|
|
|
|
|
1. |
||
|
2. |
||
|
|
(a) The Editio Princeps and after |
|
|
|
(b) Earlier history |
|
|
3. |
||
|
|
(a) The printed edition |
|
|
|
(b) MSS. of the text |
|
|
|
(c) Subsidiary authorities |
|
|
|
(d) Geographical distribution |
|
|
|
(e) Community of origin |
|
|
|
(f) Grouping of authorities, illustrated by specimen passages |
|
|
4. |
||
|
5. |
||
|
6. |
||
|
7. |
||
|
8. |
|
|
|
9. |
||
|
10. |
|
|
|
|
(a) Enoch |
|
|
|
(b) Jubilees |
|
|
|
(c) Apocalypse of Baruch |
|
|
|
(d) Fourth Book of Esdras |
|
|
|
(e) New Testament Writings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. |
||
|
12. |
||
|
13. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
APPENDICES -- [[not
scanned]] |
|
|
|
I. On various readings and corrupt passages . . . . . 243 |
243 |
|
|
II. On the vocabulary, etc., of the Latin version. . . . 269 |
269 |
|
|
INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 275 |
275 |
1. THE book now presented to English readers has never been translated before: not only is this so, but the very existence of it has remained unknown to the great mass of students for over three hundred years, although it was printed no less than five times in the course of the sixteenth century.
What is it, and why is it worth reviving after so long a period of oblivion? It is a Bible history, reaching, in its present imperfect form, from Adam to the death of Saul. It has come to us only in a Latin translation (made from Greek, and that again from a Hebrew original), and by an accident the name of the great Jewish philosopher of the first century, Philo, has been attached to it. Let me say at once that the attribution of it to him is wholly unfounded, and quite ridiculous: nevertheless I shall use his name in italics (Philo) as a convenient short title.
Its importance lies in this, that it is a genuine and unadulterated Jewish book of the first century--a product of the same school as the Fourth Book of Esdras and the Apocalypse of Baruch, and written, like them, in the years which followed the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It is thus contemporary with some of the New Testament writings, and throws light upon them as well as upon the religious thought of the Jews of its time.
2. (a) The HISTORY OF THE BOOK, as known to us, can be shortly told. It was printed by Adam Petri in 1527, at Basle, in a small folio volume, along with the genuine Philo's Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim 1 and a fragment of the De Vita contemplativa (called De Essaeis). These were followed by the Onomasticon (de Nominibus Hebraicis) ascribed in Philo, in Jerome's version, and a Latin rendering of the De Mundo by Guillaume Budé. The whole volume is in Latin, and was edited by Joannes Sichardus: for the first three tracts he used two manuscripts, from Fulda and Lorsch, of which more hereafter. In 1538 Henricus Petri (son of Adam) reprinted this collection in a quarto volume, which I have not seen, and in 1550 included it all in a larger collection of patristic writings called Micropresbyticon. In 1552 our book (without the accompanying tracts) was printed from Sichardus' text in a small volume issued by Gryphius at Lyons, under the title Antiquitatum diversi auctores, and in 1599 in a similar collection Historia antiqua, by Commelin, at Heidelberg, edited by Juda Bonutius.
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Philo was read and occasionally quoted, e.g. by Sixtus Senensis in the Bibliotheca Sancta, and by Pineda in his treatise on Solomon: but the greatest critics and scholars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries seem never to have seen it. J. A. Fabricius would certainly have accorded it a place in his Codex pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti if he had read it: and very little escaped his notice. He does speak of it in his Bibliotheca Graeca (ed. Harles, IV. 743, 746), but only from the[[p. 9]] point of view of the editions. It is not too much to say that the chance which kept it from him has kept it also from the flock of scholars who have followed him like sheep for two hundred years. The first investigator to pay any attention to it seems to have been Cardinal J. B. Pitra. In the Spicilegium Solesmense (1855, II. 345 note, III. 335 note, etc.) there are allusions to it: in the later Analecta Sacra (II. 321; 1884) he printed the Lament of Jephthah's daughter from a Vatican MS. of it, treating it as a known work, and referring to the printed edition.
In 1893 I came upon four detached fragments in a manuscript at Cheltenham, in the Phillipps collection, and printed them as a new discovery in a volume of Apocrypha Anecdota (1st series, Texts and Studies, II. 3). No one who reviewed the book in England or abroad recognized that they were taken from a text already in print. At length, in 1898, the late Dr. L. Cohn, who was engaged for many years upon an edition of Philo's works, published in the Jewish Quarterly Review an article in which the source of my fragments was pointed out and a very full account given of the whole book, with copious quotations. This article of Dr. Cohn's is at present our standard source of information. Nothing to supersede it has, so far as I know, appeared since. A few scholars, but on the whole surprisingly few, have used Philo in recent years, notably Mr. H. St. John Thackeray in his book, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought.
(b) Can we trace the history of Philo further back than the printed edition of 1527 by means of quotations or allusions to it? The whole body of evidence is remarkably small. At the very end of the fifteenth century Joannes Trithemius, Abbot [[p. 10]] of Sponheim, writes a book, De Scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, printed at Paris in 1512. On f. 18b is a notice of Philo, derived principally from Jerome, and a list of his writings. Among these he includes De generationum successu, lib. I. (which is our book), and adds the opening words: Adam genuit tres filios, which shows that he had seen the text. It is the only item so distinguished in all his list. Then, going back and setting aside certain extracts from the text (of which we shall speak under the head of authorities), we find, in the twelfth century, Petrus Comestor of Troyes, in his Historia Scholastica (one of the famous text-books of the Middle Ages), making a single incorrect quotation from our book (V. 8). He calls his source 'Philo the Jew, or, as some say, a heathen philosopher, in his book of questions upon Genesis': the words show that he was quoting a manuscript which contained that work as well as our text. His quotation is borrowed by several later mediaeval chroniclers.
In the catalogues of monastic libraries Philo is of rare occurrence. The Fulda catalogue of the sixteenth century 1 has "Repertorii noni ordo primus, liber Philonis antiquitatum 36." The number 36 is the older library number, perhaps as old as the thirteenth century, which was written on the cover of the volume. This was one of the two manuscripts used by Sichardus: we shall return to it.
In the twelfth century a monk writes to the Abbot of Tegernsee for the loan of the "liber Philonis." In 831 the abbey of St. Riquier, near Abbeville, has in its catalogue "liber Philonis Judaei [[p. 11]] unum volumen." Both these references may be found in Becker's Catalogi. 1
One possible hint, and one only, of the existence of Philo in the Eastern Church is known to me. The Taktikon of Nicon, cap. 13, in the Slavonic version, as quoted by Berendts (Zacharias-Apokrypken, p. 5, note 3), reckons among the canonical books of the Old Testament "the Palaea (the Eastern text-book of Bible history comparable to the Historia Scholastica in the West) and Philo."
The Decretum Gelasianum of the fifth or sixth century condemns, among many other apocryphal books, "liber de filiabus Adae Leptogeneseos." The natural and usual interpretation of the words is that they refer to the Book of Jubilees, which the Greeks called ἡ λεπτὴ γένεσισ, but it is worth noting that Philo mentions the daughters of Adam in the first few lines, whereas in Jubilees they do not occur before the fourth chapter.
I know of nothing in earlier centuries which looks like an allusion to Philo, unless it be a passage in Origen on John (Tom. VI. 14.) in which he says 2: "I know not what is the motive of the Jewish tradition that Phinees the son of Eleazar, who admittedly lived through the days of many of the Judges, is the same as Elias, and that immortality was promised to him in Numbers [[p. 12]] (XXV. 12)," with more to the same effect. He refers to no book, but to a tradition which is, in fact, preserved in several Midrashim. The identification is found in Philo, c. XLVIII. See the note in loc.
8:1 A volume issued by Ascensius at Paris in I 520, edited by Aug. Justiniani, contained only the Quaestiones et Sol. in Genesim.
10:1 C. Scherer, Der Fuldaer Handschriften-Katalog aus dem 16 Jahrh. (Centralblatt f. Bibliothekswesen XXVI. p. 105; 1902).
11:1 The Abbey of St. Bertin and that of Corbie in Picardy in their twelfth-century catalogues (Becker, nos. 77, 247, 79, 263) both have an entry of Questiones in Genesim; seemingly not those of St. Jerome, which occur elsewhere in the catalogues.
