u c t i v e po-

wer i s given i n the d e s c r i p t i o n 'unbounded ( c t T t e t p o s ) .
T
As was observed above
in I I 3.2.1., both P h i l o and the P l a t o n i s t s use t h i s term to d e p i c t the form-
lessness and unordered s t a t e o f matter (Spec.1.48,329, QG 2.12 (EES 1.85),
Plut.Mor.719C, Num.fr.4 e t c . ) . The dualism which P h i l o has mind i s that bet-
ween d i s o r d e r ed and d e r e g u l a t i n g matter and the c r e a t i v e o r d e r i n g f o r c e o f the
d i v i n e presence i n the cosmos ( i . e . at the l e v e l of the Logos). Matter i s not
e n t i r e l y banished from heaven, but i t s indeterminacy i s wholly reduced to the
ordered movements o f the heavens. The same heavenly immortality can be gained
by the man i n whom the unbounded d e s t r u c t i v e n e s s of i r r a t i o n a l i t y i s c o n s t r a i -
ned and countered by the s a l u t a r y beneficence of reason.

It thus emerges that the b a s i c o p p o s i t i o n between order and d i s o r d e r , God

and matter, which P h i l o reads i n t o the Timaeus (and e s p e c i a l l y Tim.30a) i s ap-
p l i e d t o the s t r u c t u r e o f both the macrocosm and the microcosm. A glance at
Middle P l a t o n i s t authors shows that other P l a t o n i c texts were brought i n t o r e -
lation to this basic opposition:

(1) The good and bad (cosmic) s o ul of Laws 896d; c f . Plut.Mor.370F,1014E, Num.
ap. Calc.297, A t t . f r . 1 1 , 2 3 , Alb.Did.14.3.
7 2 ) The two opposed r e v o l u t i o n s o f the P o l i t i c u s myth; c f . Plut.Mor.1015A.
(3) The o p p o s i t i o n between the One and the Dyad ( b a s i c a l l y Neopythagorean, but
going back to the l a t e P l a t o and the Old Academy); Cf. Plut.Mor.370D, Num.ap.
Calc.295.
(4) The statement i n Tht.176a that not a l l e v i l can be e r a d i c a t e d ; c f . P l u t .
Mor.371A.
(5) The o p p o s i t i o n between v o u s and avaynr] i n Tim.48a, c f . Tim.Locr.1, Diog.
Laert.3.75-76, Num.ap. Calc.299.
As was a n t i c i p a t e d above, i t i s p o s s i b l e to detect a f a i n t t r a c e of the last-
mentioned d o c t r i n e i n P h i l o ' s t e x t , when he speaks o f the e n t i r e cosmos r e c e i -
v i n g a mixture o f both the powers. At 48a P l a t o d e s c r i b es the yeveous x o u
HOOUOU as having been mixed (ueueLyuevn) from the combination of vous and dv-

otYxri. 2
The passage i n P l u t a r c h Mor.371A-B which begins with an adaptation of
P l a t o ' s words i s i n .fact the c l o s e s t p a r a l l e l we have to P h i l o ' s t e x t :

u e u e u Y M e v r i yap r\ xou6e T O U HOOUOU yeveoLg nal o u o x a o u s e £ e v a v x u w v ou ynv

Cooodevwv 6uvduea)v, d A A d x r i s 3 e A x t o v o s x o x p d x o s e a i i v a n o A e o d a u 6e x n v
cpauAnv T t a v x d n a a u v d 6 u v a x o v , TtoAAriv yev lyicecpuxuCav xcp o w y a x u , TtoAAriv be
T f j ^ X t i x o O T t a v x o s x a u i t p o s x r ) V $ e A x L , o v a aei 6 u o y a x o u o a v .
u

J u s t l i k e P h i l o P l u t a r c h speaks o f powers, whose i n f l u e n c e i s e x e r c i s e d on the

s o u l and body of the cosmos. 3

The d e c i s i v e question that must be posed i n e v a l u a t i n g this controversial

passage i s as f o l l o w s . Is the d e s t r u c t i v e power a c t i v e l y m a l e f i c e n t , or i s
 II 8.1.1. 245

the nature of i t s ' a c t i v i t y 1

confined to r e c a l c i t r a n t p a s s i v i t y ? In the case
of the former o p t i o n , which might w e l l be suggested by the r e t r a n s l a t i o n cp§o-
poTiotos d u v a u L s , * we
1
have a more extreme dualism than i s found elsewhere i n
Philo. But the P l a t o n i c and P l a t o n i s t background which we have sketched leads
us to agree with Nikiprowetzky that t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s premature. The unique-
ness of the passage i s caused by P h i l o ' s d e s i r e to combine the 'destroyer' of
the B i b l i c a l text with the a l l e g o r i c a l symbolism of the 'house' as soul and
cosmos, while remaining w i t h i n the bounds of a Platonism which i s at l e a s t
p a r t l y derived from the Timaeus.

8.2. The receptacle (Tim.48e-53c)

8.2.1. Philo's references to the receptacle

The task before us i s to determine whether P h i l o makes any references to

or shows u t i l i z a t i o n of P l a t o ' s d i f f i c u l t and d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n on the na-
ture of the r e c e p t a c l e . This i s the method we must f i r s t use i n d e c i d i n g whe-
ther that d i s c u s s i o n had any impact on h i s t h i n k i n g .
1. Female nature. In c a l l i n g h i s xpuxov yevog r e c e p t a c l e , mother and
nurse P l a t o was making use of f a m i l i a r Greek ideas on p r o c r e a t i o n . The father
was regarded as the sol e cause of generation, while the mother was thought to
supply only a place f o r the embryo to grow i n and o b t a i n nourishment ( c f . Corn-
ford 187, Guthrie 5.264; P h i l o a l l u d e s to these ideas at QG 3.47). Guthrie
adds that there i s a d i s t i n c t t r a c e of the theory of the Pythagoreans, i n which
the u n l i m i t e d was a s s o c i a t e d wit h the female and the u n i t as p r i n c i p l e of li-
mit and order with sperma. The Timaeus w i l l thus have encouraged P h i l o to as-
s o c i a t e matter with femaleness, as occurs e s p e c i a l l y i n a number of t e x ts i n
t h e
Quaestiones (QG 2.12, 3.3 (EES 1.183), 3.47, 4.160, QE 1.8, c f . De Deo 3) , 1

If we add a tex t such as QE 2.33 (where the femaleness of matter i s i m p l i e d ) ,

i t emerges that P h i l o i s t h i n k i n g c h i e f l y i n terms of a whole s e r i e s of oppo-
s i t e s centred around the conception of the monad and the dyad:
monad dyad

God matter
father mother
f i r s t cause p a s s i v e object
virtue passions
soul-mind body
yevvav xtlxxeuv
male female
i intelligibility sense-perceptibility
immortality mortality
aaxetos cpauAos.
246 ANALYSIS

The femaleness of matter i s c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d with i t s dyadic nature. The

predominant i n f l u e n c e here i s without doubt that of the Old Academic and Neo-
pythagorean d o c t r i n e of the two principles. S t r i c t l y speaking, however, P h i l o
does not regard matter and the dyad as i d e n t i c a l . The number two i s an image
of or symbolizes matter as passive object of c r e a t i o n ( c f . Spec.3.180, Staehle
22, Krämer 273). Compare f u r t h e r Balte s Timaios Lokros 43-44 on Tim.Locr.5,
Eudorus ap. Simpl.in Phys.181.10-30, D i l l o n 199,204 on Plut.Mor.373C,428E-429A.
But there are a l s o P h i l o n i c t e x ts i n which the femaleness of matter i s more
d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to images drawn from the Timaeus.

2. Mother and nurse. P l a t o describes the r e c e p t a c l e as y n x n p (50d3 con-

t r a s t e d to the model as f a t h e r , 51a4), x t d n v n (49a6,52d5,88d6), xpocpos (88d6) .
All three words are used to d e s c r i b e uAr) a t o d n x n at Ebr.61 i n a d i s c u s s i o n of
Sarah's, i . e . the v i r t u e - l o v i n g mind's, m a s c u l i n i t y (exeg. Gen.19:11,20:12).
The descriptions are attributed to anonymi (ecpaoav, o t s upwxots oocptas dveßAa-

o x n o e v e p v o s ) , but i t can h a r d l y be doubted that P h i l o has Plato specifically

In mind (note how P l a t o i s thus a s s o c i a t e d with the venerable sages of o l d ) .
S i m i l a r l y at QG 4.160, i n an explanation of why Esau i n Gen.25:25 i s c a l l e d
TtpwTOTOxos and not i t p w x o y o v o s , P h i l o w r i t e s that 'passive matter... gives
b i r t h l i k e a mother' and that 'sense-perceptible things are completed by mat-
ter, which not i n e p t l y might be s a i d to be the mother of created things'.

But P h i l o does not reserve the e p i t h e t s 'nurse and mother' f o r matter

alone. At Her.52 a t o d n o t s i s c a l l e d xpocpos H a u x t d r i v n of the human race, at
Plant.14, QG 2.7 (EES 1.80) i t i s the turn of the earth to be described thus,
while i n Pet. 115, Ebr. 31, Conf .49 the images are a p p l i e d to o o c p t a . Of these
passages Ebr.30-31 i s by f a r the most i n t e r e s t i n g . P h i l o , expounding the text
Deut.21:18-21 i n which parents accuse t h e i r son of disobedience and drunken-
ness, b r i e f l y dwells on the f a t h e r and mother of the u n i v e r s e . The f a t h e r of
the cosmos i s God the ö n y t o u p y o s , the mother i s the maker's e n t o x r i y r u which
receives ( r c a p a o e ^ a y e v r i ) the d i v i n e seed and gives b i r t h to the only beloved
sense-perceptible son, t h i s cosmos (the other son i s the x o o y o s v o n x o s ) . This
enuoTriun i s the o o c p t a spoken of by a member of the d i v i n e chorus (of prophets),
namely i n Prov.8:22 which P h i l o quotes with a t e x t u a l reading d e v i a t i n g from
the LXX ( e x x r i o a T O i n s t e a d of e x x t o e ) . As was noted above i n I I 5.1.3., the
passage i n Prov.8:22-31 i s the best-known tex t of the Jewish Sophia specula-
tion. The P h i l o n i c passage at Ebr.30-31 i s another that has r e c e n t l y been
much d i s c u s s e d : c f . Brehier 118-120, Wolfson 1.256-258,267-269, Weiss 206-211,
F r i i c h t e l 173-174, Nikiprowetzky 72-73, D i l l o n 164.

The question that i s r e l e v a n t to our study i s the f o l l o w i n g . Why does

P h i l o apply the e p i t h e t s y n x n p x a u x t d n v n , which he knows were used by Plato
for the r e c e p t a c l e , to o o c p t a ? Diverse answers have been given.
 II 8.2.1. 247

( i ) Wolfson, contrary to h i s usual approach, gives a p h i l o l o g i c a l answer.

P h i l o i s engaged i n a kind of Midrashi c s p e c u l a t i o n on a Hebrew word d e s c r i b -
ing oocpua i n Prov.8:30, which wit h d i f f e r e n t v o c a l i z a t i o n can mean 'nurse and 1

'mother . Nikiprowetzky, i n examining the problem of whether P h i l o knew Heb-

1

rew, i s h i g h l y c r i t i c a l of t h i s argument, d e s c r i b i n g i t as 'véritablement so-

p h i s t i q u e ' (75) .
( i i ) Nikiprowetzky himself argues that to regard i t as problematic that P h i l o
should use the same images f o r matter and i t s v i r t u a l opposite, oocpua i n the
guise of the M O O U O S vonxos, i s to f a i l to take i n t o account the p l a s t i c i t y of
the symbols and images which he uses. Many examples are given of the a p p l i c a -
t i o n of these images to a l l manner of concepts i n P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s . 2
According
to the French s c h o l a r there i s no poin t i n r e i f y i n g these symbols and coming
to d r a s t i c m y s t i c a l , m y t h o l o g i c al or p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n c l u s i o n s . The images of
mother, daughter, nurse e t c . merely record a b s t r a c t r e l a t i o n s - i n the case of
matter the r e l a t i o n between substrate and s e n s i b l e r e a l i t y , i n the case of
Wisdom the r e l a t i o n between cause and e f f e c t .
( i i i ) Bréhier and Weiss f i n d t h e i r answer i n the i n t e r p o s i t i o n of c e r t a i n my-
thological and r e l i g i o u s ideas current i n the H e l l e n i s t i c c u l t s , with as key
example P l u t a r c h ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of I s i s i n terms of the P l a t o n i c r e c e p t a c l e at
Mor.372E.
( i v ) The same p a r a l l e l i n t r i g u e s D i l l o n , who wonders i f d o c t r i n e s of Alexand-
r i a n philosophy are i n v o l v e d . I s i s , he p o i n t s out (204), i s a l s o equated with
Wisdom (Plut.Mor.351Eff.):
On the whole, i t seems true to say that i n P h i l o ' s thought there i s pre-
sent the r e c o g n i t i o n of a female l i f e - p r i n c i p l e a s s i s t i n g the supreme God
i n h i s work of c r e a t i o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , but a l s o somehow f u l f i l l i n g
the r o l e of mother to a l l c r e a t i o n ( c f . a l s o Ebr.30). I f t h i s concept
r e v e a l s c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , that i s perhaps because P h i l o himself was not
q u i t e sure what to do w i t h i t . From our point of view, t h i s r a t h e r en-
hances i t s v a l u e, as i n d i c a t i n g that P h i l o found the concept already es-
t a b l i s h e d , presumably i n contemporary Pythagoreanism.
At 204 he adds a p o s s i b l e c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the Pythagorean/Old Academic Dyad.
But the m a t e r i a l which D i l l o n can muster i s not r e a l l y s u f f i c i e n t to prove h i s
case. In a footnote he concedes: ' P l a i n l y we are i n a marshy area of P h i l o ' s
thought.'
The c o n c l u s i o n must be that there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to prove a
p h i l o s o p h i c a l r a t i o n a l e behind the s i m i l a r d e s c r i p t i o n of uAri and oocpua. If
one i n c l i n e s , as I do, to the view that the mythological p a r a l l e l s adduced are
not r e l e v a n t to P h i l o ' s i n t e n t i o n s , then Nikiprowetzky's s o l u t i o n remains be-
hind as the most recommendable.
3. Receptivity. P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the xpuxov yivoz as receptacle
(ôïïoôoxn 49a6, Ttavôexés 51a7) or i n terms of r e c e p t i v i t y (the verb ôéxouau 50b6,
8,d3 etc.) i s r e f l e c t e d i n a few Philonic texts. As noted above i n I I 3.2.1.,
the language used to d e s c r i b e the transformation of d i s o r d e r l y matter i n Q p i f .
22 (xpoiinv naù uexa$oÀnv è ô e x e x o ) r e c a l l s P l a t o ' s account, even i f the dis-
order of P h i l o ' s p r e - e x i s t e n t matter shows more a f f i n i t y with the d i s o r d e r l y
motions of 30a,52d-53a than the q u a l i t y - l e s s medium of 49a,50b-e ( c f . a l s o
Prov.1.7, ' r e c e i v i n g forms that were not in i t ' , ' r e c e i v i n g beauty together
with adornment' (text above I I 3.2.2.)). In Ebr.30 oocpua i s portrayed as na-
paôeÇauévn xà xou %eov Oïïépuaxa. The words ôéxouau, Ttapaôéxouau, ùitoôéxouau
are r e g u l a r l y used by P h i l o f o r the impregnation of the female ( c f . Leisegang
ad l o c c . ) .
248 ANALYSIS

^* gxyaYeCov• P h i l o uses the word expayeuov on two occasions to des-

c r i b e the s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b le cosmos, Fug.12 and Aet.15 ( c f . a l s o Spec.1.147).
Although Colson i s undoubtedly j u s t i f i e d i n remarking (EE 9.195) t h a t , i n the
context of the Timaeus compendium at Aet.15 ( c f . above I I 2.1.3.), exyayeCov
r e c a l l s Plato' s use of the word at 50c2, the meaning given to i t i s q u i t e dif-
ferent. I t does not i n d i c a t e the q u a l i t y - l e s s r e c i p i e n t of form, but the im-
press or imprint made by a s e a l or mould ( c f . ocppayus Fug. 12) . Hence P h i l o
uses i t of the cosmos ( P l a t o ' s exyovov 50d4), not the r e c e p t a c l e (Plato's \ir\-
xnp 50d3) . The change of meaning i n v o l v ed (found a l s o i n A r i u s Didymus and
Albinus) was discussed above i n I I 3.4.2.

5. Vocabulary. I t so happens that P l a t o d e s c r i b e s the r e c e p t a c l e as

avopaxov at 51a7 ( v . l . aopaxov i n some mss.), w h i le at 52a3 the yivog of the
forms i s c a l l e d aopaxov nai aAAws avauo^rixov. Both d e s c r i p t i o n s could have
been i n f l u e n t i a l i n P h i l o ' s m u l t i p l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the words i n Gen.1:2
analysed above i n I I 2.1.1. 3.2.3. The word oveupw^us i n the meaning of 'dream-
ing', ' h a l l u c i n a t i o n ' ( c f . LSJ ad loc. ) i s so r a r e that we can be sure that
P l a t o ' s use of i t at 52b7 induced P h i l o to f o l l o w at Somn.2.298, Prob.10 ( c f .
P e t i t FE 28.142), even though the contexts are wholly d i f f e r e n t .

8.2.2. W o l f s o n and o t h e r s c h o l a r s on P h i l o ' s a d a p t a t i o n of the

Platonic receptacle

Having done our best i n the previous sub-section to f e r r e t out Philo's

a l l u s i o n s to Tim.48-53, we can conclude that he was indeed conversant with
t h i s part of the dialogue, but that on the whole he makes remarkably little
use of the s e c t i o n i n which P l a t o f i l l s i n and c l a r i f i e s what was left unsaid
concerning the p r e - e x i s t e n t chaos at 30a. But a p o s s i b l e o b j e c t i o n could be
r a i s e d at t h i s p o i n t . J u s t because P h i l o v i r t u a l l y never r e f e r s to Tim.48-53,
that need not mean that he has not analysed and taken the passage i n t o account.
What about, f o r example, Wolfson's well-known argument (1.300-310), i n which
he undertakes to prove that P h i l o propounds the c r e a t i o n of matter ex nihilo
by showing how he r e i n t e r p r e t s P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e of the receptacle?

Wolfson's argument i s of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t f o r our study because of the

way i t approaches P h i l o ' s use of the Timaeus. I t w i l l be worth our while to
examine i t c l o s e l y . A f t e r reviewing a l l the texts quoted by s c h o l a r s i n f a -
vour of or against P h i l o ' s espousal of the d o c t r i n e of c r e a t i o ex nihilo,
Wolfson concluded that i n t h i s manner the question could not be resolved.
What was r e q u i r e d was a passage i n which P h i l o d e f i n i t e l y and unambiguously
s t a t e s that the p r e - e x i s t e n t matter out of which the cosmos was created was
 II 8.2.2. 249

i t s e l f created by God. He continues (1.303-304):

Such a passage, we b e l i e v e , i s to be found i n h i s r e v i s i o n of the c r e a -
t i o n s t o r y of the Timaeus. In that passage, e i t h e r as an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of P l a t o or as a departure from him, P h i l o , we s h a l l t r y to show, has ex-
p l i c i t l y stated h i s view of the c r e a t i o n of matter. I f students of P h i l o
have f a i l e d t o see i t , i t i s because they have f a i l e d to see P l a t o through
the eyes of P h i l o (my i t a l i c s ) .
Wolfson's argument i s thus p a r t i c u l a r l y s u b t l e because i t bypasses the ambigu-
i t i e s of what P h i l o a c t u a l l y says on the o r i g i n and nature of the pre-existent
matter and a s s e r t s that P h i l o s true views are evident
f
i n the way that he i n -
t e r p r e t s the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l account i n terms of Plato's Timaeus.
The argument can be b r i e f l y summarized as f o l l o w s . (1) In the Timaeus
both the ideas and the l i m i t e d v o i d (Wolfson's way of d e s c r i b i n g the recep-
t a c l e ) are e t e r n a l .
1
In the l i m i t e d v o i d there are copies or t r a c e s of the
ideas of the four elements i n a s t a t e of d i s o r d e r . From these copies the four
elements are created, and from them the cosmos. (2) P h i l o , i n c o n t r a s t , r e -
gards the i n t e l l i g i b l e world as created on 'day one'. The c h i e f contents of
t h i s world are extracte d from Gen.1:1-3:

ev apx?i enounoev o §eos xov oupavov nai TT\V yfjv. ri 6c yt) r\v otopaxos nau
a H a x a a x e u a o x o s nai O K O X O S enavoa xfjs afivooov, xat, Ttveuua deou eitecpepexo
9

eitdva) xou u 6 a x o s . nai eZnev 6 %ebg revn^nxw cpfis. x a t e y e v e x o (pais.

P h i l o l o c a t e d i n these words the ideas of the four elements, the ideas of mind
and s o u l , the idea of the v o i d and the idea of the c e l e s t i a l bodies ( c f . Opif.
29-31). (3) Since the idea o f the v o i d and the ideas of the four elements are
created by God, i t must f o l l o w that the l i m i t e d v o i d or r e c e p t a c l e and a l s o
the copies or traces of the i d e a l four elements i n i t are created by him ( c f .
a l s o Conf.136). (4) Therefore P h i l o considers that the matter i n which the
cosmos was created and the matter from which the cosmos was created are both
themselves created by God.
In response to t h i s argument we must begin by agreeing that i n the first
chapters of the De o p i f i c i o mundi P h i l o i s engaged i n p r e s e n t i n g an exegesis
of the Mosaic cosmogony which i s h e a v i l y dependent on the p h i l o s o p h i c a l frame-
work provided by P l a t o 's Timaeus. Despite i t s i n g e n u i t y , however, Wolfson's
argument f a i l s to convince us f o r reasons both methodological and p h i l o s o p h i c a l .
F i r s t l y , the American s c h o l a r gives P h i l o ' s words a much more s p e c i f i c
a p p l i c a t i o n than they can bear. The exegete's c h i e f purpose i s to show that
i n Gen.1:1-5 Moses d e s c r i b e s the contents of the n o e t i c cosmos. In so doing
he r e t a i n s much of the concreteness o f the Mosaic account, so that the reader
r e c e i v e s the d i s t i n c t impression that heaven, e a r t h , a i r and water r e f e r not
to the elements but t o the cosmic regions i n t h e i r i n t e l l i g i b l e form. 2
More
importantly, the equivalence p o s t u l a t e d between the v o i d ( n e v o v §29), empty
space (KEVTI x^pa §32), the P l a t o n i c r e c e p t a c l e and the ' i n which' aspect of
250 ANALYSIS

matter i s extremely problematic. P h i l o i n f a c t never considers space to be an

aspect of matter at a l l , but follows the Stoa i n a s s o c i a t i n g i t with place and
body ( c f . Fug.75, Somn.1.62, SVF 2.503-505; here i s the probable background to
the passage i n Conf.136 which Wolfson adduces).

Secondly, P h i l o s reader can have a b s o l u t e l y no i d e a , when he reads

f
the
account of the contents of the i n t e l l i g i b l e world at §29-35, that i t i s w r i t -
ten i n such a way as to shed c l a r i f y i n g l i g h t on the nature of the p r e - e x i s t -
ent matter described i n §21-22. I f P h i l o were to formulate the d o c t r i n e that
matter was created by God out of nothing - a d o c t r i n e that takes issue with
one of the most b a s i c axioms of Greek philosophy (affirmed w i t h some f o r c e at
Aet.5, see above I I 6.1.2.) and that a l s o would represent a new development i n
Jewish thought - we must expect him to announce such a d e c i s i v e innovation.
Far from g i v i n g the ' e x p l i c i t statement 1
sought by Wolfson, P h i l o i n f a c t pre-
serves a prudent s i l e n c e on the subject of the o r i g i n of the p r e - e x i s t e n t mat-
ter. Moses does not d i s c u s s the subject i n h i s account (that i s , i f Gen.1:1-5
i s taken to r e f e r to the i n t e l l i g i b l e world), and so P h i l o confines h i s com-
ments to the r e l a t i v e l y b r i e f mention of the p r e - e x i s t e n t matter at §9 and §21,
passages which go no f u r t h e r than r e f l e c t i n g the P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e from the
Timaeus r e q u i r e d to give the c r e a t i o n a l account a p h i l o s o p h i c a l coherence.

T h i r d l y , even i f we were to grant W o l f s o n s assumptions concerning

f
the
l i m i t e d v o i d and the t r a c e s of the ideas of the four elements i n i t , i t i s
s t i l l necessary to point out that the t h e s i s that God created both these runs
d i r e c t l y counter to b a s i c presuppositions of P h i l o s thought.
f
God i s the
source of order, not d i s o r d e r . Why should he then f i r s t create a d i s o r d e r l y
matter before proceeding to order it? I t would be more l o g i c a l that he create
h i s f i n i s h e d products s t r a i g h t away, r a t h e r than pass through the intermediate
stage of a d i s o r d e r l y chaos. In f a c t , however, P h i l o i s not prepared to make
such a r a d i c a l break from the Timaeus and the e n t i r e t r a d i t i o n of Greek p h i l o -
sophy. Moreover the r e c a l c i t r a n t p a s s i v i t y of matter i s the source of the
e v i l and imperfection inherent i n corporeal r e a l i t y (see above I I 8.1.1.). If
God created matter he would be d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e for e v i l , a
d o c t r i n e which P h i l o repeatedly r e j e c t s .

F u r t h e r c r i t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n s ' of Wolfson's t h e s i s can he found at Bormann

42-44, L i l l a 195, May 9, Winston 10-13. In c o n t r a st Reale Paradoxos p o l i t e i s
247-287 r e l i e s h e a v i l y on Wolfson's argument ( c f . esp. 273-277) i n h i s attempt
to show that P h i l o sets out, both i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi and i n the De Pro-
v i d e n t i a , a d o c t r i n e of c r e a t i o n i n v o l v i n g two stages, i . e . f i r s t the c r e a t i o n
of matter and then the o r d e r i n g of the matter i n order to form the cosmos.
The a d d i t i o n a l arguments which he claims can confirm Wolfson's t h e s i s are not
strong. The mixture of e a r t h and water at Opif.38 i s based on Gen.1:9. I f
P h i l o had thought i t r e l e v a n t to the subject of the nature of the p r e - e x i s t e n t
chaos, he would have informed h i s readers of the f a c t . Prov.1.22 c e r t a i n l y
shows a correspondence between the Mosaic p r e - e x i s t e n t chaos and P l a t o n i c mat-
t e r , but does not a f f i r m that the pre-elemental chaos was created by God (see
 II 8.2.2. 251

f u r t h e r below). The d o c t r i n e of grace which Reale invokes (282-283) i s p a r t i -

c u l a r l y s u s c e p t i b l e to the t h i r d o b j e c t i o n r a i s e d against Wolfson's t h e s i s
above. Only the text at Prov.2.48-50 gives R e a l e s arguments a measure of f

support. I t might w e l l be argued t h a t , i f the demiurgic c r e a t o r c a l c u l a t e s

the p r e c i s e amount of matter r e q u i r e d f o r the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos, he must
have brought that matter i n t o being h i m s e l f . Yet even here P h i l o , i n f o l l o w -
ing the customary craftsman metaphor, places no emphasis on r a d i c a l p h i l o s o -
p h i c a l consequences of the d o c t r i n e of the d i r e c t c r e a t i o n of matter by God
( c f . Weiss 71-72). Reale f a i l s to take i n t o account the s u b s i d i a r y nature of
much of the argumentation i n Prov.II . The emphasis i s on demonstrating the
d o c t r i n e of providence, not on g i v i n g new i n s i g h t s i n t o the d o c t r i n e of c r e a -
t i o n d e r i v e d from the Mosaic account of yeveous.

We have not yet d e a l t with one aspect of Wolfson's argument, namely h i s

view that P h i l o f o l l o w s P l a t o i n p o s t u l a t i n g that the disordered s t a t e of the
pre-existent chaos i s caused by the copies (uuynuaTa 50c5) or t r a c e s (uxvri 53
b2) of the forms of the four elements which move c h a o t i c a l l y and haphazardly
i n the r e c e p t a c l e or space. Winston 10-11, though arguing strongly against
Wolfson on the question of c r e a t i o ex n i h i l o , does agree w i t h him that P h i l o * s
d e s c r i p t i o n of the p r i m o r d i a l matter implies such a conception, even i f i t i s
not e x p l i c i t l y mentioned. He speaks of 'automatic r e f l e c t i o n ' or 'shadow-
r e f l e x e s of the Forms' i n the r e c e p t a c l e (these would be i n d i r e c t l y caused by
God, f o r he i s the one who t h i n k s the forms). I f these two s c h o l a r s are r i g h t ,
we must assume a profounder use of Tim.48-53 than was discovered i n the pre-
vious s u b - s e c t i on by the method of d e t e c t i n g c i t a t i o n s and a l l u s i o n s .

I t i s c e r t a i n l y true tha t the nature of the p r e - e x i s t e n t matter d e r i v e d

from Tim.30a r a i s e s important questions . What causes i t to be d i s o r d e r e d and
f u l l of disharmony, and not merely possessing the r e c e p t i v i t y of the recep-
tacle? Some Middle P l a t o n i s t handbooks f o l l o w P l a t o ' s account i n the Timaeus
so c l o s e l y that they mention that the forms are somehow present i n the pre-
cosmic uAri ( c f . Tim.Locr. 4-7 , Diog.Laert. 3.76, A l b . D i d . 12.2,13.3) . 3
A tex t
which might be used (though the two s c h o l a r s do not do so) to show that P h i l o
supported t h i s view i s Prov.1.22 (on which see above I I 2.3.3. 3.2.3.). The
water and a i r (denoted by O X O T O S i n Gen.1:2, c f . Qpif.29) that are present be-
f o r e the cosmos came i n t o being might be i d e n t i f i e d with the t r a c e s of the
elements i n the p r i m o r d i a l chaos.

In s p i t e of these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s I consider the view of Wolfson and Win-

ston to be e x c e s s i v e l y s p e c u l a t i v e . Unlike the above-mentioned P l a t o n i s t s
P h i l o i s not o b l i g e d to adhere r i g i d l y to P l a t o ' s account. Even more than
they he s t r e s s e s the m a t e r i a l (e£ ou) aspect of the P l a t o n i c r e c e p t a c l e at the
expense of the s p a t i a l (ev $) aspect. He t h i n k s of the act of c r e a t i o n p r i -
m a r i l y i n terms of the image of a b u i l d e r c o n s t r u c t i n g a house or c i t y or a
s c u l p t o r shaping a statue or a c u t t e r d i v i d i n g m a t e r i a l ( c f . Qpif.16-20, Cher.
125-127, Prov.2.50-51, Her.133-140,158-160 e t c . ) . In such a demiurgic concep-
t i o n of c r e a t i o n there i s no need f o r i d e a l shapes to be already present in
252 ANALYSIS

the m a t e r i a l . I t i s p r e f e r a b l e to import the A r i s t o t e l i a n d o c t r i n e of poten-

t i a l i t y / a c t u a l i t y and d e c l a r e that the forms are p o t e n t i a l l y present i n the
unformed matter ( c f . Opif .21 6uvauevrj 6e itdvxa euvat). The d i s o r d e r and dis-
harmony of the p r i m o r d i a l chaos r e s u l t s from the absence of the o r d e r i n g hand
of the c r e a t o r . See f u r t h e r below I I I 2.8.

8.3. The p h y s i c s of the corporeal world (Tim.53c-61c)

8.3.1. The p r i m a r y b o d i e s (53c-57d)

The act of c r e a t i o n , i n v o l v i n g as i t does the measuring out of God's good-

ness and beneficence (see above I I 3.1.3.), cannot take p l a c e without the use
of number. Number plays a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e at a l l l e v e l s of r e a l i t y , not only
i n the i n t e l l i g i b l e realm and the psychic part of the s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e realm,
but a l s o i n the process of b r i n g i n g c o r p o r e a l being to the greatest possible
order. P h i l o follows P l a t o , who explains the t r a n s i t i o n from d i s o r d e r to o r -
der o u t l i n e d i n Tim.30a i n more d e t a i l at 53a-b by a f f i r m i n g that the primal
chaos was without p r o p o r t i o n or measure (euxev otXoyws xat, auexpws 53a8), when
the demiurge undertook to give i t form by means of shapes and numbers (6ueaxri-
uaxCaaxo el'deoC xe nal apu§uous 53b5) . He i s r e f e r r i n g of course to the shapes
and numbers of the elementary t r i a n g l e s and primary bodies which he i s about
to expound at some length i n the f o l l o w i n g pages. Accordingly P h i l o informs
h i s readers at Her.156-157 that God uses every number and every form tending
to p e r f e c t i o n when generating and shaping each t h i n g (yevvujv nal axupaxuCwv
exaaxa, c f . Somn.2.45 <6 $eos> aaxuydxbaxov. .. xriv ouauav eaxnpckLae, Spec. 1.48
etc.). In a d i s c u s s i o n on the quantit y of matter at Prov.2.50 P h i l o declares
i n response to Alexander's questions that the inventor of number and measure-
ment can be expected to work out the p r e c i s e amount of m a t e r i a l r e q u i r e d f o r
h i s c r e a t i v e task. One of the 'three measures' i n Gen.18:6 represents the way
that the things i n the sublunary realm were made out of the f o u r elements, ad-
m i t t i n g yeveaus and cpdopa (QG 4.8 (EES 1.280)).

I f , t h e r e f o r e , c r e a t i o n involves the bequeathal of shape and number on

c o r p o r e a l being, does P h i l o a l s o f o l l o w P l a t o i n h i s s p e c u l a t i v e theory (an
etKws Xoyos 53d5) of the primary bodies? In answering t h i s question we shall
d e a l s e p a r a t e l y with the two aspects of the theory, the elementary t r i a n g l e s
and the r e g u l a r geometric s o l i d s .
On f i v e occasions P h i l o speaks of the s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the
right-angled t r i a n g l e :
 II 8.3.1. 253

Opif.97: The hebdomad produces the r i g h t angle, f o r i n the t r i a n g l e with sides

of 3, 4 and 5 u n i t s the r i g h t angle i s formed between the sides of 3 and 4 u n i t s .
With i t s great s t a b i l i t y the r i g h t - a n g l e d t r i a n g l e i s the ctpxn of a l l the
shapes and q u a l i t i e s .
Contempl.65: The great f e a s t (probably Pentecost) i s marked by f i f t y , the a y u -
w x a x o s n a t c p u a t x a j T a x o s apu§ua3v, because i t i s formed from the square of the
r i g h t - a n g l e d t r i a n g l e (3 +4 +5 =50), which i s the apxn x r j s x w v o'Awv y e v l a e w s .
2 2 2

Mos.2.80: S i m i l a r f o r m u l a t i o n prompted by the 50 p i l l a r s v i s i b l e i n the t a b e r -

nacle (Ex.26:18-25).
Spec.2.177: Another encomium of the number 50 (the f e a s t of Weeks f i f t y days
a f t e r the f e a s t of the Sheaf, Lev.23:15-16, Deut.16:9-16). One of the reasons
that t h i s number rouses so much admiration i s that i t i s formed by the r i g h t -
angled t r i a n g l e , which mathematicians c a l l T O axobX£i>w6ecxaxov nai Ttpec3uxaxov
x w v e v o u a u a u s TiepuAau3avouevu)v.
QG 4.8 (Greek fragment FE 33.148): The Pythagoreans suppose the t r i a d among
numbers and r i g h t - a n g l e d t r i a n g l e among shapes to be a x o t x e C o v T f j g x w v o A w v
yeveaews. Cf. a l s o QG 2.5 (EES 1.76), 4.27, QE 2.93.

The two types of t r i a n g l e out of which P l a t o forms h i s primary bodies are

both r i g h t - a n g l e d . Thus, when P h i l o d e s c r i b es the r i g h t - a n g l e as a p x n , axot-
xeCov x f j s XUJV oAwv yeveaews and so on, i t seems beyond reasonable doubt that
the P l a t o n i c theory i s hovering i n the background. But the a c t u a l t r i a n g l e
which he i n each case invokes has sides of length 3, 4 and 5 units. Not only
i s t h i s t r i a n g l e q u i t e incompatible with the d e t a i l s of P l a t o ' s theory, but i t
would i n f a c t destroy i t s p h i l o s o p h i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e ( f o r i r r a t i o n a l i t y would
no longer be present i n the very s t r u c t u r e of the u l t i m a t e b u i l d i n g - b l o c k s of
matter). One might be i n c l i n e d to conclude that P h i l o has misunderstood P l a -
to's theory. But this conclusion should be r e s i s t e d , f o r P h i l o here places
Pythagoras before Plato. In expounding the symbolism present i n the Biblical
t e x t s which he i s d e a l i n g w i t h , he makes use of the s p e c i a l r i g h t - a n g l e d tri-
angle to which the Pythagoreans a t t r i b u t e d u n i v e r s a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . They c a l -
led i t the M O G u u x o v xptywvov because i t contained the p r i n c i p l e s of a l l things
( c f . Proclus i n Rep.2.45.18ff. on Rep.546b; note how he r e l a t e s i t s v i r t u e s
d i r e c t l y to P l a t o ' s theory of the primary b o d i e s ) .

To the P l a t o n i c theory that each of the elements has r e c e i v e d the shape

of one of the r e g u l a r geometric s o l i d s P h i l o r e f e r s only once i n h i s w r i t i n g s
[but now see the appended comment at the end of t h i s s e c t i o n ] , at QG 3.49 (EES
1.250), i n the middle of a lengthy encomium of the ogdoad (exeg. Gen.17:12): 1

In the f o u r t h place,« s i n c e there are four elements, the form of e a r t h ,

water, a i r and f i r e , f i r e has r e c e i v e d as shape the homonym 'pyramid',
while a i r i s e i g h t - s i d e d , and water i s twenty-sided, and the e a r t h i s a
cube. I t was t h e r e f o r e thought necessary that the e a r t h , which was des-
t i n e d to be the (home) of the worthy and v i r t u o u s human race, should have
as i t s share a cubic number, i n accordance w i t h which the whole e a r th was
formed e q u a l l y , and that i t should share i n the parts of generation...

The word-play on t u p and lupapts i s a l s o found at Tim.56b5. The e n t i r e pas-

sage, of course, only becomes i n t e l l i g i b l e with r e f e r e n c e to P l a t o ' s theory.
Since the source i s not given, P h i l o must expect h i s reader to be acquainted
254 ANALYSIS

with i t . I t should be noted that P h i l o gives no i n d i c a t i o n of being aware of

the r e s t r i c t i o n which P l a t o ' s theory imposes on the t o t a l i n t e r c h a n g e a b i l i t y
of the elements ( i . e . e a r t h cannot be transmuted i n t o the other elements, c f .
56d). Texts such as Aet.109-110, QE 2.81,88 show that he accepts without
qualms the P e r i p a t e t i c and S t o i c d o c t r i n e that a l l the elements can be trans-
muted i n t o each other. 2

Thus we f i n d that the references made by P h i l o to the elementary t r i a n g l e s

and the primary bodies occur without exception i n arithmological contexts.
There are l i m i t e d p a r a l l e l s f o r the P h i l o n i c references i n other w r i t e r s who
draw on the same body of a r i t h m o l o g i c a l d o c t r i n e as he does; see f u r t h e r Stae-
h l e 25-26,39,52. P l u t a r c h too gives an e x p o s i t i o n of the P l a t o n i c theory in
the context of a d i s c u s s i o n of the v i r t u e s of the number f i v e (Mor.426Eff.).
The word-play on Tiup/Ttupauus i s found at Ps.Iambi.Theol.arith.23.13 i n r e l a -
t i o n to the t e t r a d . So i t i s eminently l i k e l y that P h i l o s very f
limited i n -
t e r e s t i n P l a t o ' s theory was stimulated by the reading of a r i t h m o l o g i c a l l i -
t e r a t u r e r a t h e r than through a d e t a i l e d study of the Timaeus i t s e l f . In two
ways P h i l o ' s usage d i f f e r s from the a r i t h m o l o g i c a l sources and parallels.
Firstly i t i s repeatedly c a l l e d f o r t h by explanation of B i b l i c a l numerical
symbolism. Secondly the p a r a l l e l s l i s t e d by Staehle are not so c l o s e that they
exclude P h i l o n i c adaptation. Three examples l i e ready to hand:

(1) The a r i t h m o l o g i c a l works (and a l s o P l u t a r c h) r e c a l l P l a t o ' s theory of the

primary bodies i n r e l a t i o n to the pentad, because there are f i v e of them.
P h i l o uses i t i n r e l a t i o n to the ogdoad and concentrates on the p r o p e r t i e s of
the cube. There i s no p a r a l l e l f o r t h i s .
(2) The a r i t h m o l o g i s t s do not mention that the r i g h t - a n g l e d t r i a n g l e i s asso-
c i a t e d with the yeveous of the cosmos.
(3) The a r i t h m o l o g i c a l t r a d i t i o n i s f o r the most part not i n t e r e s t e d i n num-
bers beyond the primary decad ( c f . Robbins CPh 26(1931)359, Staehle 9), and so
P h i l o ' s remarks on the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the number f i f t y are a l s o without p a r a l l e l .
In p r e s e n t i n g P h i l o ' s thought on the c r e a t i o n and s t r u c t u r e of the cosmos
Wolfson (1.310) d e c l a r e s : 'As i n P l a t o , the elements are d e s c r i b e d by him [ i . e .
P h i l o ] as having c e r t a i n geometrical figures.' This statement, based on the
passage i n QG 3.49 alone, i s formulated i n an e x c e s s i v e l y ' d o c t r i n a l ' manner.
P h i l o i s convinced that the ordered s t r u c t u r e of the cosmos i s achieved by
means of number, a l s o at the elemental l e v e l . But he i s not very i n t e r e s t e d
i n P l a t o ' s s u b t l e theory of the primary bodies.

The P h i l o n i c fragment r e c e n t l y r e d i s c o v e r ed by A.Terian (see above I I

5.1.1.) again c o n s t r a i n s us to a l t e r the conclusions so f a r reached i n t h i s
sub-section, though not i n a s i g n i f i c a n t manner. E x p a t i a t i n g f u r t h e r on the
q u a l i t i e s of the number 55, P h i l o write s (translation Terian):
Taken s u c c e s s i v e l y , 5 t r i a n g u l a r numbers generate 55; l i k e w i s e , 5 quad-
 II 8.3.1. 255

rangular numbers, taken s u c c e s s i v e l y , generate 55. Of [the t r i a n g u l a r s ]

3, 6, 10, 15, 21 i s d e r i v e d 55; so a l s o the 5 quadrangular numbers gene-
r a t e 55, as f o l l o w s : 1, 4, 9, 16, 25 make 55. Out of the t r i a n g l e s i s
e v e r y t h i n g generated. Out of the p a r a l l e l e q u i l a t e r a l t r i a n g l e s three
elements are c o n t r i v e d : f i r e , moisture, and the octahedron; f o r there i s
a f i g u r e f o r f i r e , a f i g u r e f o r a i r , and a f i g u r e f o r water. Whereas out
of the quadrangle, which i s the cube, i s the f i g u r e f o r e a r t h .
As i n the case o f the e a r l i e r part of the fragment quoted above i n I I 5.1.1.,
an almost i d e n t i c a l v e r s i o n of t h i s p i e c e of a r i t h m o l o g i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s
found at A n a t o l i u s 40.12-19 Heiberg ( c f . a l s o Theol.arith.87.4-11 De F a l c o ) .
By comparing t h i s v e r s i o n we can e a s i l y observe how the Armenian t r a n s m i s s i o n
has been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a number of mistakes i n the l a s t f i v e l i n e s . Anato-
lius reads:
en 6e x p t y w v o u nai x e x p a y w v o u r\ x o u O X O U yeveoLg naxa n X a x c a v a * en y e v yap
uaoTtAeuptoV x p u y w v o o v x p u a o x n y a x a * a u v u a x a x a u , i t u p a y u s , oxxde6pov, e t x o a d -
5

e6pov, x6 y e v Ttupos o x n y a , T O 6e a e p o s , x o 6e u6axos, en <6e> x e x p a y w v w v

o K U 3 O S , x o u x o 6e x o o x n y a yns e o x t v .
* oxnyaxa was r e s t o r e d by Heiberg from the excerpt found i n T h e o l . a r i t h .
His own ms. had onyeCov, while V a l l a (who had used another u n i d e n t i f i e d
ms.) had t r a n s l a t e d elementa. So Heiberg adds i n h i s apparatus that
the c o r r e c t reading might be oxotxeCa, and he t r a n s l a t e s s o l i d e s regu-f

liers . 1
But the r e a d i ng oxriyaxa, meaning 'shapes , i s t o be p r e f e r r e d .
1

Firstly, the t h i r d l a s t sentence of the fragment should read: 'Out of the t r i -

angles <and the quadrangle(s)> i s e v e r y t h i n g generated.' T h i s change i s con-
firmed by the flow of P h i l o ' s t e x t . Secondly, the t r a n s l a t o r took oxnyaxa to
mean 'elements' (or perhaps had oxouxeCa i n h i s t e x t ) , and so found difficulty
i n r e n d e r i n g the three g e o m e t r i c a l shapes. The word Ttupotyus was thus split
i n t o Ttup and ocxyus, which accounts f o r the unexpected 'moisture' i n the t r a n s -
lation. The word OMxae6pov was r e t a i n e d , but because three 'elements' had now
been found the word euxooae6pov was l e f t u n t r a n s l a t e d . C l e a r l y the Armenian
t r a n s l a t o r (or e a r l i e r c o p y i s t s ) had i n s u f f i c i e n t knowledge o f P l a t o ' s theory
to be able to help themselves.

But a l s o the o r i g i n a l a r i t h m o l o g i c a l source showed l i t t l e respect f o r

P l a t o ' s theory. The a s s o c i a t i o n of the c u b i c a l l y shaped primary body of e a r t h
with the square i s p a t e n t l y a matter of a r i t h m o l o g i c a l convenience, f o r P l a t o
(Tim.53c-54c) composes i t out of t r i a n g l e s , j u s t as i n the case of the other
primary b o d i e s . F i n a l l y we note that the c o n c l u s i o n reached above, namely
that P h i l o ' s references to P l a t o ' s elemental theory occur onl y i n a r i t h m o l o g i -
cal c o n t e x t s , remains u n a l t e r e d .

8.3.2. Varia

P h i l o ' s remaining r e f e r e n c e s to P l a t o ' s account of the p h y s i c s of the

c o r p o r e a l world are r a t h er scanty.
256 ANALYSIS

1. At QG 4.164 P h i l o , commenting on Isaac's age of 60 years i n Gen.25:26,

w r i t e s : 'The number s i x t y i s the measure which holds i n i t s e l f those things
which i n t h i s cosmos belong to the zodiac when the twelve pentagons are added
together.' The Armenian t r a n s m i s s i o n c a s t s a v e i l over what P h i l o i s a c t u a l l y
t r y i n g to say here ( u n f o r t u n a t e l y the Old L a t i n v e r s i o n cannot help us out be-
cause i t bowdlerizes the a s t r o l o g i c a l r e f e r e n c e , c f . P e t i t L'ancienne v e r s i o n
La.tine 2.21). But Marcus (EES 1.449) i s almost c e r t a i n l y c o r r e c t i n sugges-
t i n g that he a l l u d e s to P l a t o ' s mysterious words at Tim.55c4-6, e x u 6e o u o n s
a u a x a a e a j s ui>as T t e u i c x r i s , eni T O l a v o %ebg a u x f j xaxexpncaxo exeCvo duaCwYpacpwv.
These words were subjecte d to c o n s i d e r a b l e s p e c u l a t i o n i n Middle P l a t o n i s t T i -
maeus exegesis ( c f . Tim.Locr.35, Alb.Did.13.2, Plut.Mor.428D,430B (note the
a r i t h m o l o g i c a l c o n t e x t ) , 1003C-D, and see the remarks of B a l t e s Timaios Lokros
123f.). P l a t o i n d i c a t e s that the dodecahedron i s the r e g u l a r geometrical so-
l i d best s u i t e d f o r the cosmos as a whole (compare an i n f l a t e d l e a t h e r soccer
b a l l , and note Phd. 110b) . But does 6uaCa)YpacpuJv, besides meaning 'paint i n
d i v e r s e c o l o u r s ' , a l s o h i n t at the zodiac? Both Albinus and P l u t a r c h think
so. As Cherniss observes (note ad Mor.1Q03D), they have i n mind the numerical
s i m i l a r i t y between the twelve s i d e s of the dodecahedron and the twelve d i v i -
sions of the z o d i a c a l c i r c l e . P h i l o i n our passage r e c a l l s the same c o r r e -
spondence, but h i s concern w i t h the number s i x t y leads him to emphasize the
number of angles contained i n the faces of the dodecahedron.
At QE 2.81, i n d i s c u s s i n g the lampstand of Ex.25:39 a l l e g o r i c a l l y i n terms
of the oupavos, P h i l o makes a s i m i l a r r e f e r e n c e to the s i x t y p a r t s of the hea-
ven (both Aucher and Marcus erroneously t r a n s l a t e 'of the e a r t h ' (Weitenberg)).
'Heaven' can r e p l a c e 'cosmos' here because at the circumference t h e i r shapes
coincide, xaxd xoug ix} uadnpaxuxfi axoAdcovxas ( r e t r a n s l a t i o n Marcus) i s doubt-
l e s s an i n d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e to the Timaeus, as Marcus (EES 2.131) suggests.
2. On P h i l o ' s i m i t a t i o n of the word-play o n t e t - p o u s / a T t e b p o v 6oYPa (Tim.55
d1) at Opif.171 see above I I 3.5.1.
3. The i n f l u e n c e of P l a t o ' s words at Tim.58a4-7, r\ x o u n a v x o s Tcepuo6os.. .
xuxAoxepns o $ o a . . . o c p t Y Y e t navxa xat, xevriv x w p a v ou6epuav Iql X e u i t e o S a u , can be
detected at Plant.9 (see above I I 5.1.3.) and Post.5 (see above II 7.1.1.).
The p o s s i b i l i t y of an i n t r a - c o s m i c v o i d i s denied at Prov.2.55.
 CHAPTER NINE

TIMAEUS 61C-89C: THE PHYSIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF MAN

9.0. Introductory

9.1. The processes of s e n s a t i o n (Tim.61c-68d)

9.1.1. The dyad of h e a r i ng (67a-c,80a-b)

9.2. The mortal part of the soul (Tim.69c-72d)

9.2.1. The passions of the i r r a t i o n a l soul (69c-d)
9.2.2. The t r i l o c a t i o n of the soul (69e-71a)
9.2.3. The imagery a s s o c i a t e d with the soul's trilocation
9.2.4. The l i v e r and prophecy (71a-72b)

9.3. The body (Tim.72d-81e)

9.3.1. Providence and the s t r u c t u r e of the body (73a)
9.3.2. A l i t e r a r y a l l u s i o n to Tim.75d-e
9.3.3. Advances i n medical science
9.3.4. The c r e a t i o n of the plant world (77a-c)

9.4. Disease, h e a l t h , and the e q u i l i b r i u m between soul and body

(Tim.82a-89c)
9.4.1. The themes of disease and h e a l t h
9.4.2. Evaluations of the body

9.0. Introductory

Now that the nature of the elementary b u i l d i n g - b l o c k s and the b a s i c p r i n -

c i p l e s of physics have been e s t a b l i s h e d , P l a t o can r e t u r n to h i s account of
the s t r u c t u r e of man the microcosm. He begins with a d e s c r i p t i o n of the pro-
cesses of sensation (61c-68d). A f t e r a b r i e f r e c a p i t u l a t i o n of 29e-42a an ac-
count i s given of the two mortal parts of the s o u l , t h e i r l o c a t i o n i n the body
and t h e i r r e l a t i o n to the f u n c t i o n i n g of the body's main organs (69d-72d).
Plato then embarks on a r a t h e r t e c h n i c a l and d i f f i c u l t d i s c u s s i o n of the parts
and p h y s i o l o g i c a l mechanisms of the body (72d-81e), i n which he r e t a i n s the
b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s of h i s p h y s i c s , but a l s o draws h e a v i l y on the t h e o r i e s of the
I t a l i a n , S i c i l i a n and Coan medical schools . There follows a survey of the d i s -
eases of the body (82a-86a) and the diseases of the soul caused by the defec-
t i v e c o n s t i t u t i o n and nurture of the body (86b-87b). The recommendation i s
that man should seek an e q u i l i b r i u m between body and s o u l , to be gained by
258 ANALYSIS

r e g u l a r e x e r c i s e and a healthy mode of l i f e (87c-89c).

A l l - p e r v a s i v e i n P l a t o ' s account of man's physiology i s h i s use of the
p r i n c i p l e of t e l e o l o g y , i . e . that the parts of the body are c o n s c i o u s l y de-
signed to be able to c a r r y out t h e i r p u r p o s e f ul functions. The gap which the
reader, even i f he knows very little about the subject, senses between modern
medical science and P l a t o ' s account i s perhaps caused as much by t h i s overt
use of t e l e o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i on as by the presence of a l l manner of ( i n our
eyes) curious t h e o r i e s to which P l a t o - i n h i s ignorance of b a s i c features such
as the muscles, nerves, c i r c u l a t o r y system, glands, genes and so on - had to
resort.

In d i v e r s e places r i g h t throughout Timaeus' speech P l a t o shows h i s eager-

ness that there should be a c l o s e c o r r e l a t i o n between the s t r u c t u r e of the ac-
count and i t s systematic contents, even though he i s w e l l aware that i t i s not
i n a l l cases p o s s i b l e (cf.34b-c,61c-d). Cornford came to the c o n c l u s i o n that
the e x p o s i t o r y part of the dialogue was d i v i d e d i n t o three main s e c t i o n s , each
of which commences w i t h an i n t r o d u c t o r y or r e c a p i t u l a t i v e passage:
27d-47e the work of Reason
47e-69a the work of Necessity
69a-92c the cooperation of Reason and Necessity
Guthrie 5.320 has shown tha t a m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of 68e1-3 i s i n v o l v ed here,
for a l s o i n the s e c t i o n i n which necessary causes are discussed reason i s s t i l l
most d e f i n i t e l y at work, e.g. i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the elemental shapes.
His own suggestion i s that t h i s s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s the l i m i t a t i o n s imposed on
the work of reason by n e c e s s i t y . I t i s apparent t h a t , i f one f o l l o ws P h i l o i n
reading the Timaeus without paying much a t t e n t i o n to the d i s t i n c t i o n between
r a t i o n a l and necessary c a u s a t i o n ( c f . the c o n c l u s i o n above i n 8.1.1.), the
above-mentioned s t r u c t u r a l n i c e t i e s w i l l not be considered very important. I
have t h e r e f o r e lumped together the e n t i r e s e c t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h the physiology
and psychology of man i n one part of t h i s Commentary, even though that means
that the s t r u c t u r a l r o l e of the r e c a p i t u l a t i v e s e c t i o n at 68e-69c i s ignored.

9.1. The p r o c e s s e s o f s e n s a t i o n (Tim.61c-68d)

9.1.1. The dyad o f h e a r i n g (67a-c,80a-b)

Except the mechanism of v i s i o n , already explained as part of the works of

reason i n 45b-d, the processes of s e n s a t i on are described by P l a t o i n 61c-68d.
The mechanism of hearing cannot be f u l l y set out i n 67a-c because the theory
of the c i r c u l a r t h r u s t , r e q u i r e d to e x p l a i n how the consonance of high and low
 II 9.1.1. 259

tones occurs, has not yet been d e a l t w i t h , and so P l a t o b r i e f l y returns to the

subject i n 80b-d. None o f these d i s c u s s i o n s have l e f t much t r a c e on P h i l o ' s
writings.
Philo discusses the theory of hearing on a number of occasions (Gig.52,
Deus 84, Migr.52, Decal.33-35, QE 2.34). The most d e t a i l e d account i s found
i n Deus 84. Continuing the theme of mixture (cf.§77-81), he quotes Ps.61:12,
ditaC xupuos eXaXnoe, 6uo xauxa rixouaa. 1
God's speaking i s monadic, but man's
hearing i n v o l v e s a dyad. The theory of hearing which P h i l o presents here uses
S t o i c terminology ( n v e u y a , r i Y e y o v u x o v , TtXn^ts a e p o s ) and i s c l o s e r to the l i t -
tle we know o f the S t o i c theory ( c f . SVF 2.836,872) than P l a t o ' s account. The
dyad i s formed by the mixture o f a r t i c u l a t e d i v e u y a and the a i r which acts as
a medium ( f o r depu ovyyeveZ c f . Deus 79 and the comments above a t 7.2.2.).
But P h i l o a l s o reports another k i n d of dyad, caused by the harmony o f high and
low tones. Colson i s most l i k e l y c o r r e c t (EE 3.487) when he suspects that
P h i l o has Tim.80b i n mind, where P l a t o does indeed speak of x p a a u s (80b5).
But the a c t u a l problem which P l a t o was t r y i n g to s o l v e , namely that high and
low sounds t r a v e l at d i f f e r e n t speeds, i s not mentioned i n P h i l o ' s t e x t . Among
the S t o i c fragments there i s no t r a c e of t h e i r theory of consonance.

It has been suggested that at Leg.2.67 P h i l o i s t h i n k i n g o f P l a t o ' s des-

c r i p t i o n o f b l a c k as x a x a x o p e s (68c5) when he a l l e g o r i c a l l y p o r t r a y s the E t h i -
opian ( i . e . black) woman whom Moses marries (Num. 12:1) as TT)V ayexdftXnxov nai
Haxaxopn Yvdjynv. C f . C . S i e g f r i e d , P h i l o von A l e x a n d r i a (Jena 1875) 197, H e i -
nemann GT 3.73, Colson EE 1.481. I f t r u e , the a l l u s i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s u b t l e.

9.2. The m o r t a l p a r t o f the soul (Tim.69c-72d)

9.2.1. The p a s s i o n s o f t h e i r r a t i o n a l soul (69c-d)

In 69c-d P l a t o d e l i b e r a t e l y r e c a l l s the b r i e f sketch of the soul's pas-

sions given i n 42a. There he presented s i x nadriyaxa of the s o u l — f i r s t aua-
d r i o u s , followed by r)6ovri, X u i n , epws, (po3os, §uyos. These s i x a r e repeated
here, two others ( $ d p p o s , eXitus) are added, and the l i s t i s e n l i v e n e d by the
a d d i t i o n s of some c o l o u r f u l d e s c r i p t i v e e p i t h e t s . As was observed above i n
7.1.3., the theme of the c o n f l i c t between the r a t i o n a l and i r r a t i o n a l parts of
the soul i s one o f the most c e n t r a l i n P h i l o ' s a l l e g o r i c a l system. The long
sentence at 69c7-d6 adds nothing new to what he could l e a r n i n 42a-b. From an
examination o f h i s usage i t appears that i t appealed to him c h i e f l y on account
of the v i v i d n e s s of i t s d e s c r i p t i o n s .

This emerges c l e a r l y as we now give some comments on the P l a t o n i c sentence

from the viewpoint of the manner i n which Philo read and u t i l i z e d i t .
260 ANALYSIS

69c7 oxnuot ?e nav T O oajua: I t i s n a t u r a l t o connect up t h i s image with the

c e l e b r a t e d passage o f the d r i v e r and the two horses i n the Phaedrus myth; c f .
Agr.77,88-89 and the remarks o f Waszink ap. Tert.De anima 53.3.
69c8 6euvd nal a v a Y x a b a T t a f t r i u a T a : P h i l o w i l l have read itotdriuaTa as meaning
the na%r) o f the s o u l caused by i t s contact w i th the body (he himself does not
use Ttadnua i n t h i s sense) . The theme of b o d i l y necessity i s prominent i n t h i s
s e c t i o n ( a l s o 70e5,72e6,73a5,cf.42a5). Because the s o u l i s j o i n e d to the body
i t cannot avoid f e e l i n g the d e s i r e s e t c . a s s o c i a t e d with the body's r e q u i r e -
ments, and so allowance has been made f o r t h i s i n the d e s i gn o f the body's
structure. P h i l o f u l l y agrees. How can i t be p o s s i b l e , he exclaims at Leg.3.
151, that we, t i e d as we are t o the body, should not comply w i t h b o d i l y neces-
sities! A l l e g o r i c a l exegesis o f t e x t s such as Deut.23:12-14 and Ex.12:11
teach us how the passions can be c o n t r o l l e d by reason (Leg.3.151-159). C f .
Leg.1.86, 2.28,57, Her.45,272-274, Somn.1.110, QG 2.20,45 e t c .
69d1 X\6O\>T\V, U C Y I P T O V nanou 6eAeap: The image of pleasure as a l u r e or b a i t
i s very common i n P h i l o ; c f . Post.72, Deus 168, Agr.103, Ebr.165, Sobr.23, Migr.
2 9
» Fug«39, Mut.172, Mos. 1.295. Note how the image i s expanded at Agr.103,
ev yap oi>6ev G O T U V b u n i t p o s n o o v f j s 6eXeao%ev e t A x u o T a u x a i e p c p e p e T a u T O U S ico-
A u n A o K t t T a T O L S 6bKTUObs a u T f j S j a TtoAus &b£x6uvab itovos. I n Agr. 16 r e m i n i s c e n -
ces from Tim.69d1 & d4 are combined: T O A o Y b x o v u e p o s c p u A o o o c p u a s . . . T T I V e u T t a -
paYOQYOV aiaTnv, U I Y I Q T O V (l^xns 6eAeap nai e i t b C n u b o v , a v a b p t } . . . The a l l u s i o n ,
which i s p r i m a r i l y l i t e r a r y , i s overlooked i n a l l e d i t i o n s .
69d2 frctppos n a b ( p o g o v , acppove ouuftouAu): Fear i s d e s c r i b e d as an dcppwv ouu(3ou-
Ao$ a t Decal.177, KotHOS o u u g o u A o s at Opif.79, Abr.14 (note a l s o Wendland's
conjecture at Agr.97). In QE 2.100 (exeg. Ex.27:1) S u u o s , the s p i r i t e d part
of the s o u l , appears to be c a l l e d a x a x o s o u u g o u A o s ; the i t a ^ o s o f anger i n -
c i t e s man to ignore the r e s t r a i n i n g i n f l u e n c e o f h i s r a t i o n a l part (Weitenberg;
the two words f o r ' c o u n s e l l o r ' i n the Armenian probably represent one Greek
word; Marcus' t r a n s l a t i o n (EES 2.147) ' c o u n s e l l o r of evil* i s i n c o r r e c t ) .
69d3 duuov 6e 6uo7tapauu$r|TOV: The a d j e c t i v e i s not found i n P h i l o , i n s p i t e
of h i s fondness f o r 6uo - words.
69d3 eAitb&a 6' e u i a p a Y O J Y Q V • e u i t a p a Y W Y O s (found only here i n the P l a t o n i c cor-
pus) i s a popular word i n P h i l o (Gig.39,59, Agr.16,96, Ebr.46, Fug.22, Spec.1.
28, Contempl.63), d o u b t l e s s l y d e r i v e d from h i s reading of the Timaeus. I t i s
not used t o d e s c r i b e hope (though a t Gig.39 eXuLg i s i n the immediate v i c i n i t y ) .
A good example ( i t i s but one of many) o f the way P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e of the

passions o f the soul i n 42a and 69d f i l t e r s through to P h i l o ' s works i s locate d

at Opif.79 . P h i l o here c o n f r o n t s the e x e g e t i c a l quaestio of why man was c r e -

ated last i n the account o f c r e a t i o n . Although so f a r only man's vous has

been mentioned (§69-71), i n order t o answer the quaestio P h i l o assumes that he

already has a body (compare P l a t o ' s procedure a t 42a, where the TtaSriuaTa are

i n d i c a t e d before the formation of the body has been d e s c r i b e d ) . As soon as

man's Y e v e o b s took p l a c e he found around him a l a v i s h supply o f the necessi-

t i e s of l i f e . A moral l e s s o n can be l e a r n t from t h i s . The same abundance en-

joyed by the f i r s t man can s t i l l be man's today i f he c o n t r o l s the passions

and repulses the m u l t i t u d e of v i c e s that a t t a c k s him. The P l a t o n i c character

of the passage i s r e i n f o r c e d by the choice of vocabulary ( o nanbg o u u g o u A o s

cpoftos 69d2, YouJTpbyapYba 73a6, XPCXTOS 42b2) . Although P h i l o ' s l i s t of passions

seems reminiscent o f 69d, the a c t u a l u d d r i d e s c r i b e d here are the quartet re-

garded by the Stoa as the primary passions (rj6ovri, eitbduuCa, Auitn, cpoftos, c f .

SVF 3.386ff.). On P h i l o ' s views on the Ttd$n see f u r t h e r Schmidt 88-90, Volker
 II 9.2.1. 261

80-81, Wolfson 2.231ff., D i l l o n 151-152.

P h i l o ' s mixture of Platonism and S t o i c i s m on the subject of the uadri ac-
c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t s developments i n the h i s t o r y of philosophy. I t i s well-known
that Posidonius e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t e d the d o c t r i n e of the Old Stoa that the soul
i s u n i t a r y and the %OL$T) are mistaken judgments on the part of the M Y E U O V L W O V
(cf. R i s t S t o i c Philosophy 212). Posidonius argued that the r a t i o n a l f a c u l t y
i s d i s t i n c t from the f a c u l t y of the soul which i s the source of the passions,
and so e f f e c t i v e l y returned to the P l a t o n i c t r i p a r t i t i o n of the soul (which,
as we s h a l l see, amounts to a d i v i s i o n between the r a t i o n a l and i r r a t i o n a l
part). 1
This development f a c i l i t a t e d the a s s i m i l a t i o n of S t o i c and P l a t o n i c
d o c t r i n e s of the %a%r) i n Middle Platonism ( c f . L i l l a 84-92). The harsh c r i t i -
cism of P l u t a r c h Mor.441C-E i s d i r e c t e d against the Chrysippean, not the P o s i -
donian, d o c t r i n e . His view that man has a double d u a l i t y — s o u l and body, r a -
t i o n a l and i r r a t i o n a l soul — i s the same as P h i l o ' s . For an example of the
four S t o i c passions i n a P l a t o n i c context ( i . e . reminiscent of Opif.79) see
Tim.Locr.72 ( c f . Baltes Timaios Lokros 204). 2

It would not be remunerative i n t h i s context to analyse a l l the exegeti-

cal themes i n which P h i l o ' s echoes of the nadriuaTa (J^uxns of Tim.69d occur.
Nearly a l l of them are found i n the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary and r e f e r to the
s t r u g g l e of the soul between v i r t u e and v i c e , as f r e q u e n t l y r e l a t e d to a n t i -
t h e t i c p a i r s of B i b l i c a l c h a r a c t e r s or peoples, e.g. Jacob and Esau, Leah and
Rachel, Moses and Balaam, I s r a e l and Edom, and so on. Compare above I I 7.1.3.,
where i t was shown that P h i l o ' s a l l e g o r y of the s o u l i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y indebted
to the s t r u c t u r e of Plato's account at Tim.41c-44c, of which Tim.69c-d i s es-
sentially a recapitulation.

9.2.2. The trilocation of the soul (69e-71a)

On three occasions i n h i s oeuvre Plato expounds h i s theory of the three

parts of the s o u l , each account having d i s t i n c t i v e features which cause i t to
remain v i v i d i n the memory of the reader. In Rep.434e-444d a s u b t l e psycholo-
g i c a l a n a l y s i s renders the t r i p a r t i t i o n p l a u s i b l e , and i t i s r e l a t e d to the
three d i v i s i o n s of the i d e a l s t a t e and the four c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s . In Phdr.
246b-249d the powerful image of the c h a r i o t e e r and the two horses endows the
theory with great dramatic f o r c e . In Tim.69c-71a i t i s given a p h y s i o l o g i c a l
foundation through the l o c a t i o n of the soul's p a r t s i n separate areas of the
body. P h i l o was thoroughly acquainted both with the three P l a t o n i c passages
and the d o c t r i n a l d i s t i l l a t i o n s i n s c h o l a s t i c Platonism based on them. In
t h i s s e c t i o n we s h a l l review four P h i l o n i c passages i n which the trilocation
of the s o u l i s prominent, followed by some remarks on d i v i s i o n s of the soul i n
the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n and Philo. A d i s c u s s i o n of the extensive use made
by P h i l o of P l a t o ' s imagery i n t h i s part of the Timaeus w i l l be l e f t to the
following section.
262 ANALYSIS

Leg.1.70. The e n t i r e s e c t i o n Leg.1.63-73 i s an elaborate allegorical

exegesis of Gen.2:10-14. Out of Eden (generic v i r t u e ) flow the four r i v e r s
which symbolize the p a r t i c u l a r v i r t u e s . The names and d e s c r i p t i o n s given by
Moses to the four r i v e r s r e v e a l the correspondence of the c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s
with the parts of the s o u l and t h e i r l o c a t i o n i n the body. The b a s i c source
here i s the account i n the Republic, but P h i l o uses d e t a i l s from the Timaeus
to increase the persuasiveness of the a l l e g o r i c a l explanation. Thus i n §68
the r i v e r Geon i s s a i d to symbolize courage. The name Geon means 1
chest 1

( o x f j d o s ) or 'butting*. Courage i s a s s o c i a t e d with the s p i r i t e d part of the

soul ( c f . Rep.442b8), which i s located i n the chest ( c f . Tim.69e2-4), where
a l s o the heart i s (cf.70a8-c2). Two paragraphs l a t e r P h i l o poses the e x e g e t i -
c a l quaestio of why the v i r t u e s are presented i n the sequence c p p o v n o u s , dv6-
p e u a , owcppoouvn. The order i s determined, he r e p l i e s , by the correspondence
of the v i r t u e s with the t r i l o c a t i o n of the s o u l i n the head, chest and abdomen.
In §72-73 the image of the c h a r i o t e e r and the two horses i s used at some length,
so that i n t h i s one e x e g e t i c a l pericope a l l three P l a t o n i c passages on the
soul's t r i p a r t i t i o n are put to use.
In §70 P h i l o presents the theory of t r i p a r t i t i o n w i t h doxographic s i m p l i -
c i t y : v o n x e o v o\5v O T L eoTuv ripwv Tpipepfis n i>vxh nal e x e u pepos T O p e v A O Y L K O V ,
T O 6 e frupuxov, T O 6 e eitdupriTiKov. Of the four terms u n d e r l i n ed only the l a s t
i s found i n P l a t o (70d7 e t c . ) . But one i s not s u r p r i s e d t o f i n d a l l four
terms i n the s e c t i o n i c e p u p e p w v T H S (|>uxns a
Aetius Plac.4.4.1, where the t r i -
t

p a r t i t i o n i s a t t r i b u t e d t o both Pythagoras and P l a t o , but the t r i l o c a t i o n i s

not mentioned. The same terms are found i n Albinus Did.17.4,24.1 (except that
A o y t O T b x o v from Rep.439d5 replaces XOJLHOV). The correspondence of the c a r d i -
n a l v i r t u e s and the p a r t s of the soul i s presented i n the d r i e s t s c h o l a s t i c
f a s h i o n at Did.29.1. L i k e P h i l o (§72) Albinus describes 6 u x a t o o u v r i as achieved
when the three parts o f the s o u l are i n a s t a t e o f o u p c p o j v u a , whereas P l a t o
speaks o f a p p o v u a (Rep.443d5-6; o u p c p w v u a he c o n s i s t e n t l y uses of o w c p p o o u v n —
430e3,432a8,442c10). Albinus does not, however, use the Phaedrus myth to ex-
p l a i n 6uKauoouvri5 and i n other respects h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n of the t r i l o c a t i o n of
the s o u l shows no p a r t i c u l a r a f f i n i t y to P h i l o ' s (except that both place T O
e T t b d u p r i T U H O V i n the ?|Tpov, which d i f f e r s from Tim. 70e1) .

A p a r a l l e l , but much b r i e f e r , a l l e g o r y , u t i l i z i n g the d o c t r i n e of t r i p a r -

t i t i o n but not of t r i l o c a t i o n , i s found at QG 1.13 (exeg. Gen.2:14).
Leg.3.114-116. P h i l o here gives an exegesis of the words spoken by God
to the serpent at Gen.3:14, enl T U I O T r i ^ e t Mat xfj x o b A u a Ttopeuon. Passion
l u r k s i n these two parts of the body, and so pleasure, symbolized by the s e r -
pent, f i n d s there i t s p l a c e of operation - p r e f e r a b l y i n the b e l l y , but i f
need be i n the chest. The soul i s t r i p a r t i t e , says P h i l o as i f propounding a
u n i v e r s a l l y accepted f a c t . He then adds that some philosophers distinguish
these part s not only i n terms of t h e i r f u n c t i o n ( 6 u v a p e u ) but a l s o by means of
their location (TOTCOUS) . 1
I t i s c l e a r from the remainder of the passage that
P h i l o i s p r i m a r i l y t h i n k i n g of the Timaeus, and with j u s t i f i c a t i o n , since aTfj-
%o£ i n the B i b l i c a l text r e c a l l s 69e2-3 and x o u A u a 73a3. 2
 I I 9.2.2. 263

In expounding P l a t o ' s theory P h i l o a l l u d e s to d i v e r s e images used i n the

Timaeus, a d e t a i l e d account of which we leave to the next s u b - s e c t i o n. He as-
s o c i a t e s not only the liuduunxbHov with pleasure but a l s o the §UUUHOV (lovers
of pleasure become angry when deprived of i t ) . I t could thus be argued that
he i s l o s i n g s i g h t of the intermediate status of the s p i r i t e d p a rt between the
r a t i o n a l and the a p p e t i t i v e p a r t s , f o r t h i s part i s presented by P l a t o as of-
ten a s s i s t i n g r a t h e r than opposing the r a t i o n a l par t ( c f . 70a5, Rep.440e).
N a t u r a l l y the e x e g e t i c a l context encourages, or even c o n s t r a i n s , such an i n t e r -
pretation. But, as we s h a l l see, P h i l o i s a l s o i n f l u e n c e d by the tendency i n
Middle Platonis m to regard P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e of the soul as e s s e n t i a l l y b i p a r -
tite, i . e . d i v i d e d i n t o a r a t i o n a l and an i r r a t i o n a l part.

The f a c t that the serpent must proceed on i t s breast and b e l l y i n the B i -

b l i c a l lemma i n v i t e s P h i l o to embark on a long e x p o s i t i o n on the c o n t r o l or
e x t i r p a t i o n of the passions, i n which a large number of Pentateuchal t e x t s
d e a l i n g w i t h these and other p a r t s of the body are strung together. Philo's
espousal of the P l a t o n i c t r i l o c a t i o n of the s o u l thus c o n t r o l s and coordinates
the a l l e g o r y r i g h t up to Leg.3.160.

Spec.1.146,148. Exegesis of Lev.7:31-34 as part of a d i s c u s s i o n on the

o f f e r i n g s given to the p r i e s t s . From every s a c r i f i c i a l v i c t i m they receive
the r i g h t shoulder and the f a t around the chest. The d e s c r i p t i o n of the chest
as l o c a t i o n of the s p i r i t e d element of the s o u l i s v e r b a l l y very s i m i l a r to
Leg.3.115 and i s only p a r t l y d e r i v e d from the Timaeus, although that dialogue
remains the source of the b a s i c idea of the s o u l ' s t r i l o c a t i o n (see f u r t h e r be-
low I I 9.2.3.). In the Timaeus the tendency of the s p i r i t e d element to throb
and seethe v i a the heart i s checked by the p r o x i m i t y of the s o f t and receptive
lungs (70c-d). The same f u n c t i o n P h i l o , impelled by the B i b l i c a l t e x t , attri-
butes to the f a t around the chest . Two paragraphs l a t e r (§148) he return s
b r i e f l y to P l a t o ' s account (70e) to e x p l a i n another o f f e r i n g to the p r i e s t s ,
the maw or f o u r t h stomach (Deut.18:3). The a l l e g o r i c a l method i s present i n
t h i s passage, but i t i s very r e s t r a i n e d . 'La v e r i t a b l e v i c t i m e , c'est l'ame
de 1'offrant (Daniel FE 24.1xiv). '

Spec.4.92-94. As part of a d i a t r i b e against d e s i r e (eTttduuua) i n s p i r e d

by the tenth commandment' O U K eiu§uur|0£us... 9 P h i l o r e c o l l e c t s what has been
s a i d by philosophers who have enquired i n t o the nature of the s o u l . Of h i s
four accounts of the soul's t r i l o c a t i o n t h i s one i s anatomically the most de-
tailed. I t i s a l s o the one c l o s e s t to the source: dwpaxa 69e6, iXrjouov xou
vou cf.70a3-5, Ttept xov oucpaAov 70e1, xo xaAouuevov 6uacppaYua cf.70a2, loppw-
xcxxw xwv 3cxotXebwv c f . 70e6.. The s p i r i t e d part i s placed next to the r a t i o n a l
part so that the cppovrious of the l a t t e r can calm i t down and keep i t gentle
(§93; contrast 70a4-7, where the duuos i s obedient to the Xoyog, so that they
264 ANALYSIS

can together keep the a p p e t i t i v e part under s t r i c t c o n t r o l ) . The eiruSuunxuHov

r e s i d e s i n the lower regions so t h a t , being devoid of Xoyuauos, i t i s as f a r
d i s t a n t as p o s s i b l e from the k i n g l y vous (§94, cf.70e6-71a2). In s p i t e of a l l
these general s i m i l a r i t i e s , however, a great number of d e t a i l s diverge from
P l a t o s o r i g i n a l account.
f
I t i s h a r d l y j u s t i f i e d to d e s c r i b e i t as a para-
phrase of the Timaeus.

Other texts which make use of the P l a t o n i c theory of the soul's triloca-
t i o n are Migr.66-67 ( a l s o exeg. Gen.3:14), QE 2.100 (exeg. Gen.27:1),115 (exeg.
Ex.28:30, p a r a l l e l to Leg.3.118ff.). The soul's t r i p a r t i t i o n i s f u r t h e r men-
t i o n e d at Conf.21, Her.64 (note Suyous clovxas, c f . Tim.70b3), V i r t . 1 3 , QE 1.
12, QG 4.195 (text EES
7
2.271, exeg. Gen.26:26). I t would be premature to con-
clude that P h i l o regards the soul as fundamentally t r i p a r t i t e . Other types of
d i v i s i o n are s c a t t e r e d through h i s w r i t i n g s , e.g. an A r i s t o t e l i a n i z i n g tripar-
t i t i o n at Opif.67, QG 2.59 (Greek text FE 33.115), Spec.4.123, extended to
f i v e - f o l d at QG 4.186, the S t o i c e i g h t f o l d d i v i s i o n at Her.232, Mut.111, QG 1.
75, reduced to seven-fol d at Abr.28-30. B i l l i n g s 52, Schmidt 50, Wolfson 1.
385-389, D i l l o n 174 are c e r t a i n l y c o r r e c t when they a f f i r m that P h i l o regards
the s o u l as e s s e n t i a l l y b i p a r t i t e , c o n s i s t i n g of an i n d i v i s i b l e r a t i o n a l part
and a d i v i s i b l e i r r a t i o n a l part ( c f . Her.167,232, Congr.26, QE 2.33 (EES 2.75)
etc.). This i s the view of the soul which dominates the long A l l e g o r y of the
s o u l at the s t a r t of the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary ( c f . above I I 7.1.3.). I t can
indeed be argued that t h i s view i s f a i t h f u l to the s p i r i t of the Timaeus, f o r
on a number of occasions P l a t o t a l k s of the immortal (or d i v i n e ) and the mor-
t a l p a r t of the s o u l (61c7,65a5,69c7,d5,e1,72d4,cf.41d1).

A tendency towards b i p a r t i t i o n i s unmistakably present i n the l a t e Plato

and becomes the standard d o c t r i n e i n the Old Academy ( c f . Arist.MM 1.1 1182a23;
D.A.Rees, ' B i p a r t i t i o n of the soul i n the E a r l y Academy' JHS 77(1957)112-118).
Posidonius* r e v i s i o n of orthodox S t o i c d o c t r i n e mentioned above i n I I 9.2.1.
a l s o amounts to a d i v i s i o n of Xoyuxov and dXoyov i n the s o u l . A e t i u s P l a c .
4.4.1 combines the same d i v i s i o n with the t r i p a r t i t i o n i n r e p o r t i n g Plato's
6o£a ( c f . a l s o Tert.De anima 14.2). The Middle P l a t o n i s t s , when d i s c u s s i n g
3

the nature of the s o u l , f a i t h f u l l y r e p o r t the t r i l o c a t i o n of the Timaeus (Alb.

Did.17,23, Apul.De Plat.207-208, Tim.Locr.46, Galen P l a c . H i p p . P l a t . passim).
I t i s c l e a r , however, that they regard the d i v i s i o n i n t o r a t i o n a l and i r r a t i o -
n a l as more b a s i c . Albinus Did.24.1 d i v i d e s the soul i n t o the X O Y L O X U M O V and
TtaSnxuxov. Cf. a l s o Tim.Locr.46, Plut.Mor.441F-442A, D i l l o n 194,290, Baltes
Timaios Lokros 147. The d i v i s i o n of the s o u l i n t o two p a r t s f a c i l i t a t e s a
comparison with the macrocosm, the r a t i o n a l part being e q u i v a l e n t to heaven,
the i r r a t i o n a l part to the sublunary r e g i o n . See f u r t h e r above I I 5.2.2.
 II 9.2.3. 265

9.2.3. The i m a g e r y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s o u l ' s trilocation

No one w i l l wish to deny that p a r t s of the Timaean account of man's psych-

ology and physiology are r a t h e r tough going. P l a t o has made a concerted a t -
tempt to e n l i v e n the d e s c r i p t i o n s and enhance t h e i r l i t e r a r y q u a l i t y by means
of a p e r v a s i v e use of imagery. A l s o i n a n t i q u i t y t h i s d i d not go unnoticed.
In a chapter on metaphor the anonymous author of the t r e a t i s e Ilepu ucj^ous uses
a l a r g e number of images drawn from Tim.65c-85c to i l l u s t r a t e that the m u l t i -
p l i c a t i o n of images i s a l e g i t i m a t e device to confer d i s t i n c t i o n on common-
places and d e s c r i p t i v e passages (32.5; examples convenientl y set out i n D.A.
Russell, 'Longinus' On the Sublime (Oxford 1964) 153-154).

This use of the Timaeus f o r purposes of i l l u s t r a t i o n i s of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r -

est f o r our study because i t i s g e n e r a l l y agreed that that author i s a p p r o x i-
mately a contemporary of P h i l o and may have moved i n Greek l i t e r a r y and p h i l o -
s o p h i c a l c i r c l e s s i m i l a r to those with which P h i l o was acquainted. His b r i e f
but e u l o g i s t i c r e f e r e n c e to the T U J V 'lou6atajv d e o u o ^ e i r i s and the q u o t a t i o n
from the f i r s t chapter of Genesis (§9.9) could have been penned by P h i l o him-
self. The t i e s connecting the two authors should not be exaggerated. I t remains 1

noteworthy, however, that the concept of s u b l i m i t y i s p a r a l l e l e d i n P h i l o (Pet.

79, Her.4), and that there are other s i m i l a r i t i e s of s t y l e , d i c t i o n and thought
between the two authors ( c f . R u s s e l l o p . c i t . x l - x l i , 7 2 , 1 8 8 , 1 9 1 ) .

It i s time to tur n now to an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of P h i l o ' s r e f e r e n c es to the

imagery which P l a t o u t i l i z e s to d e s c r i b e h i s theory of the soul's trilocation.

1. The a c r o p o l i s . The head, as residence of the v o u s or r a t i o n a l part

of the s o u l (introduced alread y at 44d5), i s now presented as the a c r o p o l i s
from which commands are despatched to the r e s t of the body (70a6). The image
of the head as c i t a d e l occurs at Leg.2.91, 3.115, Agr.46, Somn.1.32, Spec.4.92,
QG 2.5 (EES 1.73), Abr.150, Spec.3.184. In the f i r s t text i t i s n e a t l y adap-
ted to the metaphor of warfare i n the s o u l , one of P h i l o ' s p r i n c i p a l metaphors
for the a l l e g o r y of the s o u l ' s progress. In Agr.46 t h i s adaptation r e c e i v e s a
surprising twist. The dnpua)6eoxaTos voug turns i t s a K p o n o A t s i n t o a f o r t r e s s
from which to a t t a c k soul and body! In the l a s t two t e x t s the image i s com-
bined with the encomium of s i g h t derive d from Tim.47a-c (see above I I 7.2.3.).
The long l i s t of examples given by Pease ad Cic.DND 2.140 shows how Plato's
image became a f i x e d topbs i n l a t e r Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . Philo's
awareness that the source of the image i s the theory of t r i l o c a t i o n i n the
Timaeus i s made c l e a r i n the t e x t s Leg.3.115, Spec.4.92.
2. The guardhouse (and the bodyguards). P l a t o d e s c r i b e s the chest as
the guardhouse (70b2 xfiv 6opucpoptKnv ouxnauv) , r e i n f o r c i n g the m i l i t a r y meta-
phor implied i n the mention of the dtopa^ at 69e6. The image of the king's
bodyguard (6opucpopot) i s a f a v o u r i t e of P h i l o ( c f . Leisegang 200-201, Billings
94-95, 2
Goodenough By L i g h t , L i g h t 39-43). But when those passages where
266 ANALYSIS

Philo relates this image to the t r i l o c a t i o n of the soul are examined, a s u r -

p r i s i n g f a c t emerges, which w i l l j u s t i f y our d e a l i n g w i th the image i n more

than u s u a l d e t a i l . I t appears that P h i l o c o n s i s t e n t l y uses the image to por-

t r a y the f u n c t i o n and s t a t i o n of the senses disposed around the sovereign mind.

So at Leg.3.115 we f i n d that he w r i t e s : elxa è'veuyav ( evuou T W V cpuÀooôcpwv)

TCI) yèv ÀoyuoTuxw T O V rcepù xecpaÀnv x&pov eùitovTes, O Ï Ï O U ô 3aouÀeus, èxeu xaù où
ôopucpopou, ôopucpopou ôè au aùo$r|oeus T O U V O U Ttepù xecpaÀriv ouioau, W O T C nai 6
3aouAeùs etri dv èxeû, worcep axpov èv TtoÀeu Aaxwv oùxeuv... At Spec.4.92 the
wording i s very s i m i l a r : Àoyu3 yèv ûis nyeyovu T H V àxpav àitéveuyav (où un x^ÙÀe-
ouv àxpous yeuoàyevou cpuÀooocpùas ) oùxeuoTaTOv èvÔuaÙTnya xecpaÀnv, evda nai T W V
aûodrioewv au T O U V O O xaftàitep 3aouÀéoos ôopucpopou TaÇeus rcapùôpuvTau. . . Cf. a l s o
Opif.139*, Det.33,85, Conf.19, Somn.1.27,32*, Spec.3.111*, 4.123*. In a i l
these t e x t s the ôopucpopou are the senses. In the t e x t s marked by an a s t e r i s k
the image of the (Great) k i n g i s used to d e s c r i b e the mind or r a t i o n a l part of
the s o u l which the senses serve.
The s i t u a t i o n becomes even more i n t e r e s t i n g when other n o n - P h i l o n i c t e x t s
are adduced, which r e v e a l the same realignment of P l a t o ' s imagery; C i c e r o Leg.
1.26 ipsum autem hominem eadem natura non solum c e l e r i t a t e mentis o r n a v i t , sed
et sensus tamquam s a t e l l i t e s a d t r i b u i t ac n u n t i o s . . . ; A l b i n u s Did.17.4 epyaoa-
yevou ôe ou $eou T O V avdpœïïov xau evônoavTes TÔ) owyaTu a u T o u T H V (l»uxnv ôeorcô-
Touoav aÙTOU, TaUTns T O n y e y o v u x o v xaTà Àoyov Ttepù T ? I V xecpaÀnv xadùôpuoav...
itepuxeuyévwv xaù T W V aûo^rioewv T f j xecpaÀÇ, aSoTtep ôopucpopouowv T O n y c y o v u x o v ;
Galen Plac.Hipp.Plat.2.4.17 oûôè yàp O T U xa^ànep èv àxpoitoÀeu xf) xecpaÀrç ôuxnv
yeyaÀou 3aouÀeu)s o èyxécpaÀos uôpUTau, ôuà T O U T ' C Ç àvàyxns n T ? I S (puxns àpXn naj'
auTOV èoTuv, oûôè O T U xadànep Tuvàs ôopucpopous ëxeu Tas aùo^noeus nepuuoxuo-
yévas..., UP 8.2 1.445.14 Helmreich n ôè on xecpaÀn T O U S yèv T C À C Ù O T O U S eôoÇe
Ôuà T O V èyxecpaÀov yeyovévau, xaù Ôuà T O U T O xaù Tàs aùodrioeug àïïàoag exeuv èv
aÙTfj, xa§àitep Tuvàs ÛTtnpeTas T e xaù Ôopucpopous yeyaÀou gaouÀéœs ( c i t e d by Bo-
yancé REG 76(1963)110, where the r e f e r e n c e should be to Tim.70a-b and the r e -
alignment of imagery i s overlooked); C a l c i d i u s 231 r a t i o n a b i l i v e l u t arx c o r -
p o r i s et r e g i a , utpote v i r t u t i quae r e g a l i quadam eminentia p r a e s t e t , i d est
d o m i c i l i u m c a p i t i s , i n quo h a b i t e t animae p r i n c i p a l e . . . i n quo quidem domici-
l i o sensus quoque h a b i t e n t , q u i sunt tamquam comités r a t i o n i s et s i g n i < f e r i > ;
Gregory of Nyssa De hom.opif.12 T O V V O U V oùov T U O U V àyyeÀuacpopous r\ ÙTcaoTtuo-
Taus T O U S aùo§r|T pbous ev X U X À O J ôopucpopoûyevov ( c i t e d by Waszink ad Calc.231).
M

P r o c l u s , however, f o l l o w s P l a t o , e.g. i n Tim. 1 .33.31 T O duyuxov, o~~Ttav T O T O U

çaoou ÀuyavTuxov àvaoTeÀÀeuv TeTaxTau, ôopucpopouv T O èv r\\iZv àpxov, xaù T O À O -
yuxov, o cpuÀooocpôv T e èoTu xaT'oûoùav xaù 3aouÀuxov T f j s oÀns nyœv çwfis... ( c f .
a l s o the Ps.Pythagorean fragment of Metopus at 119.18 T h e s l e f f , ouvTeTaxTau
yàp xaù ô duyàs nai à êîiuduyua T I O T Ù T O ïïpâTov y é p o s Tas < | J U X Ô É S , T O yèv woiep

ôopucpopos T U S nai o w y a T o e p Û À a Ç , T Ô Ô ' W S o ù x o v ô y o s x a ù o ù x o u p o s T W V à v a y x a ù w v

6 ôè voos èïï'àxpas Tas xopucpas T O U owyaTos ùôpuyèvos..•)•

Now from C i c e r o , j u s t as i n the case of P h i l o , we need expect no special

l o y a l t y to P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e , but i n the case of p r o f e s s e d P l a t o n i s t s such as

A l b i n u s and Galen and a commentator such as C a l c i d i u s the r e c a s t i n g of the

P l a t o n i c imagery i s most i n t r i g u i n g . Jaeger (Nemesius von Ernesa 22-26) con-

s i d e r s that the image has been t r a n s m i t t ed v i a the Timaeus commentary of P o s i -

donius, but the evidence he presents i s n e g l i g i b l e and he s t r i d e s over the

c o m p l e x i t i e s of the s i t u a t i o n with seven-league boots. I t would appear that

the c e l e b r a t e d and r a t h e r f a s h i o n a b l e image of the Great k i n g i n h i s mighty

p a l a c e , i n v i s i b l e to a l l but surrounded by c o u r t i e r s and bodyguards who supply

him wit h i n f o r m a t i o n and execute h i s orders ( c f . Ps.Arist.D e Mundo 6 398a10-25

 I I 9.2.3. 267

(note a20 6 o p u c p o p o t ) 9 Max.Tyr.Or. 11 .12 e t c . ) , has been superimposed on P l a t o s f

account, which contains no r e f e r e n c e t o a k i n g and i n f a c t does not use image-

ry to d e s c r i b e the i n h a b i t a n t s of the a c r o p o l i s and the guardhouse. 3
The f r e -
quently used analogy between man s vous and the vous of the cosmos
f
( c f . De
Mundo 6 399a14, C i c e r o Leg.2.15-16, DND 2.18 e t c . ) must have encouraged the
a p p l i c a t i o n of the image of the Great k i n g and h i s c o u r t i e r s to the mind and
the senses. But i t i s p o s s i b l e that another P l a t o n i c passage was a l s o influ-
e n t i a l i n the r e d i r e c t i o n of the imagery. In Laws 964e-965a P l a t o compares
h i s i d e a l c i t y to the mental processes of a wise man. The j u n i o r guardians,
s i t u a t e d on the summit (ev axpn xopucprj 964e2) , s t o r e up i n t h e i r memory the
auodrjoeus they p e r c e i v e and pass them on to t h e i r o l d e r c o l l e a g u e s . The s e n i o r
guardians of the n o c t u r n a l c o u n c i l are e x p l i c i t l y compared to the f u n c t i o n i n g
of the vous (965a1) .**

I t must be concluded, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t , i n s p i t e of P h i l o ' s p r e d i l e c t i o n

f o r the image of the Great k i n g surrounded by satraps and bodyguards (used
a l s o of God and h i s powers at Legat.6, QE 2.67 e t c . ) , h i s a p p l i c a t i o n of the
image to the mind and senses i s by no means an o r i g i n a l a d a p t a t i o n , but shows
dependence on the way the Timaeus was t r a d i t i o n a l l y read.

3. The thorax. In d e s c r i b i n g the r e s i d e n c e of the s p i r i t e d p a r t of the

soul as the thorax (69e4), P l a t o undoubtedly intended a play on words. The
word §d)pa£ means both a c o r s l e t or b r e a s t - p l a t e and a l s o that p a r t of the body
which the armour covers, i . e . the chest or trunk. The former meaning i s s u i t -
ed to the m a r t i a l metaphors used to d e s c r i b e the s p i r i t e d element, the l a t t e r
to the s o u l ' s b o d i l y t r i l o c a t i o n . In the three main passages i n which P h i l o
recounts the s o u l ' s t r i l o c a t i o n i n terms of the Timaeus, t h i s word-play i s ex-
panded at some l e n g t h . Because of the p a r a l l e l nature of the three passages,
they are best s e t out a l o n g s i d e each o t h e r .

Leg.3.115: X U J 6e dupuxcjj Spec. 1.146: eiteu6ri x^puov o t - Spec.4.93: $up$

xa oxepva, Ttapo xau xf)V xeuoxaxov n cpuots onteveupe xa 6e xa axepva, x§
cpuouv oxupwoau xo uepos oxepva duu$ itpos ev6tauxr|0'LV, pev Cva oxpaxuw-
Ttuxvoxrixu Mat xpaxauo- $ xa^diep oxpaxtwxn uepuega- xou xpoiiov $d)paxa
xrixu ouvexwv ooxewv toa- Xev ets T O 6uodXu)xov epxos auitexouevos, et
n e p oxpaxtwxriv ayadov ox^pwxaxov, xov enuxaXoupevov xau ]iT] dna$ns ev
xa^OTcAuoaoav •dcapaxu xau dwpaxa, ov ex noXXtov xau ouv- taouv, aXXa xot
ao7iu6t rcpos x r i v xtov ev- exwv xau xpaxauoxaxwv ooxewv 6uoaXa)xos ?• • •
avxuoupevwv auuvav... aTietpydoaxo 0(pCyE,ag auxov E\J
yaXa veupous appayeouv.
In the f i r s t two passages the word-play on the thorax i s r e i n f o r c e d by the ob-
s e r v a t i o n that the s t r u c t u r e of the r i b - c a g e has been given the s t r e n g t h and
r e s i l i e n c e of a s o l d i e r ' s armour. In a l l three passages the comparison with
the oxpaxuwxns i s e x p l i c i t l y mentioned. 5

I t i s probable that the m i l i t a r y metaphor i s stimulated by the analogy

between the s t r u c t u r e of the body and the intermediate p o s i t i o n o f the s o l d i e r -
268 ANALYSIS

guardians i n the P l a t o n i c s t a t e ( c f . Rep.415dff., Crit.112b,117c). 6

But I have
not found any p a r a l l e l s f o r the e x t r a p o l a t i o n of the P l a t o n i c imagery i n terms
of the p r o t e c t i v e gear of the i n d i v i d u a l s o l d i e r .
Moses i n a note on Spec.4.93 (FE 25.255) adduces a passage i n the fragment
n e p u a p e x f j s of Metopus, xau T O U T O U ( T O J aAoyw) T O uev O L O V d u u v T t x o v xau unep-
yaxaTLxov T I O T T O U S T t X a o u o v $uuoeu6es ovuuaCeTau (Stob.Ecl.3.69.6 = T h e s l e f f 118.
4; Praechter Philol.50(1891)49-57 p o s t u l a t e s the i n f l u e n c e of Antiochus and
A r i u s Didymus ( c f . Stob.Ecl.2.117.16) i n t h i s fragment). auuvTUXov r e c a l l s
u p o s T n v evavTuouuevwv auuvav at Leg.3.115 and the whole phrase i l l u s t r a t e s
the m i l i t a r y metaphor i n g e n e r a l , but f o r the r e s t the p a r a l l e l i s not as c l o s e
as one would l i k e . In the long account of the t e l e o l o g y of man's s t r u c t u r e at
C i c e r o DND 2.134-153 the f o r t r e s s - l i k e nature of the rib-cag e i s not mentioned
( c f . esp. §139 on the s k e l e t a l frame).

