PARTTHREE
3. Ambrose and Philo: Quellenforschung
What, then, can we learn about the text of Philo’s writings from Ambrose?
Cohn and Wendland drew attention to the value of his testimony in the general prolegomena to their edition. 39 Five years earlier Wendland had demonstrated that Ambrose in his sequential usage of Sacr. was able to offer decisive evidence that the fragment De mercede metricis, which had in previous editions been placed as part of Spec., actually belonged to the allegorical treatise.4a On a number of occasions Ambrose’s evidence supports a particular variant in the textual tradition. Unfortunately for their early work the editors were forced to use uncritical editions of Ambrose’s treatises and letters, but by the time volume 3 appeared (which includes Fug.), they could draw on Schenkl’s critical edition.41
A piece of real Quellenforschung was undertaken in 1932 by Lewy.42 It had long been noted that in De Abraham0 2.148 Ambrose records material that has a distinct Philonic flavour, but cannot been found in the extant Philo. This passage gives an allegorized interpretation of Abraham’s life, as recorded in Gen. 12:1-15:6. At 2.49 Ambrose continues with Gen. 15:7 and for the rest of his treatise makes extended use of QG book 3, which also begins with Gen. 15:7. Between books 2 and 3 of Philo’s work there is a gap in the exegesis of Gen. 12-15:6. The hypothesis that in the first part of Abr. II Ambrose draws on a missing section of QG (and not, less precise- ly, on Migr.) is very probable. 43 Lewy thus attempts to extract the Philonic material from Abr. 2.1-48, and also some passages in Book 1, yielding in his view 51 ‘neue Philontexte’.44 In his preface he emphasizes the literal
Palanque had seen an illusion to the battle of Adrianople in 378, but this mention of an
‘emperor killed in battle’ is in fact transcribed from Philo QG 2.9!
38 For discussion of the chronology of the ‘Philonic treatises’ see Savon (1977) 16-18, and see further discussion below in Q 14.5(a).
39 Cohn-Wendland (18961915) l.lxii-lxiii.
4o Wendland (1891) 125-133.
41 C-W, vol. 3 (1898) xiii.
42 Lewy (1932); I use the page numbering of the Sonderuusgabe.
43 Lewy frequently criticizes both Schenkl and Wendland for seeing parallels with Migr., when Ambrose’s source is actually QG.
44 Lewy (1932) 10-43; also 9 texts from De Cain et Abel, De Noe, De paradise, p. 44-5 I.
The parallels adduced from the Commentary on the Octateuch of Procopius as a check on
AMUKOSI 01: MIldAN 2’)‘)
and sometimes mechanical way in which Ambrose takes over Philo’s text.45 This means that the content can be recovered, but not the form or the actual details of Philo’s language. 46 In practice, however, it remains difficult to use such ‘fragments’, and Lewy’s collection is seldom referred to.
The entire subject of what we can learn about the Philonic text and its transmission from Ambrose was taken up again in Lucchesi’s monograph.
It is a somewhat tantalizing book to read, suggestive rather than exhaus- tive in its treatment. Lucchesi is convinced that from Ambrose’s literal paraphrasing we can determine the nature and provenance of the text he had at his disposal. He thus begins with a sketch of the early history of the textual tradition.47 The treatise Sacr. is a privileged example. It is well attested in the two main families of the ms. tradition. It is also found in the Coptos papyrus, which dates back to the 3rd or 4th century. Moreover Am- brose paraphrases large parts of the text. Lucchesi carefully compares the various readings contained in the four lines of transmission, and concludes that Ambrose reveals relations with all three others. More importantly he finds two (or possibly) three loci where Ambrose disagrees with both the mss. and the papyrus. This leads him to conclude that the Ambrosian text must be independent, not only of the Caesarean tradition, but also of the tradition deriving from the Catechetical school of Pantaenus. The clue here, he argues, is given by Eusebius, who records that Philo’s writings were so admired that they were thought worthy of deposition in libraries (i.e.
probably at Rome). 4s Ambrose’s Philo text may derive from these copies, and thus be wholly independent of the text that has reached us via other channels. This far-reaching conclusion has been greeted with scepticism by other scholars. Barthelemy (his thesis supervisor) regards neither example as ‘probant’,49 while Duval points out that the edition of the Coptos papy- rus by Scheil leaves much to be desired, which adds a strong element of uncertainty to Lucchesi’s attempted comparisons.50
Having given a brief outline of the characteristics of Ambrose’s adap- tations of Philo, Lucchesi then turns to the ‘Philonic treatises’. Only a few details of his analyses can be given. In Sacr. the text is followed continu- ously up to 9 136. At this point the line of thought presented by Ambrose makes more sense than in Philo’s text as we have it. Lucchesi concludes that the Allegorical Commentary, which from @if. to Post. was probably
Ambrose, drawn from Wendland (1891) 64-68 are weak. On this source see above $1.4, n. 146.
