A considerable proportion-perhaps more than half-of all the writings produced by the Church Fathers in the 4th century consisted of biblical exposition. If possible, therefore, we should try to trace the extent to which Philonic exegetical material may have been exploited during this period. As we have seen, the Alexandrian exegete Didymus the Blind encouraged his readers to consult Philo and use him to their profit. From Eusebius we learn that the writings of Philo were readily available outside Alexandria. To what extent was Philo used by other exegetes outside his native city?
Unfortunately this question is most difficult to answer, not only because so many of the works of this period are lost or remain only in a fragmentary condition, but also because no research has been done on the subject. As a testimonium paupertatis we can point to two texts in which Philo is expli- citly named. Fortunately the second of these texts is quite extensive and of capital interest for our subject.
We commence with a text preserved in the Catenae and attributed to Eusebius of Emesa (c. 300-359), who claimed his namesake from Caesa- rea as one of his teachers.147 The text is derived from his Commentary on
‘4h Jaeger ( 19 14) 143, Skard (1936). An important role in the argument is played by paral- lels in Origen’s Hondies on Genesis, in Calcidius, and in the Ps.Basilian treatises on the crea- tion of man.
‘47 Text at Petit (1992) I35 (= no. l94), incomplete at Petit (1978) 42-43. The same text is
Genesis, and focuses on the interpretation of Gen. 2:6. It divides into two
parts. Eusebius first cites ‘a Hebrew’ who argues that biblical lemma does not say ‘a spring rose up from the earth’ (as in the LXX), but rather ‘a form of very thick mist or compressed air’. Then, in defence of the transmitted Greek text, Eusebius cited a passage verbatim from QG 1.3, introducing it with the words ‘Philo the Hebrew affirms’. Eusebius, we read, is a ‘sober and cautious’ proponent of the allegorical method of biblical interpreta- tion,l‘@ but this does not emerge from the present text. The passage cited from Philo does not relate directly to the proposal of the first passage. One might indeed wonder who the anonymous ‘Hebrew’ is. Since he clearly re- acts against the received Septuagint translation and draws on the Hebrew text, it may be suspected that he is a Rabbinic exegete. It is not imposs- ible, therefore, that Philo is being cited here in his role as Jew in order to provide ammunition against Jewish exegesis that differs from Christian tradition (e.g. because it is based on a different translation).149
The second, much more extensive text is found in the writings of Theo- dore of Mopsuestia (c. 35w28). It is in fact one of the longest passages on Philo in the entire patristic tradition, but because it has only survived in a Syriac translation, recently edited and translated into French by L. van Rompay, it has so far received no scholarly attention.150 Born in Antioch at about the mid-century, Theodore joined a group of Christian scholars and ascetics centred around Diodore of Tarsus in Antioch.151 These men deve- loped a distinctive method of exegesis known as the Antiochene school of biblical interpretation. 152 In contrast to the Alexandrian school represented above all by Origen and Didymus, the Antiochenes refused all forms of allegorical exegesis. They preferred in all cases the literal or ‘factual’
meaning. A limited range of typological or non-literal interpretation was allowed, particularly in those cases when there were precedents in the New Testament (e.g. Jesus on Jonah in the whale, Paul on Hagar and Sarah etc.). Theodore was regarded by contemporaries as the greatest of the
found in Procopius PG 87.149B-C but, as always in this work (cf. above $1.4, 0 10.6), Philo’s name is replaced by T&S Sk cpaat. On the Cutenae see further above $1.4 and n. 142. A difficulty is raised by the fact that only the second part of the text is found in the extant Armenian translation edited and posthumously published by Hovhannessian. It is, however, more likely that Eusebius, and not the Catenist, has brought the two passages together, because elsewhere the Catenist only used material from QG beginning at 1.55; cf. Royse (1991) 18.
148 The description is from Hanson (1988) 398.
149 The same method observed in the case of Isidore $10.5 and the Easter controversies 0 I I .5.
Iso I would like to thank my colleague L. van Rompay most warmly for drawing my attention to this fascinating text.
I51 On Theodore and his writings, see now the account of Lera (1990); list of surviving writings at 388-389; cf. also CPG 2.344-361 (in need of revision).
152 On the Antiochene school of biblical interpretation see Gerber (1966) 1220-1222.
Simonetti (1981) 65-73, Simonetti (1985) 156-200 (167-180 on Theodore).