11:2 καὶ περὶ μετωνυμίασ γάρ, ὡσ ἐν ἀποκρύφοισ, οὐκ οἶδα πόθεν κινούμενοι οἱ ἑβραῖοι παραδιδόασι Φινεέσ, τὸν Ἐλεαζάρου υἱόν, ὁμολογουμένωσ παρατείναντα τὴν ζωὴν ἔωσ πολλῶν κριτῶν, ὡσ ἐν τοῖσ κριταῖσ ἀνέγνωμεν, αἰτὸν εἶναι Ἠλίαν, καὶ τὸ ἀθάνατον ἐν τοῖσ Ἀριθμοῖσ αὐτῷ, διὰ τῆσ ὀνομαζομένησ εἰρήνησ ἐπηγγέλθαι, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ζηλώσασ. . . ἐξεκέντησε τὴν Μαδιανῖτιν, κ.τ.λ.
3. The next business is to describe the AUTHORITIES FOR THE TEXT of Philo.
(a) We will take the printed edition of 1527 first (of which the four others of 1538-50-53-99 are mere reprints). Its symbol shall be A. In his preface, addressed to the monks of Fulda, Sichardus, like many editors of the Renaissance period, tells us but little of the manuscripts he used. The substance of what he says is as follows. At one time he had hoped to be able to remedy the many corruptions of the manuscripts, of which he had two; but he gradually came to despair of doing so, and resolved to give the text as he found it. His two manuscripts were as like each other as two eggs, so that he could not doubt that one was a copy of the other, though they were preserved in libraries far apart. He employed the Fulda copy, and had previously obtained the use of one from Lorsch Abbey, which was very old, and had expected that these would provide the materials for a satisfactory edition; moreover, he had got wind of the existence of another copy. But his manuscripts proved disappointing, and he is well aware that the present edition is inadequate. In preparing it he has aimed at following his manuscripts as closely as possible, and in issuing it now has judged that the evils of delay are greater than those of haste; especially as he looks forward to putting forth a greatly improved text in the future. 1 [[p. 13]]
(b) We have seen that the Fulda MS. is traceable in the library catalogues late in the sixteenth century. Until lately it was thought to have been lost, along with the bulk of the Fulda MSS.: but it has been identified, first by Dr. Cohn, and then, independently, by Dr. P. Lehmann, with a MS. at Cassel (Theol. 4° 3) of the eleventh century. The Lorsch MS. still remains undiscovered.
The identity of the Cassel MS. with that used by Sichardus is not doubtful. In its cover is an inscription by him stating that he had it rebound in 1527. It also retains the old label, of the fourteenth century, with the title Liber Philonis Antiquitatum, and the old Fulda press-mark.
For the purposes of the present volume only four of the above authorities have been employed, namely, the Fulda-Cassel MS. as represented by Sichardus's edition (and with it we must allow for some use of the lost MS. from Lorsch), the Cheltenham, Vatican, and Vienna MSS. The fact that Dr. Cohn was known to have in contemplation a full critical edition precluded others from trying to cover the whole ground, and, even had it been otherwise desirable to do so, the investigation would have been very difficult for anyone outside Germany. There are, for instance, no printed catalogues of the Admont, Cassel, or Würzburg libraries.[[p. 15]]
Of the Fulda MS. we now learn that it is the work of more than one scribe, of the eleventh century. The Antiquities occupy ff. 1-65a, and have a title in a late medieval hand: Libri Philonis Iudei de initio mundi, which, or the like, is "usual in the MSS." The Quaestiones, entitled (in the original hand): Filonis Questionum in genisi et solutionum, follow on ff. 65a-89a, and in them is a noteworthy feature. On f. 86, in the middle of the page the MS. omits, without any sign of a break, a long passage containing the end of the Quaestiones and the beginning of the De Essaeis, and corresponding to pp. 82, l. 40-84, l. 16 of Sichardus's edition. At this point Sichardus has a marginal note: "Here the copies differed, but we have followed that of Lorsch, as being the older." Now this same gap is found in most, if not in all, of the other MSS., and not all of these are copied directly from the Fulda MS. We may say, therefore, that all MSS. showing this gap are independent of the Lorsch MS., but not necessarily dependent on the Fulda MS.[[p. 16]]
It is clear from what has been said that Sichardus was wrong in regarding the Fulda MS. as a copy of that of Lorsch, and that the latter represented an old and valuable tradition: and, further, that he exaggerates greatly when he says that the two MSS. were as alike as two eggs. 1 Dr. Lehmann's final remark is that the disappearance of the Lorsch MS. is very much to be deplored, for, judged by the Greek fragments and the Armenian version of the Quaestiones, it represented a better tradition than all the extant Latin MSS.
Of the other MSS. in the list given above, it may be observed that the Cues MS. (written at Gottweih in 1451) and the two Würzburg MSS. are not likely to be of very much value: and that, of the three Munich MSS., that from Tegernsee (18481) is to all appearance the parent of the other two. Probably the monk who wrote to Tegernsee to borrow a Philo (see p. 10) was a member of Benedictbeuren or Schäftlarn. The Schäftlarn copy (17133) was written between 1160 and 1164. 2
I now proceed to give a detailed account of the three complete MSS. which I have been able to use, and of certain subsidiary authorities. The three MSS. are those mentioned by Dr. Cohn in his article, and I have been led to examine them during recent years by my interest in the text, and without serious thought of using them for the purposes of an edition. They are the copies preserved at Cheltenham, Vienna, and Rome.[[p. 17]]
P. The Phillipps MS. 461 is a small vellum book (6 5/8 x 4 3/4 in.) of 124 leaves, with 20 lines to a page; a few leaves palimpsest, over not much older writing. It is of cent. XII., clearly written: on f. 1a the provenance is stated, in this inscription: Codex SX (?) Sci. Eucharii primi Trevirorum archiepi. siquis eum abstulerit anathema sit. Amen. A hand of cent. XV. adds the word Mathie. Then follows the title, of cent. XV.: Philo iudeus de successione generacionis veteris Testamenti. On f. 1b is Jerome's account of Philo (de virr. illustr. c. XI.): the text of the book begins on 3a: Adam genuit, and ends on 119b without colophon. It is followed by a few pieces of medieval Latin verse, of no great interest. The first begins; Carnis in ardore flagrans monialis amore. Another is on Chess: Qui cupit egregium scacorum noscere ludum Audiat. ut potui carmine composui.
V. Vindobonensis lat. 446, a small folio of 53 leaves, with 31 lines to a page, in a tall, narrow, rather sloping hand, doubtless German, by more than one scribe: of cent. XII. late or XIII. early. There is an old press-mark of cent. XVI.: XI°. 68. The text is preceded by Jeronimus de Phylone in catalogo uirorum illustrium. It begins Incip. Genesis. INITIUM MUNDI. Adam genuit, and ends on 53a without colophon, occupying the whole volume.
R. Vaticanus lat. 488, of cent. XV., in a very pretty Roman hand, in double columns of 35 lines. The first 8c, leaves contain tracts of Augustine, Prosper and Jerome. Our book, to which is prefixed the extract from Jerome, begins on f. 81. It is headed: Genesis, and begins: Inicium mundi. Adam Genuit. The colophon is: Explicit ystoria philonis ab initio mundi usque ad David regent. It is followed by the Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim, which occupy ff. 129-148 (end). The arms of Paul V. and of Cardinal Scipione Borghese the librarian are on the binding: there is no other mark of provenance.
P is thus the only one of the three manuscripts whose old home can be definitely fixed. It belonged to the abbey of St. Eucharius, otherwise called of St. Matthias (whose body lies there), just outside Trèves.
(c) Next come certain manuscripts which contain extracts from the text.
Ph. The Phillipps MS. 391, Of 92 ff., of cent. XII. early, contains principally tracts of Jerome, notably Quaestiones Hebraicae. On ff. 87-8 it has the four extracts which I printed in 1893 (see above). It belonged to Leander van Ess, and has an old press-mark C I or C 7.
T. No. 117 in the Town Library at Trèves. A paper MS., dated 1459. It contains five of the same tracts as Ph and two of the extracts from Philo. It retains its old press-mark, B II, and an inscription showing that it belonged to the abbey of S. Maria ad Martyres at Trèves. The contents of the book and the text of the extracts make it clear that T is a copy of Ph or of a sister-book, while the form of the press-mark shows that Ph and T belonged to the same library. Thus T is only important as helping to "place" Ph.
