PARTTHREE
3. Continuations
The rest of the story is soon told, for after Augustine direct and know- ledgeable acquaintance with Philo’s writings and thought fades fast in the West. In an earlier chapter we have already made acquaintance with Augustine’s slightly younger contemporary, John Cassian, whose descrip- tion of the earliest Christian monks betrays the presence of Philo’s Thera- peutae. But Philo himself is not named.91 The same proto-Christians reappear in the 8th century in a work of the Venerable Bede, who does mention Philo by name, deriving his information from Jerome.92
In 416 Augustine commissioned his younger protege, Orosius (born between 375 and 380, died after 418) to write a history of the world up to his own times, in order to supplement the materials contained in the De civitate Dei.93 In the resultant Historiae adversus paganos Philo is men-
9o Some brief remarks on the historical connections in Runia (1993). It should be noted that in Ex. 3: 14-15 there is no distinction made between the two names at all; they are in fact complementary.
‘)I Seeabove 1.4.
y2 See further ibid.
y7 Brief account of life and works at Quasten (1950) 494498 (by V. Grossi).
tioned as part of the account of the fate of the Jews during the reign of Cali- gula, where he is described as a ‘man among the foremost in learning (virum sane in primis eruditum).‘94 The Jews at Alexandria send Philo as ambassador to Rome, but his mission is rebuffed. Orosius’ source for this brief account is Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History.95 The popularity of Orosius’ work in the Middle Ages was great: about 200 mss. survive.96 In the late 9th century King Alfred the Great translated the work into Old English. Goodhart-Goodenough in their Philo bibliography carry a photograph in which this ‘first mention of Philo in an English manuscript’ is shown. 97 But the mention is far too slight to bring about any interest in Philo as a historical figure.
More than a century later the statesman and scholar Cassiodorus (487- c. 580) founded the famous monastery at Vivarium in Calabria, in the hope of establishing a centre of both Greek and Latin learning.98 In his extensive writings Cassiodorus mentions Philo only once, affirming in his Institute on Sacred Scripture that Jerome was right in ascribing the Wisdom of Solomon to Philo. (The same report is given by Isidore of Seville (c. 570 - 636) another half a century later. 100) Trivial though this information may seem, it is of vital importance for Philo’s fate in the Latin Middle Ages. Throughout this period Philo was considered the author of one of the semi-canonical books of the Bible. As we saw in our account of the survival of Philo’s writings,101 during the Middle Ages a slender Ziber Philonis was in circu- lation, containing the notice on Philo from Jerome’s De viris illustribus, the Pseudo-Philonic Liber antiquitatum, and the Old Latin translation of Quaestiones in Genesim IV and De vita contemplativa. The history of this manuscript tradition has been traced with a fair degree of probability to the Abbey of St. Riquier in Western France, where it is mentioned in a catalogue dated 83 1. No doubt it was brought there by the founder of the Abbey in 790, Angilbert, who made three journeys to Italy and gave 200 mss. to the Library of the Abbey. 102 Where did Angilbert obtain the ms. of Philo? It has been shown that the library of Cassiodorus at Vivarium played a significant role in preserving both Latin and translated Greek works in
94 Hist. adv. paganos 7.5.6-7.
95 Rufinus,Historia ecclesiastica 2.5.4-2.6.3 Mommsen.
96 Cf. notice in Onford Dictionary of Byzantium (199 1) 1537.
97 G-G p.185, no.cf. 1449.
98 On Cassiodorus and Vivarium see O’Donnell (1979) 177-224.
99 Inst. div. litt. PL 70.1 117B. In actual fact Jerome only attributes this view to nonnulli; cf.
above $15.1 and n. 41.
loo Etymologiae 6.2.30.
lo1 Seeabove91.4andn. 115-120.
lo2 Petit (1973) 1.14.
3.12 CHAPTER FIFTEEN
1taly.t”’ But, although Jerome’s De viris illustribus was present, there is no mention of the Latin translation of Philo.’
It cannot now be our task to follow the traces of Philo in the Latin Middle Ages.105 We conclude our survey, therefore, by giving a few titbits that may stimulate further research. It would appear that the main sources of knowledge concerning Philo were three-fold: (i) his association with the Wisdom of Solomon; (ii) his appearance in the historical writings of Jerome, Rufinus, Orosius; (iii) the Ziber Philonis. Because of these traditions we find the disciples of Sulpicius of Bourges described in terms that clearly echo Philo’s Therapeutae,lOG while Abelard in his correspondence with Heloise uses the same community as an argument in favour of the pairing of male and female monastic establishments.107 On a fresco in the Cathedral of Le Puy Philo is depicted around a crucifixion with the prophets Isaiah, Hosea and Jeremiah.108 In a similar way we find that Philo is included in two series of reliquary busts of the Hebrew prophets, formerly part of the high altar of Mtinster Cathedral and now on display in its Domkammer.1a9 Why, we might well wonder, is Philo included in a series of Hebrew pro- phets? The answer is quite straightforward. He is included because he is regarded as the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, who according to Patris- tic tradition prophesies the death of Christ. The relevant text (2:20) in the Latin translation--morte turpissima condemnemus illurn-is written out on a scroll held in front of both busts. Philo remains a Jew, but one directly associated with the central event of the Christian faith.
