Philo in Milan

PARTTHREE

6. Philo in Milan

There are still many aspects of Ambrose’s reception of Philonic exegetical and philosophical themes which remain to be explored. In this chapter we have been able to do no more than scratch the surface of his copious usage.

Philo, we have seen, is imported into the very heartland of Christian learning in the West. We cannot help wondering the extent to which this massive appropriation was noticed. Did contemporaries recognize that the Bishop who was so implacable towards Judaism in his own time made extensive use of the writings of an earlier Jewish exegete from Alexandria?

Did Ambrose’s example encourage others to follow suit? In the final chapter of this section we turn to the two authors who can shed light on

interpretation of Pascha at Exam. 1.4.14; cf. 462465 and our discussion above in 9 11.5.

to9 We recall again Savon’s ‘double rencontre’; cf. above n. 68.

’ lo Cumont (1891) xv, Schenkl (1897) 1.4, Klein (1927) 68.

“I PCpin (1964) 532, based on earlier discussion at 25 l-277 (passages side by side at 252).

I I2 On the use made of Aet. by Zacharias of Mytilene see above $10.6.

‘I3 We note two: (i) for Philo the question of the number of cosmoi is integrated into the question of the cosmos’ duration, whereas Ambrose treats the questions sequentially; (ii) in Ambrose Pythagoras is the represetantive of the view that the cosmos is unique, whereas in Philo the Pythagorean+ are ancestors of the Aristotelian view of the eternity of the cosmos.

these questions, the one adopting a rather hostile attitude to the Milanese Bishop, the other gratefully recognizing the decisive role that Ambrose had played during the turbulent years of his life when he himself lived in the same city.

PHIL0 IN OTHER LATIN AUTHORS 3 1 3

Chapter Fifteen

Philo in other Latin authors

1. Jerome

Of the great 4th century Church fathers who wrote in Latin, Jerome had by far the most contact with the East. This is hardly surprising given the course of his life and career. Born at Stridon, near the border of Pannonia and Dalmatia, in 347,’ he was well trained in classical literature and rhetoric at Rome. The decisive step of receiving baptism was taken early, but this did not mean a clean break with his previous studies. The dilemma that the relation between Christianity and classical culture posed for him is illustrated by his well-known account of a dream, in which he is hauled before the divine tribunal and accused of being more a Ciceronian than a Christian.2 Above all it was the flourishing movement of ascetic monas- tisicm that captured the enthusiasm of the young priest. In 385 he made the decision to move to the East. While en route he spent a few weeks in Alexandria, where he gained acquaintance with the person and learning of Didymus. In 386 he settled down at Bethlehem, where with the assistance of wealthy patronesses he established a monastic community in which he resided until his death in 420. Here he focussed his considerable energy on his scholarly studies, which had as their goal the translation and exegesis of scripture. The circumstances were favourable. His location in Palestine enabled him to establish contacts with Rabbis who could assist him with the knowledge of Hebrew which he needed for the translation of the Old Testament.3 But even more important was his access to the treasures of

t There is considerable controversy on whether Jerome was born in 331 or 347, with strong arguments in favour of both views (we opt for the latter because it rhymes better with the fact that one became adult early in the Roman world, as witnessed in the careers of Ambrose and Augustine). There have been a number of solid introductory accounts on Jerome published recently: for details of his life and career see Nautin (1986), for his scholarship and writings J. Gribomont in Quasten (195086) 4.212-246, for his relation to classical cul- ture Hagendahl-Waszink (1989), for his biography and an evaluation of his complex person- ality Kelly (1975).