F. MS. McClean 31 in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (fully described in my catalogue of the McClean MSS.), is a remarkable copy of the Aurora, or versified Bible, of Petrus de Riga. It is of cent. XIII., and is copiously annotated. Among the marginalia are many extracts (a complete list will be found at the beginning of the Appendix on various Readings) from Philo, uniformly introduced under that name, and for the most part abridged. The manuscript may have been written in the Rhine Provinces, or in Eastern France.
J. The Hebrew Chronicle of Jerahmeel, edited in an English translation by Dr. M. Gaster (Oriental Translation Fund, New series IV., 1899), was compiled early in cent. XIV. somewhere in the Rhineland. It contains large portions of Philo, some in extenso, some abridged. A list is given in the Appendix. Dr. Gaster will have it that the Hebrew is the original text; but Hebraists do not agree with him, and it is, in fact, possible to show that the Hebrew writer was translating from Latin, and from a manuscript which contained misreadings common to those we now have. See the Appendix of Readings on III. 10, VII. 3.
(d) Glancing back over the list, we see that for all but one of the items a German origin is established. The Vatican MS. is the exception, and even this presents certain indications of German origin. Near the beginning of the book (III. 3) is a speech beginning Deleam. R reads Vel eam. [[p. 19]] Now it is a habit with German scribes of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries to write their capital D's with a sharply-pointed base, making the letter very like the outline of the conventional harp, and also very like a capital V; nor do I know any other script in which the likeness between D and V is so striking. My guess is that the scribe of R, encountering the puzzling letter near the beginning of his work, made the mistake, which he does not repeat; and I regard it as an indication that his archetype was a German book of the same age as V (and, I may say by anticipation, presenting a remarkably similar text to that of V).
Thus the geographical distribution of the authorities combines with the evidence of the literature to show that in the Middle Ages Philo was circulated within very narrow limits, and practically confines those limits to Germany and Northern France.
(e) Of these authorities I have transcribed A, collated P (on the spot),and R (from a photograph) in full; have examined and partially collated V (on the spot), and have transcribed Ph, T, and F: J is in print, and I have collated that also.
The complete copies which are known to us are all ultimately derived from a single imperfect ancestor. All exhibit the same lacunae. The text, as we have it, ends abruptly in the midst of Saul's last dying speech: "Say to David: Thus saith Saul: Be not mindful of my hatred nor of my unrighteousness." How much further the story went we shall discuss later on. That it is imperfect is clear, and all our copies agree in the imperfection. Two other obvious lacunae occur about two-thirds of the way through the book, in the story of Abimelech. After the death of Gideon (XXXVII. 1) we read that "he had a son by a concubine who slew all his brethren, [[p. 20]] desiring to be ruler over the people. Then came together all the trees of the field to the fig-tree, and said: Come reign over us." Thus we pass from the first entry of Abimelech to a point somewhere in the Parable of Jotham. I think we must assume that at this place a leaf was missing in the ancestor of all our copies. None of them make any attempt to fill the gap. At the end of the story of Abimelech is another bad place (XXXVIII. 1): "After these things Abimelech ruled over the people for one year and six months, and died (under a certain tower) when a woman let fall half a millstone upon him. (Then Jair judged Israel twenty and two years.) He built a sanctuary to Baal," etc. The words in parentheses represent the supplements of P. The text as read in A would imply that Abimelech built a sanctuary to Baal; but it was in fact Jair who did so. Here, then, is another gap, the extent of which is uncertain. The immediate successor of Abimelech in the Bible is Tola. Our historian may or may not have noticed him: he does, later on, omit one of the minor judges, Ibzan. At most, another leaf is wanting at this point: at least, a few lines have been lost by casual damage.
There are, further, indications that the imperfect archetype was an uncial MS. with undivided words. In the early pages of the book much space is occupied by lists of names, which, being invented by the author, could not be corrected by recourse to the Bible. The many disagreements as to the divisions of the names (e.g. Sifatecia Sifa. Tecia, Lodo. Otim Lodoothim, filii aram filiarum, etc.) point to a stage at which the scribe had no guidance in this matter. So do such variants as memoraret artari for memorare tartari, in chaoma tonata for in chaomate nata. Again, in XIX 15 certain unintelligible [[p. 21]] words (istic mel apex magnus) are written in capitals in V, which I interpret as an attempt on the part of the scribe to represent exactly the ductus litterarum of an ancestor.
A minuscule stage is evidenced by frequent confusions (in proper names) of f and s, of c and z, of ch and di, and an occasional r for n or the converse. This last error, were it more frequent, might point to an "insular" ancestor somewhere in the pedigree. There is an a priori likelihood that a rare text current in the Rhenish district would have attracted the notice of Irish monks and have been preserved by them. A closer study of the variants may perhaps confirm this notion. 1
External and internal evidence combined lead me to the conclusion that our text was preserved in a single imperfect copy written in uncials, and containing the Antiquities, the Quaestiones in Genesim, and De Essaeis, which had survived at some centre of ancient culture in the Rhenish district, most likely in or near Trèves.
(f) The authorities used in this book fall into three groups: (1) Lorsch and Fulda, represented by the printed text, which I call A; (2) The Trèves group P, Ph, T; (3) VRFJ. This is a rough division. Sichardus gives us no means of distinguishing readings peculiar to either of his MSS. and, as we have seen, is probably wrong in saying that they were very closely allied. The Trèves MSS. are in more frequent agreement with A than VR. V and R, if not parent and child (and probably they are not) are at least uncle and nephew. Generally speaking I am of opinion that, though manifestly wrong in a number of small points, A is preferable to any one of the complete MSS. that I have seen. [[p. 22]]
It will be readily understood that, in an edition like this, a complete exposition of the evidence for the text is impossible: but by way of illustration we will take a short passage for which all our authorities except J are available, and in which the grouping is (if imperfectly) shown. The Song of David before Saul (LX. 2 sqq.) runs thus in APPhTVRF. A is taken as the basis.
Tenebrae et silentium erant (erat RF) antequam fieret seculum, et locutum est silentium et apparuerunt tenebrae.
Et factum est tunc (om. tunc RF) nomen tuum in compaginatione extensionis quod appellatum (+ est VRFPhT) superius coelum, inferius vocatum (invocatum. V) est terra.
Et praeceptum est superiori ut plueret secundum tempus eius (suum F) et inferiori pracceptum est (praec. est inf. F: om. praec. est R) ut crearet escam omnibus quae facta sunt (homini qui factus est VRF).
Et post haec facta est tribus spiritum uestrorum (nostrorum F).
Et nunc molesta, esse noli tanquam secunda creatura (factura VRF).
Si comminus memoraret artari in quo ambulas A.
Si comminus memorarer artare, etc. PPhT (artare rather obscure in T).
Si quominus memorare tartari (tractari R) in quo ambulabas VRF.
Aut non audire tibi sufficit quoniam per ea quae consonant in conspectu tuo multis (in multis VRF) psallo?
Aut immemor es quoniam de resultatione in chaoma tonata (in chaomate nata VRF) est uestra creatura?
Arguet autem tempora noua (te metra noua VRF) unde natus sum, de quo nascitur (de qua nascetur VRF) post tempus de lateribus meis qui uos donauit (domauit P, domabit PhTVRF).
VRF here show themselves
the best in some important readings. The first (homini for omnibus)
is the least obvious: but it will be quickly seen that the point of the
invective is that evil spirits are a secondary creation, and
particularly that they are inferior to man. If not actually created
after man, at least they came into being after the earth, which was to
supply food to him. Moreover, a similar variant occurs early in the
book (III. 2), non diiudicabit spiritus meus in omnibus (AVR: hominibus
P) istis, The [[p.
23]]
LXX of Gen. 63, ἐν τοῖσ ἀνθρώποισ τούτοισ,
shows that P is right.
But VR (F is rarely available) are not uniformly successful. They sometimes shirk difficulties. In IX. 13 Moses "natus est in testamento dei et in testamento carnis eius" (i.e. was born circumcised). Here VR read "in testamentum carnis, which makes nonsense: and a few lines later, where it is said of Pharaoh's daughter: "et dum uidisset in Zaticon (sc. διαθήκην) hoc est in testamento carnis," the whole clause is omitted by VIZ.