4. The men's and women's q u a r t e r s . At QG 4.15 i n an a l l e g o r i c a l exege-

s i s of Gen. 18:11, e£eAu7iev 6e Zappa yiveo%ai TO. y u v a L x e t a , Philo writes:
The s o u l has, as i t were, a d w e l l i n g , p a r t l y men's q u a r t e r s , p a r t l y wom-
en's q u a r t e r s . Now f o r the men there i s a place where p r o p e r l y dwell the
masculine thoughts (that are) wise, sound, j u s t , prudent, pious, f i l l e d
w i t h freedom and boldness, and a k in to wisdom. And the women's quarters
are a place where womanly opinions go about and d w e l l , being f o l l o w e r s of
the female sex. And the female sex i s i r r a t i o n a l and a k i n to b e s t i a l
passions, f e a r , sorrow, p l e a s u r e , and d e s i r e , from which ensue i n c u r a b l e
weaknesses and i n d e s c r i b a b l e d i s e a s e s .

P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n (70a1) of the m i d r i f f as the s e p a r a t i o n between the men's

quarters ( i . e . the s p i r i t e d part) and the women's quarters ( i . e . the concupis-
cent p a r t ) l u r k s i n the background of the exegesis and encourages the a p p l i c a -
t i o n t o the s o u l . The p a r a l l e l i s but p a r t i a l , however, s i n c e P h i l o here con-
c e i v e s the s o u l as b i p a r t i t e , the r a t i o n a l part being male and the i r r a t i o n a l
part female (a d e s c r i p t i o n ubiquitous i n h i s w r i t i n g s , c f . Baer 40-44). Cf.
a l s o Cher.50, Pet.28, Ebr.59 ( a l l exegesis of the same t e x t ) , Sacr.103 (exeg.
Ex.13:12), Somn.2.9.
5. The manger and the w i l d beast. In P h i l o ' s accounts of the P l a t o n i c
t r i l o c a t i o n of the s o u l these images drawn from 70e2-4 are prominent: Spec.1.
148 xotAuav 6e cpaTvnv aAoyou SpeuuaTos; Spec.4.94 xat TtavTwv ontAnoTOTaTov xau
axoAaOTaTov o\5oav (eTtuduuuav) dpeuuaTwv eugooxeoSau T O U O U S , e v oZg Tpocpat xe

xau oxeCau; c f . a l s o Leg.1.69, where the t h i r d r i v e r f l o w i ng from Eden (Gen.

2:14) i s s u i t a b l y c a l l e d the T i g r i s , TUYPL6L 6e T<B aTudaowTOtTip £$q) n v e i t d u -
T

utav euxaae ( o Mwuofis). The image of the manger i s f u r t h e r used at Abr.160,

QE 1.19.

The d e s c r i p t i o n of the d e s i r e s (or passions or senses) of the i r r a t i o n a l

soul i n terms of w i l d , untamed, i n s a t i a b l e beasts occurs so o f t e n i n P h i l o
that i t v i r t u a l l y loses a l l i m a g i s t i c c o l o u r . I t i s , of course, p a r t i c u l a r l y
s u i t e d t o a l l e g o r i c a l exegesis of the book Genesis with i t s many p a s t o r a l
themes: e.g. Pet.25 (Gen.37:16, Joseph and h i s b r o t h e r s ' f l o c k s ) , QG 2.27 (Gen.
8:1, the w i l d beasts i n the a r k ) , QG 2.82 (Gen.10:9, Nimrod the hunter), Agr.
 II 9.2.3. 269

27 (the d i f f e r e n c e between T t o u y n v and x x n y o T p ó c p o s ) ; compare further Leg.2.9-11,

Gig.35, Agr.48, Plant.43, Conf.24, Somn.2.152f., Abr.32 e t c . A passage such
as QE 1.19 (Greek f r a g , at FE 33.237, exeg. Ex. 12:11), oux cxitó óè oxoitou Ttpoo-
£%r)-ne T O öeuv CcLvvuodau x a x d xrjv óocpuv ó yap TOÏÏOS èxeuvos e ^ S cpafvnv aitoxé-
xpuxau itoAuxecpaAcj) dpéyyaxi, T W V è v r\\xZ\) èïïb$uybö5v, shows how P h i l o tends to com-
bine the image from the Timaeus with the e q u a l l y well-known P l a t o n i c image of
the many-headed w i l d beast of Rep.588c ( c f . a l s o QE 2.100, B i l l i n g s 9 8 ) . 7

This s e c t i o n on P h i l o ' s use of P l a t o ' s imagery i n Tim.69d-70e i s brought

to an end with a p a i r of c o n c l u d i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s .
Firstly, i t i s noteworthy that of the eight separate images which the au-
thor of Ilepu UCIJOUS e x t r a c t s from 69d-70e P h i l o employs four ( b a i t , acropolis,
guardhouse, men's and women's q u a r t e r s ) . The procedure of the two w r i t e r s ,
however, i s quite d i f f e r e n t . Ps.Longinus' purpose i s l i t e r a r y . In h i s endea-
vour to show the boldness and s u b l i m i t y of P l a t o ' s sweeping rush of metaphors
he s e l e c t s a goodly number of examples and s t r i n g s them together i n a few long
sentences. The images of the manger and the w i l d beast are d e l e t e d , presumably
because they are too b a n a l . 8
The images used by P h i l o , on the other hand, are
p r e c i s e l y those which have a p h i l o s o p h i c a l or e d i f i c a t o r y value and are appro-
p r i a t e to the p r i m a r i l y e t h i c a l emphasis of h i s a l l e g o r i c a l themes.

Secondly, i t has already s t r u c k our a t t e n t i o n that there are c e r t a i n un-

mistakable p a r a l l e l s between P h i l o ' s v a r i o u s accounts of the s o u l 's triloca-
t i o n ( e s p e c i a l l y between Leg.3.115, Spec.1.146, 4.92-94, to a l e s s e r extent
Leg.1.70) i n the d e s c r i p t i o n s of the head and chest as l o c a t i o n s of the r a t i o -
n a l and s p i r i t e d p a r t s of the s o u l r e s p e c t i v e l y . Other p a r a l l e l s are the
'doxographical' i n t r o d u c t i o n s and c e r t a i n v e r b a l expressions (e.g. Leg.3.115
e v e u y a v . . . T O V itepu xecpaAfiv x&pov, Spec. 1.146 xwpuov ouxeuÓTaxov r\ cpuous ait-
éveuye. . .ïïposevotauxriotv , Spec .4.92 óntéveuyav otxeÜÓTCXTOV èvótauTnya xecpaAfiv,
Leg. 1 .70 xwpuov euvau n a i èvöLaüxriya xrjv xecpaAriv; Leg. 1 .70, 3.115 T O ?)Tpov) .
The names given to the three p a r t s of the s o u l , however, show some v a r i a t i o n :

Leg. 1 .70 Aoybxóv duyuxóv êiL^uyriTüxóv

Leg. 3.115 AOYI-OTUXÓV $uyuxóv èïïu^uyriTtxóv
Spec. 4.92-94 Aóyos §uyós èitu^uyua
Spec. 1 .146,148 - Suyós è-rtL^uyóa
On the b a s i s of these p a r a l l e l s i t i s h i g h l y probable that P h i l o made use of a
source i n which a resumé of P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e of the t r i l o c a t i o n of the s o u l
was given. One thinks of a summary of P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e such as the Epitome of
A r i u s Didymus, which contained a s e c t i o n on the ' p h y s i c a l ' d o c t r i n e s of P l a t o
and the Academy (see above I 4.d&n.71). But as we could not f i n d any sound
p a r a l l e l s f o r the most d i s t i n c t i v e aspect of the above passages, the compari-
son of the r i b - c a g e with a s o l d i e r ' s armour, we are l e f t wholly i n the dark on
270 ANALYSIS

the i d e n t i t y of t h i s presumed source. C e r t a i n l y the r e l a t i o n to A l b i n u s , who

i s g e n e r a l l y thought to have made good use of A r i u s Didymus ( c f . Witt 95-103,
D i l l o n 269), i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y c l o s e . Another p o s s i b i l i t y should not be
overlooked. P h i l o , whose tendency to r e p e t i t i o n i s n o t o r i o u s , may have been
so w e l l s a t i s f i e d with h i s formulation of P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e that he elswhere
used the same ideas and wording. It would at any r a t e be going too f a r to
conclude t h a t , because an intermediate doxographical account or compendium may
have been consulted, P h i l o ' s acquaintance with t h i s part of the Timaeus was
only at second hand.

9.2.4. The liver and p r o p h e c y (71a-72b)

In h i s lengthy and d e t a i l e d account of the various s a c r i f i c e s p r e s c r i b e d

i n the Law of Moses P h i l o turns at Spec.1.212 to the p r e s e r v a t i o n o f f e r i n g .
The Law ordains that three parts of the s a c r i f i c i a l v i c t i m are to be set aside
and dedicated to God, namely the f a t , the lobe of the l i v e r and the two kid-
neys (Lev.3:3-4). The exegete must give an appropriate reason (Aoyos ipoorixoov)
for the choice of these p a r t s . The l i v e r i s discussed i n §216-219.
P h i l o f i r s t explain s i t s v i t a l c o n t r i b u t i o n to the p h y s i o l o g i c a l processes
of the body's nourishment. The l i v e r has a double f u n c t i o n . It f i l t e r s out
i m p u r i t i e s i n the food-mixture which reaches i t from the stomach and converts
i t to blood, which i t t h r u s t s up to the heart and so ensures that the e n t i r e
body i s nourished. P h i l o records here the r e s u l t s of medical science which
were current c o i n i n the educated c i r c l e s of h i s day ( c f . Galen UP 4 . 2 f f . ) .
They represent a c o n s i d e r a b l e advance on the t h e o r i e s of P l a t o , who i n h i s ac-
count of d i g e s t i o n and nourishment (Tim.80d-e) wholly ignores the r o l e of the
l i v e r and the heart . And yet f o r P h i l o P l a t o ' s t h e o r i e s on the l i v e r (71a-e)
are a l s o welcome, f o r they provide him with an extra reason why the liver
should be chosen out i n the p r e s e r v a t i o n o f f e r i n g . One of the peculiarities
of P l a t o ' s account of the body's design i s that he r e l a t e s the placement and
f u n c t i o n i n g of a number of the body's main organs (heart, lungs, l i v e r , spleen)
not to the p h y s i o l o g i c a l but to the p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes of the body (70a-
72d; c f . Cornford 282). P h i l o can thus show i n §219 that the l i v e r a l s o makes
an important c o n t r i b u t i o n to man's psychi c and mental life.

There can be no doubt that i n t h i s paragraph P h i l o i s d i r e c t l y inspired

by the Timaeus. The b a s i c idea i s the same as i n P l a t o . The exceedingly
smooth and shiny texture of the l i v e r serves the purpose of r e f l e c t i n g thoughts
from the mind as i n a m i r r o r . These r e f l e c t i o n s give r i s e to dreams or v i s i o n s ,
by means of which d i v i n a t i o n or prophecy of f u t u r e events takes p l a c e .
 II 9.2.4. 271

When we t u r n to matters of d e t a i l , however, great d i f f e r e n c e s between the

two accounts become v i s i b l e . P l a t o ' s concern i s to present a k i n d of cogni-
t i o n s u i t a b l e to the a p p e t i t i v e part of the s o u l , which u n l i k e the other two
parts i s not able and moreover d i s i n c l i n e d to respond to the Aoyot of the vous
(71a). The vous does not see -itself r e f l e c t e d i n the m i r r o r but an influence
(6uvauus) from the vous gives o f f r e f l e c t i o n s of the mind's thoughts and these
are perceive d as el'6wAa by the lowest part of the s o u l . Thus dreams, v i s i o n s
and e c s t a t i c trances are a k i n d of knowledge manque, devised by the god for
human l a c k of wisdom (71e2). P l a t o concedes that information on the past,
present and f u t u r e can be gained i n t h i s way. But the l i m i t a t i o n s of this
type of c o g n i t i o n are shown by the f a c t that the dreamer or v i s i o n a r y cannot
himself i n t e r p r e t what he has seen. This i s a task f o r a man of sound mind
(eucppovos 71e6), i . e . by use of the r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l .

P h i l o , on the other hand, pays no a t t e n t i o n to the connection of the liv-

er with the a p p e t i t i v e or i r r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l . The mind, r e l a x i n g
from i t s day-time cares and r e l e a s e d from the a s s a u l t s of the senses and the
cares of the body, begins to t u r n upon i t s e l f and regard i t s own thoughts,
which are l u c i d l y r e f l e c t e d as eu6wAa i n the l i v e r . In t h i s process of exami-
ning i t s own thoughts the mind can avoid what i s bad and s e l e c t what i s good,
and so prophesies f u t u r e events by means of dreams. No mention i s made of an
interpreter. The prophecies proceed from the mind, hence they are presumably
i n t e l l i g i b l e as they are.

A passage at Migr.190 i s almost e n t i r e l y p a r a l l e l to Spec.1.219. The

mind begins to converse with i t s e l f and, gazing on t r u t h as i f i n a m i r r o r ,
u t t e r s i n s p i r e d prophecies through dreams. In t h i s context, l a c k i n g the exe-
g e t i c a l stimulus, P h i l o passes over the r o l e of the l i v e r which f u n c t i o n s as
the m i r r o r . Cf. also Contempl.27, QG 4.195 3
( t e x t EES 2.270), QE f r . 2 0 (text
FE 33.298). I t i s apparent that P h i l o adopts a more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e towards
dreams and the r e s u l t a n t prophecies than P l a t o . The c l a i m that the mind sees
truth i n a mirror i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t than P l a t o ' s grudging acceptance of man-
tic as a form of c o g n i t i o n necessary f o r the i r r a t i o n a l s o u l . There are other
texts i n the Greek t r a d i t i o n , however, that p l a c e a higher value on dreams and
mantic. P l a t o himself, at Rep.572a d e s c r i b e s the soul as 'touching the t r u t h '
i n dreams ( t h i s passage may have i n f l u e n c e d P h i l o ) ; c f . a l s o A r i s t . D e _ p h l l . f r .
12a Ross, Posid.fr.F108,110 E-K (= Cic.Div.1.64,129-130) e t c . Philo's chief
concern i s w i t h the many dreams and prophecies found i n the Pentateuch, which
he analyses i n the De somniis. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of dreams given i n Somn.1.2,
2.1-2, cannot be c o r r e l a t e d with the theory on dreams given at Spec.1.219 and
Migr.190, because i t i s based on the extent to which God (or h i s powers or an-
gels) are i n v o l v e d i n the sending of dreams, an aspect which i s ignored i n the
272 ANALYSIS

s c i e n t i f i c e x p l a n a t i o n drawn from the Timaeus.

A f i n a l observation i s that at Spec.1.219 P h i l o suppresses any reference

to d i v i n a t i o n (uavxcua) and speaks of prophecy (itpocpnTeuon), whereas P l a t o

speaks of uavxeua r i g h t throughout 71d-72d and d e s c r i b e s the l i v e r as the seat

of the uavtetov (71e2). A s p e c i f i c e x p l a n a t i o n can be found f o r t h i s change.

A l i t t l e e a r l i e r i n the same t r e a t i s e (§60-65), i n an exegesis of the i n j u n c -

t i o n s at Deut.18:9-22, P h i l o had v i g o r o u s l y polemicized a g a i n s t the race of

d i v i n e r s and soothsayers who p r a c t i s e an avo6ua uavTuxn, and favourably con-

t r a s t e d the i n s p i r a t i o n of the God-sent prophet (note that at Migr.190 u a v x e t a

is used).

I t i s no c r i t i c i s m of P h i l o to p o i n t out that he has made c e r t a i n altera-

t i o n s to P l a t o ' s theory, nor does i t n e c e s s a r i l y mean that he has misunderstood

Plato's intention. The b a s i c idea (which i n c i d e n t a l l y provides a teleological

reason f o r the l i v e r ' s g l i s t e n i n g smoothness, not so w e l l explained by the

l i v e r ' s r o l e i n the process of n u t r i t i o n ) has been taken over, but Philo is

f r e e to accommodate P l a t o ' s theory of d i v i n a t i o n to a more 'modern' presenta-

t i o n which i n v o l v e s a d i f f e r e n t and more dynamic view of the a c t i v i t y of the

vous. P l a t o only claims to present an etxws Xoyos i n the realm of the atodriTd .

What i s l o s t i n the process of P h i l o s a l t e r a t i o n i s the wonderful

f
systematics

of P l a t o ' s d i s c o u r s e . 1

9.3. The body (Tim.72d-81e)

9.3.1. Providence and the structure of the body (73a)

Man i s a ouvaucpoxepov of s o u l and body, and so needs a supply of food and

d r i n k i n order to s u r v i v e . But i f he were to expend a l l h i s energy on satis-

f y i n g h i s c r a v i n g f o r food and d r i n k and allow the w i l d beast of the a p p e t i -

t i v e p a r t of the s o u l to run amuck, there would be no time l e f t f o r the ratio-

n a l a c t i v i t y which, a c c o r d i n g to P l a t o , c o n s t i t u t e s man's t r u e end. Thus the

'young gods' showed f o r e s i g h t (xaOia upoopwuevot 73a1) i n d e s i g n i n g the coils

of the bowels so that food would not pass too q u i c k l y through the body. This

i d e a appeals to P h i l o . The 'young gods' f o r e s e e what he h i m s e l f has seen take

p l a c e i n the debauched manners of contemporary s o c i e t y . Thus the words xfjv

auouoov xau acpuAooocpov HOLL av6paTio6eoTdTnv TWV aLa%r]oeu)V i n a t i r a d e against

luxury and intemperance at Spec.1.174 are a l i t e r a r y a l l u s i o n to Tim.73a6. 1

Compare a l s o h i s use of the vox Platonicum YaoTpuyapyua (73a6, a l s o Phd.81e5,

Phdr.238b1) at Opif.79 ( d i s c u s s ed above i n I I 9.2.1.),158, Agr.37, Abr.149 etc.

Another i n t e r e s t i n g a d a p t a t i on of Tim.73a i s found at Aet.74. I t too i s

 II 9.3.1. 273

p r i m a r i l y l i t e r a r y , but i s not without p h i l o s o p h i c a l relevance. P h i l o des-

c r i b e s the cosmos here as follows:

a u x a p x e a x a x o v xe a u x o v auxaj xau a v e n u 6 e a n a v x o s y e y o v e v a u ( c f . above I I

4.2.4.), un6evos X U J V eus 6 u a u o v f | V u a x e p u C o v x a , x d s wevwaews nai itAnpajaews
ev uepeu 6ua6oxds d n w a d u e v o v , a u s 6 t d x f | V duouaov d u A r i a x t a v xd ^a xP^io-
^ a u , d d v a x o v d v x t Cwfjs uvwueva...

Colson EE 9.236 describe s the adaptatio n as f

n o t very happy , without g i v i n g a
1

reason f o r h i s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . Perhaps he i s c r i t i c a l of the f a c t that Philo

a t t r i b u t e s to the intra-cosmic £q3a ( i n c l u d i n g man) p r e c i s e l y that duouaos

aTcAnaxua against which, a c c o r d i ng to P l a t o , counter-measures are taken i n the

p r o v i d e n t i a l design of the bowels. On the other hand, i t must be recognized

that P h i l o here shows a sharp awareness of the d i f f e r e n c e between the macro-

cosm and the microcosm which i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y and s t r u c t u r a l l y so important

i n the Timaeus. Given the context the words x d s xevwaews xau TtAnpwaews 6ua6o-

xds s u r e l y represent a s u b t l e P h i l o n i c d i g i n the r i b s of S t o i c cosmobiology.

Note that P h i l o appears to construe the P l a t o n i c text d i f f e r e n t l y than modern

e d i t o r s and t r a n s l a t o r s : the words dcpuAoaocpov nai duouaov are taken to q u a l i f y

yaaxptyapYL-av (or even aicAnaxLav), while presumably the a d j e c t i v e dvuitrixoov i s

read p r o l e p t i c a l l y with the verb duoxeAou. 2

Only the l i m i t l e s s p o s s i b i l i t i e s of the a l l e g o r i c a l method and the almost

perverse r e s o u r c e f u l n e s s of the a l l e g o r i z e r could lead to the f o l l o w i n g a p p l i -

c a t i o n of P l a t o ' s idea at Tim.73a to the B i b l i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n of Noah's ark at

Gen.6:16, x a x d y a t a , 6twpo(pa nai xptoopocpa Tcotriaets auxriv ( x f j v x u g w x o v ) , located

i n QG 2.7:

But the i n t e s t i n e s have been made second-storey and t h i r d - s t o r e y chambers

by the providence of the Creator (xfl x o u CvonAdaxou Ttpovoua) f o r the p r e -
s e r v a t i o n of created t h i n g s . For i f he had made s t r a i g h t r e c e p t a c l e s of
food from the stomach to the b u t t o c k s, something t e r r i b l e might have hap-
pened... Second, a c e r t a i n i n s a t i a b l e d e s i r e (dnArioxua) (would have r e s u l -
t e d ) . For when the r e c e p t a c l e s have been emptied, hunger and t h i r s t must
of n e c e s s i t y immediately f o l l o w , as i n the case of pregnant matrons, and
the pleasant d e s i r e of food must become i n s a t i a b l e d e s i r e ( d u A n a x u a) and
something u n p h i l o s o p h i c a l (dcpuAoaocpov). For nothing i s more uncultured
( d u o u a o x e p o v ) than to give o n e s e l f wholly to the b e l l y ( c f . Y a a x p u u a p Y t a ) .
And t h i r d , death l i e s i n wait at the entrance, f o r they must be subject
to an e a r l y death who, when they eat, are immediately hungry, and when
they d r i n k , are immediately t h i r s t y , and b e f o r e they are f i l l e d , are emp-
t i e d and f e e l hunger. But by the windings and t w i s t i n g s r o f the i n t e s t i n e s
we are saved from a l l hunger and i n s a t i a b l e d e s i r e and from being subject
to an e a r l y death.

The three t r a n s l a t o r s of t h i s passage, Aucher, Marcus and Mercier, do not in-

d i c a t e i t s dependence on the Timaeus, but the r e t r a n s l a t i o n s ( s u p p l i e d by Mar-

cus) put the i s s u e beyond a l l doubt. P h i l o has r h e t o r i c a l l y expanded the ori-

g i n a l idea at some length, making a number of a d d i t i o n s of h i s own (pregnant

women, e a r l y death, f i l l i n g and emptying ( c f . A e t . 7 4 ) ) . I t i s noteworthy that

P h i l o should f o l l o w P l a t o (73a1) i n e x p l i c i t l y r e f e r r i n g to d i v i n e providence

274 ANALYSIS

(xfj xou c^ouXaaTOU Ttpovoua), f o r , although t h i s n o t i o n i s c e n t r a l to the Tim-

aeus as a whole, P l a t o only mentions i t e x p l i c i t l y three times (30b8,44c7,73a1;
see a l s o above II 7.2.1. on Leg.1.28). I t i s a small but precious i n d i c a t i o n
that P h i l o read the Timaeus c a r e f u l l y h i m s e l f . 3
CwoTcAaoxns i s a t y p i c a l l y Phi-
Ionic word, perhaps coined by him and elsewhere not found u n t i l i n f o u r t h cen-
tury P a t r i s t i c authors ( c f . Her.106, Leisegang 337, PGL 597).
The passage which we have j u s t discussed i s part of a l a r g e r whole, QG 2.
1-7. In a s e r i e s of seven quaestiones a complex a l l e g o r y of Noah's ark i n
terms of the p h y s i c a l s t r u c t u r e of the human body i s given (the same symbolism
at Pet.170, Conf.105). The way that the f i r s t quaestio i s formulated - what
i s the xaxaox£uri of Noah's ark? — i s q u i t e d e l i b e r a t e , f o r xaxaox£uaCw and
Kaxaoxeuri are used both of the c o n s t r u c t i o n of ships e t c . and of the construc-
t i o n or s t r u c t u r e of the human body ( c f . BAG 418). In the seven quaestiones
a l l manner of p h y s i o l o g i c a l and numerological information i s used to demon-
s t r a t e the persuasiveness of the a l l e g o r y , but t h i s information i s very much
' c o n t r o l l e d ' by the nature of the questions extracted from the B i b l i c a l ac-
count. An obvious example i s the d e s c r i p t i o n of the body i n terms of nests
and n e s t l i n g (§3, exeg.Gen.6:14) which i s a v e r i t a b l e tour de f o r c e . Only i n
§7 can the d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus be detected.

I n t e r e s t i n g l y P h i l o twice r e f e r s to remarks of Socrates on aspects of the

body's t e l e o l o g i c a l design (§3 the tongue as the a r t i c u l a t o r ( c f . a l s o Somn.1.
29), §6 o r i f i c e s turned to the rear f o r the sake of decency). N a t u r a l l y the
Timaeus cannot be the source. I t i s the only occasion i n h i s w r i t i n g s that
P h i l o e x p l i c i t l y a l l u d e s to another account of the t e l e o l o g y of the body, l o -
cated i n the Memorabilia of Xenophon (1.4), which i n p o p u l a r i t y r i v a l l e d the
Timaeus i n the H e l l e n i s t i c world (the author of Ilept u<|;ous mentions them t o -
gether i n 32.5). Both ideas were r o u t i n e commonplaces i n P h i l o ' s time ( c f .
Pease's notes ad Cic.PNP 2.141,149). P h i l o shows h i s l e a r n i n g by making c l e a r
that he knows t h e i r l i t e r a r y o r i g i n ( o r i f i c e s Mem.1.4.6, tongue 1.4.12). 4

9.3.2. A literary allusion t o Tim.75d-e

At Opif.119 P h i l o decorates yet another example of the u b i q u i t y of the

hebdomad i n nature with an a l l u s i o n , amounting to a loose paraphrase, to Tim.
75d5-e2. The head makes use of seven e s s e n t i a l p a r t s :
e$6oua) o x o u a x t , 6u'ou y ^ v e x a t §vrixc3v u e v , ecpn ITAdxwv, e u o o 6 o s , e£o6os
6 ' d c p § d p x u ) V • e n e u a e p x e x a u U E V yap otuxw a u x t a x a u n o x d , cp^apxou awuaxos
c p ^ a p x a u xpocpau, Aoyou 6' £ £ u a a t v a d a v a x o u <l>uxns ddavaxoo v o u o u , 6u'<Lv o
Aoyuxos 3 t o s xu3£pvaxau.
As Colson EE 1.95 p o i n t s out, P l a t o 's c o n t r a s t i s between a v a y x a u a and apuoxct,
not Svnxct/cpSapxa and acpdapxa. A l s o P h i l o ' s f u r t h e r explanation of the bon mot
bears l i t t l e resemblance to the o r i g i n a l P l a t o n i c passage. On h i s use of the
phrase xo Aoywv v a u a drawn from Tim.75e3 see P e t i t ' s note at FE 28.146-147 (to
 II 9.3.2. 275

her l i s t add a l s o Sacr.61).

Mansfeld, i n a d i s c u s s i o n of the a r i t h m o l o g i c a l t r a d i t i o n (Fseudo-Hippo-
cratic tract 192,201), sees i n the reference to the Timaeus an i n d i c a t i o n that
at l e a s t part of that t r a d i t i o n can be traced back to Posidonius 'Comments on
the Timaeus 1
(see above I 4.n.57). Since no l e s s than eight other authors
( l i s t e d at Staehle 48) recount the septet of f a c i a l openings and none of them
mention the P l a t o n i c a l l u s i o n , t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s surely p r e c i p i t a t e . More-
over i t needs to be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n that P h i l o repeats the a l l u s i o n
in a passage that has nothing to do with arithmology, QE 2.118. I t i s sum-
moned f o r t h by an exegesis of Ex.28:32 and i n p a r t i c u l a r of the word TtepbOTo-
uuov found i n that t e x t . As i n Opif.119 the c o n t r a s t i s between 'mortal 1
and
'immortal t h i n g s ' , not P l a t o ' s dvayxata and apboxa.

The two passages above f u r n i s h an e x c e l l e n t example of how an a l l u s i o n to

t n e
Timaeus can be used f o r purposes of purely l i t e r a r y embellishment. The
a l l u s i o n gives the r e s p e c t i v e accounts a s p l a s h of c o l o u r . In both cases
P h i l o s p e c i f i c a l l y names P l a t o as source of the expression. I f a reason i s
sought f o r the change which P h i l o has introduced, I would suggest that he has
r e l a t e d the entry of food and the e x i t of speech to the two c h i e f p a r t s of the
s o u l , which P l a t o on a number of occasions describes as immortal and mortal
respectively (cf.69c6,72d4 and esp. 90b1-c6). P l a t o ' s avoryxaCa and apuoxa r e -
c a l l the a n t i t h e s i s between avayHri and vous (48a1-2), which as we saw above i n
II 8.1.1. P h i l o v i r t u a l l y ignores.

9.3.3. Advances i n medical science

The remainder of P l a t o ' s account of man's physiology, including his ex-

p l a n a t i o n of the c i r c u l a r t h r u s t and the process of n a t u r a l death, appears to
have made l i t t l e or no impact on P h i l o . At no stage i n h i s extensive body of
w r i t i n g s i s there an occasion for a f u l l explanatory account of man's p h y s i o-
logy. In Opif.145 he p r a i s e s the beauty of the f i r s t man i n body and soul,
but does not consider i t necessary to e x p l a i n t h i s beauty i n terms of p h y s i c a l
and anatomical d e t a i l s . • On the infrequent occasions that P h i l o incorporate s
an item of information on the f u n c t i o n i n g of the human body i n h i s exegesis,
it i s apparent that he i s at l e a s t s u p e r f i c i a l l y acquainted w i t h developments
i n medical science which had taken place s i n c e the days of P l a t o , a l s o i n h i s
own city ( H i e r o p h i l u s , E r a s i s t r a t u s ; c f . Frase r Ptolemaic A l e x a n d r i a 336-339,
E . D . P h i l l i p s , Greek Medicine (London 1973) 139-160). I t would not surprise,
t h e r e f o r e , i f P h i l o regarded c e r t a i n part s of the science of the Timaeus as
somewhat a r c h a i c and outdated. Let us give one example.
276 ANALYSIS

At QG 2.59 he i s l e d by an exegesis of Gen.9:4 to d i s c u s s the conveyance

of pneuma and blood through the body:
The pneuma...does not occupy any p l a ce by i t s e l f alone without the blood,
but i s c a r r i e d along and mixed together with the blood. For the a r t e r i e s ,
the v e s s e l s of b r e a t h , c o n t a i n not only a i r by i t s e l f , unmixed and pure,
but a l s o blood, though perhaps a small amount. For there are two kinds
of v e s s e l s , v e i n s and a r t e r i e s ; the veins have more blood than pneuma,
whereas the a r t e r i e s have more pneuma than blood, but the mixture i n both
kinds of v e s s e l s i s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by a greater or l e s s e r amount ( t r a n s -
l a t i o n Marcus, s l i g h t l y a l t e r e d ) .
The d i s t i n c t i o n between v e i n s which c h i e f l y c a r r y blood ( i . e . f o r n u t r i t i o n )
and a r t e r i e s which c h i e f l y convey pneuma ( i . e . f o r r e s p i r a t i o n ) i s not found
i n P l a t o (who combines the two processes r a t h e r u n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y ) and vir-
t u a l l y never occurs i n the H i p p o c r a t i c w r i t e r s ( c f . P h i l l i p s op.cit.70,137).
P h i l o ' s account here appears to be based on the p h y s i o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s of Pra-
xagoras of Cos, which i n respect of the r o l e of the pneuma were not g r e a t l y
modified by h i s A l e x a n d r i an successors, H i e r o p h i l u s and E r a s i s t r a t u s ( c f .
P h i l l i p s op.cit.137,143,150, F . S t e c k e r l , The fragments of Praxagoras of Cos
and h i s school P h i l o s o p h i a Antiqua 8 (Leiden 1958) 17-22,35; the a s s e r t i o n
that there i s some blood i n the a r t e r i e s brings P h i l o ' s account c l o s e s t to the
views of H i e r o p h i l u s ) . These developments i n medical s c i e n c e , which a l s o led
to important m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n S t o i c philosophy ( c f . Hahm 160-161), rendered
P l a t o ' s account of n u t r i t i o n and r e s p i r a t i o n i n Tim.78a-79e o b s o l e t e , e s p e c i -
a l l y with regard to the r o l e of the body's innate heat.

Because P h i l o shows so l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n P l a t o ' s account of the body's

s t r u c t u r e and f u n c t i o n i n g , i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that none of the f i v e images
which the author of the Ilept u4»ous e x t r a c t s from Tim.73b-85e are found i n h i s
writings.

9.3.4. The creation of the p l a n t world (77a-c)

Ever conscious of the l o g i c a l sequence of h i s n a r r a t i v e , P l a t o recognizes

that he cannot d e s c r i b e the n u t r i t i v e process i n man i f nothing has been c r e a -
ted f o r man to eat ( c f . Cornford 302). So he introduces a b r i e f d i g r e s s i o n
(77a-c) on the p l a n t world, devised by the gods as a help (3ou$eta) f o r man
(note once again the anthropocentrism). P l a n t s have a nature a k i n (ouYYevn)
to man's (so that he can feed on them), but possess a d i f f e r e n t form and diffe-
rent processes of s e n s a t i o n . They l i v e and are l i v i n g c r e a t u r e s (oux exepov
Cwou 77c3), though rooted to the ground and deprived of s e l f - m o t i o n .
In the Mosaic cosmogony the p l a n t world i s created, together with the
e a r t h , on the t h i r d day (Gen.1:9—13), long before the c r e a t i o n of animals and
 II 9.3.4. 277

man. God made sure that the t r e e s he created had f r u i t s r i p e and 1

ready f o r
the immediate use and enjoyment of the animals that were about to come i n t o
being' ( O p i f . 4 2 ) . Thus the problem of P l a t o ' s c r e a t i o n a l sequence does not
occur ( i n s t e a d another problem a r i s e s , that the p l a n t s should be created be-
f o r e the heavenly bodies, on which see above I I 5.1.1.). Everything i s i n
r e a d i n e s s , i n c l u d i n g the p l a n t world ( c f . Gen.1:29), f o r man when he i s c r e a -
ted as climax of the c r e a t i o n (Opif.77-81).

P h i l o f i t t i n g l y a l l u d e s to the P l a t o n i c account of the c r e a t i o n of p l a n t s

i n the 'phyto(!)-cosmological excursus' at Plant.15-16. The e a r t h , as mother
and nurse (cf.40b9, a l s o above I I 8.3.1.), i s provided with a l l kinds (t6eas,
cf.77a4) of p l a n t s , so that the animals which are born can have the r i g h t food
(ouYYeveob nai uf) odveuous xpocpats, cf.77a4). The p l a n t s are created with
t h e i r heads f a c i n g downwards and f i x e d i n the f e r t i l e s o i l of the e a r t h (ur\-
£as c f . 7 7 c 4 ) . On the remainder of t h i s passage, which i s h e a v i l y indebted to
t n e
Timaeus, see below I I 10.1.2. In Deus 37-40 the p l a n t world i s given a
( n o t i c e a b l y l e s s anthropocentric) place i n the cosmic h i e r a r c h y by being i n -
troduced as second i n the ascending sequence e ^ u s , cpuots, cpuxn v o u s ( i n s p i r e d
5

by S t o i c physic s and p a r t l y c i t e d as SVF 2.458).

9.4. Disease, health, and t h e e q u i l i b r i u m between s o u l and body

(Tim.82a-89c)

9.4.1. The t h e m e s o f d i s e a s e and health

The themes of the diseas e and h e a l t h of both body and s o u l are found on
v i r t u a l l y every second page of P h i l o ' s c o n s i d e r a b l e oeuvre, so that a d i s c u s -
s i o n i n the context of t h i s study must remain modest (a l a r ge number of t e x t s
c o l l e c t e d by Schmidt 31-48; c f . a l s o Gross 50-70). In comparing and contras-
t i n g d i s e a se of the body and disease of the s o u l , P h i l o i s f o l l o w i n g a long
t r a d i t i o n , i n i t i a t e d by P l a t o (and before him Socrates) and made even more
popular by the Stoa. One example out of many i s found i n the P l a t o n i c a l l y
t i n t e d proemium to the t,reatise Quod omnis probus l i b e r s i t . Those who seek
f o r t r u t h should not allow themselves to be outdone by the s i c k i n body. Just
as these people i n t h e i r d e s i r e f o r h e a l t h e n t r u s t themselves to d o c t o r s , so
those who s u f f e r from the s i c k n e ss of the s o u l , namely l a c k of proper training
or education (dnab6euoua, c f . Tim.86e2), should become d i s c i p l e s of wise men
who can help them throw o f f t h e i r ignorance ( d u a d u a , c f . Tim.86b4) and gain
knowledge (§12; other t e x t s which d e s c r i b e duadua or anaudevoia as v o o o s ^ u x n s
are Leg.3.76, Ebr.14, V i r t . 4 ) .
278 ANALYSIS

Such ideas on h e a l t h and disease can be c u l l e d from many places i n Plato's

works (e.g. Rep.444c,591b-c). The Timaeus, with i t s a n a l y s i s of the types of
diseases of the body (four) and of the soul (two, the passions and ignorance)
and i t s i n s i s t e n c e on the o u u u e x p u a between body and s o u l , cannot be s a i d to
have had much s p e c i f i c i n f l u e n c e on P h i l o ' s development of the theme. Compare
B i l l i n g s 93-95, who gives a u s e f u l a n a l y s i s with many r e f e r e n c e s . 1

One text which s p e c i f i c a l l y r e c a l l s the Timaeus i s Virt.13-14:

v o o o t ye urjv o w u a x w v U Y t a b v o u o r i S ^ U X H S r\nLOTa $ A d T t x o u a u v vyeCa 6e cpuxns
e u x p a o u a 6uvduecov l a x u x n s x e x a x a x o v d u u o v nai x n v e n u ^ u u u a v nai x o v Ao-
Y o v , e n u x p a x o u a r i s x r j s AoYL/Kng nai waitep dcprivuaoxds uitnous r i v u o x o u a r i s e x a -
xepas.

The d o c t r i n e that the h e a l t h of the soul r e s u l t s from an e u x p a o u a 6uvauewv

( i . e . the three parts of the soul) i s u l t i m a t e l y derive d from Tim.87a3-7, but
has a c l o s e r p a r a l l e l at Tim.Locr.71 ( c f . B a l t e s Timaios Lokros 200). The2

a s s e r t i o n that a healthy s o u l i s v i r t u a l l y safe from b o d i l y d i s e a s e , implying

that b o d i l y disease u l t i m a t e l y has a psychic o r i g i n , i s not found i n the T i -
maeus, which keeps separate diseases of the body and diseases of the soul
caused by contact with the body. Again there i s an e x c e l l e n t P l a t o n i s t pa-
r a l l e l f o r P h i l o ' s remark, t h i s time at Apuleius De Plat.216: eiusmodi ad
aequalitatem p a r t i b u s animae temperatis ( c f . e u x p a o u a above), corpus n u l l a
t u r b a t i o n e f r a n g i t u r . The a s s o c i a t i o n of vyeia with oojcppoouvri i s d e r i v e d from
a d o c t r i n e i n which the four c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s of the soul are each made pa-
r a l l e l to a b o d i l y v i r t u e . Cf. B a l t e s op.cit.219 on Tim.Locr.79, who point s
to impulses given by P l a t o n i c passages such as Laws 631c,743eff., but considers
the s y s t e m a t i z a t i o n to be the work of the Stoa, f u r t h e r developed by Antiochus
(other traces of t h i s d o c t r i n e at Leg.3.86, Sobr.61, Abr.263, Praem.119 e t c . ) .
Thus t h i s one P h i l o n i c passage not only combines the Timaeus with two other
P l a t o n i c d i a l o g u e s, but three times r e i n t e r p r e t s Plato' s d o c t r i n e s i n a manner
p a r a l l e l to Middle P l a t o n i s t authors (and with a s s i s t a n c e from the Stoa).
An e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between P l a t o and P h i l o on the subject of disease
and h e a l t h i s that i n P l a t o ' s account the r e l i g i o u s dimension of the g i f t of
h e a l t h and recovery from i l l n e s s i s e n t i r e l y neglected, whereas f o r P h i l o i t
i s of the utmost importance. An exegesis of Gen.48:15-16 at Leg.3.177-178 i s
a t y p i c a l example of P h i l o ' s a t t i t u d e . God gives h e a l t h of the body i n the
proper sense of the word, but h e a l t h which comes to us by way of recovery from
disease he delegates to doctors and medical e x p e r t i s e . In the same way the
good things of the s o u l come d i r e c t from God, while d e l i v e r a n c e from e v i l s
happens through the agency of angels. Compare a l s o the experience of Jacob the
p r a c t i s e r at Haran. He encounters God's AOYOU, and these act as p h y s i c i a n s of
the. s o u l , h e a l i n g a l l i t s weaknesses (Somn.1.69, exeg. Gen.28:12).

9.4.2. Evaluations o f t h e body

In P l a t o , as i s well-known, a double a t t i t u d e — both negative and p o s i -

tive — towards the body can be d i s c e r n e d . In the Timaeus, as i f r e a l i z i n g
 I I 9.4.2. 279

that h i s extremely p e s s i m i s t i c view of the body i n the Phaedo was open to mis-

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , he s t r e s s e s the r e l a t i v e p e r f e c t i o n of man's body and the need

f o r a sound e q u i l i b r i u m between body and soul. The Juvenalian adage mens sana

i n corpore sano — much used and much abused i n the Anglo-Saxon t r a d i t i o n of

the P u b l i c school - expresses P l a t o ' s intentions perfectly.

P h i l o recognized that man's body was created by God as a h o l y temple f o r

his r a t i o n a l soul (Opif.137 (exeg. Gen.2:7), c f . Decal.133; same image at Laws

869b, a l s o I Cor.6:19). Among the b l e s s i n g s given by God to those who follow

him i s h e a l t h of the body and freedom from d i s e a s e , so that the mind may be at

peace and f e a s t on God's d o c t r i n e s (Praem.119-122, exeg. Deut.7:16). True

s e l f - c o n t r o l does not c o n s i s t of m o r t i f i c a t i o n of the f l e s h and neglect of the

body (Pet.19, c f . Winston 30). Gymnastics are p a r t of a sound education at

Spec.2.230 (and note P h i l o ' s expert knowledge of s p o r t , on which see above I

3.11.19), but significantly i n the i d e a l education enjoyed by Moses (Mos. 1.20-

29) i t i s missing. Compare the f o l l o w i n g P h i l o n i c t e x t s w i th P l a t o ' s advocacy

of b o d i l y e x e r c i s e and h i s i d e a l of o u y y e x p u a between body and soul.

Leg.3.72: o 6e cpuAooocpos e p a o x n s obv x o u K a A o u x o u C & v x o s e v e a u x $ Hn6exau < J J U -

xns x o u 6e veKpou O V X O J S a o o u a x o s a A o y e C y o v o v a x o x a C o y e v o s , u v a yr) uito M C X K O U
9

nal v e x p o u auv6exou ( a l l u s i o n to the famous image from A r i s t o t l e ' s P r o t r e p t i -

cus or Eudemus, c f . above I I 7.1.3.) T t A r i y y e A n x a u T O a p u a x o v n tpuxu*
Abr.48: the second t r i n i t y of those yearnin g f o r v i r t u e may be compared x o u s
av6po5v a d A n x u M w v y u y v d a y a a u v eni xous u e p o u s o v x w s a A e u c p o y e v c u v o V y S v a s , o u
a a ) y a o K u a s K a x a c p p o v o u v x e s x r i v e v xfj 4>ux? H a x a o H e u a C o u a u v e u e £ u a v e c p t e y e v o u xns
x a x d x w v o t v x L i i d A c j v Tiadcov v u n r i s .
Agr.119: eus x o u x o v x o v aywva (the true Olympic games) o u do^eveoxaxou xa oco-
y a x a e p p w y e v e o x a x o u 6e xcts 4^^xds e y T p d c p o v x a u Ttdvxes... ( c o n t r a s t Tim.87d-e!) ..

On the b a s i s of these texts P h i l o ' s a t t i t u d e to the body would be more nega-

t i v e than that found i n the Timaeus.

But i s i t unwise to a t t a c h too much s i g n i f i c a n c e to these s c a t t e r e d pas-

ages? What are we, f o r example, to make of the f o l l o w i n g remark at QG 4.200

(exeg. Gen.27:8-10)? Isaac, even as an o l d man, manages to eat two kids, 'for

i t was f i t t i n g that he who was so great i n v i r t u e and the founder of so great

a n a t i o n should have a formidable and wonderful greatness of body'. The double

a t t i t u d e towards the body i s thus j u s t as markedly present i n P h i l o as i t i s

in Plato. I t i s tendentious to a s s e r t , as Volker 85 does, that i n Philo

Jewish c r e a t i o n i s m stands opposed to P l a t o n i c dualism, f o r the same ambiguity

P h i l o already discovere d i n Plato himself.

 CHAPTER TEN

TIMAEUS 89D-92C: F I N A L REMARKS ON MAN AND THE LOWER ANIMALS

10.0. Introductory

10.1. Man's true end (Tim.90a-d)

10.1.1. Man as a heavenly plant (90a)
10.1.2. Two passages on Mosaic and P l a t o n i c anthropology
10.1.3. Man's v o u s as h i s 6auuu)v (90a,c)
10.1.4. Man - d i v i n e , g o d - l i k e , statue-bearer
10.1.5. The double account of man's c r e a t i o n
10.1.6. Six important themes

10.2. Woman and the lower animals (Tim.90e-92c)

10.2.1. Woman, p o s t e r i o r and i n f e r i o r t o man (90e-91a)
10.2.2. Men as animals (91d-92c)
10.2.3. The place of animals i n the cosmic order

10.3. Conclusion (Tim.92c)

10.3.1. Doxology to the cosmos (92c)

10.0 Introductory

Man, the composite being ( o u v a u c p o x e p o v 87e5) of body and s o u l , has now

been d e s c r i b e d . For a l l h i s m i t i g a t i o n o f a r a d i c a l a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l dualism i n
the Timaeus, P l a t o remains unshakable i n h i s c o n v i c t i o n that man's true end
c o n s i s t s i n e x e r c i s i n g the r a t i o n a l part of h i s soul and l e a d i n g a t r u l y ratio-
nal life. He now returns to the themes with which he had concluded the f i r s t
p a r t of the cosmological account (47a-e), and uses them to b r i n g the dialogue
to i t s climax (90a-d). The theory of the soul's three parts that has i n the
meantime been introduced enables him to p r e s c r i b e man's i d e a l way of l i f e
( a p b O T O u 3t-ou 90d6), and present a more e x p l i c i t l y worked out d o c t r i n e of man.
The god has given man mind as a 6auuwv which he must c h e r i s h and keep i n as
e x c e l l e n t order as he p o s s i b l y can. The man who i s e n t i r e l y preoccupied i n
s a t i s f y i n g bodily desires ( e 7 t u $ u u u a u ) or ambitions ( c p b A o v u H u a L ) must o f neces-
s i t y t h i n k mortal thoughts and become v i r t u a l l y wholly mortal h i m s e l f . The
man who d i r e c t s h i s whole being t o love of l e a r n i n g or knowledge ( c p b A o p a d t a )
and t r u t h w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y thin k immortal and d i v i n e thoughts and so w i l l at-
t a i n the measure of immortality ( a d a v a o u a ) that h i s human nature w i l l admit.
 II 10.0. 281

In t h i s way man can be deemed t r u l y b l e s s e d and worthy of c o n g r a t u l a t i o n (6ua-

cpepoviws eu6auuova euvau 90c5) .
The long monologue of Timaeus the L o c r i a n i s nearing i t s end. The sec-
t i o n on the c r e a t i o n of woman and the other genera of animals i s added as a
kind of appendix. Only the account of human s e x u a l i t y and the process of r e -
production (91a-c) adds a new element. P l a t o leaves i t so l a t e not only be-
cause the female sex i s needed as p a r t i c i p a n t , but a l s o because he wishes to
i n d i c a t e that p h y s i c a l love i s an i n f e r i o r form of eros ( c f . Cornford 292,355).
The d e s c r i p t i o n of the formation of woman and the animal genera i s presented
e n t i r e l y i n terms of the d o c t r i n e of metempsychosis. They are degraded types
of men who are given remedial punishment f o r t h e i r wicked or f o o l i s h lives.
Is P l a t o being f u l l y s e r i o u s here? Yes and no. Obviously he d e c l i n e s to
present an adequate zoology, as being outside the scope of the dialogue's
chosen s u b j e c t ( c f . 2 7 a ) . On the other hand, h i s anthropocentrism i s delibe-
r a t e and q u i t e unsubtle. The p a r a l l e l between macrocosm and microcosm which
dominates the e n t i r e work i s fundamentally man-centred.

The dialogue ends with a compact doxology to the cosmos (92c), l a v i s h i n

i t s s u p e r l a t i v e s . The cosmos i s a v i s i b l e god, image of the n o e t i c model,
most p e r f e c t i n i t s completeness, a b s o l u t e l y unique i n i t s s o r t .

10.1. Man's t r u e e n d (Tim.90a-d)

10.1.1. Man as a h e a v e n l y p l a n t (90a)

According to P l a t o man can be compared to a p l a n t that i s upside down. A

p l a n t draws the food i t needs through i t s roots. Man's root i s h i s head (90a8)
which draws food from the heavenly regions by means of s i g h t and learning (cf.
47a-c,90c7). The P l a t o n i c image of man as a heavenly p l a n t ( o u p d v u o v cpuxov
90a6) appeals to P h i l o . On two occasions he i n c o r p o r a t es i t i n s i g n i f i c a n t
analyses of the Mosaic d o c t r i n e of man (Pet.85, Plant.17; see f u r t h e r II 10.
1.1.) . Other passages that unquestionably a l l u d e to P l a t o ' s image are:
Peus 181 (exeg. Num.22:3*1): Balaam i s a YHS dpeuua, not an oupdvuov 3Aaaxr|ua
(as i s I s r a e l ) . A r e c a s t i n g of P l a t o ' s motif i n combination with Tim.91e.
Prov.2.109: Barbarian lands may be f e r t i l e , but only Greece t r u l y gives b i r t h
to a cpuxov oupavuov xau 3Aaoxriua $euov. The a r i d c l i m a t e of Greece i s not a
hindrance but a help i n the case of man's b i r t h , f o r man has h i s roots i n heaven.
QE 2.114 (exeg. Ex.28:21): The phylarchs do 'not go about on the e a r t h l i k e
mortals but become heavenly p l a n t s and move about i n the ether, being f i r m l y
e s t a b l i s h e d t h e r e '. The p o i n t of P l a t o ' s comparison, here combined with a
motif from the Phaedrus myth, i s l a r g e l y l o s t .
Cf. a l s o our remarks below at I I 10.2.2-3. on Tim.91e.

As Alexandre FE 16.239-240 and H a r l FE 15.39 have p e r t i n e n t l y pointed out,

282 ANALYSIS

the image of the p l a n t , o f f s h o o t , branch and so on occurs w i t h abundant f r e -

quency i n B i b l i c a l and Jewish l i t e r a t u r e . This abundance i s r e f l e c t e d i n P h i -
lo's copious use of such imagery, which i s more o f t e n i n c i t e d by Biblical
texts than Greek i l l u s t r a t o r y m a t e r i a l (a more d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h i s
subject would be remunerative). Nevertheless the two above-mentioned authors
appear to be a l i t t l e hasty i n not r e c o g n i z i n g the topos of the heavenly plant
at Congr.56 ( x n v . . .opaxuxfiv auxou cptAodeov ovxws 6 u a v o u a v , xAr)yo:xL6a e u y e v f i ,
xaxacpuxeueu puCas duoxeuvwv itpos a b 6 t o x r ] x a . . . ) and Her.34 (nai dvw Ttpos oupa-
vov T O a x e A e x o s a v e y e t p o v y e x e w p b o a t ) . Also at Somn.1.54 P h i l o plays with
Plato's idea when he c r i t i c i z e s the Chaldean astronomers f o r t r y i n g to grasp
hold of the e t h e r i a l r e g i o n (again the d i v i n e f l i g h t imagery of the Phaedrus
myth) while themselves rooted to the ground.

A c o r o l l a r y of the image of man as a heavenly plant i s that he stands

e r e c t (90a8-b1) and i s able to d i r e c t h i s v i s i o n towards the c e l e s t i a l realm,
i n c o n t r a s t to the beasts who have t h e i r heads bowed to the ground (91e-92a).
P h i l o draws a t t e n t i o n to t h i s feature of man's c o n s t r u c t i o n at Opif.147, Pet.
85, Plant.17, Ebr.156 (avoopduaoxat,, cf.90b1 o p d o t ) , Abr.164 ( i n conjunction
with the encomium of s i g h t based on Tim.47a-b), Anim.11 (see below II 10.2.3.).
Once again we are d e a l i n g with a widely disseminated topos ( f o r an extensive
l i s t of examples c f . Pease ad Cic.PNP 2.140), so that i t i s h a r d l y necessary
to conclude that P h i l o i s d i r e c t l y t h i n k i n g of Tim.90a every time he uses i t .
At Pet.85 and Plant.17, however, the context i n d i c a t e s the d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e of
the P l a t o n i c passage.

A reminiscence of P l a t o ' s text i s a l s o found at Abr.59, oxav ex xwv auxou 6u-

vayewv avaxpeydaas xnv (|;uxnv o $eos oAxfj 6uvaxu)xepa itpos eauxov eTtbOTiaonxab
(cf. Nock VChr 16(1962)82). P h i l o only uses the verb avaxpeuctvvuut twice i n
a l l h i s works (once more at Ios.156), so a d i r e c t r e c o l l e c t i o n of Plato's voca-
b u l a r y (90b1) i s more than probable. By speaking here of God's powers he has
transformed the theme i n terms of h i s own theology. Modern t r a n s l a t o r s are
d i v i d e d on whether xo §efov (90b8) r e f e r s to man's d i v i n e part (Cornford) or
the demiurge (Rivaud). On the b a s i s of t h i s passage i t i s c l e a r that P h i l o
opts f o r the ' t h e o c e n t r i c ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
But a mere l i s t of references to passages i n which P h i l o uses a theme
gives l i t t l e idea of what the theme meant to him. Hence we t u r n now to a more
d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of two passages where Mosaic and P l a t o n i c anthropology merge
together i n t o a P h i l o n i c whole.

10.1.2. Two passages on M o s a i c a n d Platonic anthropology

The f i r s t passage under d i s c u s s i o n , Pet.79-90, i s summoned f o r t h by the

exegesis of Cain's words at Gen.4:10, (pwvfi a u y a x o g xou d6eAcpou aou 3oqt upos ye
ex x i i s Y H S » The s u b l i m i t y of Moses' words i s patent to a l l , but they do lead
 I I 10.1.2. 283

to the f o l l o w i n g problem. Right throughout the Law he c a l l s blood the oúoúa

Tfís ^ u x ñ s , e.g. at Lev. 17:11, but i n the cosmogony he a f f i r m s (Gen.2:7) that

T t v e u y a i s the essence of s o u l (§80). Since i t i s Moses 1

p r a c t i c e to make h i s

statements c o n s i s t e n t w i th each other (a noteworthy assumption!), a s o l u t i o n

must be found f o r t h i s apparent i n c o n s i s t e n c y (§81). P h i l o s r e p l y i s to make

f

a d i s t i n c t i o n between a l i f e - f o r c e ( C w T u x f j óúvayts) e f f e c t u a t e d through the

blood and shared by a l l animals, and a r a t i o n a l f o r c e ( A o y b x r ) óúvayus) e f f e c -

tuated through the T t v e u y a , of which man partakes but not the lower animals

(§82; on t h i s d i v i s i o n see the f u r t h e r remarks at the end of the s u b - s e c t i o n ) .

P h i l o i s c a r e f u l to i n d i c a t e that he does not mean a m a t e r i a l i s t i c conception

of T t v e u u a . I t i s not moving a i r (the Stoa!) , but an imprint of the d i v i n e

power, to which Moses gives the appropriat e name e ú x w v ( i . e . i n Gen.1:26-27).

God i s the archetype, man the image, 'man' meaning here not T O óucpues i $ o v but

TO TTÍS ^uxnS apuOTOv e t ó o s (cf.90a2-3) (§83) . 1

In order to e x p l a i n what he means by man's r a t i o n a l p a r t o r voOs'or A o y o s

P h i l o now turns to the P l a t o n i c anthropology given i n Tim.90a-d, though presen-

t i n g i t i n Moses' name. This s e c t i o n (§84-85) must be read i n c l o s e r d e t a i l .

o U Y K p u u a : Not i n P l a t o (but c f . ouvaucpÓTepov 87e5, A l e . I 130a9); found i n SVF

1.145, common i n P h i l o ( c f . Leisegang 730).
T O freoeuóes ónuuoúpyriua: I.e. the v o u s or r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l . Philo i s
t h i n k i n g both of P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the v o u s as T O d e u o v (90c4,8) and the
Mosaic d o c t r i n e of Gen.1:26-27. See f u r t h e r below I I 10.1.4.
T a s ¿ ¿ C a s e t s o ú p a v o v eTetve: Cf.90a8, where the head i s the r o o t .
a l t ó o s égn4>gj The motif from the Timaeus i s c l e a r l y combined w i t h the Phaedrus
myth (esp. 247b1).
(pUTOv o ú p á v u o v : Cf.90a6, the 'tag' that gives away the a c t u a l source.
T a s x e ( p a A a s T t n g a y e v o s ¿y x¿PQ^« A f r e e renderin g of P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the
t e r r e s t r i a l animals i n 91e-92a.
xaTcoxapa: A r a r e p o e t i c word, used elsewhere by P h i l o only once, i n e x a c t l y
the same context (though of p l a n t s ) i n Plant.16.
T a s Tpocpás ¿AuuTtúous x a i , ácpdápTous: Once again the Timaeus (90c7) and the
Phaedrus myth (246d-247e, esp. 247e6) are combined. See below I I 10.1.6.(4).
T a s v o O óopuepópous g u a ^ n a e i s » C f . t n
remarks above at I I 9.2.3.(2).
e

e£(¡)xuae: The b u i l d i n g metaphor so frequent i n the Timaeus (see I I 3.4.3. and

note the examples i n r e l a t i o n t o man i n 69e1,e6,70a3,a6,e2,e3,e6).
TaCs 6e á é p o s n a u o ú p a v o u l e p u ó ó o u s ácpftápTous o u a a u s : Cf .90c8-d4 which r e -
c a l l s 47a-c. The r e f e r e n c e to the c i r c u i t s o f a i r seems out o f p l a c e , f o r
these (belonging to the sublunary realm) can h a r d l y be d e s c r i b e d as immortal.
I would t e n t a t i v e l y suggest that a t d é p o s has been corrupted t o á é p o s under the
i n f l u e n c e of the n o t i o n o f i v e u u a prominent i n the passage ( c f . O p i f . 7 0 ) .

For d i s c i p l e s of Moses i t i s no longer a problem to understand how man

gains a conception of the i n v i s i b l e God. Man's maker breathed i n t o him ( é v e -

Ttveu) from above of h i s own d i v i n i t y . Man as image i s moulded o r s t r u c k ( T U -

Ttwdeboa) i n accordance w i t h the d i v i n e paradigm, and so i n h i s mind receives

immortal thoughts (§86-87). In the eulogy o f the human v o u s that concludes

the passage (§87-90) the i n f l u e n c e of the Phaedrus myth becomes paramount.

The mind i n i t s upward f l i g h t apprehends the éióycta, yeTapoua, oúpávua, and

284 ANALYSIS

f i n a l l y the a x a x a A n n x o s $eou (puaus (equivalent to x a e^w x o u oupavou i n the

myth, 247c2).
Such remarkable powers c a l l f o r an explanation. The human mind, so small
that i t i s located i n the b r a i n or heart (on the u n c e r t a i n t y see above I I 7.
2.1.), could not c o n t a i n the vast extent of the heavens unless i t was an i n -
separable fragment (aTTooitaopa ou 6uaupexov ) of 'that d i v i n e and blessed soul'
(§90). This statement introduces a difficulty. The term aTtooTtaoua (of S t o i c
o r i g i n , c f . SVF 2.633, Posid.fr.F99a E-K) i s used elsewhere t o e x p l a i n Gen.2:7
( c f . Opif.135,146, Leg.3.161, Somn.1.34). I t thus leads the d i s c u s s i o n back
to the B i b l i c a l text which played an important r o l e at the beginning of the
passage. But what i s the 'divine and blessed s o u l ' which i s describe d as 'par-
t a k i n g of the p e r f e c t i o n i n the universe'? We are reminded of the language of
the P l a t o n i c and S t o i c cosmic s o u l . As was noted above i n I I 5.1.2-3., how-
ever, P h i l o p r e f e r s to r e p l a c e t h i s concept with that of the immanent d i v i n e
Logos. Here too he s u r e l y means the d i v i n e Logos, of which man's r a t i o n a l
s o u l i s portrayed as a fragment ( c f . Winston 26).

The second passage, Plant.16-22, shows many s i m i l a r i t i e s t o the f i r s t ,

but i t s context i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . I t i s part of the 'phyto-cosmological ex-
cursus' t o which we have already r e f e r r e d so o f t e n . The e n t i r e cosmos i s des-
c r i b e d i n terms of a p l a n t ( P l a n t . 2 ) , and i t s animals are described as plants
on a l e s s e r s c a l e (§11). I t i s no wonder, t h e r e f o r e , that P l a t o ' s image of
man as the heavenly p l a n t springs to P h i l o ' s a s s o c i a t i v e mind. To the earth
the c r e a t o r assigned two kinds of l i v i n g beings, plants and animals (§15-16).
P l a n t s , wit h t h e i r heads f i x e d downwards i n the e a r t h , are given to mother
e a r t h so that she can feed her progeny ( c f . Opif.38-44,133). 2
The i r r a t i o n a l
animals have t h e i r head l i f t e d from the ground, but the f r o n t f e e t are s t i l l
needed f o r support and the eyes are kept lowered (§16-17; see f u r t h e r below I I
10.2.2. on 91e-92a). Man, however, r e c e i v e s a construction ( x a x a o x e u r i ) which
d i s t i n g u i s h e s him from a l l other animals. In P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n the a l l u s i o n
to Tim.90a5-b1 i s c l e a r and r a t h e r p r e c i s e (§17):

xu>v u e v yotp aAAwv x a s octets TtepunYoiYe xaxw K a u n a s , 6uo v e v e u x e itpos x e p ~

a o v , av§pu>itou 6e eunaAuv avwpdwoev, t v a x o v oupavov x a x a ^ e a x a u , cpuxov oux
kniyeLOV a A A ' o u p a v u o v , ws o itaAauos A O Y O S , uuapxwv.
dvu)pda)oev: Cf.90b1 opdou (note a l s o Ebr. 156) .
cpuxov oux enCyebov &AA' o u p a v i o v : Cf.90a6 cpuxov oux e y y t L o v otAAot o u p a v t o v . P h i -
l o *s rendering i s so c l o s e to P l a t o ' s a c t u a l text that we must conclude that
he wishes to quote i t verbatim (but as usual r e l i e s on h i s memory). P h i l o n i c
e d i t o r s have thus erred i n not p l a c i n g the phrase i n q u o t a t i o n marks.
uva x o v oupavov x a x a f r e a x a u : The element of v i s i o n i s not a c t u a l l y mentioned i n
90a, but the e n t i r e s e c t i o n must c l e a r l y be connected up w i t h the encomium of
s i g h t i n 47a-c.
d)S b TiaAatos A O Y O S : A l s o used of a P l a t o n i c reference at Ebr.8 (to Phd.60b) .
The image i s of r e s p e c t a b l e a n t i q u i t y and so to be held i n h i g h r e s p e c t.
 II 10.1.2. 285

But, our author continues (§18), the d e s c r i p t i o n of man as a heavenly

plant could give r i s e to misunderstanding. Some philosophers have affirmed
that man's vous i s a part of the e t h e r i a l cpuats and that there is ouyyeveta
between man and the au$rip ( i . e . the d o c t r i n e of the A r i s t o t e l i a n quintessence).
The great Moses had a c l e a r e r grasp of these matters. The form of man's r a t i o -
n a l s o u l cannot be likened to anything i n the realm of y e v e o t s . The true state
of a f f a i r s i s d i s c l o s e d i n the two primary a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l t e x t s , Gen.1:26-27
and 2:7, both of which are i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms of a paradeigma r e l a t i o n be-
tween the d i v i n e Logos and man. The eZdog of the r a t i o n a l soul i s a genuine
c o i n , marked and stamped by God's s e a l , the a r c h e t y p a l Logos of the (first)
cause (§18-20). Accordingly the body too i s r a i s e d up towards heaven, the pur-
est part of the universe. The c r e a t o r made the eyes of the body as a c l e a r
l i k e n e s s of the i n v i s i b l e eye of the s o u l . Just as they can extend to the li-
mits of heaven, so the eyes of the soul are impelled by the d e s i r e to gaze on
Being ( T O O V ) , ascending not only to the l i m i t s of the ether but even beyond
to the Uncreated (§21-22). P h i l o thus returns at the end of the passage to
the f a m i l i a r themes from the Phaedrus myth. Instead of developing these themes,
as he d i d i n the previous passage, he c o n f l a t e s them with the B i b l i c a l theme
of being ' c a l l e d above', e x e m p l i f i ed by Moses (Lev.1:1) and B e z a l e l (Ex.31:2),
who represent two l e v e l s of the h i e r a r c h y of r e c i p i e n t s of knowledge (see
above I I 2.4.1 . 3.4.4.).

The two passages which we have analysed show P h i l o at the peak of h i s po-
wers. The r o l e which P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e of man, as presented i n the Timaeus,
plays i n P h i l o ' s thought i s revealed with more than usual c l a r i t y . In order
to show man's e x c e p t i o n a l place i n the s t r u c t u r e of the cosmos, P h i l o centres
his account around the two primary a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l passages of the Mosaic c r e -
ation story. But i n h i s endeavour to explain what these texts actually tell
us about man's nature he r e s o r t s to the two P l a t o n i c accounts of man which he
knew best, the Timaeus and the Phaedrus myth. Man i s separated from the other
earth-bound animals because he possesses a r a t i o n a l s o u l . I t i s i n the posses-
s i o n of reason that man shows a l i k e n e s s to God his creator. Man's possession
of reason o r i e n t a t e s him towards the heavens, and beyond them to God himself.
The object of man's existence i s to set eyes on God and become l i k e him, and
t h i s can only be done with the (mental) eye of the soul.
The message i s straightforward and at the same time of great signifi-
cance i n the h i s t o r y of i d e a s . The reading of Gen.1:26-27 and 2:7 i n terms of
Greek i n t e l l e c t u a l i s m was to have a d i s t i n g u i s h e d career. But, i t must be ob-
served, i n order to e x t r a c t t h i s message from the two Mosaic t e x t s P h i l o has
to engage i n some smart footwork. He has to e x p l a i n why Moses gives a double
286 ANALYSIS

account of man's c r e a t i o n . Moreover there are d i f f i c u l t i e s o f a more t e c h n i -

c a l , p h i l o s o p h i c a l nature. In both texts man i s brought i n d i r e c t r e l a t i o n to
God h i s maker, but the nature of the r e l a t i o n ( i n P h i l o ' s reading) i s not the
same. Gen.1:26-27 introduces a (double) paradeigma r e l a t i o n between God, the
Logos and man. The ' i n - b r e a t h i n g' of Gen.2:7 i s c l o s e r to a part-whole rela-
tion, f o r man r e c e i v e s a share of the d i v i n e itveuua. In the two passages j u s t
analysed these two kinds of r e l a t i o n are not kept c l e a r l y apart (note esp. Pet.
85,90, Plant.18-19), which r e s u l t s i n a c e r t a i n l a c k of c l a r i t y . We s h a l l r e -
turn to P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Mosaic double account of man's c r e a t i o n
below i n I I 10.1.5.

The d i s t i n c t i o n made between the blood-soul and the r a t i o n a l soul at Pet.

80-82 i s a l s o found at Her.54-57 (exeg. Gen.15:2), Spec.4.123 (exeg. Lev.3:17),
QG 2.59 (Greek text FE 33.114, exeg. Gen.9:4). These four t e x t s are a l l very
similar. In each case a c o n t r a s t i s made between the d e s c r i p t i o n of blood as
the 'soul of a l l f l e s h ' (Lev.17:11) and the two primary a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l texts
Gen.1:26-27 and 2:7. On the conception of the blood-soul, which goes back to
P r e s o c r a t i c ideas see Heinemann's note at GT 3.301. P h i l o i s searching for a
B i b l i c a l precedent f o r the i r r a t i o n a l part of the soul which man shares with
the animals, and thus f o r a precedent f o r the d i v i s i o n of the soul i n t o r a t i o -
n a l and i r r a t i o n a l which i s so v i t a l to h i s ideas on man. 3

10.1.3. Man's VOUQ a s h i s 5atMWV (90a,c)

The god has given man T O xupowxaxov c^uxtls e t 6 o s as a 6auuu)v ('guiding

genius' i n Cornford's t r a n s l a t i o n ) , P l a t o w r i t e s at Tim.90a2-4. I f we keep
our 6atuu)v i n good order ( e u x e x o a u n u e v o v ) , we s h a l l become happy or fortunate
(eu6auuu)v) to a s p e c i a l degree (90c5-6). Only once does P h i l o reproduce t h i s
v e r b a l play i n a c l e a r way, at Prov.2.16. The worthless man (cpauAos), even i f
he i s r i c h as Croesus, can never become eu6auuwv i f he makes h i s 6atuu)v, that
i s h i s own v o u s , the s l a v e of innumerable passions. Other t e x t s i n P h i l o which
p o s s i b l y c o n t a i n an a l l u s i o n to the word-play are Opif.144, Mut.216, Flacc.168,
Prov.1.64-65.

I t may perhaps be doubted whether the passage described above i s a d i r e c t

r e s u l t of the reading of Tim.90a-c. P l a t o ' s words at Rep.617e1, oux uuas 6au-
uu)v A r i ^ e x a u , aAA'uueus 6 a t u o v a a.Lpr)oeo%e ( c f . H e r a c l i t u s fr.B119 PK) could
a l s o have been i n f l u e n t i a l . Xenocrates fr.81 repeats P l a t o ' s pun, a f f i r m i n g
that man's 6auuu)v i s h i s s o u l (eun, av eu6auuu)v o e\5 xf)v c^uxnv e x ^ v , c f . a l s o
Epin.992d). In l a t e r times the etymological explanatio n of e u 6 a u u o v t a was ex-
ceedingly popular. To the l i s t of references given by Witt 88 can be added:
Tim.Locr.83, Sex.Emp.Adv.Phys.1.47, Plut.Mor.591E, Apul.Pe deo Socr.150, Clem.
Alex.Str.2.131.4, Plot.Enn.3.4.5.23. Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s , of course, that
the a l l u s i o n was c a r r i e d over from a source. In w r i t i n g the Pe P r o v i d e n t i a
 I I 10.1.3. 287

P h i l o has c l e a r l y made an abundant use of source m a t e r i a l . But, unless one

has access to these sources, such secondary t r a n s m i s s i o n i s q u i t e impossible
to prove, because the w r i t e r does not merely w r i t e out h i s source m a t e r i a l
word f o r word, but embellishes i t w i th h i s own i d e a s .

The a s s e r t i o n that man's v o u s or the r a t i o n a l part of h i s s o u l can be

c a l l e d a 6auuu)V concurs n e a t l y w i t h the views that P h i l o has on demons. There

are three c l a s s e s of s o u l s , demons o r , as Moses i s wont to c a l l them, angels

( c f . Gig.12-16, Somn.1.138-141): immortal souls who have never descended i n t o

the body, souls who have descended and have been overwhelmed i n the t o r r e n t of

bodily passions, other incarnate d souls who have devoted themselves to p h i l o -

sophy and have escaped the dungeon of the body ( t h i s demonology goes back to

P l a t o and Xenocrates, and i s e s s e n t i a l l y borrowed from Middle Platonism , c f .

D i l l o n 31-33,46-47,172-174, and see above I I 5.4.3.). In h i s a n a l y s i s of Gig.

6-18 Nikiprowetzky shows that P h i l o endeavours to e l i m i n a t e the conception of

a s u p e r s t i t i o u s demonology by demonstrating that m a l e f i c e n t demons are none

other than e v i l souls (Hommages a Georges Vadja 43-71, esp. 68 on §16). In

another a r t i c l e the same s c h o l a r draws a t t e n t i o n to the c l o s e r e l a t i o n of the

P h i l o n i c d o c t r i n e of the eAeyxos or conscience as monitor or cross-examiner of

the s o u l (which has both Greek and Jewish antecedents) to the conception of

the v o u s as man's guardian genius ('La d o c t r i n e de l'elenchos chez P h i l o n , ses

resonances philosophiques et sa portee r e l i g i e u s e ' PAL 255-273, esp. 263).

The connection with Tim.90a,c i s most c l e a r l y v i s i b l e i n Decal.87 (OUVOLHWV,

cf.90c5).

A d i f f e r e n c e between P h i l o ' s a l l u s i o n to Tim.90a,c at Prov.2.16 and the

P l a t o n i c o r i g i n a l introduces a t o p i c with broader i m p l i c a t i o n s . P l a t o speaks

of T O U xuptcoxaTou Tcap'nuCv cpuxTJS et6ous i n 90a2, whereas P h i l o d e s c r i b e s the

6auuu)v i n us as T O V eauxou vouv. The r e l a t i o n between cpuxri and vous i s one of

the more d i f f i c u l t problems i n Greek philosophy . The development of the prob-

lematics i n v o l v e d from P l a t o to P l o t i n u s has by no means been e x h a u s t i v e l y re-

searched. Two t e x t s from the Timaeus played an important r o l e i n l a t e r anti-

q u i t y because they were read as g i v i n g support to the view that vous i s an on-

t o l o g i c a l l y separate and h i g h e r l e v e l of being than tpuxn, 30b3-8 ( v o u v e v TT)

<puxfj 5 (JJUXMV e v a w u a x b ) , *90a2-3,c4-5 (where the 6atuwv was taken to be the vous

and considered separate from il^uxn); c f . D i l l o n 213, Cherniss ad Plut.Mor.943A,

Boyance M i s c e l l a n e a Rostagni 51. P h i l o c e r t a i n l y has the former t e x t i n mind

at Abr.272 (ci>uxfi u e v e v owyaxt, vous 6'ev 4>uxfl), QE 2.11 ('as the mind i s i n

the s o u l , so the s o u l i s i n the body'). Compare a l s o Opif.66, where the mind

i s the s o u l of the s o u l l i k e the p u p i l i s the eye of the eye ( c f . Leg.3.171,

Her.55, Congr.97, going back to PI.Ale.I 133a-c). On the b a s i s of these t e x t s

we may be i n c l i n e d to a t t r i b u t e to P h i l o a sharp d i s t i n c t i o n between vous and

<l>uxn.
288 ANALYSIS

But on the b a s i s of an a n a l y s i s of a much l a r g e r number of t e x t s we have

come to the c o n c l u s i o n that P h i l o i n h i s use of the two concepts e s s e n t i a l l y
f o l l o w s the approach which i s predominant i n the P l a t o n i c corpus (with the ad-
d i t i o n of A r i s t o t e l i a n and S t o i c terminology). Very o f t e n vous i n d i c a t e s a
function or* capacity of the r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l , e q u i v a l e n t to the r o l e
of auadnats i n the i r r a t i o n a l part ( c f . esp. the a l l e g o r y of Adam and Eve).
On other occasions vous represents an e n t i t y r a t h e r than a f u n c t i o n , and then
it i s i n e f f e c t e q u i v a l e nt to the r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l . When soul i s i n -
carnated i t must have i r r a t i o n a l parts or powers which allow i t to adapt to
i t s c o r p o r e a l residence and e x e r c i s e c o n t r o l over the body. I t s r a t i o n a l part,
i . e . the vous, i s thus not equivelent to the soul as a whole, but i s i t s guid-
ing or l e a d i n g part (fWeywv, riyeyovuKOv). Only when the s o u l i s d i s c a r n a t e i s
it l e g i t i m a t e to speak of an equivalence between soul and mind. In P h i l o s!

case, t h e r e f o r e , one may regard mind or r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l or r a t i o n a l

soul ( d i s c a r n a t e) as e q u i v a l e n t s , as we have done throughout t h i s study.

In order to give the reader the chance to draw h i s own conclusions on

t h i s s u b j e c t , we have compiled a l i s t of texts which, i f not exhaustive, c e r -
t a i n l y gives an a l l - r o u n d p i c t u r e of P h i l o s usage: Opif.69, Leg.1.1ff.,39-41,
f

3.24,28-29, Cher.57,71ff., Det.22-23, Post.175, Gig.15 ( T O X P O T T O T O V T W V ev

nutv, (J,uxuv rpvouv!), Deus 46, Agr.46,65-66, P l a n t . 18, Ebr.100, Migr.5,186,
Her.64,84,89,109-110,232-234, Congr.97, Fu£.71, Mut.3,208-209, Somn.1.30-32,
Abr.57-58,99, Mos.1.27-29, 2.288, Decal.134, Spec.1.17,201, 3.188,207, V i r t . 1 2 ,
Praem.120-123, QG 1.11,79, 2.59,62, 4.1 (EES 1.266), QE 2.29,39,46,115. Cf.
a l s o the u s e f u l remarks at Schmidt 49-50.
There are two reasons f o r the tendency to place man's vous and (puxn at
separate o n t o l o g i c a l l e v e l s i n l a t e r Platonism. F i r s t l y , i t furnished a solu-
t i o n to the problem of whether the i r r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l i s immortal, or
at l e a s t s u r v i v e s f o r some time a f t e r death (a controversy r a i s e d i n t e r a l i a
by the image of the two horses ( i . e . the two i r r a t i o n a l p a r t s of the soul) i n
t n e
Phaedrus myth; c f . Guthrie 4.421-425). In response the theory of the dou-
b l e death was developed, i . e . one death i n which soul i s separated from body,
the other i n which mind i s separated from soul (put to h i g h l y e f f e c t i v e use by
P l u t a r c h i n the myth of De f a c i e quae i n orbe lunae apparet (Mor.943Aff.).
There i s no t r a c e of t h i s theory i n P h i l o . He o f t e n d e s c r i b e s the (l>uxn as
otdavaTOs tout court (e.g. Spec.1.81), but i t i s c l e a r that he regards only the
r a t i o n a l part as possessing immortality. Cf. f o r example O p i f . 135 ($vn.Tov uev
Kaxot T O awua, xaxa 6e T T I V 6tavobav ot%avaTov), Mos.2.288 (Moses' 6uas of awua
and (l^uxri becomes vous r|Xto6eaTaTos; vous here means r a t i o n a l s o u l , c f . Gig. 14,
Somn.1.139).
Secondly, the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of vous and (Jjuxn was used to emphasize
mind's a s s o c i a t i o n with the n o e t i c world and the measure of transcendence that
could consequently be a t t r i b u t e d to i t . Engaged i n contemplation of the i d e a l
world the mind i s wholly disengaged from contact with the m a t e r i a l realm.
There are a few texts i n P h i l o which tend i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n . Using the l a n -
guage of the Phaedrus myth, P h i l o a f f i r m s that the mind leaves the realm of
s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e r e a l i t y e n t i r e l y and j o i n s the i n c o r p o r e a l world of ideas;
c f . Gig.61, Her.280 (exeg. Gen.15:15, c f . above I I 7.1.1.), QG 4.138 (note
a l s o a text such as Her.263-265). I take t h i s to mean that the human mind i s
so completely divorced from a s s o c i a t i o n with the m a t e r i a l realm that i t becomes
one w i t h the d i v i n e Logos (who i s the place of the xoouos vonTos). Are these
t e x t s i n disagreement w i t h P h i l o ' s usual view that man's u l t i m a t e f e l i c i t y i s
to gain immortality as a d i s c a r n a t e mind or r a t i o n a l soul or aawuotTos cpuaus,
 II 10.1.3. 289

i n which c o n d i t i o n he i s able to contemplate d i v i n e things unhindered by c o r -

p o r e al n e c e s s i t i e s ? A s o l u t i o n can be attempted i n terms of the imagery of
t n e
Phaedrus myth which these t e x t s employ. I f the d i s c a r n a t e s o ul stands on
the v a u l t of heaven and contemplates the n o e t i c beauties ' o u t s i d e , i t casts 1

aside a l l contact with c o r p o r e a l r e a l i t y and can be s a i d to be ' t r a n s l a t e d ' to

or ' e n r o l l e d ' i n the n o e t i c world as r e s u l t of i t s r a t i o n a l ( i . e . mental) ac-
tivity. But the Gnostic v i s i o n contained i n the Hermetic t r e a t i s e , the P o i -
mandres, that the vous progresses beyond the e i g h t h and outer sphere and actu-
a l l y becomes a 6uvauus ev $ew (§26) would, i n my view, be r e j e c t e d by P h i l o as
overstepping the boundary between created r e a l i t y and the wholly transcendent
f i r s t cause.

10.1.4. Man - divine, god-like, statue-bearer

The axiomatic p r i n c i p l e of P l a t o n i c philosophy that the gods, and i n par-

t i c u l a r , the c r e a t i n g god, do not and cannot adopt an envious a t t i t u d e towards
the cosmos and i t s inhabitants i s a l s o of great s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the doctrine
of man. Because man possesses a d i v i n e ($eCos) component, namely the r a t i o n a l
part of the sou l or the vous, he i s p o t e n t i a l l y himself able to become a god,
i f he engages i n the r a t i o n a l contemplative a c t i v i t y which i s the p r e r o g a t i ve
of the gods. In the Timaeus, where the e s c h a t o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e i s kept
subordinate, man's p o t e n t i a l apotheosis i s given l e s s emphasis than i n the
myths of the Phaedo, Republic and Phaedrus. But by c o n t i n u a l l y d e s c r i b i n g
man's r a t i o n a l part as T O deCov or deuoxaxov P l a t o r e t a i n s the theme i n the
background; c f . 41c7,44d3,5,45a1,69d6,72d4,76b2,88b2,90c8. Especially strik-
ing i s the i n j u n c t i o n to man t h a t , i f he i s to reach the s t a t e of eudauuovta,
he should always worship the d i v i n e part (90c4 oteu depaieuovxa T O deuov).

We have already had occasio n to note above i n II 4.2.6. that P h i l o ' s l o y -

a l t y to Judaic t r a d i t i o n does not preclude him from a l i b e r a l - m i n d e d attitude
to the use of the word deos. Does he f e e l f r e e to f o l l o w i n P l a t o ' s footsteps
here? In Opif.69 man's mind i s described as xpoiov xtvot %ebg wv xou cpepovxos
nai ayaXpaxocpopouvxos auxov (note the q u a l i f i c a t i o n ) . No l e s s than eight times
P h i l o c i t e s or a l l u d e s to the t e x t i n Ex.7:1, u6ou 6e6wMa oe deov $apaa), i n
order to show that Moses, the oocpos par e x c e l l e n c e , can be described as a god;
c f . Leg.1.40, Sacr.9, Det.161-162, Migr.84, Mut.128-129, Somn.2.189, Mos.1.158,
Prob.43 (note a l s o Mos.1.27, QE 2.29,40). Some of these texts are rather ef-
f u s i v e , but Det.161-162 shows that the d i v i n i t y of Moses must be conceived i n
r e l a t i v e terms, i . e . r e l a t i v e to the f o o l i s h man to whom he i s being 'given'
by the true God. When we look f o r d e s c r i p t i o n s of man's r a t i o n a l part as detos
or xo §euov, they can be l o c a t e d only at s u r p r i s i n g l y infrequent i n t e r v a l s , as
emerges i n the f o l l o w i n g list:

Leg.2.95: The soul's two kinds of o f f s p r i n g , xo $euov or x6 cpdapxov.

Det.29: Man's 6 t a v o u a i s xo deuoxaxov xwv ev rjutv.
290 ANALYSIS

Ebr.70: We must sever T O § e u o v (soul) from T O cpdapTov (body).

Her.84: Man's v o u s , i f s e r v i n g God i n p u r i t y , i s not a v f t p o o T t t v o s but £ e u o s .
Mut.184: God i s not a o u y x p t y a , but we are a mixture of d i v i n e and mortal.
Somn. 1 .34: Man's v o u s i s an o n t o o T i a a u a $ e u o v .

Compared with P l a t o ' s usage t h i s list i s so short that we must conclude a c e r -

t a i n r e t i c e n c e on P h i l o ' s p a r t . On the other hand, we f i n d a number of exam-

ples where man or h i s r a t i o n a l s o u l or mind i s d e s c r i b e d as god-like ($eo£b6r)s;

not i n Tim, but c f . Phd.95c5, Rep.501b7, Epin.980d8). Man's body was construc-

ted as a house or holy temple f o r the r a t i o n a l s o u l , rjv (4^^xnv X o y u x n v) eyeX-

Xev ( o a v d p w u o s ) a y a X y a T O c p o p M O e t v c t y a X y a T w v T O %eoeu6e:aTaTov (Opif. 137) . Cf .

a l s o Opif.69, Det.84, Her.65, Mos.1.158, Spec.3.83,207.

In two of the t e x t s c i t e d above P h i l o ' s use of the composite verb a y a X u a -

Tocpopew i s prominent. As Stephanus TGL 1.177 observes, the word i s p e c u l i a r e
et proprium to P h i l o . He uses i t no l e s s than 16 times, w h i le the only other
recorded instances are found i n P a t r i s t i c authors who were w e l l acquainted
w i t h P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s ( c f . PGL 6b). Two aspects of P h i l o ' s use of the word
are r e l e v a n t to our d i s c u s s i o n . (1) The mind or r a t i o n a l p a r t of the soul i s
c a r r i e d by the body as an image; i n a d d i t i o n to Opif.69,137 already c i t e d c f .
Mut.21, Mos.1.27 (note a l s o Decal.60). (2) The mind c a r r i e s i t s thoughts
( v o r i T d o r , as a l t e r n a t i v e , God's Laws) as statues w i t h i n i t s e l f ; c f . O p i f . 18.
82, Somn.1.208 (here of the cosmos, not man), Mos.2.11, V i r t . 1 8 8 , Legat.210
(note a l s o Sobr.3,38, Somn.2.233, Spec.4.238 e t c . ) .
How can t h i s i d i o s y n c r a t i c usage of p h i l o s o p h i c a l terminology be e x p l a i n -
ed? Looking to the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n , we f i n d a f i n e p a r a l l e l at Cicero
Leg.1.59, nam qui se i p s e n o r i t primum a l i q u i d se habere s e n t i e t divinum i n -
geniumque i n se suum s i c u t simulaevum a l i q u o d dicatum p u t a b i t ( c f . Boyance REG
76(1963)109). The m o t i f i s based on a combination of Tim.90a,c ( i . e . the 6au-
y w v ) and the ev6o$ev a y c t X y a T a at Symp. 215b3. Another P l a t o n i c text may a l s o
have c o n t r i b u t e d , Tim.37c6-7, i n which the cosmos or the heavens are c a l l e d a
Muvri^ev nai x w v ab6uwv § e w v a y a X y a , i . e . a s h r i n e f o r the heavenly bodies
( c f . Cornford 99-102). Since man i s a (Spcxxus x o o y o s (Mos .2.135) or an 3paxus
o u p a v o g (Opif.82), he can be considered to c a r r y an a y a X y a i n h i s head or d y d -
X y a T a i n h i s mind, j u s t l i k e the heavens c o n t a i n the c e l e s t i a l bodies ( s t a r s
are c a l l e d a y a X y a T a at Opif .53, Abr. 159, QG 4.87). We r e c a l l the theme of the
c i r c u i t s of the mind ( c f . Tim.47a-c and see above I I 7.2.4.), i n which the
thoughts i n the mind are seen as analogous to the s t a r s i n the heavens.
The antecedents and p a r a l l e l s so f a r d i s c u s s e d are a necessary but h a r d l y
a s u f f i c i e n t e x p l a n a t i o n f o r P h i l o ' s p r e d i l e c t i o n f o r the metaphor of image-
bearer or statue-bearer. My c o n v i c t i o n i s that the metaphor's appeal i s p r i -
m a r i l y due to the c o n n e c t i on which P h i l o p e r c e i v e s with the foundation of h i s
anthropology, the Mosaic d o c t r i n e that man i s made according to the image of
God (Gen.1:26-27). Just as some people represent t h e i r gods by means of l i f e -
l e s s s t a t u e s , so man or h i s r a t i o n a l part can be d e s c r i b e d as a l i v i n g image
of the d i v i n e Logos. We s h a l l r e t u r n to t h i s theme i n the f o l l o w i n g sub-sec-
tion.

10.1.5. The d o u b l e a c c o u n t o f man's creation

P h i l o ' s l o y a l t y to the i p s i s s i m a verba of the Mosaic cosmogony, expressl y

announced i n Opif.4-6, e n t a i l s that he a l s o must come to terms with the double

account of the c r e a t i o n of man given i n Gen.1:26-31 and 2:4-7. Already more

 II 10.1.5. 291

than eighty years ago Horovitz suggested that a monograph be devoted to the
treatment of t h i s problem (95). More r e c e n t l y Nikiprowetzky renewed the call
(REJ 124(1965)298). Such a study would encounter severe d i f f i c u l t i e s ; i t is
not s u r p r i s i n g that i t has as yet not been undertaken. In the meantime an
ever-growing p i l e of more l i m i t e d s c h o l a r l y d i s c u s s i o n s can be consulted.
Short b i b l i o g r a p h y on the problem: Horovitz 95-103; B r e h i e r 121-126; B i l l i n g s
39; Schmidt 3-10; K.Steur, Poimandres en P h i l o ( d i s s . Nijmegen, Purmerend
1935) 100-162; Wolfson 1.307,389-395; H.Merki, 'Oyouowous 8eo>: von der p l a t o -
nischen Angleichung an Gott zur G o t t a h n l i c h k e i t b e i Gregor von Nyssa ( F r e i b u r g
i n der Schweiz 1952) 75-83; Bormann 22-26; R.McL.Wilson Studia P a t r i s t i c a 424,
The Gnostic problem 42&n.129; J . J e r v e l l , Imago D e i : Gen1,26f. im Spatjudentum,
i n der Gnosis und i n den p a u l i n i s c h e n B r i e f e n (Gottingen 1960) 52-70; N i k i p r o -
wetzky REJ 124(1965)198; C.Kannengiesser, P h i l o n et l e s Peres sur l a double
f

c r e a t i o n de l'homme PAL 277-297; Baer 14-35 (much indebted, he informs us,

1

to B.A.Stegmann, C h r i s t , the 'Man from heaven ( d i s s . Washington 1927)', quid

1

non v i d i ) ; A.J.M.Wedderburn, ' P h i l o 's 'Heavenly man' (Gen.1:26ff.) NT 15(1973) 1

301-326; T e r i a n 131.

Needless to say, the present d i s c u s s i o n cannot take i n t o consideration

a l l relevant t e x t s and secondary m a t e r i a l , so i t s aims must remain very modest.
I t s primary i n t e n t i o n i s to examine the extent to which the anthropological
d o c t r i n e s of the Timaeus have aided P h i l o i n r e s o l v i n g the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e
problems posed by the double account of man's c r e a t i o n .

Our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s based on the f o l l o w i n g observations.

1. As exegete P h i l o remains t r u e to the Mosaic t e x t . The difficulties of
that text - such as the r e l a t i o n between d i v i n e image and d i v i n e breath, the
meaning of genus and s p e c i e s , the d i v i s i o n between what was create d on the
s i x t h and seventh days, and so on - are not avoided. P h i l o assumes that these
d i f f i c u l t i e s conceal a p h i l o s o p h i c a l r a t i o n a l e , but does not c l a i m that h i s
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has e x c l u s i v e r i g h t s to the t r u t h .
2. When not engaged i n g i v i n g a d e t a i l e d running commentary on the double ac-
count of man's c r e a t i o n , he p r e f e r s to present a relatively straightforward
interpretation. On the s i x t h day both the 'true man' (pure mind) and man as
ouvdexov (mixture of r a t i o n a l and i r r a t i o n a l ) are created ( c f . Fug.71-72, a l s o
implied i n Opif.69). The two primary a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l t e x t s , Gen.1:26-27 and
2:7, are reconciled to a l a r g e degree. The man H a T ' e t H O v a deou and the i n -
breathing of the d i v i n e itveuua both r e f e r to man's g o d - l i k e p a r t , the vous or
r a t i o n a l soul ( c f . Det.80-86, Plant.18-20, Her.56).
3. But i n the running commentaries found i n O p i f . , Leg.I-II and QG I Philo
undertakes to e x p l a i n every d e t a i l of the B i b l i c a l account, and so tends to
keep the man of Gen.1:27 separate from the man created i n Gen.2:7. At Leg.
1.31 he speaks of the o u p a v u o s and the Yul'vos av^pwios. The attempt i s not
made to show that the mind created i n Gen.1:27 i s the same as the r a t i o n a l
part that i s inbreathed i n Gen.1:27.
292 ANALYSIS

4. At no stage, however, does P h i l o import i n t o h i s reading of the two texts

i n O p i f . the conception of the Idea of man, whether t h i s be i d e n t i f i e d with
the Logos or considered separate from him. Here we agree with Baer 22 ( c f .
a l s o T e r i a n 131), but run counter to the o p i n i o n of most s c h o l a r s . 1
Moreover
the n o t i o n of a Gnostic pre-Adamite Urmensch i s t o t a l l y i r r e l e v a n t to P h i l o s 1

interpretation.
5. An important d i f f e r e n c e must be noted between the p r e s e n t a t i o n i n Opif.
and that i n Leg.I-II (and to a l e s s e r extent i n QG I). In O p i f . man's s t r u c -
ture i s explained i n a cosmological perspective; i n Leg.I-II the dynamics of
that s t r u c t u r e are explored i n an a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e (see a l s o below
III 1.4.a-b). Thus i n Leg.I-II an a l l e g o r i c a l exegesis of Gen.2 i s given i n
terms of man and woman as v o u s and auadnaus, with the r e s u l t that the r u l e s of
the game are c o n s i d e r a b l y changed. I t i s p o i n t l e s s to make a c r o b a t i c attempts
to show that a l l the d e t a i l s of t h i s exegesis are c o n s i s t e n t with accounts i n
O p i f . and elsewhere. 2

The most important r e s u l t of the above observations i s that the man xax'
etxova deoO whose c r e a t i o n i s described i n Gen.1.27 i s man's mind or the r a -
t i o n a l part of h i s s o u l , not the paradeigmatic idea of man. A c r u c i a l touch-
stone f o r our contention i s the passage at Opif.134-135, f a r t h i s i s the text
which has most c l e a r l y suggested to commentators that P h i l o i n t e r p r e t s the two
accounts to denote the c r e a t i o n of Ideal and e m p i r i c a l man respectively.
There i s a v a s t d i f f e r e n c e , he says (§134), between the vuv TtAaodets avdpwitos
(i.e. i n 2:7) and the x a x a xqv euxova $eou yeyovcLs Ttpoxepov ( i . e . i n 1:27).
The d i f f e r e n c e i s made c l e a r i n a l i s t Q£ opposite features:

ô xaxà xriv eîxova

ailodrixos vorixos
fiôn uexéxwv T i o t o x n x o s tôéa xus n yévos n acppayus
éx awyaxos x a t ct>uxuS auveaxœç àaojuaxos
àvrip T] yuvri oux'appev ouxe %f\Xv
cpùaeb dvnxoç acpdapxoç cpôaeu
In §135 a further explanation i s given of what i s meant by the p e r c e p t i b l e man
created i n Gen.2:7. This man i s a o u v d e x o v , c o n s i s t i n g of e a r t h l y substance
and d i v i n e itveuua. The l a t t e r i s a colony (âtouxta) despatched from the u a x a -
pua M a i eùôauyœv tpuats ( c f . Opif. 146, Pet.90 and above I I 10.1.2.), through
which man reaches immortality xaxà xriv ôuàvotav, though he remains mortal xaxà
TO awua. C l e a r l y the d i v i n e TtveOua i s , i f not the r a t i o n a l part of the soul
itself, the ' i n f u s i o n ' which makes that part r a t i o n a l and thus immortal. It
i s p a r t i c u l a r l y the d e s c r i p t i o n of the 'man according to the image' as Lola
its n yivog n ocppaytS that could lead to the c o n c l u s i o n that P h i l o has i n mind
the Idea of man i n the t e c h n i c a l sense. We agree with Baer 30, however, that
this conclusion i s unnecessary. The opposed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n the man vuv
 II 10.1.5. 293

%Xao%eCg i s ( p e r c e p t i b l e ) q u a l i t y (TIOLOTIIS) or immanent form. But the v o u s i s

i n c o r p o r e a l and so cannot possess such immanent form. I t would seem that P h i l o

a p p l i e s terms o f t e n used of the paradeigmatic ideas here i n a loose sense.