266 CHAPTER TWELVE T H E CAPPADOCIANS AND BEYONI)
Antiochene exegetes. Unfortunately his legacy later became embroiled in the Nestorian controversy, so that his reputation was only maintained in the East Syrian church, and not in the ‘mainstream’ Byzantine tradition.153 Only one work is extant in its entirety in the original Greek; fortunately a number of others have been preserved in the Syriac tradition.
Theodore’s great Commentary on the Psalms is partly preserved in Greek, partly in Syriac translation. Prefacing the Syriac version of the com- mentary on Ps. 118 is a long introductory section of some 18 pages which seems to have no direct connection with the exegesis of the Psalm itself. In the only surviving ms. this section at the end bears the title Treatise against the Allegorists, and gives a brief exposC of the author’s views on how scripture should be read, with a strong attack on allegorical interpre- tation. From other sources we know that Theodore wrote a work in 5 books with precisely this title, which was particularly directed against the famous allegorist Origen. To my mind it is likely that the Syriac text is a kind of epitome of the larger work.155
In his discussion Theodore argues the following views, in which the theories of the Antiochene school of exegesis can easily be recognized.
(1) The allegorical method has its origin in pagan thought, where it was invented by the Greeks in order to explain away their myths (11.8-10, 13.12-18). Similarly Christian allegorists use the method to explain away
‘real facts’ (i.e. historical events) in the scriptures (11.11-12).
(2) In the interpretation of scripture the literal sense always prevails (10.7-12).
(3) If a biblical author resorts to allegorical speech (as Paul does), this is not in order to do away with the literal sense, but to add something to it which will be of profit to the reader (11.20-12.19).
Theodore then points to other biblical authors, Moses and Stephen (in his speech in Acts 7) who make quite clear the importance that they attach to the historical meaning. At this point we meet up with that part of Theo- dore’s text which is of direct relevance to our subject. Because of its inac- cessibility, we cite it in full in Van Rompay’s translation:156
153 On Philo’s modest place in the Syriac tradition, see above !j 1.4. at n. 135.
154 Van Rompay (1982) 1-18. Secondary studies have not yet noted this important find. It is not mentioned in Simonetti (1985), and also not in the latest monograph on Theodore’s exegesis, Zaharopoulos (1989).
155 On the difficult question of the relationship between this text and the larger treatise see Van Rompay’s discussion, (1982) xlv-xlvii, who is unable to reach a clear conclusion. At
xlii he notes that Theodore’s master Diodorus of Tarsus also had a (still unpublished) introduction to this Psalm with an attack against allegorical exegesis (but without naming Philo and Origen explicitly).
Is6 Since the text cited is already a translation of a translation, it seemed better not to convert it into English. The lines match the printed text exactly. Van Rompay and I hope to publish a further analysis, including an English translation, in the near future.
‘67 [ 141 Et (ceci vaut) aussi (pour) tous les aphtres, qui rappe-
[20] laient partout la promesse (faite) aux p2res, vu que de cette faGon ils pensaient (pouvoir) le plus faire taire les Juifs, pour qu’il soit clair qu’ils ne faisaient rien qui soit &ranger et en opposition avec leurs p&es.
Dans ce qui prkkde nous avons aussi eu en vue le bienheureux Paul et le Christ notre Seigneur lui-mcme, qui a interpret6 ainsi les (chases)
[25] anciennes, ainsi que les livres des CvangClistes, qui sont composks de cette man&e.
Mais il n’a pas paru bon au vertueux Origkne de tenir compte de ces (personnes). 11 a regard6 comme bien supkieur B ceux-la Philon, un juif, [ 151 qui d&s qu’il fut instruit dans la doctrine de dehors, a considtkk le sens (littkral) des Ccritures divines, tel qu’il ressort du texte (meme) des (rkritures), comme quelque chose d’inf&ieur et de mkprisable. Et (c’est) lui (qui) le premier a introduit l’histoire allkgorique des pdiens (en [5] l’empruntant) 3 l’enseignement des gentils, parce qu’il a cru que de la mCme faGon les (kcritures divines) Ctaient elles aussi pourvues de l’armure de I’allCgorie, tandis qu’il n’a pas compris que (le fait) d’enlever le
contenu historique du texte (des Ccritures) al&e profondkment les
Ccritures divines et (qu’) elles paraissent (d&s lors) mensongkes et fausses, [IO] comme (les mythes) des pdiens. 11 n’y a pas lieu de s’Ctonner que Philon ait manceuvrk de cette faGon contre les Ccritures divines, vu qu’il a
aussi OSC introduire l’arithmktique de la contemplation humaine dans l’enseignement de Moi’se, c’est-&dire (dans l’enseignement) des kritures divines, et (qu’) il s’est enhardi (jusqu’) & montrer que (c’est) d’aprks les [ 153 (idCes de l’arithmbtique) (que) le monde fut constituk au tours du dkroulement de sa creation-au sujet de quoi Moi’se aussi nous enseigne par ses paroles. Et tandis qu’il a ainse rejetC en bien des endroits le contenu historique du texte et (qu’) il a rbdigC les compositions de ses kcrits selon le sens (des idCes de l’arithmitique), il [20] ttait nkanmoins oblige d’en respecter une partie, parce qu’il reculait de honte devant la gloire ancienne et (devant) la rkputation dont il jouissait et devant la vCritC qui fut maintenue parmi les gens de son
peuple. Par amour de la vaine gloire il a introduit l’enseignement des pdiens dans les Ccritures divines, en ne comprenant pas que l’ornement [25] (provenant) de ces (gens-)18 est une impudence a 1’Cgard des kritures divines.
