"Philo's Bible
Revisited: the ‘Aberrant Texts’ and their Quotations of Moses"
by Robert A. Kraft, University of Pennsylvania
for Interpreting Translation
ed. F. Garcia Martinez and M. Vervenne (Peeters, 2005[?]), 237-253
The Greek manuscripts of Philo’s writings have not
been
transmitted to us unscathed. This has long been known, and is the
subject of
the densely detailed monograph by Peter Katz (also known as
W.P.M.Walters)
entitled Philo's Bible: the Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in
some
Philonic Writings and its Place in the Textual History of the Greek
Bible
(Cambridge: University Press, 1950). In 1967, Dominique Barthélemy
reviewed and
expanded this inquiry in various directions, also densely detailed,
arguing
that the secondary text of the biblical quotations was based
exclusively on
Aquila’s version (Katz had concluded that it was more generally
“Hebraizing”),
that this combined with other evidence to indicate that the “retoucher”
was
Jewish (Katz thought Christian), that the evidence of the preserved MSS
pointed
to two Caesarean editions from the early third century of which the
“retouched”
one was the earliest (Katz had placed it in the 5th century
in
Antioch), and finally, that the “retouching” could be ascribed to Rabbi
Hoshiya
or his associates in the Caesarea of Origen’s time (first half of the
third century CE).\1/
\1/"Est-ce
Hoshaya Rabba qui censura le 'Commentaire allégorique'? A partir des
retouches faites aux citations bibliques, étude sur la tradition
textuelle du Commentaire Allégorique de Philon" = pp 45-78 in Philon
d'Alexandrie: Lyon 11-15 Septembre 1966, colloques nationaux du Centre
National
de la Recherche Scientifique (Paris 1967) reprinted in
Barthélemy's
Études d’histoire du
Texte de
l’ancient testament (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 21; Göttingen and
Fribourg: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht and Éditions Universitaires, 1978), pp.
140-173, with additional notes on 390-391.
Barthélemy's article is a treasury of suggestive
details
that deserve close attention, used to support some rather bold
conjectures that
are unlikely to command easy assent. David Runia treats Barthélemy
rather
gently in his masterful study of Philo in
Early Christian Literature, and lists five main revisional features
identified by Barthélemy in support of his thesis/theses: (1) use of
Aquila,
(2) replacement of logos by nomos in a few passages, (3) a
striking rewriting
of Agr 51 and its reference
to the Logos as “firstborn
son,” (4) change of the
name “Jesus” to “Joshua” in two instances, and (5) substitution of a
more
general formula (e.g. “the sacred word says”) for the specific “Moses
says” in ten passages in Somn
1.\2/ I am especially fascinated by the last of these, and will focus
on it below.
\2/ David T. Runia, Philo in Early
Christian Literature: A Survey (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum
Testamentum 3: Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature 3; Assen
/ Minneapolis: Van Gorcum / Fortress, 1993), pp. 24-25. I will employ
the abbreviations for Philonic treatises found on p. xv of Runia's
monograph, which in most instances will be quite transparent.
According to Runia, Philo’s writings are preserved
primarily
“in some 65 [Greek] mss dating from the 9th to the 17th
centuries” (22), which are divided into several sub-groups by their
editors
(Cohn-Wendland\3/). Barthélemy has attempted to chart the contents and
order of
Philo’s approximately 35 separate treatises preserved in these
sub-groups,\4/ and has drawn from his chart rather firm
conclusions about the history
of transmission of Philonic texts from Caesarea in Origen’s time to the
various
extant medieval copies and families.
\3/ L. Cohn and P. Wendland, Philonis
Alexandrini opera quae supersunt (6 vols., Berlin: Georgius
Reimerus, 1896-1915). Cohn is responsible for vols 1 and 4-5, Wendland
for vols 2-3; Cohn and Reiter edited vol. 6.
\4/ On p.
63(=158 of the reprint), with each treatise represented by a number. On
p. 78(=173) he lists the treatises by name. Exactly how many separate
treatises there were (or are) depends on how one counts those with
multiple "volumes" -- each of which presumably once existed as a
separate scroll or had its own heading. Barthélemy divides the MSS into
eight sub-groups for his
purposes, but three of his "groups" are actually single MSS (U, P, and
M; see further below) while his "N" is the supposed original from which
various excerpts have been drawn in one sub-group of MSS. Otherwise his
sub-groups are in general agreement with Cohn-Wendland (designated
FGHA; P does not seem to represent a sub-group for Cohn-Wendland, but
does have one ally; for all practical purposes, F is a single MS, but
with two separable parts).
It is not surprising that the textual
relationships between
the MSS and sub-groups are complex, as is well illustrated by a close
look at those
eleven treatises that show evidence of being infected by the “abberent”
Greek biblical text (mainly, if not exclusively Aquila's text). Except
for Virt (Barthélemy’s
#26), all the infected treatises come from Philo’s “Allegorical
Commentary” – see the following chart. MSS U and F share abridged or
mutilated forms of Leg 1 and Cher, and are considered to be a
distinct family
with a common archetype for the 9 treatises that appear in both,
including also infected
texts of Deus, Agr (part),and Plant (i.e. a total of 5 of the 11
infected treatises). MS F also has three other infected works – Sobr, Congr and Somn
1 which are absent from MS U – but MS U contains a very limited
collection of Philonic treatises (5 more
[uninfected] beyond the 6 [infected] already mentioned), and is in fact
the only MS in which Post has
survived (uninfected)\5/ as well as the aberrent/infected version of
Gig (a treatise not included
in MS F). The older part of MS F, on the other hand, contains a
total of 28 (of the 35 or so) Philonic treatises, and sometimes aligns
with the
other MSS and sub-groups in its textual characteristics. Thus between
them, MSS UF
attest all but two of the “infected” treatises – Her and Virt. Interestingly,
MS F does include the various parts of Virt (in three different
locations!),
but in their non-infected form.
\5/ Post is also
mentioned in the table of contents of a
mutilated 11th century parchment codex that has perhaps been
given an exaggerated importance in the arguments for Caesarea as the
source of the archetype or archetypes behind the existing MSS (so
already Cohn[-Wendland] 1, iii, accepted by Barthélemy as well as
Runia); this MS, codex Vindobonensis Theologicus Graecus 29 (designated
"V" in Cohn[-Wendland] 1, xxxv), apparently once contained a dozen or
so Philonic tractates (including six books of Questions in Genesis, of which only
four survive, in fragments), but now preserves only the first half of Opif. But of special interest is
the note, in the form of a cross, that "Euzoius the Bishop made new
copies on skins/parchment" (facsimiles in Runia, after p. 20). A
similar statement is found in Jerome, Vir
ill 113 and Ep 34.1,
with reference to a Euzoios who was bishop of Caesarea around 376-379
and who attempted to restore some of the aging books in the library of
Origen and Pamphilus by copying them "in membranis." The jump from this
evidence in MS V, which in its present form explicitly covers only a
small portion of the Philonic corpus (and includes several subsequently
lost treatises as well), to a comprehensive Caesarean edition of all
the surviving works of Philo is daring indeed!
While the actual presence of textual differences
among the extant
MSS led to the identification of the “aberrent” Aquila-type texts – and
to
debates about which text-form was primary, which secondary\6/ – it was
noticed
that similar Aquila-like readings appeared in the scriptural quotations
in some treatises for which no textual
alternative has survived in the preserved MSS. Thus the following are
also considered
aberrent, although no variant, non-infected texts have been identified:
Plant,
Sobr, Her.
\6/ Claims have been made for the
primacy of the "aberrent" text, but it is difficult to resist the
arguments of Katz, developed further by Barthélemy, against such a
view. See, for example, G. E. Howard,
"The 'Aberrant' Text of
Philo's Quotations Reconsidered," HUCA 44 (1973) 197-209, and Barthélemy's strong
response in his added note to p. 140 in the Études reprint,
p.390-391.
In hopes of shedding clearer light on the
situation, here is
a chart that lists only the "aberrent" texts, with their supporting MSS
on the left and non-infected
witnesses on the right (using Barthélemy's notation for MSS and
sub-groups and Runia's shorthand for titles):
Treatise
|
B's
#
|
Aberrent Text
MSS
|
||
|
Non-Aberrent Text MSS |
Leg
1a |
(#2a) |
U |
F
|
|
|
|
|
|
[N]
|
||
|
|
|
|
P
|
A
|
M
|
|
Cher
(part one) |
(#3.1) |
U |
F
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
G
|
H
|
P
|
A
|
M
|
|
Gig |
(#7) |
U |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
H
|
P
|
A
|
M
|
|
Deus |
(#8) |
U |
F
|
|
|
|
|
|
[N]
|
||
|
|
G
|
H
|
P
|
A
|
M
|
|
Agr
(part) |
(#9.1) |
U |
F
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
G
|
H
|
|
A
|
M
|
|
Plant |
(#10) |
U
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
|
|
M
|
[N]
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sobr
|
(#12) |
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
|
|
|
[N]
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Her |
(#15) |
|
|
G
|
H
|
P
|
A
|
|
[N]
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Congr |
(#16) |
|
F
|
G
|
|
|
|
|
[N]
|
||
|
|
|
H
|
|
A
|
M
|
|
Somn
1 |
(#19a) |
|
F
|
G
|
H
|
P
|
|
|
[N]
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
M
|
|
Virt |
(#26) |
|
|
G
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
F
|
|
H
|
P
|
A
|
M
|
[N]
|
Although Barthélemy tries to work back from these
late MSS to
make a case for two early Caesarean recensions, one partly infected and
one not, his
argument is weakened by the obvious mixing of tractates and of their
relative positions in
the surviving witnesses. He is forced to posit a first edition (based
largely on treatises common to U and F) in which only
some treatises have been retouched – an edition which he conjectures
might have
been made for the Jerusalem/Aelia Christian library by a Jewish
scholar/corrector in Origen's retinue – and a (somewhat later)
edition of an uninfected sort (based largely on families HAM) that
includes many, but not all of the same treatises.