(This i s i m p l i ed by the e x p r e s s i o n u6ea T_U£, as Baer point s out.)

But a greater d i f f i c u l t y must be faced. What i s P h i l o t r y i n g to achieve

w i t h the c o n t r a s t between these two men? Baer's s o l u t i o n i s that the 'moulded

man' i s the generic e a r t h l y man and the 'man according to the image' i s the

generic heavenly man ( i . e . the r a t i o n a l voug patterned a f t e r the image or Lo-

gos), while the man d e s c r i b ed i n §135 i s the f i r s t e m p i r i c a l or i n d i v i d u a l man.

The c l u e to t h i s view i s that P h i l o i n §134-135 uses the word 4>uxn to repre-

sent two d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s , the lower or i r r a t i o n a l soul i n §134, the ( r a t i o n a l )

soul that r e c e i v e s the d i v i n e ixveuua i n §135. This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s not con-

vincing. I b e l i e v e that the c o n t r a s t that P h i l o has i n mind i s between the

'true man' and man i n his corporeal existence, and that the man described in

§135 i s the same as the man vuv TcAaodeus i n §134 ( i . e . there i s no terminolo -

g i c a l ambiguity i n the use of cpuxn) • As we noted above, P h i l o , though e l s e -

where tending to r e c o n c i l e Gen.1.26-27 and 2:7, i n h i s more d e t a i l e d exegesis

does not regard the voOs c r e a t ed i n the former t e x t as the r a t i o n a l or d i v i n e

part of the composite man created i n the latter text. The reason f o r t h i s , we

must surmise, i s the r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t , when man's g o d - l i k e part i s stationed

i n the body, i t i s so d i s t r a c t e d by i t s corporeal entanglements tha t i t be-

comes a shadow of i t s true s e l f . The 'man according to the image' i s thus man

as he r e a l l y i s , i . e . as he should and can be when the cares of the body have

e n t i r e l y f a l l e n away. 3
This man can be seen as an i d e a l i z a t i o n , but not i n the

sense of being a paradeigmatic exemplar and p a r t of the n o e t i c world. He is

s a i d to be v o n x o s because h i s e x i s t e n c e i s i n t e l l e c t u a l l y apprehended, but

a l s o perhaps because he contemplates or even becomes e n r o l l e d h i m s e l f i n the

n o e t i c realm (see above I I 10.1.3.).

Our conclusion, t h e r e f o r e , i s that P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Mosaic

double account of man's c r e a t i o n must be regarded as o p e r a t i n g at a number of

levels.

(1) The two anthropological t e x t s f u r n i s h e d by Moses, Gen.1:26-27 and 2:7,

form the foundation on which P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of man is built.

(2) The b a s i c p h i l o s o p h i c a l theory which s u p p l i e s the c l u e to the i n t e r p r e t a -

t i o n of the above t e x t s i s P l a t o n i c . Man i s a composite being, c o n s i s t i n g of

body and soul. Part of t h i s s o u l i s i r r a t i o n a l and remains i n e x t r i c a b l y t i e d

up with the f u n c t i o n i n g of the body. Only w i th regard to h i s r a t i o n a l s o u l or

mind i s man immortal and shows a resemblance to God his creator. While encum-

bered by i t s c o r p o r e a l e x i s t e n c e man's v o u s cannot r e a l i z e i t s tru e p o t e n t i a l

and man cannot become h i s tru e self.

294 ANALYSIS

(3) Superimposed on the t e x t s and the b a s i c P l a t o n i s i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n are

other issues which are d e a l t with as they come. These i n c l u d e the relation
between genus and species ( i n c l u d i n g the o r i g i n of the male and female sex),
the theory of the Logos, the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of the vous and auodnots a l l e g o r y .
These issues e n r i c h (and sometimes obfuscate) the b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , but do
not s u b s t a n t i a l l y modify i t .

The Timaeus, which f u r n i s h e s the c l e a r e s t account of P l a t o ' s anthropology

and moreover places i t i n a c r e a t i o n i s t i c framework, played a r o l e of major
importance i n P h i l o ' s r e s o l u t i o n of the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e problems of the double
account of man's c r e a t i o n , such as have been o u t l i n e d above. The c o n t r a st be-
tween the man xax'etxova %eov and the man vuv TtAaodets i s e s s e n t i a l l y that be-
tween the d i v i n e and l e a d i n g part created by the demiurge (41d) and man the
ouvaucpoxepov created when the 'young gods' p l a c e the d i v i n e part i n the body
which they have constructed (and also add the i r r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l ) .
In the two a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l passages discussed above i n I I 10.1.2. P h i l o looks
at man as he i s i n h i s e a r t h l y e x i s t e n c e , i . e . p a r a l l e l to Tim.90a-d. In these
passages he p r e f e r s to r e c o n c i l e the two Mosaic t e x t s , c o n s i d e r i n g that a l s o
i n t h i s existence man's 'true s e l f i s present, a l b e i t dimly.

As an appendix to the above d i s c u s s i o n we must s t i l l p o i n t out a minor

c o n t r i b u t i o n of the Timaeus to P h i l o ' s e x p l a n a t i on of Gen.1:26-27. We return
b r i e f l y to the themes of d i v i n e image and statue already touched on i n II 10.
1 .4.
A Greek, i f confronted with the a f f i r m a t i o n that man was created xotx'eu-
xova $eou, would s u r e l y t h i n k of the countless statues of the gods a l l around
him i n the p o l i s i n which he lived. I f at a l l t r a i n e d i n philosophy, the
problem of anthropomorphism and theomorphism might come to h i s mind. Cotta's
r e p l y to the Epicurean V e l l e i u s i n C i c e r o DND 1.90 i s representative. It is
j u s t as l o g i c a l , he a f f i r m s , to say that gods are l i k e men as that men are
l i k e gods, but the l a t t e r i s more probable because the gods are e t e r n a l and
immortal, and so e x i s t e d before men were born. The l i k e n e s s of man to God or
the gods was a common theme i n ancient p h i l o s o p h i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , a t t r i b u t e d
i n t e r a l i o s to Pythagoras and Diogenes the Cynic. See the l i s t of examples at
Merki o p . c i t . 65-72, Pease ad Cic.DND 1.90. I t must be agreed with Merki 72,
however, that these examples lack the depth and importance which the theme
possesses i n J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n thought.

In the gradual development of the use of the term euxwv i n a more t e c h n i -

c a l sense, a number of t e x t s from the Timaeus played a significant role (cf.
Willms Euxo)v 22-24, Merki op.cit.65-66. These texts are: 29b2 xov6e xov xoo-
uov euxova xuvos, 92c7 euxwv xou vonxou ( v . l . TCOUTITOU), and (to a l e s s e r
 II 10.1.5. 295

extent) 37d5 euxw XUVTITOV xuva ailwvos. . .xpovov. In each case P l a t o i s t h i n k -

ing of a model/image r e l a t i o n between the world of ideas (as model) and the
s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e cosmos. As i s observed i n I I 2.3.3. and 10.3.1., however,
P h i l o shows the i n c l i n a t i o n to coalesce demiurge and model and regard the cos-
mos as image of i t s c r e a t o r , i n t h i s f o l l o w i n g the example of c e r t a i n P l a t o n -
ists (see a l s o I I 3.5.1. on 29e3 and 31a-b). Now given the c r u c i a l r o l e of
the macrocosm/microcosm r e l a t i o n i n the Timaeus, of which P h i l o shows himself
on more than one occasion p e r f e c t l y aware, i t i s only a small step from saying
that the macrocosm i s an image of i t s c r e a t o r to the c o n c l u s i o n that man the
microcosm i s the image of God (or of the Logos). Nowhere can we espy him ac-
t u a l l y t a k i n g t h i s step. But i n Opif.24-25, when adducing Gen.1:27 to show
that the xoauos vonxos i s n o t h i ng e l s e than the deou Xoyos n6n XOOUOIOUOUVTOS,

he takes the step i n r e v e r s e . I f man, as part of the cosmos, i s an image of

the Logos as God s image, then the cosmos as the whole must a l s o be an image
f

of the Logos.

There i s an obvious d i f f i c u l t y . For P l a t o the cosmos i s a v i s i b l e image

of a n o e t i c , i . e . i n v i s i b l e , paradigm. This i s q u i t e n a t u r a l , f o r when one
thinks of an image or s t a t u e , i t i s the e x t e r n a l aspect that f i r s t comes to
mind. But man's l i k e n e s s to God i s , according to P h i l o , not due to h i s v i s i b l e
p a r t , but on account of h i s i n v i s i b l e mind ( c f . the emphatic statement at Opif.
69). Merki op.cit.65-72, i n a f i n e a n a l y s i s of the motif of man as euxwv §eou
i n n o n - C h r i s t i a n l i t e r a t u r e shows that by the time of Neoplatonism the motif
had been e x t r a p o l a t e d beyond i t s P l a t o n i c o r i g i n s and given a s p i r i t u a l dimen-
s i o n (cf.69 , i m Neoplatonismus i s t der B i l d b e g r i f f s p i r i t u a l i s i e r t und
f
ver-
innerlicht ). 1
See, f o r example, Plot.Enn.1.2.8.27-31, 6.9.11.42-45 (both pro-
t r e p t i c passages); examples i n Middle Platonism are scarce ( i n Plut.Mor.780E
the r u l e r i s image of GodJ. Merki regards the S t o i c - P o s i d o n i a n auyYeveua
motif and the P l a t o n i s t development of the ouotwous theme as d e c i s i v e i n b r i n g -
ing about t h i s change. I t i s evident that the greater the emphasis on the
s p i r i t u a l nature of d e i t y and i t s i n c o r p o r e a l or even transcendent s t a t u s , the
more l i k e l y i t became that man's l i k e n e s s to the gods or God would be seen i n
his i n c o r p o r e a l and s p i r i t u a l p a r t , i . e . the vous or r a t i o n a l s o u l .

10.1.6. S i x important themes

As P l a t o brings the long s e c t i o n on the nature and s t r u c t u r e of man to a

c l o s e , he permits himself a b r i e f p r o t r e p t i c f l o u r i s h . 1
I f man cultivates his
r a t i o n a l part and devotes a l l h i s e f f o r t s to the p u r s u i t of knowledge and t r u t h ,
he w i l l g a i n h i s true end, immortality and a b l e s s e d l i f e s i m i l a r to that
296 ANALYSIS

enjoyed by the gods. When the d i v e r s e themes of Tim.90a-d are l i s t e d - cptAo-

uotdua (90b6,cf.d3), a u y y e v e u a (90c8,cf .d3), ouotwaus (90d4-5), xpocpn (90c7),
adavaaua (90c2,cf.d6-7), eu6auuovi.a (90c5,cf .d5-7) , as w e l l as the themes of
voOs as 6auuu)v, man as oupavuov cpuxov, the contemplation of the heavens - one
i s s t r u c k by the seminal power of the passage and the c r e a t i v e impulses which
it s u p p l i e d to l a t e r philosophy and l i t e r a t u r e . To be sure, a l l these themes
are d e a l t with, o f t e n at greater length, elsewhere i n P l a t o ' s w r i t i n g s . It i s
t h e i r concentration i n a small compass that gives t h i s tex t i t s power and i n -
fluence.
P h i l o ' s use of each of the above-mentioned themes could p r o f i t a b l y be
made the subject of a d e t a i l e d p i e c e of research. In t h i s sub-section we s h a l l
c o n f i n e ourselves to a b r i e f i n d i c a t i o n of t h e i r importance f o r h i s thought,
s i n g l i n g out the occurrences i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi f o r s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n .

^' cpiAoyadLa. In P h i l o ' s a l l e g o r i c a l exegesis the man who has received

i n s t r u c t i o n ( u a d n a u s ) plays an important r o l e . The philosophe r (Spec.3.191)
and the man of heaven i n p u r s u i t of xct eYXuxAua and xot vonxoi (Gig.60) are de-
s c r i b e d as cpuAouadeCs. In the l a t t e r case he i s i n f e r i o r to the man of God
who i s d i r e c t l y e n r o l l e d i n the itoAuxeta of the n o e t i c world. Judah symboli-
zes the l o v e r of l e a r n i n g who goes i n t o Tamar, r e p r e s e n t i n g v i r t u e (Congr.125,
exeg. Gen.38:16). But the great embodiment of the quest f o r i n s t r u c t i o n i n
P h i l o ' s a l l e g o r i e s i s the p a t r i a r c h Abraham ( c f . Earp EE 10.277), who l e f t h i s
own land, the s e n s i b l e realm, i n search of God and the realm of i n t e l l i g i b l e
being (Gen. 12:1-9, c f . Abr.88) . Compare P l a t o ' s view that p a t r i o t s c a n
take
p l a c e through contemplation of the heavenly c i r c u i t s , but that the r e a l object
of knowledge l i e s beyond (see above I I 7.2.3.). On the theme of uadnaus i n
P h i l o see esp. Volker 158-198 ( a l so B i l l i n g s 85-86), who r i g h t l y emphasizes
that f o r P h i l o God i s the source of knowledge and he must lead the l e a r n er i n
the quest f o r t r u t h ( 1 6 2 f f . ) .

2' auYYeveua. The concept of ovyyeveba represents i n the most general

sense the k i n s h i p or f a m i l y r e l a t i o n that e x i s t s between man and the d i v i n e .
The auYYeveua which the Timaeus emphasizes ( c f . a l s o 47b8) i s that between
man's r a t i o n a l soul and the heavenly beings (a d i r e c t r e s u l t of the p a r a l l e l
c r e a t i o n by the demiurge of the cosmic soul and human soul out of s i m i l a r i n -
gredients i n the mixing bowl; cf.35a,41d). P h i l o r e p o r ts the o p i n i o n of the
philosophers that man i s r e l a t e d by k i n s h i p to the e t h e r i a l substance of hea-
ven (and i m p l i c i t l y a l s o to i t s i n h a b i t a n t s ) , but immediately adds that Moses
p r e f e r s to l i k e n man's r a t i o n a l soul t o God, f o r i t has r e c e i v e d the imprint
of the e t e r n a l d i v i n e Logos (Plant.18, c f . Decal.134), 2
Man i s akin to God be-
cause he has r e c e i v e d the g i f t of the r a t i o n a l f a c u l t y (Opif.77) , because the
 II 10.1.6. 297

d i v i n e s p i r i t has been breathed i n t o him (Opif.144, exeg. Gen.2:7), because he

possesses 6uavoua (Opif.146). Other texts which s t r e s s the k i n s h i p between
man and God or h i s Logos are Spec.4.14, Praem.163, QG 2.45,62, QE 2.29. On
t h i s theme i n P h i l o see Alexandre's long note on Congr.177 at FE 16.228. In
the monograph that E.Des Places has devoted to the study of the development of
the theme, Syngeneia: l a parente de l'homme avec Dieu d'Homereala P a t r i s t i q u e
(Paris 1964), he d i s r e g a r d s the evidence found i n P h i l o . This i s a p i t y , not
only f o r students of P h i l o , but a l s o f o r Des P l a c e s ' book, f o r P h i l o ' s contri-
b u t i o n represents a v i t a l b r i d g e between Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l ideas and P a t r i -
stic thought.

3* Quota)aus. This concept i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the previous one but

represents, instead of a state of a f f a i r s based on b i r t h or one's nature, the
dynamic process of becoming l i k e unto the d i v i n e or God. One might put i t
thus: because man shares a f a m i l y r e l a t i o n with God (however d i s t a n t ) , he i s
i n a p o s i t i o n to draw near t o him and become l i k e him. The development of
t h i s theme from i t s o r i g i n s i n P l a t o to the Greek P a t r i s t i c authors has been
thoroughly examined by H.Merki i n h i s study 'QUOUOJOLS 8eq): von der p l a t o n i -
schen Angleichung an Gott zur G o t t a h n l i c h k e i t b e i Gregor von Nyssa, i n which
the importance of P h i l o as the l i n k between Greek philosophy and the Patres
has been f u l l y recognized. (See now a l s o B . B e l l e t t i , 'La d o t t r i n a dell'assi-
m i l a z i o n e a Dio i n F i l o n e d i A l e s s a n d r i a ' Riv.Filos.Neo-scol.74(1982)419-440.)

The c e l e b r a t e d P l a t o n i c slogan OUOLWOUS i s d e r i v e d i n the f i r s t p l a c e

from Tht.176a ( c f . a l s o Rep.613b). But to what d i v i n i t y must ouotwous take
place? In Rep.500c i t i s the e t e r n a l ideas, i n Tim.90d i t i s the r a t i o n a l
c i r c u i t s of the heavenly bodies ( i . e . i n the cosmic s o u l ) . In the last-men-
tioned passage ouotwous i s d i r e c t l y connected with the x l X o s , man's aim i n
l i f e or h i s t r u e end (90d5). T h i s must have encouraged later Platonists,
s t a r t i n g with Eudorus, to see i n the formula ouotwous %e§ P l a t o ' s response to
the q u e s t i o n of man's T E A O S , i n c o n t r a s t to the v a r i o u s xeAos-formulas of the
Stoics. On O U O L W O L S detp as the xeAos f o r man's l i f e i n Middle Platonism ( i t
occurs i n v i r t u a l l y every author) see above I 4.n.108, Merki 1-2, D o r r i e EH V
214ff., M o r e s c h i n i 'Die S t e l l u n g . . . ' 227-232, L i l l a 106-112, D i l l o n 122,192,299.

Although P h i l o c e r t a i n l y does not use the formula ououwous exclusive-

l y f o r man's T E A O S (he a l s o employs the S t o i c and Pythagorean v e r s i o n s , c f .
D i l l o n 145-146), the theme i s given an honoured p l a c e i n h i s t h i n k i n g on the
r e l a t i o n between God and man (the source Tht.176a i s quoted verbatim at Fug.
63). The f i r s t man, 3
f r e s h l y inbreathed with the d i v i n e s p i r i t , could consort
w i t h the A o Y t x a l n a i % e Z a L cpuoets of heaven i n a s t a t e of p e r f e c t f e l i c i t y and
f o l l o w God i n the paths of v i r t u e (the Pythagorean T E A O S , ETIOU §£$), f o r only
those souls can approach God who consider i t t h e i r T E A O S to become l i k e their
298 ANALYSIS

begetter (Opif.144). o u o t w a t s must t h e r e f o r e be d i r e c t e d towards God the cre-

a t o r , and not to the heavenly bodies (as i n the Timaeus), although these can
lead the way by showing man how to l i v e a p e r f e c t and b l i s s f u l life. In Opif.
151 we encounter a d i f f e r e n t accentuation of the theme. Before the creation
of woman man was alone, WUOLOUXO x a x a xnv yovwouv HOOUU; Mai deep... (cf. also
Abr.87). Merki 40-41 i s somewhat at a l o s s here, and suggests the influence
of the S t o i c - C y n i c d o c t r i n e of a u x a p x e u a and of Neopythagoreanism. But the
a d d i t i o n of n a i xoouu) i n d i c a t e s that P h i l o has t r a n s f e r r e d the r e l a t i o n of
ouobojots between model and cosmos i n Tim.30c-31b (note c7 o y o t o x a x o v , d3 oyou-

woau, b1 naxa xr)v y o v w o tv ououov) to the r e l a t i o n God/cosmos/man (see above I I

3.5.1.).

For a f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n of P h i l o n i c t e x t s where the theme of ouotoiot s

occurs the reader i s r e f e r r e d to Merki 35-44. He concludes that P h i l o has not
managed to i n t e g r a t e the theme very w e l l i n t o h i s thought, f o r , whereas i n h i s
euKwv theory the Logos almost always f u n c t i o n s as intermediary, the ououwats
motif i s r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to God himself. This c o n c l u s i o n i s i n two respects
unsatisfactory. F i r s t l y the f a c t that Merki d i d not consult the 'Armenian 1

P h i l o caused him to overlook the important passage i n QG 2.62 (exeg.Gen.9:6,

Greek f r a g , at FE 33.116):**
$vn.xov yap ou6ev onteuMovuodnvaL T t p o s xov avwxaxu) Mai itaxepa xu3v oAwv e6u-
v a x o , aXXa upos xov 6euxepov $ e o v , 6g eoxuv exeuvou Aoyog. e 6 e u yap xov
A o y t x o v ev avdpwuou cj>uxrj X U T C O V U T I O d e t o u Aoyou x a p a x ^ n v a u , e T t e u 6 n o Ttpo
xou Aoyou %e6g npeioow v e a x t v n T t a a a A o y t x n cpuots* xcjj 6e uiiep xov Aoyov
ev xij ^EXTCOTX^ Mai T I V I e^otupexa; Kadeoxwxt i d e a ou6ev deuus ?iv y e v n x o v
eCoyouwdfjvab.
This i s an extremely problematic text (see below II 2.6.n.30), but i t does
show P h i l o s awareness of the problem that a s s i m i l a t i o n to God
f
cannot proceed
beyond a c e r t a i n l e v e l of transcendence. 5
In most cases, however, he prefers
to repeat the accepted formula r a t h e r than delve i n t o t h e o l o g i c a l d e t a i l . In
f a c t , and t h i s i s my second o b j e c t i o n , P h i l o ' s theology i s l e s s s t r a i g h t - f o r -
ward than Merki, with h i s d i s t i n c t i o n between transcendent God and intermedi-
ate Logos, appears to r e a l i z e . $eos as one of God's names can represent the
' l e v e l ' of the Logos. See f u r t h e r below I I I 2.5-7.
4. xpocpn. When P l a t o a f f i r m s that the r i g h t % e p a n e i a f o r man's r a t i o n a l
part i s to give i t the appropriate food, he n a t u r a l l y does not mean p h y s i c a l
food, but r a t h e r the i n t e l l e c t u a l food supplied ( f o r example) by contemplation
of the heavens ( c f . a l s o Phdr.246e,247c-e). The c o n t r a s t between e a r t h l y food
and heavenly food i s one of P h i l o ' s f a v o u r i t e themes ( c f . Opif.158, Leg.3.161-
168 (exeg. Gen.3:14) e t c . ) , n e a r l y always r e l a t e d to the showering of manna on
the people of I s r a e l (Ex.16:4,15). Manna symbolizes the d i v i n e Logos, through
whom knowledge and wisdom i s transmitted to man ( c f . Her.79,191 e t c . ) . 6
The
expression oupavua xpocpri i s found, i n a d d i t i o n to the above-mentioned t e x t s ,
 I I 10.1.6. 299

at Congr. 100, Fug.137, Mos.2.266,270, QG 2.59, c f . a l s o Sacr.86, Mut.259, QG

4.6, QE 2.39. That P h i l o i s aware of the presence of the theme of heavenly

food i n the Timaeus i s proven by h i s a d a p t a t i o n of Tim.90a-d i n Pet.85 (on

which see f u r t h e r I I 10.1.2.):

o $eos... av§po)7iou 6 e ( x r j v necpaAriv) e i g T O a v w T i p o a Y a y w v , uva Tag xpocpas

oAuyituous nai acpddpxous aAAa yn yeuideLg nai cpdapxots CXOL.

On the theme of heavenly food i n P h i l o see f u r t h e r P.Borgen, Bread from heaven:

an e x e g e t i c a l study of the concept of Manna i n the Gospel of John and the w r i -

t i n g s of P h i l o (Leiden 1965), esp. 127-130.

5. qflavaoua. The f i r m c o n v i c t i o n of man's immortality ( i . e . of h i s r a -

t i o n a l p a r t ) i s so u b i q u i t o u s i n P h i l o (e.g. Opif.77,134-135,154 e t c . ) and i s

such an i n t e g r a l part of h i s thought that one i s i n c l i n e d to f o r g e t that the

n o t i o n of otdavaota i s wholly f o r e i g n to the Mosaic w r i t i n g s whichheundertak.es

to expound ( c f . K i t t e l TDNT 3.24, Wolfson 1.396-400). But w i t h h i s P l a t o n i -

c a l l y t i n t e d s p e c t a c l e s on P h i l o does not have the l e a s t d i f f i c u l t y in finding

the d o c t r i n e of immortalit y of the s o u l i n t e x t s such Gen.3:3 ( c f . Somn.2.70),

Gen.15:15 ( c f . QG 3.11), Gen.25:8 ( c f . Her.275-283) and so on.

6. eu6auyovba. The remarks which have j u s t been made on the n o t i o n of

adavaoua can, mutatis mutandis, e q u a l l y be a p p l i e d to the theme of eu6auyovua.

The words e u 6 a u y u ) v / e u 6 a u y o v u a are wholly absent i n the LXX (yaxdpuos i s pre-

f e r r e d ) , whil e a c c o r d i ng to Mayer's (incomplete) index eu6atyu>v and i t s d e r i v -

a t i v e s occur 203 times i n P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s . eu6auyovua i s for Philo virtually

i n s e p a r a b l e from the xeAos of man's l i f e and the a c q u i s i t i o n of i m m o r t a l i t y .

In t h i s he d i r e c t l y f o l l o w s Tim.90c-d, where these themes are p r e g n a n t ly c l u s -

tered together (the words xeAos apuoxou 3t,ou i n d5-6 r e f e r back to the eu6au-

yovCa a l r e a d y introduce d at c 6 ) . The d i f f i c u l t y w i t h the n o t i o n of eu6atyovua

i s t h a t , more so than i n the case of oyouojots or adavaoua, i t must be given

i t s own c o n t e n t. N a t u r a l l y t h i s a l s o a p p l i e s w i t h i n the Greek t r a d i t i o n it-

self. The f e l i c i t y a t t r i b u t e d by Solon to C l e o b i s and B i t o n (Herodotus 1.32)

i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t to what P l a t o has i n mind.

A s e l e c t i o n of the a c t i v i t i e s or c o n d i t i o n s which P h i l o d e s c r i b e s as con-

s t i t u t i n g e u 6 a u y o v L . a can be l i s t e d as f o l l o w s :

Opif.144: c o n s o r t i n g w i t h the c e l e s t i a l beings

Opif.172: s u b s c r i b i n g to the f i v e p r i c e l e s s d o c t r i n e s
Pet.86: g a i n i n g knowledge of God
Abr. 157: p r a c t i s i n g apexri
Mos.2.212: engaging i n the p u r s u i t of philosoph y
Pecal.100: worshipping God on the sabbath through contemplation and self-
examination
QG 4.4: the presence of God
QG 4.147: oyotwaus deep
QE fr.12 (FE 33.291): T O anAuvws nai appeitws tv yovap $e§ oxnvau.

On the b a s i s of such evidence (and more) V o l k e r 344 concludes:

300 ANALYSIS

So f l i e s s t d i e e u ö a t u o v u a s c h l i e s s l i c h mit der c t c p d a p a t a zusammen, und s i e

i s t i d e n t i s c h mit dem O T f j v a L , mit der x d p a , der e u p r i v n , der dvduauous —
a l l e s nur Umschreibungen für eine Haltung des Frommen, der ganz Gott l e -
ben w i l l . M i t der g r i e c h i s c h e n Fassung der euöatuovua hat d i e s n i c h t s
mehr zu tun, es i s t eine jüdische E i n s t e l l u n g , d i e h i n t e r alle m s i c h t b a r
w i r d : der Fromme, der im Dienste Gottes und i n der Erfüllung der Gebote
Aufgabe und Glück seines Daseins s i e h t , der e i n Leben i n Gott führen w i l l .
Um diesen Kern gruppieren s i c h eine Fülle von Theorien, Anschauungen,
Termini, d i e der P h i l o s o p h i e entlehnt s i n d ; s i e geben der Konzeption e t -
was Schwankendes, schwer zu F i x i e r e n d e s .

The sharp a n t i t h e s i s between J u d a i c core and Greek p e r i p h e r y which Völker de-

picts i s one-sided and p a t e n t l y d i s t o r t s the nature of P h i l o * s thought.

No one w i l l deny that P h i l o s conception

!
of euöatuovL-a i s fundamentally

God-orientated. In t h i s he departs from P l a t o ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the Timaeus

(where i t i s not s a i d that euöauuovua c o n s i s t s i n forming a r e l a t i o n t o the

demiurge), but agrees w i t h important developments i n the P l a t o n i s t tradition

(see f u r t h e r below I I I 3.3.). Völker h i m s e l f observes (340) that P h i l o r e -

gards God as the epitomy of euoaupovi-a ( O p i f . 135, Cher.86, Pet.90, Abr.202

etc.). I f euoatuovta f o r P h i l o c o n s i s t e d only i n t a k i n g one's refuge i n God,

f u l f i l l i n g h i s commands and so on, i t would be p a r a d o x i c a l to a t t r i b u t e eüöau-

u o v ua to God h i m s e l f ( f o r whom would he take refuge i n ? ! — note that i n the

LXX God i s never d e s c r i b e d as u a x d p u o s , c f . K i t t e l TPNT 4.365). God i s , ac-

c o r d i n g t o P h i l o , supremely euoaouajv as the r e s u l t of the nature of h i s being

and activity, i . e . h i s oneness, transcendence, e t e r n i t y , i m p a s s i b i l i t y , good-

ness, wisdom and i n t e l l e c t u a l mode of e x i s t e n c e . Man i s eüöauuwv inasmuch as

he r e c e i v e s these d i v i n e a t t r i b u t e s as g i f t s and draws h i m s e l f nearer to God.

In s p i t e of changes of emphasis, the i n f l u e n c e of Greek thought (and e s p e c i a l -

ly Plato) i s evident.

F i n a l l y we note that P h i l o i s s e n s i t i v e to the p r o t r e p t i c f o r c e e x e r c i s e d

by the c a l l t o euöauuovta. Three of h i s t r e a t i s e s c o n t a i n p e r o r a t i o n s which

climax i n the promise o f a l i f e of p e r f e c t f e l i c i t y : Con tempi. 90 e n ' a u x r i v dx-

poinTd cpSdvov euöauuovuas (the l a s t words of the t r e a t i s e ) , O p i f . 172, Spec. 1.

345 (combined with ddavotoua). P h i l o ' s l i t e r a r y technique emulates the way

that P l a t o climaxes h i s account of man's c r e a t i o n i n Tim.90c-d. 7

10.2. Woman a n d t h e l o w e r a n i m a l s ( T i m . 9 0 e - 9 2 c )

10.2.1. Woman, p o s t e r i o r and i n f e r i o r t o man ( 9 0 e - 9 1 a )

The i n f e r i o r p o s i t i o n of woman i s i n d i c a t e d , a c c o r d i n g to P h i l o , by the

f a c t that she i s c r e a t ed p o s t e r i o r to man. The p a r a l l e l between the Mosaic

and the P l a t o n i c cosmogony i n the p l a c e given to woman i n the c r e a t i o n a l

 II 10.2.1. 301

sequence i s immediately obvious, even i f Eve i s created out of Adam's sid e

(Gen.2:21), i n contrast to P l a t o ' s i n v o c a t i o n of the d o c t r i n e of metempsychosis. 1

In the De o p i f i c i o mundi P h i l o r e f r a i n s from g i v i n g the d e t a i l s of woman's

c r e a t i o n , saying no more than enel 6 ' e i t A d o $ r | Mau y\)vr\... (§151). In a manner
wholly p a r a l l e l to P l a t o ' s procedure i n the Timaeus, and moreover c o n s i s t e n t
with Gen.2:24, P h i l o emphasizes that the c r e a t i o n of woman e n t a i l s the begin-
ning of human s e x u a l i t y . The d e s c r i p t i o n of the process of e p w g (§152) i s
c l e a r l y based on the p l a y f u l speech of Aristophanes i n the Symposium (cf.191a,
d,192e-193a). In the Timaeus the same theory (derived from Empedocles) i s set
out i n a l e s s extravagant form i n 91a-b. I t i s probable that a reading of the
Timaeus prompted P h i l o to reproduce the theory of e p w s from the Symposium
s t r a i g h t a f t e r the c r e a t i o n of woman. P h i l o ' s extreme view i n §152 that sex-
ual d e s i r e i s the a6uMnuoiTU)V nai T t a p a v o n u d i c o v a p x n which converts man's l i f e
from immortality and b l i s s to m o r t a l i t y and misery f i n d s support n e i t h e r i n
t n e
Timaeus ( i n 90e7 men are already 6euAou and a6tHou before woman i s created)
nor i n Genesis.

P h i l o ' s deprecatory views on the female sex can only be understood i f one
recognizes that they are coupled to fundamental metaphysical, psychological
and p h y s i o l o g i c a l assumptions (see above I I 8.2.1.). Even so they do him lit-
tle credit. See the competent a n a l y s i s i n Baer's monography (esp. 35-44,87-
88). Most commonly P h i l o a l l e g o r i z e s the r e l a t i o n between male and female
i n t o that between v o u g and ai'o%T]0\ g. J On the p a r a l l e l between P l a t o ' s theory
of metempsychosis and the r e s u l t s of P h i l o ' s a l l e g o r i c a l method see the fol-
lowing sub-section.

Although the metaphor of the womb as f e r t i l e ploughland ( d p o u p c t ) i s a

commonplace i n Greek l i t e r a t u r e ( c f . LSJ ad l o c . ) , Cumont 22 i s c o r r e c t i n
suggesting that the v e r b a l resemblance between Aet.69 O T t e u p o v x o s u e v zig \IT\T-

pav d v 6 p o s ws zig apoupav and Tim.91d2 ihg zig apoupav i n v uriipav d o p a x a . . . C$a
H a x a o T t e u p a v T e s i s s u f f i c i e n t to c o n s t i t u t e an a l l u s i o n ( c f . a l s o the use of
Laws 838e at Spec.3.34, Contempl.62).

10.2.2. Men as a n i m a l s (91d-92c)

The use of the theory of metempsychosis i n h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of the crea-

t i o n of the lower animals enables P l a t o to emphasize s t r o n g l y the d i f f e r e n c e
between the i d e a l p i c t u r e of human existence depicted i n 90a-d and the mind-
l e s s e x i s t e n c e of the animals lower than man on the s c a l e of being. A descen-
ding s c a l e of d v o u a i s presented, beginning with the airborne and ending with
the aquatic c r e a t u r e s . I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the land
animals which has struc k P h i l o ' s a t t e n t i o n , and i n the f o l l o w i n g passages he
e x p l o i t s the d e l i b e r a t e c o n t r a s t made by P l a t o i n 90a and 91e.
302 ANALYSIS

Pet.85: Man the o u p d v t o v cpuxov i s compared with the other animals who were
made with t h e i r heads f i x e d to the ground. Part of the passage analysed above
i n I I 10.1.2.
Plant.16-17: As we saw above i n the same s u b - s e c t i o n , P h i l o d e s c r i b e s the i n -
h a b i t a n t s of the e a r t h i n the Mosaic sequence plants-*animal s -*man. Thus he
must a l t e r h i s adaptation of Tim.91e (and 90a) a c c o r d i n g l y . Nonetheless a
number of v e r b a l p a r a l l e l s demonstrate h i s dependence on the P l a t o n i c passage:
i d s xecpaAds d v e A x u o a s onto yf\£i Cf.91e7 i d s xecpaAds e t s yfjv e A x o u e v a ! The
vocabulary i s v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l , but P h i l o adapts i t to the sequence
plants-» animals, i n s t e a d of Plato's sequence man -»animals .
£Ttu xecpaAds a u x e v o s : Cf.91e8 rcpourixeus. . . i d s xopucpds.
£%C$aGbv: Cf.91e8 n p e t o a v , a l s o 92a3 $ d o e t s .
T O U S euTtpooftuous Tto6as: Cf.91e7 euitpoodua xcaAa. P l a t o ' s noun has no place
i n P h i l o ' s vocabulary, and so i s a l t e r e d .
In §17 the c o n t r a s t between the other land animals and man i s developed. The
downwards d i r e c t e d v i s i o n of the beasts ( i d s octets xdio) xducpas) i s only implied
i n P l a t o . P h i l o makes i t e x p l i c i t i n order to accentuate the c o n t r a s t with
man's upward v i s i o n .
Gig.31: Here P h i l o ' s use of Tim.91 i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t , f o r he i s concerned
with the c o n t r a s t between two types of men. Those who have r e c e i v e d the d i -
v i n e s p i r i t (exeg. Gen.6:3, c i t e d i n §19) are d o a p x o t x a t d o c o u a x o t ) ( c f . o d p x a s
i n the B i b l i c a l lemma), and spend t h e i r days i n contemplation i n the theatre
of the universe (Tim.90a t r a n s l a t e d i n terms of the Phaedrus myth). Those who
are weighed down by the f l e s h ( c f . the text again) are unable to d i r e c t t h e i r
v i s i o n to the o u p d v u ot Ttepuodou (cf.90d2). T h e i r necks are dragged downwards
( x d i w 6e eAxuodeuoat xov d u x e v a , c f .91e7) and l i k e f o u r - f o o t e d beasts (6txn,v
TexpaTto6u)V, cf.92a2) they stand rooted to the ground ( i . e . i n c o n t r a s t to the
way man's head should be rooted i n the heavens, cf.90a8). Cf. a l s o Her.78
where a s i m i l a r c o n t r a s t i s made.
QG 4.111:(exeg. Gen.24:23, Abraham's servant asks Rebecca whether there i s a
p l a c e to stay i n her f a t h e r ' s house): 'Since he was embarrassed by modest
shame l e s t he seem to boast too g r e a t l y and f r e e l y i n b e l i e v i n g that her l i n e -
age was heavenly and marvellous, he asks again immediately, "Is there indeed a
place and space f o r us with the Father i n the ether and heaven or, s t i l l h i g h -
er, with t h e i r governer, the d i v i n e Logos? For being there, we should leave
a l l mortal and c o r r u p t i b l e things behind. Or s h a l l we be a l t o g e t h e r kept back
and shut i n , planted and rooted i n the e a r t h and with heads bent down as i f we
were t r e e s on a c l i f f ? " ' U n t i l the f i n a l phrase t h i s passage i s almost en-
t i r e l y p a r a l l e l to the t r a i n of thought i n Gig.31. The image at the end d i s -
turbs the Timaeus reminiscence, and may w e l l be a g l o s s .
Anim.11: On t h i s passage see below II 10.2.3.
In the f i r s t two of these texts the animals are given a place i n the cos-
mic s c a l e of being. We s h a l l r e t u r n to t h i s theme i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n .
In the other two texts P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the earth-bound animals i s t r a n s -
f e r r e d m e t a p h o r i c a l ly to men who e x e r c i s e no r e s t r a i n t over t h e i r irrational
passions and appetites. P l a t o n i c metempsychosis i s converted to P h i l o n i c a l -
legory.

It i s h i g h l y problematic whether P h i l o accepts the d o c t r i n e of metempsy-

c h o s i s i n any form. Mostly he regards the sou l as being created by God at
man's b i r t h ( c f . Cher.114). But i n a number of texts (Gig.12-13, Plant.14,
Conf.77-82, Her.282-283, Somn.1.139) i t i s a f f i r m e d that i n c o r p o r e a l souls de-
scend i n t o bodies. Only once are we given the impression that i t i s a repeat-
able process (Somn. 1.139 TtaALv6pououau). I t would seem that these texts r e -
 I I 10.2.2. 303

present an aspect of Middle P l a t o n i s t d o c t r i n e which P h i l o does not regard as

e n t i r e l y unacceptable, but which he has not bothered to i n t e g r a t e f u l l y into
h i s thought. See f u r t h e r the d i s c u s s i o n at Baer 85-87. On the other hand,
there i s not a s i n g l e text i n P h i l o s w r i t i n g s which supports the theory of
f

the t r a n s m i g r a t i o n of the human soul i n t o the lower animals ( c f . Wolfson 407-

409; note a l s o the e x p l i c i t r e j e c t i o n by e a r l y C h r i s t i a n p h i l o s o p h e r s , e.g. at
Justin Dial.4-5). In t h i s P h i l o diverges from Middle P l a t o n i s t tradition
which continues to accept P l a t o ' s theory ( c f . Tim.Locr.86, Alb.Did.26.5, Num.
f r . 4 9 ; a f t e r P l o t i n u s the i s s u e becomes c o n t r o v e r s i a l , see H.Dorrie, 'Kontro-
versen urn d i e Seelenwanderung im k a i s e r z e i t l i c h e n Platonismus f
Hermes 85(1957)
414-435). Presumably he sees i t as an a s s a u l t on the d i g n i t y of man, who as
God's euxuiv has r e c e i v e d a s p e c i a l p l a c e i n the cosmic order.

But P h i l o i s a b l e , as we i n d i c a t e d , to achieve a s i m i l a r e f f e c t through

h i s method of a l l e g o r i c a l e x e g e s i s. A l l r e f e r e n c e s to beasts, b i r d s and fish
i n the B i b l i c a l texts can be i n t e r p r e t e d to represent the degrees of human
wickedness and degradation which P l a t o punishes w i t h t r a n s m i g r a t i o n i n t o a n i -
mals. In the context of P h i l o ' s use of Tim.91d-92c a p a r t i c u l a r l y apposite
example i s found at QG 2.56. The quaestio i s based on Gen.9:1-2, i n which God
b l e s s e s Noah and h i s sons and says, ' l e t the t e r r o r and f e a r of you be upon
the beasts and the b i r d s and the r e p t i l e s and the f i s h ' . The f o u r c a t e g o r i e s
of animals — b e a s t s, b i r d s , r e p t i l e s and f i s h e s - are a l l e g o r i z e d i n terms of
the domination of the mind over the v a r i o u s passions and the b o d i l y realm.
The four c a t e g o r i e s are i d e n t i c a l to those i n the Timaeus, but P h i l o appears
not to have used the thematic m a t e r i a l which the dialogue o f f e r s . Moreover
P l a t o speaks of descending degrees of a v o t a and aua§ta of which the soul i s
capable (91d7,92a4-5,b1-2), not the r e l a t i o n between mind and the passions
which must be brought under c o n t r o l . N e v e r t h e l e s s , when one c o n s i d e r s that
f o l l y and ignorance a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e s u l t i n the l o s s of c o n t r o l over the irra-
t i o n a l p a r t s of the soul and the body, i t i s c l e a r that the P l a t o n i c transmi-
g r a t i o n schema and the P h i l o n i c a l l e g o r y achieve the same r e s u l t .

Another i n t e r e s t i n g example of P h i l o ' s use of the idea of metempsychosis

i s found at Decal.8Q ( c f . Nikiprowetzky's note at FE 23.82). The Egyptians
who worship animals deserve to be r i d i c u l e d and p i t i e d . More wretched than
the animals they honour, t h e i r souls have been transformed (peTa3e(3Ar|X0Tas)
i n t o such animals and they wander about l i k e w i l d beasts i n human shape, ue-
Ta3otAAeuv i s the terminus technicus f o r the transformations that take p l a c e i n
the process of metempsychosis ( c f . Tim.42c3,92c3). On the extremely common
e x e g e t i c a l theme of the passions (or men who are c o n t r o l l e d by the passions)
as w i l d b e a s t s , see above I I 9.2.3.
304 ANALYSIS

F i n a l l y Plato's d e s c r i p t i o n of l e g l e s s r e p t i l e s must be b r i e f l y noted.

The more f o o l i s h the s o u l that has descended i n t o animals, the greater the

number of supports the animal i s given to connect i t to the e a r t h . The leg-

l e s s r e p t i l e s have t h e i r whole body s t r e t c h e d on the ground, and so are lower

on the s c a l e of f o l l y and ignorance than the f o u r - f o o t e d and many-footed spe-

cies (92a2-7). The a p p l i c a b i l i t y of P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n to the words which

God speaks to the serpent i n Gen.3:14, e i t T $ OTT)%£L OOV nai if) x o t X u a Tiopeuor)

Mai, yf)v cpctYfl i t a a a s Tag rjuepas T M S C^fis a o u , i s evident. Philo allegorically

i n t e r p r e t s t h i s v e r se a c c o r d i n g to h i s u s u a l exegesis of the snake, i . e . not

i n terms of f o l l y and ignorance, but to represent the enticements of pleasure

which cause the s o u l to abase i t s e l f and grovel i n the d i r t ( c f . the lengthy

exegeses at Opif.157-166, Leg.3.65-199, Migr.66-69, QG 1.48). Two pieces of

evidence i n d i c a t e , however, that P h i l o was aware of the p a r a l l e l between Moses

and Plato.

(1) He takes over the r a r e verb u A u a T i d o p a u which P l a t o uses (92a7) to describe

the c r a w l i n g or s l i t h e r i n g motion of a worm or a snake, and a p p l i e s i t to the
serpent or the p l e a s u r e which i t symbolizes; c f . Agr.97 x o v . . . T f i g y u v a u M o s
ocpuv. ..r|6ovr]v e u v a u c p a u e v , uAuaitoouevri v M a t l o A u i X o M W T a T n v , a v £ Y £ p § n v a u uf) 6u-
v a u e v n v , aiel M a T a g e f t A n y e v n v , Z K L u o v a i d yf\g e p i t o u a a v a y a d d . . . , a l s o Post.74,
Spec.3.1 , 4.113.
(2) Not only i n Agr.97, but a l s o i n two other t e x t s , Migr.64 and QG 2.69,
P h i l o observes that r e p t i l e s cannot r a i s e themselves up and contemplate the
heavenly r e v o l u t i o n s or t a s t e the heavenly food (cf.90a,91e).

In Migr.64 P h i l o i s engaged i n g i v i n g exegesis of Lev.11:42, the prescription

i n the Mosaic d i e t a r y laws concerning r e p t i l e s , which i n Migr.66-69 and Leg.3.

139 i s connected up w i t h Gen.3:14 ( c f . a l s o Spec.4.113, QG 2.57 (exeg. Gen.

9:3)). For Greek and Roman i n t e l l e c t u a l s the Jewish d i e t a r y laws were an ob-

j e c t of c u r i o s i t y or r i d i c u l e ( c f . Plur.Mor.669E-671C, Smallwood's note ad

Legat.361). Already i n the L e t t e r of A r i s t e a s (§143-166) an a l l e g o r i c a l ex-

planation i s put forward i n t h e i r defence. I t s u i t s P h i l o ' s purpose w e l l that

he can demonstrate the reasonableness of one of these p r e s c r i p t i o n s by means

of an implicit reference to P l a t o ' s placement of u t t e r l y f o o l i s h souls i n the

bodies of l e g l e s s earth-bound r e p t i l e s . As Hecht SPh 6(1979-80)108-115 shows,

P h i l o i n h i s treatment of the d i e t a r y laws i n Lev.11 i s c l e a r l y dependent on

e a r l i e r exegetical traditions. But, given the many other instances of Philo's

use of Tim.90a-92c, we are e n t i t l e d to conclude that the importation of ideas

from the Timaeus i s part of h i s own contribution.

10.2.3. The p l a c e o f a n i m a l s i n the cosmic order

I t was observed e a r l i e r i n our Commentary that P h i l o f i n d s support i n

P l a t o f o r a c o r r e l a t i o n between the elements/regions of the cosmos and the

 II 10.2.3. 305

v a r i o u s animal genera, f o r the conception of a f i x e d h i e r a r c h y of l i v i n g be-

ings i n the cosmos, and a l s o f o r the view that man i s the climax of the c r e a -
t i o n a l account ( I I 1.3.1. 5.4.3.). In h i s e x p l a n a t i o n of the v a r i o u s types of
animals and t h e i r r e l a t i o n to man i n Opif.62-68, P h i l o can only draw on the
Timaeus to a very l i m i t e d extent, because the P l a t o n i c dialogue gives but a
cursory account of the animal genera and the important questions on t h e i r place
i n the cosmos and t h e i r r e l a t i o n to man are answered only by i m p l i c a t i o n . In
Pet.85 and Plant.16-17, as we saw above ( I I 10.1.2. 10.2.2.), P l a t o ' s scanty
remarks i n Tim.91d-92c are f u l l y e x p l o i t e d .

The question which i s o f primary i n t e r e s t to P h i l o i s whether animals can

be s a i d to possess reason (Aoyos) or not, f o r the answer w i l l determine the
p o s i t i o n of man i n r e l a t i o n to the animals i n the cosmic h i e r a r c h y . To t h i s
question he devoted an e n t i r e work, the De animalibus. This d i a l o g u e , one of
the s o - c a l l e d p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e s , has been u n t i l r e c e n t l y the l e a s t a c-
c e s s i b l e of a l l P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s to the modern reader, but now the e x c e l l e n t
t r a n s l a t i o n and commentary by T e r i a n has cast a f l o o d of l i g h t on i t and shown
what an i n t e r e s t i n g piece of work i t a c t u a l l y i s . In an i n t r o d u c t o r y s e c t i o n
(35-36) T e r i a n demonstrates that the p o s i t i o n defended by P h i l o against h i s
nephew Alexander, namely that animals do not possess reason and have been
placed under the dominance of man who alone possesses the r a t i o n a l s p i r i t , i s
i n l i n e with B i b l i c a l and Judaic views, but i n the dialogue i s defended with
arguments and examples drawn almost e x c l u s i v e l y from the S t o i c s i n t h e i r con-
t r o v e r s i e s with Academics and S c e p t i c s .

Does the Timaeus, d e s p i t e i t s b r e v i t y on the s u b j e c t , make any c o n t r i b u -

t i o n to the dispute? Alexander (or r a t h e r P h i l o who puts the words i n h i s
mouth) at any r a t e thinks so, f o r at the beginning of h i s speech he d e c l a r e s
(§11):
Just as men ignore the weakness of women - as i s common i n every commun-
i t y whether i n times of war o r peace — and subjugate them only to them-
s e l v e s , c o n s i d e r i n g the disadvantaged female sex u n f i t f o r s t a t e a f f a i r s ,
so, I t h i n k , when humans saw a l l the dumb animals bending downward to
e a r t h , whereas they themselves stood u p r i g h t and e r e ct upon the ground,
they d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between t h e i r own good a t t r i b u t e s and the c o n d i t i o n
of the dumb animals. And s i n c e t h e i r minds were elevated as w e l l as
t h e i r bodies, they h e l d the e a r t h l y c r e a t u r e s i n d i s d a i n . Reason i s the
best o f things that e x i s t , but they appropriated i t to themselves as
though they had r e c e i v e d an i r r e v e r s i b l e reward from nature.

If these words have i n more than one aspect a modern r i n g — they could almost
be an e x t r a c t from current l i t e r a t u r e of the women's or animals' liberation
movement - one of the c h i e f reasons i s that they emphatically c o n t r o v e r t the
o n t o l o g i c a l / h i e r a r c h i c a l / t e l e o l o g i c a l p i c t u r e o f the universe e s t a b l i s h e d i n
the Timaeus. x
The reference to the contempt h e l d f o r animals who have t h e i r
heads bent downward to the ground i s a d i r e c t a t t a c k on P l a t o ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
306 ANALYSIS

of man and the animals i n Tim.90a,91e. Alexander implies that man create s h i s
own h i e r a r c h i e s and abuses h i s own supremacy i n order to do the animals injus-
tice. His motto could be s a i d to be the famous saying of Protagoras, 'man's
mind i s the measure of a l l t h i n g s ' , quoted and attacked by P h i l o i n Post.35
and elsewhere (see above I I 3.1.3.n.2).
Thus we are not s u r p r i s e d to f i n d that i n the dialogue P h i l o c o r r e c t s
Alexander i n a reprimanding tone (§100):
Let us now stop c r i t i c i z i n g nature and committing s a c r i l e g e . To e l e v a t e
animals to the l e v e l of the human race and to grant e q u a l i t y to unequals
i s the height of i n j u s t i c e . To a s c r i b e s e r i o u s s e l f - r e s t r a i n t to i n d i f -
f e r e n t and almost i n v i s i b l e c r e a t u r e s i s to i n s u l t those whom nature has
endowed with the best p a r t .
Man i s the only earthbound c r e a t u r e who has been made i n God's image, o r , i n
P l a t o n i c terms, possesses mind or r a t i o n a l soul ( i . e . 'the best p a r t ' ) . Hence
it i s no l e s s than s a c r i l e g e i f one t r i e s to elevate the animals to man's l e v -
el (an obvious word-play, c f . Tim.90b1, Plant.17 a v w p d w o e v , a l s o used i n § 11
quoted above). T e r i a n 49 c i t e s some P l a t o n i c passages as antecedents f o r the
views o f Alexander. But he f a i l s to mention how the overt anthropocentrism of
the Timaeus gives powerful support f o r the opposite view and the d e t a i l e d a r -
guments provided by the Stoa.

10.3. Conclusion (Tim.92c)

10.3.1. D o x o l o g y t o t h e cosmos ( 9 2 c )

The e u l o g i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n of the cosmos which concludes Timaeus' speech

(92c5-9) i s a masterpiece of compression, p i c k i n g up d i v e r s e themes and terms
from e a r l i e r i n the d i a l o g u e and welding them together i n t o a f i n a l t r i b u t e to
the cosmos' greatness. E s p e c i a l l y imposing i s the s t r i n g of four s u p e r l a t i v e s ,
u e y t o x o s M a i a p i o x o s x a A A t o x o s T G M a i T e A e w x a T o s , of which only the f i r s t does
not repeat e a r l i e r statements (cf.29a5,30b5-6,68e2-3). The doxology to the
cosmos thus forms a climax to the 'language of e x c e l l e n c e ' which P l a to uses
throughout the work, and which had such a s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e on the way P h i l o
d e p i c t s the cosmos both as a t o t a l i t y and as a sum of i t s p a r t s (see above I I
2.3.2.). Other aspects o f these l i n e s that have already been d i s c u s s e d are
the language of the model ( I I 3.4.1.), the d i v i n i t y a t t r i b u t e d to the cosmos
( I I 4.2.6.), and the p r i n c i p l e of p l e n i t u d e ( I I 5.4.3.). Two p o i n t s of d e t a i l
remain y e t to be d i s c u s s e d .

1. ei,M(Lv T O U voriTou (92c7) . As has already been noted above i n I I 2.3.3.

3.5.1. 10.1.5., a t e x t u a l v a r i a n t e t M w v T O U Tcoun,Tou i s found i n Stobaeus and
 I I 10.3.1. 307

c e r t a i n mss. Since t h i s r e a d i n g i n v o l v e s a t o t a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the demi-

urge and h i s model which i s nowhere e l s e found i n the Timaeus, i t has been r e -
j e c t e d by almost a l l e d i t o r s ( c f . A.E.Taylor, A commentary on P l a t o s Timaeus f

(Oxford 1928) 646-649, B r i s s o n 155). I t i s not c e r t a i n when the e r r o r crept

i n t o the manuscript t r a d i t i o n . Cherniss i n a note on Plut.Mor.1007C-D, eino-
vos 6'zLaiv aucpw xou $eou, Tt)g uev o u o u a s 6 MOOUOS xns 6 ' a i ^ u o x n x o s <o> x p o -
vos... 9 suggests P l u t a r c h may have read Ttounxou (he r e f e r s a l s o t o A'et.Plac.
1.7.4). T a y l o r op.cit.648 c a l l s i n P h i l o as support f o r the a s s e r t i o n that i n
the f i r s t century A.D. the reading was s t i l l vonxou. But the t e x t which he
c i t e s , Mos. 2.65 ( i n which man i s d e s c r i b e d as a v x u u u u o v y e y o v o s %eo\) 6uvduea)s,
EOMWV xns a o p a x o o cpuoews eucpavns, a u 6 t o u y e v n x f i ) i s h a r d l y to the p o i n t . A
more a p p r o p r i a t e passage would have been Her.56, ( o avdpwrcos). . nai xaxa xr)V
euKova xou IOUTITOU Aoyos e x e t x u i w d f i v a u , the only plac e where P h i l o a c t u a l l y
uses the e x p r e s s i on GUMWV xou vonxou/Tiounxou. Since i n t h i s passage, j u s t as
i n the one c i t e d by T a y l o r , P h i l o i s a l l u d i n g to the double image theory which
he e x t r a c t s from Gen. 1:27, i . e . the etxtLv i n v o l v e d i s not man or the cosmos
but the Logos, the s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e must be considered d o u b t f u l . Thus we
cannot be sure which reading P h i l o found i n h i s t e x t . But we can be c e r t a i n
that he would have been sympathetic to the r e a d i n g EUMWV XOU rcoonxou, i f he
was acquainted with i t ( c f . the other d i s c u s s i o n s i n our Commentary r e f e r r e d
to above).

2. p o v o y e v r i s (92c9) . The word i s ambiguous, f o r i t can mean both 'unique

i n i t s s o r t ' or 'unique i n i t s descent, only-begotten' ( c f . K i t t e l TDNT 4.738
with many examples i n Greek and B i b l i c a l literature). P h i l o never uses i t ,
perhaps because i f taken i n the second meaning he must r e j e c t it. According
to Deus 32 ( c f . Spec.1.96) God has two sons, the e l d e r the x o o u o s v o n x o s , the
younger the x o o p o s aLo%r)Tog ( c f . above I I 2.1.3. on Aet .15, Tim.50d4). More
o f t e n the Logos i s God's ( e l d e r ) son and i s d e s c r i b e d as the Tiptoxoyovos ( c f .
Agr.51, Conf. 146, Somn. 1.215 e t c . ) . In Ebr.30 (exeg. Deut.21 :18-21) Eocpua
gives b i r t h to the cosmos as x o v uovov Mail ayaTinTov auoSnxov uuov. This de-
s c i p t i o n a s s u r e d l y r e c a l l s Tim.31b3,50d4,92c9. But the reader of Plato's d i a -
logue w i l l look i n v a i n f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the r e l a t i o n between c r e a t o r and
created product such a s * P h i l o conveys w i t h the word a y a n n x o s .
 APPENDIX TO PART TWO

PENTATEUCHAL TEXTS GIVEN EXEGESIS WITH REFERENCE TO THE TIMAEUS

As was already announced i n the i n t r o d u c t o r y chapter on method (I 5.1.),

the way i n which our Commentary has been s t r u c t u r e d according to the themes
and sequence of the Timaeus has a s e r i o u s disadvantage. I t e a s i l y allows the
e x e g e t i c a l b a s i s of much of P h i l o s use of the Timaeus to be obscured.
f
The
i d e a l would be to present a second Commentary i n the sequence of the books of
Moses. But t h i s i s s c a r c e l y p r a c t i c a b l e . Instead we now g i v e , by means of an
Appendix, a l i s t of a l l the Pentateuchal t e x t s f o r the e x p l a n a t i o n of which
P h i l o c a l l s on ideas and t e x t s from P l a t o ' s d i a l o g u e . The list i s given i n
the accepted order of the books of Moses (chapter and verse numbered according
to the S e p t u a g i n t ). A f t e r a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the t e x t and the aspect of
the Timaeus r e l e v a n t to i t , two bracketed references are given. The first
(sometimes not a p p l i c a b l e and thus deleted) r e f e r s to the d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t
Timaeus t e x t . The second r e f e r s to the sub-section(s) of the Commentary where
the exegesis of the text i s discussed or c i t e d . I f P h i l o ' s use of t h i s text
i s confined to one or two passages i n h i s works t h i s l o c a t i o n i s a l s o given.
In every case the reader i s advised to c o n s u l t the r e l e v a n t sub-section of the
Commentary f o r a more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n .

Genesis The t i t l e of Moses f i r s t book and

1
the fundamental d i v i s i o n of
r e a l i t y (28a)(2.1.1. on O p i f . 1 2 ) .
Gen.1-3 The Mosaic x o ö u o u o t u a and the 'programme 1
of the Timaeus (27a)
(1-3.1. on Opif.82, Praem.1).
The goodness of the c r e a t o r (29e) and the use of the names %e6g
and MUpuos (3.1.1.) .
Gen.1-2:3 The seven days of the Mosaic c r e a t i o n account and the d i d a c t i c
e x p l a n a t i o n of the Timaean cosmogony (2.1.3.).
Three days of atwv, three days of x p ó v o s (cf.37d)(5.3.2. on
Her.165).

Gen.1:1-5 The f i r s t day of c r e a t i o n .

'Day one' represents the x ó a u o s von-tós as model or p l a n f o r the
c r e a t i v e act (3.4.1-4. on Opif.16-25).
The contents of the x ó o u o s v o n x ó s extracted from Gen.1:1-2
(8.2.2. on Opif.29-35).
Gen.1:1 êv apxf) and the problem of c r e a t i o n and time (2.1.4. 5.3.1.) .
Gen.1:1-2 A l t e r n a t i v e exegeses which allow room f o r p r e - e x i s t e n t unformed
matter (cf,30a)(3.2.3.) .
Gen.1:3-5 D a r k n e s s / l i g h t and the change from d i s o r d e r to order (cf.30a)
(3.2.1. on Spec.4.187).
 APPENDIX 309

Gen.1:4 Separation and the change from d i s o r d e r to order (30a)(3.2.1.

3.2.3. on P l a n t . 3 ) .
Gen.1:6-8 The second day of creation.
The t r a n s i t i o n to t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l i t y and c o r p o r e a l i t y i n the
c r e a t i o n of heaven (4.1.1. on Opif.36-37).
Gen.1:9-13 The t h i r d day of c r e a t i o n .
Problems i n the P l a t o n i c c r e a t i o n a l sequence avoided (cf.77a-c);
everything i n readiness f o r man (9.3.4.).
Gen.1:14-19 The f o u r t h day of creation.
A problem i n the c r e a t i o n a l sequence not a matter of contingen-
cy (cf.34c) but f o r d i d a c t i c reasons (5.1.1. on Opif.45-46).
The extensive p a r a l l e l s between Moses and P l a t o on the creation
of the heavenly bodies (5.4.1.).
R e f l e c t i o n on the c r e a t i o n of the heavenly bodies leads to an
encomium of l i g h t and s i g h t (cf.47a-c)(7.2.3. on Opif.53-54,
Plant.118).
Gen.1:20-23 The f i f t h day of creation.
The c r e a t i o n of f i s h e s and b i r d s i n the c r e a t i o n a l sequence
(2.1.3. 5.4.3. 10.2.3. on Opif.62-68).
Gen.1:24-31 The s i x t h day of creation.
The c r e a t i o n of land-animals and man i n the c r e a t i o n a l sequence
(2.1.3. 5.4.3. 10.2.3. on Opif.62-68).
Why was man created l a s t ? — encomium of s i g h t (cf.47a-c), attack
of the %a%r\ (7.2.3. 9.2.1. on Opif .77-79) .
Gen.1:26 Why i s the c r e a t i o n of man a t t r i b u t e d to more than one creator?
( c f . the 'young gods' i n 4 1 a f f . ) ( 6 . 2 . 1 . ) .
Gen.1:27 The f i r s t of Moses' two most important a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l texts —
the double account of man's c r e a t i o n and the P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e
of man (10.1.2. 10.1.5.).
Gen.1:31 The goodness of the c r e a t i o n and the goodness of the creator
(cf.29e)(3.1.1.).
Gen.2:1-3 The seventh day of c r e a t i o n .
What can God's r e s t mean? ( c f . the retirement of the demiurge
i n 42e)(6.3.2.).
Gen.2:2 The seven days of the c r e a t i o n account and the problem of time
(5.3.1. on Leg.1.2).
Gen.2-4 The dynamics of man's s t r u c t u r e explored i n the A l l e g o r y of the
soul (7.1.3.).
Gen.2:6 The symbolism of the s p r i n g watering the face of the earth i n
terms of mind, senses, face (cf.44c-45a)(7.2.1. cf.7.1.3.).
Gen.2:7 The second of Moses' two most important a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l texts —
the double account of man's c r e a t i o n and the P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e
of man (10.1.2. 10.1.5.).
The i n c a r n a t i o n of the vous i n the body as part of the Allegory
of the s o u l ( c f . 4 2 e f f . ) ( 7 . 1 . 3 . ) .
Man formed from earth and the borrowing of the elements ( c f .
43a)(7.1.1.).
310 ANALYSIS

The symbolism of God's b r e a t h i n g i n t o man's face (7.2.1.) .

God's i n b r e a t h i n g and the theme of o v y y e v e b a (10.1.6.(2)).
Gen.2:8 The c r e a t i o n of Paradise and the p r a i s e of c r e a t o r and created
product (cf,29a)(2.3.2. on QG 1.6).
The garden of Eden and the law-giving of the demiurge (cf.42d)
i n the A l l e g o r y of the s o u l (7.1.3.).
Gen.2:10-14 The four r i v e r s of paradise and the c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s (cf.42d)
i n the A l l e g o r y of the s o u l (7.1.3.).
The r i v e r s as v i r t u e s and the parts of the s o u l (9.2.2. on Leg.
1.63-73, QG 1.13).
Gen.2:14 The r i v e r T i g r i s and the w i l d beast of the i r r a t i o n a l soul
(9.2.3.(5) on Leg.1.69).
Gen.2:17 The death of the s o u l and P l a t o n i c metempsychosis ( c f . 4 2 b f f . )
i n the A l l e g o r y of the s o u l (7.1.3. on Leg.1.100-108).
Gen.2:18 Man's 'helpers' as atodnous and Tta§ri i n the A l l e g o r y of the
soul-(7.1.3. on L e g . 2 . I f f . ) .
Gen.2:21 P o t e n t i a l and a c t u a l atodnous i n the A l l e g o r y of the s o u l (7.
1.3. 7.2.2.).
Gen.3:12 The dependence of the mind on the senses i n the A l l e g o r y of the
soul (7.1.3.).
Gen.3:14 The serpent as symbol of pleasure and the p a r t s of the soul (9.
2.2. on Leg.3.114-116).
The s l i t h e r i n g motion of the serpent (cf.92a)(10.2.2.).
The theme of e a r t h l y and heavenly food (cf.90c)(10.1.6.(4)).
Gen.3:22 D i v i n e p l u r a l i t y and the h i e r a r c h y of r e c i p i e n t s of knowledge
(2.4.1. on QG 1.54).
D i v i n e p l u r a l i t y and the c r e a t i o n of man (6.2.1.).
God's l a c k of envy as seen i n the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos ( c f .
29e-30a)(3.1.2. 3.2.1. on QG 1.55).
Gen.3:24 The Cherubim symbolizing the r e v o l u t i o n of the heavens (cf.36
c-d)(5.2.1.).
The 'turning ' sword and the 'turning' of the c e l e s t i a l bodies
(5.2.1. 5.4.2.).
The Cherubim symbolizing the two powers and thus God's goodness
(cf.29e)(3.1.1.).
Gen.4:1 Cain's mistake i n h i s use of p r e p o s i t i o n s (3.4.5.).
Gen.4:3 Cain's s a c r i f i c i a l o f f e r i n g and the f i r s t fruits (1.2.1. on
Sacr.52ff.).
Gen.4:7 Cain's f a i l u r e to make c l e a r - c u t d i s t i n c t i o n s when he a t t r i b u t e s
e v i l to God (3.1.4. on Agr.128-129).
The theme of d i v i s i o n i n a c r e a t i o n a l context (3.2.1. on QG 1.
64).
Gen.4:10 Abel's blood and the i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r man's psychology (10.1.2.
on Pet.79-90).
Gen.4:13 Cain recognizes how calamitous i t i s when God loosens the bonds
of the s o u l (6.1.1. on Conf.166).
 APPENDIX 311

Gen.4:14 Cain's thought that he might escape from God i s c o s m o l o g i c a l l y

absurd (4.2.1. 5.4.3. on Det.153-155).
Gen.4:16 When Cain 'goes out' i t cannot mean that he leaves the cosmos
(cf.58a)(7.1.1. 8.3.2.).
Gen.4:25 The b i r t h of Seth as the t u r n i n g point i n the A l l e g o r y of the
soul (7.1.3.).
Gen.6-8 Noah's f l o o d , the theme of n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s ( c f . 2 2 a f f . ) and
the macro-structure of the Pentateuch (1.2.2.).
Noah's f l o o d and the a l l e g o r y of the body, the s o u l and the
passions (cf.43a-d)(7.1.2.).
Gen.6:2 The 'angels of God' and the animal genera (5.4.3. on Gig.6-11).
Gen.6:3 Man's '120 y e a r s ' n u m e r i c a l l y d i s c l o s e s the double s c a l e of
a r i t h m e t i c and geometric p r o g r e s s i o n (cf .35a) (5.1 .1 ..on QG 1.58).
Men of the s p i r i t and men of the f l e s h ( l i k e animals, cf.91e)
(10.2.2. on Gig.31).
Gen.6:5-7 God's apparent repentance and the nature'.of~ time and e t e r n i t y
(cf.37d)(5.3.2. on Deus 31-32).
Gen.6:7-8 God's mercy and judgment, the theme of mixture, and the theory
of v i s i o n (cf.45b-d) and h e a r i n g (80b)(7.2.2. 9.1.1.).
Gen.6:8 The grace found by Noah and the goodness of the c r e a t o r ( c f .
29e)(3.1.1-2 on Leg.3.78, Deus 108).
Gen.6:16 Noah's ark and the p r o v i d e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e of the body (cf.73a)
(9.3.1. on QG 2.7).
Gen.7:4 The c r e a t o r w i l l not f o r g e t h i s own purpose (cf,41a-b)(6.1.1.
on QG 2.15) .
Gen.8:1 The w i l d beasts i n the ark and the wise man's passions (9.2.3.
on QG 2.27).
Gen.8:6 The window of the ark symbolizes the sense of s i g h t which en-
ables man to p h i l o s o p h i z e (cf.47a-c)(7.2.3. on QG 2.34).
Gen.8:11 The l e a f brought back by the dove symbolizes a small r e s i d u e of
a n t i q u i t y (cf.23c)(1.2.2. on QG 2.43).
Gen.8:22 God's words to Noah prove that the cosmos i s i n d e s t r u c t i b l e ( c f .
41a-b)(6.1.1. on Aet.19).
Gen.9:1-2 Man's domination over animals symbolizes the domination of vous
over the passions (10.2.2. on QG 2.56).
Gen.9:6 Man made i n 'the image of God' and the theme of ouotwous ( c f .
90d)(10.1.6.(3) on QG 2.62).
Gen.9:20 Noah's p l a n t i n g of the v i n e y a r d impels the 'phyto-cosmological
excursus', i n which numerous r e f e r e n c e s to the Timaeus are i n -
corporated (3.2.1. 3.4.1. 4.2.1. 5.4.3. 10.1.2. e t c . ) .
Gen.10:9 Nimrod the hunter and the b e s t i a l passions (9.2.3. on QG 2.82).
Gen.11:5 'The Lord comes down' must not be taken l i t e r a l l y , f o r God
f i l l s a l l t h i n g s (cf.34b,36e)(5.1.3. on Conf.136).
Gen.11:7 The p l u r a l v e r b , man's c r e a t i o n , and the theme of punishment
(6.2.1. on Conf.168-183).
Gen. 12:1-9 Abraham's quest, as (ptAouadris, f o r the promised land (10.1.6.
(D).
312 ANALYSIS

Gen.14:2 The one c i t y of the P e n t a p o l i s which was not destroyed i n the

c o n f l a g r a t i o n symbolizes the sense of s i g h t (cf.47a-c)(7.2.3.
on Abr.156-164).

Gen. 15:2 Etymology of the word 6ea7iOTr]S used by Abraham to address God
i n terms of cosmic 6 e a u o s (6.1.1. 6.1.4. on Her.23).
Etymology of Damaskos leads to a problem concerning man's psy-
chology (10.1.2. on Her.54-57).
Gen.15:5 God's command to Abraham to count the s t a r s leads P h i l o to r e -
c o l l e c t 41d,47a-c (5.2.2. 6.3.1. 7.2.4.).
Gen.15:6 The e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of Abraham's ' t r u s t i n God'
(cf.29b-d)(2.4.1. on Praem.28-30).
Gen.15:9 The she-goat and the etymology of atadnoLg (cf.43c)(7.1.2. on
Her.126, QG 3.3).
Gen.15:10 Abraham's d i v i s i o n of the s a c r i f i c i a l v i c t i m s impels P h i l o to a
long excursus on the theme of d i v i s i o n and the a c t i v i t y of the
Aoyos xoueus, i n which many ideas from the Timaeus are u t i l i z e d
(3.2.1. 4.1.1. 5.4.3. 8.3.1. e t c . ) .
The f a c t that Abraham does not d i v i d e the b i r d s symbolizes an
important p a r a l l e l between the s t r u c t u r e of the macrocosm and
the microcosm (5.2.1-2 on Her.230-236, QG 3.3).
Gen.15:15 Abraham's f a t h e r s and the f a t e of the s o u l a f t e r death (7.1.1.
10.1.3. on Her.280-283, QG 3.11).
Gen.15:18 The symbolism of the r i v e r (cf,43a)(7.1.2. on Her.315, Somn.
2.255) .
Gen.16:2 Hagar i s E g y p t i an by r a c e , meaning that e n c y c l i c a l s t u d i e s i n -
v o l v e the body and the sense of s i g h t (7.2.3. on Congr.21).
Gen.16:6 God i s not an a f f l i c t o r , f o r he has no share i n envy (3.1.2. on
Congr.171).
Gen.16:11 Ishmael, meaning axon Seou, i n d i c a t e s the l e s s e r v a l u e of hear-
ing r e l a t i v e to s i g h t (cf.47a-e)(7.2.3.).
Gen.16:16 Abraham i s 86, and 80 contains the double s c a l e of a r i t h m e t i c
and geometric p r o g r e s s i o n (cf.35a)(5.1.1. on QG 3.38).
Gen.17:1 God's statement that he i s Abraham's God leads to r e f l e c t i o n
on the c r e a t i o n of man (6.2.1. on Mut.30-32).

Gen.17:12 C i r c u m c i s i o n and the r o l e of parents i n c r e a t i o n (6.2.3. on QG

3.48).
The a r i t h m o l o g i c a l symbolism of c i r c u m c i s i o n on the eighth day
(5.1.1. 8.3.1. on QG 3.49).
Gen.17:21 Isaac's b i r t h ' i n another y e a r ' i n d i c a t e s not xpovos but atwv
(cf.37d)(5.3.2. on Mut.267).
Gen.18:6 The three measures of wheat-flour and the theme of measurement
(3.1.3. 8.3.1. on Sacr.59, QG 4.8).
Gen. 18:11 Sarah, the v i r t u e - l o v i n g mind, i s not born from the uAn aio%r)ir]
(8.2.1.(2) on Ebr.60-61).
The women's quarters (cf.70a)(9.2.3.(4) on QG 4.15).
Gen.18:20 Gomorrah, meaning 'measure' and the d i v i n e Logos by whom a l l
things are measured (3.1.3. on QG 4.23).
Gen.19 The d e s t r u c t i o n of Sodom and Gomorrah, the theme of n a t u r a l d i -
s a s t e r s ( c f . 2 2 a f f . ) and the macro-structur e of the Pentateuch
 APPENDIX 313

Gen.19:20-25 See above on Gen.14:2.

Gen.20:12 See above on Gen.18:11.

Gen.22:23 Etymology of M i l c a h and the s c i e n ce of astronomy (5.4.2. on

Congr.50).

Gen.24:3 The t h e o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of Abraham's double i n v o c a t i o n

(2.2.1. on QG 4.87).

Gen.24:22 Ten drachmas, the Logos and the harmony of the ennead (5.1.3.
on QG 4.110).

Gen.24:23 Rebecca's heavenly l i n e a g e (cf.90a,91c)(10.2.2. on QG 4.111).

Gen.25:25 Esau i s T C P W X O X O H O S , not Ttptoxo-yovos, because he i s the o f f s p r i n g

of female matter (cf.50d e t c . ) ( 8 . 2 . 1 . on QG 4.160).

Gen.25:26 Isaac's age of 60 years, the p a r t s of the cosmos, and the Z o d i -

ac (cf.55c)(8.3.2. on QG 4.164).

Gen.26:8 The lovepla y of Isaac and Rebecca i n cosmic p e r s p e c t i v e (3.3.1.

on QG 4.188).
Gen.26:26 Abimelech, Ochozath, P h i c o l and the three part s of the soul
9.2.2. on QG 4.195 ). 7

Gen.28:2 Jacob f l e e s to Mesopotamia, the t o r r e n t of l i f e ' s r i v e r ( c f .

43a)(7.1.2. on Fug.49).

Gen.28:12 The cosmologica l symbolism of Jacob's ladder (5.4.3. 6.1.3. on

Somn.1.134-141).

Gen.28:17 The house of God as the Logos, the gate of heaven as the t r a n s -
i t i o n from the s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e to the i n t e l l i g i b l e cosmos
(2.3.3. on Somn.1.188, 5.1.3. on M i g r . 6 ).
Gen.28:21 For Jacob the Lord w i l l be God, i . e . the source of bounteous
b l e s s i n g s (cf.29e)(3.1.2. on P l a n t . 9 1 ) .

Gen.30:42 Jacob's marked or speckled sheep and the ordered s t r u c t u r e of

the cosmos (2.2.1. 3.2.1. 6.3.1.(5) on Fug.8-13).

Gen.31:13 God who alone stands and e s t a b l i s h e d the cosmos (3.2.1. on Somn.
1.241) .

Gen.32:10 Jacob crosses the r i v e r Jordan, which means 'descent' (cf.43a)

(7.1.2. on Leg.2.89) .

Gen.32:29 I s r a e l means 'seeing God', an etymology which u n d e r l i n e s the

importance of s i g h t (cf.47a-c)(7.2.3.)

The otaxetos should emulate the b o u n t i f u l n e s s of God (cf.29c)

(3.1.1. on Mut.46).

Gen.37:16 The f l o c k s of Joseph's brothers and the senses and passions of

the i r r a t i o n a l s o u l (9.2.3. on Pet.25).

Gen.38:7 E r , meaning ' l e a t h e r n ' , symbolizes the body as the corpse which
the soul must bear (7.1.3. on Leg.3.69-74).

Gen.38:16 Judah the (ptAouadris goes i n t o Tamar symbolizing v i r t u e (10.1.6

(1) on Congr.125) .

Gen.38:18,25 The symbolism of Tamar's s e a l p o i n t s to the r o l e of the model

i n c r e a t i o n (3.2.1. on Mut-135, Somn.2.45).

Gen.48:15-16 The r e l i g i o u s dimension of the g i f t of h e a l t h (9.4.1. on Leg.3.

177-178).
314 ANALYSIS

Ex.3:14-15 God s name and the r e l a t i o n between time and e t e r n i t y

f
(cf.37d)
(5.3.2. on Mut.11-12).
Ex.5:2 Pharaoh n e c e s s a r i l y recognizes the c r e a t o r but not God as Lord
(2.2.1. on QG 4.87).
Ex.7:1 The ( r e l a t i v e ) d i v i n i t y of Moses, given by God as a god to Pha-
raoh (10.1.4.).
Ex.7:15 Pharaoh stands at the edge of the r i v e r which symbolizes the
passions (cf.43a)(7.1.2. on Conf.29-30, Somn.2.278).
Ex.12:11 The g i r d l e symbolizes c o n t r o l of the passions and esp. the w i l d
beast of d e s i r e (cf.70e)(9.2.1. 9.2.3.(5) on Leg.3.151-159, QE
1.19).
Ex.12:23 The 'destroyer' and the opposed cosmic and p s y c h i c powers (8.
1.1. on QE 1.23).
Ex.13:9 The s o u l should not be flooded by the N i l e , the Egyptian river
of the passions (7.1.2. on Somn.2.109).
Ex.13:12 The womb and women's quarters f o r o u r s e l v e s , the males and
men's quarters f o r the Lord (9.2.3.(4) on Sacr.103).
Ex.14:7 S i x hundred c h a r i o t s of the Egyptians and the s i x movements of
the body (4.2.5. on Ebr.111).
Ex.14:27 The Egyptians, l o v e r s of body, are drowned i n the Red sea, the
stream of the passions (cf.43a)(7.1.2. on Conf.70).
Ex.15:17 The s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e cosmos as God's holy d w e l l i n g p l a c e (2.
1.1. on P l a n t . 5 0 ) .
Ex.16:4,15 Manna as heavenly food ( c f . 9 0 c ) ( 1 0 . 1 . 6 . ( 4 ) ).
Ex.16:23 The i n s t i t u t i o n of the sabbath i n the desert and the los s of
knowledge through n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s ( c f . 2 2 a f f . ) ( 1 . 2 . 2 . on Mos.
2.263) .
Ex.17:6 God's 'standing' excludes the seven movements (cf.34a,43b)(4.
2.5. on Conf.139).
Ex.17:11 The r a i s i n g and lowering of Moses' aims i n the b a t t l e against
Amalek symbolizes the c o n f l i c t i n the s o u l (7.1.3. on Leg.3.186).
Ex.20 The Decalogue.
Ex.20:3-6 F i r s t and second commandment.
R e j e c t i o n of worship of the cosmos and the heavenly bodies (4.
2.6. 6.2.2. cf.2.2.3.n.1).
Ex.20:7 T h i r d commandment.
Swear not by God but by the unageing cosmos (4.2.2. on Spec.2.5).
Ex.20:8-11 Fourth commandment.
The sabbath, the hebdomad and the heavenly r e v o l u t i o n s (cf.36
c-d)(5.2.1. on Decal.102-104).
The sabbath and God's Sewpta (cf.42e)(6.3.2. on Cher.87, Decal.
96ff.) .
Ex.20:12 F i f t h commandment.
Honour f o r parents as subordinate c r e a t o r s (6.2.3.).
Ex.20:17 Tenth commandment.
Desire and the t r i l o c a t i o n of the soul (cf.70e)(9.2.2. on Spec.
4.92-94, cf.5.4.3.n.2).
 APPENDIX 315

Ex.20:21 Moses enters the cloud, God's unknowability ( c f . 2 8 c ) ( 2 . 2 . 3 . ) .

Ex.21:12—14 The law on manslaughter, God's r e s p o n s i b i l t i y f o r e v i l and the
c r e a t i o n of man (cf.41d-42d)(6.2.1. on Fug.68-72).
Ex.21:26 The servant's eye and the e x c e l l e n c e of s i g h t (cf.47a-c)(7.2.3.
on Spec.3.184-192).
Ex.24:6 Moses and the mixing bowls (6.3.1.(1)).
Ex.25:1-2 God's aicapxotu and parents as accessory causes of c r e a t i o n (6.
2.3. on Her.115).
Ex.25:9 The Ttapadeuyya of the t a b e r n a c l e shown to Moses and the model
of c r e a t i o n (2.3.1. 3.4.4.).
Ex.25:11 The golden twined wavelets and the t u r n i n g of the heavenly bo-
dies (5.2.1. on QE 2.55).
The wavelets and the running stream of the body and the tempest
of l i f e ' s course (7.1.2. on QE 2.55).
Ex.25:22 God's speaking from between the Cherubim and the d i v i n e Logos
(3.4.4. 4.1.1. 5.1.3.).
Ex.25:31-39 The lampstand as symbol of heaven (4.2.3. 5.4.2. 8.3.2.).
Ex.26:1-14 The c u r t a i n s of the tabernacle and the image of weaving (6.3.1.
( 5 ) ).
Ex.26:18-25 50 p i l l a r s and the r i g h t - a n g l e d t r i a n g l e (8.3.1. on Mos.2.80).
55 p i l l a r s and the numbers of P l a t o ' s cosmic s o u l (5.1.1. on a
new fragment).
Ex.26:28-30 The symbolism of the tabernacle and the Logos (4.1.1. on QE 2.
90).
Ex.27:1 The height of the a l t a r and the l o c a t i o n of anger as e v i l coun-
s e l l o r i n the chest (9.2.1. on QE 2.100).
Ex.28:21 The twelve stones of the High p r i e s t ' s b r e a s t p i e c e , and the
phylarchs as c o n s t e l l a t i o n s and heavenly p l a n t s (cf.90a)(7.2.4.
10.1.1. on QE 2.114).
Ex.28:28 The high p r i e s t l y robe and the Logos as 6eouos (4.1.1. on QE 2.
118).
Ex.28:30 The piece of c l o t h named 6nAu)ous (attached to the reason-seat)
and the nature of time (5.3.1. on Spec.1.88-90).
Ex.28:32 The opening (Ttepuoxoyuov) i n the h i g h p r i e s t l y robe and the
r o l e of the mouth (cf.75d-e)(9.3.2. on QE 2.118).
Ex.28:34 The high p r i e s t l y robe, the elements and the Logos (4.2.8. on
QE 2.120).
Ex.28:36 The s e a l - i m p r e s s i o n i n the gold p l a t e worn on the High p r i e s t ' s
forehead and the von^r) ououa (3.4.2. on QE 2.122).
Ex.28:38 The l e a f on the High p r i e s t ' s forehead and the l o c a t i o n of the
nyeyovuKOV (cf.45a)(7.2.1. on QE 2.124).
Ex.31:2-4 B e z a l e l , the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the t a b e r n a c l e , and the c r e a t i o n
of the cosmos (3.4.4. cf.10.1.2.).
Ex.32:16 God as SeoyoSexns (cf.42d) (6.3.1 . (4) on Her. 167) .
Ex.33:13-23 Moses on the mountain and man's knowledge of God (cf.28c)(2.2.3.
on Spec.1.32ff., cf.3.2.1. on Spec.1.48).
Ex.35:30-35 See above on Ex.31:2-4.
316 ANALYSIS

Lev.1:6 The s a c r i f i c i a l animal of the whole b u r n t - o f f e r i n g , the cosmos

as animal, and thanksgiving to the c r e a t o r (2.3.2. 3.3.1. on
Spec.1.210).
Lev.2:14 The o f f e r i n g of f i r s t f r u i t s and the newness o f l e a r n i n g ( c f .
22b)(1.2.1. on Sacr.76-79).
Lev.3:3-4 The p r e s e r v a t i o n o f f e r i n g and the l o c a t i o n of the riyepovLHov
(7.2.1. on Sacr.136, Spec.1.213).
The p r e s e r v a t i o n o f f e r i n g and the r o l e of the l i v e r (cf.71a-e)
(9.2.4. on Spec.1.216-219).
Lev.3:17 Blood should not be eaten, an i n j u n c t i o n based on Mosaic psy-
chology (10.1.2. on Spec.4.123).
Lev.6:20 The p r i e s t l y o f f e r i n g of a t e n t h o f the ephah o f f l o u r and the
d i v i n i t y o f the cosmos and the Logos (4.2.6. on Congr.103).
Lev.7:31-34 The part o f the o f f e r i n g that accrues to the p r i e s t s (the f a t
around the chest) and the t r i l o c a t i o n of the s o u l (9.2.2. on
Spec.1.146).
Lev.11:42 The i n j u n c t i o n i n the d i e t a r y laws concerning r e p t i l e s and the
lowly p l a c e of these animals i n the cosmic h i e r a r c h y (10.2.2.).
Lev.17:11 Blood as the soul of a l l f l e s h and Mosaic anthropology (10.1.2.).
Lev.19:16 The r u l e r should i m i t a t e the beneficence shown by God i n c r e a -
t i o n (3.1.1. 3.2.1. on Spec.4.186-188).
Lev. 19:23-25 The f r u i t that i s auvexos T $ MUpuip and the p r a i s e that created
things owe t h e i r c r e a t o r (2.3.2. on Plant.126-131).
Lev.19:32 The h o a r y
1 1
i n r e l a t i o n to the e l d e r and the new (1.2.1. on
Sacr.77).
Lev.21:10 The High p r i e s t put s on the garments', symbolizing the Logos's
f

r e l a t i o n t o the cosmos (5.1.3. on Fug.110-112).

Lev.23:15-16 The f e a s t of Weeks 50 days a f t e r the f e a s t o f the Sheaf and the
r i g h t - a n g l e d t r i a n g l e (8.3.1. on Spec.2.177) .
Lev.26:10 The o l d and the new (cf.22b)(1.2.2. on Sacr.79).

Num.12:1 The E t h i o p i a n woman and blackness (cf.68c)(9.1 .1 . on Leg.2.67).

Num.13:22 Hebron and Zoan, soul and body (5.1.1. on Post.62).
Num.22:31 Balaam an e a r t h l y beast, not a heavenly shoot (cf.90a,91e)(10.
1.1. on Deus 181).
Num.23:7 Balaam dwells i n Mesopotamia, h i s understanding i s submerged
(cf.43a)(7.1.2. on Conf.66).

Deut.4:19 The heavenly beings must not be worshipped (6.2.2. on Spec.1.15).

Deut.4:39 'God i n heaven above and on the e a r t h below', the d o c t r i n e of
the powers, God's goodness (3.1.2. on Migr.182-183).
Deut.5:5 Moses and the Logos as mediator (5.1.3. on Her.206).
Deut.5:6-21 The Decalogue; see above on Ex.20.
Deut.8:2-3 God not a f f l i c t o r but benefacto r (3.1.2. on Congr.171).
Manna and the Logos as God's most generic word (5.1.3. on Leg.
3.175) .
Deut.16:9-16 See above on Lev.23:15-16.
 APPENDIX 317

Deut.17:2-5 Polemic agains t those who worship the heavenly beings (4.2.6.
on Spec.2.255).
Deut.18:3 The part of the o f f e r i n g that accrues to the p r i e s t s (the maw)
and the t r i l o c a t i o n of the soul (9.2.2. on Spec.1.148).
Deut.21:18-21 Father and mother i n a cosmic context (2.2.2. 10.3.1. on Ebr.
30).
Deut.23:2 The expulsion of eunuchs from the holy congregation and a mate-
r i a l i s t philosophy (2.2.1. 3.2.1. on Spec.1.327-329).
Deut.23:4 The e x p u l s i o n of Ammonites and Moabites from the holy congre-
gation and the champions of the mind and the senses (cf.47a-c)
(7.2.3. on Spec.1.336,339).
Deut.23:12-14 A place outside the camp, b o d i l y n e c e s s i t i e s and c o n t r o l of the
passions (9.2.1. on Leg.3.151-159).
Deut.23:18 No o c c u l t r i t e s and mysteries i n the holy congregation (7.2.3.
on Spec.1.322).
Deut.25:13-15 God as the r i g h t and j u s t measure (3.1.3.n.2 on Somn.2.192-194).
Deut.28:12 See above on Ex.16:4,15.
Deut.32:6 God as Father (cf.28c)(2.2.2. on Conf.145).
Deut.32:32-33 Gomorrah, 'man the measure of a l l t h i n g s ' , God the true measure
(3.1.3.n.2 on Somn.2.192-194).

The l i s t which we have compiled can be tabulate d i n order to give an im-

p r e s s i o n of the frequency w i t h which P h i l o c a l l s on the Timaeus i n order to
e x p l a i n the v a r i o u s parts of the Pentateuch. In the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e the f i r s t
f i g u r e i n d i c a t e s the number of times the Timaeus i s used, the second f i g u r e
the average frequency per chapter of B i b l i c a l text (the symbol ± means 'appro-
ximately', the symbol < 'less than').
Genesis 1-3 The account of c r e a t i o n 49 ±16
4-11 From Adam to Abram 29 ±3*
12-23 The s t o r y of Abraham 28 ±2
24-27 The s t o r y of Isaac 6 ±11
28-36 The s t o r y of Jacob 9 ±1
37-50 The s t o r y of Joseph 5 <1
Exodus 1-12 The I s r a e l i t e s i n Egypt 6 <1
13-18 From Egypt to S i n a i 9 ±11
19-24 The g i v i n g of the Law 10 ±2
25-40 The p l a n and c o n s t r u c t i o n of the tabernacle 23 ±11
Leviticus The p r e s c r i p t i o n s of the Law 15 <1
Numbers The wanderings of the I s r a e l i t e s 4 <1
Deuteronomy The' Law and the Mosaic exhortation s 18 <1

I t goes without saying that the s t a t i s t i c a l p r e c i s i o n of the t a b l e i s q u i t e

d e c e p t i v e . No allowance i s made f o r the r e l a t i v e weight of the Timaeus a p p l i -
c a t i o n (the c r u c i a l reading of Gen.1:1-5 i n terms of the model i s given the
same s t a t i s t i c a l v a l u e of one u n i t as the d i s t a n t reference to Tim.45a when
P h i l o e x p l a i n s the l e a f on the High p r i e s t ' s forehead i n Ex.28:38). Moreover
i t must be taken i n t o account t h a t , p a r t l y due to the v a g a r i e s of t e x t u a l
t r a n s m i s s i o n , P h i l o explain s c e r t a i n parts of the Pentateuch much more tho-
roughly than others (esp. Gen.1-28, the Decalogue and r e l a t e d laws, Ex.22-28).
The r e s u l t s of the above t a b l e are analysed below i n I I I 1.6.
 PART THREE

SYNTHESIS
CHAPTER ONE

THE MANNER OF PHILO'S USE OF THE TIMAEUS

The task of c o l l e c t i o n , comparison and a n a l y s i s has been completed. It

i s time now to make a synthesi s of the r e s u l t s we have gained. Taking our cue
from the demiurgic c r e a t o r , we must reduce the chaos of hundreds of a l l u s i o n s
and references to the Timaeus, whether d e t a i l e d or f l e e t i n g , e x p l i c i t or vague,
to a semblance of order. It i s p o s s i b l e to do t h i s i n a number of ways and from
a number of angles. In t h i s f i r s t chapter our approach w i l l be p r i m a r i l y phi-
tolog-icat, c o n c e n t r a t i n g on manner and method of usage. The task before us
w i l l be to reach some conclusions on the extent of P h i l o ' s acquaintance with
t n e
Timaeus, on the preferences he has f o r c e r t a i n parts of the dialogue, on
the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the use of the Timaeus through h i s e n t i r e body of w r i t i n g s ,
and on the r e l a t i o n of that usage to the exegesis of Mosaic s c r i p t u r e . In the
chapters that f o l l o w the aspects of p h i l o s o p h i c a l content and h i s t o r i c a l con-
text (of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) w i l l come to the f o r e .

1.1 The e x t e n t o f P h i l o s f
a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h t h e Timaeus

Scholars are d i v i d e d on the extent to which P h i l o was f a m i l i a r with the

w r i t i n g s of P l a t o i n g e n e r a l , and with the Timaeus i n p a r t i c u l a r . The most
favourable judgment which I have come across i s that P h i l o knew P l a t o ' s w r i t -
ings 'almost by h e a r t '. This view c e r t a i n l y e n t a i l s that he must have had an
intimate knowledge of the best-known of P l a t o ' s works, the Timaeus, and that
he would have read and consulted i t i n the o r i g i n a l . 1
At the other end of the
spectrum i s the o p i n i o n that P h i l o had no f i r s t - h a n d acquaintance with the
Timaeus at a l l , but d e r i v e d h i s knowledge of i t s contents e i t h e r from more r e -
cent philosophers (e.g. P o s i d o n i u s ) , or from handbooks and doxographies. 2
These
two views represent the two extremes; intermediate p o s i t i o n s are n a t u r a l l y
also possible. What conclusions can be reached on the b a s i s of the evidence
 Ill 1.1. 319

which we have accumulated?

I t cannot be denied that the occasions on which P h i l o quotes, paraphrases
or r e f e r s d i r e c t l y to the Timaeus are r e l a t i v e l y i n f r e q u e n t . T h i s can r e a d i l y
be seen i n the f o l l o w i n g l i s t which contain s a l l the examples found i n the
Corpus Philonicum. First the l o c a t i o n i n the Commentary where the passage i s
d i s c u s s e d i s given, followed by the P h i l o n i c r e f e r e n c e , the Timaeus text cited
and, f i n a l l y , the words of i n t r o d u c t i o n which precede (or o c c a s i o n a l l y follow )
the quoted or paraphrased t e x t . (The d i f f e r e n c e between quote and paraphrase
we take to be that i n the former the attempt i s made to reproduce P l a t o ' s
words verbatim, whereas i n the l a t t e r t h i s i s not considered necessary.)