[ 161 Dans ces (mat&es) done le vertueux Seigneur Orig&ne-ne trouvant personne qui pQt lui enseigner les (questions) des kcritures divines
selon la vtritC-se servit de Philon comme maitre suivant cette
interprktation alltgorique, (Philon) qui s’ktait enhardi cjusqu’) g changer [5]-prkisement en raison de cette interpretation-tout ce qui est Ccrit dans les (Ccritures). (Origkne) s’est prksentk alors comme un spkcialiste dans l’enseignement de l’figlise (pourvu) d’une grande exactitude, en ne se trompant pas seulement a une (occasion)-de faGon qu’on lui Cpargnerait le blfime de son erreur-mais il a USC de toutes les (chases)
[lo] de la mCme faGon tet il estt et plus grave encore (est le fait) qu’il n’a pas adopt6 le mCme sens partout (et) toujours, mais tant8t (ii a interprCt6 les textes) de cette man&e, et tant6t d’une autre.. . [Theodore goes on to rlesc~ritw various doctrinal errors on the part of Origen ]
In this text we note the following points of importance:
(1) Theodore’s real adversary is Or&en, whom he addresses ironically a s
‘the noble sir Origen’ (a translation of b y~vvaio<?), and accuses of totally disregarding scripture’s own injunctions on its interpretation (14.27).
(2) Instead of listening to biblical masters, Origen learns his method from a Jew, Philo (14.28); later we read that he turns to Philo because he could find no one else to teach him the true method (16.2).
(3) Philo has been trained in profane learning (Theodore may be thinking of the Eusebian evidence here), and so holds the literal text of scripture in contempt. He has learnt the allegorical method from the pagans/gentiles, and mistakenly thinks he can use it to defend scripture, whereas he in fact makes it seem mendacious and false like the pagan myths (15.1-10).
(4) Proof of Philo’s disrespect can be seen in his use of human arithmetic to explain the Mosaic creation account, and also in the fact that he often rejects the historical content of scripture outright (15.10-17).
(5) Nevertheless out of a sense of shame and respect for his own people’s tradition and for the Truth itself, he continues to respect at least a part of the historical sense of scripture (15.17-22).
(6) His motivation for introducing a pagan method into scriptural interpre- tation was vainglory (= KEVO~O&?) (15.23).
Theodore thus attempts to discredit the allegorical method of interpre- ting scripture by ascribing to it a Jewish and-before that-a Greek back- ground. This is a standard polemical move, strictly comparable to the fre- quent method of attributing the source of heresy to Jewish or Greek influ- ence. Origen is regarded as the master of this method. But Theodore shows that he is aware that Origen did not invent it, but drew on Philo for his inspiration. Furthermore Theodore does not just make a series of hollow assertions. He produces evidence in the form of observations on Philo’s actual exegetical practice. The passage in which he gives his proofs (15.10- 20) would seem to me to be based on an actual reading of Philonic texts, and particularly the De opificio mundi. In this treatise the use of arithmo- logy is so prominent-e.g. at $13-14,157 48-52, 62, 90-127-that it is difficult not to agree with Theodore that its use is rather disproportionate.
Moreover this work contains two passages in which Philo explicitly says- contrary to his normal practice-that the literal meaning must be suspen- ded: $153-154 (on paradise), $157 (on the serpent, cf. also Leg. 2.19). On the other hand many passages of the treatise give a perfectly literal inter- pretation of the creation account which Theodore cannot have found unac- ceptable.i”s This perhaps led him to qualify his attack on Philo’s allegorism to some degree, as indicated in point (5) above.