It seems more sensible to me to make a clean division between the
infected
version or versions and the uninfected, regardless of where they may
appear in the preserved MSS, especially since the favored
Caesarean setting in the first part of the third century would be in
the period of transition
from the scroll and mini-codex technology of the 2nd century to the 4th/5th
century development
of mega-codices. Thus the criteria for identification become less a
matter of
comparing extant manuscripts and more a search for telltale features
within the
individual texts. To put it another way, it makes sense to me, at the
theoretical level at
least, to include only the infected treatises in a supposed early
collection/edition of Philo’s works – an edition that might have been
made
piecemeal, by juxtaposing separate scrolls or mini-codices, or more
homogeneously
(physically speaking) in codex based anthologies of Philonic
treatises.\7/ Of course, we have no way
to tell whether the work of the retoucher extended to other treatises
for which
no evidence has survived. This is entirely possible, just as it is
probable that non-infected versions of
Plant, Sobr, and Her also survived for a time.
\7/ The evidence of the two
extensive papyrus codices from perhaps the 3rd century is relevant
here. The first, which was known to Cohn-Wendland and is now housed at
Paris (Bibliotheque Nationale Suppl Gr 1120), was found at Coptos in
upper Egypt and was initially dated to the 6th century by its editor,
Scheil, but subsequent expert opinions opt for 3rd (Kenyon, Hunt) or
perhaps 4th century (Merell). It contains two Philonic
tractates, Her
and Sacr in that
order. It is also unusual for having its covers preserved (and in
the binding were fragments of Christian Gospels!), which held together
four smaller gatherings of papyri. The other papyrus codex has been
pieced together from Oxyrhynchos papyrus fragments also dated to the
3rd century. It was copied in three different hands, and the pages were
numbered ("289" is the highest number preserved). Some fragments do not
correspond to known Philonic texts, but otherwise the following
treatises are represented: Sacr,
Leg 1 - 2, De pietate
[? a lost part of Virt], De ebrietate 1 [lost, but
mentioned by Eusebius], Ebr, Post, , and Det (so Runia p. 23, citing J. R.
Royse, "The Oxyrhynchus Papyrus of Philo," Bulletin of the American Society of
Papyrologists 17 [1980] 155-165). Hopefully more of
this codex will be forthcoming from the Oxford storerooms. If these
papyri codices are representative of the forms in which Philo's works
circulated in the third century in Egypt, it is clear that we must
"think small" in attempting to imagine the textual developments of that
period. It is not likely that more than eight or so treatises would
have been collected together in a single codex (depending, of course,
on sizes of the individual treatises and of the codex), and undoubtedly
more limited groupings (or single treatises) were also in circulation,
and probably even some scrolls as well as mini-codices.
At this point, things become even more complex,
since
without explicit textual variation, it is difficult to determine
whether there
has been tampering or not. Some cases are clearer than others, as is
true of
the presence of Aquila-like scriptural texts even where no alternate
Philonic variants
have survived (Plant, Sobr, Her).
Similarly, the attested variation of logos
[=MAPHG]/nomos
[=UFL\2]
in Deus 57 increases the
probability that a similar adjustment was made in
Plant 8 and 10, as supported
by the secondary
evidence from quotations in Clement and Eusebius [Plant 8: logos
=Eus / nomos =UFMGH; Plant 10: logos
=Eus / nomos =UFMGH].
Similarly, in Agr 51 the
reference to logos
as "firstborn son" is
eliminated (MS U) and/or "clarified" to refer to an archangel (UF,
perhaps alluding to Ex 23.20). Almost certainly more of this sort of
thing
lies hidden in the preserved texts, and Barthélemy’s call for more
attention to
such features is appropriate.\8/ Whether the fact that “IHSOUS” appears
as
“IWUSUAS” in Virt 66 and 69
in the second hand of MS G suggests that a similar
modification may have occurred in Virt
55 (unattested) is less clear. In any event,
the primary point of this exercise is not to create variations where
they have not been preserved, but to identify possible contaminations
in the surviving texts.
\8/ "Nine times out of ten, [the
retoucher] intervened simply:
(1) as a person very familiar with the revision that Aquila had made of
the Septuagint,
(2) as a Jewish scholar quite
ignorant of Greek literature [e.g. Deus
167 ( mutilation of technical terminology) and 169 (omits poetical
term); Her 116 (omits poetic
citation), 181 (Plato's κήρινον to καίριον),
23 (Plato's δεσμός to δεσπότης)]
and philosophy [e.g. Somn
1.107 (adds τὴν ἱερὰν before παιδείαν,
and ἀληθοῦς
before φιλοσοφίας),
226 (adds ἀπόρρητοι
before λόγοι);
Gig
52 and Deus 33 and Her 170 (eliminates τὸ ὄν)],
(3) as a simple person who
had little appreciation for the exaggerated emphasis of the Alexandrian
style [e.g. 16 times in Her
superlative to comparative (25, 115, 152, 222) or μυρίοι
to πολλοί
and πάσης to πλείονος
(105) or μόνον to μᾶλλον
(302) or omissions
of ἀεί
(161, 292) and μόνος (167, 234) and πᾶς
(117,180) and ἅπας (277)
as well as παρὰ πάντων (113) and καθ’ ἑκάστην (116); the two
opposite
types of changes actually support this point -- πάντα
for σχεδόν
(247)
and βεβαία
regarding revealed wisdom (314)],
(4) as a fastidious monotheist who mistrusted ambiguous terminology
[e.g. Deus 57 (ἰσοτίμου
to ἑτέρου),
Her 65 (normalizing
Isaac), Somn 1.84 (omit θειοτάτας),
Leg 1.35 (θεῖα
for θέσει)
and 43 (μὲν γὰρ θείαν
for μετάρσιον),
and Somn 1.65 (omit definite
article with λόγος)],
(5) as one who cared more to defend the honor of Israel [e.g. Migr 175 (on Jacob's offspring)]
than to affirm
sympathy for the goyim [e.g. Congr
85 (ἔθη
to ἔθνη)
-- even if this is a mistake, it is revealing!]”
(70/165 - 71/166, and notes).
My main interest in the present contribution,
however, is in the passages
in which quotation formula such as “Moses said” appear in some
witnesses, while
others display a more general identification such as “the sacred word
says,” or less frequently, "the legislator says." Barthélemy’s claim
that rabbinic Judaism shies away from such explicit attributions to
Moses seems well
supported in rabbinic text and practice\9/ -- while the presence of
such “Moses”
formulas seems of little concern to Christian authors and
commentators.\10/ Thus this
appears to be strong evidence in support of Barthélemy’s theory that a
rabbinically minded Jewish retoucher has tampered, although somewhat
inconsistently, with these materials.
\9/ Barthélemy refers to a baraita of the Babylonian Talmud at
Sanhedrin 99a: "If anyone says
that the entire Torah came from heaven with the exception of a sole
verse which came from Moses himself -- but was not spoken by the Holy
One, blessed be he -- to that person the saying 'he has despised the
word of the Lord' [Num 15.31] refers" (62/157). His claim that the
formula "Moses said" was "banned from all rabbinic writings (bannie de
tous les écrits rabbiniques)" seems to
be generally accurate and may reflect "common knowledge" as expressed,
e.g. in L. Ginzberg, Legends of the
Jews 6 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1928) 47 ("the
Rabbis ... condemn as a heresy the view which would admit even that one
word of the Torah was written by Moses himself, and not received by him
from heaven; see Sanhedrin 99a" -- the larger context in Ginzberg is
the alleged role of angels in such revelation, with reference to
Galatians 3.17, Josephus Antiquities
15.136 [5.3], and Jubilees 1.17; for details, Ginzberg refers to his
more extensive discussion in Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte
[Philadelphia: Maurice Jacobs Press,1922
(English Translation 1976)] 246-249); for a more extensive and more
recent discussion of the issues see Steven
D. Fraade, "Moses and the Commandments: Can Hermeneutics, History, and
Rehtoric be Disentangled?" (pp. 399-422 in The
Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James M. Kugel,
eds. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman [Supplements to the Journal for
the Study of Judaism 83. Leiden: Brill, 2004]), and
especially 411-413 ("Moses Takes the Halakhic Lead, [With God's
Approval]"), 413-415 ("Korah's Rebellion"), and
416-422 ("Three Explanatory Strategies"). Fraade documents inner
Jewish/rabbinic tensions on the roles of Moses in Divine Legislation,
which are even more explicit in some Christian Gnostic materials such
as the late 2nd century Letter of
Ptolemy to Flora 33.4-5 (Fraade 418-419). For the passage in Sanhedrin 99a and related rabbinic
texts (Sifre Deut 26 and Sifre Num 112), see Fraade 410 and
especially note 29.