Quotes
1. 2.1.2. Prov.1.21 Tim.28b4-c2 'And a l i t t l e e a r l i e r he i n d i c a t e d
h i s o p i n i o n on the genesis (of the cosmos) as f o l l o w s ' (a c o n t i n u a t i o n of
the e a r l i e r quote i n Prov.1.20).
2. 2.3.2. P l a n t . 131 Tim.29a5 cl>s e<pn T U S .
3. 2.3.2. QG 1.6 Tim.29a5-6 'just as P l a t o said'.
4. 2.3.3. Prov.1.21 Tim.29b1-2 'And so he says' ( f o l l o w s the two e a r -
l i e r quotes).
5. 4.2.2. Aet.25-26 Tim.32c5-33b1 u a p T U p u a 6e x a u i d e v Tuuauy n e p u
TOU T O V xoopov dvoaov euvau x a u urj c p d a p n o o u e v o v xd6e* . u e v 6rj
. . T O U T O

napd nAdxwvos rcpos TT\V d c p d a p o u a v TOU xoauou uapTUpuov ebAn<p§a).

6. 4.2.4. Aet.38 Tim.33c6-d3 6to x a u n A a T w v e\5... cpnauv.

7. 5.1.1. New fragment Tim.35b4-5 '...which P l a t o mentions i n the Tim-
aeus w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the s o u l , beginning thus'.
8
- 5.3.1. Prov.1.20 Tim.38b6-7 'Furthermore on the s u b j e c t of the
d i s s o l u t i o n of the cosmos and the c o n d i t i o n of i t s c r e a t u r e s the Greek
sage P l a t o himself speaks i n the Timaeus thus'.
9. 6.1.1. Aet. 13 Tim.41a7-b6 yevriTov 6e x a u a c p d a p T o v cpaouv u i o nActTU)-
v o s e v T u p a t c p 6nAouo^au 6ud Tfjs deoTipeious e x x A n o t a s , e v 5 A e y e T a u np6s
TOUS veooTepous deous UTIO TOU ipeop^TaTou nai riYepovog.

10. 10.1.2. P l a n t . 17 Tim.,90a6 d>s o n a A a t o s Xoyog.

Paraphrases
11. 1.2.3. Aet. 146 Tim. 22c 1-2 ...cpaatv.
12. 1.2.4. Aet.141 Tim.24e6-7,25c6-d6 f) cpnatv e v Tuuatq) IIAdTwv.
13. 3.1.1. Opif .21 Tim.28c3,29e1 otcep x a t T W V dpxauwv elite TLS.
14. 4.2.2. Aet.21, Tim.33a3-5 (not i n t r o d u c e d ) .
15. 5.3.1. Aet.52 Tim.37e1-2 J cpnotv o peyas IIAaToav.
16. 7.2.3. Opif.54 Tim.47a7-b2 (not i n t r o d u c e d ) .
17. 9.3.2. O p i f . 119 Tim.75d5-e2 w s ecpn nAotTWV
18. 9.3.2. QE 2.118 Tim.75d5-e2 'As P l a t o says'.
Other d i r e c t reference s
19. 2.1.3. Aet.15 ...OIL 6ud ixavTog TOU auYYpdppotTOS ( i . e . the Timaeus
mentioned at §13) ...xaAeC.
320 SYNTHESIS

20. 4.2.3. Prov.2.56 c f . Tim.33b-c 'We encounter i n the Timaeus of

P l a t o an admirable encomium p r a i s i n g the p e r f e c t shape of the sphere...'

The twenty instances of quotation, paraphrase and d i r e c t referenc e which have

been l o c a t e d do not form a p a r t i c u l a r l y high number when one takes i n t o ac-
count the considerable bulk of the P h i l o n i c corpus. 3

The first feature of the above l i s t to which we wish to draw a t t e n t i o n i s

that i t r e v e a l s a d i f f e r e n c e of procedure between P h i l o ' s e x e g e t i c a l and phi-
losophical treatises. 4
I f the quotation i n the r e c e n t l y rediscovered fragment
is l e f t out of a c c o u n t , 5
twelve examples are found i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a -
t i s e s , De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi and De P r o v i d e n t i a , and only seven i n the exegeti-
cal treatises. Of the l a t t e r group three are located i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi,
two i n one of the t r e a t i s e s (De p l a n t a t i o n e ) of the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary,
two i n the Quaestiones i n Genesim et Exodum, and none at a l l i n the Exposition
of the Law. Moreover a f u r t h e r d i f f e r e n c e between these two groups can be ob-
served, whereas i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e s P h i l o does not h e s i t a t e to
mention P l a t o ' s name and d i s c u s s h i s views i n a d i r e c t way, in his exegetical
works he tends to avoid mentioning the philosopher's name. Only three excep-
t i o n s have been found: Opif.119 (part of a long a r i t h m o l o g i c a l excursus), QE
2.118 (the same l i t e r a r y embellishment), QG 1.6. This c o n c l u s i o n is reinforced
when the t h i r t e e n examples of quotations and paraphrases of P l a t o n i c works
other than the Timaeus are added to the above l i s t . 6
In the e x e g e t i c a l treati-
ses P h i l o shows a d i s t i n c t preference f o r i n t r o d u c i n g d i r e c t references to
P l a t o ' s w r i t i n g s by means of anonymous phrases such as ihg I<pn xus, (paoC and so
on. Also l e s s d i r e c t a l l u s i o n s to the Timaeus are o f t e n introduced with im-
personal phraseology. 7
In the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e s P h i l o ' s manner i s more
direct. In a l l cases, however, whether references to the Timaeus are made
anonymously or not, the appeal to P l a t o i s made i n a p o s i t i v e sense. 8
He is
the Greek sage, one of the a n c i e n t s , i n a word 'the great Plato'.

The ten occasions on which P h i l o d i r e c t l y quotes the Timaeus allow some

observations on h i s manner of d e a l i n g w i th the text of the dialogue. There
can be l i t t l e doubt that h i s i n t e n t i o n i s to reproduce P l a t o ' s a c t u a l words —
that i s , he does not wish d e l i b e r a t e l y to emend them - but i n our a n a l y s i s we
found that h i s quoted v e r s i o n s diverge q u i t e o f t e n from the transmitted text
of P l a t o , on the average a l i t t l e l e s s than once every one and a h a l f l i n e s of
quoted t e x t . 9
Most of these d i f f e r e n c e s are admittedly of a t r i v i a l nature.
Moreover the text to which P h i l o had access, whether at f i r s t or second hand,
c e r t a i n l y would have possessed readings which d i f f e r from the manuscript tra-
d i t i o n as i t has come down to u s . 10
I t i s probable, however, that most of
these divergences are due to two concomitant causes. F i r s t l y Philo, like a l l
ancient authors, tends to r e l y on h i s memory when quoting P l a t o ' s w o r d s . 11
 Ill 1.1. 321

Only one of the quotations from the Timaeus (no.5) i s of such a length that
c o n s u l t a t i o n of the text must be considered l i k e l y . 1 2
Secondly, when quoting
P l a t o , he appears to adopt the same c u r i o u s l y c a s u a l a t t i t u d e which can be
seen i n h i s references to the ( i n h i s eyes) f a r more a u t h o r i t a t i v e Biblical
text (a phenomenon which has caused s c h o l a r s much c o n c e r n ) . 13
Indeed the r e -
s u l t of such an a t t i t u d e i s that the e n t i r e d i s t i n c t i o n between quotation
and paraphrase i n p r a c t i c e becomes r a t h e r b l u r r e d . Two consequences f o l l o w
f o r the c o n s t i t u t i o n of the P h i l o n i c t e x t . The p r a c t i c e of i n d i c a t i n g quota-
t i o n s by means of quotation marks i s on a number of occasions adopted with i n -
sufficient care. 14
More i m p o r t a n t l y, the method of emending P h i l o ' s quotes on
the b a s i s of the P l a t o n i c t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n , begun by Turnebus and continued
by Mangey and Cohn-Wendland, should be subjected to a c a r e f u l r e - e v a l u a t i o n . 15

A f i n a l o b s e r v a t i o n prompted by the l i s t of quotes and paraphrases i s the

c o n v e n t i o n a l , indeed almost p r e d i c t a b l e nature of i t s contents. A l l these r e -
ferences are to s e c t i o n s of the Timaeus that were exceedingly well-known and
f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d by other authors (an exception could be made f o r the literary
a l l u s i o n to 75d-e, but that could e a s i l y be drawn from a c o l l e c t i o n of P l a t o n -
ic 'bon m o t s ) .
1
I f our judgment was based on these passages alone, one might
be i n c l i n e d to conclude that P h i l o s d i r e c t acquaintance
f
with the contents of
P l a t o ' s dialogue was no more than superficial. 1 6

But i f the p r o t r a c t e d length of our commentary has shown one thing, i t i s

that the quotes and paraphrases so f a r d i s c u s s e d do not give an accurate p i c -
ture of the extent of P h i l o ' s knowledge of the Timaeus. We d i s c o v e r ed time
and time again that P h i l o was i n the h a b i t of a l l u d i n g to the Timaeus or u t i -
l i z i n g i t s terminology, imagery or d o c t r i n e s without g i v i n g h i s readers the
s l i g h t e s t d i r e c t i n d i c a t i o n of t h e i r source. Such copious use compels the
c o n c l u s i o n that P h i l o had read and continued to read the o r i g i n a l text c l o s e l y
and a t t e n t i v e l y . D e c i s i v e p h i l o l o g i c a l proofs i n such matters are always d i f -
f i c u l t to g i v e . The c l e a r e s t , i n our view, are the v a r i o u s occasions on which
we observed how c e r t a i n B i b l i c a l t e x t s ' t r i g g e r o f f h i s memory and cause him
to r e c o l l e c t passages from the Timaeus which can help him i n h i s e x e g e s i s . 17

The f a c i l i t y with which he uses the d i s t i n c t i v e P l a t o n i c 'language of e x c e l -

lence' i n p r a i s e of the c r e a t o r and h i s handiwork i s another i n d i c a t i o n of h i s
f a m i l i a r i t y with the text of the d i a l o g u e . 18
A l s o the f a c t that he should a t -
t r i b u t e to d i v i n e Providence p r e c i s e l y those aspects of the c o n s t r u c t i o n of
the human body i n which P l a t o too recognized the forethought of the demiurgic
'young gods' we considered to be no c o i n c i d e n c e . 19
Such p o i n t s of d e t a i l help
to a l l e v i a t e the f e a r , already given expression i n the i n t r o d u c t o r y p a r t , 2 0

that our search f o r the s u b t l e t i e s of P h i l o n i c usage might i n v o l v e us i n a

methodological circularity.
322 SYNTHESIS

I t w i l l be apparent by now that we are persuaded that we must sid e with

those s c h o l a r s who maximize P h i l o s knowledge of the Timaeus against those
f
who
tend to minimize i t . The evidence at our d i s p o s a l — and i t i s abundant enough
— p o i n t s to the c o n c l u s i o n that P h i l o had d i r e c t access to the a c t u a l text of
the dialogue and was i n t i m a t e l y acquainted with i t s contents. But two supple-
mentary remarks must immediately be appended to t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . I t does not
mean to suggest that P h i l o d i d not use secondary m a t e r i a l of d i v e r s e kinds,
which w i l l have enriched h i s understanding of the work and c e r t a i n l y w i l l have
a s s i s t e d him i n r e c o l l e c t i n g i t s contents. Secondly, an u n q u a l i f i e d a s s e r t i o n
that P h i l o knew the Timaeus 'almost by h e a r t ' i s not very h e l p f u l , because i t
overlooks the f a c t that some parts of the dialogue were more important, and
thus a l s o more f a m i l i a r , to him than o t h e r s . 21
To t h i s subject we now turn.

1.2. Priorities - which parts o f t h e Timaeus a r e most used?

The evidence which we have gathered together i n Part I I of our study sug-
gests t h a t , i f by chance P h i l o had had access only to that part of the Timaeus
which C i c e r o t r a n s l a t e d as a p r e l i m i n a r y e x e r c i s e f o r h i s p r o j e c t e d De Univer-
so (27d6-47b2)j 1
the i n f l u e n c e of the work on P h i l o ' s thought need not have
been g r e a t l y diminished. V i r t u a l l y a l l the important ideas and doctrines
which P h i l o draws from the dialogue are l o c a t ed i n the approximately one-third
of Timaeus' speech which introduces the fundamental p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s
(27d-29d) and describes the works of reason performed by the demiurge and his
a s s i s t a n t s up to and i n c l u d i n g the ( p a r t i a l ) c r e a t i o n of man (29d-47e). 2
Two
other passages o u t s i d e t h i s main s e c t i o n are a l s o e x t e n s i v e l y used, the first
e l u c i d a t i n g man's p s y c h o l o g i c a l make-up (69a-72d), the second d e s c r i b i n g man's
true end and h i s p l a c e i n the cosmos and i t s h i e r a r c h y of l i v i n g beings (89d-
92c). For the main f e a t u r e s of the dialogue's i n t r o d u c t o r y part (17a-27d),
the t r a v e l s of Solon and the myth of A t l a n t i s , P h i l o f i n d s a number of appli-
c a t i o n s , but these are u n r e l a t e d to what he does with the r e s t of the work. 3

The remainder of the Timaeus i s put to l e s s i n t e n s i v e use. Even with regard

to the most i n f l u e n t i a l part (27d-47e) we can observe c e r t a i n p o i n t s of con-
c e n t r a t i o n , notably the b a s i c p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s (27d-29d), the act of
c r e a t i o n (29e-31b), the d i s c u s s i o n on time (37c-38b), the address of the demi-
urge to the 'young gods' (41a-d), the c r e a t i o n and descent of man's l e a d i ng
part (41b-44c), the encomium of s i g h t and philosophy (47a-e). The determina-
t i v e t h r u s t of P h i l o ' s t h e o c e n t r i c and anthropocentric interest is easily re-
cognized .

It i s a l s o p o s s i b l e to look at the same question from the opposite point

4
 Ill 1.2. 323

of view. Which parts of the Timaeus does P h i l o r e f e r to comparatively infre-

quently or not at a l l ? At 48b P l a t o announces w i t h much emphasis that he needs
to embark on a f r e s h s t a r t . But the d i s t i n c t i o n between vous and avayHn,
which i s introduced at 48a and i s primarily responsible f o r the break i n the
account at t h i s p o i n t , has made l i t t l e impact on P h i l o , with the r e s u l t that
these s t r u c t u r a l n i c e t i e s remain untouched. 4
The following section (48c-53c),
i n which P l a t o v a l i a n t l y endeavours to e x p l a i n what he means by h i s conception
of the r e c e p t a c l e and a p p l i e s the r e s u l t s to the c r y p t i c d e s c r i p t i o n of the
'act of c r e a t i o n ' at 30a, i s remarkably l i t t l e used by P h i l o . 5
The philosophi-
cal s u b t l e t i e s of the geometric c o n s t r u c t i o n of the elements are, i f perceived
at a l l , c e r t a i n l y not exploited. 6
Only o c c a s i o n l y does P h i l o r e f e r to the many
p h y s i c a l and p h y s i o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s which P l a t o crams i n t o the second h a l f of
the work. 7
As we s h a l l see, the Timaeus i s f o r P h i l o p r i m a r i l y a p h i l o s o p h i c a l
textbook, not a handbook of n a t u r a l s c i e n c e . In the parts which P h i l o uses
more i n t e n s i v e l y there are a l s o notable omissions, such as the c e l e b r a t e d re-
mark on knowledge concerning the demiurge (28c), the c r e a t i o n of the cosmic
soul (35a), the d i s t i n c t i o n between al'xua and ouvatxua (46c-d). 8
But these
omissions are i n each case not absolute, and explanations for Philo's reti-
cence can be found without d i f f i c u l t y . Indeed one of the more s u r p r i s i n g r e -
s u l t s of our a n a l y s i s i s that there are p r e t t y w e l l no important aspects of
t n e
Timaeus to which P h i l o does not r e f e r i n some way or another, whether
merely s u p e r f i c i a l l y or with greater p e n e t r a t i o n . It i s , we consider, another
proof of h i s d i r e c t acquaintance with the dialogue's contents. The argument
of Wilson that P h i l o ' s knowledge of the Timaeus was l i m i t e d i n scope because
there are themes i n i t which he would never have omitted had he known of them
i s e n t i r e l y l a c k i n g i n cogency. 9

A word must be s a i d about P h i l o ' s use of the Timaeus i n comparison wit h

his reading of other P l a t o n i c d i a l o g u e s . The f a c t that P h i l o quotes and para-
phrases the Timaeus more o f t e n than the r e s t of P l a t o ' s works put together i s
a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n of the dialogue's c e n t r a l r o l e i n h i s reading of Plato. 1 0

The dominance can e a s i l y be explained . Philo's central interest i s i n theolo-

gy, cosmology and the d o c t r i n e of man, b a n i s h i ng other aspects of P l a t o n i c
philosophy such as d i a l e c t i c s , epistemology, l o g i c , e r i s t i c s and politics to
the p e r i p h e r y . 11
In the questions concerning the c r e a t i o n and s t r u c t u r e of the
cosmos and of man no other P l a t o n i c work can add much, i n P h i l o ' s view, to
what the Timaeus has to s a y . 12
But n a t u r a l l y other f a c e t s of P l a t o n i c doctrine,
e s p e c i a l l y i n the areas of e t h i c s and eschatology, impinge on i t s contents.
Above a l l the Phaedrus myth, w i t h i t s v e i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the ascent of the
soul and the contemplation of the n o e t i c world, complements the Timaeus f o r
P h i l o i n an important way. 13
I f f o r the N e o p l a t o n i s t s the whole of Plato's
324 SYNTHESIS

dewpúa was contained i n the Timaeus and the Parmenides, f o r P h i l o we might

change t h i s to the Timaeus and the Phaedrus myth, and we would not be f a r from
the mark. 14
Only f o r the s u b j e c t of higher theology are these works found wan-
t i n g , and P h i l o turns to the d o c t r i n e s found i n the R e p u b l i c . 15
Other import-
ant passages i n the P l a t o n i c corpus which supplement and shed more l i g h t on
P h i l o ' s reading of the Timaeus are Phaedo 67-81 ( d u a l i t y of s o u l and body),
96-101 ( S o c r a t e s autobiography), Republic 379-381
1
(TUHOL neoi SeoAoYÚas),
434-441 (psychology), books 6 & 7 (the images of the sun and the cave, the s c i -
ences and d i a l e c t i c ) , Symposium 189-193 (Aristophanes' speech), Theatetus 176
(ópoútüous), 191 (epistemology) , Laws 821 (astronomy), 896 (the two souls). 1 6

Two aspects of the i n t e r t w i n i n g of the Timaeus with other P l a t o n i c d i a -

logues i n P h i l o s usage can be b r i e f l y mentioned
f
now, but a d e t a i l e d discus-
s i o n w i l l be l e f t to l a t e r . 1 7
Often i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of passages from the
Timaeus p a r a l l e l d o c t r i n e s and terms from other dialogues are introduced .
This i s the r e s u l t of the Middle P l a t o n i s t hermeneutical method of i n t e r p r e t -
i n g P l a t o by means of P l a t o . Secondly, the passages of P l a t o which P h i l o con-
s i d e r s important f o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l purposes — with regard to l i t e r a r y usage
the s i t u a t i o n i s l e s s c l e a r - c u t — a l l belong to the l i m i t e d p a r t of P l a t o ' s
oeuvre which s u p p l i e d the p i l l a r s on which the e d i f i c e of Middle and Neoplato-
nism was built.

A l a r g e p a r t of the Timaeus i s concerned with what we d e s c r i b e today as

the realm of n a t u r a l s c i e n c e . P l a t o was eager not only to i n c o r p o r a t e i n h i s
work the very l a t e s t r e s u l t s of s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h , but a l s o to advance these
researches i f p o s s i b l e . 1 8
But much of what was up to date i n 360 B.C. was well
and t r u l y superseded by the beginning of our era. Does P h i l o use the Timaeus
as a sourcebook f o r s c i e n t i f i c knowledge? 19

Although h i s understanding of mathematics was c e r t a i n l y equal to the

task, 20
P h i l o makes no e f f o r t to d i s c u s s at any length the mathematical aspects
of n a t u r a l s c i e n c e which p l a y such a fundamental r o l e i n the Timaeus, 21
Mathe-
matics i s converted i n t o arithmology - a process which we s h a l l d i s c u s s i n the
next paragraph. Astronomy i s the area of s c i e n c e where P h i l o ' s debt to the
Timaeus i s the g r e a t e s t ( i t was a l s o the area i n which P l a t o ' s s c i e n c e was the
l e a s t out of d a t e ) . He understands the t e c h n i c a l terms used by P l a t o to des-
c r i b e the movements of the heavenly bodies and adds others not used by P l a t o ,
but no doubt found i n handbooks which explaine d the d e t a i l s of h i s h i g h l y com-
pressed and d i f f i c u l t a c c o u n t . 22
Many aspects of the p h y s i o l o g y and medical
s c i e n c e which P l a t o presents i n the Timaeus must have seemed a r c h a i c i n the
l i g h t of the great advances of H e l l e n i s t i c s c i e n c e . P h i l o ' s p o l i c y i s occa-
s i o n a l l y to recount P l a t o ' s t h e o r i e s when i t s u i t s him, but more o f t e n e i t h e r
 Ill 1.2. 325

to update them or replac e them with more modern v i e w s . 23

The Platonic theory
of v i s i o n i s used at Deus 79, but elsewhere the S t o i c theory prevails. 2 4
For
his information on n u t r i t i o n and r e s p i r a t i o n P h i l o does not t u r n . t o the Tim-
aeus, 25
When r e l a t i n g the purely p h y s i o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n of the l i v e r P h i l o
uses the r e s u l t s of current research, but what P l a t o has to say on t h i s organ
is helpful too, f o r i t shows that the l i v e r a l s o has an important task i n
man's psychi c and mental l i f e . 2 6
As soon as the subject of psychology i s
broached, the a u t h o r i t y of the Timaeus i s welcome, not l e a s t because P l a t o r e -
l a t e s the d o c t r i n e of the s o u l so c l e a r l y to both e t h i c s and epistemology. 27

So our c o n c l u s i o n must be that P h i l o does not e x p l o i t the Timaeus as a s c i e n -

tific textbook. I ts value to him i s that i t allows the r e s u l t s of n a t u r a l
science to be placed i n a p h i l o s o p h i c a l framework. The Timaeus has taught him
to appreciat e the r a t i o n a l and t e l e o l o g i c a l design of both the macrocosm and
the microcosm. 28
But f a r and away the most important lesson that the dialogue
had to teach was that the r e s u l t s of n a t u r a l science must be seen i n a c o r r e c t
perspective. Being concerned with the world of s e n s i b l e phenomena, n a t u r a l
science cannot pass beyond the probable, i t w i l l never gain access to the
' p l a i n of t r u t h ' . 2 9
I t must be kept p r o p e r l y i n i t s p l a c e , but the implica-
t i o n s of t h i s r e l a t i v i z i n g of i t s pretensions are not the same f o r P h i l o as
they are f o r P l a t o . 3 0

More d i f f i c u l t to evaluate i s P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus i n

terms of a r i t h m o l o g y . 31
I f mathematical d o c t r i n e s from the Timaeus are found
i n P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s , i t i s always i n the context of an a r i t h m o l o g i c a l exposi-
tion. 3 2
A l s o a number of i t s non-mathematical themes can be pressed into ser-
vice. 3 3
In t h i s way P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e s are used to shed l i g h t on numerical
aspects of the Pentateuch and Jewish t r a d i t i o n . As Moehring makes q u i t e c l e a r ,
arithmology f o r P h i l o i s p r i m a r i l y an 'exegetical t o o l ' . 3 4
Thus, f o r example,
the c e n t r a l r o l e which i s assigned by Moses to the hebdomad i n the c r e a t i o n of
the cosmos and the maintenance of cosmic order can be i l l u s t r a t e d with r e f e r -
ence to the work of one of the greatest Greek p h i l o s o p h e r s . 35
The Pythagorean
t r a d i t i o n i n which a l s o the Timaeus has a p l a c e i s not abandoned, but Philo
d i s c a r d s mathematics i n favour of arithmology. The change i s l e s s d r a s t i c
than might at f i r s t appear, f o r arithmology, no l e s s than mathematics, wants
to demonstrate the ordered, vat-tonal nature of n o e t i c and sensible r e a l i t y in
u n i v e r s a l terms. 36
I t cannot be denied, however, that the change involves a
considerable l o s s i n s u b t l e t y (not l e a s t because there i s now no room f o r iv-
vationality), as w e l l as an open i n v i t a t i o n to the kind of manipulative jug-
g l i n g which makes the whole procedure seem to the modern reader q u i t e pseudo-
scientific . 3 7

On a number of occasions i n the Commentary we were confronted with the

326 SYNTHESIS

question of s o u r c e s . 38
A r i t h m o l o g i c a l observations i n v o l v i n g use of the Timaeus
were found to be p a r a l l e l e d i n other authors who drew on the considerable body
of ancient arithmological l i t e r a t u r e . 3 9
Into t h i s t r a d i t i o n a number of doc-
t r i n e s from the Timaeus had been absorbed f o r i l l u s t r a t o r y purposes. 40
Philo's
references to the mathematical d o c t r i n e s of the Timaeus are thus most likely
prompted by h i s acquaintance with a r i t h m o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , r a t h e r than by a
p r e c i s e r e c o l l e c t i o n of the o r i g i n a l t e x t . 4 1
I n t e r e s t i n g l y , however, at Opif.
89-128 he deletes a r e f e r e n ce to the Timaeus which h i s source c e r t a i n l y con-
t a i n e d , because the r e f e r e n ce to the cosmic soul does not rhyme with h i s exe-
gesis of the seven days of c r e a t i o n . 4 2
The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of aspects of the
Timaeus i n terms of arithmology i s a l s o encountered i n the learned Middle P l a -
tonist, Plutarch. 43
C l e a r l y P h i l o ' s adoption of t h i s procedure was not only
e x e g e t i c a l l y u s e f u l , but followed i n t e l l e c t u a l l y r e s p e c t a b l e , perhaps even
r a t h e r fashionable trends of h i s day.

1.3. Distribution - where i s the Timaeus used?

In the a n a l y s i s which kept us occupied i n Part I I of t h i s study, passages

were c o l l e c t e d from r i g h t throughout the Corpus Philonicum and coerced i n t o
the a r t i f i c i a l s t r a i g h t j a c k e t of our Commentary. If we r e l e a s e them from t h e i r
bondage, as i t were, and allow them to r e t u r n to t h e i r o r i g i n a l l o c a t i o n , what
can be concluded about the d i s t r i b u t i o n of P h i l o ' s overt and covert references
to the Timaeus throughout h i s w r i t i n g s ? S t a r t i n g - p o i n t f o r t h i s e x e r c i s e must
be the f i v e - f o l d d i v i s i o n which we judged the most convenient way of classify-
ing P h i l o ' s long l i s t of t r e a t i s e s , namely the three groups of e x e g e t i c a l
t r e a t i s e s , the p h i l o s o p h i c a l and the a p o l o g e t i c / h i s t o r i c a l w r i t i n g s . 1

The De o p i f i c i o mundi holds the same s p e c i a l place i n P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s as

the f i r s t chapters of Genesis do i n the Pentateuch. It can be s a i d to be the
s t a r t of both the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary and the E x p o s i t i o n of the Law. 2
Only
here does P h i l o give a d i r e c t exegesis of Moses' account of the c r e a t i o n of
the cosmos. 3
It i s hardly s u r p r i s i n g that the most pervasive use of the Timaeus
i s to be found i n t h i s t r e a t i s e . But a l s o the opening t r e a t i s e s of the Alle-
g o r i c a l Commentary, which deal with the c r e a t i o n and s t r u c t u r e of man i n the
complex language of p s y c h o l o g i c a l a l l e g o r y , lean h e a v i l y on P l a t o ' s account of
the descent of the soul i n t o the body. In the remainder of the Allegorical
Commentary i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y the career of Abraham, who as symbol of uddnous
journeys from a s t r o l o g y and cosmos-worship to r e c o g n i t i o n of the c r e a t o r , that
induces P h i l o to draw i l l u s t r a t o r y m a t e r i a l from the Timaeus. 4
Much depends on
the nature of the B i b l i c a l themes d i s c u s s e d . The De gigantibus, f o r example,
 Ill 1.3. 327

has been d e s c r i b e d as a 'more than u s u a l l y P l a t o n i c t r e a t i s e ' , 5

but i t s account
of the soul's ascent to the s p i r i t u a l dimension of being (derived from exege-
sis of Gen.6:1-4) r e s u l t s i n the i n f l u e n c e of other dialogues such as the
Phaedo, Phaedrus and Republic being more p e r c e p t i b l e than that of the Timaeus. 6

The a s s o c i a t i v e concatenation of P h i l o ' s e x e g e t i c a l method allows him to range

far and wide. 7
U t i l i z a t i o n of the Timaeus i s g e n e r a l l y found when P h i l o i n t r o -
duces r e f l e c t i o n s on the s t r u c t u r e of the cosmos and i t s parts and their rela-
t i o n to God the c r e a t o r i n t o the v a r i e g a t e d t a p e s t r y of h i s exegesis . This
can occur at the most u n l i k e l y p l a c e s . 8
On a number of occasions Philo likes
to dwell on a theme and draw out i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s at such length that one can
speak of an excursus (or even a d i g r e s s i o n ) . Three examples of t h i s p r a c t i c e
- Pet.79-90, Plant.1-27, Her.133-214 - are of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t because of the
s k i l f u l way i n which P h i l o has incorporated important m a t e r i a l from the Tim-
aeus i n them. 9

The E x p o s i t i o n of the Law concentrates, as i t s name i n d i c a t e s , on the

nomothetic aspects of the Pentateuch, but the word law i s taken i n wider sense
than that to which we are accustomed. First the 3^ou of the P a t r i a r c h s and
Moses, l i v e d according to the aypacpos vouos, are presented, followed by a d i s -
cussion of the Pecalogue as generic laws and the S p e c i a l Laws as species. 10

Our evidence has pointed to the c o n c l u s i o n that the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus

i s somewhat diminished i n t h i s part of P h i l o ' s e x e g e t i c a l w r i t i n g s . Such dim-
i n u t i o n i s not felt i n the Pe Abrahamo because of the typology of the learner
i n search of God. 11
Moreover i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that the Timaeus i s adduced
to e x p l a i n and i l l u s t r a t e aspects of the f i r s t and second, t h i r d , fourth,
f i f t h and tenth commandments, 12
f o r the u n i v e r s a l p e r s p e c t i v e of these generic
laws are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to cosmological and anthropological structures. But
in long s e c t i o n s of the E x p o s i t i o n of the Law P h i l o ' s P l a t o n i z i n g tendencies
are set i n a r a t h e r low r e l i e f . Heinemann i n h i s study of the Pe specialibus
legibus was s t r u c k by the f a c t that P h i l o ' s strong dependence on P l a t o comes
so l i t t l e to the f o r e i n these t r e a t i s e s . 1 3
We f i n d ourselves i n agreement
with the German s c h o l a r , w i t h the r e s e r v a t i o n that i n h i s quest f o r l e g a l i n -
t e r p r e t a t i o n s he i n s u f f i c i e n t l y emphasized the importance of a l l e g o r i c a l sym-
bolism i n these works, which once more enables P h i l o to give p a r t i c u l a r Judaic
customs and legal prescriptions a universal 'philosophical' connotation. 14

P h i l o ' s e x e g e t i c a l procedures, when r e l a t e d to the texts he i s commenting on,

o f t e n appear to possess an element of c a p r i c e . One of h i s most l y r i c a l pas-
sages, Spec.184-194, i n which the thematics of Tim.47a-c are worked out i n
extravagant d e t a i l , i s set i n motion by the i n j u n c t i o n i n Ex.21:26 that a man
who knocks out the eye of a male or female s l a v e must l e t him or her go f r e e . 1 5

C l e a r l y the p h i l o s o p h i c a l excursus i s an i n d i c a t i o n that the symbolic value of

328 SYNTHESIS

the l e g a l i n j u n c t i o n i s more important than i t s p r a c t i c a l consequences. This

attitude is perfectly defensible. Nevertheless one i s l e f t with the f e e l i n g
that i t would never be p o s s i b l e to p r e d i c t when P h i l o ' s f l i g h t s of p h i l o s o p h i -
cal i n s p i r a t i o n w i l l actually occur. 16

Turning now to the Quaestiones i n Genesim et Exodum, we are confronted

with a quite d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n . These t r e a t i s e s can a p p r o p r i a t e l y be des-
c r i b e d as the C i n d e r e l l a s of P h i l o n i c s c h o l a r s h i p . No doubt the i n d i r e c t and
f a u l t y transmission of the works had discouraged s c h o l a r s from t a k i n g their
evidence i n t o f u l l account i n s t u d i e s of P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t . 17
But t h i s i s not
the f u l l reason. The reader who turns from the other e x e g e t i c a l w r i t i n g s to
the Quaestiones encounters a change i n s t y l e which i s r a t h e r disconcerting,
even i f i t should not be exaggerated. Though i n recent times considerabl e ad-
vances have been made i n the study of these works, 18
on the major questions of
P h i l o ' s i n t e n t i o n s i n w r i t i n g them and t h e i r r e l a t i o n to h i s other works f i r m
conclusions are s t i l l lacking. 1 9
The r e s u l t s f u r n i s h e d by the evidence we have
c o l l e c t e d may help i n t h i s evaluatory task. In our Commentary we had occasion
to r e f e r to the Quaestiones on numerous occasions, comparatively at l e a s t as
o f t e n as to the E x p o s i t i o n of the Law. 20
P h i l o ' s broad acquaintance with Greek
c u l t u r e , emphatically i n c l u d i n g i t s p h i l o s o p h i c a l aspects, i s d i s p l a y e d i n the
Quaestiones no l e s s than i n the other w r i t i n g s . 2 1
But i t was constantly ex-
perienced that the references to the Timaeus and i t s many themes lacked the
resonance and c l a r i t y found i n the other e x e g e t i c a l works. In l a r g e part this
i s the r e s u l t of the method of the quaestio . Adhering s t r i c t l y to the Bibli-
cal lemma which s u p p l i e s the problem, i t f u n c t i o ns as an independent exegeti-
cal u n i t and i s almost never complemented with references to other texts. 2 2

P h i l o apparently f e e l s l e s s i n c l i n a t i o n to i n t e g r a t e the m a t e r i a l he incor-

porates, so that themes and references enter and depart i n a staccato fashion.
The r e s u l t i s a curious k i n d of c a t a l o g u i n g effect. 2 3
Thus, f o r example, the
passages i n Genesis which d i s c u s s the d e s t r u c t i o n s of the earth by water and
f i r e are d e a l t with at great length, indeed almost verse f o r verse, but the
c o r r e l a t i o n with Tim.22 which provides ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l ' i n t e g r a t i o n at Abr.1-2,
Mos.2.52-53 i s not made. 24
The frequent occasions on which the Quaestiones i n
Genesim run p a r a l l e l to the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary a l s o supply r e v e a l i n g com-
parative material. 2 5
We found at l e a s t seven examples where themes r e l a t e d to
t n e
Timaeus were used i n a p a r a l l e l way i n both s e r i e s . 2 6
I t emerges that i n
the treatment given i n the Quaestiones the r e l a t i o n of the e x e g e t i c a l a p p l i c a -
t i o n to the p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s i n the background i s much l e s s c l e a r l y de-
lineated. On the other hand a number of important t e x t s were found which have
not been given the a t t e n t i o n they d e s e r v e . 27
Of e s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t f o r our study
was the s e c t i o n at QE 2.50-124, i n which P h i l o gives a long and h i g h l y d e t a i l e d
 Ill 1.3. 329

symbolic exegesis of Ex.25-28. The tabernacle and i t s furnishings symbolize

the worlds of n o e t i c and s e n s i b l e r e a l i t y and t h e i r component p a r t s . 2 8
The i n -
fluence of the cosmology of the Timaeus i s p e r c e p t i b l e s u r p r i s i n g l y o f t e n , 2 9

and p a r t i c u l a r l y i n those cases when the exegeted s c r i p t u r a l lemma causes

P h i l o to r e c a l l P l a t o ' s a c t u a l words. 30

I f the Quaestiones were the C i n d e r e l l a s , then the group of f i v e p h i l o s o -

p h i c a l t r e a t i s e s can with j u s t i f i c a t i o n be described as the Pariahs of P h i l o -
nic scholarship. Banished f o r a while from the domain of authentic works a l -
together, they were soon r e h a b i l i t a t e d , but were only consigned a place on the
very f r i n g e s of P h i I o n i c r e s e a r c h . 31
The evidence which they supply i s only
g r a d u a l l y being i n t e g r a t e d i n t o our p i c t u r e of P h i l o as a many-sided w r i t e r
and thinker. 3 2
The e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e (as f a r as we are here concerned) bet-
ween these t r e a t i s e s and P h i l o ' s other works has already been i n d i c a t e d , name-
l y that i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e s P h i l o does not h e s i t a t e to r e f e r to
P l a t o and d i s c u s s h i s views i n a d i r e c t f a s h i o n . 3 3
By t h i s we do not mean to
suggest, however, that these works are purely 'academic' e x e r c i s e s on Greek
philosophy and the views of famous p h i l o s o p h e r s , as w i l l become q u i t e c l e a r i n
our f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n s of the De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi and De P r o v i d e n t i a I & I I
below. The use of the Timaeus i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e s i s c l o s e l y r e l a -
ted to the nature of the subject under d i s c u s s i o n . 344
In the De aeternitate
mundi i t i s p e r v a s i v e , i n the De P r o v i d e n t i a important but r a t h e r sporadic, in
the De animalibus i n f r e q u e n t , 35
i n the Quod omnis probus s i t v i r t u a l l y non-
existent. 3 6
A l s o i n the a p o l o g e t i c / h i s t o r i c a l t r e a t i s e s the nature of the sub-
j e c t s discussed i s determinative, with the r e s u l t that the i n f l u e n c e of the
Timaeus i s n e g l i g i b l e . 3 7

Our c o n c l u s i o n on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of u t i l i z a t i o n of the Timaeus i n P h i -

l o 's works must t h e r e f o r e be t h a t , with a l l due allowance made f o r areas of
special concentration, there remains a s u r p r i s i n g l y uniform spread throughout
the whole corpus. The reason f o r t h i s r e l a t i v e r e g u l a r i t y has been seen to
l i e i n the nature of P h i l o ' s e x e g e t i c a l method of commenting on s c r i p t u r e .
Accordingly the observations which we have made i n t h i s s e c t i o n w i l l gain i n
depth when we proceed to examine more c l o s e l y the various kinds of ways i n
which P h i l o puts h i s knowledge of P l a t o 's dialogue to use. But first i t will
be worthwhile to look a l i t t l e more c l o s e l y at a number of t r e a t i s e s (or parts
thereof) where use of the Timaeus has been p a r t i c u l a r l y concentrated.
330 SYNTHESIS

1.4. Treatises (or parts t h e r e o f ) demanding special attention

(a) De o p i f i c i o mundi
P h i l o ' s t r e a t i s e 0nf
the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos according to Moses' 1
is
without doubt the best-known and most f r e q u e n t l y read of h i s w r i t i n g s . In h i s
Introduction to P h i l o Judaeus Goodenough a f f i r m s that i n h i s opinio n the De
o p i f i c i o mundi i s the most d i f f i c u l t of P h i l o ' s t r e a t i s e s . I t s p o s i t i o n at
the beginning of a l l e d i t i o n s of P h i l o i s unfortunate, he suspects, i n that
' i t s d i f f i c u l t y has only too o f t e n made i t the l a s t as w e l l as the f i r s t for a
reader to attempt'. 2
I agree with the American scholar that the t r e a t i s e i s
difficult. I t i s important, however, to c i r c u m s c r i be i n p r e c i s e terms what
the nature of i t s d i f f i c u l t y i s .

C e r t a i n l y the s t r u c t u r e of the work and the author's i n t e n t i o n s i n w r i t i n g

i t do not cause the problems. P h i l o even helps h i s reader along with unusual
e x p l i c i t n e s s i n §4-6. No one can do j u s t i c e to the beauties of thought con-
t a i n e d i n the c r e a t i o n a l account, but nevertheles s he himself must t r y . He
w i l l say nothing of h i s own, and only a few things instead of the many con-
t a i n e d i n i t , namely those to which the human understanding i s l i k e l y to a t -
t a i n when possessed wit h love and d e s i r e f o r wisdom. P h i l o thus makes i t abun-
dantly c l e a r that he intends to comment on the words of Moses and adhere c l o s e -
l y to the B i b l i c a l account.

We f i n d t h i s i n t e n t i o n wholly confirmed when the s t r u c t u r e of the work i s

examined. In the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e the i t a l i c i z e d words r e f e r to s t r u c t u r a l
f e a t u r e s , while the parts i n normal type r e c a l l those parts of the work which
we saw to be under the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus i n our Commentary (to which
the bracketed numbers r e f e r ) .
§1-6 -introduction
§7-12 preliminary comments
§8 Moses as philosopher (1.1.2.)
§7-11 c r e a t i o n and d i v i n e Providence (2.1.3.)
§12 being and becoming, the two worlds (2.1.1.)
§13-14 the scheme of the seven days introduced
§13-14 the n o t i o n of s e q u e n t i a l c r e a t i o n (2.1.3.)
§15-35 'day one' (creation of the noetic cosmos)
§15 i n t r o d u c t o r y (3.4.4.)
§16-20 formation of the model (2.3.1. 3.4.1-4.)
§21-23 the goodness of the c r e a t o r (3.1.1-3.)
§21-22 the act of c r e a t i o n (cf.§8-9)(3.2.1.)
§25 the euKwv r e l a t i o n (10.1.5.)
§26-28 c r e a t i o n and time (2.1.3.)
§29-35 the contents of the n o e t i c cosmos (8.2.2.)
§36-37 second day (creation of heaven)
§36-37 t r a n s i t i o n to s o l i d i t y and c o r p o r e a l i t y (4.1.1.)
 Ill 1.4. 331

§38-44 third day (creation of earth and botanical world)

§38ff. Mosaic sequence s u p e r i o r to P l a t o ' s (9.3.4.)

§45-61 fourth day (creation of heavenly bodies, praise of tetrad)

§45-46 the i m p l a u s i b i l i t i e s of the c r e a t i o n a l sequence (5.1.1.)

§45-61 c r e a t i o n of the heavenly bodies and d e s c r i p t i o n of
t h e i r f u n c t i o n (5.4.1.)
§53-54 encomium of l i g h t (7.2.3.)

§62-63 fifth day (creation of f i s h and birds)

§62-68 c r e a t i o n of the genera of animals (5.4.3.)

§64-88 sixth day (creation of land animals and man)

§62-68 c r e a t i o n of the genera of animals (5.4.3.)

§69-71 c r e a t i o n of man- f i r s t account (10.1.5.)
§72-75 quaesti o — why does God use helpers? (6.2.1.)
§77-88 q u a e s t i o — why was man created l a s t ?
§77-81,82 c r e a t i o n a l sequence (1.3.1. 9.3.4.)
§77-78 encomium of philosophy (7.2.3.)
§79 beginning of the passions (9.2.1.)

§89-128 seventh day (in praise of the hebdomad)

( i n c i d e n t a l references i n the a r i t h m o l o g i c a l catalogue, c f .

5.1.1. 9.3.2.)

§129-139 concluding summary and recapitulation

§134-139 c r e a t i o n of man— second account (10.1.5.)

§140-169 'proto-history' — man's f a l l (also allegorized)

§144-151 ouyyeveua, oyotwous $e($ (10.1.6.)

§151 man's i n i t i a l aloneness (3.5.1. 10.1.6.)
§151-152 the c r e a t i o n of woman (10.2.1.)

§170-172 conclusion — Mosaic 'credo'

§171 u n i c i t y of the cosmos (3.5.1. cf.4.2.1.)

d i v i n e itpovota (2.1.3.)
§172 e u 6 a u u o v u a (10.1.6.)

The t a b l e shows that the s t r u c t u r e of the t r e a t i s e i s p e r f e c t l y compre-

hensible i f one perceives that P h i l o follows the n a r r a t i v e of Gen.1-3 and s u-

perimposes h i s own e l u c i d a t o r y comments. In these three themes predominate.

(1) The scheme of the s i x days of c r e a t i o n enables P h i l o to present an a r i t h m o l o -

. . . . . . i 3

g i c a l symbolic exegesis which does j u s t i c e to the patent T a £ t s of the cosmos.

(2) The correspondences between Moses' cosmogony and the Timaeus are h e a v i l y

exploited i n order to demonstrate not only that the cosmos was created as the

r e s u l t of God's goodness, but a l s o that the c r e a t i o n a l sequence can t e l l us

much about i t s h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e and about the nature and f u n c t i o n i n g of

its parts.

(3) In the B i b l i c a l account the scheme of the seven days ends at Gen.2:4. The
. . . h .

p a r a l l e l s w i t h the Timaeus can be continued beyond t h i s p o i n t . A f t e r making

some use of them to expound Gen.2:7 (§134-139) P h i l o s u r p r i s i n g l y chooses ano-

ther course, namely the p e r s p e c t i v e of p r o t o - h i s t o r y , 5

The f i r s t man was
332 SYNTHESIS

created good i n every way, but soon d e c l i n e s e t i n , beginning a f t e r the c r e a -

t i o n o f woman. 6

I t must be concluded, t h e r e f o r e , that the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus i s

profound and p e r v a s i v e , extending to almost every s e c t i o n of the De o p i f i c i o

mundi. I f the a r i t h m o l o g i c a l s e c t i o n s are l e f t out of c o n s i d e r a t i o n we can

say that i n the task of s u p p l y i n g background p h i l o s o p h i c a l and s c i e n t i f i c i n -

formation the Timaeus and i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n h o l d v i r t u a l l y a mono-

poly p o s i t i o n . 7
Also the i n t e r a c t i o n w i th the other two main themes i s i n t e r -

esting. In c e r t a i n r e s p e c t s the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the P l a t o n i c dialogue runs

p a r a l l e l to the numerical symbolism. At §13-14 the two i n f a c t converge, f o r

the scheme of seven days i s described i n terms reminiscent of the aiaaoxaXCac

xàpuv i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus. 8

Elsewhere they can c o n f l i c t , as at §62-

68, where the P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e of the four yévx] ÇCJJWV causes P h i l o t o cover

w i t h s i l e n c e the s e p a r a t i o n between the works of the f i f t h and s i x t h day. 9

The f i n a l part of the t r e a t i s e i s mutatis mutandis comparable w i t h the way

that P l a t o might have continued h i s t r i l o g y , had he w r i t t e n it. 1 0

In s p i t e of these o b s e r v a t i o n s , however, i t i s p e l l u c i d l y c l e a r that i t

was never P h i l o ' s i n t e n t i o n to w r i t e a cosmogonie/cosmological account i n the

way that P l a t o d i d . The c h a r a c t e r o f the work i s determined by i t s l o y a l t y to

the sequences o f the Mosaic t e x t . 1 1

In the d e t a i l e d explanations of the various

events d e s c r i b e d by Moses the account i s easy to f o l l o w , but the o v e r a l l

framework remains e l u s i v e and u n c e r t a i n from the p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o i n t of v i e w . 12

A highly significant i n d i c a t i o n i n t h i s respect i s the f a c t that P h i l o does

not f o l l o w the Timaeus i n t a l k i n g of the cosmos as a s e l f - c o n t a i n e d whole com-

posed o f body and s o u l . Indeed, a f t e r d i s c u s s i n g the n o e t i c exemplar created

on f
day o n e , he turns
1
s t r a i g h t to the c r e a t i o n of the heaven on the second

day. The u n i c i t y of the cosmos i s only b r i e f l y mentioned at the end of the

t r e a t i s e and i t s s p h e r i c i t y i s not mentioned at a l l . 1 3

The question thus remains. I f the characte r and s t r u c t u r e of the t r e a -

t i s e are r e a d i l y comprehensible, why d i d we f i n d ourselves i n agreement with

Goodenough that i t i s a d i f f i c u l t work? The answer must be sought i n the

c l e a r l y p e r c e p t i b l e t e n s i o n between the d e t a i l e d u n f o l d i n g of the cosmogonie

account and the p o s s i b i l i t y of f i n d i n g i n i t i n t e g r a t i o n and systematic cohe-

rence. To what extent i s P h i l o attempting to suggest s o l u t i o n s to p h i l o s o p h i -

c a l problems i n the course of h i s explanations? Here judgment i s r e q u i r e d on

the p a r t of the reader, f o r on t h i s aspect o f h i s aims P h i l o leaves him wholly

i n the dark. We may be q u i t e c e r t a i n that the wider i m p l i c a t i o n s of h i s sub-

j e c t d i d not escape him. Witness the i n t r o d u c t o r y remarks a t §7-12, which

p l a c e the d o c t r i n e of genesis i n correct perspective, and the e x p o s i t i o n and

defence o f n o e t i c exemplarism i n §16-25. lk

But what about the contents of the
 Ill 1.4. 333

n o e t i c world o u t l i n e d i n §29-35? Here we were not persuaded by the elaborate

speculations of Wolfson, Winston and Reale based on t h i s s e c t i o n . 1 5
Also Phi-
lo's treatment of the double account of man's c r e a t i o n was found difficult.
The anthropology of the Timaeus proved to be an i n t e g r a t i n g f a c t o r , but many
problems, i n s t i g a t e d by the B i b l i c a l t e x t , remained. 16
One i s impelled to pre-
d i c t that t h i s t r e a t i s e w i l l long be the subject of f r u i t f u l controversy.

(b) Legum a l l e g o r i a e
The r e l a t i o n between the De o p i f i c i o mundi and the t r e a t i s e s which f o l l o w
it i n a l l e d i t i o n s of P h i l o ' s works, 17
the Legum a l l e g o r i a e , i s h i g h l y problem-
a t i c and has long been the subject of s c h o l a r l y d e b a t e . 18
Clearly Philo re-
gards the Mosaic account of c r e a t i o n as extending to the end of Gen.3. Other-
wise he would not have included the s t o r y of Adam and Eve i n p a r a d i s e as part
of the De o p i f i c i o mundi. But the Legum a l l e g o r i a e also deal with the story
of Adam and Eve, beginning the commentary at Gen.2:1. The reason f o r t h i s
s u r p r i s i n g overlap i s , to our mind, s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . The prime focus of the
Legum a l l e g o r i a e i s the a l l e g o r y of the s o u l . I t i s l o g i c a l that t h i s a l l e g o -
ry can only commence once man, the composite of body and s o u l , has been c r e a -
ted on the s i x t h day. 19
The r e s u l t a n t overlap between the two treatises there-
f o r e by no means r e s u l t s i n needless r e p e t i t i o n . I t ensures that the influ-
ence of the Timaeus can extend i n a most important way beyond the De opificio
mundi i n t o the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary. In an important s e c t i o n of our Commen-
t a r y i t was shown that P h i l o ' s a l l e g o r y of the s o u l i s given p h i l o s o p h i c a l re-
l i e f by means of the s i g n i f i c a n t p a r a l l e l s he f i n d s between Gen.2-4 and Plato's
account of the c r e a t i o n and subsequent career of the soul i n Tim.41c-44d. 20

Not only i s P h i l o able i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi to i n d i c a t e man's place i n the

macrocosm and describe h i s structure as created composite of sou l and body un-
der the guidance of mind, but i n the Legum a l l e g o r i a e he can concentrate on
the microcosm and expose the dynamics which are consequent upon man's s t r u c t -
ure, as the r a t i o n a l part of the soul i s bombarded with the impressions f u r -
nished by the senses and must s t r u g g l e against the passions that r e s u l t from
the conjunctio n with the body. The t r a n s i t i o n i s , i n short, from a cosmologi-
cal to an a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l / e t h i c a l perspective. P h i l o has perceived a parallel
i n the m y t h i c a l elements which are undeniably present i n both P l a t o ' s account
of the soul's descent and the s t o r y of Adam and Eve. 21
The c r e a t i o n account
does not only r e f e r to events which occurred i n i l l o tempore, but can be shown
to be d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t to the p s y c h o l o g i c a l and s p i r i t u a l processes that take
place i n the l i f e of every human being. We must admire, I t h i n k , the creative
and elegant manner i n which P h i l o , using a l l the resources of h i s a l l e g o r i c a l
method, i s able to e x p l o i t the p a r a l l e l and l o c a t e P l a t o n i c psychology and
334 SYNTHESIS

even aspects of the physiology of the Timaeus i n the v a r i o u s d e t a i l s of the

Biblical narrative. 2 2

(c) De p l a n t a t i o n e 1-45
At r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s i n the Commentary our a t t e n t i o n was drawn to the
1
phyto-cosmological excursus' (our t i t l e ) wit h which P h i l o commences the De
p l a n t a t i o n e , f o r the sound reason that i t contains many themes u l t i m a t e l y de-
r i v e d from the Timaeus. P h i l o i s i n s p i r e d by the Mosaic word ecpuxeuoev (Gen.
9:20) to embark on a lengthy d e s c r i p t i o n of the cosmos i n terms of a giant
plant. What sparked o f f t h i s metaphorical tour de f o r c e cannot be considered
c e r t a i n , but i t i s i n our view more l i k e l y to have been the resonance of B i b -
l i c a l and P l a t o n i c imagery than the a p p r o p r i a t i o n of a Posidonian source. 23

In c o n t r a s t to the De opificio mundi the cosmos i s d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s pas-

sage as a whole. P h i l o uses language reminiscent of the model of the Timaeus
to d e s c r i b e the whole and i t s p a r t s , but the idea of a paradeigmatic exemplar
i n God's mind i s set a s i d e . 2 4
The emphasis i s on a description of the cosmos
r a t h e r than an account of c r e a t i o n . The language of c r e a t o r and created pro-
duct i s , however, emphatically retained. The xoouoiActOTns establishes order
out of d i s o r d e r and f i x e s the place of the four elements. 25
The cosmos can
only be p e r f e c t i f made of p e r f e c t p a r t s , that i s i f a l l the elements are used
up in i t s construction. 26
The question why the cosmos does not sink i s from
the viewpoint of the Timaeus unnecessary; i t i s prompted by developments i n
S t o i c cosmology. 27
The four elements are kept i n p o s i t i o n not by the 6eouos
of mathematical d v a A o y u a as i n the Timaeus, but by the 6eop6s of the d i v i n e
Logos which s t a t i o n s i t s e l f between the elements and, t a k i n g over a l s o the
f u n c t i o n s of the P l a t o n i c cosmic s o u l , supervises t h e i r unending c y c l e s of
change. 28
Turning then, j u s t as P l a t o d i d , to the animal genera which i n h a b i t
the elemental regions , P h i l o expands the simple scheme of Tim.39e, adding
f i r e - b o r n creatures to heaven (?) and demons or angels to the a i r . Platonic
cosmology i s updated and made more complete. 29
Last of a l l the l i f e - f o r m s be-
longing to the element e a r t h are portrayed. In d e s c r i b i n g p l a n t s , land-animals
and man, P h i l o s k i l f u l l y adapts Plato's famous words at Tim. 90a and 91e. 30
The
climax of the excursus i s thus a b r i e f o u t l i n e of a d o c t r i n e of man (§17-27). 31

Adducing the primary a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l t e x t s , Gen.1:27 & 2:7, P h i l o emphasizes

that man i s r e l a t e d not to the ether, but to God the c r e a t o r through the medi-
a t i o n of the Logos. 32
Man's mind can speed away past the bounds of the cosmos
to God as Uncreated Being ( T O ayevriTov, T O 6 V ) , as i s i n d i c a t e d by the B i b l i -
cal t e x t s i n which B e z a l e l and Moses are ' c a l l e d up'. 33
Returning thus to the
Planter-Creator with which he s t a r t e d , P h i l o b r i n gs h i s 'phyto-cosmological
excursus' to a c l o s e . 3 4
 Ill 1.4. 335

At t h i s point one might have thought that the p l a n t metaphor was exhaus-
ted, but that i s not at a l l the case. P h i l o immediately proceeds to a 'phyto-
anthropological f
s e c t i o n (§28-45). A l s o man the microcosm can be d e s c r i b e d as
a p l a n t , possessing growths and shoots capable of bearing fruit. P h i l o makes
g r a t e f u l use of the theme of the Garden of Eden, which can be s u i t a b l y a l l e g o -
rized. The p a r a l l e l with the Legum a l l e g o r i a e i s apparent, although the man-
ner of o r g a n i z a t i o n i s c o n s i d e r a b l y altered. 3 5

The above o u t l i n e cannot p o s s i b l y do j u s t i c e to the r i c h e l a b o r a t i o n of

t h i s P h i l o n i c passage, but i t does allow us to draw a number of important con-
clusions. Repeating as i t does the b a s i c d i v i s i o n between the De opificio
mundi and the Legum a l l e g o r i a e , the passage strengthens the c o n c l u s i o n which
we reached e a r l i e r , namely that the b a s i c s t r u c t u r e of the Timaeus encourages
P h i l o to p l a c e man i n a cosmological p e r s p e c t i v e , but a l s o to go on from there
to analyse the p s y c h o l o g i c a l and e t h i c a l development that takes p l a c e i n the
microcosm i t s e l f . More important than the i n d i v i d u a l d o c t r i n e s tha t the 'phy-
to-cosmological excursus' d e r i v e s from the Timaeus i s the general framework
and movement of thought which i t takes from the great P l a t o n i c example. It i s
w i t h i n that framework that P h i l o places a number of p o s t - P l a t o n i c cosmological
d o c t r i n e s and problems. We f i n d ourselves t h e r e f o r e i n sharp disagreement
with the analysis of F r u c h t e l , who argues that i n t h i s passage the P l a t o n i c
world-view recedes and i s r e p l a c e d , through the mediation of Posidonius, by a |
highly ' s c i e n t i f i c ' p i c t u r e of the cosmos which p a r t i a l l y r e v e r t s back to Pre-
s o c r a t i c thought. 36

F i n a l l y a word about the method and s t y l e of the passage. I t seems to me

that here P h i l o more than anywhere e l s e approximates a Greek manner of cosmol-
o g i z i n g and p h i l o s o p h i z i n g . One might go even f u r t h e r and argue that Plant.
2-27 i s as c l o s e to a 'mini-Timaeus' as P h i l o could come. To be sure, the
B i b l i c a l text suggests the predominant image, but f o r the r e s t P h i l o has whol-
l y u n f e t t e r e d himself from the c o n s t r a i n t of d i r e c t e x e g e s i s . 37
Texts such as
Gen.1:27 and 2:7 are introduced f o r systematic purposes. P h i l o here a n t i c i -
pates the mélange of systematic d o c t r i n e and sporadic B i b l i c a l c i t a t i o n which
w i l l become the hallmark of much P a t r i s t i c and Medieval philosophy. Especial-
l y §1-27 give an impression q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the c o n t i n u a l (and o f t e n con-
catenated) exegesis which P h i l o u s u a l l y p r a c t i c e s . 3 8

(d) Quis rerum divinarum heres s i t

Of a l l P h i l o ' s a l l e g o r i c a l works t h i s t r e a t i s e i s arguably the r i c h e s t i n
thought. In a d a z z l i n g d i s p l a y of the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of the a l l e g o r i c a l method,
he brings a multitude of p h i l o s o p h i c a l themes i n r e l a t i o n to the text of Gen.
15:2-18, i n which God speaks to Abraham and promises him a great inheritance. 39
336 SYNTHESIS

So e a s i l y are d i v e r s e and f r u i t f u l a s s o c i a t i o n s made with Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l

d o c t r i n e s that one gets the impression - q u i t e unprovable, of course - that
P h i l o , before w r i t i n g the t r e a t i s e , may have given himself a ' r e f r e s h e r course'
i n h i s reading of f a v o u r i t e p h i l o s o p h i c a l works, among which the Timaeus w i l l
have claimed an important place. 4 0

E s p e c i a l l y the lengthy account of the Logos-cutter used by God the crea-

t o r to order and a r t i c u l a t e the cosmos (§130-229, exeg. Gen.15:10 6ueuXev auict
yeaa) has been the subject of much s p e c u l a t i o n . 41
I t i s a l s o the passage of
greatest i n t e r e s t f o r our study. The Xoyog T O U E U S not only d i v i d e s , but d i -
vides i n equal s e c t i o n s , as i s seen i n the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos. 42
In the
d e s c r i p t i o n of ' c r e a t i o n by d i a e r e s i s ' f a m i l i a r motifs from the Timaeus t r a -
d i t i o n are encountered. The Logos cuts through the d i s o r d e r e d and disharmo-
n i z e d pre-elemental m a t t e r . 43
In o r d e r i n g matter God made use of number and
p e r f e c t shapes. 44
A l l the forms of e q u a l i t y were used, among which was analo-
g i c a l proportion, used f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the elements and ensuring the
cosmos' permanence. 45
The order of c r e a t i o n i n §133-140 i s by now f a m i l i a r to
us - cosmos, elements, animals, man. 46
The conception of ' c r e a t i o n by diaere-
s i s ' i s thus b a s i c a l l y r e c o n c i l a b l e with the c r e a t i o n account of the Timaeus. 47

But by p l a c i n g a l l the emphasis on d i v i s i o n and e q u a l i t y P h i l o has s h i f t e d the

centre of a t t e n t i o n and relegated the c r e a t i o n i s m of the Timaeus to a back-
ground f u n c t i o n . 4 8
I t i s not p o s s i b l e to dwell on the d i f f i c u l t question of
sources here. Perhaps we may be permitted to suggest that the Logos-cutter
i s found i n e x a c t l y t h i s form nowhere e l s e because i t i s P h i l o ' s own idea, the
r e s u l t of a c r e a t i v e s y n t h e s i s between B i b l i c a l ideas (note e s p e c i a l l y Gen.
1:4) and Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h e o r i e s . 4 9
Hence too the subordinate but r e a l
presence of the Timaeus i n the background. 50

(e) De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi
The r e s u l t s of our Commentary have shown that the Timaeus has been worked
i n t o the very woof and warp of that f a s c i n a t i n g l i t t l e t r e a t i s e , the De aeter-
n i t a t e mundi. 51
P l a t o had already demonstrated i n h i s cosmological dialogue
that the questions of the cosmos' createdness and i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y are i n -
t i m a t e l y bound together. P h i l o makes t h i s d o c t r i n e one of the p i l l a r s of h i s
argument. The acpdapata of the cosmos can only be understood i n the perspec-
t i v e of i t s y e v e a t s . 52
I t accounts f o r the prominent r o l e that the Timaeus
plays i n the work.

At the very beginnin g of the t r e a t i s e the reader gains an i n t i m a t i o n of

the importance of P l a t o ' s d i a l o g u e, f o r the b r i e f proemium wholly c o n s i s t s of
a c r e a t i v e adaptation of two Timaean passages, 27c-d,29c-d. 53
In the doxograph-
i c a l s e c t i o n (§7-19) P l a t o ' s view that the cosmos i s yevn-ros nai acpdapxos i s
 Ill 1.4. 337

i l l u s t r a t e d by the quotation of Tim.41a-b, from which P h i l o e x t r a c t s no less

than f i v e important d o c t r i n e s . 5 4
The doxography i s a c a r e f u l l y organized piece,
g i v i n g the clue to the s t r u c t u r e of the work. 55
I t climaxes i n the o p i n i on of
Moses, who long before Hesiod and P l a t o , had a f f i r m e d i n the book Genesis that
the cosmos was created, yet not to be d e s t r o y e d . 56
I t a l s o makes q u i t e c l e a r
that the twenty-four arguments presented i n the second part (§20-149) on be-
h a l f of those who p o s i t that the cosmos i s uncreated and i n d e s t r u c t i b l e cannot
be considered to represent P h i l o s own
f
point of v i e w . 57
In these arguments too
considerable use of the Timaeus was discovered. I t proved r a t h e r awkward to
decide whether these references were d e r i v e d from P h i l o ' s source m a t e r i a l or
were i n s e r t e d by h i m s e l f. For some, we concluded, P h i l o was probably respon-
sible, 5 8
others he w i l l i n g l y t r a n s c r i b e d . 5 9
But i t cannot be concluded that
P h i l o would wish i n each case to accept the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus put
forward. For example, the A r i s t o t e l i a n view of time, f o r which the Timaeus i s
c a l l e d i n as p a r t i a l witness, i s nowhere e l s e found i n P h i l o ' s works. 60
It i s
h i g h l y l i k e l y that i n the m i s s i ng sequel, where we consider that a presenta-
t i o n of arguments supporting the p o s i t i o n that the cosmos i s YEVTITOS nai acp-
dapxos would have been made, he would have shown the c o r r e c t way to use the
Timaeus i n support of h i s t h e s i s . 6 1

The De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi takes i n a s p e c i a l place i n the Corpus P h i l o n i -

cum. I t i s unfortunate that i t s incomplete s t a t e of p r e s e r v a t i o n makes i t s
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n so problematic. Nowhere e l s e does P h i l o present such a systema-
t i c e x p o s i t i o n of Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h e o r i e s . But i t would be very wrong to
regard i t as a mere academic e x e r c i s e . The c i t a t i o n of Moses at a c r i t i c a l
juncture of the t r e a t i s e i s a c l e a r warning that f o r P h i l o a p h i l o s o p h i c a l
manner of p r e s e n t a t i o n does not d e t r a c t from the importance of s c r i p t u r e or
from the need f o r an a p o l o g e t i c outlook. 62

(f) De P r o v i d e n t i a I & I I
The same a p o l o g e t i c motives are much more c l e a r l y v i s i b l e i n the two books
which P h i l o devoted to the subject of d i v i n e Providence. These two t r e a t i s e s
are the l e a s t a c c e s s i b l e of a l l P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s , not because t h e i r subject
matter i s so d i f f i c u l t , but c h i e f l y on account of the d e f e c t i v e transmission
of the t e x t . 6 3
De P r o v i d e n t i a I has been given the w e l l - o r g a n i z e d s t r u c t u r e of
a H e l l e n i s t i c ouyYpauua, w i t h an i n t r o d u c t i o n , three main s e c t i o n s each d e a l -
ing with a separate theme l u c i d l y introduced (§6,§37,§77), and a l i v e l y con-
clusion. De P r o v i d e n t i a I I i s presented i n the form of a dialogue between the
author and h i s nephew A l e x a n d e r . 64
D i e l s ' hypothesis that Book I too was ori-
g i n a l l y a dialogue i s unnecessary and should be r e j e c t e d . 6 5
The importance of
these two t r e a t i s e s f o r our subject precludes us from passing them over i n
338 SYNTHESIS

silence. But the shaky foundations of the text make i t necessary to put for-
ward our views with l e s s c e r t a i n t y than elsewhere.
Approximately a t h i r d of book I deals with the problem of Providence i n
r e l a t i o n to the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos (§6-36). As i n Opif.7-10 P h i l o argues
that d e n i a l of the cosmos 1
createdness i s tantamount to d e n i a l of d i v i n e Pro-
vidence. In t h i s part of the work the Timaeus i s twice brought forward i n t o
the centre of a t t e n t i o n . The extremely d i f f i c u l t opening paragraphs (§6-8)
bear a c l o s e resemblance to Opif.7-28, but concentrate on r e f u t i n g the doc-
t r i n e of c r e a t i o aeterna r a t h e r than the view that the cosmos i s uncreated.
Creation i s seen as the t r a n s i t i o n from a p r e - e x i s t e n t d i s o r d e r l y matter to
the ordered product of the cosmos, achieved by the p r o v i d e n t i a l c r e a t o r . 66
A
l i t t l e f u r t h e r on P h i l o appeals to the Timaeus more d i r e c t l y , quoting two pas-
sages i n order to prove P l a t o ' s a f f i r m a t i o n of the yeveous xou xoauou and ap-
pending some i n t e r p r e t a t i v e comments ( § 2 1 ) . 67
P l a t o recognized two first caus-
es, God as the e t e r n a l c r e a t o r of the n o e t i c cosmos, and matter which lacks
order and i s transformed by God i n t o the ordered cosmos. 68
By way of illustra-
t i o n a d e f i n i t i o n of the cosmos as s t r u c t u r e d whole i s a t t r i b u t e d to P l a t o .
Though not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the Timaeus, i t c l e a r l y r e v e a ls the i n t e r p o s i t i o n
of the interpretative t r a d i t i o n . 6 9
But i n t h i s section.(§20) P h i l o a l s o quotes
a text from the Timaeus to prove the p o t e n t i a l d e s t r u c t i o n of the cosmos. 70

Here the i d i o s y n c r a t i c nature of the t r e a t i s e comes to the f o r e . More than

anywhere e l s e i n h i s oeuvre P h i l o s t r e s s e s that the cosmos could w e l l come to
an e n d , 71
and i n e s c h a t o l o g i c a l passages almost without p a r a l l e l i n h i s w r i t -
ings he envisages the r e t u r n to disordere d matter as punishment i n f l i c t e d by
God the judge on man's wickedness (§34-36,§89-92). 72
I t thus seems q u i t e im-
p o s s i b l e to b r i n g the main t h e s i s of De Providentia I i n t o l i n e with the sys-
tematic p r e s e n t a t i o n of the same questions i n the De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi. We
note i n p a r t i c u l a r that the Timaean text which was so prominent i n Aet. and
was widely used to a f f i r m God's p r o v i d e n t i a l maintenance of the cosmos, Tim.41
a-b, i s glimpsed only once i n Prov.I, and even then i t i s given an emphasis
which deviate s from P l a t o n i s t orthodoxy. 73

A d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n i s encountered i n De Providentia II. The overrid-

ing aim of the dialogu e i s to make Alexander see the e r r o r of h i s free-thinking
ways and convert him back to a b e l i e f i n the workings of d i v i n e Providence.
With every counter-argument P h i l o wishes to hammer another s i x - i n c h n a i l into
the c o f f i n of the Academicism and Epicureanism from which Alexander draws h i s
s t o r e of arguments. 74
A wide range of t o p i c s are discussed. At §45-58 i t i s
the subject of c r e a t i o n , at §59-84 d i v e r s e problems of cosmology. We discov-
ered that the use made of the Timaeus i n these sections i s rather limited. 7 5

I t s c h i e f value i s to give support to P h i l o ' s fundamental assumption of the

 Ill 1.4. 339

t e l e o l o g i c a l design of the cosmos. 6

The reason f o r t h i s l i m i t e d use i s not
only the f a c t that most of P h i l o ' s r e p l i e s are drawn from S t o i c sources and
e s p e c i a l l y t h e i r counter-attacks against Carneades. 77
In the c o n s t r u c t i o n of
the dialogue he does not have (or give h i m s e l f ) enough time to present r e p l i e s
adequate to the important questions discussed. I n d i c a t i v e i s the 'even i f 1

techniques he uses on a number of occasions - 'even i f the cosmos and matter

were uncreated, even i f there was an u n l i m i t e d v o i d . . . there i s s t i l l no rea-
son to deny the existence of d i v i n e Providence'. But elsewhere he r e j e c t s
these d o c t r i n e s . 7 8
The exchanges between the two opponents o f t e n have a 'shoot-
ing from the h i p ' q u a l i t y , which i s l i k e l y to d i s a p p o i n t readers who turn to
the work i n the e x p e c t a t i on that they w i l l f i n d p e n e t r a t i n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s -
cussions on the nature and extent of the d i v i n e p r o v i d e n t i a l a c t i v i t y . But in
a l l f a i r n e s s we must add that that was not the purpose f o r which P h i l o com-
posed the dialogue. Book I I can, f a r more than i t s predecessor, be describe d
as an a p o l o g e t i c work. I f the p r o v i d e n t i a l a c t i v i t y of God i s denied, then
the foundation on which the e d i f i c e of Jewish r e l i g i o n i s b u i l t must crumble
i n t o dust. The urgency which i n d u b i t a b l y marks t h i s work i s p u b l i c r a t h e r
private. 7 9
It i s poignant to r e a l i z e that the dialogue's successful conclusion
(§113-116) was merely an e x e r c i s e i n w i s h f u l thinking. 80

1.5. A taxonomy o f usage

The stage has now been reached that encourages the attempt at an overview
of the d i v e r s e ways i n which P h i l o u t i l i z e s the Timaeus i n the course of h i s
interminable s e r i e s of w r i t i n g s . We have decided to present t h i s overview i n
the form of a taxonomy. 1
What are the minimum number of c a t e g o r i e s r e q u i r e d to
c l a s s i f y the hundreds of instances of P h i l o n i c usage of the Timaeus c o l l e c t e d
i n the Commentary? L i k e i n a l l taxonomies, there must be an element of arbi-
t r a r i n e s s i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . We have h a l t e d at the hebdomad, a f i t t i n g l y
P h i l o n i c number. One could subdivide f u r t h e r , but perhaps w i t h l e s s p r o f i t .
A f i n a l point that needs emphasis before we begin i s that the order of sequence
has a l o g i c of i t s own but i s not meant to be h i e r a r c h i c a l . I t does not indi-
cate an i n c r e a s i n g order of importance.

1. Language. P h i l o ' s debt to the Timaeus f o r h i s choice of p h i l o s o p h i -

c a l terminology and general vocabulary i s very great. Scores of terms and
phrases are so t o t a l l y i n t e g r a t e d i n t o h i s mode of t h i n k i n g and w r i t i n g that
one tends to forget not only that they o r i g i n a t e i n P l a t o , but a l s o that they
are nowhere to be found i n the s c r i p t u r a l t e x t s that are i n the most cases
340 SYNTHESIS

being explained. 2
Numerous examples can be given. The phrase T t o t n t r i S HOCI, %a-

xr\p i s so commonplace i n P h i l o s w r i t i n g s f
that one may reasonably question
whether he i s conscious of the P l a t o n i c o r i g i n every time he uses i t . 3
But
cases were a l s o found where the respectabl e p h i l o s o p h i c a l pedigree of the
phrase i s d e l i b e r a t e l y e x p l o i t e d . 4
Exceedingly common i n P h i l o , we found, was
the d i s t i n c t i v e 'language of e x c e l l e n c e ' used by P l a t o to denote p r a i s e of and
admiration f o r the cosmos and ( l e s s often) i t s c r e a t o r . 5
Another i n t e r e s t i n g
example i s P h i l o ' s commentary on the f o u r t h , f i f t h and s i x t h days of creation
i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi. The crude and unsystematic Mosaic t i t u l a t u r e f o r
the s t a r s and the types of animal genera are q u i e t l y but f i r m l y removed and
r e p l a c ed w i t h the more r e s p e c t a b l e and s c i e n t i f i c Platonic counterparts. 6
Cer-
t a i n r a r e words can i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d only have entered P h i l o ' s vocabulary
through a reading of the Timaeus. 7

A l e x i c a l study of the correspondences between the vocabulary of the Tim-

aeus and P h i l o ' s usage, as found f o r example i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi, would
c e r t a i n l y be remunerative. 8
The l i m i t e d a n a l y s i s that we made of the language
and terminology u t i l i z e d by P h i l o i n connection with the model already yielded
interesting results. 9
The debt to Plato was revealed in f u l l clarity. Partic-
u l a r l y n o t i c e a b l e was P h i l o ' s fondness f o r compound words, to an extent that
f a r exceeds P l a t o n i c usage. 10
Some of the words which are especially appo-
s i t e to the subject of the c r e a t i o n and s t r u c t u r e of the cosmos and man are
found v i r t u a l l y nowhere e l s e . 1 1
But the above-mentioned a n a l y s i s a l s o showed
that the l e x i c a l presence of the Timaeus i n P h i l o ' s works was c e r t a i n l y not
j u s t the r e s u l t of h i s acquaintance with the dialogue, but was constantly re-
i n f o r c e d by h i s reading of works i n the P l a t o n i s t t r a d i t i o n . 1 2

2' Imagery. A second category i s f u r n i s h e d by P h i l o ' s use of the copi-

ous and elaborate imagery found i n the Timaeus. P h i l o ' s love f o r a l l kinds of
imagery and metaphor, whether o r i g i n a l or t o t a l l y hackneyed, i s apparent on
every page of h i s w r i t i n g s . 1 3
C l e a r l y h i s r h e t o r i c a l t r a i n i n g had given him a
sharp eye f o r i t s presence i n the works he consulted and he e f f o r t l e s s l y re-
c o l l e c t s diverse images from a wide range of sources. Indeed c o n t r o l i s o f t e n
a bigger problem f o r him than r e c o l l e c t i o n and invention.

In the course of our Commentary we noted numerous examples of imagery

from the Timaeus which l e f t a mark on P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s : f r e q u e n t l y encoun-
tered examples concern the c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y of the demiurge, 14
the descent of
the s o u l , 1 5
the t r i l o c a t i o n of the soul and i t s s t r u g g l e against the passions. 16

As these examples show, imagery i s not j u s t a matter of ornament and colour,

but a l s o plays a v i t a l r o l e i n the p r e s e n t a t i o n of p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t
themes. A f a s c i n a t i n g subject i s how such imagery r e l a t e s to B i b l i c a l themes.
With much s k i l l P h i l o o f t e n manages to c o n f l a t e P l a t o n i c metaphor and Biblical
 Ill 1.5. 341

thematics, as i n the case of the b e a s t l y passions , the heavenly p l a n t , 1 8

the
s l i t h e r i n g snake. 19
Imagery i s thus given an important r o l e i n the allegorical
20 . . . . .

process. Allowance must o f t e n be made f o r the f l e x i b i l i t y which P h i l o shows

i n using P l a t o n i c images. Just as P l a t o he d e s c r i b e s the r e c e p t a c l e (or mat-
t e r ) as f
n u r s e and mother , but 1
the same e p i t h e t s are a l s o a p p l i e d to auadnaus
, 2 1 . . . . . .

and Eocpua. The most c e l e b r a t e d image i n P h i l o i s that of the d i v i n e a r c h i -

t e c t i n De o p i f i c i o mundi 17-20. The u l t i m a t e source of i n s p i r a t i o n f o r t h i s
passage i s undoubtedly the Timaeus, 22
but the simple images of the demiurge as
craftsman, b u i l d e r and magistrate have been, with the help of other philoso-
p h i c a l i m a g i s t i c m a t e r i a l , r e c a s t i n t o a complex network which p o i n t f o r point
i l l u s t r a t e s and i l l u m i n a t e s the p h i l o s o p h i c a l problem under d i s c u s s i o n . Such
'systematic 1
use of imagery i s not found i n the Timaeus. It i s a product of
the p o s t - P l a t o n i c t r a d i t i o n of philosophy. 23

3. Literary allusions. The embellishment of one's w r i t i n g s With quota-

t i o n s from and a l l u s i o n s to famous ancient authors was another p r a c t i c e which
the product of the H e l l e n i s t i c r h e t o r i c a l schools engaged i n as a matter of
2h . . .

course. P h i l o was no exception, and a l s o the Timaeus could f u r n i s h m a t e r i a l

for t h i s purpose. I t was found, however, that i n P h i l o ' s oeuvre examples of
the use of the Timaeus purely f o r purposes of l i t e r a r y ornament are rather
25

scarce. The Timaeus i s , of course, f o r a great part of i t s length p r e t t y

heavy going, not so l i k e l y to f u r n i s h m a t e r i a l f o r l i t e r a r y gamesmanship. And
i t must not be f o r g o t t e n that P h i l o ' s aims were not those of a r h e t o r or pro-
fessional litterateur.
4. For purposes of e x e g e t i c a l i l l u s t r a t i o n . I t i s now time to turn to
the many passages i n P h i l o which make use of the Timaeus i n the process of
g i v i n g a d i r e c t exegesis of a B i b l i c a l t e x t . 2 6
Here too d i s t i n c t i o n s must be
made. The first category encompasses the instances of what we have c a l l e d ex-
egetical i l l u s t v a t i o n . On numerous occasions the Timaeus f u n c t i o n s as a s t a n -
dard p h i l o s o p h i c a l or ( l e s s often) s c i e n t i f i c textbook which can be drawn upon
to supply i l l u s t r a t o r y or background m a t e r i a l . The given B i b l i c a l text deter-
mines the passage from the Timaeus which i s chosen out. The s e l e c t e d passage
can shed much l i g h t on the text being given exegesis, but i t s d i r e c t influence
on the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n remains l i m i t e d . In the process l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n i s
paid to the context and p h i l o s o p h i c a l problematics of the Timaeus. Plato's
d o c t r i n e s and P h i l o ' s i n t e n t i o n s are thus l i k e two c i r c l e s which i n t e r s e c t ,
27 . •

but have only a small area i n common. E s p e c i a l l y the many symbolic exegeses
i n the E x p o s i t i o n of the Law and Quaestiones i n Exodum I I f o l l o w t h i s pattern.
But a l s o i n the complex a l l e g o r i e s of the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary we discovered
that much i l l u s t r a t o r y m a t e r i a l i s invoked.
Of the copious m a t e r i a l found i n our Commentary two particularly clear
342 SYNTHESIS

examples w i l l s u f f i c e . In the p r e s c r i p t i o n s f o r the p r e s e r v a t i o n offering

the l i v e r i s one of the organs set aside and dedicated to God (Lev.3:4). Pla-
to's d e s c r i p t i o n of the nature and f u n c t i o n of the l i v e r can help to account
f o r t h i s s i g n a l honour. 28
But i t i s c l e a r that the relevance of P l a t o n i c phy-
s i o l o g y and psychology i s l i m i t e d to an i l l u s t r a t o r y and referential role. It
furnishes a Xoyos itpoorixwv. The subject of the mind's n i g h t l y adventures r e -
mains t a n g e n t i a l to the exegesis of the text as a whole. Moreover P h i l o i s so
little concerned with the p r e c i s e f u n c t i o n of Plato's account of the liver
that he makes s u b s t a n t i a l a l t e r a t i o n s and disregards i t s physiological and
philosophical systematics. 29
Cain, the man of f a l s e o p i n i o n , appears to be un-
der the d e l u s i o n that he, as a created being, can escape from God h i s maker
(Gen.4:14). A quick look at the p r i n c i p l e s of P l a t o n i c cosmology w i l l make
him r e a l i z e his error. 3 0
There i s nothing outside the cosmos, since a l l the
elements were used up i n i t s construction. God fills the whole universe, so
how can a man escape? 31
The Timaeus f u n c t i o n s here as a standard textbook on
p h i l o s o p h i c a l matters, p r o v i d i n g background information that is exegetically
useful.

In c o n c l u s i o n i t should be noted that i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h i s category

of usage that P h i l o shows an element of opportunism i n h i s use of philosophi-
c a l sources. When l o o k i n g for material to i l l u s t r a t e a B i b l i c a l t e x t , he se-
l e c t s the information that i s most s u i t a b l e or convenient f o r the point he
wishes to make. A f i n e example was found i n h i s references to the mechanism
of human v i s i o n . For the i l l u s t r a t i o n of the theme of mixture Plato's theory
proved u s e f u l , but i n order to a l l e g o r i z e the s p r i n g i n Gen.2:6 the Stoic
theory i s p r e f e r r e d . 32
Given t h i s tendency towards 'opportunism', however, the
f a c t that P h i l o so o f t e n turns to the Timaeus gains i n s i g n i f i c a n c e .

5. For purposes of e x e g e t i c a l explanation. Also i n t h i s category P h i l o

i s engaged i n the exegesis of s c r i p t u r e , but the r o l e played by the Timaeus
has gained i n importance and depth. The Timaeus i s adduced i n order to explain
the deeper, more ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l ' meaning of the t e x t . P h i l o considers i t ne-
cessary that the B i b l i c a l words not be read i n i s o l a t i o n , but r a t h e r be placed
i n a wider p h i l o s o p h i c a l context by means of the explanatory m a t e r i a l that the
Timaeus provides . T t i s much more l i k e l y than i n the previous category that
the context of the r e l e v a n t Timaeus passage and i t s p h i l o s o p h i c a l problematics
w i l l be taken i n t o account. These i n f l u e n c e , or can even determine, the dir-
e c t i o n of the e x e g e t i c a l passage, so that the more s u p e r f i c i a l meaning which
one might f i r s t read i n t o the Mosaic text recedes.

C l e a r l y the d i f f e r e n c e between t h i s category and the previous one i s gra-

dational rather than c l e a r - c u t , but a few examples w i l l make c l e a r what we
have i n mind. Once P h i l o decides that Gen.1:1-5, 'day one' of the creational
 Ill 1.5. 343

account, i s p r o p e r l y explained with reference to the n o e t i c model of the Tim-

aeus, the i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the understanding of the Mosaic text are far-reach-
ing and must be expounded at some length (Opif.16-25). a3
On a number of occa-
sions P h i l o uses the d i v i s i o n of c r e a t i v e labour between the demiurge and the
'young gods' i n the Timaeus as a p a r a l l e l which helps to e x p l a i n troublesome
p l u r a l s i n the B i b l i c a l t e x t . 3 4
Not only does the P l a t o n i c dialogue provide
the idea which s u p p l i e s the answer to the e x e g e t i c a l quaestio, but i t also
f u r n i s h e s the p h i l o s o p h i c a l frame of reference which makes that answer p l a u s -
i b l e and worthwhile, namely the theme of theodicy. By way of c o n t r a s t the
Rabbis, who a l s o pondered long over the same e x e g e t i c a l problem, d i d not ad-
duce the Timaeus and so attached no importance to a t h e o d i c a l s o l u t i o n . 3 5
In a
t h i r d example the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus extends a step f u r t h e r . 3 6
In d e a l -
ing with instances of f l i g h t P h i l o c i t e s the t e x t Gen.31:20, which recounts
that Jacob f l e d from Laban. In order to account f o r the hatred between the
two another verse i s c a l l e d i n , Gen.30:42. The d i f f e r e n c e between the unmarked
and speckled sheep only makes sense i n t h i s context i f seen against the back-
ground of the Timaeus (or, more c o r r e c t l y , i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n ) and
the d o c t r i n e s of the ideas and immanent form. Thus the Timaeus not only ex-
p l a i n s the verse but i s i n a sense r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s s e l e c t i o n i n the first
p l a c e , and so determines the movement of P h i l o ' s e x e g e s i s . 37
In one remarkable
instance i t appears that the r e c o l l e c t i o n of the Timaeus has induced P h i l o to
opt f o r a r a r e v a r i a l e c t i o i n the LXX manuscripts. The Timaeus can thus even
i n f l u e n c e h i s reading of the a c t u a l text of i n s p i r e d s c r i p t u r e . 3 8

6. For purposes of macro-exegetic s t r u c t u r e . The terminology which we

have chosen f o r the next category i s clumsy and at a f i r s t glance s c a r c e l y
comprehensible. But i t i s necessary to make room^in the taxonomy f o r the i n -
s i g h t that the Timaeus can i n f l u e n c e the way that P h i l o s t r u c t u r e s a whole
t r e a t i s e , or even longer s e c t i o n s of e x e g e t i c a l commentary. I am t h i n k i n g , of
course, of the s i t u a t i o n i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi and the Legum a l l e g o r i a e ,
where the profound p a r a l l e l s which P h i l o sees between the opening chapters of
Genesis and P l a t o ' s dialogue exert a strong i n f l u e n c e on the way P h i l o orga-
nizes these works and unfolds h i s e x e g e t i c a l commentaries. The same process
can be seen at work to a l e s s e r degree i n De p l a n t a t i o n e and weakly i n Quis
4

rerum divinarum heres s i t . These examples of the Timaeus i n a macro-exegetic

r o l e have been discussed at s u f f i c i e n t length i n the previous section. 39
Also
deserving of i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s category i s the way that P h i l o uses the pro-
gramme of Timaeus' speech (27a) and the theory of n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s (22a-23c)
to give the macro-structure of the Pentateuch a p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e
foundation. 40

7. Purely p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s c u s s i o n . The hebdomad of c a t e g o r i e s i s

344 SYNTHESIS

brought to completion w i th the i n c l u s i o n of those passages where the Timaeus

is d i s c u s s e d f o r i t s own sake, without any reference being made to s c r i p t u r e .
These passages are i n f a c t wholly confined to the three p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a -
t i s e s which were d i s c u s s ed i n the previous section. 4 1
Here there are a few
paragraphs i n which P l a t o n i c exegesis takes over from B i b l i c a l exegesis, 42

though n a t u r a l l y the p h i l o s o p h i c a l / r e l i g i o u s / a p o l o g e t i c concerns that pervade

all P h i l o s w r i t i n g s are s t i l l unmistakably present. Here we f i n d the one
case where P h i l o attacks c e r t a i n t h i n k e r s f o r p r e s e n t i n g a wrong i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n of P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e . 4 4
Our seventh category i s thus exceedingly rare.
We do not wish to suggest that i n the e x e g e t i c a l works the Timaeus i s not used
to give impetus to d i s c u s s i o n s of a p h i l o s o p h i c a l nature. But i n these P l a -
to's views are not presented for t h e i r own sake. Not once i n a l l P h i l o ' s exe-
g e t i c a l w r i t i n g s w i l l one f i n d him saying, 'the words of Moses here give us
the opportunity to examine i n d e t a i l what other philosophers have s a i d on the
matter', followed by an account of Plato' s views on the r e l e v a n t s u b j e c t . 45
We
r e c a l l too how P l a t o ' s words and d o c t r i n e s are o f t e n presented anonymously. 46

1.6. The T i m a e u s and e x e g e s i s o f t h e M o s a i c w r i t i n g s

The taxonomy which we have j u s t presented i s not a s c i e n t i f i c t o o l of

great p r e c i s i o n . I t s c a t e g o r i e s are kept to a minimum and cover a k a l e i d o s c o -
pic range of cases. Only an imprecise i n d i c a t i o n could be given of the rela-
t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n of the c a t e g o r i e s i n r e l a t i o n to the complete l i s t of exam-
p l e s found i n our Commentary. But i n s p i t e of these i n e x a c t i t u d e s one conclu-
s i o n rang through loud and clear. In the v a s t m a j o r i t y of cases P h i l o ' s use
°f t n e
Timaeus i s summoned f o r t h by the requirements of expounding the Bibli-
cal text. I f h i s t r e a t i s e s are regarded from the formal p o i n t of view, i t i s
apparent that the task of commenting on the i n s p i r e d o r a c l e s of Moses i s the
d r i v i n g f o r c e that c o n t r o l s the i n v o c a t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n of the d o c t r i n e s of
the Greek p h i l o s o p h e r s . The most extreme examples of the 'Mosaic-centredness'
of P h i l o ' s use of the Timaeus are those passages where a P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e or
even a paraphrase of P l a t o ' s a c t u a l words are nonchalantly place d in the mouth
of the Jewish lawgiver. 1
In most cases the l i n k between Moses and P l a t o i s
l e s s d i r e c t l y made, but s t i l l remains e s s e n t i a l . Even when the Timaeus does
no more than supply a d i s t i n c t i v e phrase or a piece of background information,
the reason f o r i t s presence can g e n e r a l l y be traced back to the exigencies of
the s c r i p t u r a l text being examined i n the l i n k e d chains of e x e g e t i c a l commen-
tary. Our f i n a l task i n t h i s ' p h i l o l o g i c a l ' chapter must be to examine how
the Timaeus i s placed i n s e r v i c e of Pentateuchal exegesis and what the impli-
 Ill 1.6. 345

c a t i o n s of t h i s are f o r the impact which the dialogue had on P h i l o s thought.

f

In the Appendix that was attached to the end of our Commentary an attempt
was made to compensate f o r i t s P l a t o n o c e n t r i c
1 1
s t r u c t u r e by means of the pre-
s e n t a t i o n of a l i s t of a l l the Pentateuchal t e x t s f o r the explanation of which
P h i l o a l l u d e s to or u t i l i z e s the Timaeus. 2
We concluded the Appendix by tabu-
l a t i n g a l l the examples contained i n the l i s t i n order to give an i n d i c a t i o n
of t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n through the Pentateuch. The information which the table
s u p p l i e s i s v a l u a b l e , even i f allowance must be made f o r i t s deceptive statis-
tical precision. The high c o n c e n t r a t i o n of usage f o r the exegesis of the first
three chapters of Genesis i s wholly p r e d i c t a b l e . And one might a l s o expect
the cosmogonic dialogue to be (to a much l e s s e r extent) r e l e v a n t to the fol-
lowing chapters of the same book, when the world was s t i l l young and the rela-
t i o n to i t s o r i g i n s ( a l s o i n a l l e g o r i c a l terms) was s t i l l keenly f e l t . But i t
i s s u r p r i s i n g to observe the r e g u l a r i t y with which P h i l o turns to m a t e r i a l i n
his e x p o s i t i o n of the remainder of the Books Genesis and Exodus ( f o r the last
three books of Moses the frequency lessens c o n s i d e r a b l y ) . How can t h i s regu-
larity (and d i v e r s i t y ) of a p p l i c a t i o n be explained and what are the consequences
for the Timaeus 1
value to P h i l o i n h i s e x e g e t i c a l labour? In answering these
questions the taxonomy of usage o u t l i n e d i n the previous s e c t i o n w i l l prove
an i n v a l u a b l e instrument.

The c h i e f value of the Timaeus i s , as we have already s a i d , f o r the exe-

g e t i c a l explanation of the Mosaic cosmogony. The schema of the seven days en-
courages a r i t h m o l o g i c a l e x e g e s i s , 3
while the events that take place on the
various days can f o r the most part be adequately explained by t a k i n g the cue
from the p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s of the Timaeus. k
One must h e s i t a t e to describ e
t h i s exegesis as l i t e r a l , f o r the deeper p h i l o s o p h i c a l aspects of the s c r i p t u -
ral account are c e r t a i n l y being explored. But there i s no need to c a l l on the
s p e c i a l techniques of the a l l e g o r i c a l method u n t i l the s t o r y of Adam and Eve
i s reached. P h i l o here proceeds to e x p l o i t the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of psychological
a l l e g o r y , based on the d i v i s i o n between the r a t i o n a l and i r r a t i o n a l part of the
soul and i t s t r i l o c a t i o n i n the body. There can be no doubt that P h i l o s usage f

of the Timaeus i n the exegesis of the cosmogony occurs p r i m a r i l y at the fifth

(and s i x t h ) l e v e l of the taxonomy. The exegete adheres to the sequence of the
Mosaic account, but the explanatory m a t e r i a l f u r n i s h e d by the Timaeus s t r o n g l y
i n f l u e n c e s the way that account i s read.

As the Penteuchal n a r r a t i v e moves on to the h i s t o r i c a l and legislative

parts, 5
the s i t u a t i o n a l t e r s and i t becomes more important to take i n t o ac-
count the l e v e l at which the Timaeus i s used. In a large number of cases i t
does no more than supply language, imagery and i l l u s t r a t o r y m a t e r i a l f o r the
complex e t h i c a l and 'migrational 1
allegories 6
read i n t o the s t o r i e s of the
346 SYNTHESIS

P a t r i a r c h s and the d e t a i l e d a l l e g o r y and symbolism locate d i n the p r e s c r i p t i o n s

of the Law. Also prominent are the many instances of p h y s i c a l or cosmological
a l l e g o r y , i n which f e a t u r e s of B i b l i c a l text are expounded as symbols of the
c r e a t i o n and s t r u c t u r e of the universe (the Cherubim at the gate of paradise, 7

the c a n d l e s t i c k symbolizing the lathed sphere of heaven, 8

the vestments of the
High P r i e s t 9
and so on). The l i s t of examples i n the Appendix shows how often
the Timaeus i s c a l l e d upon, but the importance of t h i s background r o l e should
not be exaggerated. It goes no f u r t h e r than the f o u r t h category of our taxonomy.