Theodore’s attack on Philo and his allegorical method forms a perfect 157 Van Rompay ( 1982) I5 in a note draws attention to this text and Leg. 1.3.
tsx On Philo’s seeming vacillation between literalism and allegorism in Opif. and elsewhere see Nikiprowetzky (1977) 232ff.
‘I’HE ~‘/ZI’1’/ZIX)(‘IANS AND I3lIYONr) 269 contrast to the attitude revealed in the works of his slightly older contem- porary Didymus the Blind. Didymus recommends Philo to his reader pre- cisely on account of those features-arithmology and allegorical interpre- tation-which Theodore condemns. 159 This differing attitude to Philo is symptomatic of the gulf that separates the hermeneutical theory and prac- tice of the Alexandrian and the Antiochene schools. Theodore also empha- sizes the fact that Philo is a Jew. This, I suspect, has less to do with the actual subject of correct biblical interpretation than with the conflict with Judaism that was so pronounced in Antioch and Syria at this time.160 After all he must have been quite well aware that current Rabbinic interpretation differed almost totally from Philo’s allegorism, and was in fact in many respects much closer to the method that he himself so forcefully advocated.
Further light is shed on Theodore’s attack on Philo and Origen by another text, this time not translated from the Greek but originally written in Syriac. In his work apparently entitled Cause of the Foundation of the Schools, BarhadbSabba ‘Arbaya, bishop of Halwan in c. 600, gives an ex- tensive account of the various schools whose existence is recorded in sacred and profane history. lb1 After describing the schools of the Hebrew prophets, of Greek philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and of Zoroaster the Persian sage, the bishop records the school commenced by the Saviour himself, who chooses Peter and Paul to continue his teaching.
Before reaching his own school, he first describes the school of Alexandria, in which mention is made of Philo. Because this text too is little known, it seems best to cite in full, once again in a French translation:l62
[6] L’Ccole d’Alexandrie a CtC tres celebre, ainsi que nous l’avons dit; sa renommee et son antiquite y attiraient beaucoup de personnes, pour recevoir des lecons de philosophie. Et, comme le gout de l’etude est innC dans le genre humain, il se trouva un zClt de l’erudition, qui, instruit dans les sciences chretiennes, fonda dans la susdite ville une Ccole de 1’Ecriture Sainte, afin qu’on ne pens& pas que [lo] les sciences ne se trouvent que chez les pai’ens.
A la lecture des ces saints Livres, il [le z&5] ajouta aussi, comme parure, le commentaire; ce qui a CtC cause qu’il defigura quelquefois la vCritC contenue dans l’&riture, par des imaginations tres bizarres. Le directeur [ 151 de cette Ccole <et l’exCg&e> fut Philon le Juif, qui d&s qu’il eut embrasse cet art, commenca a expliquer l’ficriture par des allegories, au detriment de l’histoire.
Ces sages ne comprirent pas que non seulement ils devaient Cviter l’ensei- [376]gnement des bagatelles, mais encore omer les Livres divins d’une vraie doctrine; ils aimerent done la gloire humaine plus que la gloire divine. Or ceux
ts9 See above 5 10.4.
t60 On the competitive relations between Jews and Christians in Antioch in the 4th century, cf. Meeks-Wilken ( 1978) Wilken (1984). Kinzig (1991) esp. 3541.
16’ The title of the work is somewhat obscure; cf. Scher (1907) 325.
t62 Text and translation at Scher (1907) 375.6-376.9. Once again I am indebted to L. van Rompay for bringing this text to my attention and pointing out an omission in the trans- lation (added in angle brackets).
270 C H A P T E R T W E L V E T H E C A P P A D O C I A N S AND B E Y O N D 271 qui frkquentaient Alexandrie, dans le but de s’instruire, Ctaient trks nombreux.
Bient8t 1’Ccole des philosophes disparut, et la nouvelle Ccole devint prospkre.
[5] Apr&s la mart de Philon, le pervers Arius se rendit c&bre B Alexandrie;
il promettait une ample discussion relative aux livres divins; il avait mCme ac- quis 1’Crudition profane. Ayant CtC appelC B expliquer les lkritures, il inventa, dans l’ivresse de l’orgueil, une nouvelle et fausse doctrine, disant que le Fils est c&e.. .