In III. 10, we have "et reddet infernus debitum suum, et perditio restituet paralecem suam." This is the obviously right reading of AP: VR read partem suam, and J betrays itself not only as a version from Latin, but as dependent on a Latin MS. allied to VR, by saying "and Abaddon shall return its portion."
When Pharaoh has determined to destroy the Hebrew children, the people say (IX. 2): "ὠμοτοκείαν (ometocean cett.) passa sunt viscera mulierum nostrarum." All the authorities, including F, keep the strange word, but V writes "Ometocean id est passa sunt," showing that at some stage there was an intention to insert a Latin equivalent. Still, the word has survived.
The shirking of difficulties is not confined to VR. The priestly vestments, epomis (XI. 15) and cidaris (XIII. 1), become ebdomas and cithara in AP, but not in VR. In a list of the plagues of Egypt (X. 1), one, pammixia, is omitted by AP and retained by VR. This word pammixia (panimixia in the MSS.) deserves a passing note, for it does not seem to have made its way into dictionaries or concordances. It is intended to mean the plague of all manner of flies, for which the LXX and Vulgate equivalent is κυνομυια, coenomyia. Jerome, writing on this, says it ought to be κοινομυια, signifying a mixture of all manner of flies, and adds that Aquila's word for it was παμμικτον. Older editors read παμμυιαν for παμμικτον, but Field, or some one before him, corrected it, and our text confirms the correction.
VR do not always go together: R, as being later, has corruptions of its own. Psalphinga, a trumpet, is a favourite word with our author: R at first writes this as psalmigraphus; later, when he has realised that this is nonsense, he reproduces psalphinga as he should.
We have not yet cited examples in which the Trèves MSS. stand apart. I will give two specimens, one of a few words, the other longer, in which this is the case. [[p. 24]]
i. XXII1. 4. Una petra erat unde effodi patrem uestrum. et genuit uir scopuli illius duos uiros A. P has: incisco petre illius, which is nearly right: VRF have "incisio petre illius," which is quite right.
ii. In the Lament of Jephthah's Daughter (XL. 6 seq.) all our authorities are available except F. J is very loose and paraphrastic, and its evidence will be given after the rest.
It will be seen that J has some equivalent for every clause (though in (g) he has wandered far from the text).
In (b) he read sedens in uirginitate or ingenuitate with the Trèves MSS.: in (k) "garlands of my crown" seems nearer to flores corone of VR. For the rest he is too paraphrastic to be followed closely.
It is very odd that three times over in this short passage the words in genua mea, genuam meam, in genuam meam should occur in one of the groups, each time disturbing the sense, while another group somehow avoids the difficulty. It looks suspicious for the group which does so. But the evidence of the Trèves group is not to be lightly dismissed. It would justify a theory that where the words first occur they are corrupt for ingenuitate, that on the second occasion an obscurity of a few letters genu . . . eam, present in the ancestor of the other MSS., was not in that of the Trèves group: and that in the third case the words are merely intrusive--perhaps wrongly inserted from a margin. Another blurring of a few letters would account for the differences between moysi and preciosi, and between odoris and odoramenti. But I do not regard this as a really satisfactory explanation.
12:1 The important sentences in the original are : ut sensimus . . . exemplaria, quorum duo habuimus, tam constanter p. 13 tamque ex composito mendos suos tueri, consilium, quod mutandorum quorundam coeperamus, plane abiecimus, imitati id quod utrumque exemplar haberet, quae tamen ita erant inter se similia, ut nec ouum diceres ouo magis, ut dubium mihi non esset, quin ex altero esset alterum descriptum, utcunque magno loci intervallo dissita. Quippe attuleramus commodum illud Fuldense uestrum, cum antea ex Laurissensi coenobio impetrassemus pervetustum quidem illud, et quod nobis felicissimae editionis magnam spem fecerat: sed progressos paululum non modo foede destituit, sed et fecit ut praeproperae nos editionis plurimum. poeniteret . . . dedimus operam ut ab exemplaribus quam minimum discederemus, ut sicubi fortasse extaret aliud exemplar, id quod tum inaudieramus, eius collatione nostra . . . absolverentur.
15:1 P. Lehmann: Johannes Sichardus und die von ihm benutzten Bibliotheken und Handschriften (Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Lateinische Philologie des Mittelalters, IV. 1. 19 12).
16:1 Dr. Lehmann quotes a number of instances in which Sichardus has deviated from the MS. in spelling: he is also clear that conjecture was resorted to. This last statement applies especially, I think, to the Quaestiones.
16:2 The printed catalogue gives the title of the Antiquities in 4569 and 18481 as Historia ab initio mundi usque ad Dauid regem. In 18481 it is preceded by Jerome's notice of Philo.
21:1 In XVI. 7 in syna seems to be a mistake for in gyro.
4. The TITLE of the book is somewhat of a puzzle. Sichardus calls it Philonis Judaei antiquitatum Biblicarum liber, the Fulda catalogue (and the label on the Fulda MS.) Philonis antiquitatum liber; a late title in the same MS. is: libri Philonis iudei de initio mundi; P has a title of cent. XV.: Philo iudeus de successione generationum veteris testamenti; R, in the colophon: "ystoria Philonis ab initio mundi usque ad David regem" (so also two at least of the Munich M SS.); Trithemius has De generationis successu. Sixtus Senensis has two notices of the book: in the first, which is drawn from Sichardus., he calls it Biblicarum antiquitatum liber; in the second, which depends on some MS., his words are: "In Gen. Cap. 5 de successione generis humani liber unus, continens enarrationem genealogiae seu posteritatis Adae. Liber incipit: Ἀδὰμ ἐγέννησε Adam genuit [[p. 27]] tres filios." The two Greek words I take to be no more than a re-translation from Latin. The MS. V has no title at all.
Thus we have authority for three names. The first, Biblicarum antiquitatum, I think, must be in part due to Sichardus; the epithet "Biblicarum" savours to my mind of the Renaissance, and has no certain MS. attestation. "Antiquitatum" (which is as old as cent. XIV.) is probably due to a recollection of Josephus's great work, the Jewish Antiquities. The other name, de successione generationum or the like, has rather better attestation, and: Historia ab initio mundi, etc. (if original in the Munich MSS.) the oldest of all. I can hardly believe, however, that any of them are original; it seems more probable that some Biblical name was prefixed to the book when it was first issued. Rather out of respect to the first editor than for any better reason I have retained the title Biblical Antiquities, under which the text was introduced to the modern world.
The ATTRIBUTION TO PHILO I regard as due to the accident that the text was transmitted in company with genuine Philonic writings. 1 Certainly, if the Antiquities had come down to us by themselves, no one in his senses could have thought of connecting them with Philo; unless, indeed, knowing of but two Jewish authors, Philo and Josephus, he assumed that, since one had written a history of the Jews, the other must needs have followed suit.
5. The ORIGINAL LANGUAGE of the book, its
date, its form and its purpose, must now be discussed.
[[p. 28]]
Original Language.--The Latin version, in which alone we possess the work, is quite obviously a translation from Greek. The forms of proper names, the occurrence of Greek words which puzzled the translator, ometocea, pammixia, epomis, etc., make this abundantly clear. It is hardly less plain that the Greek was a translation from Hebrew. As Dr. Cohn has pointed out, the whole complexion, and especially the connecting links of the narrative, are strongly Hebraic, and there is a marked absence of the Greek use of particles, or of any attempt to link sentences together save by the bald "et," which occurs an incredible number of times.
Some statistics may be given: Et factum est occurs at least 33 times; Et tum (usually of the past) 37; Tunc 25; Et nunc (of present or future) 85; In tempore illo 18; In diebus illis (and the like) 10; Et post haec, or postea 30; Ecce 105; Ecce nunc 47; Et ideo 27; Et erit cum, or si 24. Other common links which I have not counted are Et ut (uidit, etc.), Et cum, His dictis, Propterea.
The leading Hebraisms are present: adiicere, or apponere with another verb, meaning "he did so yet again," 9 times at least; the intensive participle and verb (Illuminans illuminaui) 15 times. We have Si introducing a question 4 times; a uiro usque ad mulierem and the like (XXX. 4; XLVII. 10); ad uictoriam, in uictoria (= למנצח, "Utterly"); IX. 3; XII. 6; XLIX. 6.