\10/ Barthélemy (62/157 nn. 4-5) points to various examples in Philo's
uninfected writings (Sacr, Det, Post;
see also further below on the infected treatises!), and to New
Testament examples (Mt 8.4 [//Mk 1.44, Lk 5.14], 19.7 [//Mk 10.3-4],
22.24[//Mk 12.19 (Moses wrote for us) = Lk 20.28]; Mk 7.10 [but note
the parallel in Mt 15.4 "God said"! Fraade n. 45]; Lk 20.37 [but see
the parallels in Mk 12.26 (God said, in the book of Moses) and Mt 22.31
(God said)]; Jn 8.5; Acts 3.22, 6.14; Rom 10.5 and 19). These could
easily be multiplied by a simple search of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae data bank
-- e.g. Barnabas, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus the Blind, Gregory of
Nyssa, Efrem
Syrus, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, Procopius, among others -- even
some Dialogue with Jews
literature such
as the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila
(4th-5th century?) or John Cantacuzenus, Orationes contra
Judaeos (14th century!). Of course, many of
these authors have been influenced directly or indrectly by Philo. Nor
does such attribution seem to have been a problem for some of the
authors and transmitters of the Dead Sea Scrolls -- e.g. Damascus Document 5.8 [Lev 18.13], 6.3 (in 4Q266 frg
3
col 2.10 = 4Q267 frg 2.9 [Num 21.18], but not in the medieval copy at
that point!) 8.14
= 19.26 [Deut 9.5] -- the possible connection of the Cairo Geniza to
the Karaites raises the question whether medieval Karaites had the same
strictures?
1Q22 (Words
of Moses) is probably not so
relevant since it seems less selfconscious about distinguishing between
"scripture" and the story being told. See also Hindy Najman, Authoritative Writing and Interpretation:
A Study in the History of Scripture (Harvard Dissertation 1998),
especially 179-231 "The Divine
Moses and his Natural Law: Philo on Authority and Interpretation"
[Fraade n. 7], and Seconding
Sinai: The Development of Mosaic
Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (Supplements
to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 77; Brill 2003).
The
situation is defined by the following ten passages from Somn 1:
- Somn
1.77 λέγεται ... πολλαχῶς κατὰ Μωσῆν [=MA; λέγεται …
πολλαχῶς κατὰ τὸν
ἱερὸν
λόγον =GFHP] --
"Frequently it is said by Moses..." / "Frequently the sacred word says
...." But note that in the preceding section, we find reference to what
"Moses says," without any significant textual variation (see the
"Moses" passages below, near the start of Philo's explanation of "sun"
language);
- Somn
1.81 φησὶ Μωσῆς
(Lev
11.24f, etc.) [=MA; φησὶν ὁ ἱερὸς
λόγος GFHP] --
"Moses says that noone can be clean before evening ..." /
"The sacred word says ...." Note that in Lev 11, Moses and Aaron are
instructed to speak, and Philo notes explicitly that these instructions
apply to priests.
- Somn
1.112 φησὶ Μω(ϋ)σῆς δεῖν (Ex 22.26) [=MA; φησὶ δεῖν ὁ
νομοθέτης GFHP] --
"Moses says that it must be restored..." / "The lawgiver says ...."
Presumably the Deity could be construed as the lawgiver in such
contexts.
- Somn 1.121 κατὰ
τὸν
ἱερώτατον Μωσῆν [=MA; κατὰ
τὸν ἱερ.
νομοθέτην GFHP] --
"according to the most sacred Moses ..." / "According to the most
sacred lawgiver ...." No specific passage seems to be in veiw, but an
interpretation of Jacob's dream in Gen 28.11.
- Somn
1.124 γνώριμος ἐστὶ Μωυσέως [=MA; γνώριμος τοῦ ἱεροῦ
λόγου GFHP] --
"Noone of that sort is a disciple of Moses ..." / "Noone of that sort
is a disciple of the sacred word...." No specific passage seems to be
in view.
- Somn 1.141 Μω(ϋ)σῆς δ' [=MA; ὁ δὲ ἱερὸς
λόγος GFHP] --
"The other philosophers usually call them 'demons,' but Moses calls
them angels..." / "... but the sacred word calls ...." Jacob's
dream in Gen 28.12 is the immediate context.
- Somn 1.229 διὸ καὶ Μωϋσῆς
ἐν τῷ παρόντι ... εἰπών· (Gen
31.13) [=MA; διὸ καὶ ὁ ἱερὸς
λόγος ... GFHPN] --
"Wherefore also Moses in the passage at hand ... saying" /
Wherefore also the sacred word ...." Note that in the preceding context
(226), "the sacred word" is said to have prepared the listener to
understand , using priestly symbolism (sprinkling to purify,
etc.)..
- Somn 1.234 Μωϋσῆς δὲ [=MA; ὁ δὲ
λόγος GFHP] -- "And
Moses ... compared the deity to man..." / "And the [sacred?] word
...." Mangey and later editors conjecture that "sacred" has
dropped out. The context deals with anthropomorphism, moving between
Num 23.19 (a favorite passage of Philo) and Deut 8.5.
- Somn 1.245 διὸ καί Μωϋσῆς φησιν ἄντικρυς
(Deut. 16.22) [=MA; διὸ καί φησιν ἄντικρυς ὁ ἱερὸς
λόγος GFHP] --
"Wherefore also Moses says explicitly..." / "Wherefore also the
sacred word says explicitly...." The context is the danger of
self glorification.
- Somn
1.253 ἅγιος γάρ φησιν ἐστὶ Μωϋσῆς ὁ τρέφων κόμην τρίχα
κεφαλῆς (Num. 6.5) [=MA; „ἅγιος“ γάρ φησιν „ἐστὶν ὁ τρέφων ..." GFHP] --
"For 'holy,' says Moses, 'is the one who increases hair the
hairs of his head'" / "For 'holy,' it says, 'is the one ....'"
This is an odd passage, both in the MA text of Philo where the verb ἐστὶ seems to be
misplaced (unless Moses is the one who lets his hair grow in a certain
way!), and in the LXX witnesses themselves, where τρίχα
("hairs," but easily confused with "threefold") is omitted in several
witnesses. One could
easily argue that Philo's MA text is secondary here, with "Moses"
inserted from the magin but in an awkward location. It is not the same
sort of variation as the other nine.\11/
\11/
There is another possible example in Her
296,
where the Papyrus has "For Moses
says" -- γάρ
φησι Μωσῆς (Gen 8.21) -- while all other witnesses
(they all contain the aberrent Aquila-like text) lack "Moses."
We can add to this list of
textually variant Moses passages in treatises with aberrent biblical
text the following three counter-examples: (1) Deus 6 where all the main
witnesses
agree with UF in reading κατὰ
τὸ
ἱερώτατον
Μω(υ)σέως γράμμα
τοῦτο
(Num
28.2) -- "(This
is) in accord with this most sacred text of
Moses" -- while MS D alone has κατὰ
τὸ
ὶερώτατον
τοῦ
νόμου
πρόσταγμα τὸ
φάσκον
-- "(This is)
in accord with the most sacred command of the law
[perhaps emend to "lawgiver"?] which states"; (2) Agr
20 "Wherefore
the all-wise Moses ... saying" -- διὰ τοῦτο ὁ πάνσοφος Μωυσῆς [=UF; the rest omit
"Moses"] ... λέγων (Gen
9.20); (3) and
in Her
13 the phrase "according
to the command of Moses" -- κατὰ τὸ Μω(υ)σέως παράγγελμα (see Deut 27.9)
-- is present
in all extant (= infected) witnesses except the presumably uninfected
Coptos Papyrus.
Otherwise in
Somn 1 we find
three more occurrences of "Moses" that we might have expected to
be modified, if the "retoucher" had been consistent and if those
changes had survived in the MSS:\12/
- Somn 1.34 μάλιστα κατὰ Μωυσέα
[=MA; Μωϋσῆν
rell] λέγοντα· --
"most certainly as Moses attests" (Gen 2.7)
- Somn 1.76 οὕτως φησὶ Μω(υ)σῆς
τὸν θεὸν φῶς καὶ σκότος διατειχίσαι -- "so
Moses says that the Deity separated light and darkness" (Gen 1.4)
- Somn 1.221 διὸ καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα τοῦτον εἰσάγει Μωυσῆς
φυσικῶς αἵματι πεφυρμένον -- "Thus
Moses introduces also this coat [of Joseph] as
stained with blood ..." (Gen 38.31)
\12/The other passages referring to
Moses in Somn 1 are not
particularly germane since they are not identifying Moses as the
source of a scriptural statement:
We also find in
Somn 1 some
other uses of "legislator/lawgiver" (twice) and of "the sacred word" or
"the
divine word" (four or five times)\13/ that are directly relevant to
this discussion. No significant variants occur in the preserved
witnesses to these passages:
- Somn 1.39 τὸν τοσοῦτον εἶναι λόγον τῷ
νομοθέτῃ --
"this discourse by the lawgiver [on well digging -- see Gen 26.32] is
...";
- Somn 1.93 τὴν τοσαύτην
σπουδὴν εἶναι τῷ
νομοθέτῃ --
"such concern by the lawgiver [about a coat -- see Exod 22.26f]
is ...";
- Somn
1.53 φησὶν οὖν [φησὶ γοῦν MA; φ. οὐκ L\1, φησὶν H\1] ὁ ἱερὸς
λόγος
-- "The sacred word asks certain questions about nature
...." (no specific passages are given in the immediate context);
- Somn 1.190 ὁρᾷς
ὅτι θεοπέμπτους ὀνείρους
ἀναγράφει ὁ
θεῖος λόγος
-- "You see that the divine word describes god-sent dreams" not only
those directly sent, but also indirectly (through the "angel" in Gen
31.11-13, Jacob's dream);
- Somn
1.206 δημιουργὸν ὁ ἱερὸς
λόγος Βεσελεὴλ ἐκάλεσεν
[no significant variants] -- "The sacred word calls the creator of this
material Bezeleel" (Exod. 31.2
ff) (see above,
n. 12, on Moses in the same passage);
- Somn
1.214 ὁ ἱερὸς ἐδικαίωσε λόγος -- "The sacred word
instructed the great high-priest" to prepare himself (Exod
29.4, although Philo's argument assumes the mention of "ashes" in the
passage, which is not found in the extant Greek witnesses) .