4s Lewy (I 932) 6: ‘Meist lassen sich die ambrosianischen Zusltze und ijberarbeitungen sofort erkennen. Hatifig begnugt sich A. mit mechanischen Einfiigungen...
46 Lewy (1932) 8.
47 Lucchesi ( 1977) 7-24.
48 Eus. HE 2.18.8. As noted above at $ I .4, Eusebius’ account is very vague, not telling us which books or which libraries.
49 Barthelemy (1978) 39 I.
so Duval (1979) 728, referring to the critical remarks of Harl (1966a) 154.
not divided into separate books as in our editions,” has been seriously restructured by the Christians in the early period of transmission. Why then at this point does Ambrose move to QG 1 instead of continuing with Det.?
This was probably a matter of convenience for Ambrose, who in his haste found the Quaestiones easier to use. 52 In De Noe, where the same slavish use is made of Philo’s text, a similar phenomenon is found. When making use of QG 1.88, Ambrose adds material from 2.79 (and also 2.27, 2.80).
Rather than conclude that Ambrose has made some clever combinations, Lucchesi draws the rather drastic conclusion that the text of QG has been rearranged, and that all this material originally belonged with 1.88, which in its present form is very short.53 The chief question raised by De Abrahamo II is the original state of the Quaestiones. Following Lewy, Lucchesi suggests that an entire book, furnishing exegesis of Gen. lo-15:6 has fallen out between the extant books 2 and 3. Royse has rightly criticized this view because it fails to give an exegetical criterion for the division into the six books, and means that, if the present Book 3 becomes 4, only two books are left for the present Book 4, which is not enough for its 256 lemmata.54 Lucchesi concludes that Ambrose’s knowledge of the lacuna is further evidence that his text is independent of the 2nd Caesarean edition.
This, however, is far from certain.55
Two treatises remain. In both De Paradise and De fuga saeculi the method of using Philo seems to differ, not adhering to a single text con- sulted sequentially. Particularly in the case of the etymologies it is difficult to pin down the exact Philonic source. 56 A solution here might be that in certain cases Ambrose consulted an Onomasticon, as supposed by Wil- brand for the Letters.57 But it is equally possible that he picks up etymo- logies that are similar to or differing from Philo’s in an intermediary exe- getical source. Lucchesi is also struck by the fact it is in one of these two treatises that Philo is explicitly mentioned, which might indicate that Philo is being used differently in this context. To cut a long discussion short, Lucchesi concludes that the most likely hypothesis is that in these two works (and also elsewhere where there is sporadic mention of Philonic
51 Lucchesi (1977) 37 and the appendix at 122-126. If true this would seriously hamper quests for find unity in the books of the Allegorical treatises. But the evidence is slight.
52 Lucchesi (1977) 34-38. He cannot admit that Ambrose may not have had access to Det., since he believes Opif. - Posr. were all together in one extended treatise.
53 Ibid, 3941.
54 Royse (1976-77) 50, also with reference to Lucchesi (1976). Royse takes up Marcus’
suggestion that the division of books assumes a division of the Pentateuch similar to the Babylonian Parushiyyot still now in use for sabbath readings.
s5 See above at n. 44; on the Armenian translation see further above #I .4. at n. 126. Little detailed work has been done on the source of its text.
% Lucchesi (1977) 59ff.
s7 Wilbrand (1909) 38-41.
.wo (‘HAITI:K H)UK’1‘15l:N AMI3KOSI: 01, hllI>/\N 30 i themes), Ambrose has made use of an intermediary Christian source,
which in its turn had made extensive use of Philo. Who would this source have been? The most likely candidates are Origen or Hippolytus. Lucchesi tentatively suggests Origen’s Tomoi for De Paradiso, his (mysterious) Homiliae mysticae (or mixtae) for De fuga saeculi.59
The study closes with two brief chapters on the Armenian and Latin translations of Philo. Examination of selected passages from the Armenian Quaestiones confirms the earlier conclusion that Ambrose’s usage presup- poses a text that differs from the Caesarean edition.60 As for the Latin ver- sion, Lucchesi is tempted to revive the suggestion of Pitra that there is an affinity with the language of Tertullian and the North African (?) translator of Irenaeus, which might suggest a 3rd century date.61 But no definite proofs can be given. There are arguments to suggest influence of the trans- lation on Ambrose and vice versa. What is most interesting of all is the extra material that the translation contains (11 lemmata missing in the Armenian QG 4, and glosses from the missing Hepi &p&pGjv). If this material reached the West via another route than Origen’s library, then the same could have happened to the text that Ambrose had before him.62
The above summary gives an indication of the broad spectrum of sub- jects raised with the compass of this brief monograph. Lucchesi succeeds in demonstrating that the information that Ambrose can yield for the estab- lishment of Philo’s text and research into the history of its transmission has by no means been exhausted. In many respects, however, his investi- gation leaves the reader dissatisfied. Consistently small and often unclear pieces of evidence are used to give support to sweeping or radical conclu- sions. When a choice must be made between a straightforward or a ‘sensa- tional’ explanation for a particular textual phenomenon, the author will invariably opt for the latter, or at least leave the suggestion standing.