Hebraists, among whom I cannot reckon
myself, may probably detect
the presence of plays upon words, passages written in poetical form
(some of which are indeed obvious), and mistranslations. 1
[[p. 29]]
From what has just been said it will be rightly gathered that the literary style of Philo is not its strong point. Indeed, it is exceedingly monotonous, full of repetitions and catchwords. The author's one device for obtaining an "effect" is to string together a number of high-sounding clauses, as he does, for example, in his repeated descriptions of the giving of the Law. As a narrator, he has another trick. An incident is often compared to another in the past (or future) history of Israel, and many times is an episode from that history related in a speech or prayer.
Some of the recurrent phrases are: I spake of old saying about 25 times; in vain, or not in vain 14; it is better for us to do this than . . . 7; not for our sakes, but for . . . about 5 times; who knoweth whether 4; dost thou not remember 3; To thy seed will I give this land (or the like) 7-9; the covenant which he made 5-8; I know that the people will sin 8-9; God's anger will not endure for ever 10; The Gentiles will say 4-8; I call heaven and earth to witness 4-5; in the last days 4; make straight your ways 5-6; corrupt (your ways, etc.) 18; remember or visit the world 6; be for a testimony 10. Of single words accipere occurs 88 times in the first half of the text; habitare, inhabitare about 80 times in the whole text; iniquitas 33; disponere 37; testamentum 47; ambulare 21; uia, uiae 25; adducere 19; seducere 21; saeculum 27; sempiternus 15; constituere 20; expugnare 27; zelari 14; illuminare 12; renunciare 15.
Other lists are given in Appendix II.
27:1 Pitra thought that the Latin versions of these were by the same hand: I cannot confirm this idea, and indeed incline to question its correctness.
28:1 Of mistranslations I can only point to one. In VIII. 13 Visui appears as a proper name. It seems clearly to be a mistake for "and Isui." The error implies a Hebrew original: it is not found in the LXX. See the Appendix on Readings in loc.
6. As to the DATE of the book, a positive indication of a terminus a quo has been detected in the text by Dr. Cohn. He draws attention to a speech of God to Moses (XIX. 7): "I will show thee the place wherein the people shall serve me 850 (MSS. 740) years, and thereafter it shall be delivered into the hands of the enemies, and they shall destroy it, and strangers shall compass it[[p. 30]] about; and it shall be on that day like as it was in the day when I brake the tables of the covenant which I made with thee in Horeb: and when they sinned, that which was written thereon vanished away. Now that day was the 17th day of the 4th month." Dr. Cohn's comment is: "These words are meant to signify that Jerusalem was taken on the 17th of Tamuz, on the same day on which the Tables of the Law were broken by Moses. The capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, however, took place on the 9th of Tamuz (Jer. 526; Cf. 2 Kings 253). The . . . 17th of Tamuz can relate only to the second temple (read capture) as it is expressly mentioned in the Talmud (Taanith IV. 6, cf. Seder Olam Rabbah, cap. 6 and 30) that on that date the Tables of the Law were destroyed and Jerusalem was taken by Titus. Thus the author betrays himself by giving as the date of the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians what is really the date of the capture by Titus."
The point is so important that I have felt it only right to present the evidence in some detail. The Mishnah of Taanith IV. 6 says "Five calamities befell our fathers on the 17th of Tamuz and five on the 9th of Ab. On the 17th Tamuz the Tables of the Law were broken: the daily sacrifice ceased to be offered: the city of Jerusalem was broken into: Apostomos burnt the Law and set up an idol in the sanctuary. On the 9th of Ab our fathers were told that they should not enter the holy land (Num. xiv.). The first and the second temple were destroyed; Bethar was taken, and the plough passed over the soil of Jerusalem."
It must be borne in mind that the capture of Jerusalem, and not the destruction of the Temple,[[p. 31]] is the event of which the date is important. To establish Dr. Cohn's argument, it is necessary that the capture of the city by Titus, and not the capture by Nebuchadnezzar, should be assigned to the 17th Tamuz.
The Gemara of the Jerusalem Talmud on the Mishnah quoted above attempts to show that there is a confusion in the chronology, and that probably both captures took place on the 17th Tamuz. But that of the Babylonian Talmud, which Mr. I. Abrahams has kindly translated for me, makes the requisite distinction between the dates, in these terms --
The city was broken up on the 17th. Was it indeed so? Is it not written "in the 4th month, on the 9th of the month, the famine was sore" (Jer. 526): and is it not written in the following verse: "then the city was broken up"? Raba replied: There is no difficulty: for the one refers to the first, the other to the second Temple. For there is a baraitha (teaching) which teaches: "On the first occasion the city was broken into on the 9th of Tamuz, and on the second occasion on the 17th."
This clearly justifies Dr. Cohn in taking the 17th of Tamuz as the date primarily associated with the capture by Titus. The attempt of the Jerusalem Talmud to place the Babylonian capture on the same date is of a later complexion, and is made, it seems, in the interests of a factitious symmetry. The baraitha quoted in the Babylonian Talmud is of the same age as the Mishnah (i.e. before A.D. 200).
Thus Philo is indeed referring to the capture by Titus, and is therefore writing at a date later than A.D. 70. But, apart from this piece of positive evidence, the general complexion of the book[[p. 32]] strongly supports Dr. Cohn when he holds that it was written after the destruction of the second Temple. There is a singular absence of interest in the Temple services and in the ceremonial Law, whereas the moral Law, and especially the Decalogue, is dwelt upon again and again. Of course we read of sacrifices and the like, and it was impossible for the author to avoid all mention of the Tabernacle and its vessels, and of the yearly feasts. But the space devoted to them is strikingly small. The Passover is twice mentioned by name, and its institution is once referred to, together with that of the Feasts of Weeks, of Trumpets, and of Tabernacles, but no stress is laid upon it. The prescriptions for the observance of the Sabbath mention only synagogal services. When we compare Philo with Jubilees (second cent. B.C.), where the constant effort is to antedate the ceremonial Law in every part, we feel that we are in a wholly different stage of Judaism. Further, the evidence derivable from the resemblances between Philo and other books certainly written after A.D. 70, which will be found collected in another part of this Introduction, points unequivocally in the same direction.
In the portion of the book which we have (and it is important to remember that it is but a fragment) the writer's anticipations of a restoration and his allusions to the desolation of Jerusalem are equally faint and dim. It is probable that as occasion served--e.g. when he came to treat of Solomon's temple--he would have spoken more plainly than he could well do when dealing with the earlier history. If an opinion based upon what we possess of his work is demanded, my own is that an appreciable interval must be placed between the destruction of the city and our[[p. 33]] author's time. I should assign him to the closing years of the first Christian century. 1
33:1 It might even be said that the vagueness of his hopes and aspirations points to an even later period, after the crushing of the Bar-Cochba rising in A.D. 135. However, the fact of the acceptance of the book by the Christian Church, which alone has preserved it, and the absence of anti-Christian polemic, forbid us to assign to it a date at all late in the second century.
7. As to the FORM, I suggest that the chief model which the author set before himself was the Biblical Book of Chronicles. He begins abruptly, as that does, with genealogies and with Adam: he introduces from time to time short pieces of narrative, which rapidly increase in importance until they occupy the whole field: he devotes much space to speeches and prayers, and is fond of statements of numbers. His aim is to supplement existing narratives, and he wholly passes over large tracts of the history, occasionally referring to the Biblical books in which further details are to be found: and it is to be noted that he seems to place his own work on a level with them. "Are not these things written in the book of" the Judges, or the Kings, is his formula, and it is that of the Bible also. In all these respects he follows the Chronicler: only, as has been said, we miss in him the liturgical and priestly interest of that writer. Like the Chronicler, too, he is, and I believe was from the first, anonymous; I can find no trace of an attempt to personate any individual prophet, priest or scribe.