2 Ep. 22.30; on the dream and its interpretation Kelly (1975) 41-45, Courcelle (1969) 124- 125.

j A detailed treatment of Jerome’s relation to Judaism on the lines of De Lange’s study on

the Episcopal library at Caesarea, which also contained a virtually complete set of Philo’s writings. Only a decade or two earlier these had been been saved from destruction by being copied onto parchment.4

Philo is mentioned some fifteen times in the vast body of Jerome’s writings (11 volumes in PL). Of these references the most extensive and important is the chapter in De viris illustribus, the compendium of bio- graphical notices of leading Christian authors which Jerome published in 393.5 Philo is in very select company here, for he is one of only three non- Christians included (the other two are Seneca and Josephus). This excep- tional position is explained at the beginning of the notice ($1 l.l-3):6

Philo the Jew, Alexandrian by birth and of priestly descent, is placed by us among the ecclestical writers because he wrote a book about the first church of the evangelist Mark at Alexandria and gives us praise, recording Christians living not only there but also in many other provinces as well and describing their dwellings as monasteries (l.tovaozfipra, lit. ‘single dwellings’). From this it is apparent that that at first the church of those believing in Christ was such as now the monks desire to imitate, that there be no private property, no wealthy or poor members among them, that family property be divided among the needy, that their time be devoted to prayer and singing, as well as learning and chastity, the way of life that Luke too attributes to the believers at the beginning in Jerusalem.

Jerome then records Philo’s journey to Rome and his meeting with Peter.

He continues with a list of Philo’s writings, which makes for rather strange reading because many of the Latin titles do not match those to which we have become accustomed. He concludes the notice as follows (5 11.7):

There are also other documents which have not come into our hands. Con- cerning this man it is commonly said among the Greeks: 4 lTh&ov (~th~vi[~r ;i

<P&v &a~&& --either Plato follows Philo or Philo Plato-so great is the similarity in doctrines and style.

Jerome is the first author to record the famous proverb on Philo and Plato. A few years later it is also found in a letter of Isidore of Pelusium.7 This is an indication that it was circulating independently, since Isidore will not have

Origen is a real desideratum. The extent of his knowledge of Hebrew is controversial; for a minimalist position cf. Nautin (1986) 309-310, for a more positive view Opelt (1988), who shows that he had at least five Hebrew ‘teachers’ or consultants.

4 Further details above at 5 1.4 and n. 89.

5 We have already examined some points of this notice in our account of Philo Christianus in

$1.1 (6)-(8).

6 My translation; text now at Ceresa-Gastaldo (1988) 96-99; earlier editions by Bernoulli (1895), Richardson (1896). Seneca (5 12) and Josephus (9 13) too are mentioned on account of their connection with early Christianity, the former on account of his correspondence with Paul, the latter because of the Testimonium Flavianum. Philo is also mentioned briefly at

$8.4 (biographical notice on Mark, in which the Therapeutae are already briefly alluded to) and $13.2 (Josephus writes a book against Apion, Philo’s opponent on the Embassy).

7 Ep. 3.8l;seeaboveQ11.5,andRunia(l99la)315.

3 1 4 CHAPTER FIFTEEN PHILO IN OTHI’R I,ATIN A U T H O R S 31s

read Jerome’s Latin work.8 Augustine, however, who also alludes to it, did almost certainly draw it from Jerome.9 Unlike the other two fathers, Jerome explicitly relates the proverb to both form and content of Philo’s writings.10 It is not clear, however, who precisely he means by the ‘Greeks’. Is he speaking in general, or does he have specific people in the Christian tradition in mind? Is he referring to contemporaries or earlier writers? The passage itself gives no clue. Later we will note another text which may give some help in answering this question. In other passages Jerome gives complimentary references are clearly based on the proverb. Philo is the Platonici sermonis imitator, Philo is pronounced by critics an alter vel Zudaeus Plato, Philo is vir disertissimus Zudueorum, Josephus and Philo are viri doctissimi Zudaeorum, and so on.”