It would be wrong, however, to stop at t h i s p o i n t . P h i l o more than once

emphasizes how much p h i l o s o p h i c a l i n s i g h t Moses showed i n commencing h i s l e g -
i s l a t i o n with an account of the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos. 10
I t l a y s the founda-
t i o n f o r the deeper p h i l o s o p h i c a l understanding of the remainder of the Penta-
teuch. Here once more the way i s made c l e a r f o r the Timaeus to make i t s pre-
sence f e l t . Only when the createdness and s t r u c t u r e of the cosmos, man's
place i n that s t r u c t u r e and the nature of man himself are taken i n t o consider-
a t i o n , i s the exegete i n a p o s i t i o n to show how the migratory journey of the
soul i s p o s s i b l e and how the p r e s c r i p t i o n s of the Law can a i d the s o u l i n i t s
quest f o r a blessed life. Two examples, one from the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary
and one from the E x p o s i t i o n of the Law w i l l make q u i t e c l e a r what we mean.
When Abraham follows God's command and o f f e r s a s a c r i f i c e , he does not divide
the two birds (Gen.15:10). They symbolize the undivided nature of man's r a -
t i o n a l soul and of the outer sphere i n heaven, showing that the mind i n us and
the mind above us ( i . e . heaven) are r e l a t e d to the d i v i n e Logos. The allegory
reveals the cosmological foundation f o r man's ascent from the tumultuous and
d i v i d e d realm of created being to r e s t i n God. Man can become l i k e unto the
heavens and l i k e unto God. 11
The l a s t of the ten great Xoyba i n the Decalogue
is 'thou s h a l t not d e s i r e ' . The Lawgiver ( i n t h i s case God h i m s e l f) gave t h i s
commandment because he knew the s t r u c t u r e of the soul and was aware of the
danger that the enb^upnTUXOV, which i s (according to the Timaeus) located i n
the b e l l y , could f o r c e man to become prey to the passions. I f observed, the
commandment leads to the p e r f e c t i o n of a eu6auuu>v 3tos. The exegete can thus
show that an understanding of the s t r u c t u r e of man's soul lays the foundation
for a t r u l y moral l i f e . 1 2
Once again i t i s evident that i n these cases the
usage of the Timaeus must be placed i n the f i f t h category of the taxonomy, that
one can speak of s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e on the way that the sacred text i s read.

To what c o n c l u s i o n , t h e r e f o r e , must we come i n the e v a l u a t i o n of the r o l e

that the Timaeus plays i n P h i l o ' s exegesis of the Mosaic w r i t i n g s ? Is i t j u s -
t i f i e d to d e s c r i b e the P l a t o n i c dialogue as a n ' e x e g e t i c a l t o o l ' used from time
to time to p r i s e open the locked treasures of s c r i p t u r e ? 1 3
The description is
not, i n our view, a happy one. A t o o l i s taken to hand to c a r r y out a p a r t i -
 Ill 1.6. 347

c u l a r task, but f o r the r e s t has little impact on the design and purpose of
the work being undertaken. I f the question i s looked at i n terms of our tax-
onomy, one might argue that the d e s c r i p t i o n would be apt i f the usage of the
Timaeus had been confined to the f i r s t four c a t e g o r i e s , i . e . language, imagery,
l i t e r a r y embellishment and exegetical i l l u s t r a t i o n . I f f o r these purposes
P h i l o had i n s t e a d used the Jlepu cpuoews of Chrysippus or the Ilepu xoouou of Po-
s i d o n i u s , what would have been the loss? But when the l a s t three categories
are added, the d e s c r i p t i o n c l e a r l y f a l l s s h o r t . 14
I t becomes apparent t h a t , i n
P h i l o s eyes, the Timaeus i s i n the more important aspects of i t s e x e g e t i c a l
f

a p p l i c a b i l i t y a kind of b l u e p r i n t that o f f e r s p a r t i a l guidance to the exegetic

i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of h i s e d i f i c e of s c r i p t u r a l commentary. It exercises a
d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e on the way that P h i l o as p h i l o s o p h i z i n g exegete reads the
Pentateuchal t e x t , both i n i t s d i v e r s e parts and as a whole. Thus we are con-
vinced t h a t , even though i t has been demonstrated that the Timaeus i s c h i e f l y
used by P h i l o f o r purposes of d i r e c t exegesis, i t w i l l nevertheles s be e n t i r e -
ly l e g i t i m a t e to devote a chapter of t h i s study to the i n f l u e n c e of the d i a -
logue on h i s thought, without our i n c u r r i n g the charge of 'philosophical re-
c o n s t r u c t i v i s m ' which can r i g h t l y be l a i d against s c h o l a r s such as Wolfson and
Winston. 15

One f i n a l t o p i c commands our a t t e n t i o n . As was observed i n the Introduc-

t i o n , much i n t e r e s t has r e c e n t l y been shown i n the subject of P h i l o * s r e l a t i o n
to the t r a d i t i o n of Alexandrian exegesis. 16
In h i s w r i t i n g s P h i l o o f t e n r e f e r s
to views held by other exegetes. It can be considered c e r t a i n that he was
g r e a t l y indebted to and stimulated by predecessors and colleagues engaged i n
s c r i p t u r a l exegesis. The question that we must answer i s t h i s . Does P h i l o i n
his use of the Timaeus a l s o show dependence on other exegetes? An immediate
d i f f i c u l t y to be faced i n answering t h i s question i s how we can e s t a b l i s h when
P h i l o i s making use of t r a d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l . The only r e l i a b l e c r i t e r i o n , i n
my view, i s to depend on the i n d i c a t i o n s that P h i l o himself g i v e s , namely i n
his use of anonymous phrases r e f e r r i n g to other e x e g e t e s . 17
F o r t u n a t e l y we are
now able to make g r a t e f u l use of the study of Hay which contains a virtually
complete l i s t of Philo's, references to other allegorists. 1 8

The sources found o u t s i d e P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s bring f o r t h A r i s t o b u l u s as a

p o s s i b l e predecessor. In s p i t e of undeniable s i m i l a r i t i e s w i t h P h i l o , however,
the Alexandrian pioneer d i s c l o s e s l i t t l e use of Timaean m a t e r i a l . 1 9
In the P h i -
Ionic corpus the passage which gives most support to the view that P h i l o took
over from predecessors exegeses which drew on the Timaeus i s found i n a f a s c i -
n a t i n g case of m u l t i p l e exegesis at Cher.21-30. A cosmological exegesis of the
348 SYNTHESIS

Cherubim i n Gen.3:24 i n terms of P l a t o ' s c i r c l e s of the same and the d i f f e r e n t

i s proposed and r e j e c t e d . But no anonymous a t t r i b u t i o n i s given and i t can be
p l a u s i b l y argued that the a l t e r n a t i v e was thought up by P h i l o h i m s e l f . 20
On
two occasions a l l u s i o n s to the Timaeus were found i n passages where tradition-
a l ideas were d e f i n i t e l y being used. We considered i t probable that here too
it i s P h i l o who has introduced these a l l u s i o n s . 2 1
I f Hay's l i s t of references
to other a l l e g o r i s t s i s compared with the r e s u l t s of the Commentary the con-
c l u s i o n must be t h a t , although P l a t o n i z i n g exegetes are o c c a s i o n a l l y men-
tioned, 2 2
there i s no unequivocal evidence of other exegetes making use of P l a -
to's cosmological d i a l o g u e . 23
On the contrary glimpses can now and then be
gained of 'anti-Timaean' doctrines. 2 4
N a t u r a l l y the r e s u l t s of t h i s enquiry
can go no f u r t h e r than a robust argumentum e silentio. 2 5
Nevertheless , the
suggestion i s warranted that the l a r g e - s c a l e use of the Timaeus f o r purposes
of B i b l i c a l exegesis i s an i n n o v a t i o n of P h i l o , the r e s u l t of h i s great love
f o r the w r i t i n g s of the Athenian p h i l o s o p h e r . Hay, f o l l o w i n g e a r l i e r s c h o l a r s ,
i s i n t r i g u e d that many of the other a l l e g o r i s t s r e f e r r e d to by P h i l o 'seem
o f t e n to have found i n s c r i p t u r e not r e l i g i o u s but s e c u l a r t e a c h i n g ' . 26
Is not
one of the advantages o f f e r e d to P h i l o through h i s use of the Timaeus that
t h i s gap between s c i e n ce and God-orientated r e f l e c t i o n could be e f f e c t i v e l y
bridged?
 CHAPTER TWO

THE INFLUENCE OF THE TIMAEUS ON PHILO'S THOUGHT

P h i l o ' s use of the Timaeus i s pervasive and profound. Not only has the
P l a t o n i c dialogue rendered much a s s i s t a n c e i n the task of e l u c i d a t i n g the words
of Moses; i t has a l s o d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d the way that s c r i p t u r e i s read. We
can say - i f the reader w i l l pardon the anachronism - that P h i l o reads the ac-
count of c r e a t i o n and many other parts of the Pentateuch through P l a t o n i c a l l y
tinted spectacles. It i s t h e r e f o r e a l e g i t i m a t e undertaking — t h i s was our
c o n c l u s i o n at the end of the previous chapter - to attempt to give an account
i n general terms of the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus on P h i l o ' s thought. The scope
of such an account must be c a r e f u l l y d e l i m i t e d . I t w i l l not be our aim, both
for p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l reasons, to d i s c u s s the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus
i n the p e r s p e c t i v e of a systematic p r e s e n t a t i o n of P h i l o ' s thought i n the man-
ner of a Drummond or a Wolfson. The aim must be much more modest, namely to
o u t l i n e the way that d o c t r i n e s from the Timaeus have c o n t r i b u t e d to the shaping
of P h i l o ' s views on God and the cosmos, and thus volens nolens to h i s manner
of i n t e r p r e t i n g the B i b l i c a l account. In p a r t i c u l a r our endeavour w i l l be to
pursue, to the extent r e l e v a n t to P h i l o ' s thought, the p h i l o s o p h i c a l problema-
t i c s which are the i n e v i t a b l e consequences of the acceptance of these d o c t r i n e s
(bearing i n mind, however, that he stands somewhere near the beginning of a l -
most two m i l l e n i a of p h i l o s o p h i c a l and t h e o l o g i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n on the same
problems, a s i t u a t i o n with obvious dangers f o r our interpretation). In t h i s
chapter the approach w i l l be to keep 'doxographical' aspects of the subject to
a minimum. The d i s c u s s i o n of P h i l o ' s r e l a t i o n to the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n
of the Timaeus w i l l be reserved f o r the f i n a l chapter of t h i s p a r t of our study.

2.1. Myth and truth

T n e
Timaeus i s a myth, but i t i s the l e a s t m y t h i c a l of a l l P l a t o ' s myths.
In the account of how the c r e a t o r god ordered the cosmos the n a r r a t i v e element
i s d e l i b e r a t e l y r e s t r i c t e d , r e s u l t i n g i n a complex web of metaphor and imagery
q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the r i c h l y braided f a n t a s i e s of other P l a t o n i c myths.
Truth i s reserved i n P l a t o ' s philosophy f o r the unchanging world of n o e t i c r e -
a l i t y ; of the s e n s i b l e world f u l l of f l u x and commotion no more than a probable
account can be a t t a i n e d . 1
One may t h e r e f o r e speak of the Timaeus as a 'proba-
ble' or even a ' s c i e n t i f i c ' myth. 2
Why does P l a t o adopt the language of myth
350 SYNTHESIS

when speaking of the cosmos 1

genesis and s t r u c t u r e ? Three reasons, of which
the f i r s t i s most important, may be given. (1) Myth, which by i t s very nature
i s excluded from the realm of i n c o n t r o v e r t i b l e t r u t h , u n d e r l i n e s the probable
nature of the account. 3
In p a r t i c u l a r i t enables P l a t o to d e p i c t i n an acces-
s i b l e way the r e l a t i o n between the two worlds of n o e t i c and s e n s i b l e r e a l i t y ,
how mind introduces purpose by l o o k i n g to a model. 4
(2) Myth can have a pro-
treptic function. P l a t o had banished the immoral myths from h i s i d e a l s t a t e
and o u t l i n e d i n h i s T U U O L nepi SeoXoyCag how one should speak about d i v i n i t y . 5

•^ ne
Timaeus i s an e x c e l l e n t t e s t - c a s e , i t s myth not m i s l e a d i n g but encouraging
the reader to delve f u r t h e r i n t o the mysteries of philosophy. (3) A frequent,
i f not i n e v i t a b l e , c o r o l l a r y to p r o t r e p t i c i s e s o t e r i c i s m . Myth conceals the
deeper i m p l i c a t i o n s of d o c t r i n e s from those who are as yet unprepared to r e -
c e i v e them. The nature of the demiurge cannot be d i s c l o s e d to a l l and sundry. 6

In the l i g h t of a l l the controversy which the dialogue caused, however, one

might w e l l wonder whether P l a t o overshot h i s mark. Even the i n i t i a t e d were
perplexed.., 7

If P l a t o ' s a t t i t u d e to myth i s ambivalent.and patronizing, Philo adopts

for the most part a downright aggressive stand. F u l l y agreeing with P l a t o ' s
s t r i c t u r e s i n the R e p u b l i c , but a l s o c o n t i n u i n g the t r a d i t i o n a l e x e g e t i c a l and
a p o l o g e t i c themes of H e l l e n i s t i c Judaism, P h i l o repeatedly remonstrates against
m y t h i c a l f i c t i o n s which seduce the ear and d i s t r a c t the l i s t e n e r from naked
t r u t h , from coming to know the one and true God. 8
In the works of God no myth
or f i c t i o n w i l l be found. Moses has h i s eyes set on t r u t h ; myth-making i s
q u i t e a l i e n to him, a f a c t which sets him apart from other l e g i s l a t o r s . 9
But
before we can i n v e s t i g a t e to what extent t h i s harsh a t t i t u d e to myth a f f e c t s
P h i l o ' s reading of the Timaeus (and thus i n d i r e c t l y i t s i n f l u e n c e on h i s
thought), i t must f i r s t be i n d i c a t e d how the d i s t i n c t i o n between p r o b a b i l i t y
and t r u t h and the three reasons which induced P l a t o to cast h i s account i n the
form of a myth r e t a i n t h e i r importance i n P h i l o ' s thought, though i n each case
i n a s i g n i f i c a n t l y transmuted form.

P h i l o i s as convinced as P l a t o of the f u t i l i t y of s e a r c h i n g f o r t r u t h i n
the world of s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e t h i n g s . 1 0
He i s l e s s convinced, however, that
by t u r n i n g to the world of immutable being t r u t h w i l l be d i r e c t l y w i t h i n man's
grasp. 31
God i s the source of a l l knowledge and u n s t i n t i n g l y bestows i t on man
to the extent that he i s capable of r e c e i v i n g i t . 1 2
No man has been more h i g h -
l y favoured than the prophet Moses, to whom the knowledge contained i n the Law
was granted. P l a t o ' s p r o b a b i l i s m i s given an important r e d i r e c t i o n . Not only
i s i t a p p l i c a b l e to the o b j e c t s of the p h y s i c a l u n i v e r s e , but above a l l to the
task of expounding the words of Moses. The r i c h e s of s c r i p t u r e are inexhaust-
ible. The aim of the exegete can be h a r d l y more than to present probable
 Ill 2.1. 351

explanations of the t r u t h i t c o n t a i n s . Moses h i m s e l f guides h i s f o l l o w e r s to

those aspects of the v i s i b l e universe which are worth studying, prime among
which i s the subject of the cosmos 1
genesis. Nature-study, just like dialec-
t i c s and i t s degraded form, s o p h i s t i c argument, can e a s i l y become a t r a p f o r
the unwary, d i s t r a c t i n g the student from what i s t r u l y important. For P h i l o
the n o t i o n of a h i e r a r c h y of r e c i p i e n t s of knowledge i s of fundamental s i g n i -
ficance. 1 3
Some men gain more knowledge and i n s i g h t than o t h e r s , depending on
how e a s i l y they are able to break the bond of t h e i r attachment to the body and
the senses. The lawgiver wishes to b e n e f i t a l l h i s f o l l o w e r s , so he speaks about
God ' l i k e a man' f o r h i s weaker readers, u s i n g , i f mostly not myth, at l e a s t '
improper anthropomorphic e x p r e s s i o n s . 14
The reason i s p r i m a r i l y paedeutic, but
a l s o a s s u r e d ly p r o t r e p t i c . These souls are being exhorted to r i s e to a higher
l e v e l of knowledge. 15
At the same time Moses does not cast p e a r l s before swine.
The deeper meaning of s c r i p t u r e l i e s concealed under the s u r f a c e of the words.
I t i s the exegete's task to uncover i t , employing the a l l e g o r i c a l method and
from time to time r e c e i v i n g the a i d of d i v i n e i n s p i r a t i o n . The sacred myster-
i e s are not to be revealed to those u n f i t to r e c e i v e them, but must be b u r i e d
l i k e Sarah's ash-cakes i n secrecy and s i l e n c e . 1 6
One can speak of an e s o t e r i -
cism here, even i f the e x c l u s i v e n e s s i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y m i t i g a t e d by the f a c t
that the mysteries are c l e a r l y made a v a i l a b l e i n the w r i t i n g s of the exegete
which we ourselves can read. 17

Returning once again to the Timaeus we commence by s t a t i n g the obvious.

P h i l o i s not going to make h i s a t t i t u d e to the m y t h i c a l aspect of the dialogue
c l e a r by a d i r e c t comment. I t must be deduced from the way he puts the Timaeus
to use i n h i s own works. C e r t a i n l y he has no use f o r the more overt m y t h i c a l
f e a t u r e s , which are found e s p e c i a l l y i n the account of the s o u l ' s descent and
man's s u c c e s s i v e r e i n c a r n a t i o n s . Moses, by encouraging the use of a l l e g o r y ,
achieves the same r e s u l t i n a more wholesome way. 18
The remainder of the Tim-
aeus he does not consider to be mythical i n the overt way that rouses h i s p o l e -
mical i r e . Nowhere does i t emerge that the d e s c r i p t i o n of a c r e a t o r god sha-
ping a cosmos out of formless matter or g i v i n g b i r t h to the cosmos as h i s o f f -
s p r i n g i s wrong, because such a p r e s e n t a t i o n uses m y t h i c al language to seduce
the mind and t r a p the unwary. I am convinced that P h i l o , i f asked, would deny
that the Timaeus was a uuduxov iXdoua. But i n u s i n g i t s d o c t r i n e s to e x p l a i n
the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l account, P h i l o cannot avoid problems which the e x p l o i t a -
t i o n of the dialogue n e c e s s a r i l y b r i n g s along w i t h i t . What can be meant by a
moment of c r e a t i o n , a 'time' when c r e a t i o n took place? What can be meant by
the c r e a t i o n a l sequence, the f a c t that one act of c r e a t i o n happens before or
a f t e r another? And how can one speak of God? What i s being s a i d i n s t a t e -
ments such as God w i l l e d , God spoke, God made? Is there a d i f f e r e n c e with the
352 SYNTHESIS

anthropomorphic expressions r e f e r r e d to above? P h i l o s answers to these prob-

T

lems - the i n e v i t a b l e r e s u l t , we repeat, of the taking over of ideas and lan-

guage from the Timaeus - w i l l have to come to the f o r e i n our d i s c u s s i o n i n
the remainder of t h i s chapter.
One last observation . In the h i e r a r c h y of r e c i p i e n t s of knowledge, the
importance of which f o r P h i l o s thought hasf
already been s t r e s s e d , some people
have advanced f u r t h e r along the path to t r u t h than o t h e r s . Aside from the
l o v e r s of body who have not even made a s t a r t , P h i l o d i s t i n g u i s h e s at l e a s t
two stages, symbolized by B e z a l e l and Moses, Jacob and I s r a e l , the men of hea-
ven and the men of God, described sometimes i n the terminology of the Greek
mysteries, the jSpaxuxepau nai ueyaAat TeXeiaC. 19
The two stages w i l l become
c r u c i a l i n d i s c u s s i n g P h i l o s conception of the d i v i n e nature.
f
It i s important
to observe that f o r the exegete they a l s o r e l a t e to l e v e l s i n the sacred text
itself. In uncovering the l a y e r s of meaning the d i s c i p l e of Moses guides h i s
readers along the path of d i s c o v e r y . In the p r a x i s of e s o t e r i c i s m there i s ,
however, a d i f f i c u l t y . How can the readers be sure that t h e i r guide i s not
h o l d i n g back at the v i t a l moment, that another e s o t e r i c l a y e r i s located be-
hind the words of h i s commentaries?

2.2. The notion of sequential creation

When a carpenter b u i l d s a house, he cannot construct i t a l l at once. He

needs t o f o l l o w a set sequence which allows only a minor amount of v a r i a t i o n .
F i r s t the foundations must be l a i d , then the s t r u c t u r a l framework b u i l t , fol-
lowed by e x t e r n a l w a l l s , r o o f , i n t e r n a l w a l l s , f l o o r s , c e i l i n g s and so on.
Not only i s the b u i l d i n g sequence by no means a r b i t r a r y , i t a l s o t e l l s us much
about the nature of the house's s t r u c t u r e . The w a l l s cannot e x i s t without the
foundation, w h i le the w a l l s themselves are indispensable f o r the roof.

The n o t i o n of s e q u e n t i a l c r e a t i o n i s a c e n t r a l f e a t u r e of the conceptual

framework of the Timaeus. The demiurge and h i s a s s i s t a n t s are depicted as
c r e a t i n g the cosmos and i t s parts i n a sequence, and that sequence provides
valuable i n f o r m a t i o n on the cosmos 1
structure. 1
P h i l o does not merely perceive
the p a r a l l e l between t h i s c r e a t i o n a l sequence and the Mosaic account of crea-
t i o n i n s i x days, he p o s i t i v e l y d e l i g h t s i n i t . When the contents of the Mo-
s a i c xoauoiotua are o u t l i n e d i n general terms, the d e s c r i p t i o n i s given in
terms of the P l a t o n i c example. 2
And, as was observed i n the previous chapter,
P h i l o ' s commentary on Gen.1-3 i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi e x p l o i t s to the fullest
extent the p a r a l l e l s between the c r e a t i o n a l sequence of the Timaeus and the
Mosaic cosmogony. 3
The p a r a l l e l s undeniably have the purpose of g i v i n g Moses 1
 Ill 2.2. 353

account a p h i l o s o p h i c a l — nowadays one would say s c i e n t i f i c or i n t e l l e c t u a l —

respectability.
And indeed the p a r a l l e l s are impressive, above a l l i n the general move-
ment from the macrocosm, v i a the p a r t s of the cosmos, to man the microcosm,
whose c r e a t i o n i s the climax of both accounts. But between the two accounts
there are a l s o important d i f f e r e n c e s , which P h i l o recognizes and b r i n g s f o r -
ward i n h i s commentary with commendable c l a r i t y .

1. By speaking, m e t a p h o r i c a l l y of course, of c r e a t i o n i n s i x days Moses i n -

troduces the element of number. Number i s i n t r i n s i c to order, and i t s presence
deepens ( i n P h i l o ' s view) the symbolic connotations of the account. 4

2. In e x p l a i n i n g the seven days of the c r e a t i o n a l account P h i l o r e c e i v e s no

opportunity to d i s c u s s i n P l a t o ' s manner the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos as a whole,
i.e. as composite of body and s o u l . 5
Instead the s p e c i a l p o s i t i o n assigned by
Moses to May one* i s recognized. The xoopos v o n i o s , as paradigm of the v i s -
i b l e cosmos about to be c r e a t e d , i s i t s e l f c r e a t e d by God. 6
In a sense 'day
one 1
of the Mosaic cosmogony i s e q u i v a l e n t to P l a t o ' s proemium. 7
The excep-
t i o n a l and separate r o l e of 'day one' i s f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e d by the f a c t that
twice P h i l o a f f i r m s that the c r e a t i o n a l account began with the making of heaven
and ended with the making of man, i n t h i s way adhering c l o s e r to the a c t u a l
Timaeus account. 8

3. The sequence of the t h i r d and f o u r t h days i s problematic, f o r the e a r t h

and i t s v e g e t a t i o n are created before the heavenly bodies. The p a r a d o x i c a l
order has a paedeutic purpose, exhorting man not to r e l y on p r o b a b i l i t i e s but
aim at sheer t r u t h . P l a t o ' s warning that h i s c r e a t i o n a l sequence must c o n t a i n
a contingent element i s i n t h i s way given a s u r p r i s i n g t w i s t . 9
But the c r e a t i o n
of the p l a n t s on the t h i r d day allows Moses to avoid another contingency i n
the P l a t o n i c sequence. 10

4. P l a t o ' s sequence i s e n t i r e l y 'descending', from the cosmic s o u l to r e p t i l e s ,

f i s h e s and s h e l l s . Moses chooses to 'descend' and then 'ascend' again, so
that a l l i s i n readiness f o r man to e x e r c i s e h i s task as nyepwv. 11

5. The P l a t o n i c demiurge r e t i r e s half-way through the proceedings (the w i t h -

drawal perhaps h i n t s at h i s m y t h i c a l s t a t u s ) . 1 2
Moses makes i t c l e a r that the
r e s t spoken of on the seventh day i s not l i t e r a l l y to be a p p l i e d to God, but
i s granted by God to h i s c r e a t u r e s . 13
The seventh day, r e v e r t i n g back to the
f i r s t through the a r i t h m o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n of the monad and the hebdomad, em-
phasizes the c o n t i n u i t y of c r e a t i o n . God's incessant a c t i v i t y ensures that
c r e a t i o n i s i n f a c t a never-ending process. 14

The d i f f e r e n c e s between Moses and P l a t o are thus not to be explained away, but
the main l i n e s of agreement are more important. P h i l o chooses f o r Moses, as
indeed he must. 15
Could we ask him, he would i n d u b i t a b l y a f f i r m the s u p e r i o r i t y
354 SYNTHESIS

of the o l d e r v e r s i o n .

The device of p r e s e n t i n g the genesis of the cosmos as a sequence of c r e a -

t i o n a l events i s v a l u a b l e because i t demonstrates i n the c l e a r e s t f a s h i o n the
xdCus of created r e a l i t y . The cosmos i s an ordered whole, c o n s i s t i n g of h i e r -
a r c h i c a l l y organized p a r t s and i n h a b i t a n t s . 16
For i t s c r e a t i o n a b l u e p r i n t i s
needed, the n o e t i c cosmos as model. Heaven i s created before the earth as an
i n d i c a t i o n of i t s s u p e r i o r i t y . 1 7
Also the h i e r a r c h y of l i v i n g beings i s i n d i c a -
ted, i f not wholly along the expected l i n e s , by the order i n which they are
created. 18
The importance of man's p o s i t i o n i n the cosmic order i s indicated
by h i s c l i m a c t i c p o s i t i o n at the end of the sequence. 19
Not only must man r u l e
the e a r t h , but, endowed w i th a r a t i o n a l s o u l , he can contemplate the r a t i o n a l
movements of the heavens, d i s c o v e r h i s maker and attempt t o become l i k e him
through the e x e r c i s e of r e a s o n . 20
For P h i l o the i n c o n t r o v e r t i b l e anthropocen-
t r i s m of the c r e a t i o n a l sequence i s the consequence of i t s t h e o c e n t r i s m . 21
Above
a l l the cosmic order leads to r e c o g n i t i o n o f the c r e a t o r . To deny the ordered
s t a t e of the cosmos or regard i t as the product of pure chance i s i n P h i l o ' s
view impiety of the grossest k i n d , tantamount to a t h e i s m . 22

For a l l h i s a p p r e c i a t i o n of the s e q u e n t i a l nature of the c r e a t i o n account,

P h i l o f i r m l y r e j e c t s the i d e a that the sequence i t s e l f has a temporal aspect.
The f a c t that the cosmos was created i n s i x days does not i n d i c a t e that the
c r e a t o r needed a length of time to do h i s work, f o r i t i s probable that God
does a l l things simultaneously ( a u a Ttdvxa 6pav), not only when he gives h i s
commands (upooTctTTOVTa) but a l s o when he does h i s planning (6tavoouuevov) . 23

Simultaneous c r e a t i o n does not preclude order, f o r the s e q u e n t i a l nature of

order i s seen, i f not i n the f i n i s h e d products, c e r t a i n l y i n the t h i n k i n g pro-
cesses of the b u i l d e r s . 2 4
The c r e a t i o n a l sequence i s not temporal but structu-
ral ( i n d i c a t i n g order) or perhaps even a n a l y t i c ( a n a l y s i n g or r e c o n s t r u c t i n g
the i n d i s s o c i a b l e ) . 2 5
I t must not, however, be regarded as hypothetical. The
c r e a t i o n a l sequence does not mean t h a t , i f the cosmos was created , i t would
have been put together i n no other way than the way p o r t r a y e d . 26
The P h i l o n i c
passage on which t h i s statement i s based a c t u a l l y r e f e r s to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
°f t n e
Timaeus. The f a c t that i t i s i n d u b i t a b l y l e g i t i m a t e to t r a n s f e r i t s
purport to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Mosaic cosmogony 27
i s eloquent testimony
to the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the p a r a l l e l which P h i l o perceives i n the c r e a t i o n a l
sequences of both accounts.
 Ill 2.3. 355

2.3. The two c r e a t i o n a l metaphors

Not many words are expended i n the Timaeus on d e s c r i b i n g the nature of

the demiurge. The c r e a t i n g god makes himself known p r i m a r i l y through h i s ac-
tions. But twice he i s f o r m a l l y presented as Tiotntris nai TICXTUP, 6nuuoupYos
Ttaxrip x e . 1
Quite d e l i b e r a t e l y P l a t o juxtaposes the two kinds of c r e a t i o n ,
demiurgic and procreative, the one e x p l o i t i n g the technological, the other the
b i o l o g i c a l metaphor. 2
A number of texts show i n the c l e a r e s t terms P h i l o s f

awareness of the p a r a l l e l i s m of the two kinds of c r e a t i o n and the two meta-

phors, suggested or r e i n f o r c e d by h i s reading of the Timaeus. 3
I t w i l l be i n -
s t r u c t i v e to gauge t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e i n f l u e n c e on h i s thought.

Encouraged by the d e s c r i p t i o n s l o c a t e d i n the sacred text;, * P h i l o makes 1

extensive use of the conception of demiurgic creation. Terms such as 6nuuoup-

yos, xexvL-xriS, Tiounxris and compounds with the root TiAaooo) are among h i s most
frequent a p p e l l a t i o n s f o r God. 5
A r i c h c o l l e c t i o n of metaphors d e s c r i b i n g the
p h y s i c a l treatment of m a t e r i a l can be assembled from the d i v e r s e passages
where c r e a t i o n i s d i s c u s s e d , such as d i v i d i n g , s e p a r a t i n g , c u t t i n g , measure-
ment, shaping and s c u l p t i n g , l a t h i n g and b u i l d i n g i n g e n e r a l . 6
A method of
production n o t i c e a b l y more prevalen t i n P h i l o than P l a t o i s the metaphor of
moulding and stamping, f o r which not merely t o o l s are r e q u i r e d but a l s o a d i e
or a s e a l , i . e . an exemplar of the product to be made. 7
What P h i l o wishes to
emphasize above a l l i n h i s use of the a r t i s a n a l metaphor i s the element of de-
s i g n and p l a n n i n g involved. Before making h i s product the craftsman must
think i t out i n h i s mind, or he must look to a model.

The way i s thus made c l e a r f o r P h i l o s adaptation f

of P l a t o n i c exemplarism,
i.e. the vorixov C$ov of the Timaeus, as seen most c l e a r l y i n h i s image of the
divine a r c h i t e c t . 8
Before the a r c h i t e c t can b u i l d h i s c i t y , he must conceive
i t s p l a n i n h i s mind, a mental ' b l u e p r i n t 1
to serve as a model i n the a c t u a l
work of c o n s t r u c t i o n . The promotion from humble craftsman to s o p h i s t i c a t e d
a r c h i t e c t or town-planner i s s t r i k i n g . P h i l o i s u n d e r l i n i n g not only the com-
p l e x i t y of the cosmic megalopolis , but a l s o the s u p e r i o r s t a t u s of the a r c h i -
t e c t who does not merely copy an already e x i s t i n g model but designs the plan
himself. 9
The notions of c r e a t i o n a l sequence and demiurgic c r e a t i o n are c l e a r -
l y two sides of the same c o i n . Observation of the s p l e n d i d s t r u c t u r e of the
cosmos must lead to r e c o g n i t i o n of the demiurgic c r e a t o r , j u s t as the s i g h t of
a well-constructed house gives one an idea of i t s b u i l d e r . 1 0
To d e s c r i b e God
as 6 n p t o u p Y o s i s not merely the a p p r o p r i a t i o n of a t r a d i t i o n a l e p i t h e t . It
tells something important about the nature of h i s c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y .

What consequences does the n o t i o n of demiurgic c r e a t i o n have f o r one's

conception of matter? I t i s n a t u r a l to compare matter to wood or stone or the
356 SYNTHESIS

shapeless mass i n t o which a s e a l i s imprinted. Matter l i e s to hand unformed

and awaiting the c r e a t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n of the demiurge. I t i s the uXn out of
which (e£ o u ) the cosmos i s formed. This manner of p r e s e n t a t i o n i s exceeding-
ly common i n P h i l o . 1 1
He i s even prepared to debate the q u e s t i o n of how God
c a l c u l a t e d the exact amount of m a t e r i a l r e q u i r e d to c r e a t e the cosmos. 12

A l s o the conception of procreative cveation recurs with r e g u l a r i t y i n

Philo s writings.
f
God's fatherhood, a well-known B i b l i c a l theme, 13
has crea-
tional significance. God i s the a y o t d o s y e v v r i T r i S , and he can be s a i d to have
two sons, the f i r s t - b o r n or e l d e r as the Logos or n o e t i c cosmos, the younger
as the s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e cosmos. 14
He has i n t e r c o u r s e with h i s Wisdom and she,
r e c e i v i n g the d i v i n e seeds, gives b i r t h to the a t o d n x o s xoopos. 15
Elsewhere
P h i l o d e s c r i b e s God's c r e a t i v i t y with the images of sowing and p l a n t i n g a l s o
prominent i n the Timaeus. 16
Man makes a great mistake i n t h i n k i n g he i s the
cause of generation; parents are the instruments of c r e a t i o n , God the true
procreator, 17
The image of moulding can a l s o convey p r o c r e a t i v e c r e a t i o n , s i g -
n i f i c a n t l y i n the case of man's s o u l . 1 8

It must be noted t h a t , with regard to the planned nature of the process,

there i s an e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between p r o c r e a t i v e and demiurgic c r e a t i o n .
The design of the f i n a l c r e a t u r e i s not planned by d i s c u r s i v e reasoning but i s
contained, embryonically so to speak, as a p a t t e r n i n the seed of the procrea-
tor. The d o c t r i n e of the OTieppaxtKos Aoyos, e x t e n s i v e l y developed i n the Stoa,
is recognized by P h i l o i n the processes of n a t u r a l r e p r o d u c t i o n i n the u n i -
v e r s e , but i s not used to e x p l a i n the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos i t s e l f by God. 19

When the n o t i o n of p r o c r e a t i v e c r e a t i o n i s used i t a l s o becomes necessary

to view the m a t e r i a l i n v o l v e d i n the c r e a t i v e process i n a d i f f e r e n t manner.
One cannot speak of matter eE, o5 but r a t h e r of a r e c e p t a c l e i n which (ev
the seed i s placed and grows to maturity. Such a conception approximates P l a -
to's p r e s e n t a t i o n of the T P L T O V yevog i n the Timaeus, but P h i l o can do very
l i t t l e with i t . He o f t e n d e p i c t s matter as female and p a s s i v e , and describes
i t as receiving change, but goes no f u r t h e r . 2 0
The passage mentioned above, i n
which Zocpua f u n c t i o n s as the womb g i v i n g b i r t h to the cosmos i s e x c e p t i o n a l ,
and c e r t a i n l y does not imply an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the h y p o s t a s is with recep-
t i v e matter. 21

Given P h i l o ' s e x p l o i t a t i o n of both kinds of c r e a t i o n suggested by the

Timaeus the question can now be posed. Which of the two does he regard as the
more important and the more u s e f u l i n e x p l a i n i n g what c r e a t i o n means? Before
a secure answer can be given a number of p r e l i m i n a r y issues must be discounted.
F i r s t l y , P h i l o o f t e n uses terms such as 6npuoupyos and yevvntris without s p e c i -
fic r e f l e c t i o n on t h e i r content, and not too much should be made of such usage.
 Ill 2.3. 357

In the second p l a c e , he does not fail to recognize the metaphorical and con-
c e p t i o n a l l y l i m i t e d nature of both notions. How could images drawn from the
world of sense-perceptible r e a l i t y hope to circumscribe the d i v i n e creative
a c t i v i t y which i s properly speaking a T t e p u y p d c p w s ? 22
God's i n t e r c o u r s e with h i s
own knowledge takes place oux u>s avdpwitos. 23
Concessions to the mythological
t h i n k i n g of the Greek cosmogonies i s a b s o l u t e l y taboo. 24
The d e s c r i p t i o n of
God as demiurge or maker i s a l s o i m p l i c i t l y q u a l i f i e d , as we s h a l l see, by the
a f f i r m a t i o n that God himself does not touch c h a o t i c matter, but leaves that to
h i s instrumental Logos. 25
T h i r d l y a d i s t i n c t i o n must be made, as has already
been h i n t e d a t , between c r e a t i o n on a cosmic s c a l e and c r e a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l
parts of the cosmos. E s p e c i a l l y f o r the c r e a t i o n of l i v i n g beings, a process
where the continuous nature of God's c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y i s apparent, the meta-
phor of p r o c r e a t i v e c r e a t i o n i s the more s u i t a b l e .

These points having been taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , there seems to me no

doubt that with regard to h i s conception of c r e a t i o n i n general P h i l o , here
f o l l o w i n g the lead of P l a t o , regards the n o t i o n of demiurgic c r e a t i o n as the
more important and i l l u m i n a t i n g of the two. 26
The t e c h n o l o g i c a l metaphor i s
given precedence over the b i o l o g i c a l metaphor i n order to d e s c r i b e God's c r e -
ative a c t i v i t y . The explanation f o r the preference must l i e i n the f a c t that
demiurgic c r e a t i o n gives more adequate expression to the d e l i b e r a t e and planned
nature of c r e a t i o n . The t e l e o l o g i c a l design of the cosmos, i n which every
part from the s t a r s to the s m a l l e s t i n s e c t has been given purpose, i s the re-
s u l t of d i v i n e thought 'embodied' i n the xoopos vonxos as cosmic b l u e p r i n t .
For P h i l o P l a t o n i c idealism i s e s s e n t i a l l y P l a t o n i c exemplarism. The construc -
t i o n of the tabernacle i s a l u c i d symbol of the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos. The
archetypal pattern i s designed by Moses, who has God as h i s teacher. The vis-
i b l e copy i s the work of the craftsman B e z a l e l , whose name s i g n i f i e s 'making
i n shadows'. 27
An obvious d i f f i c u l t y i s presented by the non-material aspect
of the cosmos, and e s p e c i a l l y the soul of man. Following the Mosaic anthropo-
logy P h i l o p r e f e r s to speak of i n b r e a t h i n g and moulding rathe r than Plato's
bold image of a demiurgic metalworker mixing h i s 'soulstuff' like alloyed
metal i n a c r a t e r . 2 8
But, as we s h a l l see, d i f f i c u l t i e s remain. 29

That P h i l o should choose to i n t e r p r e t s c r i p t u r e i n such a way as to fol-

low P l a t o i n h i s p r e d i l e c t i o n f o r the metaphor of demiurgic c r e a t i o n gains i n
s i g n i f i c a n c e i f seen i n the l i g h t of developments i n Greek philosophy . Both
A r i s t o t l e and the Stoa, i n d i f f e r e n t ways, show a preference f o r the b i o l o g i c a l
metaphor. A r i s t o t l e d i s s o c i a t e s h i s highest god from involvement i n the pro-
cess of c r e a t i o n a l t o g e t h e r and emphasizes the unconscious t e l e o l o g i c a l s t r i v -
ing of cpuous 6r}y^oupYouaa. 30
The Stoa i n a sense r e v e r t s to P l a t o by ascribing
to cpuots the conscious c r e a t i v i t y of a x e x v b T n s , but the (puous i s immanent and
358 SYNTHESIS

the planned nature of c r e a t i o n i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y undermined by the c e n t r a l

place of cosmobiology i n t h e i r system. 31
A l s o i n the P l a t o n i c t r a d i t i o n the
d i s t i n c t i o n between the two kinds of c r e a t i o n gave r i s e to controversy. In
Numenius the P l a t o n i c demiurge i s s p l i t asunder, the f i r s t god being the Ttaxnp,
the second the n o b n x n s . 32
P l o t i n u s sharply c r i t i c i z e s a reading of the Timaeus
i n terms of demiurgic c r e a t i o n . The cosmos cannot be the r e s u l t of a kind of
T t p o o p a o u s or Aoybopos §eou, as i f there was Aoyos rcpo e p y o u . I t comes i n t o
being e£ d v a y H r i S M a t 0 U K
^ n
A o y t o p o u , (puoews a p e t v o v o s yevvuor)g xaxa cpuobv
ououov eauxr^. 33
P l o t i n u s , ever conscious of h i s use of images, does not acci-
d e n t a l l y speak of b e g e t t i n g here. Just as i n t e l l e c t emanates from the One, so
the cosmos as composite of soul and body i s a necessary excrescence from the
world of higher reality. 3 4
No planning or choice or act of w i l l is involved. 35

I f , t h e r e f o r e , P h i l o shows a d e f i n i t e preference f o r the n o t i o n of demi-

u r g i c c r e a t i o n , how does he give expression to the a c t u a l process of c r e a t i o n
itself? We d i s c o v e r e d , both i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi and elsewhere i n h i s
oeuvre, a fondness on P h i l o ' s part f o r d e s c r i b i n g c r e a t i o n i n terms of a change
from d i s o r d e r to order o r , l e s s o f t e n and l e s s ambiguously, from non-being to
being. 36
The model i s p a t e n t l y Tim.30a, where P l a t o speaks of a p r e - e x i s t e n t
disharmonious 'realm of chaos 1
which the demiurge reduces to order and harmony.
In terms of P l a t o ' s m y t h i c i z i n g n a r r a t i v e one can speak of an act or moment of
c r e a t i o n , which through the n o t i o n of s e q u e n t i a l c r e a t i o n i s a r t i f i c i a l l y d i -
vided up i n t o d i v e r s e aspects. P h i l o too appears to i n d i c a t e an act or moment
of c r e a t i o n when he d e s c r i b e s matter as undergoing a x p o i n xotu uexa(3oAr| from
axa£ba to x a £ b s . T h e P l a t o n i c realm of chaos i s i d e n t i f i e d with
37
pre-existent
matter. The n o t i o n of demiurgic c r e a t i o n suggests the analogies of b u i l d i n g
m a t e r i a l s , the s c u l p t o r ' s unhewn block, the smooth substance impressed by a
seal. The analogies are r e c o g n i z a b l y imperfect and i n e v i t a b l y r a i s e the ques-
t i o n of the kind of e x i s t e n c e that can be a t t r i b u t e d to the p r e - e x i s t e n t mat-
ter. What r e l a t i o n has that matter and the cosmos produced from i t to God the
creator? And what can be meant by an act or moment of c r e a t i o n , both i n r e l a -
t i o n to the problem of time and to the nature of the d i v i n e a c t i v i t y ? To these
problems, the consequences of the n o t i o n of demiurgic a c t i v i t y , we must now turn.

2.4. The implications of genesis

To P h i l o ' s mind i t must have been a p a r t i c u l a r l y b r i l l i a n t d e c i s i o n on

the part of the Jewish lawgiver to give the opening book of h i s legislation
the t i t l e TeveobS and begin i t with an account of the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos. 1

Moses d i d not beat about the bush. Right from the very s t a r t he r e s o l v e s the
 Ill 2.4. 359

problem of whether the cosmos i s e t e r n a l or c r e a t e d . This i s one of the b a s i c

questions of philosophy, the r e s u l t of r e f l e c t i o n i n i t i a t e d by contemplation
of the heavens. 2
Moses immediately shows h i m s e l f s u p e r i o r to the philosophers
and s o p h i s t s , who, i n t h e i r endless wranglings on t h i s question, demonstrate
the f u t i l i t y of t h e i r search f o r t r u t h . 3

P h i l o f o l l o w s h i s master i n d e c l a r i n g the createdness of the cosmos to be'

one of the p i l l a r s of h i s thought. An honoured p l a ce i s reserved f o r i t among
the f i v e 6oypaxa r e q u i s i t e f o r a blessed l i f e . 4
With fervour he a t t a c ks those
t h i n k e r s who a s s e r t that the cosmos i s uncreated (ayevnTOs) and e t e r n a l ( o c u -
6uos), without beginning or end. The B a b e l - b u i l d e r s , i n towering their im-
pious thoughts up to the sky, put forward views that are so extreme - there i s
no God or Providence, the cosmos i s uncreated and i n d e s t r u c t i b l e o r , i f i t has
come i n t o being , wholly subjected to chance - that they need not be taken too
seriously. 5
Much more i n s i d i o u s i s the p o s i t i o n of those who do not deny the
existence of God (he might perhaps even be c a l l e d c r e a t o r ) , but p e r s i s t i n r e -
garding the cosmos as uncreated and e t e r n a l . 6
These men f a i l to p e r c e i v e that
t h e i r views i m p e r i l the d o c t r i n e of Providence and introduce an unseemly anar-
chy i n the cosmic order. P h i l o s p l u r a l s are anonymous.
f
He i s not engaged i n
academic d i s p u t e s or i n t e r - s c h o o l polemic. But among these men we can s u r e l y
include A r i s t o t l e , Speusippus and Xenocrates. The debate on what cosmic yeve-
ats means i n the Timaeus i s never f a r away i n the background. 7

The cosmos i s thus, a c c o r d i n g to Moses, yevnxos. I t has come i n t o being

and i s subjec t to the processes of becoming. Although some p a r t s of the sense-
p e r c e p t i b l e cosmos are more s u b j e ct to the f l u x and tumult of c o r p o r e a l e x i s -
tence than o t h e r s , no par t of i t has the unchanging s t a b l e being of God and
the n o e t i c world. At the beginning of h i s commentary on the M o a y o T t o u t a Philo
a t t r i b u t e s to Moses a v i r t u a l paraphrase of Tim.28a, the d i v i s i o n between the
realms of being and becoming with which Timaeus commences h i s account. 8
The
yeveaus i s f u r t h e r u n d e r l i n e d by a d e s c r i p t i o n of the process of c r e a t i o n as
taking p l a c e i n a sequence of s i x days. But P h i l o s c l e v e r s o l u t i o n to the
1

i n t e r p r e t a t i v e problems of Gen.1, namely to regard the events of the f i r s t day

as p e r t a i n i n g to the n o e t i c cosmos, places him i n an awkward s i t u a t i o n . Moses
describes the c r e a t i o n of the n o e t i c cosmos as part of h i s c r e a t i o n a l n a r r a -
tive. Yet the d i f f e r e n c e between the worlds of s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e and intelli-
g i b l e r e a l i t y must be preserved, unless the P l a t o n i z i n g b a s i s of the i n t e r p r e -
t a t i o n i s to c o l l a p s e . The escape route i s provided by the Mosaic d e s c r i p t i o n
of the f i r s t day as nuepa u u a , 'day one'. To i t none of the p a r t s of the
s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e cosmos are assigned. 9
I t s contents are i n v i s i b l e and n o e t i c ,
so that to them the p r e d i c a t i o n of a b 6 u o T r ) S must be g i v e n . 10
The distinction
of the Timaeus between being and becoming i s preserved, but at the same time
360 SYNTHESIS

P h i l o can make a v i r t u e out of e x e g e t i c a l n e c e s s i t y . The i n c l u s i o n of the c r e -

a t i o n of the Hoauos v o n x o s i s seen as an i m p l i c i t attack against Tim.52a, where
P l a t o a s s e r t s that n o e t i c r e a l i t y i s u n r e s t r i c t e d l y a y e v n T o s nai a v w A e § p o s . u

The f o l l o w i n g question i s what P h i l o takes the y e v e o t s o r c r e a t i o n of the

sense-perceptible cosmos to mean. Here i t would not be too audacious to a f -
f i r m that P h i l o s endeavour i s to understand and e x p l a i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l im-
f

port of the Mosaic x o o u o i o u u a , but that the contours of h i s understanding are

l a i d out by the i n s i g h t s supplie d by the Timaeus and i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a d i -
tion. The problems begin , not s u r p r i s i n g l y , with the terms used to describe
what c r e a t i o n i s . 1 2
J u s t as the noun y e v e o u s can mean both t h e process of be-
T

coming and 'coming i n t o being, c r e a t i o n , so the corresponding a d j e c t i v e yevn.-

1 1

xos denotes both 'subject to the process of becoming and 'having come i n t o be-
1

ing, having been c r e a t e d ' . L a t e r P l a t o n i s t s , i n c e s s a n t l y f a s c i n a t e d with the

question of whether the Timaeus should be i n t e r p r e t e d i n l i t e r a l , i . e . tempor-
a l , terms or not, made d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of the v a r i o u s p o s s i b l e mean-
ings of these words. 13
The s i t u a t i o n i s exacerbated i f the word d p x n i s added
i n the phrase a p x n y e v e o e w s , f o r a p x n can mean both '(temporal) beginning' and
' ( o n t o l o g i c a l l y higher) p r i n c i p l e ' . 1 4

Because P h i l o u n f o r t u n a t e l y does not dwell on these t e r m i n o l o g i c a l sub-

t l e t i e s , i t appears that h i s dogmatic pronouncement that the cosmos i s y e v n t o s
and not a y e v n T O S nal audtos can be read i n two d i s t i n c t ways: (1) i n protolo-
gical terms - the cosmos has come i n t o being as r e s u l t of a c r e a t i v e a c t on
the part of i t s c r e a t o r , described , however inadequately, i n the Mosaic M O O U O -

Tiouta; (2) i n ontological terms — the cosmos always has been and i s c o n t i n u a l -
l y coming i n t o being or being created because i t i s dependent f o r i t s e x i s -
tence on a higher p r i n c i p l e , i t s c r e a t o r , i . e . y e v n t o s means o u x a u T o y e v n x o s 1 5

and the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l account i s meant m e t a p h o r i c a l l y . Other p o s s i b l e i n -

t e r p r e t a t i o n s i n symbolic or h y p o t h e t i c a l terms are r e j e c t e d outright. 1 6

But a f u r t h e r aspect must be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I f the p r o t o l o g i -

c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s taken to mean a coming to be i n time ( c r e a t i o temporalis)
i t too must be r e j e c t e d i n P h i l o ' s view. Time i s i n d i c a t e d , he a f f i r m s i n
sound P l a t o n i c f a s h i o n , by the movement o f the heavenly b o d i e s . There can be
no such t h i n g as pre-cosmic time, and an a p x n y e v e o e w s x a x a x p o v o v i s philoso-
phically impossible. 17
But an a l t e r n a t i v e remains to rescue the p r o t o l o g i c a l
view. I f i n the c r e a t i v e a c t God forms a l l things simultaneously and i n s t a n -
taneously, time i s not i n v o l v e d i n the c r e a t i v e process. Creation i s incep-
tively temporal, not x a x d x p o v o v but o u v xpovcp. 18
As P h i l o says (rather glib-
l y ) at Her. 165, before the f o u r t h day of c r e a t i o n there was a i l w v , t h e r e a f t e r
Xpovos. 19
The two p o s s i b l e views on the cosmos' createdness are t h u s : 20

(1) protological — c r e a t i o simultanea, d p x u y e v e o e w s (as beginning) o u

 Ill 2.4. 361

naxd x p o v o v dAXd ouv xpovq)

(2) ontological — c r e a t i o aeterna, d p x n y e v e o e w s as p r i n c i p l e of becoming,

cosmos created but temporally e t e r n a l .
A f i n a l o b s e r v a t i o n , the importance of which should not be overlooked, i s that
the o n t o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ipso f a c t o excludes the p r o t o l o g i c a l view, but
the p r o t o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s able to i n c o r p o r a t e the p e r p e t u a l c r e a t i o n
( c r e a t i o continua) which the o n t o l o g i c a l view emphasizes so s t r o n g l y . I f God
created the cosmos i n a c r e a t i v e a c t , i t i s l i k e l y that he w i l l continue to
care f o r the product he has made, ensuring the c o n t i n u a t i o n of yeveous through
the cosmos' dependence on i t s source and origin.

Is i t not unwise to dwell at such length on these p r o p e r l y p h i l o s o p h i c a l

problems, which may cause more turbulence i n the minds of P h i l o ' s interpreters
than they caused i n the mind of P h i l o himself? Admittedly f o r the Alexandria n
the r e c o g n i t i o n and acceptance of the createdness of the cosmos i s much more
important than p h i l o s o p h i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n on what that createdness p r e c i s e l y
connotes. Nevertheless he h i m s e l f c l e a r l y shows h i s concern that that doc-
t r i n e should not be i m p e r i l l e d by being understood in a philosophically ille-
g i t i m a t e way. Moreover i t s connotations cannot be separated from the concep-
t i o n of God's nature and the e v a l u a t i o n of the nature of the cosmos, both i s -
sues c l o s e to P h i l o ' s h e a r t .

It i s no c o i n c i d e n c e , t h e r e f o r e , that he r e t u r n s to the d o c t r i n e i n two

of h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e s , the De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi and De P r o v i d e n t i a I.
In both cases the d o c t r i n e of the cosmos' createdness i s brought i n to shed
clarificatory light on the main themes of the works. I t i s one of the most
r e g r e t t a b l e f e a t u r e s of the P h i l o n i c legacy that both t r e a t i s e s remain e n i g -
matic, the one being incomplete, the other i m p e r f e c t l y t r a n s m i t t e d . 21
In the
former P h i l o , i n overt dependence on the Timaeus, chooses f o r the viewpoint
that the cosmos i s created but w i l l not be destroyed, being maintained by the
w i l l and providence of i t s c r e a t o r . But the s e c t i o n of the t r e a t i s e where
P h i l o ' s own views would have emerged i n f u l l c l a r i t y i s not a v a i l a b l e . A good
i n d i c a t i o n of the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n v o l v e d i s s u p p l i e d by the argument on time at
Aet.52-54, which i s presented to prove the A r i s t o t e l i a n p o s i t i o n of the uncre-
atedness and e t e r n i t y of the cosmos. 22
I f time i s d y e v n i o s , then the cosmos i s
also d y e v r i T o s . The nature of time i s a v a p x o s x a u d x e X e u T r i T o s ; there could not
ever have been a time when there was no time, s i n c e the expressions 'ever' and
'was' already i n d i c a t e time. Thus both time and the cosmos must be dyevntos
next d i t t o s . We can be a b s o l u t e l y c e r t a i n that the argument i n t h i s form was
unacceptable f o r P h i l o , f o r i t runs d i r e c t l y counter to h i s profound c o n v i c -
t i o n that the cosmos i s not d y e v n x o s . Time i s dependent on the cosmos, so i f
362 SYNTHESIS

the cosmos had a commencement i n c r e a t i o n and/or i s dependent on a higher

cause, the same must apply to t i m e . 23
But the problem of P h i l o ' s understanding
of y e v e o u s i s herewith not f u l l y resolved. The s i t u a t i o n i n the De Providen-
t i a I i s even more f r u s t r a t i n g . The expectations are high when i t appears i n
§6 that c r e a t i o aeterna i s e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t e d . But the promised ' c l e ar ob-
servations' i n the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs are by no means c l e a r to u s , 24
and i t
i s i l l - a d v i s e d to b u i l d d o c t r i n a l c a s t l e s on such shaky f o u n d a t i o n s . 25

I t seems the best course, t h e r e f o r e , to admit the d i f f i c u l t i e s which the

P h i l o n i s t faces on t h i s issue and make a number of o b s e r v a t i o n s .
1. It can c e r t a i n l y not be assumed on a p r i o r i grounds that P h i l o as a Jew
must n e c e s s a r i l y b e l i e v e i n a real creational event. 26
I t i s i n s t r u c t i v e to
compare the Medieval Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, who i n h i s The Guide of
the Perplexed a f f i r m s that b e l i e f i n the e t e r n i t y of the cosmos i n no way in-
v a l i d a t e s the demonstration of God's e x i s t e n c e , u n i t y and incorporeality, and
that those texts of the Torah which r e l a t e the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos i n time
could e a s i l y be given a f i g u r a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 2 7
(Nevertheless he concludes
that one should f o l l o w the prophet i n a s s e r t i n g c r e a t i o n i n time (properly un-
derstood, of course), s i n c e i t i s an open question which s p e c u l a t i o n cannot
s e t t l e , and the n o t i o n of c r e a t i o n i n time i s 'less d i s g r a c e f u l ' than that of
the e t e r n i t y of the cosmos.) 28

2. The wording used by P h i l o to describe c r e a t i o n d e f i n i t e l y encourages the

i n t e r p r e t e r to opt f o r the p r o t o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . One should note: (a)
the numerous times when he speaks i n terms of 'when God created the cosmos...',
without ever q u a l i f y i n g himself as he o f t e n does i n the case of anthropomorphic
and anthropopathic expressions concerning God; 29
(b) the use of the phrase apxn
y e v e o e w s , e s p e c i a l l y i n conjunction with the a o r i s t A a 3 e C v ; 30
(c) the p r a i s e of
Aristotle's ( l i t e r a l ) understanding of the Timaeus; 31
(d) the evidence of De
Providentia I ( t e n t a t i v e l y ) , e s p e c i a l l y the use of the proof texts from the
Timaeus i n §20-21. 32

3. Even though i t may be h e l p f u l f o r the i n t e r p r e t e r to look at P h i l o ' s word-

i n g , t h i s evidence w i l l not be s u f f i c i e n t to s e t t l e the i s s u e . Since the i n -
t e r p r e t a t i o n of c r e a t i o aeterna was known to P h i l o - t h i s at l e a s t the De Pro-
v i d e n t i a I proves — he must have had
1
grounds f o r r e j e c t i n g i t , i f indeed he
did reject i t . C e r t a i n l y Moses (and maybe a l s o Plato) held views that he re-
garded as a u t h o r i t a t i v e , but that does not exclude the p o s s i b i l i t y of various
(and p o s s i b l y n o n - l i t e r a l ) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .

4. Two important t e x t s , Opif.7-11 and Aet.15, which d e c l a r e the cosmos to be

yevriTOs on account of the p r o v i d e n t i a l r e l a t i o n between maker and product,
f a t h e r and son, do not n e c e s s a r i l y exclude the p o s s i b i l i t y of a d o c t r i n e of
c r e a t i o aeterna, nor do they compel such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 3 3
Other f a c t o r s and
 Ill 2.4. 363

evidence need to be taken i n t o a c c o u n t . 34

5. F i n a l l y the c r u c i a l aspect of the p o s s i b i l i t y of l e v e l s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

must be examined. 35
For Winston and Nikiprowetzky i t i s the indispensabl e sup-
port on which t h e i r view of c r e a t i o aeterna rests. 3 6
I t i s true that when P h i l o
declares that 'there was a time when the cosmos d i d not e x i s t ' , 3 7
or when he
uses expressions such as itpo xfjs TOU HOOUOU yeveoews , 38
he must be regarded as
speaking with a lack of r i g o u r . And a l s o statements that the cosmos began at
the v e r n a l equinox should not be given much w e i g h t . 39
I t i s , however, q u i t e a
d i f f e r e n t matter to suggest that P h i l o regards Moses' d e s c r i p t i o n of c r e a t i o n
as on the same l e v e l as what he says about God's anger or God's arms and legs.
The De o p i f i c i o mundi i s , as a l l w i l l agree, not w r i t t e n f o r beginners i n the
science of understanding s c r i p t u r e . I t seems to me profoundly implausible
that on the same page that P h i l o d i s c l o s e s h i g h l y intimate thoughts on the r e -
l a t i o n between God and h i s Logos i n the c r e a t i o n a l p r o c e s s , 40
he should wish to
exegete the ev dpxfl of Gen.1:1 by adducing the conception of an apxn ou xaxd
xpovov , 41
when what he r e a l l y holds i n h i s deepest thoughts i s an dpxn xax'ou-
oiav ( i . e . because yevnxos o xoouos ou x$ yeveoews dpxnv \a$eZv, aXXd x$ xov
deov dpxnv ayevrixov exetv e£ aei eig d e b 42
). D o c t r i n a l e s o t e r i c i s m i s one of
the more important r e s u l t s of the i n f l u e n c e of Platonism on P h i l o ' s t h i n k i n g .
It l i e s at the heart of the a l l e g o r i c a l and symbolical method. But i t is
l a r g e l y a transparent e s o t e r i c i s m , i n t o which readers possessing the r i g h t
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s can be i n i t i a t e d by reading the exegete's books. 43
Naturally
such readers must be on t h e i r toes, ever ready to p i c k up the s u b t l e h i n t and
connect up v a r i o u s explanations , but i t i s unnecessary to r e q u i r e that they
must d i s c e r n P h i l o to mean what he never s a y s . 44
The n o t i o n of a 'double eso-
t e r i c i s m ' i n P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s must be f i r m l y r e j e c t e d . 4 5

If as the reader w i l l have surmised, our i n c l i n a t i o n i s to favour the

p r o t o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of c r e a t i o n , i t i s not yet time to draw c o n c l u -
sions. As observed above, there are other subjects that must be discussed
first, foremost among which i s P h i l o ' s theology.

2.5. The doctrine of God

P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of God i s the coping stone of h i s thought. By t h i s i s

not only meant that h i s t h i n k i n g i s t h e o c e n t r i c . One could h a r d l y imagine an
a l t e r n a t i v e poin t of f o c a l concern f o r a commentator of the Pentateuch. No,
the image of the coping stone a p t l y suggests that an understanding of P h i l o ' s
views on the nature and a c t i v i t y of God w i l l ensure that the other aspects of
his thinking w i l l s e t t l e securely into place.
364 SYNTHESIS

S t a r t i n g point f o r P h i l o s d o c t r i n e of God
!
i s to be sought nowhere e l s e
than i n the God of the Pentateuch, the God who t o l e r a t e s no other gods beside
him, the God of I s r a e l who revealed himself to the P a t r i a r c h s and above a l l to
the prophet and nomothete Moses. This God s a i d to Abraham, lyu> ei]iL 6 %eog
aou (Gen.l?:!). 1
To Moses h i s s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n was even more sublime, eyw et-yu
o wv; but so that mankind would not lack a t i t l e with which to address him he
added an auwvbov ovoya, xupuog o %eo£ T W V natepwv uywv %eo£ A3potay nai %ebg
Iaaax xau %eo£ Iaxw3 (Ex.3:14-15). 2
But the f a c t that P h i l o i s prepared to a l -
l e g o r i z e t h i s God-given name i s already a t e l l i n g s i g n that he does not wish
to be r e s t r i c t e d i n h i s theology by the p e r s p e c t i v e of n a t i o n a l r e l i g i o n . In
moments of a p o l o g e t i c a l l y d i r e c t e d optimism he d e c l a r e s that t h i s God i s ac-
knowledged by Greeks and barbarians alike (even i f the Jewish race alone knows
how to worship him i n a worthy manner), that the God propounded by the most
h i g h l y reputed philosophy and made known through the Jewish Law i s the same
most ancient and highest cause. 3
And when P h i l o wishes to r e f l e c t on God s f

nature and e x p l a i n what can be thought and s a i d about him, he turns - fateful
d e c i s i o n ! — to the impressive achievements of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l theology of
the Greeks.

In g i v i n g a thumb-nail sketch of P h i l o s ideas on God, f

i t w i l l be the
most expedient and e f f i c i e n t course to begin with a b r i e f summary of the doc-
t r i n e s which P h i l o , i n e x p l a i n i n g s c r i p t u r e , has d e r i v e d from the v a r i o u s
Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l authors and schools . The reader i s warned, however, that
t h i s procedure r i s k s g i v i n g the erroneous impression that h i s d o c t r i n e of God
i s no more than the sum of i t s sources.

1. The Stoa. God i s not contained but c o n t a i n s . He fills the e n t i r e u n i -

verse w i t h h i s powers, so that he can be s a i d to be everywhere (but a l s o no-
where) present at the same time. How could Cain be so f o o l i s h as to think
that he w i l l be hidden from God (Gen.4:14)? 4
But S t o i c ideas on pantheism and
God's c o r p o r e a l nature are so o b v i o u s l y f a l s e that P h i l o h a r d l y ever bothers
to p o l e m i c i z e against them. 5
A l s o the language of Aoyos and (puobs f o r God's
o p e r a t i o n i n the cosmos r e c a l l s S t o i c theology. 6

2. A r i s t o t l e and the P e r i p a t e t i c s . D i v e r s e aspects of the S t a g i r i t e ' s theo-

logy, 7
whether drawn from the e x o t e r i c works or f i l t e r e d through from the
s c h o l a s t i c w r i t i n g s , have l e f t t h e i r t r a c e i n P h i l o : (a) God as f i r s t or h i g h -
est auxbov; 8
(b) God as wholly s t a b l e and immobile, but the source of movement
for a l l other b e i n g s ; 9
(c) God as unceasingly a c t i v e , a c h i e v i n g h i s purpose
w i t h absolute e a s e . 10
The o r a c l e communicated to the a l l - w i s e Moses, au 6e
auxou OT?i$b yex'eyou (Deut.5:31), r e v e a l s God's i m m u t a b i l i t y, but a l s o that
the sage i s granted the p r i v i l e g e of j o i n i n g him i n that p e r f e c t s t a t e , 1 1

Furthermore the d i s t i n c t i o n between God's ouoba and 6uvaybs, so important in

 I l l 2.5. 365

P h i l o ' s theology, may have been d e r i v e d from the P e r i p a t e t i c t r a d i t i o n ; w i t -

ness the remarkable p a r a l l e l i n the De Mundo. 12

3. P l a t o and the P l a t o n i s t t r a d i t i o n (1). From P l a t o P h i l o gains support f o r

the conception of God as maker and f a t h e r , c r e a t o r and p r o v i d e n t i a l maintainer
of the cosmos. God, forming the n o e t i c world i n h i s mind and l o o k i n g to i t as
model, stands i n o p p o s i t i o n t o formless matter and, because he i s good, t r a n s -
forms i t i n t o the most p e r f e c t of products, the cosmos. Here i s the theology
of the Timaeus, e a s i l y converted i n t o the d o c t r i n e of the three apxau i n Mid-
dle Platonism. 13
P h i l o need look no f u r t h e r f o r the c r e a t o r God of Gen.1.

4. P l a t o and the P l a t o n i s t t r a d i t i o n (2). But the theology that can be read

i n t o Republic VI & VII i s a l s o c r i t i c a l l y important. God alone i s t r u e being
(TO 0VTU3S 6v), the source of being and knowledge f o r a l l other e x i s t e n t s . 1 4

Just as the sun i l l u m i n e s h i m s e l f and i s the source of l i g h t to a l l other

v i s i b l e o b j e c t s , so God i s h i s own b r i g h t n e s s , by which l i g h t he alone can be
seen. 15
The v i s i o d e i i s the u l t i m a t e quest, a c c e s s i b l e only to the eye of the
soul (Rep.533d). I t was granted to the s p i r i t u a l a t h l e t e Jacob, as i n d i c a t e d
by the new name he r e c e i v e d , I s r a e l o opffiv T O V deov ( c f . Gen.32:29). 16
Philo
does not, however, grasp the o p p o r t u n i t y presented by the e n e n e t v a TT\£ ououas
of Rep.509b i n order to suggest that God i s beyond b e i n g . 17

5. The Old Academy and Neopythagoreanism. God i s the One or the Monad, 18
or,
i n an even l o f t i e r a f f i r m a t i o n of d i v i n e transcendence and s i m p l i c i t y , nai
evos HOLI uovct6os 7tpeo3uT£pov. 19
When Abraham, s i t t i n g at the oaks of Mamre,
r e c e i v e s three d i v i n e v i s i t o r s but addresses God i n the s i n g u l a r ( c f . Gen.18),
the a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n d i s c l o s e s that God with h i s two c h i e f powers
can appear as a t r i a d , but the mind i n i t i a t e d i n the highest mysteries recog-
n i z e s God as one. 20
But God s oneness does not exclude being; he i s T O ev nai
f

T) povag, T O OVTOJS ov. 2 1

In the combination o f Platonism and and Neopythagorea-
nism the way i s made c l e a r f o r the negative theology with i t s l i s t of negative
a t t r i b u t e s which plays such an important r o l e i n P h i l o ' s theology. 22

It w i l l be immediately apparent that i t i s going to be a formidable job

to f o r c e a l l these d o c t r i n a l i n s i g h t s i n t o the s t r a i g h t j a c k e t of a systematic
theology along P h i l o n i c l i n e s . Our author never made the attempt himself -
nothing could be f u r t h e r from h i s i n t e n t i o n s - but modern s c h o l a r s have not
shrunk back from the t a s k . 23
Indispensable f o r the endeavour are the d o c t r i n e s
of the Logos, powers and i d e a s , by which l e v e l s of speaking about God's nature
or the element of intermediation are introduced, at the r i s k of i m p e r i l l i n g
the d o c t r i n e of God's u n i t y . No l e s s b a f f l i n g i s the question of the r e l a t i o n
between the 'personal' God of s c r i p t u r e and the ' a b s t r a c t ' God o f philosophy.
I t i s c l e a r that P h i l o sees no c o n t r a d i c t i o n between the two. Less c l e a r i s
how he t h i n k s he can e f f e c t u a t e t h i s 'concurrence' i n a s a t i s f y i n g manner. 24
366 SYNTHESIS

But i t i s time now to add some comments on the c o g n i t i v e s i d e of P h i l o ' s doc-

t r i n e of God, an aspect c e r t a i n l y no l e s s important than what has so f a r been
discussed.
The obverse s i d e of God's u t t e r transcendence i s man's l i m i t a t i o n i n the
quest f o r knowledge of him, a l i m i t a t i o n only greater f o r the exegete of the
Law who i s c a l l e d on to work at second hand, not r e c o r d i n g h i s own ideas and
experiences but e x p l a i n i n g the words of the d i v i n e l y b l e s s e d prophet. Like a
purple thread running through P h i l o ' s works i s the o f t - r e p e a t e d distinction
between God's existence (unap^us) and h i s essence (ouata). The quest f o r know-
ledge i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y laudable and should be p a s s i o n a t e l y pursued, but man
cannot proceed f u r t h e r than knowing that God e x i s t s (ei eoxuv), not what he i s
(TL EOTUV). 2 5
I f man could know God's essence he would, accordin g to the axiom
that l i k e i s known unto l i k e , be equal to God, the mere thought of which i s
sacrilegious. 2 6
Even the great Moses was rebuffe d when he l o n g i n g l y s u p p l i c a -
ted God, 'reveal y o u r s e l f to me', and r e c e i v e d the r e p l y , 'you s h a l l see what
i s behind me, but my face you s h a l l not see ' (Ex.33:18-23). 27
How then does
man gain that knowledge of God to which h i s own nature gives him access?
P h i l o takes h i s cue from God's r e p l y to Moses j u s t c i t e d . God's e x i s t e n ce i s
made known through what follows a f t e r him, that i s through h i s r e l a t i o n a l i t y , 28

God as T O ov i s absolute ( o v 5 ov), but through h i s powers and Logos he stands

i n r e l a t i o n (irpos T U ) to what has come i n t o b e i n g . 29
God i s thus known through
what he achieves i n the cosmos v i a h i s powers, as i s w e l l perceived i n the
cosmological argument mentioned e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter. 30

A few texts (notably Praem.40-46 on Jacob o opwv T O V §eov) indicate a

higher way, when God r e v e a l s h i s existenc e through h i m s e lf alone, cpooTb cpws. 31

How t h i s occurs P h i l o does not e x p l a i n , except that knowledge of God's essence

i s precluded. Wolfson i n t e r p r e t s the higher way as an act of r e v e l a t i o n and
prophecy, but Winston i s r i g h t i n p r o t e s t i n g against the i m p l i c a t i o n that i n
the process the powers of r a t i o n a l i t y are bypassed, even i f God himself must
i n i t i a t e the breakthrough. 32
I envisage P h i l o t h i n k i n g of a process analagous
to the mind's enrolment i n the n o e t i c world, i n which the s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b i l i t y
and m u l t i p l i c i t y of the cosmos i s s t r i p p e d away, d i s c u r s i v e reasoning i s by-
passed and God's e x i s t e n c e i s i n t u i t i v e l y apprehended as a u n i t y at the level
of the Logos. 33
Also t h i s knowledge, however, cannot and does not proceed beyond
the r e l a t i o n a l . God i n h i s absoluteness i s unknowable. The i n t e r p r e t e r of
P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of God must e x e r c i s e great care i n not breaking the epistem-
ic l i m i t s set by P h i l o h i m s e l f . 34

A f i n a l aspect of P h i l o ' s theology which deserves more a t t e n t i o n than i t

has r e c e i v e d and i n which the Alexandrian may w e l l have been innovatory i s his
usage of the n o t i o n of x o t T a x p r i o ' ^ s • 35
The term xaTctxpno'ts r e f e r s to the misuse
 Ill 2.5. 367

of language and i s u s u a l l y contraste d to the proper ( x u p u o s ) o r true (dAn§ris)

use of a word. 36
Most o f the instances i n P h i l o are a p p l i e d to our speaking of
God. 37
God as T O OV i s nameless, d p p n T o s xau dxaTOVouaoTOS, but by l i c e n c e of
language (ev xotTaxpnoeu) he may be spoken o f and addressed by h i s d i v e r s e
names, notably the B i b l i c a l x u p u o s and $eds. E s p e c i a l l y the exchange between
God and Moses at Ex.3:14-15 i n v i t e s a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s idea . God as o wv has
as h i s nature T6 eEvau and not TO AeyeoSau, but by x a T a x p n o u s he makes himself
known as x u p u o s b $eos, i . e . by reference to h i s powers. 38
I t i s apparent that
the n o t i o n of xaTaxpnous, though s p e c i f i c a l l y concerned with the naming and
d e s c r i b i n g o f God, cannot be seen apart from the more general p r i n c i p l e s o f
P h i l o s d o c t r i n e of God.
f

2.6. God t h e Creator

God as TtounTris natriP i s the c r e a t o r of the cosmos, but h i s c r e a t o r - |

ship c o n s t i t u t e s but one aspect, and not the h i g h e s t , o f h i s d i v i n e nature.
This was, f o r our purposes, the most important r e s u l t of the b r i e f sketch o f
P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of God. God, as absolute being, gives a share o f h i s being
to the cosmos and h i s p a r t s , thereby g r a n t i n g h i s creatures e x i s t e n c e but a t
the same time making h i s own existence known. The conception o f God as c r e a t o r
i s so important because i t c o n s t i t u t e s that aspect o f God's being most immedi-
a t e l y a c c e s s i b l e to human observatio n and reasoning. P l a t o , whether i n depen-
dence on Moses or independently of him, had recognized the createdness o f the
cosmos and the c r e a t o r s h i p of God. Here f o r P h i l o l i e s the e s s e n t i a l message
of the Timaeus.

'God, i n h i s c a p a c i t y as God, a n t i c i p a t e d that a b e a u t i f u l copy could

never come i n t o existence apart from a b e a u t i f u l model... Wishing t o create
t h i s v i s i b l e cosmos, he f i r s t formed i n r e l i e f the n o e t i c cosmos, so that with
the use o f an i n c o r p o r e a l and wholly God-like model, he might produce the i n -
corporeal universe...' 1
From the Timaeus P h i l o has l e a r n t the c o r r e l a t i o n be-
tween a good model and a good product, but the u n c e r t a i n t y i n the dialogue
concerning the r e l a t i o n , between demiurge and model has been t r e n c h a n t l y re-
solved. God i s above the ideas and he 'creates' them as a p l a n f o r the vis-
i b l e cosmos. 2
Where e l s e can they be l o c a t ed than i n the d i v i n e mind, that i s
i n the Logos, as product of God's t h i n k i n g ? 3
The demiurge i s up-graded by as
much as the ideas are down-graded. C e r t a i n l y the ' r e a l ' supra-cosmic existence
of the l a t t e r i s not q u e s t i o n e d , 4
but the being that i s p r e d i c a t e d o f them i s
not absolute but r e l a t i v e , r e l a t i v e t o the c r e a t o r above them and, i n a quite
d i f f e r e n t sense, to the cosmos below. Thus, i n a p a r a d o x i c a l way, eternity
 368 SYNTHESIS

can be p r e d i c a t e d of the i d e a s , and y e t by t h e i r 'creation 1

on day one Moses
f 1

i n d i c a t e s that the noapos vonxos does not possess the absolute being that can
only be a t t r i b u t e d to God. 5

God's c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y can be seen as an a c t of c r e a t i o n and as a p r o -

I cess of c r e a t i o n , depending on the point of view. P h i l o ' s v e r d i c t i s that the
l a t t e r i s not a c o n t r a d i c t i o n but a c o n t i n u a t i o n of the former. If creation
should be conceived as an a c t of converting d i s o r d e r i n t o order, an act i n
which movement and time a r e i n i t i a t e d , that must not be taken to mean that the
c r e a t o r ' s c r e a t i v e involvement i s of only momentary d u r a t i o n . Philo insists
that c r e a t i o n i s a never-ending process, f o r the c r e a t o r h i m s e l f i s eternally
and n e v e r - c e a s i n g ly active. The Jewish custom of c i r c u m c i s i o n symbolizes pre-
c i s e l y that i t i s not man but God who t r u l y c r e a t e s , ensuring the p r e s e r v a t i o n
of the human r a c e . 6
The r e s t enjoined to man on the Sabbath does not i n d i c a t e
i n a c t i v i t y on God's p a r t , but teaches the absolute a n t i t h e s i s between God's
evlpyeta and man's aipa£ta. 7
The legacy of the Timaeus i s at t h i s p o i n t a l i t -
t l e ambivalent. The t a l k of the demiurge's retirement and the handing over of
c r e a t i v e tasks to the 'young gods' could p o s s i b l y mislead. P h i l o must f o l l o w
Moses, d i f f i c u l t though the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e task may be. Purposes of theodicy
c o n s t r a i n Moses to recognize that God c a l l s i n a s s i s t a n c e f o r the c r e a t i o n of
man, 8
and he i s q u i t e prepared to admit that the heavenly bodies have a r u l i n g
f u n c t i o n i n the cosmos. 9
But God alone creates and does so unceasingly and un-
tiringly. He alone must be worshipped. 10
On the other hand, the d o c t r i n e of
d i v i n e Providence which P h i l o l o c a t e s i n the Timaeus, i . e . that the never-
ceasing a c t i v i t y of the c r e a t o r f i n d s expression i n the maintenance of the
cosmos' s p l e n d i d 6Laxoapnaus, i s most welcome. Although the cosmos has come
i n t o being and i s ipso f a c t o subject to the processes of decay and d e s t r u c t i o n
i t w i l l i n f a c t never be destroyed, being h e l d together by the w i l l and pro-
v i d e n t i a l care of i t s c r e a t o r . 1 1

In what way, then, must the nature of God's c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y be conceived

P h i l o ' s r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the c r e a t i o n a l account introduces a c r u c i a l new
factor. To the B i b l i c a l language of speaking and making must be added the
P l a t o n i c language of thinking. 12
Thought, the only a c t i v i t y wholly d i s s o c i a t e d
from c o r p o r e a l i t y and sense-perception, i s i n the t r a d i t i o n o f Greek i n t e l l e c -
tualism the a c t i v i t y that must be a t t r i b u t e d to God par e x c e l l e n c e . The c r e -
ator's f i r s t task i s the ' t h i n k i ng out' of the n o e t i c cosmos as object of h i s
thought. Planning i s a p r i o r form of a c t i v i t y than execution (even i f both
occur simultaneously), 13
as i s c l e a r l y shown i n the a r c h i t e c t image. 14
Else-
where, but not i n O p i f . , P h i l o entrusts the a c t u a l execution of the c r e a t i v e
a c t i v i t y t o the Logos as instrument of c r e a t i o n , d i r e c t contact between God
and matter being regarded as out of the q u e s t i o n . 15
The demiurgic metaphor
 Ill 2.6. 369

which P h i l o borrows from the Timaeus i s thus reformulated, but i n a way that
i s hardly i n c o n s i s t e n t with the fundamental p r i n c i p l e s of Platonism. The doc-
t r i n a l development of the 'creation 1
of the ideas as the objects of thought of
God as vous i s , to borrow a phrase from D i l l o n , a 'tidying-up' of Plato's
thought. 16
But the i n t r o v e r t e d s e l f - r a t i o c i n a t i o n and self-contemplation of an
A r i s t o t e l i a n vous as highest God i s f a r removed from P h i l o ' s conception of
God's a c t i v i t y . Although P h i l o does not say i n e x p l i c i t terms how God's t h i n k -
ing i s r e l a t e d to h i s p r o v i d e n t i a l a c t i v i t y of continuous c r e a t i o n , 1 7
one might
surmise that God, by continuously t h i n k i n g the n o e t i c cosmos i n the Logos, en-
ables the Logos continuously to e f f e c t u a t e that the v i s i b l e cosmos corresponds
naxd 6uvauuv to i t s i n t e l l i g i b l e model. The i n t e l l e c t u a l i s t i c conception of
the d i v i n e a c t i v i t y i s of c e n t r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r P h i l o ' s anthropology, as
w i l l emerge i n greater d e t a i l below. 18

God's c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y i s not only n o e t i c and never-ceasing, i t i s a l s o

beneficent to a supreme degree. The cosmos i s good because i t s c r e a t o r i s
good. Indeed the motive f o r the c r e a t i v e act — and here P h i l o unreservedly,
i f anonymously, acknowledges h i s debt to the Timaeus 19
- l i e s i n the intrinsic
goodness of the d i v i n e n a t u r e . 20
In c r e a t i o n God allows h i s creature s to share
i n the goodness which i n i t s f u l n e s s i s h i s and h i s alone. Because of the
overwhelming abundance of God's goodness h i s creatures are unable to receive
the xctptxes unless they are measured out, a task consigned p r i m a r i l y to the
Logos. 21
Here f o r the f i r s t time, to our knowledge, the P l a t o n i c conception of
the demiurge's goodness and the Judaeo-Christian conception of God the creator
are brought together, an event of enormous i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the h i s t o r y of
ideas. 22

But immediately a d e l i c a t e problem a r i s e s . The goodness that P l a to has

i n mind and the goodness envisaged by B i b l i c a l w r i t e r s r e s i s t simple identifi-
cation. P l a t o n i c goodness i s e s s e n t i a l l y metaphysical, signifying excellence
of being, whereas the goodness of the God of the B i b l e i s best described in
terms of grace, the lovingkindness and forebearance shown by a f a t h e r to h i s
children. The contrast being drawn here i s doubtless d i f f i c u l t to describe
with s u f f i c i e n t nuance, but i n my view i t r e s t s on a s o l i d f o u n d a t i o n . 23
To
which of these two d o e s * P h i l o , who has brought them together, i n c l i n e ? 2 4
The
f a c t that he twice introduces the theme of God's goodness as c r e a t o r in rela-
t i o n to the grace that Noah found with the Lord God 25
may encourage the i n t e r -
p r e t e r to conclude that P h i l o i s t a k i n g over the language and thematics of the
Timaeus without understanding i t i n the same way. 26
In f a c t the problem here
i s no more than an extensio n of the problem of the r e l a t i o n between the ab-
s t r a c t and the personal conception of the d i v i n e nature r a i s e d above. Philo
combines and refuses to see a contradiction. Inasmuch as P h i l o regards God as
370 SYNTHESIS

pure Being ( T O O V ) , the goodness that proceeds from him w i l l have a 'metaphys-
i c a l ' flavour. I t i s indeed unmistakably present i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi,
where, l e t i t be noted, no B i b l i c a l text compels the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the theme
of God's goodness. 27
A l s o s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by P l a t o i s the emphasis placed
on t h e o d i c y . 28
God the c r e a t o r i s the cause of good only. The source of the
e v i l that i s undeniably present i n the cosmos must be sought elsewhere. Even
chastening and r e t r i b u t o r y punishment, which have a paedeutic purpose and are
u l t i m a t e l y b e n e f i c i a l , are not administered d i r e c t l y by God but through the
agency of h i s powers or m i n i s t e r i n g angels.

The themes r e l a t i n g to God's c r e a t o r s h i p so f a r d i s c u s s e d , important

though they are f o r our s u b j e c t , are hardly very s u r p r i s i n g o r problematic
once the nature of P h i l o ' s undertaking i s understood. I t i s when one attempts
to f i l l i n the i n t e r s t i c e s between them and place them i n the p e r s p e c t i v e of
P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of God as a whole that numerous questions arise. The aim
must be to zoom i n on those problems that are l i k e l y to have preoccupied the
Alexandrian himself. Three i n p a r t i c u l a r may be suggested.

1. Transcendence and creation. Does the transcendence of God, on which

P h i l o i s so i n s i s t e n t , pose a t h r e at to or even exclude him from c r e a t o r s h i p ?
The question i s not r a i s e d by the Timaeus on i t s own, but immediately comes
i n t o focus when the Idea of the Good of the Republic i s introduced. The image
i n O p i f . might induce the i n t e r p r e t e r to think of a d i v i n e h i e r a r c h y i n the
Middle P l a t o n i s t manner, 29
f o r a d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between the munificent king
and the designing and executing a r c h i t e c t . One might judge on a p r i o r i grounds
that P h i l o ' s Judaic h e r i t a g e of monotheism would cause him to show great h e s i -
t a t i o n before agreeing w i t h such a h i e r a r c h y , even i f i t i s the l o g i c a l out-
come o f h i s P l a t o n i z i n g sympathies. In f a c t P h i l o does all he can to avoid
the consequence of a f i r s t and second God. 30
God the wholly transcendent One
i s a l s o the c r e a t o r . But must not immediately the r i p o s t e be expected that
God's c r e a t o r s h i p i s p a l l i a t e d by the employment of i n t e r m e d i a r i e s i n the act
and process o f c r e a t i o n ? E s p e c i a l l y r e l e v a n t i s the d o c t r i n e of the powers,
by which the c r e a t i v e and b e n e f i c e n t a c t i v i t y of God i s l o c a t e d i n one of h i s
two c h i e f powers, as s i g n i f i e d i n the d i v i n e name %eog. 31
Wolfson speaks at
t h i s p o i n t of the ' f i c t i o n of i n t e r m e d i a r i e s ' . The phrase appeals to us,
though not what the American s c h o l a r means by i t . 3 2
The d o c t r i n e that God
makes use of i n t e r m e d i a r i e s i n order to c r e a t e i s a p h i l o s o p h i c a l f i c t i o n ,
necessary to preserve the c o n v i c t i o n of God's transcendence. But even i f God
employs h i s Logos and powers i n the c r e a t i v e task, i t i s s t i l l he who creates.
Herein l i e s the s e c r e t o f the compressed formula that the vonxos xoopos i s
nothing e l s e then the $eou Aoyos n 6 n x o o p o n o t o u v T O s .
1 3 3
God and Logos are only
 Ill 2.6. 371

c o n c e p t u a l l y , not a c t u a l l y separable, as indeed are the k i n g and the archi-

tect, 3 4
and the oneness of God i s not endangered. How then must the f a c t that
God i s c r e a t o r be seen i n r e l a t i o n to h i s u n q u a l i f i e d transcendence? An an-
swer can only be given i n p a r a d o x i c a l or negative terms. God both i s and i s
not r a i s e d h i g h above c r e a t o r s h i p . 35
God's c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y , as one aspect of
h i s being, i n no way c i r c u m s c r i b e s , l e t alone exhausts, h i s d i v i n e nature.
Any attempt to proceed beyond t h i s point i s to attempt to map the contours of
God's essence, a task beyond human c a p a c i t y , even that of the great Moses.
The d o c t r i n e of the powers has g e n e r a l l y been regarded as P h i l o ' s attempt to
solve the p h i l o s o p h i c a l problem of God's transcendence and h i s c r e a t o r s h i p .
I t might seem a daring t h e s i s , but to our mind the d o c t r i n e appears designed j
more to draw attention to the problem than a c t u a l l y to solve it. 3 6

2. D i v i n e w i l l and d i v i n e immutability. C r e a t i o n , w r i t e s De V o g e l , 37
is
not merely the processio n of the r e l a t i v e out of the absolute , but entails
that t h i s p r o c e s s i o n i s the r e s u l t of a conscious act of w i l l on the part of
the c r e a t o r . Our concern here i s not with the c o r r e c t n e ss of De Vogel's d e f i -
n i t i o n of c r e a t i o n . But i t may help us to determine how P h i l o views t h i s cen-
t r a l problem. In h i s e x p l a n a t i o n of the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l account he takes
over the Timaean n o t i o n of God's w i l l and goes a step f u r t h e r , a f f i r m i n g that
God wished (ftouAndets) to c r e a t e t h i s v i s i b l e cosmos. 38
I l l u s t r a t i n g the the-
s i s that God 3ouAexab yova x d y a § d , h i s thoughts immediately t u r n to the c r e a -
t i o n and maintenance of the cosmos. 39
On the other hand, P h i l o i s no l e s s con-
vinced that God i s immutable, not subject to the processes of change. God as.
xo ov i s dxpentxov xal dyexd$An.xov 9 completely s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and both Ttpo xfjs
xou xooyou yeveoews and yexd xnv yeveouv xou navxos remaining ev oyou(p. 40
Also
i n e x e r c i s i n g h i s care over created r e a l i t y God does not change; hence the
s t a b i l i t y of the cosmos i t s e l f . 4 1
The problem, f i r s t r a i s e d by A r i s t o t l e , of
what God was doing before he created the univers e (unemployment, sleep and so
on) does not appear very t r o u b l i n g to P h i l o . 4 2
Not d i p a ^ t a but evepyeua must
be p r e d i c a t e d of the c r e a t o r . 4 3
P h i l o ' s concern i s r a t h e r , and here defence i s
turned i n t o a t t a c k , that i f the cosmos i s not created God must be accused of
d u p a ^ u a , f o r there would be no r e l a t i o n s h i p between God and the cosmos r e q u i r -
ing him to be p r o v i d e n t i a l l y a c t i v e . 4 4
Only God can a u t h e n t i c a l l y combine r e s t
and labour, immutability and c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y . But already the t h i r d problem
area looms.

3. The objects of God's thought. For P l a t o the cosmos i s unique because

of the u n i c i t y of the model. P h i l o , having placed the ideas w i t h i n God, de-
c l a r e s the cosmos to be one because God i t s c r e a t o r i s one. 45
But then how
does the xooyos vonxos as model or examplar of the cosmos r e l a t e to the ful-
ness of God's thought? Wolf son emphatically a s s e r t s that the xooyos vorjTos
372 SYNTHESIS

does not exhaust the d i v i n e t h i n k i n g :

...inasmuch as the mind of God i s always a c t i v e , always t h i n k i n g , and
never devoid of o b j e c t s of thought, i t i s to be assumed that i n the mind
of God from e t e r n i t y there had e x i s t e d an i n f i n i t e v a r i e t y of ideas, not
patterns of things of our world, but r a t h e r patterns of things of an i n -
f i n i t e v a r i e t y of p o s s i b l e worlds, from among which God conceived the
p a r t i c u l a r patterns of things which i n His wisdom were the most s u i t a b l e
f o r t h i s world of ours which He decided to c r e a t e .
Winston appears to reach the opposite conclusion. 47
God, i n e t e r n a l l y thinking
the Forms, e t e r n a l l y create s the xooyos vonxos and hence a l s o i t s shadow r e -
f l e c t i o n , the s e n s i b l e cosmos. No act of w i l l i s involve d and, s i n c e God can-
not act against h i s own nature, the cosmos cannot be produced i n any other way
than i t has e t e r n a l l y been made.
I t may be objected that the problem i s wholly s p e c u l a t i v e . Indeed not a
word on i t w i l l be found i n P h i l o . I t i s , however, the consequence of the
c r e a t i o n i s m of the Timaeus read i n t o the Mosaic account and is directly rela-
ted to h i s e x p l i c i t mention of God's w i l l . The aim must be to penetrate to
the assumptions which enable P h i l o to f e e l j u s t i f i e d i n importing the P l a t o n i c
scheme, but not to supply s o l u t i o n s to problems that to him may not have ap-
peared problematic. The Wolfsonian idea of i n f i n i t e xooyot vonxou with i t s
s t r e s s on t o t a l d i v i n e omnipotence c o n f l i c t s with the legacy of P l a t o n i c r a -
t i o n a l i s m which P h i l o has inherited. Just as there i s f o r every v i s i b l e ob-
j e c t i n the c l a s s of xd xaxd cpuouv a p e r f e c t exemplar, so there i s only one
best way to design and create the cosmos, the way the c r e a t o r i n h i s goodness
a c t u a l l y created it. So f a r the view of Winston i s to be p r e f e r r e d . But must
i t be concluded that the cosmos i s the necessary r e s u l t of the outflow of God's
goodness? 48
Is the concept of an act of w i l l on God's part merely a concession
to human ways of d e s c r i b i n g God's c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y ? Taking the cue from De
Vogel, I would h e s i t a t e to draw t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . The f a c t that God in his
thought conceived the best of p o s s i b l e worlds does not e n t a i l that he neces-
s a r i l y had to b r i n g i t i n t o existence i n i t s i n f e r i o r enmattered form. His
e t e r n a l a c t i v i t y and unchanging nature are guaranteed by the processes of h i s
thought and the transcendence of h i s b e i n g . 49
God's d e c i s i o n to create the
cosmos must be affirme d — P h i l o i s eager to s t r e s s the w i l l of the demiurgic
c r e a t o r — but can h a r d l y be the subjcet of p h i l o s o p h i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , f o r i n
so doing one must overstep the bounds of 'that God i s ' and attempt to penetrate
into 'what God is'. 5 0

Most important f o r P h i l o i s that God, i n having decided to create the

cosmos, a l s o undertakes a 'covenant' with h i s c r e a t u r e s , expressed by means of
the unceasing a c t i v i t y of d i v i n e Providence or, i n the language of the doctrine
of the powers, by the p o l a r i t y of h i s c r e a t o r s h i p and r u l e r s h i p . The ark
placed i n the innermost sanctuary f i t t i n g l y r e c e i v e s a cosmic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ,
 Ill 2.6. 373

the Cherubim symbolizing the two highest powers of him that is: 5 1

uovos ydp Ttpos dXrideuav wv xau nounxris eaxtv d4>eu6(J5s, £Tteu6n. i d uf| o v x a
nyayev qig T O e £ v a u , xau 3cxatXeus cpuaeu, 6 t o x t xtov yeyovoxwv o u 6 e u s dv
dpxot 6 t x a t o x e p o v xoO TieTcotrixdxos (Mos .2.100) .

2.7. The L o g o s

It i s i n the d o c t r i n e of the Logos that P h i l o , as commentator on the Mo- «

s a i c account of c r e a t i o n , d e v i a t e s the most from the Timaeus. The word Xoyos,^

one of the key terms i n Greek philosophy, of course occurs f r e q u e n t l y i n the

dialogue. At one point P l a t o even speaks of the Xoyos (xau 6 u d v o u a ) deou,

s i g n i f y i n g thereby d i v i n e 'reasoning' or ' c a l c u l a t i o n ' . 1

But the n o t i o n of the

d i v i n e Xoyos as an e s t a b l i s h e d t h e o l o g i c a l conception i s not found. In P h i l o ,

on the other hand, i t i s one of the most important and p e r v a s i v e f e a t u r e s of

his thought. I t i s a l s o arguably the most d i f f i c u l t , not l e a s t because of the

remarkably wide spectrum of f u n c t i o n s and a t t r i b u t e s which the Logos i s given. 2

In our A n a l y s i s i t emerged that a number of these were demonstrably r e l a t e d to

P h i l o ' s r e a d i n g of the c o s m o l o g i c al d i a l o g u e .