8. The PURPOSE of the author I read thus. He wishes to supplement existing narratives, as has been said; and this he does by means of his fabulous genealogies (which, especially in the corrupt state in which we have them, arouse but a faint
interest) and also by his paraphrases 1 of Bible stories, (for example, those of Korah, Balaam, Jael, Micah) and by his fresh inventions, especially that of Kenaz, the first judge, which is on the whole his most successful effort. In this side of his work he seeks to interest rather than to instruct. On the religious side I detect a wish to infuse a more religious tone into certain episodes of the history, particularly into the period of the judges, and to emphasize certain great truths, foremost among which I should place the indestructibility of Israel, and the duty of faithfulness to the one God. Lapse into idolatry and union with Gentiles are the dangers he most dreads for his people. I have collected the passages in which his positive teaching, is most clear and prominent, and purpose in this place to digest them under several heads, usually in the order in which they occur in the text.
The Future State of Souls and the End of the World.
III. 10. When the years of the world (or age) are fulfilled, God will quicken the dead, and raise up from the earth them that sleep: Sheol will restore its debt, and Abaddon its deposit, and every man will be rewarded according to his works. There will be an end of death, Sheol will shut its mouth, the earth will be universally fertile. No one who is "justified in God" shall be defiled. There will be a new heaven and a new earth, an everlasting habitation.
XIX. 4. God will reveal the end of the world.
XIX. 7. Moses is not to enter into the promised land "in this age."
12. He is to be made to sleep with the fathers, and have rest, until God visits the earth, and raises him and the fathers from the earth in which they sleep, and they come together and dwell in an immortal habitation.
13. This heaven will pass away like a cloud, and the times and seasons be shortened when the end draws near, for God will hasten to raise up them that sleep, and all who are able to live will dwell in the holy place which he has shown to Moses.
XXI. 9. God told the fathers in the secret places of souls, how he had fulfilled his promises: cf. XXIV. 6; XXXII. 13.
XXIII. 6. He showed Abraham the place of fire in which evil deeds will be expiated, and the torches which will enlighten the righteous who have believed.
13. The lot of the righteous Israelites will be in eternal life: their souls will be taken and laid up in peace, until the time of the world is fulfilled, and God restores them, to the fathers, and the fathers to them.
XXVI. 12. The precious stones of the temple will be hidden away until God remembers the world, and then will be brought out with others from the place which eye hath not seen nor ear heard, etc. The righteous will not need the light of the sun or moon, for these stones will give them light.
XXVIII. 10. The rest (requies) of the righteous when they are dead.
XXXII. 17. The renewal of the creation (cf. XVI. 3).
XXXIII. 2-5. There is no room for repentance
after death, nor can the fathers after their death intercede for Israel.
XXXVIII. 4. Jair's victims are quickened with "living fire" and are delivered. (This, however, does not seem strictly to apply to the future state: see the passage.)
XLVIII. 1. When God remembers the world Phinehas will taste of death. Until then he will dwell with those who have been "taken up" before him.
LI. 5. God quickens the righteous, but shuts up the wicked in darkness. When the bad die they perish: when the righteous sleep they are delivered.
LXII. 9. Jonathan is sure that souls will recognize each other after death.
The Lot of the Wicked.
XVI. 3. Korah and his company: their dwelling will be in darkness and perdition, and they will pine away until God remembers the world, and then they will die and not live, and their remembrance will perish like that of the Egyptians in the Red Sea and the men who perished in the Flood. 6. Korah and his company, when they were swallowed up, "sighed until the firmament should be restored to the earth."
XVIII. 12. Balaam will gnash his teeth because of his sins.
XXXI. 7. Sisera is to go and tell his father in hell that he has fallen by the hand of a woman.
XXXVIII. 4. Jair will have his dwelling-place in fire: so also Doeg, LXIII. 4.
XLIV. 10. Micah and his mother will die in torments, punished by the idols he has made. And this will be the rule for all men, that they shall suffer in such fashion as they have sinned.
Punishment, long deferred, for past sins, is much in our author's mind.
VI. 11. Abram says "I may be burned to death on account of my (former) sins. God's will be done."
XXVII. 7. If Kenaz falls in battle it will be because of his sins.
15. Certain men were punished, not for their present offence, but for a former one.
XLII. 2. Manoah's wife is barren because of sins.
XLV. 3. The Levite's concubine had sinned years before and is now punished.
XLIX. 5. Elkanah says: If my sins have overtaken me, I had better kill myself.
The greatness of Israel and of the Law.
VII. 4. The Holy Land was not touched by the Flood.
IX. 3. The world will come to naught sooner than Israel can be destroyed.
4. When Israel was not yet in being, God spoke of it.
XII. 9. If God destroys Israel there will be none left to glorify him.
XVIII. 13. Israel can only be defeated if it sins.
XXXII. 9, 14. The heavenly bodies are ministers to Israel, and will intercede with God if Israel is in a strait.
15. Israel was born of the rib of Adam.
XXXIX. 7. The habitable places of the world were made for Israel.
IX. 8. God thought of the Law in ancient days.
XI. 1. It is a light to Israel but a punishment to the wicked.
2. It is an everlasting Law by which God will
judge the world. Men shall not be able to say "we have not heard."
5. It is an eternal commandment which shall not pass away.
XXXII. 7. It was prepared from the birth of the world.
Of Union with Gentiles.
IX. 1. The worst feature of the Egyptian oppression was the proposal that the Hebrew girls should marry Egyptians.
5. Tamar sinned with Judah rather than mingle with Gentiles, and was justified.
XVIII. 13. The union with the daughters of Moab and Midian would be fatal to Israel.
XLIII. 5. Samson mingled with Gentiles, and was therefore punished. He was unlike Joseph.
Angelology.
The service of angels is fairly prominent, and several are named.
XI. 12. "Bear not false witness, lest thy guardians do so of thee." This, I think, refers to angels.
XV. 5. The angels will not intercede for the people if they sin. The angel of God's wrath will smite the people.
"I put angels under their feet." (Also XXX. 5.)
XVIII. 5. "I said to the angels that work subtilly (?)."
6. Jacob wrestled with the angel that is over the praises.
XIX. 16. The angels lament for Moses.
XXVII. 10. Gethel or Ingethel is the angel of hidden things; Zeruel the angel of strength. (Also LXI. 5.)
XXXII. 1, 2. The angels were jealous of Abraham,
XXXIV. 3. Certain angels were judged: those who were condemned had powers which were not given to others after them. They still assist men in sorceries.
XXXVIII. Nathaniel the angel of fire.
XLII. 10. The angel Phadahel.
LXIV. 6. When Samuel is raised up by the witch, two angels appear leading him.
Demons and Idols.
Of evil spirits hardly anything is said, but some space is devoted to descriptions of idols.
XIII. 8. Adam's wife was deceived by the serpent.
XXV. 9. "The demons of the idols."
9 seq. The idols and precious stones of the Amorites are dwelt upon.
XLIV. 5 seq. Micah's idols are described in terms which remind one slightly of the images in a sanctuary of Mithras. (See the note.)
XLV. 6. "The Lord said to the Adversary" (anticiminus, ὁ ἀντικείμενοσ). He is quite suddenly introduced, and without any explanation.
LIII. 3, 4. Eli wonders if an unclean spirit has deceived Samuel. If one hears two calls at night, it will be an evil spirit that is calling: three will mean an angel.
LXI. An evil spirit oppresses Saul.
Evil spirits were created after heaven and earth (on the Second Day) and are a secondary creation. They sprang from an echo in chaos: their abode was in "Tartarus."
A holy spirit is mentioned occasionally, but in rather vague terms.
XVIII. 3. Balaam says that the spirit (of prophecy) is given "for a time."
11. "Little is left of that holy spirit which is in me."
XXVIII. 6. The holy spirit leapt upon Kenaz.
XXXII. 14. (Deborah addressing herself.) "Let the grace of the holy spirit in thee awake."
The character of God and His dealings with men are, naturally, illustrated in many passages, in some of which there is a strange lack of perception of what is worthy and befitting.
XII. 9. Moses says, "Thou art all light."
XXII. 3. "Light dwells with him."
XVI. 5. The sons of Korah say that God, not Korah, is their true father: if they walk in his ways, they will be his sons.
XVIII. 4. God knew what was in the world before he made it.
XXI. 2. He knows the mind of all generations before they are born (cf. L. 4).
XXVIII. 4. He willed that the world should be made and that they who should inhabit it should glorify him.
XXX. 6. God is life.
XXXV. 3. He will have mercy on Israel "not for your sakes, but because of them that sleep" (cf. XXXIX. 11 end).
5. Men look on glory and fame, God on uprightness of heart.
XXXVI. 4. God will not punish Gideon in this life, lest men should say "It is Baal who punishes him": he will chastise him after death.