\13/In Somn1, Philo frequently refers to
"the sacred word" or "the divine word" to indicate various types of
contact with the divine that are not necessarily identified with the
words of scripture or of Moses:
- Somn 1.61-119 focuses especially on
the significance of "place" which is "met" in connection with the
setting of the "sun" (Gen 28.11) as a lead in to Jacob's dream. Thus in
62 we have κατὰ δεύτερον δὲ
τρόπον ὁ θεῖος λόγος -- the second
meaning of
"place" is "the divine word" [with a reference to Exod 24.10; Philo may
also be playing on the ambivalence of Greek τόπος (topos), which can refer to a
written "passage" as well as a "location"]; this
theme and language continue in 65 (ὧν τὸ μὲν ἕτερον θεῖός ἐστι λόγος, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον ὁ πρὸ
τοῦ
λόγου θεός -- "place" in Gen
22.3f refers to "a divine word" and
also to "the Deity who exists prior to the word") and in 66 (εὑράμενος τῆς
ἀρεσκείας κεφαλὴν καὶ τέλος τὸν θεῖον λόγον -- Wisdom brings
the
traveler to this destination, "the divine word") and 68 (ἀλλὰ
τῷ μέσῳ λόγῳ θείῳ -- the middle of
three
senses of "place," namely "a divine word"), and 70 --
on Gen 18.33 where Abraham returns to the "place" where the Deity who
is prior to everything ("the all") has withdrawn but left "sacred
words" (τὸ
λόγοις τοιούτοις ἐντυγχάνειν ἱεροῖς [ἱερεῖς L\1])
and 71 (ἵν’ ἐξαπιναίως ὁ θεῖος λόγος
ἐπιφαινόμενος -- "the divine word" unexpectedly meets with the traveler
along the way [Exod 19.17]).
- Somn 1.72ff deals similarly with
the meaning of "sun": in 85, "Sun" in Gen 28.11 and
elsewhere (see above on Moses/sacred word variation in Somn 1.77 and
81) signifies "the divine word" (κατὰ δὲ
τὸ
τρίτον σημαινόμενον ἥλιον καλεῖ τὸν θεῖον λόγον), and
in
86, associates of virtue are assisted by "the word of God" (ὁ γὰρ
τοῦ
θεοῦ λόγος).
- Finally in Somn 1.118f Philo concludes this
part of his treatment by restating, in the words of an unnamed body of
interpreters with whom he does not explicitly disagree, the
relation of "place" and "sun" to
"the/a divine word" and to the
"ascetic" observer (τόπον δὲ τὸν θεῖον λόγον, οὕτως ἐξεδέξαντο·
ἀπήντησεν ὁ ἀσκητὴς λόγῳ θείῳ δύντος)...
although "the divine word remains distant" (μακρὰν
ὁ
θεῖος λόγος ἀφέστηκεν) for
those who
conceitedly follow their senses and mind alone.
- Somn 1.120-132 cites Gen 28.11 in
preparation for Jacob's dream in 133-158: thus in 128 Jacob
puts
his head on the "stones of the place" (Gen 28.11) which indicates "the
divine word" (τὸ δ’ ἀληθὲς ὡς
ἀναπαυσόμενος
ἐπὶ λόγῳ θείῳ), and in 147 neither
a
Deity nor a divine word causes harm along Jacob's stairway (οὔτε
γὰρ θεὸς οὔτε λόγος θεῖος ζημίας αἴτιος),
while in 148 the
companions of those in the process of cleansing are "angels, divine
words (ἄγγελοι,
λόγοι θεῖοι)"
(Lev
26.12 and Jacob's stairway interpretation).
- Somn 1.159-175a turns to
interpreting Gen 28.13 and in 164 we find what might be a reference to
scriptures [plural] in speaking of those with blinded
understandings who ought to "become sighted by the most
sacred oracles" and be initiated into "the hidden light of sacred words" (πρὸς τῶν ἱερωτάτων ἐνομματουμένους
λογίων ... ἕως ἐπὶ τὸ κεκρυμμένον ἱερῶν
[=MAG\1; ἱερὸν rell] λόγων φέγγος).
- Somn 1.191 (see above for the
context): "the sacred
word" deals in various roles (as king, advisor, friend, etc.) with
various types of people (ὁ ἱερὸς
λόγος τοῖς μὲν ὡς βασιλεὺς ....)
- Somn 1.215 (for
the context, see above)
in the universe is "his high-priest and first-born divine word" (ἐν ᾧ
καὶ
ἀρχιερεὺς ὁ πρωτόγονος αὐτοῦ θεῖος λόγος);
- Somn 1.226 "For when the
sacred word has cleansed us with the sprinkled water ..."
[a priestly reference] (ἐπειδὴ
γὰρ
ἐκάθηρεν
ἡμᾶς
ὁ
ἱερὸς
λόγος τοῖς
...
περιρραντηρίοις).
Since the “Moses” passages occur in the generally uninfected MSS
represented by the AM witnesses, Barthélemy’s complaint that Wendland
has chosen
for his main text the wrong variants in those passages seems well
founded.\14/ It would
have been a tough call for an editor insofar as the Philonic corpus
elsewhere
abounds with references to “the sacred word” – that is, such
terminology is
not inconsistent with Philo’s range of formulas.\15/ As Barthélemy
noted, even in the sub-set of Somn
1,
there are still a few locations in which “the sacred word” occurs
without any
attested variation (see above, Somn
1.53 and especially 164-229). Does this indicate
inconsistent
transmission of the uninfected text (perhaps with some contamination
from the infected), or simply variety in Philo’s use of such
formulas?
\14/ 62/157 n. 1: "Wendland erred in
considering as original, in these 10
instances, the formula that omits the name of Moses. Independent of the
theological motivation that we provide in the following lines [above,
n. 9],
note the following statistical data: the two extant books of De
Somniis are about the same length and the second has not been
touched by the Jewish retoucher. If one compares, in these two books,
the
mentions of the name of Moses by Philo (without including the mention
of this name within biblical citations) with the use of the expression
"the sacred word" (ὁ ἱερὸς
λόγος) to refer
to holy scripture, one finds in the second book 17 occurrences of
"Moses" compared with 4 of "the sacred word," whereas the "retouched"
layer [MSS GFHP] of the first book contains, under the same conditions,
"Moses" 7
times and "the sacred word" 12 times, while the textual layer in which
the citations have not been harmonized to Aquila [MSS AM] contains 17
"Moses"
passages compared with 6 for "the sacred word." We conclude, then, that
it is the textual layer in which the citations are intact [i.e. not
harmonized to Aquila, witnesses AM] that presents
a normal statistical situation."
\15/ On Philo's formulas in general, see the outdated study by H. E.
Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, or,
The Quotations of Philo from the Books of the Old Testament
(London and New York: Macmillan, 1885), which is gradually being
updated in electronic form at
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/courses/999/RYLE1.htm .
Since Barthélemy understandably links these
“Moses”
variations with the revisional work that also inserted Aquila-like
readings
into Philo’s biblical texts, we might expect to find similar evidence
of the
“Moses” adjustment in the other infected treatises. A search of those
Philonic treatises provides, however, no significant support for that
assumption, as is apparent from the following summary (presumed
non-infected text numbers in parentheses, where variations occur; see
also above n. 11). The
detailed lists of passages can be found in the Appendices:
Treatise
|
B's #
|
Moses Formula |
Lawgiver Formula\16/
|
Sacred Word Formula\17/ |
Aquila-like readings\18/
|
Leg 1
|
#2a
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
10 (0, 3, 7)
|
Cher
|
#3
|
3
|
2
|
0
|
03 (0, 1, 2)
|
Gig
|
#7
|
2
|
5
|
0
|
06 (2, 2, 2)
|
Deus
|
#8
|
4 (3)
|
2 (3? cf n.11 above)
|
0
|
24 (0, 8, 16)
|
Agr
|
#9
|
2 (1)
|
2
|
0
|
12 (0, 2, 10)
|
Plant
|
#10
|
5
|
cf
|
1
|
15 (3, 2, 10)
|
Sobr
|
#12
|
1
|
cf
|
0
|
09 (1, 0, 8)
|
Her
|
#15
|
13 (12)
|
1
|
3
|
19 (2, 8, 9)
|
Congr
|
#16
|
8
|
cf
|
5
|
11 (2, 4, 5)
|
Somn 1
|
#19a
|
2 (11)
|
5 (3)
|
14 (7)
|
09 (0, 4, 5)
|
Virt
|
#26
|
?
|
|
|
04 (2, 1, 1)
|
\16/ While the "legislator/lawgiver"
usually seems to refer to Moses, there are passages that can be
construed as referring directly to the Deity (e.g. Gig 19 and 32). This increases the
ambiguity of the term in many other places. There is also a reference
to "the law" speaking (λέγει
οὖν ὁ νόμος Deus 99), which I suspect may be a
corruption of "lawgiver" (but see the same formula in Det 159, also a corruption? See
also above, n. 11, on Deus 6
var). Much
more frequent in the Philonic corpus is the similar formula with a
different verb, φησιν ὁ
νόμος (Deus 4
and Agr 131 in the above
listed
treatises).