1. The Logos as p l a c e of the n o e t i c cosmos. The xoayos vonxos as p l a n

or model f o r the v i s i b l e cosmos i s to be l o c a t e d nowhere e l s e than i n the d i -

v i n e Logos, 3
or can even be s a i d to c o i n c i d e w i t h the Logos of God as he i s

a c t u a l l y engaged i n the ac t of c r e a t i o n . 4
The Logos i s the dpxexuTios acppotyus,

x6 Ttapd6euyua,' dpxexuTtog idea xwv tSewv. 5

C l e a r l y the d i v i n e Logos i s very

c l o s e to being i d e n t i f i e d w i t h the P l a t o n i c model, i . e . as the thoughts of God

structured i n a u n i t y to form the p l a n of the cosmos and at the same time r e -

p r e s e n t i n g the t o t a l i t y of the i d e a s . 6
I t would be more a c c u r a t e , however, to

d e s c r i b e the model as the n o e t i c aspect of the Logos, f o r the Logos i s a l s o

considered to c o n t a i n the power(s) of God a c t i v e i n the c r e a t i o n a l p r o c e s s . 7

At the same time the Logos must be regarded as the euxcov of God, a d e s i g n a t i o n

which has r e c e i v e d the imprimatur of Moses. 8

The cosmos and man the microcosm

are both image of an image. In s p i t e of the P l a t o n i c terminology t h i s idea i s

difficult to f i t i n t o the c o n c e p t u a l i t y of the Timaeus. 9

2. The Logos as instrument of c r e a t i o n . In the image of Opif.17-18 the

a r c h i t e c t not only designs the c i t y but a l s o , l i k e a 6nyLoupyos dyados, exe-

cutes h i s p l a n by c o n s t r u c t i n g i t out of stones and t i m b e r . 10

The Logos i s em-

ployed by God the c r e a t o r as the instrument (opyavov) through or with which

(6u'o5 or $) he creates the cosmos. 11

The c r e a t o r does not enter i n t o direct,

contact w i t h m a t t e r , 12
but employs the Logos as c u t t e r (xoyeus), which he whets

l i k e a sword so that i t can perform i t s task w i t h s k i l l and p r e c i s i o n . 1 3

Not
374 SYNTHESIS

d i s s i m i l a r i s the r o l e given to the Logos as measurer of God's goodness, i n

which the n o e t i c and the instrumental aspects are combined. 14
I t i s apparent
that the c r e a t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the Timaeus has undergone m o d i f i c a t i o n ,
f o r the P l a t o n i c demiurge, as icounTns nai ixaxrip, does not h e s i t a t e to deal d i -
r e c t l y with the m a t e r i a l at h i s d i s p o s a l , as shown by the wealth of demiurgic
imagery discussed above. 15
The change i s not p e c u l i a r to P h i l o . I t i s the r e -
s u l t of developments i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n of the Timaeus and i s
given a p a r t i c u l a r l y c l e a r formulation i n the d o c t r i n e of ' p r e p o s i t i o n a l meta-
physics'. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the instrumental cause w i th the Logos i s ,
however, l e s s common. 16

3. The Logos as replacement f o r the cosmic s o u l . In P h i l o the concep-

t i o n of a cosmic s o u l i s d e l i b e r a t e l y avoided, i n s p i t e of the c e n t r a l r o l e
which i t i s given i n the Timaeus. 17
In i t s place the Logos i s assigned the
f u n c t i o n of r e p r e s e n t i n g the immanent presence of the d i v i n e i n the cosmos.
From the manner i n which P h i l o describe s the presence and a c t i v i t y of the Lo-
gos i t can be discerned that he i s conscious of the P l a t o n i c cosmic soul i n
the background. 18
I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y evident when P h i l o emphasizes the permea-
t i o n of the Logos, extended or s t r e t c h e d from one l i m i t of the cosmos to the
other. 19
The Logos i s moreover considered to hold the cosmos together and pre-
vent i t s d i s s o l u t i o n . The avaXoyta, apuovua and 6eopos of the Timaeus are
theologized and t r a n s f e r r e d to the Logos. 20
I t may thus be regarded as the i n -
strument of God's never-ceasing c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y and maintenance of the cos-
mos. 21
Why i s the cosmic soul of the Timaeus replaced when so many of i t s tasks
remained indispensable? The i n f l u e n c e of p h i l o s o p h i c a l fashions must be given
i t s due. The Stoa had transmuted P l a t o ' s cosmic soul i n t o t h e i r Logos and the
'modernized' concept passed i n t o Middle P l a t o n i s m . 22
For P h i l o i t i s important
that the idea of the d i v i n e Logos more e a s i l y and c o n v i n c i n g l y illuminates
s c r i p t u r a l thought than the idea of a cosmic s o u l , f o r which i n the Mosaic
xoouoTtouua, f o r example, there i s a b s o l u t e l y no p l a c e . 23
The c o n c l u s i o n , how-
ever, that the d o c t r i n e of the Logos represents a S t o i c i z i n g (and thus a n t i -
P l a t o n i c ) element i n P h i l o ' s thought i s unwarranted. 24
The Logos i s not an
immanent a c t i v e and formative p r i n c i p l e , but r e c e i v e s i t s i n s t r u c t i o n s from
'higher up'. This i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d by the use of imagery to describe the
Logos' p r o v i d e n t i a l r o l e . The Logos i s God's v i c e r o y (unapxos), the reinsman
i n s e r v i c e of God the c h a r i o t e e r , the rudder used by God the p i l o t . 2 5

4. The Logos and the microcosm. The r e l a t i o n of the Logos to man's mind
or r a t i o n a l part of the soul w i l l be discusse d i n the s e c t i o n d e a l i n g with the
i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus on P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of man. 26

The Logos i n P h i l o can be defined i n the most general terms as that aspect
 I l l 2.7. 375

or part of the d i v i n e that stands i n r e l a t i o n to created r e a l i t y . Whenever

God i s d e s c r i b e d as engaged i n c r e a t i v e o r p r o v i d e n t i a l a c t i v i t y , he does so
i n the guise or through the agency of the Logos. The Logos f u n c t i o n s as a
kind of d i v i n e Factotum, summoned whenever and wherever God comes i n t o con-
t a c t with the s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b l e cosmos (whether planned or a c t u a l l y created)
and always entrusted with the d i r t y work f 1
n e c e s s a r i l y involved i n creation .
The r o l e o f the Logos i s thus i n t i m a t e l y connected with the problem of the r e -
l a t i o n between God's transcendence and c r e a t o r s h i p discussed i n the previous
section. We consider that an important c o n f i r m a t i o n of our conclusion s reach-
ed there i s provided by the remarkable and i n s u f f i c i e n t l y n o t i c e d f a c t that
the d i v i n e Logos i s never given the status of the 7iourixn.s nai itaxrip or demiur-
gic c r e a t o r . 2 7
I t must not be thought that God i n h i s transcendence hands over
the task of c r e a t i o n to the Logos as SriPtoupyos, f o r t h i s might lead to the
dangerous c o n c l u s i o n that God i s wholly remote from the cosmos and only rela-
ted to i t through the i n t e r m e d i a t i o n of someone or something e l s e . I t i s God
the TtounxriS nau itaxrip who c r e a t e s , but he does so at the level of h i s Logos as
place of the n o e t i c world o r in the guise of h i s c r e a t i v e power and through
the agency o f the Logos as instrument of c r e a t i o n . I t i s p o s s i b l e to go a
step f u r t h e r . Through the d o c t r i n e of the Logos God can be s a i d to be immanent
i n the u n i v e r s e which he c r e a t e d without the a f f i r m a t i o n o f h i s transcendence
being put at r i s k .

So f a r so good. I f , however, the P h i l o n i c d o c t r i n e of the Logos i s sub-

j e c t e d to a c l o s e r and more c r i t i c a l examination, one cannot f a i l to n o t i c e
d i f f i c u l t i e s , the c h i e f of which emerges i n f u l l c l a r i t y i f the three func-
t i o n s o f the Logos most c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the Timaeus are surveyed. The f i r s t
appears t o be s i t u a t e d at a d i f f e r e n t , i . e . higher , l e v e l than the t h i r d ,
while the second can be viewed as a bridge between them. L e t me e x p l a i n .
When the Logos i s regarded as the 'embodiment' of God's thought focussed on
the cosmos ( i . e . place of the HOOUOS vorixos) or as the 'embodiment' of God's
creational activity ( i . e . foremost of the powers), the d i f f e r e n c e between God
and h i s Logos appears to be kept to a minimum, perhaps a matter o f aspect r a -
ther than l e v e l . 2 8
But when the immanent presence of the Logos i s s t r e s s e d ,
P h i l o envisages a d i r e c t contact with and permeation through the cosmos which
i t holds together. The Logos i s Ttpeoguxaxos xoav o o a yeyove and Tipeoguxaxos nal
ipwxoyovos, even God's a r c h a n g e l . 29
The Logos has to a l l appearances become a
hypostasis, a l e v e l of God's being given r e a l existenc e o u t s i d e God h i m s e l f . 30

When the Logos acts as God's instrument i t moves between the two l e v e l s indi-
cated, o r g a n i z i n g and imparting to matter as best i t can the form of the noe-
t i c cosmos. The c o n c l u s i o n must be, t h e r e f o r e , that the Logos, seen i n r e l a -
t i o n to the Timaeus, f u n c t i o n s at the l e v e l s o f both the demiurge (and model)
376 SYNTHESIS

and the cosmic s o u l . I t i s the a c t i v e presence of the Logos i n the sense-

p e r c e p t i b l e and corporeal cosmos that brings about an apparent s e p a r a t i on from
God the c r e a t o r and the a t t r i b u t i o n of an intermediate status between God and
the cosmos. Unlike i n the case of the P l a t o n i c cosmic s o u l , however, P h i l o
does not c o n s t i t u t e the Logos i n such a way that i t s intermediate status i s
the consequence of i t s c o n s t i t u e n t s and the manner of i t s formation. To be
sure, i t i s describe d as yevrixos, but a l s o the xoouos vonxos placed i n the
Logos was i n a sense yevnxos. The immanent Logos i s e v i d e n t l y regarded as a
kind of 'extension' of the Logos on the l e v e l of the demiurge. 31
In such a way
P h i l o endeavours to preserve the u n i t y of the Logos, i n s p i t e of the multipli-
c i t y of l e v e l s and functions. The r e s u l t remains p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y f a r from
s a t i s f y i n g , c e r t a i n l y when compared with the Timaeus. In f a i r n e s s to P h i l o ,
however, i t should be added that p h i l o s o p h i c a l systematics were not h i s pri-
mary aim.

The divergences that e x i s t between the P h i l o n i c d o c t r i n e of the Logos and

the thought of the Timaeus have been o u t l i n e d . A number of f a c t o r s must be
c a l l e d i n to e x p l a i n these changes. P a r t l y P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l source mate-
r i a l can be h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e ; one thinks of S t o i c adaptation of the Timaeus
and Middle P l a t o n i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i v e developments. Of c e n t r a l importance i s
P h i l o ' s debt to Jewish Wisdom s p e c u l a t i o n , i n s p i r e d above a l l by the 'and God
s a i d ' i n Gen.1. 32
S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the B i b l i c a l record of cre-
a t i o n and the p r e s e n t a t i o n of cosmic genesis i n the Timaeus impel P h i l o to i n -
troduce changes. Nevertheless our d i s c u s s i o n has shown that the d o c t r i n e of
the Logos by no means causes the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus to be eclipsed.
Rather one might speak of a c r e a t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n . The P h i l o n i c conception of
the Logos records the r e s u l t of important m o d i f i c a t i o n s to the d o c t r i n e s of
the Timaeus, but at the same time the P l a t o n i c dialogue has left i t s indelible
mark on the way that the r o l e and function s of the d i v i n e Logos are conceived.

2.8. The negativity of matter

Creation i s f o r P h i l o p r i m a r i l y a conversion of d i s o r d e r to order, of

non-being to being. As was observed e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter, 1
the demiurgic
metaphor of the Timaeus and e s p e c i a l l y P l a t o ' s c l a s s i c d e s c r i p t i o n of the
t r a n s i t i o n from chaos to order i n Tim.30a have profoundly i n f l u e n c e d Philo's
conception of the c r e a t i v e a c t . Matter i s the raw m a t e r i a l out of which (e£
ou) God shaped and modelled the universe. I t i s apparently best described by
long l i s t s of a d j e c t i v e s (mostly c o n t a i n i n g a - p r i v a t i v e s ) , while t h e i r anto-
nyms i n d i c a t e the nature of the r e s u l t a n t created product. 2
I f these d e s c r i p -
 Ill 2.8. 377

t i o n s are analysed i t emerges that P h i l o a l t e r n a t e s between a s c r i b i n g to mat-

t e r a d i s o r d e r l y n e g a t i v i t y and c o n c e i v i ng i t i n terms of pure p o t e n t i a l i t y . 3

In the former case matter i s c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d with the p r e - e x i s t e n t d i s o r -

d e r l y and disharmonious realm of chaos of which P l a t o speaks i n the Timaeus.
In the l a t t e r case matter becomes an ever-present c o n s t i t u e n t of r e a l i t y , vir-
tually a principle (apxn). The i n f l u e n c e can r e a d i l y be detected of the Aris-
t o t e l i a n conception of matter as substrate and the S t o i c d o c t r i n e of the pas-
s i v e p r i n c i p l e , both of which were read back i n t o the P l a t o n i c p r e s e n t a t i o n of
the r e c e p t a c l e i n the Timaeus.

The nature of the dialogue's i n f l u e n c e on P h i l o ' s view of matter i s thus j

somewhat c u r i o u s . The r o l e of matter i n the c r e a t i o n a l schema of the Timaeus
( i . e . e s p e c i a l l y Tim.30a) i s very important and h i s general conception of uAn
i s moulded by the views read i n t o that work above a l l by the Middle P l a t o n i s t s .
When, however, we searched f o r evidence of a c a r e f u l reading of Tim.49-53, the
passage where P l a t o explains what p r e c i s e l y the r e c e p t a c l e i s , very little di-
r e c t usage could be found. 4
P h i l o ' s reading of the Timaeus here i s one-sided
and incomplete, much i n f l u e n c e d by the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n .

The B i b l i c a l and e x e g e t i c a l background i s once again c r u c i a l l y important.

The o p p o r t u n i t i e s given to P h i l o , as exegete of the Mosaic code, to expatiate
on the nature and r o l e of matter are i n f a c t q u i t e l i m i t e d . Because he inter-
prets 'day one' of the Mooponobta as recounting the formation and s t r u c t u r e of
the n o e t i c cosmos, P h i l o i s not e x e g e t i c a l l y impelled to d i s c u s s the r o l e of
uAri i n the act of c r e a t i o n . 5
The f a c t that he three times r e f e r s to i t , a l b e i t
not at great length, i n d i c a t e s that i n h i s ( P l a t o n i c a l l y influenced) interpre-
t a t i o n of the cosmogony i t s presence i s i n d i s p e n s a b l e . 6
Also o u t s i d e the ac-
count of c r e a t i o n d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of the nature of matter r a r e l y occurs.
I t i s symbolized by the dyad and the female element i n nature. 7
Laban and the
eunuchs e x p e l l e d from the sacred congregation represent those t h i n k e r s who,
r e f u s i n g to recognize the presence of form i n the cosmos, go so f a r as to d e i f y
formless and u n l i m i t e d matter. 8
P h i l o ' s c h i e f aim i s to show that matter (as a
c o n s t i t u e n t of r e a l i t y ) i n i t s e l f possesses no power or s t r u c t u r e , but i s given
form by God the c r e a t o r through the Logos/ideas. The p a s s i v i t y and negativity
of matter are what i s important. P h i l o i s not f u r t h e r encouraged by the Mo-
s a i c n a r r a t i v e to enter i n t o a t e c h n i c a l d i s c u s s i o n of what the exact nature
of uAri i s .

How then does P h i l o envisage the inescapable problem of the r e l a t i o n be-

tween God and matter? What s t a t u s does matter have as a c o n s t i t u e n t of reali-
ty and what nature can be a t t r i b u t e d to matter i n i t s p r e - e x i s t e n t state?
From the viewpoint of l a t e r developments i n the h i s t o r y of philosophy the ques-
t i o n of whether P h i l o propounded the d o c t r i n e of matter created ex n i h i l o by
 378 SYNTHESIS

God i s of great interest. Even though he appears to be aware of the possibil-

i t y of t h i s d o c t r i n e , i t holds no a t t r a c t i o n f o r him. 9
The t h e s i s of Wolfson
that P h i l o demonstrates h i s espousal of c r e a t i o ex n i h i l o by means of a d e l i b -
erate and s u b t l e r e w r i t i n g of Plato's Timaeus must be r e j e c t e d . 1 0
Indeed ex-
a c t l y the reverse i s true. Because the manner of understanding c r e a t i o n which
i s i n i t i a t e d i n the Timaeus, an o r d e r i n g and shaping of matter l y i n g ready to
hand, i s so a t t r a c t i v e , P h i l o i s d i s i n c l i n e d to put forward an a l t e r n a t i v e ,
and e s p e c i a l l y one that c o n f l i c t s with the axiom, almost as o l d as Greek p h i -
losophy i t s e l f , that ex xou uf) OVTOS ou6ev yuveTcxu. 11
The problem of the nature
of p r e - e x i s t e n t matter, and the a d d i t i o n a l problem that matter, i f not created,
might seem e t e r n a l and even a p r i n c i p l e of r e a l i t y next to God, thus remain.

These d i f f i c u l t i e s might, however, v a n i s h l i k e mist before the sun i f the

a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n proposed by Winston i s accepted. In the d o c t r i n e of c r e -
a t i o aeterna a l l t a l k of a p r e - e x i s t e n t matter i s reduced to metaphor. Phi-
l o 's thought i s m o n i s t i c and monotheistic. Matter i s a shadow r e a l i t y that
u l t i m a t e l y proceeds from God as i n d i r e c t r e s u l t of h i s c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y , and
i s i n no way an autonomous p r i n c i p l e next to God. 12
But, even i f the question
of P h i l o ' s espousal of c r e a t i o aeterna i s l e f t a s i d e , i t must be objected that
t h i s view i s i n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s a m e t a p h y s i c a l ly r e f i n e d v a r i a n t of the
c r e a t i o ex n i h i l o t h e s i s . Although matter would be only i n d i r e c t l y created by
God, i t is s t i l l the r e s u l t of d i v i n e a c t i v i t y . There must be p o s t u l a t e d a
higher prototype of matter, an i n d e f i n i t e dyad or vonxn uXn, f o r the existence
of which God is directly responsible. 13
Can the P h i l o n i c c o n v i c t i o n that God
i s i n no way r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the imperfect nature of m a t e r i a l r e a l i t y then
still s e r i o u s l y be maintained?

The c o n c l u s i o n must be, t h e r e f o r e , that matter possesses f o r P h i l o the

f
1
status of an e t e r n a l c o n s t i t u e n t of r e a l i t y with an existence ( i f that word can
|f be used) i n some way independent of God. The i n f l u e n c e of the two-principle
d o c t r i n e of the Stoa and the t h r e e - p r i n c i p l e d o c t r i n e of Middle Platonism can
be f e l t . But P h i l o does not regard uXri as an dpxn of r e a l i t y i n the manner of
these p h i l o s o p h e r s . 14
From h i s t h e o c e n t r i c viewpoint there can be no question
of c h a r a c t e r i z i n g matter as a metaphysical e n t i t y somehow on a par with God.
God i s the dpxn of being, matter a passiv e q u a s i - e x i s t e n t o b j e c t on which that
being i s conferred. There can be no question of an a c t i v e o p p o s i t i o n between
God and uAn. r e s u l t i n g i n a true d u a l i s m . 15
The c h i e f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of matter
i s not a c t i v e maleficence but n e g a t i v i t y and recalcitrance. 1 6
On account of
i t s inherent tendency to d i s o r d e r matter r e s i s t s , though only p a s s i v e l y , the
i m p o s i t i o n of form by the c r e a t o r . I f God's c r e a t i o continua and providen-
t i a l care ceased i t would immediately r e v e r t to i t s o r i g i n a l s t a t e . 1 7
Philo i s
thus not averse to adopting the P l a t o n i s t view that matter i s a source of
 Ill 2.8. 379

imperfection and evil i n the cosmos, though i t i s emphatically not the primary
cause of e v i l which i s the consequence of the f r e e w i l l of the s o u l and the
wrong choices i t h a b i t u a l l y makes. 18
The d e s c r i p t i o n s of the pre-cosmic chaos
are given i n c h i e f l y negativ e terms, 19
a n e g a t i v i t y wholly opposite to that used
i n p r e d i c a t i o n of God as T O O V . I t remains d i f f i c u l t to determine what P h i l o
envisages as the a t t r i b u t e s which account f o r i t s d i s o r d e r , and a l s o how he
imagines i t s e t e r n a l co-quasi-existenc e with God. 20
The Mosaic commentator j
must, i t appears, reserve h i s a t t e n t i o n f o r more p r e s s i n g subjects. 2 1
The Phi^
l o n i s t must, i n c o n t r a s t , conclude that t h i s i s the l e a s t s a t i s f a c t o r i l y de- )
veloped and most obscure area of P h i l o ' s thought.

Matter i s n o t to be confused with body and corporeality. Body, possess-

ing s o l i d i t y and three-dimensionality, 22
i s matter which has received form from
God the c r e a t o r through the i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y of the Logos. Created reality,
sense-perceptible as i t i s on account of i t s c o r p o r e a l i t y , i s i n e l u c t a b l y as-
s o c i a t e d with matter and t h i s f a c t i s d e c i s i v e f o r the way i t must be evaluated.
P h i l o has no q u a r r e l with the P l a t o n i c axiomata that yeveous e n t a i l s (p§opct and
that ouv3eots e n t a i l s 6 t a X u o t s . 23
The HOOUOS atodnTos is a ouoTripa or composi-
tum, c a r r y i n g the seeds of d e s t r u c t i o n w i t h i n i t ; i t c o n s t i t u t e s , moreover, the
realm of yeveous and cp$opd, even i f some of i t s p a r t s are p r o t e c t e d from the
worst consequences by the c r e a t o r ' s mastery and foresight. But the cosmos i s
not a b a t t l e g r o u n d, s c a r r e d by the s t r u g g l e between God and the f o r c e s of
materiality. 2 4
That c o n f l i c t was s e t t l e d before i t began, so to speak. For
all i t s o n t o l o g i c a l v u l n e r a b i l i t y the cosmos i s i n d e s t r u c t i b l e , i t s immortali-
ty ensured by the w i l l and providence of the creator.

2.9. The creator and t h e cosmos

God i s the c r e a t o r ; the cosmos, i t s p a r t s and i t s i n h a b i t a n t s are h i s

creatures. The r e l a t i o n of c r e a t o r and cosmos i s best described i n terms of
d u a l i t i e s ultimately derived from the Timaeus — maker and product, craftsman
and a r t e f a c t , f a t h e r and o f f s p r i n g , being and becoming. The most fundamental
d u a l i t y i s , i n more a b s t r a c t terms, the c o n t r a s t between independence and de-
pendence. 1
God i s , incomprehensibly, not l i m i t e d i n the absolute transcendence
of h i s being by the f u n c t i o n of h i s c r e a t o r s h i p . The cosmos, on the other
hand, lacks even a semblance of autonomy, being wholly dependent f o r i t s e x i s -
tence on the p r o v i d e n t i a l d i s p e n s a t i o n of i t s c r e a t o r .

The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the c r e a t i o n i s m of the Timaeus f o r P h i l o s understan- f

ding o f the Mosaic d o c t r i n e o f c r e a t i o n has been e s t a b l i s h e d beyond a l l reason-

380 SYNTHESIS

able doubt. The p o i n t s of c o n c e n t r a t i o n must be s i t u a t e d above a l l i n the

n o t i o n of a demiurgic c r e a t i o n of order out of d i s o r d e r and i n the r e c o g n i t i o n
of the planned, purposeful and ( p a e d e u t i c a l l y ) s e q u e n t i a l nature of the event.
At the same time important elements of r e v i s i o n have come to the f o r e , among
which the most f a r - r e a c h i n g are:
(a) the subordinatio n of the ideas as cosmic paradigm to the c r e a t o r ;
(b) the r e f u s a l to a s c r i b e the a c t u a l demiurgic labour to God;
(c) the m i n i m a l i z a t i o n of the a s s i s t a n c e r e q u i r e d by the c r e a t o r .
Our theme has allowed the observation of a complex and f a s c i n a t i n g i n t e r p l a y
between the c r e a t i o n a l schema of the P l a t o n i c cosmogony on the one hand, and
P h i l o ' s task as commentator of the Mosaic record ( d a y one ,
f 1
p l u r a l of Gen.
1:26), the i n f l u e n c e of the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n of the Timaeus (interior-
i z a t i o n of the ideas, f i r s t and second god) and the l o y a l t y shown by P h i l o to
Judaic monotheism (no second god) on the other.
The problem of whether to understand yeveats i n p r o t o l o g i c a l or o n t o l o g i -
cal terms has hung over our chapter l i k e a threatening c l o u d . That i t should
be so d i f f i c u l t to uncover P h i l o s t h i n k i n g on such a c e n t r a l and
f
quite un-
avoidable subject i s remarkable and revealing. The balance of the evidence,
i n our view, leads to the c o n c l u s i o n that P h i l o favours the p r o t o l o g i c a l i n -
t e r p r e t a t i o n of c r e a t i o n i n terms of a c r e a t i v e act by God the c r e a t o r . Four
reasons can be given f o r the preference.
(1) C r e a t i o n can best be describe d i n terms of the demiurgic metaphor, with
s p e c i a l emphasis on planning and design.
(2) C r e a t i o n i s the r e s u l t of an act of w i l l or d e c i s i o n on the part of God
the c r e a t o r ; the same w i l l prevents the cosmos 1
potential dissolution.
(3) A sounder a p p r e c i a t i o n can be given of the f a c t that time i s dependent on
God f o r i t s e x i s t e n c e , and i s i n no way coeval with God.
(4) A c o r r e c t e r view of the status of the enmattered s e n s e - p e r c e p t i b le cosmos
as realm of yeveaus and cpdopa i s guaranteed.
I t must be immediately admitted that none of these reasons are wholly
f r e e from ambiguities, none are based on a d i r e c t report of P h i l o n i c d i s c u s s -
ion. An element of r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n p e n e t r a t i n g to h i s assumptions on this
c e n t r a l i s s u e i s unavoidable. A good deal of the d i f f i c u l t y l i e s a l s o , I sus-
pect, i n the i n a b i l i t y of the i n t e r p r e t e r of P h i l o s thought to escape the
f

legacy of p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s developed i n the c e n t u r i e s and m i l l e n i a a f -

t e r him. In p a r t i c u l a r one senses r e t r o s p e c t i v e l y that two doctrines, crea-
t i o n of matter ex n i h i l o and the contingency of the cosmos, l i e j u s t around
2 . . .

the corner. I t may be that the i n t u i t i o n s on which these d o c t r i n e s are based

are already embryonically present i n P h i l o , but are as yet d i f f e r e n t l y formu-
lated. In any case the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of P h i l o s thought i n terms of a
f
 Ill 2.9. 381

P l o t i n i a n or Spinozaesque d o c t r i n e of non-contingency should be v i g o r o u s l y op-

posed. The task f o r him (and now f o r us i n our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) was to f i n d a
060s 3aotXuKri between the d o c t r i n e of d i v i n e omnipotence r a i s e d to the degree
of u n r e s t r i c t e d a r b i t r a r i n e s s ( c f . Wolfson) and the d o c t r i n e of non-contin-
gency and consequent d i v i n e r e s t r i c t i o n ( c f . Winston). Our t h e s i s i s that the
c o n c e p t u a l i t y of the Timaeus was i n P h i l o s view s u f f i c i e n t , i f p r o p e r l y under-
f

stood (and thus modified) i n the l i g h t of s c r i p t u r e , to guarantee a sound and

pious response to the problem that i s h i s c h i e f concern, the r e l a t i o n between
God and created r e a l i t y . Last but c e r t a i n l y not l e a s t , i t has become c l e a r
that f o r P h i l o c r e a t i o continua i s a d i r e c t consequence of (not an a l t e r n a t i v e
f o r ) God's c r e a t i v e a c t . The fundamental place of the d o c t r i n e of d i v i n e Pro-
vidence i n P h i l o s thought cannot be o f t e n enough or s u f f i c i e n t l y
f
stressed.

God as ( M o s a i c a l l y ) o wv and ( P l a t o n i c a l l y ) T O O V i s supremely transcen-

dent, i n h i s essence and f u l n e s s unknowable. To c a l l God c r e a t o r and meditate
on h i s c r e a t o r s h i p i s to indulge i n HaTaxprious. But, P h i l o would immediately
add, that H a x d x P u O ^ S i s necessary and noble. I t c o n s t i t u t e s the most impor-
tant lesson that the Timaeus has to o f f e r .

2.10. A d m i r a t i o n f o r t h e cosmos, praise f o r the creator

L y r i c i s m i s not one of the more overt feature s of the Timaeus. Conscious

of the breadth and complexity of h i s theme, P l a t o f o r the most p a r t favours
the sober c o n c i s i o n of s c i e n t i f i c prose. Nevertheless P l o t i n u s was undoubted-
l y c o r r e c t when with h i s customary p e r s p i c u i t y he declared that the dialogue
c o n s t i t u t e s a hymn of p r a i s e to the cosmos. 1
With a sureness i n d i c a t i v e of both
profound c o n v i c t i o n and l i t e r a r y craftmanship, P l a t o i n t e r s p e r s e s throughout
the work the language of p e r f e c t i o n and excellence i n order to d e s c r i b e the
cosmos and the demiurge, reaching a climax i n the trumpet tones of the con-
c l u d i n g doxology. 2

The same admiration f o r the beauty and p e r f e c t i o n of the cosmos i s echoed

throughout the P h i l o n i c corpus. The cosmos i s a p e r f e c t whole, c o n s i s t i n g of
perfect parts. 3
This p e r f e c t i o n i s f i r s t and foremost the r e s u l t of teleologi-
c a l design. Every part and i n h a b i t a n t of the cosmos has received i t s own pur-
p o s e f u l p l a c e and so, by a c t i n g according to i t s nature, c o n t r i b u t e s to the
harmony and e x c e l l e n c e of the cosmos as a whole. The cosmos i s thus complete
( p r i n c i p l e of p l e n i t u d e ) , p e r f e c t l y shaped ( s p h e r i c a l ) , s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t (hav-
ing no r i v a l s ) , and so on. 4
P h i l o i s , however, much l e s s i n t e r e s t e d than P l a t o
i n deducing the p e r f e c t i o n of the cosmos from a p r i o r i or d i a l e c t i c a l princi-
ples. 5
He gives p r i o r i t y to the evidence of h i s senses, and e s p e c i a l l y the
382 SYNTHESIS

sense of s i g h t . In d i v e r s e passages he d e s c r i b e s and e x t o l s the beauty of the

cosmos i n high-flown l y r i c a l language. 6
Although the theme of the contempla-
t i o n of the cosmic splendour has i t s roots i n the Timaeus, 7
Philonic prolixity
stands i n marked c o n t r a s t to P l a t o n i c r e s t r a i n t . The baroqueness of language
has a c l e a r purpose; i t endeavours to convey something of v a r i e t y (TtouxbAba)
and v i t a l i t y of the cosmos, aspects which i n the Timaeus are underplayed. 8

P h i l o i s undoubtedly indebted, f o r both thought and language, to the 'consente-

ment' of the H e l l e n i s t i c ' r e l i g i o n cosmique', 9
but a l s o , one surmises, to the
l y r i c a l passages i n p r a i s e of the cosmos found i n B i b l i c a l and Judaic l i t e r a -
ture. 1 0
I t w i l l not do, however, to conclude that the i n f l u e n c e of the P l a t o -
n i c admiration f o r the cosmos only reaches P h i l o through the haze of an inter-
vening t r a d i t i o n which had reduced the idea to a banal commonplace. I t has
been shown that P h i l o has absorbed the phraseology of p e r f e c t i o n and excel-
lence w i t h which P l a to d e s c r i b e s the cosmos i n t o h i s own language, and uses i t
time and time again to c h a r a c t e r i z e the cosmos, the heavens and man the micro-
cosm. 11
A p a r t i c u l a r l y favoured phrase i s P l a t o ' s p o r t r a y a l of the cosmos and
demiurge as o u e v xaAAuoxos x w v y e y o v o x c a v , o 6 ' a p u o x o s x w v a u x t w v . It is
s e v e r a l times paraphrased or adapted, and i s , i n f a c t , the only passage i n the
Timaeus which P h i l o quotes on more than one o c c a s i o n . 12

P h i l o i s thus sympathetic to the P l a t o n i c a t t i t u d e of admiration f o r the

cosmos. No l e s s than P l o t i n u s he would be prepared to defend the cosmos v i g o -
r o u s l y against the deprecations of the G n o s t i c s . The cosmos i s good because
i t s c r e a t o r i s good. And compared with l a t e r C h r i s t i a n eschatology, P h i l o
( l i k e P l a t o ) r e t a i n s a c e r t a i n element of D i e s s e i t i g k e i t in his attitude to-
wards create d r e a l i t y , even i f he i s s u f f i c i e n t l y P l a t o n i s t to recognize that
it remains the c o r p o r e a l image of a more p e r f e c t world and that the aim of the
s o u l must be to escape (cpuyri) and ascend to enrolment i n the d i v i n e r e a l m . 13

But t h i s s i n c e r e admiration f o r the cosmos on the part of P h i l o i s l i k e l y

to deceive unless we heed h i s warning that i t must be seen i n the r i g h t p e r s -
pective. I f the cosmos i s regarded as a ' v i s i b l e god', that a p p e l l a t i o n should
be c a r e f u l l y q u a l i f i e d . 1 4
I t i s a very s e r i o u s mistake, indeed only s l i g h t l y
l e s s a s i n i n e and impious than Egyptian i d o l a t r y , to regard the cosmos as the
highest o b j e c t of admiration and to o f f e r i t or i t s c e l e s t i a l p a r t s worship. 15

This was the c a p i t a l e r r o r of the Chaldeans, p e r c e i v e d by Abraham when he obey-

ed the c a l l to depart from t h e i r l a n d . 16
Admiration f o r the cosmos i s l e g i t i -
mate and praiseworthy when accompanied by a r e c o g n i t i o n that i t i s God's han-
diwork. Because God the c r e a t o r alone i s autonomous and supreme, he alone i s
to be worshipped. The t r u e philosopher t h e r e f o r e maintains an a t t i t u d e of
absolute admiration f o r God the c r e a t o r and r e l a t i v e admiration f o r the created
cosmos. 17
We encounter here one of the fundamental p r i n c i p l e s of P h i l o ' s
 I l l 2.1-0. 383

thought, i m p l i c i t i n almost every utterance i n the area of cosmology. It i s

used to r e f u t e the d o c t r i n e that the cosmos i s uncreated and e t e r n a l . I t forms
1 8

the o r g a n i z i n g idea behind the s y s t e m a t i c a l l y s t r u c t u r e d doxography i n the De

a e t e r n i t a t e mundi. 19
The cosmos must be regarded as i n d e s t r u c t i b l e , but only i
because i t i s preserved from d e s t r u c t i o n by i t s creator. Since i n that pas-
sage the Timaeus i s found to be i n agreement wit h Moses, i t may be assumed
that the fundamental p r i n c i p l e state d above i s read i n t o the c r e a t i o n i s m of
Plato's myth.

Important though these ideas are, however, the P h i l o n i s t must not stop.
A f u r t h e r dimension needs to be added. For P h i l o r e c o g n i t i o n of the splendour
of the cosmos and the supreme craftsmanship of the c r e a t o r n e c e s s a r i l y elicits
a response i n the pious s o u l , given expression i n the acts of praise and thanks-
giving. The f r u i t of Ttau6eCa i s 'for p r a i s e ' (auvexos), symbolizing that we
cannot adequately give thanks to God through o b l a t i o n s and sacrifices, but
only i n hymns of p r a i s e , as w e l l t o l d i n the ancient t a l e of the b i r t h of the
Muses. 20
The s a c r i f i c i a l v i c t i m i s d i v i d e d i n t o whole parts i n order to teach
us to give thanks to God f o r the c r e a t i o n of the u n i v e r s e, both f o r the whole
and f o r the p e r f e c t i o n of i t s i n d i v i d u a l p a r t s . 2 1
Once again i t may be consi-
dered c e r t a i n , from these two examples, that P h i l o reads t h i s a t t i t u d e of
p r a i s e and thanksgiving i n t o the Timaeus. The words at Tim.29a5-6 c i t e d ear-
l i e r are used as a concrete i l l u s t r a t i o n of the encomiastic prose and verse to
be w r i t t e n i n honour and thanksgivin g to the c r e a t o r ; 22
the d e s c r i p t i o n of the
symbolism of the s a c r i f i c i a l animal i s d e l i b e r a t e l y reminiscent of P l a t o ' s de-
p i c t i o n of the cosmos. 23

whether such an importation i s l e g i t i m a t e i s another question. Although

the i n t e r i o r i z e d a t t i t u d e of reverence and thanksgiving can c e r t a i n l y be par-
a l l e l e d i n Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , i t must be concluded that Philo's
pronounced c o n c e n t r a t i o n of that a t t i t u d e on God the c r e a t o r , together with
h i s f e a r l e s t excessive honour be paid to the cosmos, r e f l e c t s the concerns of
Judaic p i e t y . 2 4
C e r t a i n l y the Timaeus, d e s p i t e the s u p e r l a t i v e s r e g u l a r l y used
to portra y the demiurgic c r e a t o r , does not encourage the a t t i t u d e of worship
and thanksgiving towards him enjoined by Philo.

2.11. Cosmology

I t i s time now to turn to the more s p e c i f i c area of cosmology, which we

may take to be p h i l o s o p h i c a l r e f l e c t i o n on the s t r u c t u r e and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
of the cosmos, i t s parts and i t s inhabitants. The m y t h i c a l , hence cosmogonic,
framework of the Timaeus does not prevent P l a t o from d w e l l i n g on the subjects
384 SYNTHESIS

of cosmology proper, above a l l i n Tim.31-40. 1

The amalgam of science and phi-
l o s o p h i c a l systematics found there d i f f e r s from the more d e s c r i p t i v e approach
of the a t t r a c t i v e l y composed De Mundo, 2
and i s wholly d i s s i m i l a r to the dry
handbook s t y l e of, f o r example, A c h i l l e s 1
I n t r o d u c t i o n to A r a t u s 1
Phaenomena. 3

I t was our task i n the Commentary to determine with some p r e c i s i o n what ideas
in the area of cosmology P h i l o drew from the Timaeus, i n c o n t r a s t to the more
general cosmological d o c t r i n e s known to every educated gentleman and easily
acquired through a reading of i n t r o d u c t o r y works s i m i l a r to the two mentioned
above. 4

In the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the cosmos as a whole presented i n the Timaeus

- i t s completeness, u n a s s a i l a b i l i t y , s p h e r i c i t y , s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , circular
motion — P h i l o shows l i t t l e i n t e r e s t , p a r t l y because Moses does not speak i n
his cosmogony about the c r e a t i o n and feature s of the cosmos as a whole, p a r t l y
because he f i n d s l i t t l e to d i s c u ss or contest i n these d o c t r i n e s which by now
were g e n e r a l l y accepted i n H e l l e n i s t i c cosmology. 5
But when Alexander, drawing
on the arguments of sceptical/academic c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s m , attempts to cast
doubt on these d o c t r i n e s , P h i l o i s quick to r e p l y , c i t i n g the Timaeus i n sup-
port of the cosmos 1
s p h e r i c i t y as the highest a u t h o r i t y i n the realm of t e l e o -
logical reasoning. 6

More i n t e r e s t i s shown by P h i l o i n the astronomy of P l a t o ' s dialogue.

S p e c i f i c aspects of P l a t o ' s account are put to use in exegetical contexts,
such as the contrary motion of the c i r c l e s of the same and the d i f f e r e n t , 7
the
hebdomadic aspect of the ' d i v i s i b l e nature' of the c i r c l e of the d i f f e r e n t , 8

the c l o s e r e l a t i o n between the movement of the heavenly bodies and the nature
of time. 9
In a number of t e x t s i t i s c l e a r that P h i l o has d i f f i c u l t y i n under-
standing the p r e c i s e p h i l o s o p h i c a l systematics of the P l a t o n i c a c c o u n t . 10

There can be no doubt, however, that he i s sympathetic to the c h i e f t h e s i s of

P l a t o ' s astronomical s e c t i o n , namely that the seemingly i r r e g u l a r movements of
the heavenly bodies are q u i t e deceptive and that heaven i s i n f a c t the realm
of wholly r a t i o n a l , unceasing and f e l i c i t o u s motion. 11
Contemplation of the
c e l e s t i a l realm i s not only an i n c e n t i v e f o r man to b r i n g the c i r c u i t s of h i s
own mind to r a t i o n a l order, but a l s o leads him to the r e c o g n i t i o n — and here
P h i l o e x t r a p o l a t e s beyond the a c t u a l words of the Timaeus — that i t s splendour
and r a t i o n a l i t y cannot be the product of random f o r c e s , but r a t h e r must be
a t t r i b u t e d to the design of the c r e a t o r . 1 2
I t i s furthermore i n t e r e s t i n g to
observe that i n many t e x t s P h i l o d i s t i n g u i s h e s between the supra-lunary realm
of unchanging order and the sub-lunary realm of change and decay, and that the
heavens are o f t e n a s s o c i a t e d with the presence of the d i v i n e Logos. 13
But here
we s t a r t to leave behind the s p e c i f i c a l l y Timaean features of P h i l o ' s a s t r o -
nomical passages and r e t u r n to almost u n i v e r s a l l y accepted d o c t r i n e s of H e l l e n -
 Ill 2.11. 385

i s t i c cosmology. Indeed i t i s easy to f o r g e t , when reading P h i l o ' s exegesis,

how thoroughly he has imposed the s c i e n t i f i c a l l y reputabl e d o c t r i n e s of Greek
cosmology on the B i b l i c a l t e x t s which he i n t e r p r e t s , as can be w e l l illustra-
ted by passages i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi. 14

Nevertheless important d i f f e r e n c e s remain between the approach to a s t r o -

nomical s c i e n c e found i n P l a t o and P h i l o . P l a t o d i d not t a c k l e the subject of
the movements of the c e l e s t i a l bodies with the i n t e r e s t s of a p r o f e s s i o n a l a s t r o -
nomer, but nonetheless f e l t c o n s t r a i n e d to 'save the phenomena' by p o s t u l a t i n g
that the heavenly motions were mathematically e x p l i c a b l e and wholly r a t i o n a l ,
adhering to the viewpoint he had e a r l i e r put forward that the mind can use
astronomical mathematics as a means to gain i n s i g h t i n t o true n o e t i c reality. 1 5

The A l e x a n d r i a n Jew, i n c o n t r a s t , regards the heavenly phenomena as already

'saved' on account of the very f a c t that they were created by God. Thus, a l -
though he i s undoubtedly w e l l - a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the more t e c h n i c a l aspects of
astronomy, 16
they do not r e a l l y capture h i s i n t e r e s t . The c h i e f importance of
the heavenly bodies f o r him l i e s i n the way that they d i s p l a y the grandeur and
splendid order of the c r e a t i o n , and so can lead the observer, as s a i d above,
to r e c o g n i t i o n of the c r e a t o r . A number of P h i l o ' s more 'astronomical' pas-
sages are found among the l y r i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n s i n admiration of the cosmos and
p r a i s e of the c r e a t o r d i s c u s s e d i n the previous s e c t i o n . 1 7
Once again the d i s -
pute with h i s nephew gives a p e n e t r a t i n g i n s i g h t i n t o P h i l o ' s assumptions. To
Alexander's a c c u s a t i o n that the heavens are f u l l of d i s o r d e r and l a c k i n g a
p r o v i d e n t i a l d i s p e n s a t i o n , he r e p l i e s that much escapes the understanding of
the human mind, but we can be c e r t a i n that God i n h i s wisdom organized the
cosmos i n the best way p o s s i b l e , since nothing impedes h i s d e s i g n s . 18
He does
not endeavour to demonstrate the r a t i o n a l and t e l e o l o g i c a l d e s i g n of the c e l e s -
t i a l realm, but r a t h e r assumes i t , on the b a s i s of h i s t h e o l o g i c a l c o n v i c t i o n s .

A second aspect of P l a t o ' s cosmological d o c t r i n e s i n the Timaeus which

appeals to P h i l o i s the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the l i v i n g beings (c$ot) which i n h a b i t
the cosmos. He has no qualms i n a c c e p t i n g the four p r i n c i p l e s which form the
b a s i s of P l a t o ' s account: (1) the p r i n c i p l e that the genera of l i v i n g beings
i n the v i s i b l e cosmos correspond to those i n the n o e t i c cosmos; 19
(2) the p r i n -
c i p l e that there i s a correspondence between the elements, the regions of the
cosmos and the number of animal g e n e r a ; 20
(3) the p r i n c i p l e of p l e n i t u d e , name-
ly that the cosmos contains the f u l l number of animal genera r e q u i r e d f o r per-
fection; 2 1
(4) the p r i n c i p l e that the l i v i n g beings i n the cosmos form a f i x e d
h i e r a r c h y , as seen i n t h e i r v a r i o u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and e s p e c i a l l y t h e i r capa-
c i t y f o r r a t i o n a l thought. 22
The obvious appeal of these d o c t r i n e s f o r P h i l o
l i e s i n the way they emphasize and i l l u s t r a t e the r a t i o n a l and teleological
design of the cosmos as c r e a t e d by God. In the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Moses'
386 SYNTHESIS

account of c r e a t i o n the s i t u a t i o n i s reasonably straightforward. P h i l o can

l o c a t e P l a t o ' s quartet of i n the v a r i o u s days of c r e a t i o n , and even r e -
places the Mosaic names with the more f a m i l i a r P l a t o n i c generic t i t l e s . 2 3
In
other t e x t s , however, a more complex s i t u a t i o n i s encountered. Plato's simple
scheme allows no place f o r the demons which i n h a b i t the space between the earth
and the moon. P h i l o equates these with the Mosaic angels, and f o r purposes of
exegesis f i n d s i t u s e f u l to l o c a l i z e them i n the p e r s p e c t i v e of the d o c t r i n e s
of Greek cosmology. He t h e r e f o r e turns to c e r t a i n cosmological schemes, a l l
i n c o n s i s t e n t with each other and a l s o found i n various guises i n Middle P l a t o -
nism, which are based on the P l a t o n i c p r i n c i p l e s enumerated above but attempt
to i n c o r p o r a t e innovatory d o c t r i n e s of A r i s t o t l e , Xenocrates and the Epinomis.
In these t e x t s the i n f l u e n c e of the Timaeus i s f e l t p r i m a r i l y v i a the inter-
pretative tradition. 2 4

T h i r d l y a t t e n t i o n must be drawn to P h i l o ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n of man's place i n

the cosmos. There i s no doubt that man has been assigned a very s p e c i a l place
i n the cosmic d i s p e n s a t i o n . He can be s a i d to occupy the borderland between
immortal s o u l or mind, sharing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with l i v i n g beings both above
and below him i n the cosmic h i e r a r c h y . 25
In one aspect man i s unique. Of a l l
the cosmic £(Ja he alone has a f r e e w i l l that can i n c l i n e to both v i r t u e and
vice. 2 6
For t h i s reason P h i l o , modifying the d o c t r i n e of the Timaeus, has God
c a l l i n g i n a s s i s t a n t s f o r the task of c r e a t i n g man. 27
The anthropocentrism
which marks the design and s t r u c t u r e of the Timaeus i s taken over by P h i l o ,
and i s e x p l o i t e d to the f u l l i n h i s exegesis of the Mosaic cosmogony. 28
It is
i n t h i s s t r u c t u r a l a p p l i c a t i o n that h i s awareness of the c r u c i a l r o l e of the
macrocosm/microcosm r e l a t i o n i n the Timaeus i s most c l e a r l y seen. When at the
end of the ' m i n i - T i m a e u s a t Plant.2-27 P h i l o wants to t r a n s f e r from a 'phyto-
f29

c o s m o l o g i c a l ' to a 'phyto-anthropological ' exegesis, he reminds h i s readers of

the p a r a l l e l i s m between the cosmos and man the microcosm. 30
In the practical
e x p l i c a t i o n of t h i s i d e a , however, he most o f t e n emphasizes the p a r a l l e l i s m
between man's r a t i o n a l s o u l and the heavenly regions (which are considered to
be the most ensouled and r a t i o n a l part of the cosmos). Man can be s a i d to be
a 3potx^S oupavos, h i s mind being equivalent to the Logos i n the heavens. 31

Also the d o c t r i n e , so prominent i n the Timaeus, that man, by contemplating the

heavenly r e v o l u t i o n s , can set h i s own mind i n order i s found i n P h i l o . But
the h e a v i l y t h e o c e n t r i c emphasis which we noted above somewhat a l t e r s the pro-
t r e p t i c f o r c e of the P l a t o n i c i n v i t a t i o n to dewpua. Contemplation of the hea-
vens should lead p r i m a r i l y to r e c o g n i t i o n of the c r e a t o r . 3 2

A f i n a l o b s e r v a t i o n concerns an aspect of P h i l o ' s cosmological ideas that

has been added to the cosmology of the Timaeus, namely the concept of cosmic
law. The demiurge i s indeed presented as a 'thesmothete' - the task i s i m p l i c i t
 I l l 2.11. 387

i n h i s t i t l e - but f o r P l a t o the realms of cpuous and v o u o s are s t i l l regarded

as q u i t e d i s t i n c t . 3 3
The idea of a cosmic law i s d e r i v e d from S t o i c philosophy,
which p o s t u l a t e d behind and above the p a r t i c u l a r laws of human communities the
e t e r n a l , wholly r a t i o n a l Law of nature, understood and observed by the sage as
KoouoTtoAuTns. The idea i s p a r t i c u l a r l y prominent i n the w r i t i n g s of C i c e r o . 3 4

It i s e a s i l y read i n t o the Timaeus, f o r the r a t i o n a l motions of the cosmos and

the heavens can be thought to be f o l l o w i n g the ordinances of t h e i r demiurgic
initiator. But when P h i l o introduces the i d e a r i g h t at the s t a r t of h i s com-
mentary on the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l account, i t i s c l e a r that an e x t r a dimension
is involved. That Moses should begin h i s Law w i t h a x o o u o n o t u a i n d i c a t e s that
the Jewish Law i s i n d i r e c t accordance with the Law by which the cosmos i s ad-
ministered. 35
Thus the observance and study of the Mosaic code enables man not
only to emulate the f i r s t man and the p a t r i a r c h s , who l i v e d a c c o r d i n g to the
unwritten laws of nature, but a l s o to f u l f i l the t e l o s of human e x i s t e n c e f o r -
mulated i n Greek philosophy - i n S t o i c terms 'to l i v e i n accordance with na-
t u r e ' , i n Pythagorean terms 'to f o l l o w God', and a c c o r d i ng to P l a t o 'to become
l i k e unto God'. 36

2.12. The d o c t r i n e o f man

The Timaeus i s g e n e r a l l y regarded as P l a t o ' s cosmological d i a l o g u e . 1

More
than h a l f , however, of Timaeus the L o c r i a n ' s speech i s i n f a c t concerned with
a m i n i s c u l e , though very i n f l u e n t i a l p a r t , of the cosmos, namely man. The
c l i m a c t i c placement of man i n the s t r u c t u r e of P l a t o ' s cosmogonic account i s
i n d u b i t a b l y seen by P h i l o as a most s i g n i f i c a n t p a r a l l e l to the c r e a t i o n of
man on the s i x t h day i n the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l account. 2
The i n f l u e n c e of P l a -
to's anthropocentrism on P h i l o ' s views concerning man's p l a c e i n the cosmos
has already been d i s c u s s e d i n the previous s e c t i o n . But t h i s by no means ex-
hausts h i s debt to P l a t o i n the area of anthropology. A l s o i n the d o c t r i n e s
on the nature of man and man's end i n l i f e he could f i n d much to l e a r n and
take o v e r . 3
The key to these d o c t r i n e s i s that man i s a composite being, con-
s i s t i n g of body and s o u l , of a mortal and an immortal p a r t . To s t a r t w i t h , we
observe the extent to which P h i l o u t i l i z e s d o c t r i n e s from the Timaeus on the
subject of physiology (the f u n c t i o n i n g of the body) and psychology (the d i s p o -
s i t i o n of the s o u l ) .

Of the many and complicated p h y s i o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s that the Timaeus con-

t a i n s few t r a c es are found i n the w r i t i n g s of P h i l o . The reason i s at l e a s t
two-fold. F i r s t l y , advances i n medical s c i e n c e had made many of P l a t o ' s theo-
r i e s out of d a t e . 4
More i m p o r t a n t l y , the p r i m a r i l y e x e g e t i c a l focus of P h i l o ' s
 388 SYNTHESIS

t r e a t i s e s gives l i t t l e opportunity f o r d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the structure

and f u n c t i o n i n g of the human body. In the De o p i f i c i o mundi the beauty of the
f i r s t man i n soul and body i s p r a i s e d , but P h i l o sees no need f o r d e t a i l e d
illustration. 5
The most extensive account of human physiology i s found i n a
r a t h e r b i z a r r e exegesis of Noah's ark i n terms of the body, i n which occasion
i s found to f o l l o w P l a t o i n emphasizing the p r o v i d e n t i a l t e l e o l o g y of i t s de-
sign. 6
Elsewhere the t h e o r i e s on the mechanism of v i s i o n and hearin g and on
the f u n c t i o n of the l i v e r are u t i l i z e d . 7
The last-mentioned case i s i n t e r e s t -
ing, because P l a t o ' s theory i s recounted a f t e r a more modern, purel y physio-
l o g i c a l explanation of the l i v e r ' s f u n c t i o n had already been given. Philo i s
a t t r a c t e d to the P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e because i t attempts to r e l a t e the function-
ing of s e v e r a l b o d i l y organs to the a c t i v i t y of the s o u l . 8

I And indeed, i n the area of psychology a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n i s en-

countered. P h i l o shows a good d e a l of i n t e r e s t i n and makes extensive use of
I the d o c t r i n e s on the nature of the soul which P l a t o presents i n the Timaeus.
In f o u r passages he s p e c i f i c a l l y recounts the theory of the tripart-it-ion of
the s o u l and the l o c a t i o n of these parts i n three parts of the body, r e l a t i n g
the d o c t r i n e i n each case to Pentateuchal t e x t s . 9
Frequent a l l u s i o n s are made
elsewhere to the r i c h imagery used by Plato to e x p l a i n the soul's trilocation,
a sound i n d i c a t i o n of P h i l o ' s f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the text of P l a t o ' s account. 10

A much l a r g e r body of evidence, however, supports the contention that P h i l o

regarded the main t h r u s t of P l a t o ' s psychology as tending towards a b i p a v t i -
tion of the s o u l i n t o a r a t i o n a l and an i r r a t i o n a l p a r t . Not only does the
Timaeus give h i n t s i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n , but i t had become standard doctrine in
the Old Academy, Middle Stoa, and Middle P l a t o n i s m . 11
The r a t i o n a l part of
man's s o u l — i t i s o f t e n i d e n t i f i e d by P h i l o with the v o u s — i s the part with 12

which he thinks and reasons. I t can be c a l l e d , though P h i l o does t h i s rather

i n f r e q u e n t l y , man's d i v i n e p a r t , 1 3
f o r not only i s i t r e l a t e d to the heavens, 14

but a l s o i t enables man to search f o r God and become l i k e unto him. 15

This
part of man's soul i s immortal and with i t he can a t t a i n the blessed s t a t e of
eu6abpovua. 16
In t h i s l i f e , however, the soul i s unable to f l o a t through the
e t h e r i a l regions i n c a r e f r e e f e l i c i t y and e t e r n a l devotion to the true p h i l o -
sophy. 17
I t i s c o n s t r a i n ed to c a r r y the body about l i k e a corpse-bearer, and
so needs an i r r a t i o n a l part i n order to be adequately adapted to the necessi-
t i e s and contingencies of that body. 18
The features of the i r r a t i o n a l part of
the s o u l i n which P h i l o i s most i n t e r e s t e d are two i n number. Through the
f a c u l t i e s of the senses the mind i s informed about the q u a l i t i e s of the physi-
cal world around him, information which can be f o r i t both a help and a hin-
drance. 19
Secondly the i r r a t i o n a l part of the soul experiences the passions
which n e c e s s a r i l y r e s u l t from i t s a s s o c i a t i o n with the body. Among these the
 Ill 2.12. 389

most commonly mentioned are f e a r , d e s i r e ( i n c l u d i n g hunger, t h i r s t , sexual

l u s t ) , cowardice, pain and pleasure. In order to lead a good l i f e man's aim
must be to moderate these T t a § n, convert them to euTcadeuat, or perhaps even
e l i m i n a t e them a l t o g e t h e r . 20

The c o n c l u s i o n so f a r must be that the i n f l u e n c e of Platonism, and in

. t . f

p a r t i c u l a r i t s formulation i n the Timaeus, on P h i l o s ideas concerning the

nature of man's soul has been i m p r e s s i v e l y great, indeed one might w e l l say f
decisive. His debt to Platonism f a r outweighs that to the Stoa and the Peri-
patos. 21
I t i s observed i n major d o c t r i n e s , but a l s o i n numerous p o i n t s of de-
t a i l , use of imagery, choice of terms, and so on. Nevertheless the i n t e r p r e -
ter of P h i l o ' s thought needs to e x e r c i s e a good deal of care i n drawing t h i s
conclusion. He must take i n t o account not only the e x e g e t i c a l background of
P h i l o ' s preoccupations with psychology, but a l s o the general d i r e c t i o n of i n -
t e r e s t that r e s u l t s therefrom. P h i l o i s not r e a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n c o n s t r u c t i n g
a c o n s i s t e n t d o c t r i n e of the s o u l . The f o c a l point of h i s i n t e r e s t l i e s rather
in those aspects of psychology which are i n d i s p e n s a b le for his a l l e g o r i e s ,
namely the s t r u g g l e that takes place i n the s o u l as the r a t i o n a l part s t r i v e s
to overcome the seductions of the senses and the tumult of the passions, while
i t s e l f having to d i s p e l the ignorance which may l e a d i t to choose e v i l rather
than good. P h i l o ' s concern f o r the s t r u c t u r a l aspects of man's nature r e l a t e s
p r i m a r i l y to the c o n t r i b u t i o n these ideas can make to an understanding of the
above-mentioned theme. I n d i c a t i v e of t h i s l i m i t e d concern i s the way he re-
mains undecided i n c e r t a i n t e x t s as to whether the nyepovtxov i s s i t u a t e d i n
the b r a i n or the heart . The same u n c e r t a i n t y i s a t t r i b u t e d to Moses. 22
And
when d i s c u s s i n g the human body, i t i s much more important to recognize that i t
i s a temporary c o n s t r u c t , a microcosm made of the same four elements as the
macrocosm, than to spend a l l one's time d i s c u s s i n g complex p h y s i o l o g i c a l theo-
23

ries.
The Timaeus c e r t a i n l y aided P h i l o i n d e s c r i b i n g the soul's s t r u g g l e . He
i s p a r t i c u l a r l y keen on the image of t u r b u l e n t water used by P l a t o to describe
the descent of the soul i n t o the body. 24
But most importantly the anthropolo-
g i c a l d o c t r i n e s of the Timaeus and the e x e g e t i c a l theme of the soul's progress
are c r e a t i v e l y merged together i n what we have c a l l e d the 'Allegory of the
soul'. In the lengthy a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the s t o r y of Adam and Eve
and t h e i r progeny P h i l o shows the dynamics i n v o l v e d i n man's composite nature,
f o l l o w i n g the d e t a i l s of the mythical n a r r a t i v e but at the same time not con-
c e a l i n g the i n s p i r a t i o n which he has drawn from the s t r u c t u r e and doctrines
°f t n e
Timaeus. 25
L a t e r on i n the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary the theme of the as-
cent of the soul becomes predominant, so that the d i r e c t c o n t r i b u t i o n of the
390 SYNTHESIS

Timaeus d e c l i n e s . 2 6
Nevertheless the d o c t r i n e s on man's a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l struc-
ture and h i s end i n l i f e r e t a i n an important f o u n d a t i o n al role. I t i s time
that we r e l a t e them to what P h i l o regarded as t h e i r b a s i s i n the B i b l i c a l nar-
rative.
The great nomothete Moses i s a man of 3pctxuAoyCa, not wasting h i s words. 27

In two b r i e f texts he manages to l a y the foundation f o r a p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y pro-

found d o c t r i n e of man. Man i s created 'according to the image of God' (Gen.
1:27). God formed man out of c l a y from the earth and breathed i n t o him the
breath of l i f e (Gen.2:7). In P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n the e s s e n t i a l message of
the Mosaic anthropology comes through loud and clear. Both t e x t s speak of man
as possessing an i n t r i n s i c r e l a t i o n to God, i n the one as euxwv, i n the other
as r e c i p i e n t of the d i v i n e Ttveupa. P h i l o i s f u l l y convinced that t h i s rela-
t i o n p e r t a i n s only to man's mind or r a t i o n a l part of h i s s o u l , the part with
which he reasons and i n v i r t u e of which he a t t a i n s immortality. The words
x a x ' e u x o v a deou i n the f i r s t text r e l a t e only to that p a r t . The second text
speaks of man as a o u v d e x o v , a composite of body and soul. I t i s i n f u s i o n of
the d i v i n e nveupa that enables t h i s soul to be r a t i o n a l and immortal.

But - and t h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n i s most important — the reasonably s t r a i g h t -

forward d o c t r i n e so f a r o u t l i n e d stands i n a context. P h i l o , remaining true
to the w r i t t e n words of the Mosaic t e x t , f i n d s himself confronted with a l l
s o r t s of d i f f i c u l t e x e g e t i c a l problems. Why does Moses p l a c e the p l u r a l ' l e t
us make' i n God's mouth i n Gen.1:26? Why i s there a double account of man's
creation? What i s the r e l a t i o n between the man x a x ' e t x o v a $eov and the man of
c l a y who r e c e i v e s the d i v i n e s p i r i t ? Why does Moses speak of man as genus and
as species? The l i s t of problems could be considerably extended, f o r i t i s to
be assumed, says P h i l o , that Moses aims at c o n s i s t e n c y . 28
Philo's exegetical
problems and the numerous d i f f i c u l t i e s faced by the reader i n d e c i p h e r i n g his
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s have been discussed at some length i n the Commentary. 29
The
c h i e f t h e s i s of the d i s c u s s i o n , which by no means claims to represent the last
word on the s u b j e c t , i s that the b a s i c a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l d o c t r i n e which P h i l o
thinks he can read i n t o the Mosaic texts i s P l a t o n i c (and e s p e c i a l l y indebted
to the Timaeus), but that h i s f i d e l i t y to the text c o n s t r a i n s the importance
of other p h i l o s o p h i c a l i d e a s . 30
The euxwv r e l a t i o n i s p a t e n t l y given a P l a t o -
nic interpretation. Man i s an euxwv of the d i v i n e Logos (as place of the xoo-
uos v o n x o s ) , who i n t u r n i s the euxwv of God. Despite c e r t a i n appearances to
the contrary there i s no need to interpose an ' i d e a l man' between the man xax'
e t x o v a (as v o u s ) and the Logos. 31
On the other hand, Moses' mention of the
d i v i n e i v e u u a encourages reference to the S t o i c d o c t r i n e that man shares i n or
i s himsel f part of the a l l - p e r v a d i n g , d i v i n e s p i r i t . Since a m a t e r i a l i s t i c
psychology i s e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t e d , 3 2
t h i s i d e a does not c l a s h i n any serious
 Ill 2.12. 391

way with the b a s i c a l l y P l a t o n i c a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l framework.

It i s moreover most i n t e r e s t i n g to observe that i n a number of passages
found o u t s i d e the d i r e c t commentaries on Gen.1-3 P h i l o i s able to o f f e r a more
systematic and p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y more c o n v i n c i n g Mosaic d o c t r i n e of man, built
up around the two main t e x t s . 3 4
In two of these passages he e x t e n s i v e l y adapts
P l a t o ' s c e l e b r a t e d d e s c r i p t i o n of man's status as 'heavenly p l a n t ' i n Tim.90
a-d. 35
An attempt i s a l s o made to give the Mosaic evidence f o r the double as-
pect of man's s o u l , appealin g to a text such as Lev.17:11, i n which Moses
speaks of the ' b l o o d - s o u l ' . 36
In these passages P h i l o adopts the method of bas-
ing philosophy on the B i b l e by c o l l e c t i n g together s u i t a b l e t e x t s and welding
them i n t o a systematic whole. I t i s i n marked c o n t r a s t to the procedure i n
Gen.1-3, where the l e t t e r of the text i s followe d with unwearying a t t e n t i o n to
d e t a i l , w i t h the r e s u l t that the p r e c i s e contours of P h i l o ' s Mosaic anthro-
pology are exceedingly d i f f i c u l t to t r a c e .

The c e n t r a l t h r u s t of P h i l o ' s P l a t o n i z i n g anthropology, that man i s re-

l a t e d to God i n v i r t u e of h i s r a t i o n a l part and h i s c a p a c i t y f o r reasoning,
has consequences f o r h i s thought, the importance of which can h a r d l y be over- j
estimated. P h i l o takes over the i d e a l of contemplation propagated by Greek
philosophy. Man has a s p e c i a l p l a c e i n the cosmos not because of h i s dominance
over the c r e a t i o n , n o r because of h i s c l e v e r n e ss i n p r a c t i c a l matters, but
3 7

because he contemplates the worlds of thought and sense and so can r e f l e c t on

his own nature and s i t u a t i o n . The same c a p a c i t y f o r thought enables him to
set out on the quest to d i s c o v e r the Father and maker of created r e a l i t y . The
Therapeutae, l i v i n g on a low h i l l above Lake Mareotis f a r away from the tumult
and t u r m o i l of c i t y l i f e , p r a c t i c e the (3uos dewpriTtKos i n an exemplary way.
All day and every day they search f o r wisdom, reading the sacred s c r i p t u r e s
and e x t r a c t i n g the deeper meaning by means of a l l e g o r y . The passions of the
soul and the needs of the body are almost e n t i r e l y suppressed. On the sabbath
they enjoy a sober f e a s t , but most of the time they appear to feed on a i r l i k e
crickets. . . 3 8

The i d e a l of %euipCa a l s o extended i t s i n f l u e n c e on P h i l o ' s own life.

N o t o r i o u s l y f r u g a l with h i s a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l reminiscences, he on one famous
occasion w r i t e s with unmistakable nostalgia: 3 9

There was a time when I devoted myself to philosophy and the contemplation
of the cosmos and i t s contents, g a t h e r i n g the f r u i t s of the noble, much
beloved and t r u l y b l e s s e d l i f e . I was c o n s t a n t l y engaged i n studying d i -
v i n e s u b j e c t s and d o c t r i n e s , r e j o i c i n g with a joy that c o u l d not be s a t i s -
f i e d or sated...
In the words that f o l l o w the s u p e r i o r i t y of i n t e l l e c t u a l p u r s u i t s over the
h u r l y - b u r l y of p o l i t i c s and the 3tos TtpaxxuHos i s affirmed i n language that
for a l l i t s baroque pomposity gives v o i c e to a genuine c r i de coeur. We would
 392 SYNTHESIS

be doing P h i l o an i n j u s t i c e , of course, i f we locked him up i n an i v o r y tower.

He recognizes that there i s more to l i f e than the pure joys of the mind. Mo-
ses devised a l e g i s l a t i o n that regulates the a f f a i r s of communal and c i v i c
l i f e , and these laws must be observed. 40
P h i l o devotes to them lengthy and de-
t a i l e d commentaries. 41
I t i s no use pretending, he rebukes over-zealous Jewish
i n t e l l e c t u a l s , that we are aawpaxob (JJUXOIL. 42
The Essenes, as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
of the $uos T i p a x T u x o s , form a pendant to the Therapeutae , 43
Nevertheless i n
I
P h i l o s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s c r i p t u r e I am convinced
f
that Greek i n t e l l e c t u a l i s m
I triumphs i n the f a c t of i t s i m p o s i t i o n on the Mosaic n a r r a t i v e . The L e i t m o t i v
that c o n s t a n t l y recurs i s the appeal to P l a t o ' s eulogy i n Tim.47a-c of the
sense of s i g h t , which enabled man to d i s c o v e r philosophy and so i n i t i a t e the
quest f o r knowledge of God. 44
The t r i a d of p a t r i a r c h a l sages a l l e g o r i c a l l y
i l l u s t r a t e s the v a r i o u s stages i n the search. As i t s name i n d i c a t e s I s r a e l
i s the opaxuMov y e v o s , g a i n i n g s i g h t of the t r u l y E x i s t e n t with the eyes of
the mind and reaching the p i n n a c l e of eu6auuovta. 45

It i s thus i n the i d e a l of i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y that s e v e r a l important

l i n e s of P h i l o s t h e o l o g i c a l , cosmological and a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l ideas meet t o -
f

gether and achieve a conceptual consistency. God's u l t i m a t e nature and a c t i -

v i t y escapes the enquiry of the human mind. But i n h i s a c t of c r e a t i o n the
process of thought has p r i d e of p l a c e . 46
The beauty and purposefulness of the
cosmos i s the r e s u l t of a c r e a t o r who t h i n k s , plans and e x e r c i s e s i t p o v o u a . 47

Man's p l a c e i n the cosmos i s unique, f o r he i s r e l a t e d to God and the c e l e s -

t i a l bodies i n v i r t u e of h i s i n t e l l e c t , but i s a l s o subject to the b o d i l y ne-
c e s s i t i e s of the lower animals. A borderland c r e a t u r e , he can i n c l i n e e i t h e r
way. The question of man's end i n l i f e i s thus of c r u c i a l importance. Some
of the t e l o s formulas employed by P h i l o have already been mentioned. Man
should l i v e according to nature, f o l l o w God, become l i k e unto God. 48
Another
f o r m u l a t i o n , expressing more e x p l i c i t l y the i n t e l l e c t u a l i s m which we have a t -
t r i b u t e d to P h i l o , i s that the most e x c e l l e n t t e l o s i s the knowledge of the
truly existent. 4 9
There i s no c o n t r a d i c t i o n with the P l a t o n i c t e l o s , a l s o found
in the Timaeus, 50
that man should become l i k e unto God. F o r not only i s man,
i n g a i n i n g knowledge of God, b e t t e r able to become l i k e him, but a l s o by being
engaged i n the very a c t of t h i n k i n g he pursues the a c t i v i t y that most n e a r l y
c h a r a c t e r i z e s the a c t i v i t y of the D e i t y and so a c t u a l l y does become like him.
The t e l o s that man should become p l e a s i n g to God i s to be i n t e r p r e t e d i n the
same f a s h i o n ; i t i s i n the e x e r c i s e of man's mind that God i s w e l l pleased. 51

The theocentrism of P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e of man i s given concrete expression i n

the c o n v i c t i o n that i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y i s man's highest p u r s u i t .

The ideas o u t l i n e d i n the previous paragraphs are n a t u r a l l y not drawn by

 I l l 2.12. 393

P h i l o e x c l u s i v e l y from the Timaeus. Extending even beyond Platonism as a

whole, they express the Grundhaltung of Greek philosophy. But at the same
time we can be c e r t a i n that P h i l o s reading of the c e l e b r a t e d P l a t o n i c d i a -
f

logue and e s p e c i a l l y the p r o t r e p t i c passages on man's goal i n l i f e both i n -

s p i r e d him and aided him i n the task of g i v i n g an adequate f o r m u l a t i o n to what
he regarded as the Mosaic d o c t r i n e of man.
 CHAPTER THREE

PHILO AND THE I N T E R P R E T A T I V E TRADITION OF THE TIMAEUS

At the beginning of t h i s study two statements were made that on t h e i r own

are hardly c o n t e s t a b l e , but when juxtaposed stand i n an uncomfortable r e l a t i o n
to each other. I t i s h i g h l y improbable, i t was s t a t e d , that P h i l o should have
read the Timaeus without being a f f e c t e d by the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n s which
had g r a d u a l l y been b u i l t up around the work and which were a c c e s s i b l e to him
i n h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l environment. 1
But, i t was added a l i t t l e l a t e r , the prob-
lems of evidence are such that i t i s much e a s i e r to use P h i l o to cast l i g h t on
h i s surroundings than to use h i s surroundings to cast l i g h t on him. 2
In t h i s
f i n a l chapter of the Synthesis an endeavour w i l l be made to examine P h i l o s f

r e l a t i o n to the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n of the Timaeus, i n the hope that the

evidence accumulated i n the Commentary w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t to overcome the
problems of evidence r e f e r r e d to above. In the f i r s t three s e c t i o n s of the
chapter P h i l o ' s d i v e r s e debts to the three main periods of Timaeus i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n and adaptation w i l l be o u t l i n e d . In the f o u r t h s e c t i o n a b r i e f glance
w i l l be d i r e c t e d at P h i l o ' s use of sources. The f i f t h and f i n a l section w i l l
address the c r u c i a l problem of whether i t i s l e g i t i m a t e to d e s c r i b e P h i l o as a
Middle P l a t o n i s t . The reader w i l l bear i n mind that the p e r s p e c t i v e is limi-
ted by the confines of our s u b j e c t, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus, and
t h a t , even when a l l the a t t e n t i o n appears to be focussed on the exponents and
d o c t r i n e s of Greek philosophy, the c e n t r a l f a c t of P h i l o ' s Mosaic d i s c i p l e s h i p
continues to reverberate l i k e a f i x e d bass i n the background.

3.1. Philo and t h e e a r l y p e r i o d of interpretation

By the time that P h i l o f i r s t set eyes on the Timaeus more than three cen-
t u r i e s had elapsed s i n c e i t s p u b l i c a t i o n and the d e c i s i v e p e r i o d i n which P l a -
to's successors i n the Academy grappled with the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the diffi-
c u l t work which the master had bequeathed them. 1
Among these e a r l y i n t e r p r e -
t e r s an important place must be assigned to A r i s t o t l e , even though he resigned
h i s membership of the Academy a f t e r P l a t o ' s death. I t i s with the Stagirite
that we commence. 2

In an encomiastic report that has s u r p r i s e d many commentators, P h i l o

p r a i s e s A r i s t o t l e i n Aet.16 as a trustworthy witness to h i s master's teachings
and a t h i n k e r who e a r n e s t l y endeavoured to add new d i s c o v e r i e s to every part
 Ill 3.1. 395

of p h i l o s o p h y . 3
The Platonic doctrine of which the d i s c i p l e gives testimony i s
the ubxxr) 6o£a that the cosmos i s both created and indestructible. 4
What P h i l o
has i n mind here i s unmistakably the literal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which A r i s t o t l e
gave the cosmogony of the Timaeus. 5
A l i t t l e f u r t h e r on i n the same t r e a t i s e ,
the f i r s t four (and a l s o perhaps the s i x t h ) of i t s arguments i n favour of the
cosmos 1
acpdapoua were found to c o n t a in extensive references to and adaptations
of the Timaeus. These are to be a t t r i b u t e d to A r i s t o t l e ' s once famous but now
l o s t dialogue, the De p h i l o s o p h i a . 6
The same work i s almost c e r t a i n l y a l s o the
source f o r the e a r l i e r mentioned l i t e r a l reading of the cosmogonic process.
The t o o l s of p h i l o l o g y do not enable us to determine with p r e c i s i o n whether
P h i l o had d i r e c t access to the A r i s t o t e l i a n dialogue. I have argued that ar-
guments against such a c o n c l u s i o n are c e r t a i n l y no stronger than those i n f a v -
our of i t . D i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , t h e r e f o r e ,
7
P h i l o was acquainted with an
important aspect of the e a r l y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus, which furthermore
enabled him to e s t a b l i s h to h i s own s a t i s f a c t i o n a fundamental d i f f e r e n c e be-
tween the theology and cosmology of P l a t o and that of h i s most illustrious
pupil. Two t e x t s a f f i r m i n the c l e a r e s t terms that Plato's doctrines approach
more n e a r l y the teachings of the man who uaxpoCs xpovous ipoxepov had reached
the p i n n a c l e of philosophy, Moses. 8

The debts i n c u r r e d by P h i l o to the De p h i l o s o p h i a do not end with the

passages i n the De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi. The dialogue contained an important
presentation of the cosmologica l argument (or argument from d e s i g n ) , which
aided P h i l o i n combining Tim.28c and 47a-c as one of the c e n t r a l m o t i f s i n h i s
reading of P l a t o ' s work. 9
The image of a b u i l d i n g or a c i t y used by A r i s t o t l e
to i l l u s t r a t e h i s argument was taken over and f u r t h e r adapted by P h i l o i n the
famous image of the d i v i n e a r c h i t e c t i n Qpif.17-18. 10
But a significant dif-
ference i s to be observed between t h i s usage and that discussed i n the p r e v i -
ous paragraph. Philo i s e x p l o i t i n g A r i s t o t e l i a n doctrines to e n r i c h h i s i n -
t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus, not drawing on a c t u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of that
work by the S t a g i r i t e himself (who almost completely ignores the Platonic
demiurge and speaks of demiurgic c r e a t i o n only ex h y p o t h e s i 11
). P h i l o thus
tends to r e c o n c i l e c e r t a i n aspects of h i s understanding of A r i s t o t e l i a n p h i l o -
sophy with the thought of P l a t o , a process that was to be c a r r i e d out much
more v i g o r o u s l y i n the c e n t u r i e s that followed.

It i s necessary to d i s t i n g u i s h the process of conscious r e c o n c i l i a t i o n

from other examples, i n which A r i s t o t e l i a n and Peripatetic doctrines were de-
tected i n P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s as the r e s u l t of h i s dependence on interpre-
t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n s which had already incorporated these d o c t r i n e s into their
reading of the Timaeus. The most s i g n i f i c a n t case i s the d o c t r i n e of oAn, in
which A r i s t o t e l i a n and Stoic doctrines have been superimposed on the Platonic
396 SYNTHESIS

r e c e p t a c l e and transformed i t almost beyond r e c o g n i t i o n . A curious example

of such i n d i r e c t P h i l o n i c use of A r i s t o t l e i s found i n a passage at Decal.31. 13

In order to i l l u s t r a t e the f i r s t of the ten A r i s t o t e l i a n c a t e g o r i e s , o u a u a , he

i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y adduces the concept of uXn ( i . e . being as matter out of which
something i s formed), and i n the process c l e a r l y a l l u d e s to a d o c t r i n e and an
image from the Timaeus. Thus an A r i s t o t e l i a n d o c t r i n e i s being i n t e r p r e t e d
via a modernized Plato ( i . e . contaminated by A r i s t o t e l i a n and S t o i c ideas)!
To complicate matters even f u r t h e r , one might add that many (though not a l l )
Middle P l a t o n i s t s considered the ten c a t e g o r i e s as a l r e a d y i m p l i c i t l y present
i n P l a t o ' s works, so that i t could be considered an a u t h e n t i c P l a t o n i c doc-
trine... 1 4

The xopucpauou of the p o s t - P l a t o n i c Academy, Speusippus and Xenocrates,

are nowhere mentioned i n the w r i t i n g s of P h i l o . T h e ir names would have been
f a m i l i a r to him p r i m a r i l y from doxographical l i s t s and p h i l o s o p h i c a l compendia,
and not from a d i r e c t acquaintance with t h e i r w r i t i n g s . 1 5
C e r t a i n l y no evidence
was d i s c o v e r e d which suggested that P h i l o s reading of the Timaeus was
f
direct-
l y i n f l u e n c e d by the important attempts at i n t e r p r e t a t i o n made i n the e a r l y
Academy. I n d i r e c t acquaintance i s another matter. The c r i t i c i s m at Opif.7-10
and the a c c u s a t i o n of s o p h i s t r y at Aet.14 has r i g h t l y been taken to be d i r e c -
ted, i n t e r a l i o s , at these e a r l y i n t e r p r e t e r s of the Timaeus. 16
The manner i n
which P h i l o i n t e r p r e t s P l a t o ' s theory of the c i r c l e s of the same and the d i f -
f e r e n t shows a d i s t a n t but d e f i n i t e a f f i n i t y with the Xenocratean e x p l a n a t i o n
of the psychogony i n the Timaeus. 17
The demonology which P h i l o adds t o the
simple schema of Tim.39e-40a i s a l s o u l t i m a t e l y d e r i v e d from Xenocrates (and
other members of the Academy), but has become part of a complex t r a d i t i o n . 1 8

Much of the mathematicization of p h y s i c s and metaphysics c a r r i e d out by the

Academy l a t e r found a p l a c e i n Neopythagoreanism. Among P h i l o ' s numerous
a r i t h m o l o g i c a l passages one or two h i n t s are found of exegesis o f Timaean texts
w i t h s p e c i a l r e f e r e n c e to t h e i r mathematical aspects. 19
More important i s the
frequent c o r r e l a t i o n of the apxcxL- with numerical e n t i t i e s , God with (or above)
the monad, matter w i t h the dyad. 20
These i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s encourage a dualistic
reading of the Timaeus. 21
In the account of the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos by the
Logos tomeus Academic d i a e r e s i s i s combined, though not e n t i r e l y satisfactori-
l y , with the c r e a t i o n i s t i c schema of the Timaeus. 22
But the a c t u a l r e l a t i o n to
e a r l y Academic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n a l l these cases i s d e r i v a t i v e and r a t h er dis-
tant. In my view Krämer s t r o n g l y exaggerates the importance of the 'inner-
academic' t r a d i t i o n f o r an understanding of P h i l o ' s thought .s 23
Indeed Philo's
w r i t i n g s are evidence of the process that caused the works of Speusippus,
Xenocrates and other members of the Old Academy to be consigned to an e a r l y
and q u i t e undeserved oblivion. 2 4
 Ill 3.2. 397

3.2. Philo and the Stoa

Turning now to the Stoa, we encounter a d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n . The Stoics

d i d not so much i n t e r p r e t the Timaeus as enter i n t o competition with i t . The
aim of the school's founders was to e s t a b l i s h a system of thought which i n i t s
completeness and conceptual c o n s i s t e n c y would r i v a l and supersede already ex-
i s t i n g philosophies. And so they were more i n t e r e s t e d in incorporating useful
ideas from the Timaeus i n t o t h e i r own system than i n o f f e r i n g a new interpre-
t a t i o n of that work. 1
Later S t o i c s , such as Panaetius, Posidonius and Antio-
chus, 2
i n s t i t u t e d a r e v i v a l of i n t e r e s t i n Plato' s w r i t i n g s , which r e s u l t e d in
further importation of d o c t r i n e s from the Timaeus int o t h e i r v e r s i o n s of the
S t o i c system. This renascence of i n t e r e s t has o f t e n been thought to have been
the necessary prelude to the r i s e of Middle P l a t o n i s m . 3
But the philosophy of
S t o i c i s m was certainly s t i l l an i n t e l l e c t u a l f o r c e to be reckoned with i n P h i -
l o 's day. 4
Weiss, the s c h o l ar who i n recent times has attached the most weight
to the S t o i c element i n P h i l o ' s t h e o l o g i c a l and cosmological ideas, affirms
that i t i s b a s i c a l l y only a matter of t a s te as to whether one represents P h i l o
as a P l a t o n i z i n g S t o i c or a S t o i c i z i n g P l a t o n i s t . 5
I t i s worth keeping t h i s
remark at the back of our mind as we proceed to review the S t o i c doctrines
which P h i l o b r i n g s i n r e l a t i o n to h i s usage of the Timaeus. In deference to
the 'competitive element' that e x i s t e d between Platonism and Stoicism, it will
a l s o be u s e f u l to note those cases i n which a S t o i c theory i s used by Philo
when a d o c t r i n e from the Timaeus might have served j u s t as well.

In the area of theology and the d o c t r i n e of the p r i n c i p i a the passage i n

P h i l o which has been regarded as possessing the most pronounced S t o i c traits
i s the famous text at the beginning of the De o p i f i c i o mundi, where P h i l o
states that Moses, having reached the very summit of philosophy, recognized
ev l o t s ouou the a c t i v e cause and the passive o b j e c t . 6
The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
t h i s passage i s by no means straightforward. The terminology ( T O 6paoxriptov
auxbov, T O TiadriTov) i s c e r t a i n l y S t o i c , but the way i n which the two seemingly
S t o i c p r i n c i p l e s are explained i s c l o s e r to the c r e a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e of the
Timaeus than the monism of the Stoa. 7
The TWV OAWV vous i s c l e a r l y i d e n t i c a l
to the c r e a t o r god who i s the c e n t r a l f i g u r e i n the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l account.
He i s unambiguously presented as transcendent, superior to v i r t u e and know-
ledge, s u p e r i o r even to the idea of the good and the idea of beauty. 8
The pas-
s i v e object, i s opposed to the a c t i v e cause and undergoes a conversion (note
the a o r i s t yeTe3aAev) r e s u l t i n g i n the c r e a t i o n of the most p e r f e c t product,
t h i s cosmos. A few l i n e s l a t e r P h i l o speaks, s u r e l y d e l i b e r a t e l y , of the 'fa-
ther and maker' e x e r c i s i n g p r o n o i a over h i s c r e a t i o n . 9
The g u l f which separ-
ates t h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n from the b a s i c conceptions of S t o i c p h y s i c s , i n which
398 SYNTHESIS

the c r e a t i v e immanent Aoyos and the passive vXr\ are two aspects of the same
corporeal ououa, 10
i s so great that i t i s p o i n t l e s s to speak of a S t o i c influ-
ence i n P h i l o ' s understanding of the c r e a t i o n a l process. The f o r m u l a t i o n at
Opif.8 i s i n f a c t very s i m i l a r to a r a t h e r naive Middle P l a t o n i s t i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n of Tim.30a found i n Diogenes L a e r t i u s 1
summary of the P l a c i t a P l a t o n i s . 1 1

Inasmuch as the cosmic paradigm i s s i t u a t e d i n the mind of the c r e a t o r , the

three Middle P l a t o n i s t apxotu can be reduced to two. Philo's exposition in
Opif. 16-25, i n which the r o l e of the x o o p o s VOTITOS i s e x p l a i n e d, must be seen
as c o n s i d e r a b l y e l u c i d a t i n g the abbreviated summary i n Opif.8-9. An important
d i f f e r e n c e between the P l a t o n i s t s and P h i l o i s that he d e l i b e r a t e l y avoids
speaking of two a p x a t or a u x u a i n Opif.8. In h i s 'monarchic dualism' there i s
room f o r only one cause, and that i s God the c r e a t o r . 1 2
On the other hand, the
r e l a t i v e n e g l e c t that P h i l o shows towards P l a t o ' s complex and d i f f i c u l t account
of the r e c e p t a c l e 1 3
should be seen as the r e s u l t of h i s preference f o r the more
s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d S t o i c (and A r i s t o t e l i a n ) ideas on matter, as r e c o n c i l e d with the
c r e a t i o n a l scheme of the Timaeus and transmitte d through to Middle Platonism. 14

The conception of the d i v i n e Logos, so prominent i n P h i l o ' s thought, ap-

pears to place us on f i r m e r S t o i c ground. C e r t a i n aspects of S t o i c theology -
e s p e c i a l l y i t s emphasis on d i v i n e omnipresence and the d i v i n e a c t i v i t y of na-
ture (cpuots) i n the cosmos - P h i l o f i n d s deserving of i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n h i s own
t h e o l o g i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n s , provided they are understood as a p p l y i n g at the l e -
vel of the d i v i n e L o g o s . 15
But when the d o c t r i n e of the Logos was examined i n
greater d e t a i l a h i g h l y complex s i t u a t i o n was encountered. 16
The Logos c a r r i e s
out d i v e r s e f u n c t i o n s and these take place at more than one level. One of
these f u n c t i o n s , that of r e p r e s e n t i n g the immanent presence of the d i v i n e i n
the cosmos, c e r t a i n l y corresponds to that of the cosmic soul i n the Timaeus.
As D i l l o n and others have pointed out, the Timaeus i s here i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms
of the 'modernized' concept p o p u l a r i z e d by the S t o a . 17
This v e r d i c t i s r e i n -
f o r c e d i f we observe how the Timaean notions of a v a A o y t a , a p u o v t a and 6eouos
are t h e o l o g i z e d and 'embodied' i n the d i v i n e Logos. 18
Other f u n c t i o n s of the
Logos, however, such as i t s r o l e as the place of the n o e t i c cosmos and i t s
task as the instrument of c r e a t i o n , must be regarded as r e s u l t i n g from the i n -
fluence of Middle Platonism r a t h e r than of S t o i c i s m . 19

I consider i t probable that the c o n s i s t e n t use of the conception of the

Logos to represent ideas from the Timaeus i s not an i n d i c a t i o n of P h i l o ' s de-
pendence on a S t o i c (e.g. Posidonian) i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of that dialogue, but r e -
s u l t s from a marked preference f o r the conception of the Logos i t s e l f . 2 0
The
obverse of t h i s preference i s an antipathy towards the n o t i o n of the cosmic
soul. Since the cosmic s o u l i s no l e s s prominent i n S t o i c i s m than i n P l a t o n -
ism, 21
t h i s antipathy i s once again not the r e s u l t of S t o i c i n f l u e n c e . The
 I l l 3.2. 399

reason f o r i t must l i e deeper than the f a c t that there i s no room f o r the cos-
mic soul i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Mosaic cosmogony. P h i l o p r e f e r s the
conception of the d i v i n e Logos because i t suggests an extension of the activity
of God h i m s e l f , not the existenc e of a cosmic e n t i t y separate from God. 22
More-
over i t allows the cosmo-theological ideas from the Timaeus and i t s i n t e r p r e -
t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n to be r e c o n c i l e d with the Jewish Logos-speculation based on
the 'and God s a i d 1
of Gen.1 and other B i b l i c a l texts. 2 3

In the remaining areas of cosmology there i s l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n that P h i -

lo s reading of the Timaeus was g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d by S t o i c i d e a s .
f
This i s
hardly s u r p r i s i n g , s i n c e the S t o i c cosmos, once i t s 6baxooun.ous i s achieved,
s c a r c e l y d i f f e r s from the cosmos of P l a t o . The idea of an extra-cosmic v o i d ,
which P h i l o imports i n t o one or two d i s c u s s i o n s , i s derived from S t o i c cosmol-
ogy and r a i s e s problems f o r e i g n to the P l a t o n i c a c c o u n t . 24
I f , however, the
void i s postulated i n order t o accommodate the d o c t r i n e of cosmic c o n f l a g r a -
t i o n , then P h i l o v o i c e s h i s o p p o s i t i o n . 2 5
He f i r m l y r e j e c t s a l l concessions to
S t o i c cosmo-biology, i n which the cosmos, as a l i v i n g being, i s born and dies
according to a cosmic c y c l e . The d o c t r i n e i s not M o s a i c . 26
Perhaps t h i s i s
also the reason f o r the f a c t that the p o r t r a y a l of the cosmos as a C$ov i s
comparatively rare i n P h i l o s w r i t i n g s .
f 2 7

The most s i g n i f i c a n t p o i n t of d i f f e r e n c e between P l a t o and the Old Stoa

in the realm of anthropology l a y i n the f a c t that the S t o i c s regarded the soul
as u n i t a r y and the passions as the r e s u l t of mistaken judgments on the part of
the riyeuovuxov. Through the i n t e r v e n t i o n of Posidonius, however, the d o c t r i n e
of an i r r a t i o n a l soul was accepted i n t o S t o i c i s m , thereby g r e a t l y f a c i l i t a t i n g
the r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of a great number of S t o i c e t h i c a l ideas w i t h the P l a t o n i c
ideas found i n the Timaeus and elsewhere. 28
Thus the pronounced S t o i c f l a v o u r
of P h i l o ' s e t h i c s i n no way clashes with h i s debts to P l a t o . It i s entirely
normal f o r P h i l o to d e s c r i b e the %a%r\ i n language drawn from the Timaeus, but
have the l i s t of passions mentioned c o n s i s t i n g of the four primary Ttctftn of the
Stoa. 29
The s o u l , according to the Stoa, was composed of c o r p o r e a l l y conceived
Ttveuua and i t s d i r e c t i v e part (nyepovbHov) was l o c a t e d i n the h e a r t . The
m a t e r i a l i s t i c aspect of the d o c t r i n e P h i l o e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t s . But the con-
c e p t i o n of Tiveuuct i s r e q u i r e d to e x p l a i n the a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l connotations of
Gen.2:7 and i s r e c o n c i l e d with the P l a t o n i s t ideas read i n t o Gen. 1 :26. 30
On
the question of the l o c a t i o n of man's r a t i o n a l part P h i l o v a c i l l a t e s between
the b r a i n (Plato) and the heart (Stoa), as he a l s o does between P l a t o n i c and
S t o i c t h e o r i e s on the mechanism of s i g h t and h e a r i ng (the d i f f e r e n c e s between
which are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the e a r l i e r q u e s t i o n ) . 31
They a r e not questions
to which Moses attaches a great deal of importance, and i n h i s e x e g e t i c a l use
of such t h e o r i e s we found P h i l o showing a good d e a l of opportunism. 32
400 SYNTHESIS

In these b r i e f remarks on the Stoa's i n f l u e n c e on P h i l o ' s reading of the

Timaeus and on the S t o i c d o c t r i n e s which entered i n t o competition with P l a t o -
n i c ideas i n h i s thought i t has become i n c r e a s i n g l y c l e a r that the interpene-
t r a t i o n of Platonism and S t o i c i s m which we have observed cannot be adjudicated
before P h i l o ' s r e l a t i o n to Middle Platonism has been examined. The v e r d i c t on
the remark of Weiss which was c i t e d at the beginning of t h i s s e c t i o n w i l l
t h e r e f o r e have to be postponed u n t i l l a t e r i n t h i s chapter.

3.3. Philo and t h e M i d d l e Platonist interpretation

^ n
a p r i o r i grounds i t i s e n t i r e l y probable t h a t , i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of the Timaeus and of P l a t o ' s thought i n general, P h i l o ' s greates t debt would
have been to that otupeous, which i n h i s time professed l o y a l t y to the P l a t o n i c
t r a d i t i o n , and which modern s c h o l a r s h i p , with i t s penchant f o r rather a r b i t r a r y
(though h i g h l y u s e f u l ) c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , has given the t i t l e 'Middle Platonism'.
The r e g r e t t a b l e s i l e n c e which enshrouds P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a i n i n g and the
preference he shows f o r u s i n g anonymous phrases when r e f e r r i n g to Greek p h i l o -
sophers and t h e i r schools have as consequence that i n h i s many w r i t i n g s there
i s not a s i n g l e e x p l i c i t referenc e to P l a t o n i s t s or students of philosophy who
profess to f o l l o w the teachings of P l a t o . 1
At most we can point to one or two
anonymous p l u r a l s that can h a r d l y r e f e r to anyone e l s e except P l a t o n i s t s . 2

Once again i t i s the evidence of h i s w r i t i n g s that must be our guide. In t h i s

s e c t i o n we s h a l l present i n a p o s i t i v e and r e l a t i v e l y u n c r i t i c a l manner the
methods, d o c t r i n e s and fundamental p h i l o s o p h i c a l / t h e o l o g i c a l assumptions which,
according to the evidence we have assembled, P h i l o takes over from or shares
with the Middle P l a t o n i s t s . In a l a t e r s e c t i o n these r e s u l t s w i l l be approached
more c r i t i c a l l y , i n response to the contentio n of c e r t a i n s c h o l a r s that P h i l o
i s or v i r t u a l l y i s a Middle P l a t o n i s t h i m s e l f . The complexity of the relevant
m a t e r i a l c o n s t r a i n s a somewhat schematic and summary presentation.

^' Methods. I t i s best to begin with the p a r a l l e l s that can be discerned

between the methods "used by the Middle P l a t o n i s t s and P h i l o i n t h e i r study of
P l a t o , together with the a p p l i c a t i o n of those methods by P h i l o to h i s inter-
p r e t a t i o n of the Mosaic record.
( i ) Both the scope of P h i l o ' s acquaintance with the P l a t o n i c corpus and
the prominence of the Timaeus i n h i s reading of P l a t o resemble the manner and
and methods of the Middle P l a t o n i s t s . For not the e n t i r e body of P l a t o ' s d i a -
logues, from the short a p o r e t i c works to the compendious Laws, was read and
s t u d i e d i n that s c h o o l , but a P l a t o dimidiatus c o n s i s t i n g of a number of famous
 I l l 3.3. 401

dialogues and short s e c t i o n s from lesser-known w r i t i n g s . On the b a s i s of t h i s

s e l e c t i o n a coherent P l a t o n i c system was b u i l t , i n which the Timaeus played a
d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y great r o l e , supplyin g the b a s i c o u t l i n e of the p r i n c i p i a
and almost a l l d o c t r i n e s r e l a t e d to the cosmos and the s t r u c t u r e of man. P h i - 3

l o s f a m i l i a r i t y with P l a t o ' s w r i t i n g s would appear to be almost e x a c t l y

f
cir-
cumscribed by the P l a t o n i s t s e l e c t i o n , with the only important d i f f e r e n c e a
r a t h e r b e t t e r knowledge of the Laws than one might expect. 4
The great signifi-
cance of the Timaeus i n P h i l o ' s thought has been demonstrated by the ample
length of our Commentary, the evidence of which furthermore suggests that the
dominant r o l e of the Timaeus i n h i s borrowings from P l a t o runs p a r a l l e l to the
s i t u a t i o n i n Middle Platonism. The r e s u l t s reached i n our study d i f f e r mar-
kedly from those of B i l l i n g s , who, i n comparing P h i l o d i r e c t l y with P l a t o , i g -
nored the i n t e r m e d i a t i o n of the P l a t o n i s t t r a d i t i o n and assigned to the Timaeus
an erroneously subordinate r o l e . 5
The proper p l a c e o f the d i a l o g u e has been
b e t t e r seen by s c h o l a r s such as H o r o v i t z , Wolfson, 6
Weiss, Nikiprowetzky and
Dillon.