The reader will observe without difficulty the continuation of themes found in Theodore’s text. The mention of the motive of ‘human glory’ even sug- gests a direct link (cf. point (6) in my observations above). It is striking, however, that Origen’s name is omitted. The attitude to Philo and the Alexandrian school is markedly ambivalent. On the one hand their love of learning and devotion to the scriptures is praised. On the other hand their preference for allegorical exegesis leads them badly astray. The connection made between the death of Philo and the appearance of Arius surely im- plies that the method of allegorical exegesis practised by the school can give rise to heresy. This suspicion is strengthened by the train of thought in the following paragraphs, where the foundation of the schools of Antioch and Nisibis and another Alexandrian school is connected with the defeat of heresy at the Council of Nicaea .l63 In our first chapter we included Bar- hadbsabba’s account as part of the legend of Philo Christianus, for it is im- plied that Philo is head of a Christian school.l@ This report connecting Philo with the school of Alexandria is found nowhere else. It has, needless to say, no historical foundations whatsoever, but reveals an interesting per- spective on Philo’s place in the tradition of biblical interpretation.165
It is not surprising, in the light of the attitudes of Theodore just studied, that leading Christian writers associated with or influenced by the Antio- chene school reveal little acquaintance with Philo. One will look in vain for a reference to Philo in the vast body of works written by or associated with John Chrysostom (c. 347-407), the bosom-friend of Theodore.l66 And in the writings of the prolific Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 393-c. 466), who represents the next generation of Antiochene exegesis, Philo is mentioned only once, in a rather trivial listing of various interpretations of the meaning of the Hebrew word Pascha (together with Josephus and the Bible translators Symmachus and Theodotion) .I67 We should not exclude the possibility,
163 376.10-377.10 Scher. Founder of the (new) Alexandrian school is Alexander, the bishop before Athanasius.
‘64 SeeaboveQl.1 (13).
16s This is not to say, however, that there may not have been connections between the Catechetical school of Alexandria and earlier Jewish institutions of the time of Philo; see above $8. I.
16* C-W refer on four occasions to texts in Theodoret; cf. Her. 14, 101, Spec. 1.221, Virt. 59.
169 Cf. the list in my index to C-W, Runia (1992a) 92. But C-W missed the direct reference in their collection of testimonia. We assume that the historian Sozomen only knew Philo via Eusebius and perhaps other sources; cf. above 8 11.4.
I70 See our brief comments above at 0 1.1 (12) and n. 14, $1.4. at n. 134.
17’ For these texts see C-W l.cix-cxi and the Appendix. Remarkably the lemma on 8s6<
cites a section from Isidore Ep. 2.143 on Philo!; cf. Runia ( I99 I a) 303.
172 Bibl. 103-105.
If6 CPG 2.491-672 (775 works excluding translations into other languages!). On the 173 Note esp. the word &@a<&.tEva at Bibl. 105, 2.72.2 Henry.
Pseudo-Chrysostomic homily which refers to Philo see above Q 11.5.
16’ Quaestiorres in Exodum 24 PG 80.253A.
174 See above $1.4. We note that in the important study of the Byzantine cultural trans- mission up to the 10th century by Lemerle (1971), no mention is made of Philo.
however, that further Philonic material is present in these corpora, not advertised, and so awaiting identification by observant scholars.168
6. Continuations
With John Chrystostom and Theodoret we have reached the chronological time-limit of our study. But in our journey from Alexandria, via Caesarea and Antioch, we have so far not yet reached Constantinople, the future bul- wark of the Byzantine Empire. When copies of Philo’s works first reached the libraries of the capital is not known. The first Constantinopolitan writer to mention Philo directly is Johannes Lydus (490-c. 565), who in his book On the months refers to the De vita Moysis and also also draws on the De opificio mundi. 169 About half a century later a group of Armenian Christians used copies of Philo’s works in order to prepare their translation at Constantinople. The introduction to these works gives an interesting sum- mary of the works translated (QG, QE and three philosophical treatises).‘70 Centuries later the scholar-bishops Photius and Arethas indicate they know Philo’s works, and there is an interesting notice on him in the great Byzantine compendium, the Souda .I71 Photius devotes about a page to Philo in his Bibliotheca, praising his style and eloquence, but complaining that he introduces many themes foreign to Jewish philosophy, such as the existence of the (Platonic) ideas .I72 His statement that Philo is responsible for introducing the allegorical method into Christian exegesis also has a negative tone. 173 It may thus safely be assumed that some of the hundred or so Greek mss. of Philo spent a shorter or a longer time in the capital.
But, as we noted in our discussion of the transmission of Philo’s writings, this is a period in the history of the Philonic legacy whose secrets have yet to be unravelled.