\17/ Interestingly, in some passages it
is clear that this formula refers to Aaron and/or the high priestly
role. See Leg 1.76
-- "Aaron, the sacred word, requests of God's friend Moses to heal ...
Miriam" (παρὸ
καὶ δεῖται [λέγεται A] ὁ ἱερὸς
[ἱερεὺς A]
λόγος Ἀαρὼν τοῦ θεοφιλοῦς Μω(υ)σέως ἰάσασθαι ....); see
especially Fug 108ff, and
also Her 185 and 201, Migr 102, Somn 1.215 (above, n. 13) where the
priest, Aaron = "the sacred/divine word." Whether the
retoucher
would have been aware of that identification is impossible to say,
although a few of the passages in Somn
1 clearly have priestly connections, as noted above. The related
formula "the divine word" is rare in these treatises.
\18/According to
Barthélemy (46/141), a total of 122 "Hebraizations" are found in these
infected treatises, broken down as here. In his chart (63/158), he
distinguishes three types: "attestés" [i.e. we know what Aquila's
readings were and the Philonic variants agree; these are discussed on
47/142-49/144], "certains" [i.e. consistent with Aquila's technique as
seen from parallel passages/wording; discussed on 49/144-52/147],
"possibles" [i.e. less sure but consistent with what we would expect
from Aquila; discussed on 53/148-54/149] -- so I have included his
figures in the parentheses in that order. He also notes that Katz
included Spec 4 and Leg 2-3 in his list of the aberrent
texts, "but I have rejected mentioning them since the hebraisms
in these books are rare and uncertain, or even seem to represent
the biblical text of Philo himself" (46/141).
Thus it is quite clear
that any suppression of direct references to Moses speaking scriptural
things is not evidenced in the other infected treatises apart from Somn
1. Even where the aberrent biblical text appears with quoted material,
Moses can be depicted as the speaker (Appendix 1). Nor is there
reason to think there is anything unusual regarding
the substitution
formula, "the
lawgiver says" (Appendix 2) or "the sacred word/logos says" (Appendix 3) or
the like.
With
regard to the Moses references, the evidence seems consistent and
clear. The only surviving Philonic tractate in which suppression
of the
Moses references is demonstrable or even probable is Somn 1 (the unique variant in MS D
at Deus 6 and other possible
evidence cited in n. 11 above might be surviving clues that such
revision also occurred elsewhere, or might be
entirely coincidental). This makes it difficult to agree with Barthélemy
that there once was an edition of some of Philo's writings in
which
the Aquila-type quotations were found with other presumably Jewish
adjustments including the modification of these Moses formulae. It is
possible that the revision process took place in (at least) two stages,
and that only Somn 1 has
survived from the stage that involved the elimination of some Moses
passages. But even then, the two main pieces of evidence, the
quotations and the formulae, call for separate explanations. (I'm not
yet sure what to do with the other evidence claimed by Barthélemy for tractates other than Somn
1 that he thinks suggests Jewish tampering apart from the aberrent text
and the
Moses modifications; above n. 8.)
My own suspicion is that the Moses changes go
back to a time when Somn 1
circulated by itself, in scroll or mini-codex format, before
significant anthologies of Philonic treatises became more normal. That
situation probably also obtained for the other aberrent treatises,
which perhaps never circulated together, under one cover, although that
does not necessarily mean that they were not revised together as a
collection of individual treatises or smaller groupings (see n. 7 above
on
the papyrus evidence). Whether such revisional activities can be
traced to a
specific location such as Caesarea or Jerusalem or even Alexandria
remains entirely speculative, although Barthélemy's
case for Origen's Caesarea is attractive, within the vast limits of our
present knowledge. It does make sense to imagine such changes being
made by Jewish/rabbinic "retouchers" who are familiar with the
Aquila-like Greek
version and who avoid attributing human origin to scriptural text,
although Christian litterati with similar predelections are not
unimaginable (note, e.g. the similar variation between Mk
7.10 [Moses said] and its parallel in Mt 15.4 [God said]; above n. 10). In any event, the
phenomena themselves are fascinating,
as examples of what can happen in the transmission of texts, and at
least for the moment seem to have arisen relatively early in the
transmission of Philo's writings, and fit well into the context of
Jewish inclinations -- perhaps even in an unsuccessful attempt to
preserve Philo as an acceptable Jewish author in a changing Jewish
climate.
Weighing the Probabilities, by way of
Conclusion:
1. Which came
First? If Aquila-like modifications preceded Moses
manipulations, the former took place more or less together but Somn 1
then circulated separately and had most of its Moses references
changed. But it is not completely impossible that
Somn 1 had received the Moses
changes as an isolated member of the Philonic corpus before its
quotations were modified as
part of a separate and more extensive endeavor (the Aquila-like text
substitution). There currently is no way to be sure.
2. When? Assuming
that Aquila's text was not
available as such until the mid 2nd century, the "aberrent" readings
must have arisen after that. Aquila's text was still widely
available in the 6th century (Justinian's Novella), and even thereafter
(through Origen's Hexapla),
so who knows? If the Moses modifications are the
result of rabbinic predelections, perhaps the 2nd-3rd century CE is an
appropriate starting point, with almost limitless duration thereafter.
3. Where? That many
of Philo's works were known in Alexandria at the end of the 2nd
century, and after that to
Origen
and his successors at Caesarea is a given, but it is not so likely
that the early papyri codices from Egypt represent a Caesarean-based
transmission
of Philo. Where else Philo's works, individually or in groups, might
have been in circulation in Jewish or Christian circles by the 3rd
century is pure conjecture. Nor can we know whether all surviving works
of Philo were
available at Origen's Caesarea, although Eusebius' list encourages the
possibility that even more than has survived was present there. Exactly
what
Euzoios did and with what treatises is impossible to determine.
4. By whom? The
Jewish "retoucher" (or better,
"retouchers") case makes good sense, but
is not the only possibility. We simply do not know enough about the
transmission process and personnel, or about relevant attitudes within
Christian circles, to be able to make solid guesses.
5. So what?
Did MSS of Philonic treatises circulate in Jewish circles
as late as 3rd-4th century? It is certainly not impossible, nor is it
impossible that the papyri codices of Philo came from Jewish contexts
(the presence of NT fragments in the covers of the Coptos codex can cut
two ways -- why would Christians reuse their own scriptures in such a
fashion?; the use of abbreviations or of the codex format should be
treated as open
questions, not criteria for identifying "Christian" products). The idea
that all this came through a Christian filter at Caesarea is quite
speculative, basically grasping at straws such as the Euzoios
information and
Origen's affinity for Philo.
--
APPENDIX 1: Moses as Scripture-speaker References
- Leg 1.80 "Concerning
which Moses says ..." -- ἐφ’ οὗ φησι Μω(υ)σῆς
σπαρέντος καὶ φυτευθέντος ἐν ψυχῇ (Gen
30.18) [no significant variants]
- Cher 15
"Thus
also Moses says" -- παρὸ
[minor variants] καί φησι Μωυσῆς (Deut
16.20) [no
other significant variants]
- Cher 16 "Thus also Moses says" --
παρὸ [=H; παρ ω
MAPG; καθὸ UF] καὶ λέγει Μω(υ)σῆς ὅτι "τὰ κρυπτὰ κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ, τὰ δὲ φανερὰ γενέσει
γνώριμα"+ (Deut
29.29) [no other significant variants]
- Cher 87 "Moses often in
the
legeslation says ..." -- φησιν ... Μωυσῆς πολλαχοῦ τῆς νομοθεσίας (see
Exod
20.10)
[no significant variants, but UF have ended in section 84]
- Gig 6 "Those that other
philosophers are accustomed to call 'daimons' Moses calls 'angels' ..."
(with reference to Gen 6.2) -- οὓς
[+ oi U] ἄλλοι φιλόσοφοι δαίμονας, ἀγγέλους Μωυσῆς ὀνομάζειν [no other significant variants]
- Gig 67
"Thus it follows to say that according to the most sacred Moses
..." -- ἀκόλουθον
<οὖν> ἂν εἴη λέγειν, ὅτι κατὰ τὸν ἱερώτατον Μω(υ)σέα [no
significant variants]
- Deus 6 "According
to this most sacred text of Moses" -- κατὰ τὸ ἱερώτατον Μω(υ)σέως
γράμμα [γρ. Μ. UF] τοῦτο· "τὰ δῶρά μου, δόματά μου, καρπώματά μου διατηρήσετε προσφέρειν
ἐμοί" (Num
28.2) [there are major differences in the UF biblical text!]