( i i ) The Middle P l a t o n i s t s concerned themselves with the text of P l a t o ' s

w r i t i n g s which they attempted t o i n t e r p r e t through a process o f exegesis and
systematization. 7
L i k e P h i l o i n h i s exegesis of Moses they had no time f o r an
o r a l or e s o t e r i c t r a d i t i o n which by-passed the message (whether overt o r co-
v e r t ) of the w r i t t e n word. 8
T h e i r hermeneutical p r i n c i p l e that the m a n i f e s t l y
e l u s i v e thought of P l a t o coul d be guided i n t o a coherent system of 6oyycxTa by
i n t e r p r e t i n g one text i n terms o f another 9
i s found at a number o f l e v e l s i n
Philo. A t r i v i a l but i n t e r e s t i n g example i n Deus 79, where the s u r p r i s i n g
word xayueuoyevcp i s drawn from Rep.508b to help e x p l a i n the theory of v i s i o n
i n Tim.45b-d, shows that P h i l o e i t h e r p r a c t i s e d the method on P l a t o ' s w r i t i n g s
himself o r , what i s perhaps more l i k e l y , drew i t from a source-book. 10
The
t r i l o c a t i o n o f the soul can be r e l a t e d to the c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s - i t i s f o r
P h i l o e x e g e t i c a l l y very convenient - by c o a l e s c i n g the accounts i n the Repub-
l i c and the Timaeus. 11
P h i l o ' s acquaintance with another technique, the use of
' p r o o f - t e x t s ' to demonstrate that an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has a f o u n d a t i on i n the
P l a t o n i c text i s shown i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e s . 1 2
More s i g n i f i c a n t ,
however, i s h i s own use of the method i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the Mosaic t e x t . A fam-
ous example i s the statement at Opif.25, T O be 6oyua T O U T O Mwuoews E O T L V , O U K

l y o v , f o l l o w ed by the c i t a t i o n of Gen.1:27. The double euxwv r e l a t i o n between

God-Logos-man presented i n that text not only confirms the d o c t r i n e of the
cosmic paradigm read i n t o Gen.1:1-5, but a l s o sheds e x t r a l i g h t on the r e l a t i o n
between the Logos and the xooyos V O T I T O S . 1 3
Indeed the method o f i n t e r p r e t i n g
Moses v i a Moses i s an e s s e n t i a l aspect of P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s c r i p t u r e .
It i s Moses' h a b i t to r e c a l l the p r i n c i p l e s s e t out at the beginning and make
402 SYNTHESIS

h i s l a t e r statements c o n s i s t e n t with what he has said e a r l i e r . 1 4

Philo's exe-

g e t i c a l technique of e x p l a i n i n g one B i b l i c a l text by adducing other r e l e v a n t

texts can be found on almost every page of h i s w r i t i n g s . 1 5

The a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l

passage from which the statement on Mosaic c o n s i s t e n c y was drawn i s a good ex-

ample. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the expressio n cpwvn. al'potTOS i n Gen.4:10 can be ex-

p l a i n e d by adducing the t e x t s Lev.17:11, Gen.2:7, 1:26. 16

(iii) The Middle P l a t o n i s t method of integrating d o c t r i n e s from other

p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools - e s p e c i a l l y S t o i c , but a l s o P e r i p a t e t i c and Pythagorean

- i n t o t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n of P l a t o ' s 6oypaxa i s a l s o r e f l e c t e d i n Philo's wri-

tings. 1 7
Numerous examples of t h i s p r a c t i c e were i d e n t i f i e d i n the Commentary.

P a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g was the reading of the c r e a t i v e process i n terms of two

p r i n c i p l e s under the i n f l u e n c e of the S t o i c a c t i v e and p a s s i v e c a u s e . 18

The

d e f i n i t i o n of time given on s e v e r a l occasions by P h i l o i s d e r i v e d from Chry-

sippus, but he, j u s t l i k e A l b i n u s , regards i t as merely a restatement in for-

mal language of the P l a t o n i c (and Mosaic) c o n c e p t i o n . 19

A d e s c r i p t i o n of the

p e r n i c i o u s i n f l u e n c e of the passions appears to r e c o l l e c t Tim.42a and 69d, but

the a c t u a l %6.%x\ l i s t e d are the S t o i c q u a r t et of primary p a s s i o n s . 20

The de-

s c r i p t i o n of God as wholly s t a b l e (eoxujs) and the source of movement to a l l

beings o n t o l o g i c a l l y below him, drawn from A r i s t o t e l i a n theology, i s found i n

Numenius. 21
The P y t h a g o r e a n i z i ng arithmology which P h i l o i s so fond of i s

p r a c t i s e d by P l u t a r c h . 2 2
The same author i n t e r p r e t s the E on the D e l p h ic tem-

p l e to r e f e r to God and to mean not only eZ (thou a r t ) but, as some of the

a n c i e n t s thought, eZ ev (thou a r t One), i . e . with c l e a r r e f e r e n c e to Neopytha-

gorean t h e o l o g y . 23

2. Doctrines. In the area of d o c t r i n e an e n t i r e catalogue of correspon-

dence c o u l d be given between P h i l o ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n of Mosaic philosophy and the

views maintained by the Middle P l a t o n i s t s , ranging from p o i n t s of f i n e detail

to conceptions of fundamental p h i l o s o p h i c a l significance.

( i ) Often P h i l o ' s manner of formulation, choice of terms, use of illus-

trations, r e v e a l an i n t i m a t e acquaintance w i t h d e t a i l e d aspects of the exege-

s i s of the Timaeus as p r a c t i s e d by contemporary P l a t o n i s t s . One of the b e s t -

known examples i s h i s use, as e a r l i e s t extant witness, of the formulas of the

s o - c a l l e d p r e p o s i t i o n a l metaphysics, which were l a r g e l y based on an analysis

of the Timaeus. 24
The T U K O S imagery which P h i l o , combining the Timaeus and the

psychology of Tht.191c-192a (Plato v i a P l a t o ! ) , uses to d e s c r i b e the process

of c r e a t i o n , i s c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l e d i n A r i u s Didymus and A l b i n u s . 2 5
The fact

that both P h i l o and N e o p l a t o n i s t commentators give the assembly of the gods i n

Tim.41a a Homeric s e t t i n g and use the word 6uaAeyeo$au to d e s c r i b e God con-

v e r s i n g with h i s subordinates suggests a common t r a d i t i o n . 2 6

The Armenian
 Ill 3.3. 403

transmission at QG 4.164 obscures a c e r t a i n p a r a l l e l between a r i t h m o l o g i c a l

explanation of the number 60 and Middle P l a t o n i s t exegesis of the dodecahedron
of Tim.55c. 27
The s k i l f u l adaptatio n of the i n v o c a t i o n of the gods i n Tim.27c
to form the proemium of the De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi was matched with a long list
of other examples i n the P l a t o n i s t t r a d i t i o n . 2 8

(ii) The popularity enjoyed by certain texts from the Timaeus i n the w r i -
t i n g s of the Middle P l a t o n i s t s i s a l s o r e f l e c t e d i n P h i l o ' s usage, as can be
observed i n the f o l l o w i n g l i s t (the references i n brackets r e f e r to the Com-
mentary where p a r a l l e l s are g i v e n ) :
28a the two worlds of n o e t i c and sense-perceptible r e a l i t y (2.1.1.)
28b the genesis of the cosmos (2.1.2.)
29a p r a i s e of demiurge and cosmos (2.3.2.)
29e the goodness of demiurge and cosmos (3.1.1.)
30a from d i s o r d e r to order (3.2.1.)
41a-b the i n d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y of the cosmos (6.1.1.)
47a-c the g i f t of philosophy, Sewpua (7.2.3.) 29

92c the doxology (10.3.1. cf.2.3.2. 4.2.6.).

Noteworthy absentees on the l i s t are the t e x t s 28c (the d i f f i c u l t y or impossi-
b i l i t y of coming to know God) and 35a (the c r e a t i o n of s o u l ) , both of which
P h i l o chooses v i r t u a l l y to i g n o r e . 30
This same c o l l e c t i o n of P l a t o n i c t e x t s are
l a t e r a l s o very popular with the C h r i s t i a n a p o l o g i s t s and the Church f a t h e r s . 3 1

( i i i ) Most important of a l l are the large number of doctrines which P h i l o

d e r i v e s from the Timaeus but presents i n a manner that b e l i e s the i n f l u e n c e of
Middle P l a t o n i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the d i a l o g u e . Once again a l i s t gives an
impression of the scope and importance of these d o c t r i n e s (the reference s a l -
lude to the Commentary, where p a r a l l e l s can be found; some overlap with the
previous list i s of course unavoidable):
1.,3,.1 . the s t r u c t u r a l r o l e of the p r i n c i p i a i n Opif .
2.,1 .1 . the two worlds of n o e t i c and sense-perceptible reality
2.,1 .3. the problematics of the d o c t r i n e of the cosmos' y e v e o t s
2..2 .1 . God as auTuov

2,.2 .2. God as 6riy^oupyos, noun-uns Hat TiairiP .

2,.3 .2. the admiration f o r the cosmos

2..4 .1 . the l i m i t s of knowledge
3,.1 .1 . the goodness of the c r e a t o r
3,.2 . 1 . the moment of c r e a t i o n
3 .4 .2-3 the model, the ideas as God's thoughts
5,.2 . 1 . the c i r c l e s of the same and different
5,.3 .1-2 the theory of time
5,.4 .3. the h i e r a r c h y of cosmic C$a
404 SYNTHESIS

6.1.1-5 the acp^apaua of the cosmos guaranteed by God

6.2.1-2 the d i v i s i o n of the c r e a t i o n a l task
8.2.2. uXn as matter out of which (e£ o5) the cosmos i s formed
9.2.1. the passions of the i r r a t i o n a l soul
9.2.2. the d i v i s i o n ( s ) of the soul
10.1.2. 10.1.5. the s t r u c t u r e and place of man
10.1.6. opouwaüs, euöauyovua, i n t e l l e c t u a l i s m .
The c o l l e c t i v e weight of these d o c t r i n e s i n P h i l o s theology, cosmology
f
and
anthropology s c a r c e l y r e q u i r e s demonstration. I t i s immediately apparent that
they form the backbone of the body of p h i l o s o p h i c a l m a t e r i a l which we saw in
the previous chapter to have e x e r c i s e d such a profound i n f l u e n c e on P h i l o ' s
thought.

3« Fundamental p h i l o s o p h i c a l / t h e o l o g i c a l assumptions. Although the r e -

s u l t s of our catalogue of d o c t r i n a l correspondences are impressive, they are
not yet s u f f i c i e n t to e x p l a i n the c o n g e n i a l i t y which P h i l o f e l t towards the
Middle P l a t o n i s t p r e s e n t a t i o n of Plato's thought. I t w i l l be necessary to
penetrate f u r t h e r to a number of fundamental p h i l o s o p h i c a l / t h e o l o g i c a l assump-
t i o n s which u n d e r l i e that presentation.
(i) In s t a r t i n g w i t h the most important of these assumptions, the pro-
nounced theocentrism of Middle Platonism, I must confess to a c e r t a i n h e s i t a -
t i o n , f o r t h i s subject has proved prone to s e r i o u s misconceptions and require s
a nuanced approach. I t has become a s c h o l a r l y p l a t i t u d e to a f f i r m that later
Platonism bears the i n f l u e n c e of a ' r e l i g i o u s Z e i t g e i s t ' . In h i s study on A l -
binus Witt s t a t e d i t i n a b l a c k and white, but not unrepresentative, way. 32

It i s t h e r e f o r e true to say that Platonism i n the second century, i f i t

had not become a r e l i g i o n , was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by i t s predominantly r e l i -
gious and t h e o c e n t r i c world-view... This age was a t t r a c t e d not so much
by P l a t o the e t h i c a l teacher or p o l i t i c a l reformer, as by P l a t o the h i e r -
ophant... I t i s true that Albinus i n the D i d a s k a l i k o s does not e x h i b i t
the r e l i g i o u s f e r v o u r of A p u l e i u s , Maximus, or Numenius. But even A l b i n -
us, although he avoids Schwärmerei, holds that the end of human l i f e i s
evdevöe t n e Z a e (peuyeuv O T L x a x t o i a , or ououwats detp natd T O Ö U V C X T O V .
Second-century Platonism i s t h e o l o g i c a l and otherworldly .
One senses here the c o n t r a s t which f o r a long time was made between the lucid
r a t i o n a l Hellenism of the C l a s s i c a l age ( i n c l u d i n g Plato) and the orientali-
z i n g mysticism of l a t e r a n t i q u i t y ( i n i t i a t e d by P o s i d o n i u s ? ) , a view which i n
such an extreme form no longer f i n d s many a d h e r e n t s . 33
A less radical and
still today o f t e n a s s e r t e d view i s that Middle Platonism as a whole showed a
t h e o l o g i c a l i n c l i n a t i o n , but that i t contained i n p a r t i c u l a r a 'religiöse Flü-
gel'. 3 4
The f i n g e r i s u s u a l l y pointed at P l u t a r c h and A t t i c u s , w i th t h e i r em-
phasis on the d o c t r i n e of d i v i n e pronoia. 35

In an important a r t i c l e Dörrie has r e f i n e d t h i s approach i n an a t t r a c t i v e

 Ill 3.3. 405

way. The strong r e l i g i o u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Platonism are emphasized. God

i s worshipped through r e c o g n i t i o n of Nous and Logos, and such r e c o g n i t i o n se-

cures oasxriPL-a f o r the knowing s o u l . In the expression of these preoccupations,

37 •

however, two opposed a t t i t u d e s can be detected. In the one the stress i s

l a i d on the d i s c l o s u r e of the d i v i n e i n the cosmos, as seen i n the presence of

the Logos and l e a d i n g to r e c o g n i t i o n of the goodness of the demiurge. D o r r i e

entitles this attitude 'Logos-Religion* and sees P l u t a r c h as a t y p i c a l repre-

sentative. Opposed to i t i s the a t t i t u d e of 'Nous-Theologie'. Here s t r e s s i s

l a i d on the d i s t a n c e between God and the cosmos. Knowledge of the highest God

can only be reached through a b s t r a c t t h e o l o g i c a l r e f l e c t i o n or a contemplative

mysticism. Representatives of t h i s a t t i t u d e are Albinu s and later Plotinus.

The schematic a n t i t h e s i s proposed by D o r r i e seems to me a p r o f i t a b l e way of

approaching the theocentrism of Middle Platonism, showing as i t does that the

quest f o r God or the d i v i n e was a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the e n t i r e p h i l o s o p h i c a l

movement.

The d i f f e r e n c e between P l a t o and his l a t e r followers obviously does not

lie i n t h e i r t h e o l o g i c a l concern as such. Plato i s passionately concerned

with the subject of D i v i n i t y and proposes d i s t a s t e f u l l y heavy punishments f o r

a t h e i s t s and those who deny the workings of d i v i n e P r o v i d e n c e . 38

He does r e -

t a i n , however, an (admittedly tenuous) s e p a r a t i o n of a b s t r a c t philosophical

principles (the Ideas, the Good, the One) and theological entities (the demi-

urge, the cosmic s o u l , the gods of myth). 39

The Middle P l a t o n i s t s disregard

this separation. Abstrac t p r i n c i p l e s and t h e o l o g i c a l conceptions are brought

i n t o r e l a t i o n w i t h each other and fused i n t o deoAoyta, the highest form of

knowledge. 40
P l u t a r c h , posing the question xt ouv ovxws 6v e o x u , s t a r t s o f f by

t a l k i n g of x_o aidiov nai ayevnxov xau acpdapxov, but does not h e s i t a t e to switch

over to o_ § e o s 9 who furthermore i s One ( e l s wv). 41

The less fervent Albinus

describes the ideas as icpos $ e o v vonous auxou, i . e . God s t h i n k i n g , not f

the

object of h i s thought (as i n P l a t o ) . 4 2

The p i e t y accompanying t h i s a t t i t u d e of

theocentrism i s of a preeminently i n t e l l e c t u a l k i n d . The aim of austere s e r -

v i c e i n temples and s h r i n e s , says P l u t a r c h , i s n x o u upwxou nai xuptou nai vo-

n x o u yvwots.

There can be no doubt, we conclude, that the intense preoccupatio n with

the d i v i n e , the p u r s u i t of theology and the i n t e l l e c t u a l p i e t y which we have

located i n Middle Platonism (and, not to f o r g e t , Neopythagoreanism), must have

played a powerful r o l e i n a t t r a c t i n g P h i l o to i t s d o c t r i n e s and bringing him

to the r e a l i z a t i o n that they could prove u s e f u l i n uncovering the deeper mean-

ing of the Law of Moses.

( i i ) The second assumption i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the f i r s t and i s , for

s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t reasons, h a r d l y l e s s prone to misunderstanding. I r e f e r to

406 SYNTHESIS

the prominence of the doctrine of creation i n Middle P l a t o n i s t w r i t i n g s . Nat-

u r a l l y i t i s e n t i r e l y erroneous to think here of the J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n concep-
t i o n of c r e a t i o n , i n which God the c r e a t o r creates the whole of r e a l i t y out of
nothing. C r e a t i o n f o r the P l a t o n i s t s i s 'Weltbildung', not 'Weltschopfung'. 44

The importance of the d o c t r i n e i n t h e i r works i s d i r e c t l y a s s o c i a t e d with the

prominence of the Timaeus, ( i . e . the reasons f o r i t are both h i s t o r i c a l and
doctrinal) . 4 5
Even when i n the 2nd century A.D. the m a j o r i t y of P l a t o n i s t s r e -
j e c t e d the conception of a l i t e r a l cosmogony taking place i n time, they with-
out exception continue to report the 'moment of c r e a t i o n 1
i n terms derived
from Tim.30a. 46
Not u n t i l P l o t i n u s does an emancipation from the c r e a t i o n i s t i c
schema of the Timaeus take p l a c e . 4 7
When to t h i s 'creationism' i s added the
n o t i o n of a demiurgic c r e a t i n g d e i t y , the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of Middle Platonism -
compared with a l l other p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools — f o r P h i l o i n h i s task of g i v i n g
p h i l o s o p h i c a l exegesis of the Pentateuch i s apparent. I f proof be r e q u i r e d we
need only r e c a l l that P h i l o s view of c r e a t i o n approximates a 'Weltbildung'
f

and not the 'Weltschopfung' that the opening words of Genesis might w e l l have
suggested to him. 48

( i i i ) Another aspect of Middle Platonism congenial to P h i l o was i t s con-

cern with the theme of divine Providence. The d o c t r i n e of providence i s the
obverse of the d o c t r i n e of c r e a t i o n . A l l Middle P l a t o n i s t s hold to the view,
derived from Tim.41a-b, that the cosmos i s i n d e s t r u c t i b l e through the agency
of God's pronoia or w i l l . 4 9
Some consider i t necessary to safeguard the doc-
t r i n e of providence by espousing a l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the cosmogony. 50

P h i l o a n t i c i p a t e s t h i s argument, but may w e l l have derived i t from contempor-

ary P l a t o n i s t s . 5 1
But a l s o A l b i n u s , who b e l i e v e s i n a n o n - l i t e r a l cosmogony,
describes the demiurge as producing the cosmos x a x a dauuaouwxdxn.v u p o v o t a v xau
6uauxav. 52
Another f a c e t of the d o c t r i n e of Providence i s theodicy. Philo
shares with the Middle P l a t o n i s t s the u n c o n d i t i o n a l c o n v i c t i o n that God i s i n
no way r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e v i l . In order to defend the d o c t r i n e of Providence
against a l l manner of o b j e c t i o n s , however, he turns to the extensive repertoire
of arguments s u p p l i e d by the Stoa. So i n the De P r o v i d e n t i a the philosophy of
Plato plays a r e l a t i v e l y minor r o l e , namely that of complementing the views of
53

the Stoa. There i s no t r a c e of the more s o p h i s t i c a t e d theory of l e v e l s of

providence, developed by Middle P l a t o n i s t s i n response to the determinism of
the Stoa. 54

(iv) A l l Greek schools of philosophy (except the s c e p t i c s ) sought to give

man a place in the cosmos. The d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of the Middle P l a t o n i s t a t -
tempt i s l a r g e l y i n s p i r e d by the Timaeus. They s t r e s s e d above a l l two things,
the p a r a l l e l i s m between man and the cosmos and man's r e l a t i o n to the d i v i n e .
L i k e the cosmos man i s composed of soul and body. Like the cosmos man has
 Ill 3.3. 407

been designed with purpose and p r o v i d e n t i a l s k i l l . But i n one regard man is

unique; he alone of a l l c r e a t u r e s i s created by both the demiurge and the
'young gods 1
who a s s i s t him. His aim and end i n l i f e i s to e x e r c i s e the r a -
tional (and d i v i n e ) part created by the demiurge, thereby g a i n i n g knowledge of
God and becoming l i k e unto him, and at the same time to keep the irrational
(and mortal) part created by the 'young gods 1
under c o n t r o l and f r e e from d i s -
turbing passions. In t h i s he has a choice; he can i n c l i n e to good or evil,
v i r t u e or v i c e , a r a t i o n a l l i f e or a l i f e of sensual indulgence. 55

But, i t might be i n t e r p o s e d , could not P h i l o be e q u a l ly a t t r a c t e d to the

d o c t r i n e s of S t o i c i s m , which a l s o s t r e s s the macrocosm/microcosm r e l a t i o n and
regard man as a C $ O V
A O Y L K O V sharing i n the immanent presence of the d i v i n e ?
As was observed i n the previous s e c t i o n , P h i l o i s c e r t a i n l y not averse to i n -
c o r p o r a t i n g S t o i c elements i n h i s statements on man, notably when they are
suggested by the Mosaic t e x t . But i t i s the P l a t o n i s t views on man's place i n
the cosmos which appeal to him more, and f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: (a) the
s t r e s s on the d u a l i t y of c o r p o r e a l body and i n c o r p o r e a l s o u l ; (b) the unabashed
a f f i r m a t i o n of human f r e e w i l l and responsibility; (c) the manner of relating
man to a t h e o l o g i c a l h i e r a r c h y , i n which man p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the d i v i n e and
can even achieve a measure of transcendence, but f a l l s short of the transcen -
dence that must be a t t r i b u t e d to the highest god. 56

(v) The f i n a l comment concerns what i s perhaps b e t t e r d e s c r i b ed as an

a t t i t u d e r a t h e r than an assumption, namely the reverence shown by the Middle
P l a t o n i s t s f o r the source of t h e i r d o c t r i n e s , the philosopher Plato himself.
By t h i s time the process of d i v i n i z a t i o n , which was to reach a climax in Neo-
platonism, was w e l l under way. Apuleius , having given the anecdote on P l a t o ' s
A p o l l i n e nature, a f f i r m s that he not only o u t s t r i p p e d the heroes i n e x c e l l e n ce
but a l s o matched the d e i t i e s i n h i s powers. 57
According to A t t i c u s , P l a t o was
t r u l y sent down from the gods so that through h i s e f f o r t s philosophy would be
revealed i n i t s completeness. 58
In a d d i t i o n , P l a t o ' s pronouncements were ac-
c r e d i t e d with a c a l c u l a t e d o r a c u l a r o b s c u r i t y . The master was considered to
speak i n a u v t y y a x a . The d e r i v a t i o n of f i v e worlds from the f i v e p e r f e c t geo-
m e t r i c a l s o l i d s i s a matter at which the master e n i g m a t i c a l l y h i n t e d (auxos
UTtnvuCotTo), says P l u t a r c h as he embarks on an exegesis of Tim.55d. 59
It is i n -
t e r e s t i n g to observe that i n t h i s passage, and a l s o elsewhere when d i s c u s s i n g
P l a t o n i c CriTiipaTa, P l u t a r c h gives m u l t i p l e answers, c o n s i d e r i n g that the pre-
c i s e nature of P l a t o ' s i n t e n t i o n s cannot be considered certain. 6 0
According to
Numenius P l a t o concealed h i s own ideas by expressing them i n a manner midway
between c l a r i t y and o b s c u r i t y , keeping things safe f o r himself but initiating
d o c t r i n a l d i s s e n s i o n among h i s f o l l o w e r s . 6 1

The c e n t r a l question f o r the P l a t o n i s t s was indeed how they coul d penetrate

408 SYNTHESIS

to the a u t h e n t i c thought of t h e i r h e r e s i a r c h . In the l i g h t of the quasi-

o r a c u l a r , h i e r a t i c nature of P l a t o ' s pronouncements, the method of i n t e r p r e t -

ing P l a t o v i a P l a t o v i r t u a l l y amounts to the hermeneutical p r i n c i p l e s c r i p t u r a

i n t e r p r e s s u i (though the p e r s p i c u i t a s is lacking). 6 3

Albinus, always the most

sober-minded i n h i s approach, f i n d s a s o l u t i o n based on Tim.29b-d: Ooyyaxuceu

nAáxtüv. . .rj ¿TtuaxnpovbKüJs rj e Ú K o x o Á o y L x o j g . 6 4

Only concerning xd v o n x d can Pla-

to's thought be reduced to l u c i d i t y and incontrovertibility. But t h i s does

not mean d i r e c t access, f o r the way of preparatory study i s long and arduous.

The highest and greatest good i s not easy to d i s c o v e r nor safe to pass on to

everybody; i t i s a s e c r e t which Plato communicated to only a few of h i s inti-

mates... 65
The temptation to d i g r e s s f u r t h e r on the f a s c i n a t i n g subject of

Middle P l a t o n i s t hermeneutics must be r e s i s t e d . The important p a r a l l e l s with

P h i l o ' s manner of i n t e r p r e t i n g the recorded testimony of Moses — one thinks of

the a s c r i p t i o n of a h i e r a t i c s t a t u s , the p r a c t i c e of m u l t i p l e exegesis, the

assumption of a l i m i t e d e s o t e r i c i s m - i s once again immediately apparent.

3.4. A question of sources

The extensive correspondences between P h i l o and the Middle P l a t o n i s t s i n

t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and use of the Timaeus, summarized i n the previous sec-

t i o n , have given our enquiry a forward impetus. They encourage the t a k i n g of

a f u r t h e r step. Although P h i l o was thoroughly acquainted w i t h the Timaeus i n

the o r i g i n a l , h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n of i t s d o c t r i n e s show the modifying influence

of the interpretative tradition. Is i t p o s s i b l e to p i n down the source or

sources of such i n f l u e n c e ? F i r s t of a l l we should take i n t o account the oval

teaching P h i l o may have enjoyed, whether by attending the l e c t u r e s of Platon-

i s t s or through o r a l t u i t i o n . But on t h i s subject a l l information i s lacking.

The b a r r i e r of P h i l o ' s s i l e n c e and the e l u s i v e nature of o r a l t r a d i t i o n i n

general i s f o r us q u i t e insurmountable. 1
Is i t then p o s s i b l e to show that Philo

made use of wvitten sources i n h i s study of the Timaeus? Here the r e s u l t s of

research are more promising.

The evidence of c e r t a i n passages i n d i c a t e s that P h i l o from time to time

consulted handbooks of P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e when he wished to o u t l i n e the contents

of the Timaeus. In the account of the astronomy of Tim.35-37 P h i l o both adds

to and subtracts from the P l a t o n i c o r i g i n a l with such sureness and knowledge

of t e c h n i c a l aspects that one must suspect the a i d of a work such as Theon of

Smyrna's xd x a x d xó yadnyaxtHÓv xPHOtpa eig xnv IUáxwvos á v á y v w a u v . 2

Through a

comparison of P h i l o ' s four accounts of the t r i l o c a t i o n of the s o u l i t became

apparent that a number of i d i o s y n c r a t i c aspects p o i n t to a source which

 Ill 3.4. 409

summarized the b a s i c ' p h y s i c a l ' d o c t r i n e s of P l a t o ( i . e . s i m i l a r to A l b i n u s '

D i d a s k a l i k o s ) , as indeed P h i l o ' s 'doxographical' way of i n t r o d u c i n g the doc-
t r i n e s suggests. But the source i t s e l f resisted identification. 3
The passages
which recount the c o r r e l a t i o n between the genera of l i v i n g beings and the ele-
ments and regions of the cosmos point to d e r i v a t i o n from Middle Platonist
sources (the v a r i a t i o n s shown suggest more than one). The departures from the
simple schema of the Timaeus r e v e a l attempts to r e c o n c i l e i t s cosmology with
other p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s (demonology, five-element u n i v e r s e ) . 4
Another
source of i n f o r m a t i o n f o r P h i l o w i l l have been doxographical manuals l i k e
Aëtius' P l a c i t a . Though h e a v i l y dependent f o r P l a t o ' s öó^at on the Timaeus,
they can have done no more than supply a s k e l e t a l framework of d o c t r i n e , to be
clothed with f u r t h e r d e t a i l s from the work i t s e l f or other sources. 5

Various anonymous p l u r a l s r e v e a l that P h i l o was conversant with commenta-

tors on the Timaeus who d i s c u s s e d problems of i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 6
I t i s not
p o s s i b l e to determine, however, whether such informatio n i s drawn from a pro-
per commentary on the e n t i r e work or from d i s c u s s i o n s of parts of i t s contents
and the concomitant i n t e r p r e t a t i v e problems. The question of whether full-
length commentaries on the Timaeus e x i s t e d i n the time of P h i l o remains con-
troversial. 7
P h i l o ' s evidence, i t must be concluded, sheds no d e c i s i v e l i g h t
on t h i s problem. The e x p l a n a t i o n of the process of v i s i o n i n Deus 79 could
have been d e r i v e d from a commentary d e a l i n g with Tim.45b-d, but a l s o from a
summary of P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e such as those presented by Albinus and Apuleius. 8

The P l a t o n i s t d o c t r i n e of causes s c h o l a s t i c a l l y formulated i n the 'metaphysics

of p r e p o s i t i o n s ' i s presented i n P h i l o with the succinctness reminiscent of a
handbook or a t r e a t i s e r a t h e r than a commentary. 9
The e x p l a n a t i on of the act
of c r e a t i o n i n Opif.16-25, which shows unmistakable signs of dependence on
the above-mentioned metaphysics, i s much longer and d e t a i l e d . But i t s inte-
g r a t i v e c h a r a c t e r , combining themes from 28a-31b, makes the d e r i v a t i o n from a
running commentary (such as found i n Pap.9782) not so l i k e l y . 1 0
My t e n t a t i v e
c o n c l u s i o n i s that commentaries may w e l l have aided P h i l o i n reaching an un-
derstanding of the thematics and i n t e r p r e t a t i v e hazards of the Timaeus, but
that t h e i r informatio n has o n l y f i l t e r e d through i n d i r e c t l y to the A l e x a n d r i -
an's own commentaries on* s c r i p t u r e . 1 1

But Quellenforschung lacks l u s t r e i f no hard f a c t s are demonstrated and

no proper names are p e r s u a s i v e l y brought forward. P h i l o stands c l o s e to the
beginning of the Middle P l a t o n i s t t r a d i t i o n , and there are only two names with
which h i s evidence can reasonably be a s s o c i a t e d , the philosopher Eudorus and
the doxographer A r i u s Didymus, both known to have been a c t i v e i n A l e x a n d r i a .
On the r e l a t i o n between these three a f r a g i l e consensus of s c h o l a r l y o p i n i o n
has been b u i l t up over the past twenty years. Boyancé, T h e i l e r and Dillon
410 SYNTHESIS

have argued that P h i l o ' s P l a t o n i s t d o c t r i n e s p o i n t to contact with Eudorus and

h i s c i r c l e , but that c e r t a i n important elements such as the d o c t r i n e of causes
and the n o t i o n of the xóoyos vorixós probably go back to Eudorus' teacher, An-
tiochus of Ascalon. A r i u s Didymus drew on Eudorus i n h i s account of the P l a -
t o n i c philosophy. The s i m i l a r i t i e s that can be d i s c e r n e d between P h i l o and
the l i t t l e we know of A r i u s Didymus (and a l s o A l b i n us who drew on A r i u s ' ac-
count) are an independent witness to P h i l o ' s dependence on Eudorus. 12
It is
moreover speculated that Eudorus' Commentary on the Timaeus may have played an
important r o l e i n t r a n s m i t t i n g d o c t r i n e s connected with that work to P h i l o . 1 3

A setback f o r t h i s theory i s the c o n v i n c i n g arguments put forward by Glu-

cker that there i s no d i r e c t connection between Antiochus and Alexandrian p h i -
losophy. 14
I t i s a l s o r i s k y to attac h so much weight to a Commentary on the
Timaeus when i t s very e x i s t e n c e i s q u i t e u n c e r t a i n . 1 5
Eudorus' sympathy f o r
Pythagoreanizing theology i s c e r t a i n l y r e f l e c t e d i n P h i l o ' s works. 16
I t i s not
known, however, how the A l e x a n d r i an philosopher might have combined these the-
o l o g i c a l views with an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus. The d e r i v a t i o n of both
the ideas and matter from the One as highest c a u s a l p r i n c i p l e (virtually a
c r e a t i o ex n i h i l o ) i s not e x p l o i t e d by P h i l o . 1 7
Eudorus appears a l s o to have
followed Xenocrates and Crantor i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the cosmogony of the Timaeus
i n a n o n - l i t e r a l manner. 18
P h i l o does not f o l l o w him i n t h i s , and may well re-
f e r to him as one of the oocptíóyevou whose views are r e j e c t e d i n Aet. 14. On
the other hand Eudorus' account of the Pythagorean and P l a t o n i c t e l o s , which
has come down to us v i a A r i u s Didymus and Stobaeus, shows an impressive num-
ber of s i m i l a r i t i e s to P h i l o ' s d o c t r i n e s . 1 9
The passage of A r i u s Didymus on
the nature of the ideas and t h e i r f u n c t i o n i n the process of c r e a t i o n — the
only part of h i s expose of P l a t o ' s p h y s i c a l d o c t r i n e s that has s u r v i v e d - r e -
minds us s t r o n g l y of the way P h i l o speaks of the ideas and the model through-
out h i s w r i t i n g s and e s p e c i a l l y i n Opif.16-25. 20
I t lends credence to the sug-
g e s t i o n that Seneca and P h i l o d e r i v e t h e i r p r e p o s i t i o n a l metaphysics from
A r i u s Didymus' handbook. 21
But i t cannot be considered c e r t a i n that A r i u s
Didymus was dependent on Eudorus f o r these ideas.

Three other authors are r e l e v a n t to the question of sources. The trea-

t i s e On the nature of the cosmos and the soul by Timaeus Locrus, which pur-
ports to be the source of P l a t o ' s dialogue but i n f a c t shows numerous a f f i n i -
t i e s with e a r l y Middle Platonism, o f f e r s many p a r a l l e l s to P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n s of the Timaeus, 22
P l u t a r c h not only read Eudorus but i s a l s o probably
connected to Alexandrian Platonism through h i s teacher Ammonius. 23
When read-
ing the passages i n P l u t a r c h ' s w r i t i n g s which u t i l i z e and i n t e r p r e t the Timaeus,
one i s f o r c i b l y struck by the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n vocabulary and terminology, and
to a l e s s e r extent i n d o c t r i n e , to what we find in Philo. 2 4
The parallels
 I l l 3.4. 411

between A l b i n u s 1
D i d a s k a l i k o s and P h i l o , always suggestive but never very pre-
c i s e , are e x p l i c a b l e through the use made by A l b i n u s , whether d i r e c t l y or i n -
d i r e c t l y , of the Epitome of A r i u s Didymus. 25

The r e s u l t s of our enquiry i n t o sources show c e r t a i n p a t t e r n s of conver-

gence, but do not uncover the c l e a r l i n e s of i n f l u e n c e and dependence which
the Q u e l l e n f o r s c h e r aims to f i n d . The evidence of P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s p o i n t s to
a s o l i d l y e s t a b l i s h e d body of P l a t o n i s t d o c t r i n e , which was a v a i l a b l e i n A l e x-
a n d r i a and may be a s s o c i a t e d with the f i g u r e of Eudorus and h i s c i r c l e , though
such an a s s o c i a t i o n should be recognized as no more than an educated guess.
The d i r e c t connections between P h i l o and what we know of Eudorus are at any
r a t e very l i m i t e d i n scope. Because these A l e x a n d r i an developments e x e r c i s e d
an important, p o s s i b l y d e c i s i v e , i n f l u e n c e on the course of Middle Platonism,
the curious f a c t can be e x p l a i n e d that P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the Timaeus
show a f f i n i t i e s to those of authors who l i v e d a century or more a f t e r he d i d .
This i s not to deny that there were important elements of d o c t r i n a l progress
and development i n Middle Platonism. In many aspects P h i l o ' s interpretations
and usage show a lack of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n compared with the s u b t l e s c h o l a s t i c i s m
of l a t e r Platonism. Good examples are provided by h i s use of the term yevnTOs
and the s i m p l i c i t y of h i s d o c t r i n e of p r o v i d e n c e . 26
A highly significant as-
pect of P h i l o ' s evidence i s the sheer prominence of the c o n t r i b u t i o n made by
the Timaeus towards the understanding of P l a t o ' s thought. I t gives support to
D o r r i e ' s theory that i n the f i r s t century B.C. a break occurred with the ear-
l i e r Academic t r a d i t i o n and that a renaissance of i n t e r e s t i n the Timaeus i n i -
t i a t e d the mode of i n t e r p r e t i n g P l a t o that was to be dominant i n l a t e r anti-
q u i t y and beyond. 27

These c o n c l u s i o n s go as f a r as P h i l o ' s evidence allows. I f they seem

r a t h e r t e n t a t i v e and l a c k i n g p r e c i s e contours, the p a u c i t y of evidence must be
held p a r t l y to blame. More important, however, i s the d i f f e r e n c e i n perspec-
t i v e and method between my study and the researc h c a r r i e d out by the s c h o l a r s
mentioned above. T h e i r aim was to e s t a b l i s h v a r i o u s correspondences i n points
of d e t a i l between P h i l o and other sources, i n order to e x t r a p o l a t e from them
conclusions which c o n t r i b u t e to our understanding of developments i n the h i s -
tory of p h i l o s o p h y . 28
My p e r s p e c t i v e has been r e s o l u t e l y P h i l o n o c e n t r i c . And
when P h i l o ' s understanding and use of the Timaeus i s surveyed in its totality,
we are above a l l s t r u c k by h i s independence of mind and the l a r g e number of
p e c u l i a r i t i e s i n his presentation. 29
For t h i s reason, i n s p i t e of the p l e n t i -
f u l m a t e r i a l which they c o n t a i n , P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s are unable to provide the
h i s t o r i a n of philosophy w i t h a c l e a r p i c t u r e of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of P l a t o -
nism i n A l e x a n d r i a at the beginning the f i r s t century A.D.
412 SYNTHESIS

A f i n a l remark on sources returns us to the subject of commentaries.

P h i l o wrote extensive commentaries on the books of Moses. The P l a t o n i s t s com-
posed commentaries on the d i a l o g u e s , although i t i s not c e r t a i n when they
s t a r t e d doing t h i s and what the e a r l i e s t v e r s i o n s looked like. In s p i t e of
t h i s lack of information , the p o s s i b i l i t y must be e n t e r t a i n e d that P h i l o i n
h i s commentaries was i n f l u e n c e d and aided by the format aspects of the P l a t o -
n i s t commentary, j u s t as i n h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e s he u t i l i z e d the formal
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the H e l l e n i s t i c discours e ($éaug, ouyypappa) and dialogue. 30

What correspondences can be discovered between P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s and the rem-

nants of Middle P l a t o n i s t commentaries (also t a k i n g i n t o account the more
p l e n t i f u l supply of Neoplatonis t material)? 3 1

That there are c e r t a i n s i m i l a r i t i e s cannot be denied. Both P h i l o and the

P l a t o n i s t s undertake to give a running commentary on an a u t h o r i t a t i v e w r i t t e n
text. The method of the P l a t o n i s t s , namely to e x p l a i n P l a t o v i a P l a t o but
a l s o with the a i d of p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s from other schools which they
consider to be i m p l i c i t i n P l a t o 's t e x t , i s a p p l i e d by P h i l o to Moses. 32
A
number of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l techniques used by the Neoplatonists to e x p l a i n the
text of P l a t o are p r e f i g u r e d i n P h i l o . 3 3
The most important of these i s the
technique of r a i s i n g aitopucxL found i n the tex t under d i s c u s s i o n and then put-
t i n g forward Auoets w i t h or without reference to previous commentators. 34
The
frequent reference to predecessors i n the process of exegesis and i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n i s another s t r i k i n g p a r a l l e l between P h i l o and P l a t o n i s t commentaries. 35

Yet i n my view the d i f f e r e n c e s between the two are greater than the s i m i -
larities. The P l a t o n i s t commentaries, though c e r t a i n l y not d e a l i n g at equal
length with every part of the t e x t , are more c o n t r o l l e d i n t h e i r exposition.
An attempt i s made to f o l l o w the t r a i n of the argument and to gain a p i c t u r e
of the t r e a t i s e as a whole. P h i l o ' s manner of exegesis i n the Allegorical
Commentary tends to be more e p i s o d i c . 3 6
Each verse of s c r i p t u r e , indeed each
phrase and word, contains so many r i c h e s of thought that P h i l o i s f r e q u e n t l y
drawn i n t o long explanations and d i g r e s s i o n s , accompanied by the c i t a t i o n and
e x p l i c a t i o n of numerous p a r a l l e l t e x t s . Moreover a number of the s p e c i a l i n -
t e r p r e t a t i v e techniques which P h i l o needs to c a l l upon i n order to give the
Pentateuch a p h i l o s o p h i c a l content are s c a r c e l y found i n P l a t o n i s t commentaries.
To begin with a t r i v i a l example, P h i l o ' s technique of e x t r a c t i n g deep spiri-
t u a l thoughts from the c r u d i t i e s of the Septuagint t r a n s l a t i o n i s not used by
the P l a t o n i s t s , f o r the simple reason that P l a t o d i d not w r i t e bad Greek. 37

More important i s the absence of p a r a l l e l s i n P l a t o n i s t commentaries f o r the

method of etymologizing which P h i l o uses to such marked e f f e c t . 3 8
Also the
s y m b o l i c a l , p s y c h o l o g i c a l and e t h i c a l a l l e g o r i z a t i o n which i s P h i l o ' s most
f e r t i l e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e method i n the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary i s r a r e l y employed
 Ill 3.4. 413

by the P l a t o n i s t s . Proclus uses i t e x t e n s i v e l y f o r the opening s e c t i o n of the

Timaeus, 39
but such symbolical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the proemia of the Platonic
dialogues was probably m i s s i n g i n the e a r l i e r Middle P l a t o n i s t commentaries. 40

Again the d i f f e r e n c e between the texts i n t e r p r e t e d accounts to a large extent

for the d i f f e r e n c e i n techniques employed. 41
One special interpretative tech-
nique e x p l o i t e d by both P h i l o and the P l a t o n i s t s i s the science of arithmology.
Both P h i l o i n the De o p i f i c i o mundi and C a l c i d i u s i n h i s commentary on the
Timaeus give a lengthy encomium of the hebdomad, the former prompted by the
seventh day of c r e a t i o n , the l a t t e r by the r o l e of the number seven i n the
s t r u c t u r e of the cosmic s o u l . 4 2
Of a l l P h i l o s works the De o p i f i c i o mundi
f

must s u r e l y bear the most resemblance to a P l a t o n i s t commentary on the Timaeus.

But even here the exegesis of Gen.1-3 does not allow the methodical sentence-
by-sentence, argument-by-argument a n a l y s i s given by the P l a t o n i s t s . We may be
quite c e r t a i n that i f Proclus had chanced on t h i s work, he would have found i t
a perplexin g and unsatisfactory document.

My conclusion i s that the resemblance between P h i l o n i c and P l a t o n i s t com-

mentaries are d i s a p p o i n t i n g and not p a r t i c u l a r l y i n s t r u c t i v e from the histori-
cal point of view. Both undertake to give exegesis of an a u t h o r i t a t i v e text,
with the r e s u l t that c e r t a i n s u p e r f i c i a l resemblances are v i r t u a l l y i n e v i t a b l e .
But the greater part of the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e techniques employed by P h i l o are
adapted to the requirements of B i b l i c a l exegesis and have t h e i r o r i g i n i n the
t r a d i t i o n s of the H e l l e n i s t i c synagogue. 43
These Jewish t r a d i t i o n s were i n i -
t i a l l y much indebted to the innovatory techniques of a l l e g o r y and etymology
developed i n the exegesis of Homer and Hesiod by S t o i c philosophers and other
scholars, 44
but soon (one surmises) proceeded to f o l l o w t h e i r own intuitions.

A f i n a l , most i n t r i g u i n g d i f f e r e n c e between P h i l o n i c and P l a t o n i s t exege-

sis should not remain unobserved. Without exception P h i l o always r e f e r s to
e x e g e t i c a l predecessors and colleagues i n anonymous terms. This is in s h r i l l
contrast to Neoplatonist commentators who, when d i s c u s s i n g an i n t e r p r e t a t i v e
problem, l i k e to r e f e r to the opinion s of a whole l i s t of P l a t o n i s t scholars,
c a r e f u l l y named and u s u a l l y placed i n chronological order. 45
It also contrasts
with the p r a c t i c e s of the Rabbinic exegesis of the Law. The reason D i l l o n
gives for P h i l o s deviation
?
i s f o r t h r i g h t and radical. Properly speaking
P h i l o has no e x e g e t i c a l predecessors whose work was comparable with h i s ; so,
i n order not to be outdone by h i s Greek models, he sets up straw men i n order
to shoot them down. 46
This i s a more d r a s t i c r e j e c t i o n of the theory of P h i l o s 1

dependence on A l e x a n d r i an e x e g e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n s than I consider to be plaus-

ible. 4 7
P o s s i b l y an explanation can be sought i n the unquestionably greater
deference shown by P h i l o (and h i s colleagues) towards the s c r i p t u r a l t e x t , as
compared with the a t t i t u d e of the P l a t o n i s t s to P l a t o 's words. Each of the
414 SYNTHESIS

words of the Mosaic Law i s d i v i n e l y i n s p i r e d . I t i s not the task of the i n -

t e r p r e t e r to present h i s own ideas. Convinced of h i s ou6eveba, he must a t -
tempt to uncover some of the treasures of Moses 1
thought. 48
The r e c o l l e c t i o n
of a 6ua6oxn of i n t e r p r e t e r s serves only to d i s t r a c t the reader from the imme-
d i a t e task at hand, namely to study and observe the Law.

3.5. Is Philo a Middle Platonist?

At a colloque h e l d i n 1969 on the subject of Neoplatonism (and i t s anté-

cédents) a f a s c i n a t i n g v e r b a l exchange took place between two experienced
scholars. A paper had j u s t been presented by Prof.H.Dörrie on the renewal of
Platonism i n the f i r s t Century B.C. In response to a p a r t i c i p a n t , who asked
whether the i n t e r e s t shown by Alexandria n Jews i n P l a t o may have played a rôle
i n the évolution of Platonism, he r e p l i e d : 1

M.DÖRRIE: Une recherche comme c e l l e que j e me suis imposée ne peut se

passer du devoir d'étudier attentivement l e platonisme de P h i l o n . I l est
v r a i que grâce à P h i l o n nous gagnons c e r t a i n s regards sur l e platonisme
de son temps. Mais P h i l o n lui-même n'est aucunement p l a t o n i c i e n : i l em-
p r u n t a i t et à l a Stoa et au platonisme c e r t a i n e s formes de 'savoir s'ex-
primer'. Ce q u ' i l cherche, c'est une harmonie: on peut exprimer les mêmes
résultats théologiques par l e langage de Moïse, par c e l u i des p l a t o n i c i e n s
et p a r f o i s , ce q u i e s t plus r a r e , P h i l o n l e s exprime en p a r l a n t stoïcien.
Mais, quand même, ces formes, dont P h i l o n se s e r t , nous font connaître
que l e s études p l a t o n i c i e n n e s étaient b i e n en vigueur à A l e x a n d r i e pen-
dant l'époque de P h i l o n et à l a génération q u i précède. Voilà l a généra-
t i o n d'Eudore et d'Arius Didyme, et c'est dans c e t t e génération que P h i l o n
a puisé. Et j e s u i s convaincu que l ' o n a développé, dans c e t t e génération
... l a possibilité d'exprimer toutes l e s réflexions philosophiques en
langage p l a t o n i c i e n . Évidemment, c'était un des résultats de c e t t e con-
cordance de P l a t o n : on s a v a i t f a i r e usage de son langage. Malheureuse-
ment, à côté de quelques c i t a t i o n s que l'on peut trouver dans P h i l o n , ce
sont presque exclusivement l e s deux p e t i t s traités que nous a conservés
Sénèque q u i nous enseignent à quel degré l e platonisme s'était développé
dans c e t t e manière que j ' a p p e l l e s c o l a i r e ou s c o l a s t i q u e . P h i l o n nous
enseigné beaucoup sur l e s extérieurs, mais malheureusement trop peu sur
les intérieurs de ce renouveau p l a t o n i c i e n . Parce que, naturellement, l a
théologie exprimée par P h i l o n n'est jamais l a théologie p l a t o n i c i e n n e ,
mais c e l l e de P h i l o n , monothéiste.
Mlle.DE VOGEL: N'est-ce pas trop d i r e que d ' a f f i r m e r que P h i l o n n'était
aucunement p l a t o n i c i e n ? I l est v r a i que l a Stoa l u i donne souvent des
moyens de s'exprimer. Mais au fond j ' y trouve assez de platonisme.
M.DÖRRIE: P h i l o n n'est nullement p l a t o n i c i e n de c o n f e s s i o n . I l peut se
s e r v i r d'expressions p l a t o n i c i e n n e s , i l peut harmoniser c e r t a i n s aspects
de l a théologie de P l a t o n . Mais sa véritable théologie culmine dans un
Dieu personnel e t , de ce p o i nt de vue, i l y a u r a i t un c o n f l i t entre l a
théologie p l a t o n i c i e n n e incompatible avec c e l l e de l ' A n c i e n Testament et
l a théologie de P h i l o n , professant un Dieu personnel , créateur de ce monde.
I l faut toujours t e n i r compte de ces fondements théologiques q u i sont
tellement importants pour P h i l o n .
Mlle.DE VOGEL: I l y a tout de même des choses e s s e n t i e l l e m e n t p l a t o n i c i -
ennes chez P h i l o n . Et p u i s , que s i g n i f i e l ' e x p r e s s i o n : Dieu personnel?
 Ill 3.5. 415

M.DÔRRIE: J'aimerais poser l a question i n v e r s e : s i un théologien catho-

l i q u e moderne v e n a i t à se s e r v i r d'une démonstration qui remonte à C a l v i n ,
s e r a i t - i l c a l v i n i s t e ? Ne f a u t - i l pas d i s t i n g u e r entre platonisme de
'confession' ou s u b s t a n t i e l et platonisme a c c i d e n t e l , s i nombreux s o i e n t ,
dans ce d e r n i e r cas, l e s emprunts.
I have quoted t h i s exchange at such length because i t i l l u s t r a t e s with
a t t r a c t i v e c l a r i t y the complexity of the issue s i n v o l v e d i n reaching a verdict
on the t h e s i s of D i l l o n and Winston that P h i l o i s an 'ardent P l a t o n i s t ' or, i n
the s l i g h t l y weakened form of the same p o s i t i o n , that he i s the f o l l o w e r of
Moses who i s presented as a ' f u l l y - f l e d g e d Middle P l a t o n i s t ' . 2
The r e s u l t s of
our research are c e r t a i n l y impressive. In the areas of theology, cosmology
and anthropology, i . e . that part of philosophy l a r g e l y covered by the Timaeus,
P h i l o ' s debts to the Middle P l a t o n i s t manner of reading Plato are much greater
than to A r i s t o t l e , the Old Academy, and the Stoa, while many of the Aristotel-
i a n and S t o i c ideas which he does present had already been i n t e g r a t e d by the
Middle P l a t o n i s t s i n t o t h e i r d o c t r i n a l system. In s p i t e of the great array of
correspondences and concordances which we have observed, however, I am con-
vinced that an examination of four aspects of the aims, methods and content of
P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s must lead us to the c o n c l u s i o n that P h i l o i s not a Middle
P l a t o n i s t and t h a t , even i f the primacy of h i s d i s c i p l e s h i p of Moses i s recog-
n i z e d , he should not be given that title.

1. Although P h i l o speaks of the 'great P l a t o ' and 'the sage P l a t o ' 3

and
would c e r t a i n l y , i f pressed, have described him as the philosopher among the
Greeks who most n e a r l y approached the t r u t h , he does not a c t u a l l y demonstrate
any p a r t i c u l a r l o y a l t y towards the f i g u r e of P l a t o himself or the doctrines
drawn from P l a t o ' s w r i t i n g s . The reverence and l o y a l t y which the Middle P l a -
t o n i s t s showed towards P l a t o and the s c r i p t a P l a t o n i s P h i l o reserves f o r Moses
and scripture. The value of P l a t o ' s d o c t r i n e s l i e s p r e c i s e l y i n the f a c t that
they e x p l a i n the hidden meaning of so many aspects of the s c r i p t u r a l record.
It might be argued that P h i l o i s d e c e i v i n g h i m s e l f , and, s i n c e Moses has c h i e f -
l y Middle P l a t o n i s t d o c t r i n e s placed i n h i s mouth, the question of loyalties
is irrelevant. This p o s i t i o n , which i s e f f e c t i v e l y that of D i l l o n s t a t e d i n a
more polemical way, 4
c l e a r l y cannot do j u s t i c e to P h i l o ' s i n t e n t i o n s . It also
- and t h i s i s more important - f a i l s to correspond with the phenomenon of h i s
p h i l o s o p h i c a l exegesis of the Mosaic w r i t i n g s .

P h i l o i s e v i d e n t l y convinced t h a t , when expounding Moses' views on the

c r e a t i o n and s t r u c t u r e of the cosmos and man, the w r i t i n g s of P l a t o , and in
p a r t i c u l a r the Timaeus, can help him the most. But t h i s marriage of conveni-
ence does not lead to the r e j e c t i o n of other s u i t a b l e helpmates. I f , i n one
of h i s most important a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l texts Moses speaks of man being
416 SYNTHESIS

'inbreathed 1
with the d i v i n e i v e u u a , P h i l o f e e l s no l o y a l t y towards Platonism
which would lead him to n e g l e c t or r e j e c t t h i s term. The term i s unreservedly
accepted and i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a b a s i c a l l y P l a t o n i c conception of man's dual
s t r u c t u r e i n a manner which, from the viewpoint of Greek philosophy, gives
r i s e to a number of i n t r a c t a b l e c o m p l i c a t i o n s . 5
At one stage i n the course of
t h i s study P h i l o ' s a t t i t u d e towards the d o c t r i n e s of Greek philosophy was la-
b e l l e d as that of an o p p o r t u n i s t . 6
Opportunism i s rendered p o s s i b l e through
the absence of l o y a l t y . In P h i l o ' s case i t i s compensated (and explained) by
his o v e r r i d i n g l o y a l t y towards the l e t t e r and s p i r i t of the books of Moses.

2. A second area i n which P h i l o d i f f e r s from Middle P l a t o n i s t authors

may be describe d as the techniques of p h i l o s o p h i c a l explanation . Although
both are attempting to expound and e x p l a i n the d o c t r i n e s of the 'philosopher'
whose memory and w r i t i n g s they hold i n high honour, when P h i l o ' s explanations
are compared with those of h i s counterparts they are found l a c k i n g i n c l a r i t y
p r e c i s e l y on those i s s u e s where one who was f a m i l i a r with the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e
c o n t r o v e r s i e s i n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools would expect a c l e a r answer. A
number of examples drawn from Middle P l a t o n i s t authors and compared with P h i l o
on the b a s i s of the r e s u l t s of our Commentary w i l l s u i t a b l y i l l u s t r a t e what we
mean.

(a) In chapters 5-7 of h i s t r e a t i s e De animae p r o c r e a t i o n e i n Timaeo

(1014A-1015F) P l u t a r c h gives a d e t a i l e d e ^ n y n a L S 7
of what he regards to be the
d t a v o t a of P l a t o i n d e s c r i b i n g the cosmos as yevnxos. 8
This passage can pro-
f i t a b l y be compared with the opening part of the De o p i f i c i o mundi ( e s p e c i a l l y
§7-12,21-22,26-28), which i s so h e a v i l y r e l i a n t on the Timaeus. Numerous sim-
i l a r i t i e s between P l u t a r c h and P h i l o immediately s t r i k e the eye: the p r o b a b i l -
i s t i c nature of the exegesis (1014A), 9
the t h e i s t i c emphasis (1014A, cf.1013
E), 10
the q u o t a t i on of Tim.29a5-6 i n 1014A, the use of the terms uAn
U
and ou-
oua, 1 2
the imagery i n 1014B, 13
and so on. E s p e c i a l l y the language used by P l u -
t a r c h to d e s c r i b e the t r a n s i t i o n from d i s o r d e r to order, based on Tim.30a, r e -
minds us of P h i l o . 1 4
But i t i s the d i f f e r e n c e s between the two authors which
must now be accentuated.

( i ) P l u t a r c h presents himself as a d i r e c t i n t e r p r e t e r of P l a t o ' s words. He

thus e x p l i c i t l y confronts the text of Timaeus and attempts to i n t e g r a t e i t
with a l a r g e number of other P l a t o n i c t e x t s . He does not vouch f o r the a b s o l -
ute t r u t h of h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , but considers i t probable. As a convinced
P l a t o n i s t he regards Plato's opinion ( c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d ) as h i s own opin-
ion. 1 5
In P h i l o , however, the t r i a n g u l a r r e l a t i o n between Moses, P l a t o and the
exegete i s much l e s s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . To be sure, Moses' o p i n i o n i s P h i l o ' s
o p i n i o n , but he needs the help of P l a to to e s t a b l i s h i t .

( i i ) P l u t a r c h makes i t a b s o l u t e l y c l e a r that the p r e - e x i s t e n t matter i s not

 Ill 3.5. 417

created by the demiurge but l i e s at h i s d i s p o s i t i o n . One cannot speak of com-

ing i n t o being en xou yn ovxos but en xou ur) xaA&s. . . exovxos (1014B). Thus a
c r e a t i o ex n i h i l o i s e x p l i c i t l y rejected. Contrast P h i l o , who nowhere explains
the o r i g i n of the ououa introduced i n Opif.9,21. 16

( i i i ) P l u t a r c h i s concerned about the p h i l o s o p h i c a l problem of what causes the

disharmonious motion of the pre-cosmic chaos and i s led to p o s t u l a t e h i s theory
of a pre-cosmic i r r a t i o n a l s o u l . The dxooyta of Tim.30a i s oux dowyaxos ou6'
dt|;Uxos (1014B). Again P l u t a r c h i s e x p l i c i t , whereas i n P h i l o ' s case we are
f o r c e d to speculate on whether he took these p h i l o s o p h i c a l problematics into
cons i d e r a t i o n . 1 7

I t cannot be denied t h a t , i n the d i r e c t c o n f r o n t a t i o n with P l a t o ' s t e x t ,

P l u t a r c h r e v e a l s a greater l u c i d i t y and a greater f a c i l i t y i n d e a l i n g with
p h i l o s o p h i c a l problems than i s found i n P h i l o ' s Mosaic exegesis. It i s f a s c i -
n a t i n g to observe, however, that on the question of the status of matter P l u -
t a r c h shows a lack of c l a r i t y comparable to that found i n P h i l o . Both a l t e r -
nate between c o n c e i v i n g matter as a primal q u a l i t y l e s s substrate and as a d i s -
orderly pre-existent substance with c e r t a i n ( l a r g e l y negative) q u a l i t i e s . 1 8

The problem i s caused by the confluence of P l a t o n i c , A r i s t o t e l i a n and Stoic

t h e o r i e s on 'matter', and the f a c t that one so w e l l versed i n the h i s t o r y of
philosophy as P l u t a r c h got himself tangled up on t h i s i s s u e p o i n t s to funda-
mental d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the Middle P l a t o n i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of P l a t o .

(b) I t l i e s i n the nature of P l u t a r c h ' s s o l u t i o n to the problems r a i s e d

by Tim.30a which we have j u s t discussed that there can be no doubt that he
conceives the process of c r e a t i o n as t a k i n g place as an a c t u a l e v e n t . 19
Be-
cause P h i l o avoids the P l a t o n i c conception of the cosmic s o u l , and thus cannot
e n t e r t a i n the p o s s i b i l i t y of that s o u l l e a d i n g an i r r a t i o n a l existence before
c r e a t i o n occurs, the c l a r i t y of the Plutarchean i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s denied him. 20

I t i s a l s o i n s t r u c t i v e to compare P h i l o ' s manner of d e a l i n g with t h i s

standard problem with that of Albinus i n the D i d a s k a l i k o s . The lengthy ac-
count of xd cpuotxd of P l a t o (§12-26) i s almost e n t i r e l y based on the Timaeus,
as i s much of h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n of the three dpxat (§8-11). Thus, i n d e s c r i b i n g
the coming i n t o being of the cosmos (§12.1-2), Albinus does not h e s i t a t e to
f o l l o w the well-known formula of Tim.30a. A few pages f u r t h e r on, however, he
makes sure that h i s reader understands what- i s meant by the f a c t that the cos-
mos i s described as yevnxos (§14.3, cf.10.3) :

oxav be el'itr^ yevnxov euvau x o v xooyov, oux ouxws dxouaxeov auxou, ws

ovxos iox£ xpovou, ev $ oux ?iv xooyos* dAAd 6uoxu aei ev yeveoet eoxi, nai
eycpauveu xns a u x o u U T i o o x d o e w g dpxbxwxepov x u a l ' x u o v nai ir)v (Jjuxnv be aei
ouoav xou xooyou ovxi n o t e u o $eds, dAAd xaxaxooyeu...

Although an attempt i s made to i n c o r p o r a t e the d o c t r i n e of the o r d e r i n g of the

i r r a t i o n a l cosmic s o u l , i t i s at the same time made c l e a r that 'created' means
418 SYNTHESIS

e t e r n a l l y subject to becoming and dependent on a higher cause, i . e . that the

cosmogony i s not meant as a c t u a l l y having taken p l a c e . 2 1
Once again t h i s clar-
i t y i s p r e c i s e l y what we miss i n P h i l o ' s commentary on the Mosaic cosmogony,
both i n h i s polemic against the proponents of the d o c t r i n e that the cosmos i s
dyevnxos xe nai at6uos (§7-10) and h i s exegesis of the ev apxri i n Gen.1:1
(§26-28). 22
But when P h i l o has to e x p l a i n Plato's o p i n i o n on the yeveats xou
Koopou i n the philosophical t r e a t i s e Aet.13-16, the p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues i n -
volved do come i n t o c l e a r e r focus. 23

(c) F o r a t h i r d example we move on to the d i v i s i o n of the c r e a t i v e task

as introduced by P l a t o i n Tim.41-42. A l b i n u s , as usual f o l l o w i n g the Timaeus
very c l o s e l y , d e s c r i b e s how the demiurge delegates part of the work of c r e a -
t i o n to h i s exyovot %eot and how they creat e man's body and the mortal parts
of the s o u l . 2 4
Timaeus Locrus i s f r e e r i n h i s v e r s i o n of P l a t o ' s account. The
l e s s e r c r e a t i v e tasks are handed over to the cpuous aAXouwxtKa, which only cre-
ates man's body and the mortal genera. Man's soul i s e n t i r e l y created by God * 25

The straightforward c l a r i t y of these i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from

the f i v e passages i n which P h i l o u t i l i z e s t h i s P l a t o n i c m o t i f , f o r he does not
r e v e a l p r e c i s e l y who the subordinates are and i n three of the f i v e passages
does not make at a l l c l e a r what part of the s o u l i s not created by God ( f o r
P h i l o , i n o p p o s i t i o n to P l a t o , man's body i s created by God, c f . Gen.2:7). 26

(d) In f a i r n e s s t o P h i l o these examples should not be brought to an end

without the mention of a P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e which P h i l o ' s methods allow him to
d e a l wit h b e t t e r than h i s Middle P l a t o n i s t counterparts. In h i s A l l e g o r y of
the soul P h i l o manages to e x p l o i t the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of the a l l e g o r i c a l method
to such purpose that he i s able to capture much of the t e n s i o n which Plato so
s k i l f u l l y b u i l d s up i n h i s accounts of the s t r u g g l e of the s o u l i n the Phaedrus
myth and the R e p u b l i c . 27
The P l a t o n i s t s would doubtless have found P h i l o ' s
allegories intolerably exotic. Nevertheless i t must be admitted that h i s
a l l e g o r i z a t i o n of the B i b l i c a l s t o r i e s i s more e f f e c t i v e i n i l l u s t r a t i n g the
soul's s t r u g g l e than the quotations from Greek tragedy and Homer which Middle
P l a t o n i s t authors used i n t h e i r dry s c h o l a s t i c manuals and academic t r e a t i s e s . 2 8

For students of ancient philosophy the lack of c l a r i t y shown by P h i l o i n

the f i r s t three examples above i s p e r p l e x i n g , or even f r u s t r a t i n g . This was
the k i n d of experience that l e d scholars i n the past to conclude that P h i l o
was a confused t h i n k e r , a dabbler or d i l e t t a n t e who was unable to understand
the p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues discusse d i n the books he r e a d . 29
Yet i t seems q u i t e
beyond b e l i e f that someone, who possessed the intimate knowledge of the Timaeus
which we have seen P h i l o to have had, should be stumped by the r e l a t i v e l y
straightforward p h i l o s o p h i c a l problems r a i s e d i n the examples that were d i s -
cussed above. The only s o l u t i o n f o r t h i s b a f f l i n g s t a t e of a f f a i r s i s to
 Ill 3.5. 419

recognize the f a c t that P h i l o sees i t as h i s task to e x p l a i n the words of

Moses and that he chooses to adhere rather closely to the l e t t e r of the Mosaic
text. The r e s u l t i s that c e r t a i n systematic i n t e r p r e t a t i v e questions , which
must be confronted by every reader of the Timaeus, do not r e c e i v e a c l e a r an-
swer when P l a t o s d o c t r i n e s are transposed i n t o the context
1
of s c r i p t u r a l exe-
gesis. In Opif.72-75 P h i l o does not t a l k of the i r r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l ,
because i t i s mentioned by Moses n e i t h e r i n Gen.1:26-27 nor i n Gen.2:7. Yet
i t s existence i s c l e a r l y implied by P h i l o ' s exegesis. Already i n Opif.79 the
ïïàdn of the i r r a t i o n a l soul are recounted, and i n Leg. 1 .70-73 the exegesis of
Gen.2:10-14 leads to a d e t a i l e d exposé of the P l a t o n i c t r i p a r t i t i o n of the
i 30
soul...
3. I t was observed e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter that i n the matter of doc t r i n e
the p h i l o s o p h i c a l m a t e r i a l which P h i l o d e r i v es from P l a t o , and in particular
from the Timaeus, forms the backbone of the ideas which, v i a h i s p r o b a b i l i s t i c
method of exegesis, are read i n t o the words of Moses. I t must not be thought,
however, that P h i l o shows the tendency to f o l l o w s l a v i s h l y the d i c t a t e s of the
P l a t o n i s t sources and the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s they o f f e r e d . Right throughout our
d i s c u s s i o n s of P h i l o s"thought we have come across
1
instances of independence
of mind and d o c t r i n a l divergence i n r e l a t i o n to both P l a t o n i c t e x t and Plato-
nist interpretation. The following l i s t gives examples that range from the
h i g h l y consequential to the q u i t e t r i v i a l ( i n brackets references are given to
the d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n s ) .

the r e f u s a l to accept the d o c t r i n e of two or three p r i n c i p i a ( I I 2.3.3.

Ill 2.8.)
the a s s o c i a t i o n of the c r e a t o r ' s goodness with the d o c t r i n e of grace ( I I
3.1.1. I l l 2.6.)
the d e l i b e r a t e avoidance of the concept of the cosmic s o u l , and to a l e s -
ser extent of the body of the cosmos ( I I 4.2.8. 5.1.1-3. I l l 2.7.)
the r e f u s a l to give m y t h o l o g i c al names to the planets ( I I 5.2.1.)
the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the l i v e r ' s r o l e i n dreams, prophecy and mantic
(II 9.2.4.)
the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of the notions of itveuya and blood-soul i n the psychol-
ogy of man ( I I 10.1.2. 10.1.5. I l l 2.12.)
the h e s i t a t i o n with regard to the d i v i n i z a t i o n of man's r a t i o n a l part (II
10.1 .4. I l l 2.12.)
the r e j e c t i o n of the theory of metempsychosis and i t s replacement with
a l l e g o r i c a l explanation ( I I 10.2.2.)
A more d e t a i l e d example i s r e q u i r e d , however, to i l l u s t r a t e adequately the
complexity of the r e l a t i o n between P h i l o ' s independence of mind and the great
debts he i n c u r r e d to the P l a t o n i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Timaeus. For the
l a s t time, t h e r e f o r e , we r e t u r n to the very hub of P h i l o ' s thought, the doc-
t r i n e of God and h i s c r e a t o r s h i p of the cosmos. I propose to compare P h i l o ' s
420 SYNTHESIS

p h i l o s o p h i c a l excursus on the 'creation 1

of the xoopos VOTITOS on May one 1

(Opif.16-25) with the most complete and systematic Middle P l a t o n i s t e x p o s i t i o n

of the d o c t r i n e of God which we possess, that found i n the D i d a s k a l i k o s of A l -
ls i n u s . 3 1

A l b i n u s ' account, though not without i t s d i f f i c u l t i e s and p o i n t s of ob-

s c u r i t y , can be summarized as f o l l o w s . Superior to soul i s nous, and superior
to p o t e n t i a l nous i s nous i n a c t u a l i t y . Higher than t h i s nous (the vous T O U
oupiavTos oupavou) i s the f i r s t god, who i s cause of the nous f
actuality. The
f i r s t god, as highest vous, i s unmoved, but moves the cosmic nous through be-
ing the object of d e s i r e (§10.-2). 32
Always i n a s t a t e of a c t u a l i t y , the first
god r e f l e c t s on h i s own thoughts; h i s a c t u a l i t y i s thus the Idea. He i s eter-
nal, i n e f f a b l e , the summit of a l l p e r f e c t i o n s . Being good, he i s the source
of a l l goodness. He i s Father inasmuch as he i s the cause of a l l t h i n g s . It
being h i s wish (3ouAnous) that a l l things should be f i l l e d w i t h h i m s e l f , he
orders the cosmic mind and the cosmic soul by l o o k i n g to himself and h i s own
thoughts. The cosmic mind, ordered by the highest god, i n turn b r i n gs to order
(6taxoopeC) the whole of nature i n the cosmos (§10.3). In §12 Albinus proceeds
to recount the act of c r e a t i o n , adhering c l o s e l y to the l e t t e r of the Timaeus.
Where then must the f i g u r e of the P l a t o n i c demiurge be placed i n the t h e o l o g i -
cal account j u s t summarized? P l a t o must be r e c o n c i l e d with A r i s t o t l e , a d i f -
f i c u l t operation! From §14.3 i t emerges, a l b e i t not at a l l c l e a r l y , that P l a -
to's demiurge i s s p l i t i n two. The highest god represents the demiurge as
cause of c r e a t i o n and Father (and a l s o , i n the p o s t - P l a t o n i c development, as
t h i n k e r of the i d e a s ) . But h i s c r e a t i v e a c t i v i t y i s l i m i t e d to r a i s i n g the
cosmic s o u l from sleep and o r d e r i n g i t s nous ( i . e . the cosmic nous), so that
the nous r e c e i v e s the i d e a s , by means of which the 6uaxoopr|Obs of the cosmos
can occur. Thus the demiurgic ' d i r t y work' of c r e a t i o n , performed i n the Tim-
aeus by the demiurge, i s c a r r i e d out by the cosmic nous i n A l b i n u s ' i n t e r p r e -
tation. The transcendence of the f i r s t god, so s t r o n g l y s t r e s s e d i n the theo-
l o g i c a l s e c t i o n , i s preserved. The n o n - l i t e r a l reading of cosmogony, encour-
aging the d o c t r i n e of c r e a t i o aeterna, allows consistency with the a f f i r m a t i o n
of the f i r s t god's immutability i n §10.7. 33

Let us now adduce the P h i l o n i c p r e s e n t a t i o n , looking both at the image

which P h i l o employs and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to the act of c r e a t i o n . The king
(God), who does not concern himself with the c r e a t i v e process but s u p p l i e s the
' c o n d i t i o n s ' under which i t can take p l a c e , c l e a r l y possesses the transcend-
ence which Albinus so d i l i g e n t l y a t t r i b u t e s to h i s f i r s t god. The a r c h i t e c t
( a l s o God) forms a plan of the c i t y to be b u i l t i n h i s mind (Logos). Trans-
f e r r e d to the c r e a t i o n of the cosmos, that p l a n i s the xoopos vonxos, used as
a model so that God can execute h i s plan and b r i n g the xoopos aLodnios to
 Ill 3.5. 421

completion ( v i a the Logos as instrument of c r e a t i o n ) . Another way of d e s c r i b -

ing the same process i s to say that God's c r e a t i v e power, having the truly
good ( i . e . God) as i t s source, converts the d i s o r d e r of p r e - e x i s t e n t matter to
the order and harmony c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the model. Here c o r r e l a t i o n with A l -
binus 1
scheme i s l e s s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . 34
The a c t i v i t y of the a r c h i t e c t must be
seen as t a k i n g place on the l e v e l of the cosmic nous and cosmic soul i n A l b i n -
us. These e n t i t i e s , however, are q u i t e f o r e i g n to P h i l o ' s account, which ad-
heres much more c l o s e l y to the scheme of the Timaeus (also followed by Albinus
i n §12). One might say that the 'formation 1
of the model by God and the exe-
c u t i o n of the c r e a t i v e act take place on the level (or l e v e l s 3 5
) of the d i v i n e
Logos or the d i v i n e powers, so that A l b i n u s ' cosmic nous and cosmic soul (who
together amount to a second g o d ) are l o o s e l y equivalent to the P h i l o n i c Logos,
3 6

A f i r s t r e s u l t of the above comparison i s that i t r e i n f o r c e s the conclu-

s i o n that P h i l o ' s understanding of the d o c t r i n e of c r e a t i o n , read i n t o the Mo-
s a i c cosmogony v i a u t i l i z a t i o n of P l a t o ' s Timaeus, i s s t r o n g l y indebted to
Middle P l a t o n i s t p h i l o s o p h i c a l s y s t e m a t i z a t i o n of that same d i a l o g u e . At the
same time i t has appeared that P h i l o does not u n t h i n k i n g l y take over a l l the
features of the Middle P l a t o n i s t d o c t r i n e . On at l e a s t three c e n t r a l issues
he shows an independence of mind i n r e l a t i o n to h i s source m a t e r i a l .
(a) The p o s t u l a t i o n of two gods, a supra-cosmic nous and a cosmic nous, i s not
acceptable to P h i l o . God as k i n g i s God; God as a r c h i t e c t i s a l s o God, though
operating at the l e v e l of the Logos. I t i s God, not h i s Logos, who creates.
God and h i s Logos are c o n c e p t u a l l y , but not a c t u a l l y s e p a r a b l e . 37
Albinus
could rescue the P l a t o n i c demiurge by d i v i d i n g him i n two. P h i l o sees i n P l a -
to's demiurge an i n t i m a t i o n of God's c r e a t o r s h i p and accepts the paradox of
the transcendence and immanence that must together be accorded to the one God.

(b) P h i l o ' s placement of the. (transcendent) ideas as cosmic paradigm i n God's

Logos would have seemed strange to Albinus (who speaks of a cosmic nous), f o r
the Middle P l a t o n i s t s , i f they use the term logos at a l l , find i t suitable for
the immanent d i r e c t i v e a c t i v i t y of the cosmic s o u l . 3 8
P h i l o does not introduce
the d i v i n e Logos i n h i s exegesis under the i n f l u e n c e of the Stoa - why should
he? — but as a response to the words 'and God s a i d ' of the Mosaic text and
a l s o (I suspect) as a concession to Jewish s p e c u l a t i o n on God's Wisdom. 39

(c) P h i l o i s not prepared, l i k e A l b i n u s , to put forward the d o c t r i n e of c r e -

a t i o aeterna i n order to safeguard God's immutability and transcendence, f o r
t h i s d o c t r i n e endangers the c o n v i c t i o n of God's immeasurable s u p e r i o r i t y and
of the need f o r h i s p r o v i d e n t i a l c a r e . 40
On t h i s i s s u e P h i l o stands c l o s e r to
Middle P l a t o n i s t s such as P l u t a r c h and A t t i c u s , but these men place less em-
phasis on God's transcendence than he does. 41

The c o n c l u s i o n that must be drawn from the above comparison i s an impor-

422 SYNTHESIS

tantone. The independence of mind which P h i l o shows i n regard to the d o c t r i n e s

of God and c r e a t i o n means that he cannot be i d e n t i f i e d with any particular
group or main type of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n or system among the contemporary f o l l o w -
ers of P l a t o . A model which analyses Middle Platonism i n terms of a p o l a r i t y
Nous(transcendent)-theology or Logos(immanent)-religion 42
i s c e r t a i n l y relevant
to P h i l o , but he cannot be captured w i t h i n i t s framework, f o r he d e c l i n e s the
a n t i t h e s i s and i n s i s t s on both God's transcendence and immanence at the same
time. Another p o s s i b l e d i v i s i o n of the d o c t r i n a l p o s i t i o n s of the Middle P l a -
t o n i s t s i s f o u r - f o l d : ( i ) a naive S t o i c i z i n g reading of the Timaeus (apud Dio-
genes L a e r t i u s ) ; ( i i ) a l i t e r a l reading of the Timaean cosmogony, i n which the
demiurge b r i n g s an i r r a t i o n a l cosmic s o u l to order and reason (Plutarch, A t t i -
cus); ( i i i ) a n o n - l i t e r a l . r e a d i n g of the Timaean cosmogony i n terms of two
gods ( A l b i n u s , A p u l e i u s , Taurus?); ( i v ) a n o n - l i t e r a l reading of the Timaean
cosmogony i n r e l a t i o n to a d i v i n e h i e r a r c h y of three gods (Numenius, and later
Plotinus), 4 3
I t i s by now c l e a r that i n s p i t e of the manifold and manifest
s i m i l a r i t i e s between P h i l o ' s views and the v a r i o u s f e a t u r e s of these p o s i t i o n s ,
none of them correspond as a whole to the way that P h i l o i n t e r p r e t s the Mosaic
account of c r e a t i o n i n terms of P l a t o ' s Timaeus.

4. The f o u r t h and f i n a l aspect i n which P h i l o d i f f e r s from the Middle

P l a t o n i s t s l i e s i n the d i r e c t i o n of his i n t e r e s t s . His primary aim i s to ex-
pound and e x p l a i n the Mosaic s c r i p t u r a l r e c o r d , and i n plumbing i t s hidden
depths of s p i r i t u a l meaning he f e e l s he cannot do without the a s s i s t a n c e of
the d o c t r i n e s of Greek philosophy, and e s p e c i a l l y of Platonism. But t h i s pri-
mary aim leads to a d i f f e r e n t set of p r i o r i t i e s than we f i n d among the Middle
Platonists. P h i l o c l e a r l y shows l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n the t e c h n i c a l aspects of
philosophy, which are present f o r example i n the epistemology and logic incor-
porated by the Middle P l a t o n i s t s i n t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n of P l a t o n i c p h i l o s o p h y . 44

The r e s u l t s of t h i s avoidance of t e c h n i c a l i t y are v i s i b l e i n h i s use of the

Timaeus. No attempt i s made to e x p l a i n or e x p l o i t the technical aspects of
d o c t r i n e s such as the ávotÁoyúa of the elements, the components and harmonics
of the cosmic s o u l , the demonstration of the r a t i o n a l i t y of the heavenly move-
ments, the nature of the r e c e p t a c l e and the kind of knowledge that we can
have of i t , the mathematical c o n f i g u r a t i o n s of the elemental b o d i e s . 45
A par-
t i a l exception must be made f o r the a r i t h m o l o g i c a l passages, the only aspect
of P h i l o ' s exegesis which encourages p e n e t r a t i o n i n t o the above-mentioned
t e c h n i c a l d e t a i l s of the Timaeus. 46
The tendency of the Middle P l a t o n i s t s to
t e s t or demonstrate the l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y of t h e i r d o c t r i n e s (e.g. proofs of
the e x i s t e n c e of the ideas or of the immortality of the s o u l 4 7
) i s almost ne-
ver found i n P h i l o ; he tends to accept these d o c t r i n e s as proven inasmuch as
Moses (and P l a t o ) has a f f i r m e d them. 48
 Ill 3.5. 423

Another f e a t u re of the Middle P l a t o n i s t treatment of P l a t o ' s thought i s

l a c k i n g i n P h i l o , namely t h e i r e f f o r t s to compress the d o c t r i n e s i n t o a com-
pact systematic framework based on the t r i p a r t i t i o n of Ethics-Physics-Logic. * 1 9

Once P h i l o presents a 'creed* of the f i v e Mosaic d o c t r i n e s requisite for a

blessed life. 5 0
But the attempt to d e l i n e a t e an 'Eiutopf] MwuoauHwv doypaxwv
l i e s f a r from h i s i n t e n t i o n s , f o r i t would only d i s t r a c t the reader from plum-
bing the depths of the s c r i p t u r a l text. Also e n t i r e l y absent i n P h i l o ' s writ-
ings i s the i n t e r - s c h o o l d i s c u s s i o n and polemic which marks the Middle Platon-
ist scholastic writings. 5 1
In h i s a l l e g o r i e s he evokes opponents - such as the
Chaldeans and the champions of the mind and senses - whose d o c t r i n e s the d i -
s c i p l e of Moses must oppose. 52
But these opponents almost always remain anony-
mous and d i f f i c u l t to i d e n t i f y ; 5 3
they do not represent s p e c i f i c philosopher s
or academic d i s p u t a n t s , but generalized p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s of the tendencies of
the wayward or ungodly human mind.

The p r o t r e p t i c element i s strong i n P h i l o , l y i n g j u s t under the surface

of v i r t u a l l y every sentence he wrote. I t i s l e s s obvious i n the Middle P l a t o -
n i s t w r i t i n g s , but even through t h e i r dry s c h o l a s t i c e x t e r i o r the tug of the
3^os cptXooocpos can be keenly f e l t . 5 4
For both P h i l o and the P l a t o n i s t s the
p r o t r e p t i c t e x t s , Tim.47a-c and 90a-d, play a r o l e o f c e n t r a l importance. 55
But
the 'philosophy' to which P h i l o exhorts h i s readers has, i f regarded from the
P l a t o n i s t viewpoint, a surplus element. I t i s based on r e c o g n i t i o n of the
s u p e r i o r i t y of the nomothete Moses. It involves the c o n t i n u a l study and ob-
servance of the Law, f o r which P h i l o claims u n i v e r s a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , even though
at present i t i s l i m i t e d to the Jews. 56
Of t h i s surplus element the Middle
P l a t o n i s t philosopher s were e n t i r e l y o b l i v i o u s . 5 7

It i s time now to reach a balanced judgment on the Platonism that can be

a t t r i b u t e d to P h i l o on the b a s i s of h i s use of the Timaeus. The profound i n -
fluence of P l a t o ' s w r i t i n g s and t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t r a d i t i o n must be recog-
n i z e d f o r what i t i s , a p i l l a r of P h i l o ' s thought which, i f removed, would
cause the whole e d i f i c e to t o t t e r and collapse. There can be no questio n of
our supporting the view of Weiss that i t i s only a matter of t a s t e whether one
c a l l s P h i l o a S t o i c i z i n g P l a t o n i s t or a P l a t o n i z i n g S t o i c . 5 8
In the areas of
theology, cosmology and anthropology the l i g h t that shines f o r t h from P l a t o
casts S t o i c d o c t r i n e i n t o the shadows. No work of Zeno, Chrysippus or Posi-
donius can compete with the Timaeus.

Nevertheless i t was necessary to proceed a step f u r t h e r . The four as-

pects of P h i l o ' s r e l a t i o n to Middle P l a t o n i s t philosopher s which we reviewed
led to a c o n f i r m a t i o n of D o r r i e ' s v e r d i c t , c i t e d at the beginning of t h i s sec-
t i o n , that P h i l o was not a Platonist. U n f o r t u n a t e l y the reasons the German
424 SYNTHESIS

scholar gives f o r h i s o p i n i o n are l e s s c o n v i n c i ng than the o p i n i o n itself. It

i s unhelpful to juxtapose P h i l o n i c monotheism and Middle P l a t o n i s t theology as
i f these are i n P h i l o ' s case mutually e x c l u s i v e . De Vogel was e n t i r e l y cor-
r e c t i n s t r e s s i n g P h i l o ' s debt to Platonism i n h i s theology. Nor can we say
with Dorrie that P h i l o i s seeking a 'harmonization' between Moses, P l a t o , and
to a much l e s s e r extent the Stoa, as i f the d o c t r i n e s of these three are on
the same l e v e l . The reason that P h i l o i s not a Middle P l a t o n i s t i s , to use a
modern idiom, because he i s doing his own thing. He sees h i s task as g i v i n g a
philosophically orientated exegesis of the words of Moses, and f o r t h i s under-
taking the d o c t r i n es of P l a t o , and i n p a r t i c u l a r of the Timaeus, are an i n d i s -
pensable a i d .

I t ensues t h e r e f o r e that, though D i l l o n ' s t h e s i s that P h i l o i s a Middle

P l a t o n i s t i s i n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s unconvincing, i t i s f a r l e s s easy to reach
a v e r d i c t on h i s view that P h i l o should not be considered an e c l e c t i c who
picked up terminology, formulas and snippets of d o c t r i n e from the d i v e r s e phi-
losophical schools. 59
C e r t a i n l y , i f we define e c l e c t i c i s m as the gathering of
a bouquet of f l o w e r s, i n accordance w i t h the method of the mysterious Potamon
of A l e x a n d r i a , 60
then P h i l o should not be c a l l e d an e c l e c t i c . There i s c l e a r l y
a consistent r a t i o n a l e behind h i s procedure. I t resembles the procedure of
the Middle P l a t o n i s t s , but i s not wholly the same. For P h i l o i s explaining
the words of Moses and owes no p a r t i c u l a r l o y a l t y to the teachings of Plato.
I f an A r i s t o t e l i a n or S t o i c d o c t r i n e i s u s e f u l i n i l l u m i n a t i n g the intentions
of Moses he w i l l not r e j e c t i t simply because i t i s not Platonic. The reason
he turns so o f t e n to the d o c t r i n e s of P l a t o as i n t e r p r e t e d and presented by
the Middle P l a t o n i s t s i s , as we have emphasized e a r l i e r i n t h i s s e c t i o n , that
he considers t h e i r d o c t r i n e to be the most 'Mosaic' of Greek p h i l o s o p h i e s and
so the most congenial to h i s e x e g e t i x a l task. Thus whether one wishes to call
P h i l o an ' e c l e c t i c ' or not depends p r i m a r i l y on what one takes that (usuall y
pejorative) epithet to mean. P h i l o ' s aim and procedure are c e r t a i n l y c l e a r
enough. We s h a l l have o c c a s i o n to devote a few more words to the subject in
the f i n a l Part of t h i s study.
 PART FOUR

CONCLUSION
CHAPTER ONE

PHILO AND PLATO'S TIMAEUS

^ n e
Timaeus casts a long shadow over the w r i t i n g s of P h i l o . To trac e the
o u t l i n e of t h i s shadow has been the task of our study. In the process i t has
proved p o s s i b l e to e l u c i d a t e d i v e r s e and important aspects of P h i l o ' s methods
and thought. By way of c o n c l u s i o n I r e t u r n now to two features of P h i l o ' s use
of the Timaeus which i n my view are p a r t i c u l a r l y deserving of emphasis. These
remarks serve as a prelude to the more general considerations on the nature of
P h i l o ' s achievement which w i l l occupy us i n the remainder of t h i s concluding
part of the study.
A c a r e f u l examination of the Corpus Philonicum - e s p e c i a l l y the De opi-
f i c i o mundi and Legum a l l e g o r i a e , but a l s o numerous passages i n other works -
has revealed how deeply f a s c i n a t e d P h i l o was by the p a r a l l e l s which, i n v i r t u e
of h i s hermeneutical assumptions and e x e g e t i c a l methods, he could discove r be-
tween the P l a t o n i c cosmogony and the Mosaic account of c r e a t i o n . The title of
Moses' f i r s t book i s already profoundly suggestive. The nomothete immediately
draws a t t e n t i o n i n the most emphatic way to the chasm that separates God's
e t e r n a l being from the realm of becoming to which created r e a l i t y belongs.
Just l i k e P l a t o , Moses i s concerned that the cosmos be recognized as yevriTOS. 1

For d i d a c t i c purposes both Moses and Plato describe the c r e a t i o n a l process by

means of a sequence of creation, which introduces the reader to the h i e r a r c h i -
c a l s t r u c t u r e of the cosmos and i t s inhabitants. The sublime l u c i d i t y of the
Mosaic schema of the seven days of c r e a t i o n i s not employed by P l a t o , but the
remarkable p a r a l l e l s between the c r e a t i o n a l sequences are impressive enough. 2

Both reach t h e i r climax i n the account of the c r e a t i o n of man. In both ac-

counts one must d i s t i n g u i s h between the structure that man r e c e i v e s and the
dynamics that are consequent upon the composite nature of that structure. 3

A l l e g o r i z a t i o n of the story of Adam and Eve i n paradise allows t h i s theme of

s t r u g g l e i n the soul - p a r a l l e l to the descent of the soul i n t o the body i n
t n e
Timaeus - to be t r e a t e d i n exhaustive and exciting detail. Doctrinal
426 CONCLUSION

p a r a l l e l s between Moses and P l a t o P h i l o a l s o saw with h i s keen i n t e r p r e t e r ' s

eye - the d o c t r i n e of a c r e a t o r God as noun-rns xaù Tiaxrip, the d o c t r i n e of the
xoopos vorixos as model f o r the c r e a t i o n , God's use of a s s i s t a n t s i n h i s c r e a -
t i v e task, and so on.
I am persuaded that the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s profound p a r a l l e l i s m f o r
P h i l o was not j u s t confined to the e x e g e t i c a l e x p l o i t a t i o n which i t i n v i t e d .
It s u r e l y gave him d e c i s i v e support i n h i s c o n v i c t i o n that the attempt to give
exegesis of Moses with the a i d of c a t e g o r i es and d o c t r i n e s from the Greek p h i -
losophers was on the r i g h t t r a c k . The s i m i l a r i t i e s between the Mosaic s c r i p -
t u r a l record and the 'Platonists' Bible' 4
could not reasonably be a s c r i b e d to
the realm of chance. As was a l s o l a t e r the case i n the w r i t i n g s of the C h r i s -
t i a n a p o l o g i s t s and Church f a t h e r s , 5
the Timaeus was a trump card f o r the view
that s c r i p t u r e and Greek philosophy were not in irreconcilable conflict.

The second f e a t u re of P h i l o ' s use of the Timaeus that I wish to emphasize

follows on from the f i r s t . P h i l o i s very much struck by the f a c t that Moses
commences h i s l e g i s l a t i o n with the account of the c r e a t i o n of the universe.
The purpose of t h i s 'most admirable beginning' i s to demonstrate that God the
f a t h e r and maker of the cosmos i s i t s true nomothete, and that the man who ob-
serves the Law l i v e s i n harmony with the d i s p o s i t i o n of the u n i v e r s e . 6
What,
then, are the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s commencement f o r the deeper s p i r i t u a l mean-
ing of s c r i p t u r e , the 'psychic' aspect of the sacred w r i t i n g s which the Thera-
peutae so e a r n e s t l y sought to uncover and b r i n g to v i e w ? 7
This question should,
I submit, be r e l a t e d to the i n c r e a s i n g r e c o g n i t i o n by P h i l o n i c scholars that
the f o c a l point of P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s c r i p t u r e i s l o c a t e d i n the theme
of m i g r a t i o n . Arguing against Volker's a s s e r t i o n that P h i l o ' s 'Gedankenwelt'
lacks a 'beherrschende M i t t e ' , Nikiprowetzky i n d i c a t e s the breadth and rich-
ness of t h i s theme: 8

Ce c e n t r e , l a pensée de P h i l o n nous paraît précisément en être pourvue.

Cette constante est l e thème, inspiré de P l a t o n , de l a M i g r a t i o n . La
M i g r a t i o n est l'itinéraire s p i r i t u e l q ui conduit l'âme du sage i n d i v i d u e l
ou l e peuple consacré, dans son ensemble, de l a c h a i r à l ' e s p r i t , du
monde matériel, avec ses ténèbres et ses passions, à l a lumière du monde
i n t e l l i g i b l e , de l'esclavage en Egypte à l a liberté en Canaan, t e r r e de
l a v e r t u ou cité de Dieu. Le Pentateuque est "une école de prêtrise",
c'est-à-dire que par l'intermédiaire de symboles d i v e r s , par l ' i n t e l l i -
gence et l a p r a t i q u e des L o i s , i l enseigne au progressant à s u i v e r l e s
pas de Moïse et à réaliser sous sa conduite l'Exode s p i r i t u e l .
This deep i n s i g h t can help place the c e n t r a l i t y of the c r e a t i o n account f o r
P h i l o ' s thought i n the r i g h t p e r s p e c t i v e .
The importance of the Moopoitouua w i t h which Moses commences the Law is
p r e c i s e l y to lay down the s t r u c t u r a l foundation (both i n cosmological and an-
t h r o p o l o g i c a l terms) upon which the theme of m i g r a t i on i s based. 9
I t i s as r e -
s u l t of the c r e a t i o n a l ôuàxaÇus that man i s a sojourner i n this earthly e x i s t -
 IV 1. 427

ence, that he i s c a l l e d to migrate (or ascend) to heavenly and intelligible

realities. I t i s as r e s u l t of the composite nature r e c e i v e d by man i n c r e a t i o n
that he has the choice of c o n t i n u i n g to dwell beside the f l e s h p o t s of Egypt or
m i g r a t i n g to the l i f e of the mind and the contemplation of true b e i n g. The
i n t e l l e c t u a l or s p i r i t u a l exodus which P h i l o l o c a t e s i n the words and example
of Moses has as i t s i n d i s p e n s a b l e pendant the o n t o l o g i c a l genesis with which
the nomothete commences h i s Laws. The Timaeus a i d s P h i l o i n e s t a b l i s h i n g i n a
p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y l u c i d f a s h i o n the s t r u c t u r a l foundation upon which the theme
of m i g r a t i o n , as key to the deeper meaning of s c r i p t u r e , i s b u i l t . Here l i e s
the u l t i m a t e s i g n i f i c a n c e of the dialogue f o r P h i l o s thought.
1
He has recog-
nized the Timaeus-Phaedrus myth d i p t y c h of P l a t o i n the Genesis-Exodus diptych
of Moses. 10
Man the microcosm i s , l i k e the macrocosm, created by God. His
task i s to ascend and r e t u r n to God, by g a i n i n g knowledge of him and contem-
p l a t i n g h i s t r u e Being. And so the xeAos f o r which man was c r e a t e d comes to
f u l f i l m e n t , to become l i k e unto God. In h i s c r e a t i v e but unsystematic manner
P h i l o thus a n t i c i p a t e s c r u c i a l themes developed by l a t e r p h i l o s o p h e r s i n t h e i r
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of P l a t o or the B i b l e (or both t o g e t h e r ) , the P l o t i n i a n coup-
l i n g of p r o c e s s i o n and r e t u r n , the c i r c u l a t i o motif of Neoplatonism and Medie-
val Christian philosophy, 31
the 'mysteries of the beginning' and the 'mysteries
of the c h a r i o t ' i n Jewish thought.

In more than one r e s p e c t , t h e r e f o r e , the De o p i f i c i o mundi and Legum a l -

l e g o r i a e represent the p o r t a l through which one must enter the c a t h e d r a l i c
e d i f i c e of P h i l o ' s s c r i p t u r a l commentaries. The e x p o s i t i o n of the Mosaic xoa-
poiouúa demonstrates that s c r i p t u r e more than adequately r i v a l s the attempts
of the p h i l o s o p h e rs to e x p l a i n the o r i g i n s and nature of the u n i v e r s e and man,
and that the attempt to e l u c i d a t e s c r i p t u r e with the a i d of ideas found i n
Greek philosophy can be a p r o f i t a b l e undertaking. Moreover the account of
c r e a t i o n g i v es the student access to an understanding of the fundamental cos-
m o l o g i c a l and a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e s which l a y the foundation f o r the
s p i r i t u a l journey considered by P h i l o to c o n s t i t u t e the deeper 'philosophical'
meaning of s c r i p t u r e .