Above all it is his method of reading Ambrose that is crucial. Any deviation between Ambrose’s paraphrase and Philo’s received text makes Lucchesi suspicious, especially when the bishop is making use of a single text as main source. Almost no room seems to have been left for any kind of autho- rial intervention. As a reviewer remarked, a study of this kind requires that one is connaisseur of both Philo and Ambrose.63 Here the problems appear to lie on the Ambrosian side.
s8 We note too that Sodano (1975), after examining the relation between Ambrose and the Philonic passages that could be his source, concludes that either the bishop was careless in his haste or that he may have used some kind of exegetical crib. The preference for the latter on account of the anonymous reference at Put-. 2. I I seems to me unfounded.
S) Lucchesi ( 1977) 76, 84.
‘t’ See the conclusion at 105 ht /hit/. I IOff.
‘? /hid. I 16-I 17.
‘.’ Duval (1979) 729. Unfortunately the book received few reviews.
4. Ambrose and Philo: appropriation and vigilance
In Savon’s monograph the focus of attention moves from Philo and textual concerns to Ambrose and the method of his appropriation and adaptation.
The aim is to to analyse Ambrose’s Philonic borrowings in such a way that we can ‘surprise him at his work’.64 This involves examination of the text at various levels. Individual passages have to be carefully scrutinized in order to determine where exactly Ambrose deviates from his model. Often a single word changes the whole direction of a passage. Savon makes ex- tensive use of parallel columns to show this interplay of similarity and diffe- rence. On the other hand, in the analysis we should not be content to look merely at the parallels that the editors have assembled in their apparatus fontium. Not only are their collections far from complete,65 but it is not
recognized that the Philonic original leaves its traces on more extensive sections of the treatises, and sometimes also strongly influences their structure. Ambrose is perfectly capable of citing a Philonic phrase and not making his modification of its portent clear until pages later. Not merely individual passages should be compared, but entire trains of thought. These methodological assumptions are perfectly sound, but give rise to difficulties when carried out in practice. Despite its length, Savon’s book only discus- ses a select number of passages. The detailed comparison of the debate between pleasure and virtue which Ambrose adapts at De Cain et Abel 1.4.13-6.23 from Philo Sacr. 20-42 covers no less than 80 pages, a discus- sion which the reader can only follow through constant reference to both original texts.
Although Savon is aware that the chronology of Ambrose’s ‘Philonic treatises’ is difficult to fix with precision, he nevertheless argues that a development can be detected in the way that Philo is put to use. This allows him to structure his account in four parts that reveal a logical and coherent progression.
(a) The choice for Philo. Why does Ambrose make such a clear and decisive choice for allegory according to the Philonic model? The answer is given in De paradiso, probably his earliest exegetical work. Right at the beginning Ambrose implicitly indicates his source: the words namque ante nos fuit qui introduce the allegorical interpretation of Adam, Eve and the serpent, unmistakeably derived from Philo. Philonic allegory helps Ambrose defend the Bible from rationalist attack. He mentions the 2nd century Marcionite critic of the Old Testament Apelles by name in this treatise, but
64 Savon ( 1977) 9.
6s E.g. the remarkable case at Fug. saec. 4. I7 and 7.39, where both the allusion to Plato 7’111.
176a~ and the Philonic source at Fug. 63 and 82 are overlooked by both Schenkl and C-W; see Savon (1977) 358.
302 (‘HAf’~f‘f:fI f~OUKTIf:N
this is not merely a matter of history. The rationalist tradition is continued by heretics in his own day. The flexibility and associativeness of the allego- rical method is more suited to Ambrose’s character and abilities than the sharp give and take of dialectic (such as practised by Basil and Gregory against Eunomius).66 It is also in this treatise that we find Ambrose’s sole mention of Philo’s name. The remark is made in a critical vein: Philo re- mains in the realm of moralia, because with his Jewish sensibility he does not grasp the spiritalia of the scriptural passage in question. The contrast here is not between allegory and typology, as argued by Daniilou.67 Savon collects parallels in order to show that Ambrose cuts across two distinc- tions here: (i) between the literal (superficial) and spiritual (profound) understanding of the sacred text; (ii) a classification of interpretation in terms of physical-moral-mystical content.68 Philo gives a moral allegorical interpretation of Gen. 2: 15 in QG 1.14: from the practical point of view there was no need for agricultural labour or protection of property in Paradise, but nevertheless the first man carries it out as an example and ‘law’ to future generations. But this moral interpretation stays too close to the surface of the text. His Judaism prevents him from seeing a deeper ‘mystical’ import, such as is indicated in Ps. 126: 1, where we read that ‘unless the Lord build the house, the builders labour in vain; unless the Lord guards the city, its guardians guard it in vain’.@
(b) Ambrosiun censorship. Although Ambrose takes over so much from Philo, he never does this in an uncritical way. In the treatises De Cain et Abel and De Noe this critical attitude comes strongly to the fore in the
following three areas:
(i) Philosophy. The relatively positive attitude to philosophy and the doctrines of the philosophers which we find in Philo is not taken over.