- Deus 88 "Thus
Moses says this is 'holy' [var, this is why] ..." -- τοῦτον οὖν φησι Μωυσῆς "ἅγιον" [αἴτιον UFL\2] εἶναι, „τρέφοντα κόμην τρίχα κεφαλῆς" (Num
6.5)
- Deus 140 "The
most sacred Moses then ... said" -- Προσηκόντως
οὖν ὁ ἱερώτατος Μω(υ)σῆς τότε φθείρεσθαι τὴν γῆν εἶπεν (Gen 6.12) [no
other
significant variants]
- Deus 156 "Moses
the hierophant prays ..." -- εὔχεται
γὰρ Μω(υ)σῆς ὁ ἱεροφάντης ... (Deut
28.12) [no significant variations in the formula, but the scripture
passage has a few]
- Agr 20 "Wherefore
the all-wise Moses ... saying" -- διὰ τοῦτο ὁ πάνσοφος Μωυσῆς [=UF; the rest omit!] ... λέγων (Gen 9.20) [a
counter example, where the aberrent witnesses include Moses, the others
don't]
- Agr 78 "Wherefore
in Instructions [= Deut] Moses says ..." -- διὰ
τοῦτ’ ἐν προτρεπτικοῖς Μωυσῆς
φησιν (Deut 20.1) [no
variants, but UF have ended at section 67]
- Plant 86 "...
in the whole World-Creation according to the most sacred Moses ..." --
οὗ
χάριν καὶ τῇ κατὰ τὸν ἱερώτατον Μωυσῆν
κοσμοποιίᾳ πάσῃ τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ὄνομα ἀναλαμβάνεται [no variants, but this tractate only
survives in the aberrent form]
- Plant 108 "For
also Moses said somewhere
..." -- καὶ
γὰρ εἶπέ
που [μου F; om N] Μωυσῆς θυσίαν "ἀναμιμνῄσκουσαν ἁμαρτίαν" (Num
5.15)
- Plant 125 "Wherefore
also
Moses said ..." -- διὰ
τοῦτο καὶ Μωυσῆς
εἶπεν, ὅτι (Lev 19.24) [no variants]
- Plant 134 "Now
concerning the fourth, Moses says ..." -- ἐπὶ
μὲν γὰρ τοῦ τετάρτου φησὶ Μωυσῆς, ὅτι "ἔστη τοῦ τίκτειν" (Gen.
29, 35) [no significant variants]
- Plant 137 "As
Moses says ... saying ..." -- ὥς
φησι Μωυσῆς,
... εἰπὼν γὰρ [no variants]
- Sobr 49 "The
ever-great Moses says" -- ὁ
μέγας πάντα Μω(υ)σῆς ... λέγει [φησὶ Vat] (Lev 13.22-23) [no
other significant variations; this is the only explicit
reference to Moses in this tractate, which survives only in the
aberrent form]
- Her 13 "...according
to the command of Moses" -- κατὰ τὸ Μω(υ)σέως
παράγγελμα (see Deut 27.9) [the entire
phrase is lacking in
the Coptos Papyrus, and is thus another counter example; otherwise no
significant variants -- this tractate
survives in its entirety only in the aberrent form in the medieval MSS]
- Her 30 "And
... the watchful Moses inscribed this ..." -- καὶ
τοῦτό μου τὸ πάθος τῆς ψυχῆς
ἐστηλογράφησεν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ
μνημείῳ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος Μω(υ)σῆς
[Ἀβραὰμ H\2 (see context)] [no
other
significant variants]
- Her 83 "According
to Moses ..., for he/it says" -- κατὰ
δὲ [om Pap] Μω(υ)σῆν
οὕτως ὁ φίλος ἐγγύς ἐστιν, ὥστε ἀδιαφορεῖ
ψυχῆς· λέγει γάρ· "ὁ φίλος, ὁ ἴσος τῇ ψυχῇ σου" (Deut
13.6) [no
significant variants]
- Her 120 "Moses
attests ..." -- μάρτυς
δὲ Μωυσῆς
προστάττων ἀφαιρεῖν καὶ ὁμολογεῖν τὸ τέλος
τῷ κυρίῳ (Num
31.28 ff) [no variants]
- Her 128 "It seems to me that Moses spoke of
these virtues enigmatically ..." -- ταύτας
μοι δοκεῖ
τὰς ἀρετὰς Μω(υ)σῆς
αἰνιξάμενος μαίας Ἑβραίων ὀνομάσαι
Σεπφώραν τε καὶ Φουάν (Exod
1.15) [no significant variants]
- Her 131 "As
Moses says" -- (Exod
36.10), ὥς φησι Μω(υ)σῆς
[no significant
variants]
- Her 157 "As Moses says" -- ὥς φησι Μω(υ)σῆς,
ἔκρινε (Deut
1.17) [no
significant variants]
- Her 189 "Reasonably,
then, Moses will say" -- εἰκότως
οὖν ἐρεῖ Μω(υ)σῆς·
(Ex 30.15) [no significant
variants]
- Her 191 "And
Moses attests by saying" -- μαρτυρεῖ
δὲ Μω(υ)σῆς
λέγων· (Exod
16.18) [no
significant variants]
- Her 201 "For
Moses says ..." -- γάρ
φησι [φησιν ἔστη AB] Μω(υ)σῆς
„ἐκόπασεν ἡ θραῦσις“ (Num
16.47f) [no
other significant
variants]
- Her
231 "Now
Moses calls the one ..." -- καλεῖ
δὲ Μω(υ)σῆς
τὸν μὲν ... [no
significant variants]
- Her
239 "Now conversely, Moses ...,
so he says" --
τοὐναντίον δὲ Μω(υ)σῆς
... φησὶ
γοῦν (Lev 11.21) [no
significant
variants]
- Her 296 "For
Moses says" -- γάρ
φησι Μωσῆς
[=Pap; codd om Μω.] (Gen 8.21) [a
possible example of the removal of "Moses" from the narrative in
the aberrent MSS, but see Her
13 above]
- Congr 3 "This
one [Sarah] Moses ... depicts" -- ταύτην Μω(υ)σῆς,
τὸ παραδοξότατον, καὶ στεῖραν ἀποφαίνει (see Gen 16.1-2)
- Congr 7 "As
says Moses ..." -- ὥς
φησι Μω(υ)σῆς,
ἀνοίξαντι (Gen
29.31)
- Congr 57 "Wherefore
also Moses prays, saying ..." -- διὸ
καὶ Μω(υ)σῆς
εὔχεται φάσκων· (Exod
15.17)
- Congr 62 "Now
Moses testifies, saying ..." -- μαρτυρεῖ
δὲ Μω(υ)σῆς
φάσκων, ὅτι (Gen
25.27)
- Congr 115 "...
Moses will sing, saying" --
τὸ ἐφύμνιον ᾄσεται Μω(υ)σῆς
λέγων· (Gen
8.21)
- Congr 120 "Moses
recorded ..." -- τὴν
γὰρ [om
GH] ἱερὰν καὶ θείαν νομοθεσίαν [=cj; εκκλησιαν codd!]
δέκα τοῖς σύμπασι λόγοις Μω(υ)σῆς
ἀναγέγραφεν·
- Congr 160 "Now
Moses testifies also ..." -- μαρτυρεῖ δὲ καὶ [om GF] Μω(υ)σῆς
ἐν οἷς φησιν· (Deut
32.15)
- Congr 170 "... the prophet-word, named Moses, will say
..." -- ἆρ’ οὖν οὐκ εἰκότως
ἐπισεμνυνόμενος ὁ προφήτης [om ὁ πρ. M] λόγος, ὄνομα Μω(υ)σῆς,
ἐρεῖ· (Deut.
8.2-3)
- Virt 163 "Wherefore excellently
Moses as hierophant exhorts" -- διὸ
παγκάλως Μωυσῆς
[M. παγ. S] ἱεροφαντῶν παραινεῖ
[general reference]
- Virt 175
"Most sacred Moses urges ..." -- ὁ
ἱερώτατος Μω(υ)σῆς
προτρέπει [general reference]
Appendix 2: "Lawgiver" as
Scripture-speaker References
- Cher 40 "... the lawgiver has
testified ...[about certain persons]" -- οἷς
ἀρετὴν
μεμαρτύρηκεν ὁ νομοθέτης
[ὁ νομ. μεμ. UF], ... τὸν Ἰακώβ, τὸν Μω(υ)σῆν
- Cher 53 "the
lawgiver often employs [a certain expression] ..." -- ᾧ πολλάκις ἐπὶ πολλῶν ὁ νομοθέτης
χρῆται
- Gig 19 "As
the lawgiver himself also makes clear; for he/it says ..."
-- ὡς
δηλοῖ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ
νομοθέτης. "εἶπε"
γάρ φησι (Gen 6.3) [note that God is
the speaker that is quoted, and thus might be the intended "lawgiver"]
- Gig 32 "wherefore
also ... the lawgiver prefaces his command thus:" -- παρὸ [minor vars]
καὶ ... ὁ νομοθέτης ἀναιρεῖν προοιμιάζεται
τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· (Lev 18.6) [the quote identifies "the Lord" as the
speaker]
- Gig 58 "Someone
may think that the
lawgiver is referring ..." -- ἴσως τις ... οἴεται τὸν νομοθέτην
αἰνίττεσθαι (Gen
6.4) [Moses
seems the most likely referent here]
- Gig 65 "... says the lawgiver" --
φησιν ὁ νομοθέτης
(Gen.
2.24)
- Gig 66 "for the lawgiver says that
..." -- λέγει γὰρ ὁ νομοθέτης,
ὅτι (Gen 10.8) [note that "the
most sacred Moses" is explicitly named in 67 (see above)]
- Deus 21 "Some
... might suppose that the lawgiver is suggesting [something about the
creator]" --
ἴσως τινὲς ... ὑποτοπήσουσι τὸν νομοθέτην
αἰνίττεσθαι (Gen 6.5-7) [apparently refers
to Moses here]
- Deus 94 "Regarding
these the lawgiver says ..." -- τούτοις ὁ νομοθέτης
φησὶ (Deut 6.10-11) [note several other
references to the "lawgiver" in narrative contexts -- 23, 52, 61, 67]
- Deus 99 "Thus the law
says that..." -- λέγει οὖν ὁ νόμος,
ὅτι ...(Deut 1.43f) [quite an unusual formula for
Philo (see also Det 159), so
perhaps "lawgiver"
stood behind this text as in Gig
66 -- but the formula φησιν ὁ νόμος (or similarly) is frequent]
- Agr 27 "The
lawgiver thinks sometimes ..., but other times ..." -- μέμνηται ... ποτὲ
δ’ αὖ ποιμενικῆς ὁ νομοθέτης
... [other similar narrative passages in
22, 41, 86, 144]
- Agr 84 "Accordingly,
then, the lawgiver teaches in the Exhortations ..." --
παγκάλως
οὖν ὁ νομοθέτης
ἐν ταῖς
παραινέσεσιν ἐκδιδάσκει (Deut 17.15f) [passage added in mg
of H]
- Plant [general references to instructions of the
"lawgiver" in 66, 141]
- Sobr 1 [general references to instructions
of
the "lawgiver"
here and see also 46]
- Her 163 "...
where does the lawgiver not approve ... for he/it says ..." -- ποῦ δ’
ἰσότητα ... ὁ νομοθέτης
οὐκ [=Pap; om codd]
ἀποδέχεται ... γάρ φησιν (Gen 1.4-5) [general references to
instructions of the "lawgiver" in 292]
- Congr [general references to
instructions of the "lawgiver" in 44; adjectival uses in 131-132, 179]
- Virt 80 [general
references here and 133; also some uses of verbal
forms]
Appendix 3: "Sacred Word" References
[none with the "Divine Word (θεῖος λόγος)" speaking]
Note: θεῖος
λόγος occurs only in the Allegorical series (16) and in
QuEx (2)!