In t h i s study of P h i l o ' s thought the p e r s p e c t i v e of the h i s t o r i a n of p h i -

losophy has been given a d e l i b e r a t e l y subordinate p l a c e . N a t u r a l l y i t i s im-
portant to l o c a l i z e P h i l o i n the h i s t o r i c a l development of i d e a s . But even i f
we had access to a l l P h i l o ' s sources and a l l the w r i t i n g s (and o r a l t r a d i t i o n s )
of h i s predecessors and t e a c h e r s , t h i s would not be s u f f i c i e n t to 'explain'
him; f o r the phenomenon of P h i l o i s more than j u s t the sum of i t s antecedents. 12

As i t i s , we are not at a l l w e l l informed about the i d e n t i t y of P h i l o * s predeces-

sors and the d o c t r i n a l contents of h i s sources. Nevertheless, i n s p i t e of the
428 CONCLUSION

lack of informatio n on the a c t u a l Middle P l a t o n i s t authors and works which

P h i l o drew on, our i n v e s t i g a t i o n of h i s r e l a t i o n to Middle Platonism has proved
remunerative. Although the Alexandrian was w e l l acquainted wit h the o r i g i n a l
text of the Timaeus, the Middle P l a t o n i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the dialogue mani-
f e s t l y interposes i t s e l f between him and the P l a t o n i c words which he reads.
Indeed one can go a step f u r t h e r . The manner i n which the Middle Platonists
read the Timaeus served as an e s s e n t i a l p r a e p a r a t i o f o r P h i l o s use of the f

P l a t o n i c work i n h i s e x e g e t i c a l task of expounding the Mosaic w r i t i n g s . By

a p p r o p r i a t i n g P l a t o ' s myth of a c r e a t i n g craftsman-god as the b a s i s f o r a dog-
matic system which was profoundly t h e o c e n t r i c and gave the d o c t r i n e s of c r e a -
t i o n ( p r o p e r l y understood) and providence a c e n t r a l p l a c e , the Middle P l a t o n -
i s t s - without themselves being aware of i t - prepared the way f o r the a p p l i -
c a t i o n of P l a t o n i c ideas to the Judaic (and l a t e r C h r i s t i a n ) s c r i p t u r a l mes-
sage. P h i l o saw the o p p o r t u n i t y and, with an energy and i n n o v a t i v e c r e a t i v i t y
which a f t e r two thousand years we are s c a r c e l y able to a p p r e c i a t e , e x p l o i t e d
i t to the f u l l . Without the Middle P l a t o n i s t r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of P l a t o , i t
would have been c o n s i d e r a b l y more d i f f i c u l t f o r him to regard P l a t o as the
Mwuofig axTLKLCwv par e x c e l l e n c e .

Even l e s s i s known concerning P h i l o ' s predecessors i n the f i e l d of Jewish

s c r i p t u r a l exegesis. The nature and importance of the e x e g e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n s
drawn on by P h i l o i s a c o n t r o v e r s i a l q u e s t i o n , which i s at present being ex-
tensively studied. 1 3
In the context of our study i t was s t r i k i n g to observe
how few of P h i l o ' s r e l a t i v e l y numerous r e f e r e n c es to (anonymous) predecessors
or c o l l e a g u e s i n the f i e l d of exegesis r e f e r to P l a t o n i z i n g interpretations
and to usage of the Timaeus by other exegetes. 14
I have suggested above that
the e x p l o i t a t i o n of the Timaeus on a l a r g e s c a l e may w e l l have been a personal
innovation on the p a r t of P h i l o . 1 5
C h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are c e r t a i n l y
not i r r e l e v a n t here. The Middle Platonism wit h which P h i l o was acquainted
must be dated to c l o s e to the beginnings of the new movement. 16
I f he had un-
dertaken h i s e x e g e t i c a l labours h a l f a century e a r l i e r the P l a t o n i c o p t i o n
( s t r o n g l y centred on the Timaeus) may not have been open to him, as i t c l e a r l y
was not to h i s predecessor A r i s t o b u l u s . 1 7
The fundamental r o l e played by P l a -
t o n i s t ideas and d o c t r i n e s i n P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y o r i e n t a t e d exegesis i s
not l i k e l y to have been bequeathed to him by a long-standing e x e g e t i c a l t r a d i -
t i o n g r a d u a l l y developed i n the H e l l e n i s t i c Alexandrian synagogue. 18
 CHAPTER TWO

PHILO'S ACHIEVEMENT

The p e r s p e c t i v e of the h i s t o r i a n of ideas with which we terminated the

l a s t chapter i s e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t than the p e r c e p t i o n P h i l o had of h i s own
activity. He c e r t a i n l y d i d not regard himself as ' e x p l o i t i n g the opportunity'
to read the congenial (and not unfashionable) ideas of Middle Platonism into
the u n s o p h i s t i c a t e d utterances of Moses. He was convinced that these ideas
were already present i n s c r i p t u r e , and that they could be exposed to view by
p a t i e n t e x e g e t i c a l labour. And nothing was f u r t h e r from h i s concerns than the
question of whether he was 'being i n n o v a t i v e ' or 'showing o r i g i n a l i t y ' i n r e -
l a t i o n to the e x e g e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n s developed by h i s predecessors. The task
of the exegete i s not to develop h i s own ideas but to uncover a l i t t l e of the
i n e x h a u s t i b l e r i c h e s of the sacred t e x t . This must be borne i n mind as we
turn now to a more general d i s c u s s i o n of P h i l o ' s achievement, undertaken on
the b a s i s of the r e s u l t s that we have gathered i n the course of t h i s study.
We commence with some more remarks on the foundation which P h i l o presumes to
u n d e r l i e the convergence of Mosaic and P l a t o n i c thought.

2.1. Reconstruction of a theoretical foundation

It i s a remarkable f a c t that P h i l o never favours h i s reader with a theo-

r e t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n on the f a r - r e a c h i n g p a r a l l e l i s m which he d i s c o v e r s between
the Mosaic account of c r e a t i o n and the P l a t o n i c cosmogony, and between s c r i p -
ture and Greek philosophy i n general. The p r a c t i c a l task of i n t e r p r e t i n g the
sacred t e x t occupies the p r e c i o u s time he has at h i s d i s p o s a l . Presumably
deep-going r e f l e c t i o n on the hermeneutical assumptions of h i s e x e g e t i c a l meth-
ods would be regarded as an unremunerative d i s t r a c t i o n from the task at hand.
From our vantage p o i n t , of course, t h i s omission i s a r e a l weakness• But
P h i l o stands at the beginning of a long t r a d i t i o n , and the f o r m u l a t i o n and
e l u c i d a t i o n of a theory of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n takes time and strenuous intellectu-
al effort. And i t must not be thought that P h i l o gives no i n d i c a t i o n s whatso-
ever on how he would e x p l a i n the p a r a l l e l s between Moses and P l a t o and so j u s -
t i f y h i s p l a c i n g of d o c t r i n e s from the Timaeus i n the mouth of the Jewish nomo-
thete. His theory can be r e c o n s t r u c t e d f o r him, but the ideas i n v o l v e d remain
i m p l i c i t and lacking articulation . Two b a s i c explanations are given which
combine to account f o r the f a c t that many of the same ideas that are e x t r a c t ed
430 CONCLUSION

from s c r i p t u r e also have t h e i r place i n Greek philosophy. 1

The f i r s t explanation holds that the famous Greek lawgivers and philoso-
phers d e r i v e d t h e i r d o c t r i n e s somehow or other from the w r i t i n g s of Moses.
This argument, as i s w e l l known, f i n d s frequent employment i n Jewish and early
C h r i s t i a n l i t e r a t u r e , but i t s extreme form, that t h e f t and p l a g i a r i s m were i n -
volved, 2
occurs i n P h i l o only once. H e r a c l i t u s , i n d e c l a r i n g that "we live
t h e i r death and d i e t h e i r l i f e " , had ' l i k e a t h i e f taken law and opinions from
Moses'. 3
In f i v e other passages P h i l o d e s c r i b es Greek philosophers or legis-
l a t o r s as ' r e c e i v i n g ' t h e i r d o c t r i n e s from Moses or 'drawing' from h i s Laws
l i k e from a f o u n t a i n . 4
I t i s o f t e n overlooked, however, how f r e q u e n t l y he im-
p l i e s that the philosophers are dependent on Moses. The Jewish lawgiver lived
before they d i d , and a n t i c i p a t i o n implies dependence. To give one example out
of many: i f P h i l o a f f i r m s that a Mosaic d o c t r i n e 'was p r a i s e d by some of the
philosophers who came afterwards' ( i . e . A r i s t o t l e and the P e r i p a t e t i c s , Pytha-
goras), he i s s t a t i n g antecedence but s t r o n g l y suggesting dependence. 5
This
procedure i s h i g h l y important f o r an understanding of the p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a -
t i s e s , i n which a wealth of Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s are put forward but
the primacy of Moses i s by no means r e l i n q u i s h e d . 6
But P h i l o does not want a l l
h i s eggs i n one basket. There are occasions when he appears to have l e s s con-
f i d e n c e i n the t h e s i s of Greek d e r i v a t i o n . In the De v i t a Moysis he even i n -
cludes Greeks (as w e l l as Egyptians and Chaldeans) among Moses' teachers,
though immediately adding that h i s g i f t e d nature made t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n as
good as s u p e r f l u o u s . 7
In another passage he leaves open whether Socrates was
'taught by Moses or moved by the phenomena themselves'. 8
This remark leads us
s t r a i g h t on to P h i l o ' s second explanation.

Not a l l the d o c t r i n e s of Greek philosophy that stand i n a c e r t a i n proxim-

i t y to the t r u t h are d e r i v e d d i r e c t l y from the Jewish nomothete. God i s the
source of a l l knowledge; l a c k i n g a l l envy or j e a l o u s y , he generously bestows
that knowledge on h i s creatures according to t h e i r c a p a b i l i t i e s . 9
Man i s crea-
ted i n such a way that he can become a r e c i p i e n t of the d i v i n e g i f t of know-
ledge, though not i n i t s splendid fulness. The 'best' or 'most God-like' part
of h i s composite make-up i s the mind or r a t i o n a l part of the s o u l , with which
he reasons and achieves immortality, through which he i s r e l a t e d to the Logos
and u l t i m a t e l y to the c r e a t o r , by means of which he becomes l i k e unto God. 10

Also the cosmos i s created i n such a way as to give man the maximum of a s s i s -
tance i n h i s quest f o r knowledge. Through the contemplation of the celestial
realm man's mind could soar and the b i r t h of philosophy took p l a c e . 1 1
Here i s ,
once again, the theme of Tim.47a-c, so prominent i n P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s . 1 2
It i s
apparent t h a t , on the b a s i s of such cosmological and anthropological ideas,
P h i l o i s not going to deny that the p h i l o s o p h e r s , i n response to the phenomena
 IV 2.1. 431

of nature and through the r e f l e c t i v e powers of the mind, were a b l e to reach

u s e f u l i n s i g h t s and even g a i n a glimpse of the t r u t h , even i f they are u s u a l l y
to be reproached f o r t h e i r never-ending d i s s e n s i o n s , t h e i r p a s s i o n f o r h a i r -
s p l i t t i n g and searches f o r u s e l e s s i n f o r m a t i o n . Some persons, e n t e r i n g the
cosmos as i n t o a w e l l - r u l e d c i t y , were s t r u c k w i t h wonder and came to the con-
c l u s i o n that i t was the work of the c r e a t o r . Advancing from below upwards as
i f on a heavenly ladder, these men are indeed $eoteouou. 13
P h i l o can have no
one e l s e i n mind but the Greek philosophers w i t h t h e i r 'natural theology', and
i n the f r o n t ranks of the deoneooou i s the great P l a t o . The second explana-
t i o n f o r the p a r a l l e l s between s c r i p t u r e and Greek philosophy i s , t h e r e f o r e ,
that the p h i l o s o p h e r s independently a t t a i n e d c e r t a i n true d o c t r i n e s through
t h e i r use of God's g i f t of the powers of reason.

The modern reader, when confronted by these two e x p l a n a t i o n s , i s l i k e l y

to conclude that the l a t t e r possesses a higher grade of p l a u s i b i l i t y . I am
not at a l l c o n f i d e nt that the reader of P h i l o ' s time would have agreed. The
general p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s that l i e behind the a f f i r m a t i o n of Moses' a n t e r i o r i t y
and s u p e r i o r i t y are wholly i n l i n e with the dominant Z e i t g e i s t of the e a r l y
c e n t u r i e s of our e r a . 1 4
A r i s t o t l e ' s adage xuyuwxaxov T O T t p e o f t u x a x o v 1 5
was ex-
panded to xuyuwxaxov x a u aXndeoxaxov xo ipeopuxaxov and made the b a s i s of a
general theory concerning the o r i g i n and d i s s e m i n a t i o n of d o c t r i n a l knowledge. 16

The o l d e r a d o c t r i n e was the more deservin g i t was of assent and reverence.

Both from the p h i l o s o p h i c a l and the c u l t u r a l - h i s t o r i c a l p o i n t of view the

theory was unitarian. There i s but one t r u t h , though i t i s found i n many
guises and has been u n v e i l e d w i t h a greate r or l e s s e r degree of success. A
widespread pessimism reigned with regard to the attainment of that t r u t h through
new and innovatory i n s i g h t s . 1 7
The t r u t h had to be reached by means of the
tradition, i . e . the w r i t i n g s of the a n c i e n t s . For Celsus the P l a t o n i s t the
TtctAauos Aoyos was the dAnSns Xoyos; hence the t i t l e of h i s a t t a c k on the C h r i s -
t i a n u p s t a r t s , who d e f i e d the t r a d i t i o n with t h e i r r e v o l u t i o n a r y i d e a s . 18
The
P l a t o n i s t s saw the t r a d i t i o n of t r u t h embodied above a l l i n the w r i t i n g s of
P l a t o and t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . But a Numenius f i n d s i t necessary to 'go back
f u r t h e r ' , to the teachings of Pythagoras and then to the mysteries and doc-
t r i n e s of the £%vr\ eu6oMtpouvxa (the Brahmans, Jews, Magi, Egyptians) which —
and here the P l a t o n i s t a s s e r t s himself - are i n agreement w i t h P l a t o . 1 9

The same approach i s found i n the more general area of c u l t u r a l achieve-

ment. A massive body of ethnographic and ' h i s t o r i c a l ' w r i t i n g s - now almost
completely l o s t - was based on the assumption that the ouxouyevn possessed a
common c u l t u r e with a s i n g l e s o u r c e . 20
The c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n was: what was that
source? which n a t i o n could take the c r e d i t f o r d i s c o v e r y and a u t h e n t i c t r a d i -
tion? Addressing the Roman senate, C i c e r o no doubt found a w i l l i n g ear f o r
432 CONCLUSION

his a s s e r t i o n that t h e i r ancestors were not the p u p i l s but the teachers of the
philosophers i n the matter of r e l i g i o n . 2 1
In the one and same t r e a t i s e P l u -
t a r c h s t a t e s that Pythagoras based h i s precepts on s e c r e t teachings of the
Egyptian p r i e s t s and that the names of Egyptian gods are to be explained by
means of Greek e t y m o l o g i e s . 22
In short, no one-was going to argue with P h i l o ' s
t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions i n a f f i r m i n g the a n t i q u i t y and pre-eminence of the
Jewish nomothete. I t was the content of the laws and d o c t r i n e s claimed f o r
Moses that was the d e c i s i v e f a c t o r .

Returning once again to the d e t a i l s of P h i l o ' s t h e o r e t i c a l foundation, we

f i n d that P h i l o subscribes to the general p r i n c i p l e s of the 'philosophy of
c u l t u r e ' j u s t o u t l i n e d , but understands and a p p l i e s them i n h i s own particular
way. One i s struck, f i r s t of a l l , by h i s t o t a l lack of i n t e r e s t i n the 'his-
t o r i c a l ' aspect. 23
His r e f l e c t i o n s on h i s t o r y have a predominantly abstract
q u a l i t y , s i m i l a r to the timelessness of h i s a l l e g o r i e s . The general l i n e s of
development are given. The f i r s t man was e x c e l l e n t i n both body and soul,
l i v i n g according to the Law of nature, but s i n c e then a c o n t i n u a l d e c l i n e has
set i n . 2 4
The Jewish P a t r i a r c h s a n t i c i p a t e d the Mosaic Law by themselves l i v -
ing as ensouled or unwritten laws. They needed no teachers i n order to know
what to do or s a y . 25
The transmission of knowledge from the e a r l i e s t times
could have been i n t e r r u p t e d by the occurrence of n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s . 2 6
But once
Moses enters on the scene and bequeaths the Law to h i s f o l l o w e r s , P h i l o shows
a marked d i s r e g a r d f o r d e t a i l s of transmission and t r a d i t i o n , also i n r e l a t i o n
to the ( d e r i v a t i v e ) d o c t r i n e s of the p h i l o s o p h e r s . There i s no d i s c u s s i o n of
chronologies, no s p e c u l a t i o n on whether P l a t o might have met the prophet Jere-
miah i n the deserts of J u d a e a . 27

A second issue i s of much greater importance f o r P h i l o ' s understanding of

his enterprise. I f the t r u t h i s one and s i n g l e , i f before Moses i t was at-
t a i n e d by the f i r s t man and the P a t r i a r c h s , i f i t was glimpsed by the philoso-
phers, i s i t not p o s s i b l e then f o r the seeker a f t e r t r u t h to gain a s a t i s f a c t o r y
i n s i g h t i n t o that t r u t h by c o n s u l t i n g the philosophers or even by h i s own un-
aided e f f o r t s ? I t i s apparent t h a t , i f t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y were conceded by P h i l o ,
the e n t i r e e d i f i c e of h i s undertaking would u t t e r l y c o l l a p s e . The superiority
of the great pre-Mosaic f i g u r e s can r e a d i l y be granted. But they l e f t no wri-
t i n g s , only t h e i r s h i n i n g example as recorded by Moses f o r our i n s t r u c t i o n . 2 8

I f , however, the w r i t i n g s of the Greek philosophers contain the ctAn^ns Aoyos

i n an a c c e s s i b l e form, what i s the point of spending a l i f e - t i m e w r i t i n g com-
mentaries which aim to uncover that Aoyos i n the Mosaic record? One might as
w e l l expend that e f f o r t i n studying the works of P l a t o , u s i n g them, j u s t as
Numenius d i d , as a touchstone to t e s t the t r u t h of the more ancient and 'au-
thentic' tradition. Unlike the other venerable sages from a d i s t a n t past,
 IV 2.1. 433

however, Moses l e f t to p o s t e r i t y a written record available in a reliable

Greek v e r s i o n . 2 9
I t i s the t r u t h concealed l i k e a precious p e a r l i n the Jewish
Laws that i s the touchstone f o r v a l i d i n s i g h t s that may have been gained by
the p h i l o s o p h e r s , but need to be discerned among a l l t h e i r wranglings and mis-
leading s o p h i s t r i e s . And how f u t i l e i t would be f o r l a t e r and less gifted
generations to attempt to reach the t r u t h independently of Moses, when he, who
by d i v i n e d i s p e n s a t i o n came c l o s e r to i t than anyone e l s e a f t e r him, i s lead-
ing the way f o r those who wish to f o l l o w !

The key to P h i l o ' s t h e o r e t i c a l foundation - and a f t e r the above d i s c u s -

s i o n i t w i l l come as no s u r p r i s e - l i e s i n the l i m i t l e s s admiration which he
has f o r Moses and the Mosaic Law. The Jewish lawgiver i s presented as many-
sided i n h i s greatness. He i s the embodiment of the p e r f e c t i o n s , inasmuch as
they can be a t t a i n e d by a mortal man. As k i n g , l e g i s l a t o r , high p r i e s t and
prophet he possesses a unique and splendid c o n j u n c t i on of t a l e n t s . 3 0
The ques-
t i o n might be r a i s e d - why does P h i l o not i n c l u d e among these Moses' r o l e as
philosopher and sage? The answer i s that Moses can only c a r r y out the four
above-mentioned o f f i c e s because he i s a cpcAooocpog and oocpog. Philo e x p l i c i t l y
takes over from Plat o the idea that s t a t e s do not f l o u r i s h unless kings p h i l o -
sophize or philosophers rule. 3 1
A l s o f o r the other o f f i c e s the possession of
wisdom i s p r e r e q u i s i t e . 3 2

It cannot be the aim to d i s c u s s the P h i l o n i c p r e s e n t a t i o n of the f i g u r e

Moses i n i t s e n t i r e t y . I t aims at the same d i v e r s i t y and comprehensiveness as
a s c r i b e d to the Law i t s e l f , which leaves no aspect of l i f e untouched. What I
do want to point out i s the enthusiasm and a f f e c t i o n with which P h i l o speaks
of Moses as guide and teacher i n the things of the mind. Moses i s not seen as
a remote and rather e x o t i c b a r b a r i a n sage, but as one who understands the mod-
ern Lebensgefiihl, man's d e s i r e to f i n d o r i e n t a t i o n i n the cosmos and a r e l a -
t i o n to God. 'The i n t e r p r e t e r of the f a c t s of nature has p i t y on our sluggish-
ness and lack of p r a c t i c e , and teaches us i n h i s e x c e l l e n t and u n s t i n t i n g man-
ner', P h i l o says i n i n t r o d u c i n g the Mosaic words which a n t i c i p a t e the H e r a c l i -
tan d o c t r i n e that two opposites form a whole. 33
Moses i s the t r u e sage, the
great teacher, the steward of the m y s t e r i e s . 34
The mind i s the highest and
most g o d - l i k e part i n man. To the guidance of man's i n t e l l e c t u a l quest Moses
must give top p r i o r i t y , d i s c l o s i n g h i s apperception of the t r u t h f o r the most
part through the v e i l of a l l e g o r y .

P h i l o c e r t a i n l y shows a strong tendency to present Moses as a p h i l o s o p h i -

z i n g sage i n the Greek manner, a s u p e r i o r Pythagoras or P l a t o , even i f such a
d e p i c t i o n i s not the e x c l u s i v e key to h i s g r e a t n e s s . 35
I t i s by no means a c c i -
d e n t a l that when P h i l o p o r t r a y s Moses i n h i s commentary on the c r e a t i o n ac-
count as 'having reached the summit of philosophy', he e x p l o i t s the d e s c r i p t i o n
434 CONCLUSION

that P l a t o had given the Pythagorean philosopher Timaeus i n the dialogue that
bears h i s name. 36

2.2. E x e g e s i s and philosophy

In P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l economy the c e n t r a l place i s occupied by the Law

of Moses. Our study, through i t s examination of P h i l o ' s use of the Timaeus,
has confirmed the view that he regards h i m s e l f above a l l as an i n t e r p r e t e r of
scripture. 1
P h i l o n i c thought i s Mosaic thought. The modern reader who wishes
to penetrate to P h i l o ' s i n t e n t i o n s and the fundamental assumptions u n d e r l y i n g
his works must f o r c e h i m s e l f to undergo a mental readjustment which makes
great demands on h i s imagination and credence, a kind of Copernican r e v o l u -
tion i n reverse. P h i l o ' s u n i v e r s e of thought does not have Greek philosophy
at i t s centre but s c r i p t u r e , i t i s not P l a t o - c e n t r e d but Moses-centred. The
numerous ideas and m o t i f s which we have seen P h i l o take over from the Timaeus
are not, i n h i s view, read into s c r i p t u r e or used to i l l u s t r a t e Mosaic ideas,
but are genuinely present i n the sacred word and must be brought to the l i g h t
in the e x e g e t i c a l process.

The d i s t i n c t i o n which we today are i n c l i n e d to make between exegesis as

e x p l a n a t i o n of the contents of a text and philosophy as r e f l e c t i o n and argu-
ment on the nature and meaning of r e a l i t y i s e n t i r e l y f o r e i g n to P h i l o ' s way
of thinking. The word cpuXooocpua has i n h i s w r i t i n g s a wide semantic range. 2

Often i t denotes the d o c t r i n e s of the Greek philosophers or the means of r e a -

ching those d o c t r i n e s , the study of nature, the quest f o r knowledge of the
first cause. I t can a l s o have a wider sense, the sum t o t a l of knowledge, i n -
c l u d i n g the wisdom r e p u t e d l y possessed by the ancients and the 'barbarian p h i -
losophers' . The t h i r d meaning i s more s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d towards Jewish
realities. Philosophy i s the study and p r a c t i c e of the Law, or the study of
nature and the quest f o r knowledge of the f i r s t cause by means of study of the
Law. T h i s i s the a u t h e n t i c philosophy, the philosophy which P h i l o p r a c t i s e s .
The aim of t h i s philosophy i s d e s c r i b ed i n the same (predominantly P l a t o n i c )
terms used f o r Greek .philosophy, but the means of a c h i e v i n g the aim differ.
Philosophy i s exegesis of the sacred t e x t , both as a c t i v i t y and as embodied i n
the r e s u l t a n t thought and d o c t r i n e .

P h i l o ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of exegesis and philosophy only becomes comprehen-

s i b l e i f i t i s recognized that the Law of Moses i s a f a i t h f u l copy of the Law
of nature. 3
Through d i v i n e d i s p e n s a t i o n Moses, as i n t e r p r e t e r (eppriveus) of
the f a c t s of nature, encapsulates the logos of nature (and xcxTa T O 6uvotTov of
the n o e t i c world) i n h i s Laws, so that the i n t e r p r e t e r of the Laws i s at the
 IV 2.2. 435

same time i n t e r p r e t i n g nature by f o l l o w i n g the i n s t r u c t i o n of the God-beloved

guide. God i s thus the great teacher, Moses both the i n t e r p r e t e r of God s f

logos and the i n s t r u c t o r of mankind. 4

P h i l o ' s v e n e r a t i o n f o r the Law and i t s
author i s p e c u l i a r l y Jewish and p a r t i c u l a r l y h i s own. The theory of i n t e r p r e -
t a t i o n i n v o l v e d , however, d i f f e r s but l i t t l e from that of a contemporary P l a -
t o n i s t , who engages i n the contemplation of the cosmos not by spending cold
and l o n e l y n i g h t s watching the movements of the s t a r s but by p o r i n g over h i s
text of the Timaeus and the commentaries on i t produced by h i s predecessors.

It i s , t h e r e f o r e , the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of P h i l o ' s achievement put forward

by Nikiprowetzky i n h i s m a g i s t e r i a l study 5
that has been corroborated by the
r e s u l t s of our p a r t i c u l a r area of research. P h i l o ' s extensive and i d i o s y n c r a -
t i c a p p l i c a t i o n of the d o c t r i n e s and language of the Timaeus must be seen as
r e s u l t i n g from the f a c t that he regards h i m s e l f as an exegete of s c r i p t u r e ,
whose task i s to search f o r the t r u t h , the 'authentic philosophy' embodied i n
the Mosaic r e c o r d . The French s c h o l a r would not d i s a g r e e , I surmise, with the
l u c i d formula put forward by Sandmel i n h i s I n t r o d u c t i o n to P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s
and thought: 6

P h i l o ' s b a s i c r e l i g i o u s ideas are Jewish, h i s i n t u i t i o n s Jewish, and h i s

l o y a l t i e s Jewish, but h i s explanations of i d e a s, i n t u i t i o n s , and devo-
t i o n s are i n v a r i a b l y Greek. S c r i p t u r e has i t s array of prophets, and
P h i l o " b e l i e v e s " i n prophecy; when P h i l o e x p l a i n s what prophecy i s and
how i t works, h i s e x p o s i t i o n comes from P l a t o .
Sandmel i s t r y i n g to d e l i m i t the Jewish and Greek components i n P h i l o . Niki-
prowetzky s t r o n g l y emphasizes that the Jewish and Greek poles are indissoci-
able. P h i l o ' s ' c u l t u r e p h i l o s o p h i q u e ' i s a s i n e qua non i n his exegetical
system, s u p p l y i ng 'a language of reason' which allows the commentator to per-
ceive and express the deeper ' p h i l o s o p h i c a l ' sense of s c r i p t u r e . 7
The validity
and f r u i t f u l n e s s of these views must be recognized, a l s o as we now proceed to
d i r e c t a number of c r i t i c a l remarks at them, c o n c e n t r a t i n g e s p e c i a l l y on the
r o l e of Greek philosophy i n P h i l o ' s thought.

1. What i s the d i f f e r e n c e , according to P h i l o , between Greek philosophy

and the 'authentic philosophy ' of Moses? Nikiprowetzky, i n t h i s instance f o l -
lowing Wolfson, makes much of the text at Congr.79, which a f f i r m s that 'just
as the e n c y c l i c a l s t u d i e s are the servant of philosophy, so a l s o philosophy i s
the servant of wisdom'. 8
Philosophy ( i n the s c h o l a s t i c manner of the Greeks)
has an e s s e n t i a l l y propaedeutic r o l e , s u p p l y i ng c a t e g o r i e s , concepts and ideas
for the understanding of wisdom (the Mosaic Law i n i t s deeper meaning). Cer-
t a i n l y the equivalences which P h i l o attempts i n h i s a l l e g o r y here are not so
clear. I f , however, he had the c o n t r a s t between Greek philosophy and Mosaic
wisdom i n mind, why i s philosophy d e s c r i b e d as the practice of wisdom, teach-
ing c o n t r o l of the a p p e t i t e s and the tongue? The c o n t r a s t between philosophy
 436 CONCLUSION

as love f o r wisdom and progress on the path t h e r e t o on the one hand and wisdom
as possession of the h i g h e st knowledge on the other i s common i n the Stoa and
Middle P l a t o n i s m . 9
P h i l o a p p l i e s t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n to Abraham (and every stud-
ent of the true p h i l o s o p h y ) , who i s married to Sarah both while p r o g r e s s i n g
towards the attainment of wisdom and when he f i n a l l y reaches i t . 1 0
The contras t
i s thus not between Greek philosophy and Mosaic wisdom, but between two stages
i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of the t r u e philosophy contained i n the Mosaic Law. On
t h i s same text Winston w r i t e s : 1 1

I t i s t h e r e f o r e q u i t e e v i d e n t . . . that by wisdom he [ P h i l o ] means p h i l o s o -

phy consummated, which i n t u r n i s i d e n t i c a l i n h i s scheme of things with
the Torah, whose laws are i n agreement with the e t e r n a l p r i n c i p l e s of na-
t u r e . Far from s u b o r d i n a t i n g philosophy to S c r i p t u r e , P h i l o i s r a t h er
i d e n t i f y i n g the Mosaic Law with the summit of p h i l o s o p h i c a l achievement.
With t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n we f i n d ourselve s wholly i n agreement, provided the
i d e n t i t y of the Law with the highest philosophy i s c o r r e c t l y understood. We
are thus l e d d i r e c t l y on to our second remark.
2. The task of Greek philosophy f o r P h i l o i s , a c c o r d i ng to Nikiprowetzky,
to supply 'a language of r e a s o n 1
which allows the commentator to understand
the wisdom contained i n the Law and give i t w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n. The d o c t r i n e s
of the p h i l o s o p h e r s thus f u n c t i o n as an instrument or t o o l at the d i s p o s a l of
the exegete, employed when u s e f u l , d i s c a r d e d when not. This view has i t s a t -
t r a c t i o n s , because i t can e x p l a i n P h i l o * s l a c k of l o y a l t y towards any particu-
lar philosophical school. 12
Nevertheless I conside r that i t i n v o l v e s an under-
e s t i m a t i o n of the impact t h a t the fundamental assumption of Greek p h i l o s o p h i -
c a l thought has had on P h i l o ' s t h i n k i n g . Philosophy s u p p l i e s not a language of
reason but the language of reason. The change i s r e q u i r e d because P h i l o has
taken over the d o c t r i n e , i n i t i a t e d by Parmenides and evangelized by P l a t o ,
that knowledge and t r u t h i n i t s absoluteness ( i . e . the logos as the sum of xd
xaxd xauxd xau waauxws Ixovxa, i d e n t i f i e d by P l a t o ' s f o l l o w e r s with the objects
of God's t h i n k i n g ) i s s i n g l e and i r r e f r a g i b l e 1 3

I But how can philosophy supply the language of reason and yet remain sub-

| o r d i n a t ed to s c r i p t u r e ? P h i l o , ever aware of man's o u ó é v e u o t , i s l e s s confi-

dent than P l a t o that that logos i s w i t h i n h i s reach. S c r i p t u r e s u p p l i e s the
c r i t e r i a that allows the logos of philosophy to be t e s t e d f o r i t s t r u t h . In
the l i g h t of s c r i p t u r e the grandeur and the misère of Greek philosophy come
f u l l y i n t o view. At i t s best philosophy i s concerned with 'the knowledge of
the h i g h e s t and e l d e s t cause of the whole of r e a l i t y ' , the same i n s t r u c t i o n
that the Jews r e c e i v e from t h e i r Laws ( V i r t . 6 5 ) . At i t s worst philosophy i s a
v i p e r ' s nest of s o p h i s t r y and discordance (Conf.114, Her.246-248). Moses saw
the logos to the extent t h a t i t i s a c c e s s i b l e to a mortal man and encoded i t
to the extent that i t could be put i n t o human language. His Law i s not a
 IV 2.2. 437

stepping stone to the h i g h e s t (Greek) philosophy, which i n the quest f o r t r u t h

can be l e f t behind or even bypassed; i t i s r a t h e r the i n d i s p e n s a b l e touchstone
for determining what that h i g h e s t philosophy i s . Two examples, one from theo-
logy and one from cosmology, w i l l i l l u s t r a t e how t h i s works. I f the p h i l o s o -
phers P l a t o and A r i s t o t l e , through the independent use of reason ( i . e . i f they
did not c o n s u l t s c r i p t u r e ) , reach the c o n c l u s i o n that God i s not subject to
change, t h e i r attempt at reasoning only r e c e i v e s v a l i d a t i o n through the ad-
s t r u c t i o n of a Mosaic text such as Ex. 17:6, o6e eyoj eoirixa npb T O U oe. 14
On
the q u e s t i o n of the createdness and uncreatedness of the cosmos the same t h i n -
k e r s , both u s i n g t h e i r powers of reasoning, reach opposite c o n c l u s i o n s . The
d i s c i p l e of Moses needs to r e c a l l no more than the t i t l e of the f i r s t book of
the Law i n order to be sure that i n t h i s case i t i s P l a t o who has stumbled on
the t r u t h . 1 5

For Wolfson the s u b o r d i n a t i o n of philosophy to s c r i p t u r e , d e r i v e d as we

have seen from Congr.79-80, a l s o means the s u b o r d i n a t i o n of reason to f a i t h . 1 6

This viewpoint i s erroneous, f o r i t suggests that P h i l o wants us to accept the

t r u t h only because i t i s r e v e a l e d , and not a l s o because i t conforms to the
d i c t a t e s of reason. But n o t h i n g i s f u r t h e r from h i s mind than to c r y with
Tertullian, 1 7
credo quia absurdum e s t . C e r t a i n l y he i s convinced that God i s
the author of the t r u t h contained i n s c r i p t u r e , 1 8
but a l l h i s e f f o r t s are d i -
r e c t e d towards demonstrating that t h i s t r u t h i s not unreasonable, that i t i s
i n f a c t more r a t i o n a l and to the point than the d o c t r i n e s of the p h i l o s o p h e r s . 19

No l e s s erroneous i s the c o n c l u s i o n to which Winston i n c l i n e s , namely that

God's r e v e l a t i o n i n the Law of Moses i s i n f e r i o r to the A r c h e t y p a l or Noetic
Law which can be comprehended to a greater or l e s s e r degree i n an intuitive
v i s i o n of the mind. Here r e v e l a t i o n i s e f f e c t i v e l y subordinated to reason,
for i t i s only when the t r u t h of the higher Law i s i n t u i t i v e l y seen that the
concealed deeper meaning of s c r i p t u r e comes i n t o view. 20
One might as w e l l
dispense with the w r i t t e n Law. The commentaries which P h i l o w r i t e s on i t are,
according to Winston, as much an e x e r c i s e i n concealment as an attempt at e l u -
cidation. 2 1

In f a c t i t has by now become c l e a r that P h i l o denies any c o n t r a s t or con-

f l i c t between r e v e l a t i o n and reason. Reason and revelation are effectively J
identical, as he never ceases to attempt to demonstrate i n h i s long s e r i e s of
commentaries. This does not mean to say that Greek philosophy and scripture
are i d e n t i c a l , but that the t r u t h which was glimpsed by c e r t a i n philosopher s
i s v a l i d a t e d by r e v e l a t i o n i n s c r i p t u r e . Far from r e p l a c i n g H e l l e n i c reason
w i t h b a r b a r i a n unreason, P h i l o i n f a c t makes great concessions to Greek r a t i o -
nalism, but s u b t l y succeeds i n t u r n i n g t h i s to h i s own p r o f i t by c o n s t a n t l y
438 CONCLUSION

g i v i n g the p r i o r i t y to Moses. The logos which man, through h i s r e l a t i o n to

the d i v i n e Logos, can a t t a i n l i e s concealed i n the depths of s c r i p t u r e and can
be perceive d by the eyes of the mind through the e x e g e t i c a l process. The dis-
c i p l e of Moses i s i n v i t e d , not to attempt to climb Mount S i n a i h i m s e l f , but to
meditate unceasingly on the Law w r i t t e n by Moses on the b a s i s of h i s e x p e r i -
ences i n the mystic ascent. M e d i t a t i o n and contemplation take p l a c e through
the use of man's r a t i o n a l f a c u l t y . And so we come to our t h i r d remark.

3. The p i e t y of Essenians and above a l l the Therapeutae i n many respects

represents an i d e a l i z a t i o n of P h i l o ' s own a t t i t u d e s , a f f i r m s Nikiprowetzky,
even though h i s 'experience' was i n f i n i t e l y r i c h e r and more v a r i e d . 2 2
One can
h a r d l y disagree with t h i s viewpoint. Indeed, given the i d e a l i z i n g encomiastic
conventions of H e l l e n i s t i c r h e t o r i c , the Essenians and Therapeutae, no matter
what t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l background might have been, are a p r o j e c t i o n of what
P h i l o himself admired. The f o c a l point of t h e i r p i e t y i s the study of the
s c r i p t u r e s , p o i n t i n g the way to love of God, r e l i g i o u s observance, v i r t u o u s
living. But P h i l o goes a step f u r t h e r i n regarding the study of s c r i p t u r e as
the a u t h e n t i c and h i g h e s t philosophy. The questio n i s whether we have here
the c l e v e r a p p r o p r i a t i o n of p h i l o s o p h i c a l terminology f o r a p o l o g e t i c purposes,
as so v i g o r o u s l y argued by V o l k e r , or whether P h i l o betrays the i n f l u e n c e of
the potent f o r c e s of Greek i n t e l l e c t u a l i s m . I am convinced that P h i l o ' s 'ex-
p e r i e n c e ' , h i s extensive acquaintance with the H e l l e n i s t i c p a i d e i a and the
d o c t r i n e s of Greek philosophy, has l e d to a d e c i s i v e r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of what
i s meant by 'study of the s c r i p t u r e s ' .

In P h i l o study of the Law has become the worship of God by means of the
e x e r c i s e of man's h i g h e s t f a c u l t y , the i n t e l l e c t . His advocacy of the dewpua
xou xooyou should not be misunderstood. P h i l o was himself no s t a r g a z e r , b u t 2 3

the t r a i n i n g he r e c e i v e d i n Greek philosophy has fundamentally altered his

p e r s p e c t i v e on the k i n d of study that should be made of s c r i p t u r e and the way
that s c r i p t u r e should be understood. I have argued i n t h i s study that the
Timaeus of P l a t o has made an important c o n t r i b u t i o n to the r e d i r e c t i o n of Jew-
i s h p i e t y which P h i l o e f f e c t u a t e s . The d o c t r i n e of man, much s t i m u l a t ed by
Tim.90a-d, p o s i t s the primacy of the i n t e l l e c t , the i d e a l of contemplation, 24

the c o r r e l a t i o n of s p i r i t u a l i t y and true knowledge. The d o c t r i n e of c r e a t i o n

not only gives t h i s anthropology a foundation, but a f f i r m s the r a t i o n a l struc-
ture of the e n t i r e cosmos, d e r i v e d from i t s model, the nooyos voritos s i t u a t e d
i n the d i v i n e Logos. Contemplation of the cosmos' r a t i o n a l order impels the
soul to seek the v i s i o n of God. The a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge of God as true
Being i s beyond the reach of human reason. Nevertheless the highest form
of worship i s the attempt to come to know God, as Moses d i d on the mountain
when he asked God to r e v e a l h i m s e l f , as the d i s c i p l e of Moses can do i n the
 IV 2.2. 439

synagogue or i n h i s study by studying the Law. The worship and s e r v i c e of God

culminates i n the f o r m u l a t i o n of a d o c t r i n e of God, a theology.
But P h i l o i s and remains a Protean f i g u r e . I f you think you have him
pinned down, he assumes another appearance and manages to elude your grasp.
I t i s undoubtedly true t h a t , i n s p i t e of the i n f l u e n c e of Greek i n t e l l e c t u a l -
ism which I have pointed out, there are numerous occasions when he speaks of
God with a s p i r i t u a l i t y q u i t e d i f f e r e n t i n f l a v o u r to that found i n the works
of Greek p h i l o s o p h e r s, a s p i r i t u a l i t y c l o s e r to the Psalms than the tenth book
of Plato' s Laws or the t h e o l o g i c a l chapters of A l b i n u s . 2 5
There are passages
i n the A l l e g o r i c a l Commentary which a n t i c i p a t e the Confessiones of Augustine
i n the intimacy with which the soul addresses God as i t s refuge and support. 26

Yet i t should not be overlooked how o f t e n nearness to God means departure from
the world of the senses, how o f t e n the b l e s s i n g s bestowed by God are r e l a t e d
to the a c t i v i t y of the mind, how o f t e n the journey of the soul i s portrayed as
culminating i n the possession of knowledge and wisdom. 27
God i s served not with
a pure heart but with a pure mind. In P h i l o r e l i g i o n i s not merely interior-
ized (Harl), i t i s also i n t e l l e c t u a l i z e d . 2 8
I t i s a l s o undoubtedly true that
P h i l o i s keenly aware of the l i m i t a t i o n s of the human mind and the knowledge
i t can o b t a i n . E s p e c i a l l y the nothingness of the i n t e r p r e t e r c o n f r o n t i n g the
r i c h e s of s c r i p t u r e i s h e a v i l y u n d e r l i n e d. But one should r e c a l l that the
paragon of P h i l o s anthropology i s not the lowly
f
i n t e r p r e t e r but Moses h i m s e l f ,
the great prophet and sage who i s c a l l e d by s c r i p t u r e a 'god , at l e a s t i n r e -
1

l a t i o n to the mindless f o o l . The l o g i c a l outcome of P h i l o ' s adoption of Greek

i n t e l l e c t u a l i s m i s the a f f i r m a t i o n of man's p o t e n t i a l apotheosis, that the
mind can gain a place i n the n o e t i c world on the l e v e l of the d i v i n e . Not sur-
p r i s i n g l y he h e s i t a t e s to draw t h i s c o n c l u s i o n , r e s e r v i n g such p r i v i l e g e s f o r
the sages of o l d . 2 9

On the b a s i s of these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s we conclude that Sandmel's d i v i s i o n

between P h i l o ' s Jewish i n t u i t i o n s , assumptions and l o y a l t i e s and the Greek
content of h i s thought i s i n one respect too c l e a r - c u t . P h i l o ' s l o y a l t y to
s c r i p t u r e and devotion to s c r i p t u r a l study i s r e i n f o r c e d by the assumption of
Greek philosophy that the e x e r c i s e of the i n t e l l e c t i s man's highest calling
and enables him to become p l e a s i n g to God.

In an e v a l u a t i o n of P h i l o ' s thought the h i s t o r i c a l context should not be

overlooked. P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s are a product of and a witness to the extensive
i n t e r a c t i o n and r i v a l r y that e x i s t e d between Alexandrian Greeks and Jews i n
his l i f e t i m e . In t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e i t i s undubitably c o r r e c t to read an apolo-
getic motive behind every s i n g l e word that P h i l o wrote. Further appreciation
of these a p o l o g e t i c i n t e n t i o n s i s hampered by the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered i n
440 CONCLUSION

determining which audience(s) h i s w r i t i n g s are d i r e c t e d a t . 3 0

Nevertheless I
b e l i e v e that an excessive emphasis on the a p o l o g e t i c aspects of P h i l o ' s i n t e n -
t i o n s can lead to d i s t o r t i o n s i n our view of h i s thought. The impression given
by many s c h o l a r s (notably Vôlker and Weiss) i s that P h i l o uses Greek p h i l o s o -
p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s as a k i n d of i c i n g to make h i s message p a l a t a b l e to Greek
and/or Jewish i n t e l l e c t u a l s , a s c a f f o l d i n g that needs to be dismantled, an i n -
strument to be used and then d i s c a r d e d . 31
The fundamental coherence of P h i l o s 1

undertaking and the i n d i s p e n s a b l e r o l e of p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e s i n i t lead

me to the c o n c l u s i o n that such m i n i m a l i z a t i o n of the c o n t r i b u t i o n of Greek
philosophy is unconvincing.

More acceptable i s the c o n c l u s i o n of Heinemann that P h i l o c o n s c i o u s l y

strove to produce a ' s y n t h e s i s 1
between h i s Judaism and Greek c u l t u r e and that
he d i d t h i s out of a 'personal need'. 32
Once again question marks can be placed.
The n o t i o n of a ' s y n t h e s i s ' or ' r e c o n c i l i a t i o n ' presupposes a d i v i s i o n i n t o
d i s t i n c t blocks much c l e a r e r to us than i t was to P h i l o , on whom we should not
f o i s t a pagan-Christian a n t i t h e s i s avant l a l e t t r e . To speak of a 'personal
need' i s perhaps to presume a greater i n s i g h t i n t o P h i l o ' s e x i s t e n t i a l and
e x p e r i e n t i a l concerns than we are a c t u a l l y given; Be that as i t may, I am
persuaded that i t i s i n the t r i a n g u l a r r e c i p r o c a t i o n between l o y a l t y to h i s
Judaic h e r i t a g e (the Law), love f o r the Greek p a i d e i a ( p h i l o s o p h y ) , and con-
cern f o r h i s people's welfare ( a p o l o g e t i c s ) that P h i l o ' s l i t e r a r y career f i n d s
i t s r a i s o n d'être.

Can we now, at the end of our study, f e e l j u s t i f i e d i n d e s c r i b i n g P h i l o

as a philosopher i n h i s own right? C e r t a i n l y , i f the questio n i s posed from
h i s own viewpoint, there i s no need f o r any m i s g i v i n g s . P h i l o considers him-
s e l f to be p r a c t i s i n g the authentic philosophy, which w i l l lead him to the
possession of wisdom. Even though he might not wish to be c a l l e d a aocpos, the
d e s c r i p t i o n cptAoaocpos would not be d i s c l a i m e d . I f the word 'philosopher' i s
given another meaning, that of a 'person who c o n t r i b u t e s to the development of
p h i l o s o p h i c a l i d e a s ' , the v e r d i c t on i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y to P h i l o must be more
nuanced. The impact of P h i l o ' s thought on the f u r t h e r development of Greek
philosophy was nil, at l e a s t u n t i l the time that C h r i s t i a n i t y f o r c e d itself
upon the a t t e n t i o n of the philosophers. Wolfson's attempt to argue to the con-
t r a r y was a failure. 3 3
On the other hand, P h i l o ' s undertaking to fuse together
p h i l o s o p h i c a l ideas and the B i b l i c a l message was a step of monumental s i g n i f i -
cance i n the h i s t o r y of thought, a step with greater consequences f o r the de-
/elopment of philosophy and r e l i g i o n than i t s author could p o s s i b l y have f o r e -
seen. And so we come back once more to the theme which we started this sec-
t i o n , the r e l a t i o n between exegesis and philosophy.

A d i s t i n c t i o n which may advance our d i s c u s s i o n of P h i l o ' s status as

 IV 2.2. 441

philosopher i s that between e x e g e t i c a l philosophy and p h i l o s o p h i c a l or (as I

p r e f e r ) p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y o r i e n t a t e d exegesis. E x e g e t i c a l philosophy i s pro-
duced when a text i s used as a springboard f o r a p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s c u s s i o n or
argument which advances f a r beyond the contents of that text (no matter how
generously c i r c u m s c r i b e d ) . An extreme example of such p h i l o s o p h i z i n g that
comes to mind i s the deep thought extracted by M.Heidegger from P r e s o c r a t i c
texts and phrases. But a l s o the use i n P a t r i s t i c and Medieval philosophy of
B i b l i c a l t e x t s such as Ex.3:14, Sap.Sal.11:20, Rom.11:36 and so on f a l l s under
t h i s category. P h i l o too has h i s f a v o u r i t e texts which he uses over and over
again, e.g. Gen.1:27, Ex.7:1, Num.23:19 e t c . , and these are sometimes given a
systematizing purpose. But f o r the most part i t i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y o r i e n t a t e d I
exegesis which we f i n d i n h i s w r i t i n g s . This approach to exegesis has at l e a s t '
two features: (1) the attempt i s made to i n t e r p r e t the s c r i p t u r a l text i n r e -
l a t i o n to accepted (but not s y s t e m a t i c a l l y expounded or proven) ideas; (2) the
primacy i s given to the a c t u a l t e x t , which the commentator i s o b l i g e d to f o l -
low wherever i t leads, though he n a t u r a l l y reserves the r i g h t to r e l a t e i t to
other p a r t s of the sacred word. I t i s abundantly c l e a r that P h i l o does n o t ,
pace Wolfson, attempt to c r e a te a system of Mosaic thought which bears even
the s l i g h t e s t resemblance to the d i s t i l l a t i o n s of P l a t o n i c d o c t r i n e found i n
Middle Platonism. H i s almost e x c l u s i v e use of the commentary method renders
such an attempt i m p o s s i b l e . 34
I t i s no l e s s c l e a r that P h i l o cannot be regar-
ded as a 'problem-solver 1
i n the manner that Osborn regards as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
of the p h i l o s o p h e r . 35
To be sure, he i s deeply preoccupied with p h i l o s o p h i c a l
and t h e o l o g i c a l problems, but these are seen almost e x c l u s i v e l y as e x e g e t i c a l
problems, and are d e a l t w i th as they are confronted i n the B i b l i c a l t e x t . The
task of the exegete, according to P h i l o , i s to e x t r a c t the p h i l o s o p h i c a l ideas
concealed i n the t e x t , not to use the commentary as a p l a t f o r m f o r h i s own r e -
flections. But t h i s disavowal of systematic thought should not lead to a nega-
tive evaluation. There remains a double coherence i n P h i l o ' s t h i n k i n g which
gives i t a u n i t y deserving o f admiration. F i r s t l y h i s aims and methods as a
commentator o f the Pentateuch have a c l e a r and c o n s i s t e n t r a t i o n a l e , the c l u e
to which must be sought i n the exalted f i g u r e of Moses. Secondly our study
has shown i n a d e t a i l e d way the r e c i p r o c a l i n f l u e n c e which Pentateuchal text
and p h i l o s o p h i c a l ideas exert on each o t h e r . 36
The text c a l l s f o r t h the ideas,
but the ideas shape the manner of understanding the t e x t . The p h i l o s o p h i c a l
doctrines that P h i l o has l e a r n t from P l a t o , and i n p a r t i c u l a r from the Timaeus,
give a coherence to h i s exegesis which compensates f o r the numerous i n c o n s i s -
t e n c i e s which the c r i t i c a l eye can l o c a t e on the m i c r o - e x e g e t i c a l level.

P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y o r i e n t a t e d exegesis thus has as concrete r e s u l t a

P l a t o n i c a l l y t i n t e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Pentateuch. Because P h i l o should be
442 CONCLUSION

regarded above a l l as a p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y o r i e n t a t e d exegete of s c r i p t u r e , i t i s

b e t t e r , i n my view, not to describe him without q u a l i f i c a t i o n as a 'philoso-
pher'. I must admit, however, that t h i s caut i o n i s prompted more by a r e a c t i o n
against the d i v e r s e aberration s of P h i l o n i c s c h o l a r s h i p than out of the strong
c o n v i c t i o n that the t i t l e i s i n h i s case e n t i r e l y inappropriate.

If i t should be concluded that P h i l o i s p r i m a r i l y a p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y o r i -

entated exegete of s c r i p t u r e , does t h i s not leave h i s s o - c a l l e d p h i l o s o p h i c a l
t r e a t i s e s i n an anomalous p o s i t i o n ? For t h i s part of h i s oeuvre i s concerned
not with the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s c r i p t u r e but with p h i l o s o p h i c a l argument. It
i s necessary, I submit, to d i v i d e these t r e a t i s e s f u r t h e r i n t o two sub-groups.
The t r e a t i s e s De P r o v i d e n t i a I & II and De animalibus are i n the f i r s t place
d i r e c t e d at the wayward A l e x a n d e r . 37
We may s a f e l y assume that t h i s ' f r e e -
t h i n k e r ' would have been q u i t e i n s e n s i t i v e to any appeals to the a u t h o r i t y of
scripture. P h i l o thus takes recourse to the ' o b j e c t i v e ' and p r e s t i g i o u s argu-
ments of philosophy i n an attempt to guide h i s nephew back to the theism of
his ancestral b e l i e f s . The other two t r e a t i s e s , Quod omnis probus l i b e r s i t
and De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi, have a l e ss overt apologetic motivation. 38
The phi-
l o s o p h i c a l themes of these works come i n t o view at r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s i n the
e x e g e t i c a l t r e a t i s e s , but
3 9
P h i l o discusses them here with a wealth of argument
and i l l u s t r a t o r y material ( i n c l u d i n g overt references to Greek philosophers
and the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h e i r d o c t r i n e) which i s q u i t e u n p a r a l l e l e d else-
where i n h i s oeuvre. A c l o s e examination of these works w i l l show, I b e l i e v e ,
that P h i l o ' s a t t i t u d e to philosophy does not essentially d i f f e r from that
which has so f a r been o u t l i n e d i n the concluding s e c t i o n s of our study. The
p h i l o s o p h i c a l m a t e r i a l which P h i l o presents i s not only adjudicate d i n accord-
ance with the Mosaic p e r s p e c t i v e on the matter, but i s a l s o s t r i c t l y c o n t r o l l e d
by the B i b l i c a l quotations and a l l u s i o n s which are s t r a t e g i c a l l y placed i n the
s t r u c t u r e of the works. 40
I t i s thus not necessary to reach the conclusion
that the two t r e a t i s e s are incongruous remnants from an e a r l i e r p e r i od i n P h i -
lo 's c a r e e r , when he had not yet been converted to the view that the true p h i -
losophy i s exegesis of the Law of Moses. 41

2.3. Brief comparisons

A f i n a l e x e r c i s e which may help give P h i l o ' s achievement some e x t r a r e -

lief i s a b r i e f comparison with other t h i n k e r s . The aim of the comparisons
cannot, i n t h i s concluding part of our study, be to d i s c u s s the various speci-
f i c doctrines and ideas put forward, but r a t h e r to take a glance at the
 IV 2.3. 443

'foundations' on which these e d i f i c e s of thought have been c o n s t r u c t e d . We

s h a l l , of course, concentrate on those men who l i v e d at approximately the same
time and i n approximately the same c u l t u r a l environment as P h i l o , or who were
l a t e r i n a p o s i t i o n to make acquaintance with h i s w r i t i n g s . But i t would be
u n c h a r i t a b l e not to begin with the great p h i l o s o p h e r , whose i n f l u e n c e on P h i l o
has been the c h i e f subject of our investigations.
I t has been e n d l e s s l y debated whether i t was or was not PLATO's i n t e n t i o n
to c o n s t r u c t a p h i l o s o p h i c a l system. 1
What he aimed to put before h i s readers
was, I suggest, a cptAooocpua x a u Aoyuxf) n a u O T O x a o x u M r i . I t was Aoyunn because
i t advocated and i t s e l f engaged i n the quest f o r the i n t u i t i v e v i s i o n of the
r a t i o n a l u n i t y and coherence of transcendent n o e t i c being, suddenly achieved
a f t e r long years of e x e r c i s e i n the science of d i a l e c t i c s . I t was OTOxaoTuxri

because that v i s i o n was s c a r c e l y a t t a i n a b l e ( i n t h i s l i f e ) and, i f attained,

could not be put i n t o words. The form of the d i a l o g u e, c o n t a i n i n g the d i a l e c -
t i c s of a c t u a l d i s c u s s i o n , was r e q u i r e d to p o i n t the way, each dialogue adding
new i n s i g h t s or r e v i s i n g what had gone b e f o r e . 2
Given P h i l o ' s debt to P l a t o n -
ism, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that a r a t h e r p r e c i s e correspondence e x i s t s between
the 'foundation' of h i s thought and that of P l a t o . The v i s i o n of the Good i n
P l a t o runs p a r a l l e l to the i l l u m i n a t i o n r e c e i v e d by Moses and embodied i n the
Law, while the task assigned by P l a t o to d i a l e c t i c s i s taken over i n P h i l o by
the labour of exegesis. P h i l o has more confidence than P l a t o i n the c a p a c i t y
of the w r i t t e n word to convey t r u t h , but l e s s t r u s t i n the powers of human
reason. The path to true knowledge and wisdom i s through exegesis of the w r i t -
ten text and meditatio n on the hidden v e r i t i e s discovere d t h e r e . For P h i l o
philosophy can only be a t t a i n e d through p h i l o l o g y . 3
P l a t o ' s ambition to reach
the t r u t h by means of the concentrated e f f o r t s of h i s own mind was, i n Philo's
eyes, only s u c c e s s f u l to a very l i m i t e d degree, as i s evident when h i s thought
i s compared with the r i c h e s of the Law. But when i t comes to the k i n d of know-
ledge that i t i s p o s s i b l e and d e s i r a b l e to acquire concerning the phenomena of
t h i s s e n s i b l e world, the views of both t h i n k e r s have much i n common. Philo
had read h i s copies of the Timaeus and the Republic only too w e l l . Man's gaze
should be d i r e c t e d towards God and world of immutable n o e t i c being, situated
according to Moses i n the d i v i n e Logos.

Though they are c o n s i d e r a b l y separated i n time and space, there i s a l i n k

which j o i n s together the Roman senator and man of l e t t e r s CICERO and the upper-
c l a s s A l e x a n d r i an Jew P h i l o , namely t h e i r h i g h regard f o r and great indebted-
ness to the achievements of Greek science and philosophy. 4
In many respects
they share the same H e l l e n i s t i c c u l t u r e , as can be gauged from the frequent
p a r a l l e l s between t h e i r works. 5
The two men i n f a c t had a common problem; they
both had to s t r u g g l e to a v o i d an i n f e r i o r i t y complex over a g a i n s t the c u l t u r a l
444 CONCLUSION

supremacy of Greece. For C i c e r o P l a t o i s the p r i n c e p s p h i l o s o p h i a e , but i t i s

the S o c r a t i c , not the Pythagorean, P l a t o to whom he gave h i s a l l e g i a n c e . 6
Tak-
i n g the s i d e of P h i l o of L a r i s s a against Antiochus of A s c a l o n , he p r e f e r s to
avoid dogmatism, g i v i n g h i s support to the probable. C i c e r o i s by no means a
genuine s c e p t i c . His s t u d i e s i n Greek philosophy do not have the e f f e c t of
t u r n i n g him against the r e l i g i o u s t r a d i t i o n s of h i s p e o p l e . 7
This i s well il-
l u s t r a t e d by the unexpected c o n c l u s i o n of the De natura deorum. He i s i n c l i n e d
to favour the S t o i c arguments on theology, because they are the more probable,
but a l s o because they give support to h i s a n c e s t r a l t r a d i t i o n s . There remains
i n C i c e r o a g r e a t e r gap between Greek philosophy and r e l i g i o u s t r a d i t i o n than
i n P h i l o , who i s able to put the H e l l e n i s t i c p a i d e i a to e f f e c t i v e use i n the
exegesis of the Mosaic Law. 8
P h i l o ' s profound c o n v i c t i o n of the l i m i t a t i o n s of
man's a b i l i t y to gain secure knowledge reminds i n some ways of C i c e r o . But
the d i l u t e Platonism found i n C i c e r o would by no means have been s u f f i c i e n t
f o r P h i l o i n h i s task of expounding the thought of Moses. On God's transcen-
dence and c r e a t o r s h i p of the cosmos there are dogmatic pronouncements to be
made. Between C i c e r o ' s Platonism and P h i l o ' s P l a t o n i z i n g Mosaicism there i s
the c r u c i a l watershed of the beginning of Middle Platonism.

A comparison between P h i l o and the MIDDLE PLATONISTS can be pared down to

e s s e n t i a l s , f o r we have a l r e a d y devoted almost an e n t i r e chapter to t h i s sub-
ject. 9
An i l l u m i n a t i n g p a r a l l e l was found between P h i l o ' s Mosaic exegesis and
the e x e g e t i c a l study which the P l a t o n i s t s made of the works of t h e i r master.
One could argue that P l a t o n i c exegesis and the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a dogmatic sys-
tem based thereon have v i r t u a l l y taken over the r o l e of d i a l e c t i c s envisaged
by P l a t o h i m s e l f . Among the v a r i o u s P l a t o n i s t s there are n o t a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s
of approach and method. Men such as A t t i c u s and A l b i n u s are r a t h e r narrow and
s c h o l a s t i c , adhering c l o s e l y to the words of P l a t o . Others such as P l u t a r c h
and Numenius have wider i n t e r e s t s , and are prepared to i n v e s t i g a t e whether the
P l a t o n i c t r u t h s are a l s o to be found i n the myths and t r a d i t i o n s of the e x o t i c
peoples of the E a s t . Above a l l the w r i t i n g s of NUMENIUS remind us of the s p i -
r i t and contents of P h i l o ' s 'authentic philosophy', though the h i e r a t i c tone
exudes more confidence than we f i n d i n P h i l o and there can be no question of
h i s showing any r e a l a l l e g i a n c e to Moses, o n ly a strong i n t e r e s t i n the 'wis-
dom of the a n c i e n t s ' . 10
In our e a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n i t was concluded that the
Middle P l a t o n i s t s show a f a r greater concern than P h i l o f o r systematic and
t e c h n i c a l aspects of the Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n . T h e i r exegesis of
P l a t o i n f a c t tends to lead to what we have c a l l e d e x e g e t i c a l philosophy, as
becomes very c l e a r i n the philosophy of PLOTINUS. The founder of Neoplatonism
c e r t a i n l y regarded h i m s e l f as exegete of P l a t o , 1 1
but uses the P l a t o n i c recor d
as a launching-base f o r h i s own contemplation of the i n t e l l i g i b l e world and
 IV 2.3. 445

u l t i m a t e union with the ground of a l l r e a l i t y , the One. He thus reenacts the

same experience which he interpreted Plato as having had i n the v i s i o n of the
Good. Philo, i n contrast, i s not prepared to a f f i r m that he could reach the
heights t r a v e r s e d by the God-beloved Moses.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that i t i s among the EARLY CHRISTIAN
apologists and theologians of the second to f o u r t h c e n t u r i e s A.D. that we find
the kind of thought c l o s e s t to P h i l o ' s . This i s due not only to the Judaic
h e r i t a g e held i n common, but a l s o to the f a c t of d i r e c t dependence. In the
writings of JUSTIN i t remains unclear whether or not he had the b e n e f i t of
access to the works of P h i l o . 1 2
Certainly Justin's p r e s e n t a t i o n of the true
philosophy which 'was sent down' from heaven amounts to an e x t r a p o l a t i o n of
Philonic ideas. 13
This philosophy begins with Moses and the prophets, and cul-
minates i n C h r i s t i a n i t y . The Greek p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools, and especially the
P l a t o n i s t s , have glimpsed part of the t r u t h , but t h e i r doctrines remain d e f i -
cient. In the l i t e r a r y remains of CLEMENT of A l e x a n d r i a d i r e c t and sometimes
even s l a v i s h use of P h i l o n i c m a t e r i a l i s manifestly present. 14
Clement i s not
j u s t indebted to P h i l o f o r matters of d e t a i l i n exegesis and allegory. He
takes over the same p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e to the Greek p a i d e i a , placing i t in ser-
v i c e of h i s C h r i s t i a n c o n v i c t i o n s . In some aspects we discern an advance i n
clarity. The growing pains of the C h r i s t i a n community c o n s t r a i n a deeper r e -
f l e c t i o n on the r e l a t i o n between simple f a i t h and gnostic knowledge. The fun-
damental d i f f e r e n c e between P h i l o n i c and Clementine thought can be succinctly
stated. Clement, as a C h r i s t i a n , recognizes Jesus C h r i s t as the d i v i n e Logos
become f l e s h , who has come i n t o the world to f u l f i l the Law given to Moses.
In the person and example of C h r i s t the Law becomes f u l l y comprehensible and
man can f u l l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n the d i v i n e logos (note that P h i l o ' s intellectual-
ism continues unabated). Clement i s not so i n s e n s i t i v e to h i s t o r y as Philo.
The a l l e g o r i e s of the P a t r i a r c h s are t y p o l o g i c a l , a n t i c i p a t i n g the coming of
the Logos. C h r i s t the great i n s t r u c t o r takes over the place of Moses i n P h i l o .
Clement's a t t i t u d e to the Law of Moses has a double a s p e c t . 15
On the one hand
the Law embodies the logos r e v e a l e d to Moses and the prophets; i t i s olde r and
more a u t h e n t i c than Greek philosophy, the source of the p h i l o s o p h e r s ' doctrines.
On the other hand the Law i s ictAaua x a p u s , f u l f i l l e d by the a u 6 u o s x a p t s of
the C h r i s t the Logos. Clement's w r i t i n g s amount to a patchwork of Biblical
q u o t a t i o n and allusion. S c r i p t u r a l study leads, as i n P h i l o , to apperception
of the truth. That t r u t h has appeared i n C h r i s t , and so the Law loses its ex-
clusiveness as avenue to knowledge. Exegesis of the Mosaic Law accordingly
does not assume the same c e n t r a l p o s i t i o n that i t holds i n P h i l o . 1 6
And yet,
i n a p a r a d o x i c a l way P h i l o ' s Mosaic exegesis d e c i s i v e l y i n f l u e n c e d the way
that C h r i s t ' s r o l e as the Logos was understood. P h i l o has been c a l l e d the
446 CONCLUSION

f a t h e r of Arianism; j u s t as e a s i l y he can be h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the heresy

of Docetism as w e l l . 1 7
However troublesome these developments may have been
for the e a r l y Church, we at l e a s t should be g r a t e f u l . Because of the i n t e r e s t
the C h r i s t i a n s showed i n P h i l o most of h i s w r i t i n g s s u r v i v e d .
We cannot end t h i s short s e r i e s of comparisons without mentioning those
t h i n k e r s who shared the same e t h n ic and r e l i g i o u s background as P h i l o , the
JEWS. But there i s i n f a c t not very much to say. Not long a f t e r Philo s f

death the dark clouds which he himself had seen - f i r s t on the h o r i z o n and
then much c l o s e r - f i n a l l y b u r s t , and the p o l i t i c a l and c u l t u r a l d e c l i n e of
Alexandrian Judaism set i n . Among P a l e s t i n i a n Jews only JOSEPHUS appears to
have d e r i v e d any b e n e f i t from an acquaintance with P h i l o s w r i t i n g s . f 1 8
A com-
p a r i s o n of h i s account of c r e a t i o n with P h i l o ' s De o p i f i c i o mundi shows how
l i t t l e he l e a r n t . 1 9
In choosing to study the Law without d i r e c t recourse to
the d o c t r i n e s of Greek philosophy, the RABBIS chose a l s o to ignore P h i l o . The
p o r t a l g i v i n g access to P h i l o s w r i t i n g s might have been i n s c r i b e d AflAIAEYTOS
!

MHAEII EISITQ. His f e l l o w Jews possessed n e i t h e r the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s nor the

i n c l i n a t i o n to pass through i t .

2.4. Final remarks

In the p e r s p e c t i v e of the h i s t o r y of philosophy P h i l o i s a pioneer. Pio-

neers do much good work. They dare to confront the unknown, b l a z i n g new paths
i n uncharted areas. Much of t h e i r back-breaking labour i s f o r g o t t e n by the
l a t e r generations who b e n e f i t from i t . Pioneers a l s o make mistakes. Carried
away with t h e i r own expectation s and ambitions, they f a i l to understand the
newness of t h e i r s i t u a t i o n . They chop down too many trees and cause e r o s i o n
of the s o i l . They wipe out n a t i v e fauna and introduc e f o r e i g n animals which
threaten to destroy the balance of nature. A thorough pioneer ensures — f o r
good or f o r i l l - that h i s land w i l l almost c e r t a i n l y never r e g a i n i t s p r i s -
tine appearance.

Given the impressive d i s c o v e r i e s and great p r e s t i g e of the Greek p a i d e i a

and philosophy on the one hand, and the profound c o n v i c t i o n of God's convenan-
tal r e l a t i o n and i n t e r v e n t i o n i n h i s t o r y experienced by the Jewish people on
the o t h e r , i t was p r e d i c t a b l e , indeed v i r t u a l l y i n e v i t a b l e , that an attempt
would be made to b r i n g these two c u r r e n t s of thought and experience i n r e l a -
t i o n to each other. P h i l o was the f i r s t to make t h i s attempt on a grand scale.
One aspect, m a n i f e s t l y important but amounting to no more than a part of the
whole, has been analysed i n t h i s study. We have seen t h a t , by t a k i n g over
c e r t a i n fecund ideas from P l a t o ' s Timaeus, P h i l o d i s c o v e r e d that he could
 IV 2.4. 447

demonstrate to h i s own s a t i s f a c t i o n that the Mosaic c r e a t i o n a l account was i n -

t e l l e c t u a l l y r e s p e c t a b l e and p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y profound.
As a pioneer P h i l o was by no means able to foresee a l l the consequences
of what he was attempting. He plunged h i m s e l f unreservedly i n t o the task of
exegesis. As we saw, he d i d not devote much time or e f f o r t to t h e o r e t i c a l r e -
f l e c t i o n on the c o r r e l a t i o n between s c r i p t u r e and philosophy which he was un-
dertaking. Wolfson's monumental study on P h i l o s philosophy i s so m i s l e a d i n g
f

p r e c i s e l y because i t a c c r e d i t s P h i l o with a dogmatic and systematic c e r t a i n t y

on a l l the issues that were to dominate philosophy f o r more than a milleniu m
and a h a l f . And yet WoIfson's main t h e s i s i s fundamentally correct. Philo's
attempt to b r i n g together s c r i p t u r e and philosophy marks a p i v o t a l p o i n t i n
the h i s t o r y of thought, the r e s u l t of which only g r a d u a l l y became apparent i n
the c e n t u r i e s a f t e r h i s death. There remains a p r e s s i n g need f o r f u r t h e r r e -
f l e c t i o n on what P h i l o s p i o n e e r i n g attempt
f
has meant f o r the development of
Jewish, and above a l l C h r i s t i a n , thought.
 SAMENVATTING
De H e l l e n i s t i s c h - J o o d s e denker PHILO VAN ALEXANDRIË (ca. 20 voor Chr. -
45 na Chr.) i s de voornaamste vertegenwoordiger van een Grieks-sprekende
r i c h t i n g i n het Jodendom, d i e e n e r z i j d s trouw wenste te b l i j v e n aan de Wet van
Mozes, maar a n d e r z i j d s een poging ondernam om een diepere betekenis i n d i e Wet
te ontdekken met behulp van ideeën u i t de Griekse f i l o s o f i e . Deze d i s s e r t a t i e
s t e l t z i c h ten doel een grondige s t u d i e te maken van het gebruik dat P h i l o
heeft gemaakt van P l a t o ' s beroemde kosmologische d i a l o o g , de Timaeus, zowel i n
z i j n v e l e exegetische g e s c h r i f t e n a l s i n de k l e i n e groep f i l o s o f i s c h e trakta-
ten. De d r i e voornaamste onderwerpen z i j n : de wijze waarop P h i l o gebruik
maakt van de Timaeus; de invloed d i e de d i a l o o g op z i j n denken uitgeoefend
h e e f t ; P h i l o * s verhouding t o t de lange t r a d i t i e van de i n t e r p r e t a t i e van de
Timaeus (I 1.). De s t u d i e z e l f bestaat u i t v i e r delen.

In het e e r s t e d e e l , g e t i t e l d INLEIDING, wordt achtergrondinformatie ge-

boden, d i e r e l e v a n t i s voor het bestuderen van het onderwerp. Een o v e r z i c h t
van een v i j f t a l recente s t u d i e s over P h i l o l a a t z i e n dat er v i e r b e l a n g r i j k e
ontwikkelingen i n het Philo-onderzoek gaande z i j n : (a) de groeiende aandacht
voor methodologische vragen; (b) het besef dat h i j gezien moet worden tegen de
achtergrond van z i j n eigen t i j d ; (c) de toenemende r e a l i s e r i n g van de c e n t r a l e
r o l van de exegese i n z i j n werk; (d) de erkenning van de grote i n v l o e d van
het Platonisme op z i j n denken. Onze s t u d i e kan b i j deze ontwikkelingen goed
a a n s l u i t e n (I 2.). P h i l o ' s werk wordt g e p l a a t s t ' i n de context van de h i s t o -
rische situatie waarin h i j a l s l i d van een vooraanstaande Joods-Alexandrijns e
f a m i l i e verkeerde (I 3.). B e l a n g r i j k voor het s p e c i f i e k e onderwerp van de
s t u d i e i s een schets van de lange t r a d i t i e van de i n t e r p r e t a t i e van de Timaeus
vanaf P l a t o t o t aan P l o t i n u s . Het b e s l i s s e n d e keerpunt i n deze t r a d i t i e i s
n i e t de b i j d r a g e van Posidonius van Apamea of Antiochus van Askalon, maar het
begin van het zgn. Middenplatonisme, dat we w a a r s c h i j n l i j k i n Alexandrië v l a k
vóór de geboorte van P h i l o moeten dateren. De i n t e r p r e t a t i e van de Timaeus
was c r u c i a a l voor de o n t w i k k e l i n g van deze f i l o s o f i s c h e r i c h t i n g . Men heeft
deze d i a l o o g dan ook wel 'de B i j b e l van de P l a t o n i s t e n ' genoemd (I 4.). In
het l a a t s t e hoofdstuk wordt de methode van het onderzoek uiteengezet en ge-
argumenteerd (I 5.)

In het tweede d e e l , met a l s o p s c h r i f t ANALYSE, worden a l l e Philoonse

teksten d i e op het onderzoek b e t r e k k i n g hebben, verzameld en geanalyseerd.
Dit gebeurt i n de vorm van een soort 'Commentaar 1
op P l a t o s Timaeus z o a l s
1

deze door P h i l o gelezen en gebruikt wordt. De 'Commentaar 1

bestaat u i t t i e n
 SAMENVATTING 449

hoofdstukken, d i e a a n s l u i t e n b i j de s t r u k t u ur en thematiek van de Platoonse

dialoog. De w i j z e van behandeling van de Philoonse teksten wordt voornamelijk
bepaald door de inhoud van de teksten z e l f . De procedure i s a l s v o l g t . (1)
Ruime aandacht wordt geschonken aan de context ( v e e l a l exegetisch van aard)
van de t e k s t e n . (2) De manier waarop P h i l o gebruik maakt van de Timaeus
( c i t a a t , z i n s p e l i n g , enz.) wordt v a s t g e s t e l d . (3) A l s er sprake i s van een
zeer i n t e n s i e f gebruik van de Timaeus, wordt de b e t r e f f e n d e t e k s t i n d e t a i l
becommentarieerd. (4) Steeds wordt onderzocht hoe P h i l o de Platoonse passages
en leerstukke n v e r s t a a t en hoe deze i n t e r p r e t a t i e z i c h eventueel verhoudt t o t
de Mozaïsche t e k s t d i e u i t g e l e g d wordt. (5) Deze i n t e r p r e t a t i e s worden ten-
s l o t t e i n hun h i s t o r i s c h e context g e p l a a t s t door ze te v e r g e l i j k e n met d i e van
andere Griekse f i l o s o f e n (waarbij u i t e r a a r d gewaakt d i e n t te worden tegen
'parallellomanie').

We r e a l i s e r e n ons dat er een gevaar s c h u i l t i n de opzet van de 'Commen-

taar'. Omdat h i j de s t r u k t u u r en thematiek van de Timaeus v o l g t , i s h i j
e i g e n l i j k te ' P l a t o n o c e n t r i s c h ' . I d e a l i t e r zou er een tweede 'Commentaar' aan
toegevoegd moeten worden, waarin de volgorde van de boeken van Mozes wordt
aangehouden. Ter compensatie wordt i n een b i j l a g e een l i j s t gegeven van a l l e
Pentateuch-teksten, d i e met behulp van ideeën u i t de Timaeus u i t g e l e g d worden.

In het derde d e e l , dat de t i t e l SYNTHESE draagt, worden de r e s u l t a t e n van

de voorafgaande t e k s t a n a l y s e s geordend en g e r e l a t e e r d aan de d r i e hoofdónder-
werpen van de s t u d i e .
Het e e r s t e hoofdstuk behandelt de w i j z e waarop P h i l o gebruik h e e f t ge-
maakt van de Timaeus. Hoewel h i j de d i a l o o g b e t r e k k e l i j k zelden e x p l i c i e t
c i t e e r t , b l i j k t h i j een zeer grondige kennis van het werk t e hebben en er zeer
frequent op i m p l i c i e t e w i j z e gebruik van t e maken ( I I I 1.1.). Toch z i j n be-
paalde gedeelten voor hem b e l a n g r i j k e r dan andere, m.n. Tim.28-47,69-72 en 90-
92. De b e l a n g s t e l l i n g voor deze gedeelten l a a t z i e n dat P h i l o meer aandacht
schenkt aan de kosmogonische en f i l o s o f i s c h e dan aan de natuurwetenschappe-
l i j k e en fysiologische aspekten van de d i a l o o g ( I I I 1.2.) . Het l i g t voor de
hand dat de Timaeus v o o r a l v e e l gebruikt wordt i n t r a k t a t e n d i e b e t r e k k i n g
hebben op het Mozaïsche scheppingsverhaal (De o p i f i c i o mundi, Legum a l l e g o r i a e ,
vgl. ook De p l a n t a t i o n e 1-45, Quis heres 133-214) of z i c h bezighouden met de
l e e r van het geschapen z i j n van de kosmos (De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi, De Providen-
tia). Aan het gebruik i n deze zes t r a k t a t e n wordt dan ook s p e c i a l e aandacht
besteed ( I I I 1.4.). Verrassend breed bleek echter de s c a l a van p l a a t s e n door
héél P h i l o ' s oeuvre, waar ideeën u i t de Timaeus aan de orde komen ( I I I 1.3.).
Dit i s t e v e r k l a r e n a l s gevolg van z i j n exegetische methode. De v e r s c h i l l e n d e
manieren waarop P h i l o gebruik maakt van de Timaeus worden verder t o e g e l i c h t
450 SAMENVATTING

door middel van een 'taxonomie' met een z e v e n t a l categorieën: (1) t a a l en

woordkeuze; (2) beeldgebruik; (3) l i t e r a i r e r e m i n i s c e n t i e s ; (4) exegetische
illustratie; (5) exegetische u i t l e g ; (6) makro-exegetische doeleinden; (7)
zuiver f i l o s o f i s c h e discussies (zeldzaam) ( I I I 1.5.) . A l s P h i l o ' s gebruik
n i e t verder zou gaan dan de v i e r d e c a t e g o r i e , zou men mogen concluderen dat
de Timaeus i n z i j n ogen u i t s l u i t e n d een e x e g e t i s c h instrument was. Maar j u i s t
vanwege de l a a t s t e d r i e categorieën i s het d u i d e l i j k dat de Timaeus hem in
staat g e s t e l d h e e f t te komen t o t een dieper v e r s t a a n van de Pentateuch en met
name van het scheppingsverhaal en dat de d i a l o o g derhalve een zeer grote i n -
vloed op z i j n denken gehad h e e f t ( I I I 1.6.).

In het tweede hoofdstuk wordt een schets gegeven van de i n v l o e d d i e de

Timaeus op P h i l o ' s denken uitgeoefend h e e f t . P l a t o ' s onderscheid tussen ware
kennis en een ' w a a r s c h i j n l i j k betoog' werkt door b i j P h i l o , zowel in zijn kijk
op de zintuiglijk-waarneembar e wereld a l s i n z i j n b e o o r d e l i n g van eigen exege-
t i s c h e i n z i c h t e n ( I I I 2.1.). Zeer b e l a n g r i j k i s dat Mozes en P l a t o ieder een
scheppingsorde presenteren en dat deze verrassend v e e l overeenkomsten vertonen.
De b e d o e l i n g van beide f i l o s o f e n i s p a i d e u t i s c h : ze w i l l e n beiden i n z i c h t geven
i n de s t r u k t u u r van de kosmos ( I I I 2.2.). De u i t d r u k k i n g 'maker en vader'
(Tim.28c) bevat twee metaforen voor het scheppingsproces, een demiurgische en
een b i o l o g i s c h e . P h i l o kan ze beide gebruiken, maar geeft evenals P l a t o de
voorkeur aan de e e r s t e ( I I I 2.3.). Het g r o o t s t e probleem van de antieke i n -
t e r p r e t a t i e van de Timaeus, n l . of men de kosmogonie l e t t e r l i j k of n i e t - l e t -
t e r l i j k moet opvatten, i s ook van toepassing op het Mozaïsche scheppingsver-
haal. P h i l o ' s v e r o n d e r s t e l l i n g e n en argumenten met b e t r e k k i n g t o t d i t prob-
leem z i j n z e l f nogal problematisch . Onze c o n c l u s i e i s dat h i j een p r o t o l o -
gische i n t e r p r e t a t i e p r e f e r e e r t boven een o n t o l o g i s c h e , d.w.z. de kosmos i s
i n een scheppingsdaad geschapen, n i e t i n de t i j d maar a l s begin van de tijd
(III 2.4.). De t h e o l o g i e i s de s l u i t s t e e n van P h i l o ' s denken. Wanneer P h i l o
wil u i t l e g g e n welke opvattinge n men over de God van de Pentateuch d i e n t te
hebben, o n t l e e n t h i j ideeën aan de Griekse f i l o s o f i s c h e t h e o l o g i e . De Timaeus
( g e h e r i n t e r p r e t e e r d door l a t e r e P l a t o n i s t e n ) geeft i n z i c h t i n Gods scheppende
a k t i v i t e i t , n l . dat h i j e e r s t een scheppingsplan u i t d e n kt en vervolgens dat
plan u i t v o e r t . Door het beschouwen van Gods scheppende en onderhoudende a k t i -
v i t e i t ontvangt de mens kennis van Gods e x i s t e n t i e maar n i e t van z i j n e s s e n t i e .
Laatstgenoemde transcendeert het scheppingsgebeuren volkomen ( I I I 2.5-6.).
Het b e g r i p van de g o d d e l i j k e Logos (dat aspekt van God dat i n r e l a t i e staat
tot de kosmos) i s minder verwant aan de Timaeus. Toch gebruikt P h i l o d r i e
ideeën u i t de i n t e r p r e t a t i e van het werk om de f u n k t i e s van de Logos nader te
p r e c i s e r e n ( I I I 2.7.). P h i l o ' s gedachten over de materie z i j n weinig u i t g e -
werkt. De Platoonse n o t i e van het 'receptaculum' wordt n i e t g e b r u i k t , wèl
 SAMENVATTING 451

A r i s t o t e l i s c h e en Stoïsche formuleringen d i e i n het schema van de Timaeus ge-

p l a a t s t worden. Men zou kunnen spreken van een 'monarchisch dualisme' ( I I I
2.8-9.). De bewondering d i e P l a t o toont voor de kosmos werkt s t e r k door b i j
Philo. Deze bewondering blijft echter wel een r e l a t i e v e , ondergeschikt a l s
ze i s aan de absolute bewondering d i e God a l s schepper van de kosmos afdwingt
( I I I 2.10.). De p r i n c i p e s , waarop de Platoonse kosmologie berust (rationele
s t r u k t u u r , volmaaktheid, t e l e o l o g i e , hiërarchie van levende wezens, p a r a l l e l l i e
van makro- en mikrokosmos, enz.), worden dankbaar door P h i l o overgenomen. In
de g e d e t a i l l e e r d e u i t w e r k i n g i s h i j i n mindere mate van de Timaeus a f h a n k e l i j k
( I I I 2.11.). Zowel voor Mozes a l s voor P l a t o vormt de schepping van de mens
de climax van het kosmogonische betoog, resp. scheppingsverhaal. Diverse as-
pekten van de Platoonse a n t r o p o l o g i e kunnen P h i l o helpen i n z i j n u i t l e g van
het dubbele scheppingsverhaal over de mens i n Gen.1 en 2, a l b l i j v e n v e l e de-
t a i l s e x e g e t i s c h zeer l a s t i g . Ook e l d e r s i s P h i l o s t e r k b e i n v l o e d door
P l a t o ' s k i j k op de mens. Hoogst s i g n i f i c a n t i s z i j n overname van de veronder-
s t e l l i n g van een d u a l i s t i s c h e en i n t e l l e c t u a l i s t i s c h e a n t r o p o l o g i e . De mens
i s verwant aan God en o n s t e r f e l i j k , omdat h i j de logos b e z i t ; h i j wordt ge-
l i j k e n d op God (het Platoonse 'telos') door middel van z i j n mentale en geeste-
lijke aktiviteit ( I I I 2.12.)

P h i l o ' s verhouding t o t de t r a d i t i e van de i n t e r p r e t a t i e van de Timaeus

komt aan de orde i n het derde en l a a t s t e hoofdstuk van deel I I I . Z i j n kennis
van de A r i s t o t e l i s c h e u i t l e g van en k r i t i e k op de Timaeus i s gebaseerd op de
e x o t e r i s c h e g e s c h r i f t e n (met name de De p h i l o s o p h i a ) . Van de interpretaties
v o o r g e s t e l d door P l a t o ' s opvolgers i n de Oude Academie i s h i j minder goed op
de hoogte ( I I I 3.1.). Vele ideeën u i t de Timaeus werden overgenomen door de
Stoa en ingepast i n hun f i l o s o f i s c h systeem. Deze z i j n vaak weer terug te
vinden b i j P h i l o , ook i n z i j n lezen van de Timaeus (twee p r i n c i p e s , Logos,
hegemonikon, enz.). Toch i s P h i l o zeker geen Platoniserend e Stoïcijn ( I I I
3.2.). In de 'Commentaar' kwam v o o r a l s t e r k naar voren hoeveel overeenkomsten
P h i l o ' s werkwijze en opvattingen vertonen met de Middenplatoonse i n t e r p r e t a t i e
van de Timaeus. De v e l e overeenkomsten worden nu verder g e p r e c i s e e rd met be-
t r e k k i n g t o t methode van benadering, f i l o s o f i s c h e inhoud en fundamentele
f i l o s o f i s c h - t h e o l o g i s c h e v o o r o n d e r s t e l l i n g e n ( I I I 3.3.). Het i s d u i d e l i j k dat
P h i l o gebruik heeft gemaakt van Middenplatoons bronnenmateriaal. Parallellen
met een geïsoleerd fragment van A r i u s Didymus en met g e s c h r i f t e n van Timaeus
Locrus, Plutarchus en A l b i n u s w i j z e n i n de r i c h t i n g van een c o n c e n t r a t i e van
ontwikkelingen i n de t r a d i t i e van het Platonisme i n Alexandrië. Philo's
'bewijsmateriaal' i s des te i n t e r e s s a n t e r omdat we van deze period e i n de ge-
schiedenis van de f i l o s o f i e zo weinig afweten ( I I I 3.4.). Kunnen we P h i l o a l s
een Middenplatonis t beschouwen? Deze vraag moet b e s l i s t ontkennend beantwoord
452 SAMENVATTING

worden. P h i l o i s geen P l a t o n i s t om v e r s c h i l l e n d e redenen: h i j toont geen l o -

y a l i t e i t jegens P l a t o , h i j i s weinig geïnteresseerd i n technische aspekten van
de f i l o s o f i e , h i j b l i j f t vaak nogal d i c h t b i j de B i j b e l s e t e k s t en doet geen
moeite om een c o n s i s t e n t f i l o s o f i s c h systeem te construeren. Platoonse leer-
stukken vormen een onmisbare p i j l e r voor z i j n denken, maar z i j worden n o o i t
een z e l f s t a n d i g e c o n s t r u c t i e . Philo ziet z i c h z e l f a l s een l e e r l i n g van Mozes
en w i l dat b l i j v e n (III 3.5.)

In het v i e r d e d e e l , g e t i t e l d CONCLUSIE, worden de r e s u l t a t e n van het

onderzoek i n een breder p e r s p e k t i e f g e p l a a t s t . Aan twee van deze r e s u l t a t e n
wordt e e r s t nog nadere aandacht geschonken. De indrukwekkende overeenkomsten
die P h i l o dacht te kunnen vinden tussen Mozes en P l a t o hebben hem stellig ge-
steund i n z i j n o v e r t u i g i n g dat ideeën en leerstukke n u i t de Griekse filosofie
bruikbaar waren voor z i j n exegetische a r b e i d . Het c e n t r a l e thema van Philo s1

denken, de m i g r a t i e van de z i e l , ontvangt v a n u i t t h e o l o g i s c h , kosmologisch en

a n t r o p o l o g i s c h gezichtspunt een s t r u k t u r e l e fundering door middel van de filo-
s o f i s c h e ideeën u i t de Timaeus, d i e h i j i n het Mozaïsche scheppingsverhaal kan
i n l e z e n (IV 1.). Maar a l s wij over ' i n l e z e n ' spreken, moeten we ons goed r e -
a l i s e r e n dat P h i l o z e l f er h e e l anders over denkt. De ideeën z i j n aanwezig i n
de B i j b e l s e t e k s t . De exegeet moet i e t s van d i e grote rijkdom aan het licht
brengen (IV 2.1.). De s t u d i e wordt a f g e s l o t e n met een bespreking van de v e r -
houding tussen exegese en f i l o s o f i e b i j P h i l o (IV 2.2.), een s e r i e k o r t e v e r -
g e l i j k i n g e n met enkele t i j d g e n o t e n (IV 2.3.), en een slotopmerking (IV 2.4.).
P h i l o moet a l s een p i o n i e r worden beschouwd. Z i j n poging om de B i j b e l en de
Griekse f i l o s o f i e samen te brengen bleek a c h t e r af een keerpunt i n de geschied-
enis van de f i l o s o f i e te z i j n . De consequenties van z i j n pionierswerk voor
de o n t w i k k e l i ng van het Joodse en v o o r a l het C h r i s t e l i j k e denken verdienen
verdere aandacht.
 STELLINGEN

Het f r e q u e n t e g e b r u i k d a t P h i l o van P l a t o ' s Timaeus maakt, v i n d t zijn

v e r k l a r i n g i n h e t samenspel van d r i e f a k t o r e n : de o p v a t t i n g d i e h i j
h e e f t van z i j n t a a k a l s e x e g e e t van de boeken van Mozes, de c e n t r a l e
p l a a t s van de s c h e p p i n g s l e e r i n z i j n denken, en z i j n g r o t e e e r b i e d
v o o r de G r i e k s e wetenschap.

II

Als alle g r o t e d e n k e r s öf v o s s e n 5f e g e l s z i j n en P h i l o een g r o o t

denker i s , dan moet h i j g e r e k e n d worden t o t de e g e l s .
Vgl. Archilochus fr.201 West; I.Berlin, Russian thinkers
(London 1978) 22.

III

De m o e i l i j k h e d e n d i e v o o r t v l o e i e n u i t h e t f e i t d a t een d e e l van
P h i l o s oeuvre i n een Armeense v e r t a l i n g i s o v e r g e l e v e r d , worden n i e t
f

zelden s c h r o m e l i j k onderschat. Het i s m e t h o d i s c h n i e t l e g i t i e m een

argument d a t b e t r e k k i n g h e e f t op P h i l o ' s f i l o s o f i s c h e o p v a t t i n g e n té
b a s e r e n op gegevens i n Armeense t e k s t e n wanneer d i e gegevens worden
w e e r s p r o k e n door t e k s t e n d i e nog i n h e t o o r s p r o n k e l i j k e G r i e k s t o e -
gankelijk zijn.
Contra G.Reale, 'Filone d i Alessandria e l a prima elabora-
zione d e l l a dottrin a d e l l a creazione' i i i Paradoxos• P o l i t e i a ;
Studi p a t r i s t i c i i n onore d i Giuseppe L a z z a t i (Milano 1979)
247-287; D.Winston, Philo of Alexandria; The contemplative
l i f e , The giants, and Selections (New York 1981) 14-16.

IV

Het i s n i e t m o g e l i j k een s t u d i e o v e r P h i l o ' s denken t e s c h r i j v e n

waarop de t i t e l 'De denkweg van P h i l o van Alexandrië' t o e p a s s e l i j k
zou zijn.
Vgl. J.A.Aertsen, Natura et creatura; de denkweg van Thomas
van Aquino (diss. VU Amsterdam 1982).

Het l o c a l i s e r e n van de g o d d e l i j k e demiur g op h e t o n t o l o g i s c h e niveau

van de ( w e r e l d - ) z i e l l e i d t t o t een deficiënte i n t e r p r e t a t i e v a n
P l a t o ' s Timaeus.
Contra H.Cherniss, A r i s t o t l e ' s c r i t i c i s m of Plato and the
Academy vol.1 (Baltimore 1944) 606.
 VI
Dat P.Boyancé z i c h e r o v e r v e r b a a s t dat de door hem g e s i g n a l e e r d e
i n c o n s e q u e n t i e i n PI.Tim.41d-e nog n o o i t door iemand opgemerkt i s ,
i s g e h e e l ongegrond, want e r i s geen i n c o n s e q u e n t i e .
Zie 'Dieu cosmique et dualisme: les archontes et Platon* i n
U.Bianchi (ed.),The Origins of Gnosticism (Leiden 1967) 342.

VII
In P h i l o De a e t e r n i t a t e mundi 1 moet de l e z i n g van de h a n d s c h r i f t e n
TTÓvoc gehandhaafd worden.

VIII
In Seneca E p i s t u l a e m o r a l e s 58.28 l e z e men vinelens i.p.v. vincens.

IX
In A l b i n u s D i d a s k a l i k o s XIV p.83.3 L o u i s l e z e men é£axÖ veMHÖeïaa
i . p . v . è£ âpxnç vepnÖeCöa.

X
In de p r o b l e m a t i e k van de v e e l o m s t r e d e n c h r o n o l o g i e van de B r i e v e n
van S y n e s i u s van Cyrene kan a a n z i e n l i j k e v o o r u i t g a n g worden g e b o e k t,
wanneer men s t e e d s de b r i e v e n d i e aan één zelfde correspondent
g e r i c h t z i j n p e r groep a f z o n d e r l i j k behandelt.

XI
Een c u r s u s i n de g e s c h i e d e n i s van de f i l o s o f i e schiet tekort, indien
aan P h i l o van A l e x a n d r i e geen aandacht geschonken w o r d t .

XII
Als z i n s p r e u k v o o r een u n i v e r s i t e i t i s AUXILIUM NOSTRUM IN NOMINE
DOMINI z i n v o l l e r dan POSTERA CRESCAM LAUDE.

XIII
Het a f w i j z e n van i e d e r d i r e k t s c h r i f t b e r o e p i n d i s c u s s i e s i n z a k e
e t h i s c h e v r a g e n , met a l s grond een v e r w i j z i n g naar de h e r m e n e u t i s c h e
p r o b l e m a t i e k , v e r o o r z a a k t v e e l s c h a d e l i j k e v e r w a r r i n g i n de G e r e f o r -
meerde k e r k e n , m.n. op k e r k e r a a d s n i v e a u .

XIV
Geregeld f i e t s e n bevordert het produceren van een proefschrift.
ISEN 90^25^183^7 (2 wlmm}

VVBœkhmézl
Be Boetelaan 1105* Ï0$i HV Amsterdam
Telefoon 020*444355 - telex 18191 vuboe ui