lo3 Courcelle (1969) 361-403, who modifies the much more radical thesis of Beer that Vivarium was virtually the unique source of all Roman mss. from antiquity; cf. also O’Donnell’s minimal conclusion at (1979) 241.
to4 Courcelle (1969) 372-375.
to5 The fate of Philo in the Latin Middle Ages is almost wholly unresearched; but see esp.
Wilpert (1962) on the liber Philonis (his starting point is the copy of Nicolas Cusanus in the library at Kues). J. van Oort points out to me that Ferdinand of Cordoba in a panegyric on Albertus Magnus (1478) applies the proverb about Philo and Plato to Albert’s adaptation of Aristotelianism; cf. Grabmann (1936) 2.408.
to6 Cf. De Vogue (1985).
to7 /bid. 363, with references to Ep. 7 and 8. Some doubts have been expressed about the auth- enticity of the correspondence. In Bayer (1989) Philo, described as ‘der jiidische Gnostiker (9)‘, is related to currents of Medieval esotericism without any attempt to explain how detailed knowledge of Philo’s writings was attained.
Iox Cf. Winston (1985) IO.
‘()‘) On these busts cf. Pieper (198 I), nos. 26, 3 I.
PART FOUR
Epilogue
Chapter Sixteen
Conclusions and Prospects
1. Philo in the Church fathers
Now that the reception of Philo’s writings and thought in both the Greek- speaking and Latin-speaking Church fathers has been examined, our survey has come to an end. The cut-off point of 400 AD is in a sense quite arbitrary. The story of Philo’s reception in the Christian tradition continues throughout the Later Roman, Byzantine and Medieval periods. Some glimpses of this fascinating story are given in our account of this history of the transmission of Philo’s writings in chapter 1 and also in the ‘continu- ations’ briefly sketched at the end of chapters 10, 12 and 15. Nevertheless, by the time of the last Fathers that we examined in detail-Isidore of Pelu- sium, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Augustine of Hippo, all of whom died in the decade around 430- the main contours of Philo’s reception in the Christian tradition are quite clear. Thereafter his writings continue to circu- late, but the direct use made of them appears to diminish. The chief thrust of their influence has been felt and absorbed. We shall now attempt to summarize the main lines of this influence in a brief sketch.1
The origins of Christianity can be located nowhere else than in the matrix of Second Temple Judaism, of which also Alexandrian Hellenistic Judaism formed a part. It is natural, therefore, that there are lines of resem- blance between Philo’s writings and the New Testament, which will later encourage the rapprochement that the Church fathers make between Philo and Christian thought. It has proved very difficult, however, to determine how this process started. Philo is not explicitly named in Christian sources until the end of the 2nd century, when he is extensively used by Clement of Alexandria. So far it has not proved possible to demonstrate beyond all doubt that Philo was known to Apologists such as Justin, Athenagoras and Theophilus of Antioch. Certain indications tend to the conclusion that he may have been not entirely unknown. But there can be no question of decisive influence (I hesitate to make exceptions for Justin’s doctrine of the Logos and Theophilus’ exegesis of the early chapters of Genesis).
1 It would be tedious to give detailed references. The places where we discuss individual topics can be located via the Table of contents and the Indices.
It is in Philo’s own native city that he first makes an important impact on the Christian tradition. The members of the Catechetical school in Alex- andria-chiefly Pantaenus, Clement, Origen-must have decided that Philo’s writings could be of benefit to them in their task as teachers in the Christian community, and for this reason the corpus Philonicum was pre- served from the oblivion that overwhelmed the remainder of Alexandrian Judaism. Clement’s usage is considerable and seemingly quite unres- trained. Origen knows Philo equally well, treating him as part of the tradition of biblical exegesis, but he is more guarded in his references. The favourable attitude towards Philo in Alexandria is continued by later Alex- andrian and Egyptian fathers such as Didymus and Isidore.