- Leg 1.76 "Accordingly Aaron, the sacred word, begs of
God's friend Moses ..." -- παρὸ
καὶ δεῖται [λέγεται A] ὁ ἱερὸς [ἱερεὺς A] λόγος Ἀαρὼν τοῦ θεοφιλοῦς Μω(υ)σέως ἰάσασθαι .... [see
above, n. 17, on the ideal priest and/or Aaron = the sacred word]
- Plant 94 "But the sacred word counsels, ... for
it says" βούλεται
δὲ ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος ... φησὶ γάρ (Lev
19.23-25)
- Her 95 "the
sacred word says" -- ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος φησίν, ὅτι [no specific text; Gen 15.5
precedes]
- Her 207 "Having taught us
..., the sacred word ... leads, saying that ..." -- Διδάξας οὖν ἡμᾶς
περὶ τῆς εἰς ἴσα τομῆς ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος καὶ πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἐναντίων ἐπιστήμην ἄγει φάσκων
ὅτι τὰ τμήματα (Gen 15.10)
- Her 259 "To
every ... the sacred word attests" -- παντὶ δὲ ἀστείῳ προφητείαν ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος μαρτυρεῖ [=cj; προφητείαν (προφητείας A)
codd] [no direct quote, but Gen 20.7 precedes]
- Congr 40 "The
sacred word names memory 'Ephraim'..." -- τὴν μὲν οὖν μνήμην Ἐφραΐμ, ... ὁ ἱερὸς
ὀνομάζει λόγος
[not a direct quote; no significant
variations (transposition)]
- Congr 78 "the
sacred word says that ..." -- ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος φησίν, ὅτι [no direct quote]
- Congr 85 "The
sacred word ... in which it says ..." -- ὁ δὲ
ἱερὸς λόγος, ... ἐν οἷς φησι· (Lev
18.1-5)
- Congr 108 "The
sacred word honored it" -- ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος ἐτίμησε [not a quote]
- Congr 157 "...the
sacred word
recalls... wherefore it adds (Gen 16.6)" -- ὃ ἑτέρῳ ὀνόματι κάκωσιν ὁ ἱερὸς
μηνύει λόγος
[not a direct quotation; no
significant variations (transposition)]
//end of coherent article (corrected from page proofs,
15se2005)//
Added references of interest:
NHL
ApocJn "It is not the way
Moses wrote (and) you heard. For he said in his first book [Gen
2.21].... For also he/it said through the prophet [Isa 6.10].
ApocJn 28.32ff: "It is not as
Moses said [Gen 7.7] -- note also idea of "a place" as a "luminous
cloud."
--
Invitation
to Lust FS (Garcia Martinez note 18fe2004, for Feb 2005): on
“aberrent text” of Philo:
"Philo's
Bible: the 'Aberrant Text'
Revisited" – (An alternate possiblity
would
be "Treatment of the Tetragrammaton in Early Greek LXX/OG Texts" --
if Emanuel Tov hasn't already said everything that can be said on that
topic by
the end of March!
For additional background on this situation, see
n. 23 below
and the electronic updating of H. E. Ryle’s Philo
and Holy
Scripture (1895) at
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/courses/999/RYLE1.htm
[From my Barthelemy article]
\23/ Justin quotes Micah 4.1-7 in a form almost
exactly
replicating the remnants of the καίγε scroll (Dialogue
109-110), if we can trust the preserved MSS of Justin, which are very
late. Tov
comments: "The text of the biblical quotations of Just[in] also
reflects a
very literal translation (beyond the aforementined citation from
Mi[cah]) so
that it is quite certain that these quotations reflect R [=καίγε]. (At the same
time, the running commentary of Just[in]
reflects the LXX [=OG] text rather than a literal rendering of
the type
of R [=καίγε].
This mixture of text types belongs to the textual transmission
of Just[in] and reminds one of that of the writings of Philo.)" (DJD 8,
158). See also P. Katz, "Justin's Old Testament Quotations and
the
Greek Dodekapropheton Scroll," Studia Patristica 1 (TU 63;
1957)
343-353. The situation with some Philo MSS is that the version of
Aquila was
substituted as lemma, while the subsequent comments are closer to
LXX/OG; see
Peter Katz, Philo's Bible: the Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in
some
Philonic Writings and its Place in the Textual History of the Greek
Bible
(Cambridge: University Press, 1950). David Runia, Philo in Early
Christian
Literature: A Survey (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum
Testamentum
3.3; Fortress 1993), 24-25, provides a succinct survey of the
relevant
literature and arguments: "The historian of the Cairo Geniza, Kahle,
was
convinced that these quotations represented not only Philo's original
text, but
also reflected his Bible, so that we have evidence here of a Greek
Bible that
was adapted in order to confirm more to the Hebrew original [Kahle, Cairo
Geniza (19592) 247-249]. Katz, in contrast, argued that
the
aberrent quotations were added later on the basis of the post-Philonic
translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion by a Christian from
the
Antiochean school in the 5th century"; Barthélemy
argues for a "Jewish" reviser in the early 3rd century who used the
text of Aquila to hebraize Philo's quotations from the scriptures
(above, n.25)
-- his argument is also summarized in Runia, Philo in Early
Christian
Literature 24-25.
[In this
connection, the
complicated situation with respect to the textual transmission of
Philo's
treatises requires comment. This has been explored in greatest detail
by Katz
(1950), and subsequently by Barthélemy (1967, 1978). The treatises
showing the greatest evidence of revision towards Aquila in their
biblical
citations [with Barthélemy's coded numbers in brackets; note that MS
witness "N" consists of excerpts, and is thus also put into brackets]
are
- Leg Alleg 1
[2a] 10 passages in MSS UF[N] (not MAP Arm)
- Cherubim
[3(part)] 3 passages in MSS UF (not MAPGH)
- Giants [7] 6
passages in MS U (not MAHP)
- Quod Deus [8]
24 passages in MSS UF[N] (not MAPGH)
- Agric
[9(part)] 12 passages in MSS UF (not MAGH)
- Plant [10] 15
passages in MSS UF[N] GHM (all !)
- Sobriety [12]
9 passages in MSS F[N] GH (all !)
- Div Rer Sit
[15] 19 passages in MSS [N] GHAP (not OB)
- Congr [16] 11
passages in MSS F[N] G (not MAH)
- Somn
1 [19a] 9 passages in MSS F[N] GHP (not MAP\2)
- Virt (Fort,
Human, Paenit, Nobilit) [26 a-d] 4 passages in MS G (not MAPHFS)
The complex chart in
Barthélemy (1967) 178 attempts to analyze the situation with an eye to
the question of how the individual tractates came to be gathered
together (he
posits two early Caesarian editions, associated with the library of
Origen);
the evidence seems to suggest that individual tractates (in scroll or
mini-codex format) circulated for a long time, and came into various
combinations as the extant MSS and versions (and lists) demonstrate.
Barthélemy conjectures that the revision to Aquila's scriptural
text form
was produced by a Jewish editor, identified as Hoshaya Rabba, sometime
in the
early 3rd century.
Summary of Barthélemy article:
Katz shows the secondary nature of the hebraizing
quotes,
but this does not automatically mean that the other text form is
primitive.
Katz errs in identifying the revisor as a 5th
c
Antioch Christian.
1. Aquila alone is the
source of the
Hebraizations
122 passages in 11 of the Philonic treatises
(enumerated) –
not including questionable passages in SpecLeg 4 and LegAlleg 2-3.
Katz reasoned that by the 5th c, Philo
had long
been in Christian hands, and thus the revisor used a lost version of
the LXX.
But Aquila fits all the evidence.
Specific instances: Ex 15.17, Gn 16.2, etc.
(Long discussion of Ps 62.12)
Firmly attested typical Aquila
elements in known locations;
Other passages with readings used by Aquila
elsewhere.
Features common to Aquila
and his
predecessors.
Inconsistencies in the reviser’s work – Gen 16.1,
Ex 15.17
(tetragram).
Conclusion (55=150): no need to look elsewhere
than Aquila.
2. The Revisor is a Jew
Need to study systematically certain categories of
revision
made by the same hand in the same Philonic treatises.
E.g. Quod Deus 57 MAPHG logos but UF nomos (by
which the
world came about; see the similar saying attributed to Aqiba!);
Similarly in Plant 8 and 10, logos > nomos in
all MSS
(but see Eusebius!) – with appropriate rabbinic parallels noted.