Savon is in strong agreement with the thesis of Madec that Ambrose consistently adopts an openly hostile attitude to pagan philosophy.70 Moreover, although he is prepared to use the doctrines of the philosophers for his own ends (mainly in order to show the superiority of revealed truth),
66 Savon (1977) 25-54.
67 DaniClou ( 1950) 46-52.
68 See entire discussion at Savon (1977) 55-81. As he points out, the tripartition also originally derives from the Philonic tradition (but reworked via Origen), so Philo is being used indirectly and directly. Savon calls this ‘le double rencontre avec Philon’ (81).
69 Disappointingly, however, Savon does not succeed in explaining the actual exegesis that Ambrose gives, which to my mind remains puzzling. One wonders whether it would not be more straightforward to argue that spirit&a is used here (apparently exceptionally) as a synonym for m)rstica (but not in the sense of typology). See also the monograph on Am- brose’s hermeneutics by Pizzolato (1978); the explanation of the criticism of Philo on p. 197 is similar to that given by Savon.
70 Savon ( 1977) 89-96, Madec ( 1974) passim, 52-60 on Philo.
A M B R O S E O F MILAN 3 0 3
they do not make a strong impact on his thought. The contrast with Augustine here is marked.
(ii) Judaism. As we have already seen in his comment on Philo’s iuduicus affectus, Ambrose never loses sight of the fact that Philo is a Jew. His attitude to contemporary Judaism is hostile and sharp, with not a grain of sympathy or understanding for its position.71 As Savon shows in a number of fascinating examples, this attitude also occurs right in the middle of the appropriation of Philonic themes. For example, more than once Ambrose undermines the praise of Moses which is found in his source, because he perceives such a Zuudutio as usurping the prerogatives of Christ.72
(iii) Ariunism. Ambrose is keenly aware that some of Philo’s statements concerning the Logos and its/his relation to God could encourage lapses into Arianism. The subordinationism that had met with Eusebius’ approval was now quite inacceptable for post-Nicene orthodoxy. It will be interesting to give an example of Ambrose’s correction of Philo here, because it illustrates how carefully we have to read him in order to discover the way he deals with his source. Both writers give exegesis of Gen. 4:3, where Cain does not present an offering until ‘after some days’, whereas the virtuous do this with all speed. Fastest of all is God himself. For purposes of comparison the two texts are placed side by side:
Philo, De sucrificiis 65 b r&p 8EbS h&V &lCX k?‘COi&l, pjt%v pE’5a& &j.qoiv &iG*
E i 6i: Xpfi 66ypCi KLVEiV C&j-
&TEpOV, b hbyO$ &pyOV fiV ahok (For God spoke and acted together, placing no interval between the two. But if one should put forward a more truly phrased doctrine, his word was his deed.)
Ambrose, De Cain et Abel 1.8.32
cite dat deus, quia dixit et facta sunt, man- dauit et creata sunt. verbum enim dei non, sicut quidam ait, opus est, sed operans, sicut habes scriptum (citation of John 5: 17 follows)
(God gives swiftly, since he spoke, and action took place, he ordered, and creation took place. For the word of God is not, as someone asserts, his product (opus), but is in activity (operans), as you find written...) Clearly Ambrose has misunderstood the purport of Philo’s words, which intend to say that, because there is no time lapse between God’s word and its taking place, word and deed can be identified. Ambrose thinks that the term Zpyov means ‘product’, and so explicitly corrects Philo: the word of God is not an opus, but rather an operuns, always fully active. The anonymous reference must be to Philo. As Savon penetratingly observes, this ‘correction’ can only explained if we accept that Ambrose is actively on the look-out for expressions in Philo that might give support to Arian
71 Relevant texts assembled and analysed by Schreckenberg (1982) 303-3 IO. Notorious is Ambrose’s passionate defence of the burning down of the synagogue at Kallinikon.
‘* Savon (1977) 96-l 18; passages at De Nor 13.45, De Cain et Abel I .2.7-9.
,, .I