XXXIX. 4. (LXII. 6.) If God forgives, why should not mortal man?
God, being God, has time to cast away his anger.
11. He is angry with Jephthah for his vow. "If a dog were the first to meet him, should a dog be offered to me? It shall fall upon his only child."
XLV. 6. Israel took no notice of Micah's idols;
but is horrified at the Benjamite outrage: therefore God will allow Benjamin to defeat them, and will deceive them (cf. LXIII. 3).
XLVI. He deceives Israel, telling them to attack Benjamin.
XLVII. 3. If God had not sworn an oath to Phinehas, he would not hear him now.
LII. 4. He will not allow Eli's sons to repent, because aforetime they had said "When we grow old we will repent."
LXIV. 1. Saul put away the wizards in order to gain renown: so he shall be driven to resort to them.
Man, especially in relation to sin.
XIII. 8. Man lost Paradise by sin.
XIX. 9. What man hath not sinned? Who will be born without sin? Thou wilt correct us for a time, and not in wrath.
XXXII. 5. Esau was hated because of his deeds.
XXXVI. 1. The Midianites say, "Our sins are fulfilled, as our gods told us, and we believed them not."
LII. 3. Eli says to his sons: "Those whom you have wronged will pray for you if you reform."
LXIV. 8. Saul thinks that perhaps his fall may be an atonement for his sins.
The Messiah.
Dr. Cohn speaks of the Messianic hope of the writer, but I am myself unable to find any anticipation of a Messiah in our text. It is always God, and no subordinate agency, that is to "visit the world" and put all things right.
The word Christus occurs in two chapters: in LI. 6, and LIX. 1, 4, which refer to Saul or David.
There are two other puzzling passages, of which [[p. 42]] one inclines at first to say that the meaning is Messianic.
XXI. 6. Joshua says: "O Lord, lo, the days
shall come when the house
of Israel shall be likened to a brooding dove which setteth her young
in the nest, and will not leave them or forget her place, like as also
these, turning (conuersi) from their acts, shall fight against (or
overcome) the salvation which shall be born of them (or is born
to them)." [[NOTE: The passage
here attributed to Joshua is not found in the biblical texts]]
LI. 5. Hannah says: "But so doth all judgement endure, until he be revealed who holdeth it (qui tenet)." As, a few lines later, she says: "And these things remain so until they give a horn to his (or their) Anointed," which certainly refers to Saul; it is probable that Saul or David is meant in the present passage also. Nevertheless the resemblance between qui tenet and ὁ κατέχων of St. Paul (2 Thess. ii. 6, 7) is noteworthy. [[NOTE: The long passage here attributed to Hannah is not found as such in the biblical texts -- see 1 Sam/Kgs 2.1ff.]]
34:1 Which in some cases rather deserve the name of perversions. Great liberties are taken with them: a notable fact.
9. I have not raised the question of the UNITY of the book. No one has as yet suggested that it is composite, and I am content to wait until a theory is broached. That there are inconsistencies in it I do not deny (for instance, the story of Korah is told in two ways in XVI. and in LVII.), but they are not of a kind that suggest a plurality of writers. It may be that their presence here will furnish an argument against dissection of other books based on the existence of similar discrepancies.
As to the INTEGRITY of the text: We know that it is imperfect, and this matter will be discussed at a later stage.
The CONTENTS will be found summarized in a synopsis at the end of the Introduction.
10. THE RELATION OF PHILO TO OTHER BOOKS
now comes up for
consideration. The author's knowledge of the Old Testament
literature [[awareness of Jewish
scriptural traditions]] is [[p. 43]] apparent on every page. There are
obvious borrowings from all the
books to the end of 2 Kings; of Chronicles he seems to be a definite
imitator [[see above, FORM]]. He knows the story of Job [[8.8 and 11, married to Dinah! (see
TJob, etc., not canonical Job)]], and quotes a Psalm [[51.6 by Asaph (Ps 99.6); 59.4 and
60.1ff, by David, but not canonical Psalms!]]; he draws from
Isaiah [[unnamed; in 50.1 "dry
tree" and 53.13 (a proverb?)]], Jeremiah [[by name in 56.6 (see below)]],
Ezekiel [[in 28.6ff; see MRJ
note]], Daniel [[chapters
6 and 38, references to fiery furnaces!]]. With the Wisdom
literature he has
not much in common, and traces of the use of the Minor Prophets, of
Ezra, Nehemiah, or Tobit, are hard to find, though I will not deny
their presence. 1
If he lived, as I believe he did, near the end of the first century, we
should naturally credit him with a knowledge of the whole Jewish canon [[!!]].
[[Rewritten
#10a. The
Relation of Ps-Philo to Jewish Scriptures: The LAB is an
excellent example of a "scripturally enhanced" text. From the outset,
its interest in genealogies is apparent and carries through to chapter
42 (see also 51), although surprisingly, David's genealogy is not
presented in detail (see 59). The pastiche of other interwoven
traditions, doubtless some of them ancient, is laced with passages from
various Jewish scriptural writings which are sometimes referred to
explicitly (see below) but usually simply blended into the narrative.
The compiler knows of Moses and his law (chs. 25-26), of his successor
Jesus/Joshua (25.2, 32 et passim),
of Job who experienced a major crisis (ch. 8), of David as a psalmist
(chs 59-60), and of Jeremiah as a prophet to come (56.6, which may
suggest that the compiler assumes a pre-Jeremiah context for the work).
Books of Judges (35.7, 43.4)
and of Kings (56.7, and 63.5
"Kings of Israel") are mentioned by name, after the manner of similar
references in the biblical books of Kings
and Chronicles. It is
impossible to determine whether the compiler had direct access to
Jewish scriptural texts, and if so, which., although it is clear that a
multiplicity of Jewish traditions (oral or written, drawn from full
texts or excerpts or secondary presentations) were available. Any
impact that generations of copying and stages of translating may have
had on the relationship of the lost earler versions of LAB to what
became canonical scriptures in Judaism and in Christianity is no longer
possible to determine.
Explicit
mention of what appear to be Jewish scriptural "books" or passages or
sacred writings occurs at:
Perhaps
the reference to the "book of the law" of Moses in 25.13 is a
direct reference to (part of) the Pentateuch, although it does not need
to be so.
See also 56.6 [Saul says] "I do not understand what you are saying,
because I am young." And Samuel said to Saul "...Consider this, that
your words will be compared to the words of the prophet whose name will
be Jeremiah (Hieremias)" (see Jer 1.6 "I do not know how to speak
for I am only a youth"; the name Jeremiah occurs only here in LAB)
The
peculiar story in 25-26 about "books and stones" that need to be
destroyed by special divine action is worth separate attention here.
Presumably these are "books" and "stones" of the "Amorites," who taught
or revealed secret things to the two tribes of Dan [25.9, without
explicit mention of "books"] and Asher [25.10, with special light
bearing "stones"]:
26.1ff And when Cenez had
taken all these words and written them in a
book and read them before the Lord, God said to him: Take the men
and that which was found with them
and all their goods and put them
in the bed of the river Phison, and burn them with fire that mine anger
may cease from them. 2. And Cenez said: Shall we burn these precious
stones also with fire, or sanctify them unto thee, for among us there
are none like unto them? And God said to him: If God should receive in
his own name any of the accursed thing, what should man do? Therefore
now take these precious stones and all that was found, both books and
men: and when thou dealest so with the men, set apart these stones with
the books,
for fire will not avail to burn them, and afterwards I will
shew thee how thou must destroy them. . . . . 3. And when the fire hath
consumed
those men, then the
books and the precious
stones which cannot be
burned with fire, neither cut with iron, nor blotted out with water,
lay them upon the top of the mount beside the new altar; and I will
command a cloud, and it shall go and take up dew and shed it upon the
books, and shall blot out that which is written therein, for
they
cannot be blotted out with any other water than such as hath never
served men. And thereafter I will send my lightning, and it shall burn
up the books
themselves.