And note how Joshua/Jesus becomes “Josouas” in Hum
66 and 69.
Conclusion: “Only a Jew could be the author of
this ensemble
of characteristic revisions” (57=152).
3. The two Caesarean editions on the Allegorical
Commentary
Need to retrace the history of textual
transmission for
Philo’s works.
Cohn-Wendland argue for one archetype behind all
witnesses,
and trace it to Caesarean papyri scrolls (suite of volumes); see Opific
annotation about Euzoios transcribing to parchment, confirmed by Jerome
and
located in Caesarea, and supporting evidence from Eusebius.
Heinrici challenges this view in his TLZ 22 (1897)
213 and
25 (1900) 658 reviews, based on variations of order as well as textual
differences in the MSS.
Hunt dates the Poxy of Philo to 3rd c,
along with
the Coptos papyrus, and both are Christian (based on abbreviations!), so is it likely that they emanate from Caesarea?
Further complications emerge when Eusebius’ list
is taken
into account, with its 15 treatises that have not survived, while some
50 are
found in the MSS. This supports (how?) the Cohn-Wendland hypothesis!
Clement of Alex is our first clear Christian use
of Philo,
which provides a starting point for dealing with Philo as a Christian
author,
and from which we can begin to trace the Egyptian papyri as well as the
copies
taken by Origen to Caesarea.
At what stage of this textual history did the
revisor
intervene? Neither Clement of Alex or the Egyptian papyri show any
trace of the
revisions. “Only the medieval MSS (and thus probably derived from the
library
at Caesarea) have been affected by the Jewish
revision.”
Three of the eleven treatises that have been retouched – Plant, Sobr,
and Quis
Rer – have survived ONLY in the retouched version.
Note problem with “books 1-2” of LegAlleg in one
MS; and
apocopated form of Cherub and Agric. And the Moses passages in Somn 1.
Explanation of MSS groupings and the chart
(63=158). He
argues for two “original” sequences, his alpha-beta (first Caesarean
edition)
and omega (second Caesarean edition).
Detailed explanations of anomalies, etc. “only MS
U keeps
the original order of section aleph but it lacks the four final
treatises” [but
no other MS has them either!].
To conclude, we say that there seem to have been
two
editions of the Alleg Comm, each lacking certain treatises, having left
by two
different paths the Caesarean library scriptorium. One of these
editions was
divided into two codices, alpha and beta, and eleven of its treatises
had been
subject to the clandestine reetouching of an orthodox rabbi of weak
Greek
culture, so that two of the treatises had been cut off in the middle of
the
text. The other edition, omega, provides a text without Jewish
retouching, which
is also attested by the papyri, the quotations in Clement of Alex,
Origen and
Eusebius. The second edition includes unretouched 8 treatises found in
the
first. The 2nd ed probably comes from Euzoios and is later
than the
first.
4. Hoshaya Rabba and the First Edition
It remains to identify the Jewish retoucher.
Origen didn’t know Hebrew, so needed Hebrew
assistants.
He needed someone also conversant with Greek, and
in that
context Philo became known to the Jewish assistant, as well as certain
passages
in Philo that Christians used in arguments with Jews (cf Eusebius).
Bacher had proposed that Hoshaya Rabba of Caesarea
and contemporary of Origen, may have known Philo through Origen.
(70 = 165) A copy of Philo’s Alleg Comm is
ordered, perhaps
by the library at Aelia, which was in close contact with Origen. A
Jewish
scribe/corrector [n.2] is involved, and modifies certain things based
on his
own intimate knowledge of Aquila’s translation,
and his
own piety in relation to Christian arguments he has heard. “It would be
inaccurate to think that all his changes had been made intentionally.
Nine
times out of ten, he intervened quite simply as a man very familiar
with the
recension that Aquila had made with the Septuagint, as a Jewish scholar
quite
ignorant of Greek literature [n.3] and philosophy [n.4], as a simple
man who
had little appreciation for the flowery/bombastic focus of the
Alexandrian
style [n.1], as a fastidious monotheist who defied ambiguous
terminology [n.2],
as one who cared more to defend the honor of Israel [n.3] than to
affirm
sympathy for the goyim [n.4].”
Other evidences of retouching, e.g. Gen 2.2. Who
might do
such things? Hoshaya Rabba of Caesarea, to
whom,
according to Bacher, Origen had introduced the work of Philo.
Hoshaya’s commitment to Torah/nomos shows in his
own
commentarial work and explains some “retouching” of Philo. Note
especially
treatments of Prv 8.22 on wisdom as a creation of God.
While certain coincidences may have been
characteristic,
they do not permit us to identify the retoucher as R. Hoshaya Rabba,
but at
least they confirm for us that the Jewish milieu of Caesarea
provides an ideal “sitz im leben” in the time of Origen for the work of
the
retoucher of the edition of the Alleg Comm.
Conclusion (77-78 = 172-173)
It is time to conclude this study by saying that
the
retoucher of the biblical citations of Philo is certainly a Jew and is
best
situated in the entourage of Origen and of Hoshaya, in the first half
of the 3rd
century in Caesarea.
If one examines in the medieval MSS the positions
occupied
by the treatises retouched by him and the treaties immune to his
attentions,
one recognizes the remains of two sequences more or less mutilated but
sufficiently recoverable to be able to identify them as those on which
the two
ancient editions of the Alleg Comm rest (alpha-beta and omega). And
since the
arguments of Cohn-Wendland and Shuerer seem accurately to demonstrate
that the
entire medieval textual tradition issued from the library at Caesarea
and that,
on the other hand, it is very probable that the omega edition derives
from the
copy made by Euzoios, it follows that the edition alpha-beta is even
more
ancient in origin, as is indicated by the fact that its copyist had
access to a collection of treatises more
complete
than that which was at the disposal of the copyist of the omega
edition. It
thus seems that it … reverts to the time of Origen since the retoucher,
who
seems to have been attached to the Jewish entourage of the latter, has
intervened
at one time (?) in the copy that was produced.
With regard to the papyri, probably dating from the 3rd century, found at
Oxyrhynchos and Coptos, they have been copied by Christians as is clear
from
the “abbreviations” employed. The text that they present derives from
the same
archetype as the papyri taken from Alexandria
to Caesarea by Origen. It seems then that all
these
papyri derive from a single collection of the Philonic corpus
established at
the school of Alexandria
under Pantaenus or Clement. In the current state of our knowledge, we
are
unable to trace things earlier.
If these results are well founded, the textual
criticism of
the AllegComm needs to take in a second step that involves two main
studies: a
comparison as complete as possible of the two Caesarean editions,
making even
more clear the profile of the Jewish retoucher in order to detect more
accurately his interventions that Cohn-Wendland have not identified.
Finally,
taking as a base a treatise such as SacAbel/Cain – for which we have
evidence
from the three main branches of the tradition (Egypt, Caesarea 1,
Caesarea 2)
without the intervention of the retoucher, it seems – it can be tested
whether
the un-retouched biblical citations have been subject to assimilations
later
than the classical Septuagint. Perhaps one will then have a means,
starting at
that point, to establish on a new basis a critical edition of that
portion of
the Philonic corpus and to approach the study of the characteristics of
the
Septuagint of Philo.
--
Runia
accepts, with hesitation, this general
outline. See
his chart of the diffusion of philonic materials (p.18).
p.14 discusses Rabbi Hosha`ia on Gen 1.1, with
translation
[no reference here to Barthélemy, but a cross reference later]
pp.20-21 discuss and provide images of the Euzoios
notation
Little attention to the difficulties rolls and
mini-codices
present for various theories of textual relationships and transmission:
e.g.
the contents of the Euzoios codex (11th c), if accurate for
the time
of Euzoios (376-379), suggests that some treatises were lost or
unavailable (or
distributed differently) at that time; note that Post which is
mentioned in the
Euzoios codex TOC survives only in MS U, but apparently not retouched.
CommAlleg = B’s ## 1-19
“retouched” =
2a (UF N / PAM),
3.1 (UF / GHPAM),
7
(U /
HPAM),
8 (UF N / GHPAM),
9.1 (UF / GHAM),
10 (UFGHM N),
12 (FGH N),
15
(GHPA
N),
16 (G N / HAM),
19a (FGHP N / M),
+ 26 (Virt G / cf)
not retouched,
## 1 (FGHPAM N),
2b (PAM),
2c (HA),
3
(GHPAM),
4 (GHPAM UFN),
5 (UFH),
6 (U),
9 (GHAM),
11 (UFGH N),
13 (FGHP
N),
14
(HPAM),
17 (GH),
18 (A),
19a (M),
19ab
(A)
Aetern (UHPM)
logos > nomos: (Deus 57 MAPHG / UF), 10
(Plant 8 + 10
Eus-ClA / all)
logos > archangel: (Agr 51)
Jesus > Joshua: (Virt 66 + 69 pl / G\2; but
not in 55)
Moses said > scripture: (Somn 1)
See also (from Admiel Kosman, Potsdam University):
Stemberger, Guenter 2003. "'Moses Received Torah' (M. Avot 1,1):
Rabbinic Conceptions of Revelation" In: Florentino Garci/a Marti/nez
and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen (eds); Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome. Studies
in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst. Leiden &
Boston: Brill (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 82),
285-299.
Y. Amir, Authority and Interpretation of
Scripture in the Writings of Philo, in: M.J. Mulder and H. Sysling
(edd.) Mikra, Text, Translation, Readings, and Interpretation of the
Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, CRINT II.1
(Assen 1988), pp. 421-454.
//end of added notes//