An event that proved decisive for the spread of Philo’s influence took place when Origen moved to Palestine, taking a virtually complete collec- tion of the writings with him as part of his scholarly resources. A gene- ration later they attract the attention of Eusebius, who gives them signifi- cant publicity by incorporating a lengthy notice in his Ecclesiastical History and extensive citations in his Apologetic writings. Eusebius thus conti- nues the Alexandrian tradition of favourable reception, but now outside Egypt. Also highly influential is his acceptance of the legend of Philo Chris- tianus, as conveyed especially through the identification of the Therapeu- tae as proto-Christians. Eusebius’ positive attitude is continued in the writings of the Cappadocian fathers, especially in the philosophically minded Gregory of Nyssa. At the same time, however, we notice that a re- action sets in. The 4th century is the period when the earlier conception of Apostolic succession is transformed into Christian orthodoxy. Philo begins to be associated with Origenism and-much worse-Arianism. The Fathers become a little more wary about using him and referring to him. A good example is Theodore of Mopsuestia who criticizes him sharply for his allegorical exegesis.
In the West Ambrose is the first Church father to use Philo extensively.
His copious usage, predominantly in the area of allegorical interpretation, is somewhat camouflaged by the translation into Latin and the fact that he only once refers to his source by name. Philo is referred to more often by Jerome, who in fact places him on the Western ecclesiastical map by de- voting a notice to him in his biographies of famous Christian men. Via Ambrose and Jerome Augustine gains acquaintance with Philo, reading some of his works in a Latin translation. Both he and Ambrose show signs of the same wariness that we discovered in the 4th century in the East, associating him with heretical tendencies and the limitations inherent in a Judaizing cast of mind.
In the course of our survey an attempt has been made to pin down, where possible, which individual works of Philo were read by the Fathers.
11 goes without saying that not all of them were acquainted with the entire body of Philo’s writings. If we take the various parts of the corpus Philo-
(‘ON<‘LIJSIONS ANI) PKOSI’I~~“I‘S 337 nicum, it is possible to draw the following conclusions.
(i) The most popular work was undoubtedly De vita Moysis, in which Philo gives a well-organized and entertaining account of Moses’ life and signifi- cance.
(ii) In the area of biblical exposition the best-known work was probably the Quaestiones in Genesim and Exodum. This compendium was easy to consult and supplied a great variety of useful exegetical themes. Later sup- planted by the Catenae, in which some Philonic material is incorporated, the original Greek texts in the end failed to survive.
(iii) Philo’s commentary on the Mosaic creation account, De opifikio mun- di, enjoyed a modest success throughout the entire Patristic period. Of the other works in the Exposition of the Law the biographies of the Patriarchs and the treatise On virtues were read the most.
(iv) The difficult treatises in the Allegorical Commentary understandably did not enjoy a great popularity. Origen and Didymus seem to have known them the best. Even Clement and Ambrose are rather selective in their usage. It is remarkable that they almost all survived (some tenuously).
(v) It is not surprising, given the well-known account in Eusebius, that of the historical and apologetic writings the best known was De vita contem- pla tiva.
(vi) The so-called philosophical treatises were read only sporadically. The extensive quotations by Eusebius in his Praeparatio Evangelica are ex- ceptional.
Further insight can be gained into this selectivity of reading if we now examine the motivations that the Fathers had for turning to Philo and making use of the material that he offered. From the evidence that we have amassed Philo’s attractiveness appear to have lain in three distinct areas of concern.
Firstly, the Fathers are attracted to Philo in his role as historian and apologist. Philo records important events at the beginning of the history of the Church, most notably the purported origins of the Christian community in Alexandria and the troubles that began to beset the Jews after the cruci- fixion of Christ. Philo’s apologetic efforts on behalf of Judaism in his own time are naturally of little interest to them. But the apologetic material that he supplies on the earlier history of Israel is most valuable. This explains the great popularity of De vita Moysis, which already begins in the Stromateis of Clement. In this area of what we might call ‘historical apologetics’ Philo is linked with the other Jewish historian Josephus.
Secondly, Philo is important for Christian writers in his role as exegete and interpreter of scripture. The majority of Philo’s writings are concerned, one way or another, with the exposition and interpretation of the Bible. The amount of material on offer is large indeed, but it does have a particular slant. Philo’s Bible is not the Bible of the Church fathers. His exegesis concentrates almost exclusively on the 5 books of Moses, with more
338 C‘HAP’I-IIR S I X T E E N C’ONCLUSIONS A N D PROSPEC’TS 339
attention paid to Genesis and Exodus than the other books. In the eyes of the Patres Philo’s exegesis is predominantly allegorical in character.