6. And after that Cenez desired to prove whether the stones could be burned with fire, and cast them into the fire. And it was so, that when they fell therein, forthwith the fire was quenched. And . . . thereafter he would at the least blot out the books with water; but it came to pass that the water when it fell upon them was congealed. And when he saw that, he said: Blessed be God who hath done so great wonders for the children of men, and made Adam the first-created and shewed him all things; that when Adam had sinned thereby, then he should deny him all these things, lest if he shewed them unto the race of men they should have the mastery over them.
[[10b.]] It is more important to determine his relation to the apocryphal books -- the literature to which he was himself a contributor. Four of these, Enoch, Jubilees, the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Fourth Book of Esdras, afford interesting material.
(a) Certain affinities with the Book of Enoch are traceable in Philo. It is true that Enoch is not one of his heroes; in fact, he tells us no more of him than is found in Genesis, but I believe that the Book was known to him, though it is only in the first part of it that I find any striking parallels.
In the first place, his view of the stars and other heavenly bodies is like that of Enoch. They are sentient beings, who receive commands from God and move about to execute them. See the story of Sisera, and the hymn of Deborah, and compare in Enoch 6, etc., the punishment of the errant stars.
Again, a passage in Enoch (148) seems to be the model of some in Philo. "Behold, clouds called me in my vision, and mists cried to me, and runnings of stars and lightnings hastened me, and in the vision winds gave me wings and lifted me [[p. 44]] up." Compare Philo XI. 5: "The heavens were folded up, and the clouds drew up water . . . and the thunders and lightnings were multiplied, and the winds and tempests sounded; the stars were gathered together, and the angels ran before " (XIII. 7); "the winds shall sound and the lightnings run on," etc. (XV. 2); "the lightnings of the stars shone, and the thunders followed, sounding with them" (XXXII. 7); "the lightnings hasted to their courses, and the winds gave a sound out of their storehouses," etc. The phrase in Enoch 14 8, 10, 11 is διαδρομαὶ ἀστέρων καὶ ἀστραπαί. In 161 we have ὁ αἰὼν ὁ μέγασ, which may be the source of the immensurabilis mundus (seculum tempus) of Philo IX. 3, XXXII. 3, XXXIV. 2.
In Enoch 173, τόξον πυρὸσ καὶ βέλη. Philo XIX. 16, praecedebant eum fulgura et lampades et sagittae omnes unanimes.
Enoch 181, Εῖ᾽δον τοὺσ θησαυροὺσ τῶν ἀνέμων; cf. Philo XXXII. 7, above. The winds gave a sound out of their storehouses (promptuariis).
In Enoch 186 seq. we hear something of precious stones which reminds us of those of Kenaz in Philo XXVI. seq.
The words of 212: "I saw neither heaven above nor earth founded, but a place imperfect and terrible" recall the vision of Kenaz in Philo XXVIII. 6 seq.
So also the description of the sweet plants of Paradise in Enoch 24 may have suggested the words of Moses in Philo XII. 9.
In Enoch 252 "to Visit the earth" has more than one parallel in Philo, e. g. XIX. 12, 13, visitare seculum, orbem: and Enoch 257 (Then I blessed the God of glory . . . who hath prepared such things for righteous men, etc.) is like Philo XXVI. 6: Blessed be God who hath wrought such signs for[[p. 45]] the sons of men, and 14: Lo, how great good things God hath wrought for men.
(b) The Book of Jubilees is perhaps most nearly comparable to Philo, in that it follows the form of a chronicle of Bible history. Its spirit and plan are, to be sure, wholly different; it is regulated by a strict system of chronology, and its chief interest is in the ceremonial law. It is also far earlier in date, belonging to the last years of the second century B.C.
Our author has read Jubilees, and to a certain extent supplements it in the portions which are common to both books. Thus Jubilees supplies us with the names of the wives of the early patriarchs: Philo omits these, but gives the names of their sons and daughters. It is true that he gives other names for the daughters of Adam, and that in the one case in which he supplies the name of a wife he also differs from Jubilees: with him Cain's wife is Themech, in Jubilees it is Awân (daughter of Adam and sister of Cain, which Philo may have wished to disguise). In the same way Philo devotes much space to the names and number of the grandsons of Noah and their families, which are wanting in Jubilees; and whereas Jubilees gives full geographical details of the provinces which fell to Shem, Ham and Japhet, Philo indulges only in a series of bare names of places, now for the most part hopelessly corrupt. There is a small and seemingly intentional contradiction of Jubilees in this part of his history: Jubilees 118, says that Serug taught Nahor to divine, and worshipped idols. Philo agrees that divination began in the days of Terah and Nahor, but adds that Serug and his sons did not join in it, or in idolatry.
Then, whereas the bulk of Jubilees is occupied with the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Philo [[p. 46]] tells in detail one episode--the rescue of Abram from the fire--which Jubilees omits, and passes over the rest of the period in a single page. Anything else that he has to say about Abraham and the rest is introduced into the speeches of later personages (Joshua, Deborah, etc.) by way of illustration. The two books agree in giving the names of the seventy souls who went down into Egypt.
All this seems to me to show a consciousness of Jubilees, and an intentional avoidance, in the main, of the ground traversed by that book. Very rarely is there any coincidence of thought, but two possible examples can be cited. Philo has surprisingly little to say about Satan or evil spirits, as we have seen: but suddenly (in XLV. 6) he says: Et dixit Dominus ad anticiminum: And the Lord said to the Adversary. This must surely be the equivalent of the "prince Mastema" whom we meet so frequently in Jubilees. There is also a difficult passage (XIII. 8) which may go back to Jubilees. God is speaking to Moses, and says: "And the nights shall yield their dew, as I spake after the flood of the earth, at that time when I commanded him (or Then he commanded him) concerning the year of the life of Noah, and said to him: These are the years which I ordained," etc. The words, which may be corrupt, at least remind me of the stress laid in Jubilees 6, upon the yearly feast that is to be kept by Noah after the Flood.
Upon the whole Philo's knowledge of Jubilees is to be inferred rather from what he does not say than from what he does.
(c) The Syriac APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH has, as I have elsewhere shown (JTS 1915, 403), certain very marked resemblances to Philo. It will be[[p. 47]] right to repeat and expand the list of them here. We will take the passages in the order in which they appear in the Apocalypse, in Dr. R. H. Charles's last translation (Pseudepigrapha of O.T.).
|
Bar. IV. 3. The building now built in your midst is not that which is revealed with Me, that which was prepared beforehand here from the time when I took counsel to make Paradise and shewed it to Adam before he sinned, but when he transgressed the commandment it was removed from him, as also Paradise. |
Ph. XIII. 8. And he said: This is the place which I showed the first-made man, saying: If thou transgress not that which I have commanded thee, all things shall be subject unto thee. But he transgressed my ways. . . . And the Lord further shewed him (Moses) the ways of Paradise, and said to him: These are the ways which men have lost because they walked not in them. XXVI. 6. Kenaz says: Blessed be God who hath wrought such marvels for the sons of men, and made the protoplast Adam and shewed him all things, that when Adam had sinned therein, then, he should deprive him of all things . . . |
|
IV. 4. And after these things I shewed it to my servant Abraham by night among the portions of the victims. |
XXIII. 6. (of Abraham) And sent a sleep upon him and compassed him about with fear, and set before him the place of fire wherein the deeds of them that work wickedness against me shall be expiated, etc. |
|
IV. 5. And again also I shewed it to Moses on Mount Sinai when I shewed to him the likeness of the tabernacle and all its vessels. |
XI. 15. (on Sinai) He charged him concerning the tabernacle and the ark . . . and the candlesticks and the laver and the base, and the breastplate and the oracle and the precious stones, and shewed him the likeness of them. |
|
|
XIX. 10. (on Pisgah) He shewed him the place whence the manna rained upon the people, even up to the paths of paradise; and he shewed him the manner of the sanctuary and the number of the offerings ... (See also XIII. 8 above.) |
|
V. 5. Jabish, an unknown person, summoned with others by Baruch. |
XXVIII. 1. Kenaz summons the prophets Jabis and Phinees. |
|
VI. 7. The forty-eight precious stones. |
See below, p. 64. |
|
X. Baruch's lamentation generally resembles that of Jephthah's daughter. |
XL. 5. |
|
X. 11. And do ye, O heavens, withhold your dew and open not the treasures of rain. |
XLIV. 10. I will command the heaven, and it shall deny them rain. XI. 9. I will command the heaven, and it shall give its rain. XIII. 7. The nights shall yield their dew |