Naturally he allows room for literal exegesis, and some of his insights in this area are taken over. But it is especially the allegorical exegesis they are interested in. Many of the rules and procedures of Christian allegorical exegesis are built on foundations laid by Philo. Origen appeals to Philo as a master and model of the allegorical method. Other aspects of non-literal interpretation that are valuable are the use of etymologies and number symbolism. Didymus the Blind explicitly refers his readers to Philo for detailed exegeses in both areas. A fascinating example of Philo’s exege- tical influence is the interpretation of Sarah and Hagar, where we have noted a struggle throughout the Patristic period between the Philonic and the Pauline forms of allegorical interpretation. In interesting texts in Eusebius of Emesa and Isidore of Pelusium we note that an appeal is made to Philo’s allegorical exegesis precisely to counter Jewish opposition to this method.
By the 4th century Philo’s allegorical method is explicitly associated with the Alexandrian school of exegesis. The chief exponent of the rival Antiochene school, Theodore of Mopsuestia, attacks Origen in the strongest terms for taking his method from the Jew Philo rather than scripture itself. Two areas of more literal interpretation also enjoy a measure of favour. As already observed above, the biblical exposition given in the historical accounts of the lives of the Patriarchs and Moses is popular. Furthermore regular use is made of Philo’s exposition of the creation account as found in Genesis 1-3. Philo’s literal (though still philosophically imbued) interpretations find more favour than his allegorical attempts. Predictably the Fathers find much less use for Philo’s extensive interpretations of the Mosaic laws. But here too, for example, an edifying explanation of the injunction that a baby animal should not be boiled in its mother’s milk is regarded as a suitable theme to be taken over.
Thirdly, Philo earns respect from the Church fathers as philosopher and theologian (the modern distinction is quite artificial in the ancient context).
Clement twice calls him ‘the Pythagorean’, and is quite well aware of the affinities between Philonic thought and Platonism. Eusebius praises him for his zeal towards the Platonist and Pythagorean disciplines. Jerome records the celebrated bon mot that ‘either Plato philonizes or Philo plato- nizes’, applying it both to his style and the contents of his thought. The Fathers perceive the fundamentally Platonist colouring that Philo gives both his interpretation of creation and his allegorical exegesis. Three areas of influence and appropriation stand out: (a) the doctrine of God, with the strong emphasis on unchangeability and essential unknowability; (b) the doctrine of man, created ‘according to the image’ (i.e. the Logos), endowed with reason and the capacity to reach out to God and become like unto Him; (c) the doctrine of the virtues or excellences (&pezai), taken over
from Greek philosophy and adapted to the requirements of allegorical expo- sition and the differing emphases of biblical thought.
The three areas of attraction that we have discovered are distinct, but should, not be kept in isolation from each other. There is a relation, we have seen, between Philo’s role as historian and his value as an expositor of scripture. Much more important, however, is the connection between the second and third areas. The first Christian to record extensive use of Philo, Clement, recognized Philo’s philosophical expertise and his Platonist bent, but he did not need to learn Platonism from that quarter. What he learnt from Philo above all was to make the connections between biblical text and philosophicul thought, both in the use and development of specific exe- getical themes and techniques and at a more general theological level.
Later Church fathers continue to exploit this interaction between biblical exegesis and philosophical thematics. The importance of Philo’s contri- bution to Patristic thought lies above all in his role as a mediator between the biblical and the philosophical tradition. For this reason the most exten- sive use of his writings is found in the narrowly Alexandrian tradition (Clement, Origen, Didymus) and those Fathers who to a greater or lesser extent sympathize with its theology (Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine). Those strands of the Patristic tradition that show little interest in the contribution that philosophy can make to exegesis and theology-we think of churchmen such as Irenaeus, Athanasius, Chryso- stom and the Antiochene school-show little inclination towards an im- mersion in the Philonic heritage. For the same reason the Rabbis decline to explore or record the views of their well-known fellow-Jew.
But this appropriation of a philosophically orientated form of exegesis and theology was not without its dangers. One of the more fascinating tasks of our survey has been to trace the relation between Philo and devi- ant Christian thought, i.e. types of theology that at some time were ac- cused of or condemned as being heretical. Regrettably we do not know the extent to which Alexandrian Gnostic teachers such as Basilides and Valentinus drew on Philo. It does become clear from an analysis of Cle- ment’s use of Philo that he sees his thought as a valuable counterweight to Marcionite and Valentinian ideas which he regards as erroneous. As we have already observed, in the 4th century the attitude towards Philo becomes more one of increasing wariness. This has everything to do with the crisis in which the Church was plunged by the contribution of another Alexandrian teacher, the ‘arch-heretic’ Arius. After Nicaea Philo’s doctrine of the Logos, which was immensely attractive to Christian theologians from Justin (?) and Clement through to Eusebius, suddenly starts to look suspiciously subordinationist. Gregory accuses the Neo-Arian Eunomius of filching phrases from Philo. Ambrose is careful to correct Philo if his words might be open to misinterpretation from the viewpoint of orthodoxy.
Isidore of Pelusium, in a remarkable letter, takes up the gauntlet for Philo