But how much does Jerome really know about Philo, and to what extent is he actually acquainted with his writings? The monk from Bethlehem is intensely proud of his learning. His claim to almost encyclopedic knowledge in the fields of both sacred and profane literature was accepted for nearly a millenium and a half. But the searching gaze of modern scholarship has severely damaged this reputation, not seldom exposing him as a plagiarist and a ‘name-dropper’. l2 A striking case is the work cited above. In their analyses Sykowski and Bernoulli showed that for the Greek writers of the first three centuries Jerome is almost entirely dependent on Eusebius’

Ecclestiastical History, and that his own contribution is for the most part confined to the rearrangement of material, in the course of which many careless mistakes are made .13 Also in the case of the notice on Philo Eusebius is clearly the chief source, not only for the biographical details, but also for the long list of writings. The phrasing of his account suggests that he has all these works in his own possession (cf $7, quoted above).

8 The Greek translation of Sophronius, printed at C-W l.ci, is pseudonymous, and to be dated to a much later period, perhaps the 7-9th century; cf. CPG 3.300, Schamp (1987) 62-63, with further references.

9 See below $15.2 at n. 55.

I0 But at Runia (1991a) 3 15 I argue that implicitly Isidore also relates the proverb to Philo’s thought, because the context is philosophical.

’ 1 Ep. 22.35.8, Ep. 70.3.3, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, praef., Comm. in Hiezechielem 4. lob, Ep. 29.7.1. We give a full list of Jerome’s references to Philo in the Appendix. This list is completer than the references given by Courcelle and Savon in their discussions to be mentioned below.

I2 Cf. his own criticism of Ambrose’s plagiarism cited above at 5 14.2 and n. 25; but note our remarks on the differing attitude towards appropriation of material in the ancient world.

I3 Sykowski (1894), Bernoulli (1895). Hagendahl-Waszink (1989) 128 conclude that these researches ‘fiir den Ruhm des Hieronymus auf diesem Gebiet vernichtend gewesen sind’. A reaction to these severe views is found in Borgeais (1988), who argues (283) that an analysis of the first part of the work shows it is ‘parfois plus originale qu’il n’y par& and that ’ la

personnalitC de JCrOme se montre souvent indirectement ?I travers le traitement qu’il fait suhir au texte de I’Histoire E[,c,lr’siastique’.

The sceptical Sykowski concluded, however, that Jerome had not read a single word of Philo, and that the only personal contribution to the notice was the proverb, which he must have picked up somewhere.14

In a study of Jerome’s knowledge of Greek pagan (sic) culture, Courcelle rightly reacts against this drastic conclusion.15 It is true that quite a few references to Philo are general in character, especially when he is coupled with Josephus (to whom Jerome refers much more often than Philo). Twice Jerome notes that Philo has written on the Essenes.l6 This cannot be an inference from Eusebius’ account, since the community described there is regarded as proto-Christian. Courcelle remarks that ‘it will be observed that this sentence [at Adv. Iovin.], inserted in an entire discussion plagiarized from Porphyry’s De abstinent& certainly represents a personal knowledge of Jerome’s part. For this information he is indebted to the reading either of Philo’s treatise Quod Ziber sit quisquis virtuti studet [=

Prob.], in which the life of the Essenes is studied, or of the preface of the De vita contemplativa, which refers to this treatise.‘17 The latter possibility is perhaps the more likely of the two. The reference in Ep. 22 is more problematic, however, because here Jerome refers to Pentecost meals, which suggests a confusion with the Therapeutae as described at Contempl. 65. But precisely this detail is further proof that Jerome read Philo himself, since it is not found in Eusebius. The references to Philo’s account of the seven ages of man as found at Opif. 103-105 must also be the result of personal reading. 18 Certain indications also point to the fact that Jerome has read Philo’s De vita Moysis. The comment that Philo thought the language of the Hebrews was Chaldean,19 most likely comes from the account of the origin of the Septuagint at Mos. 2.26-44,20 a passage of great interest to Jerome, who rejects the theory that the trans-

l4 Sykowski (1894) 69; see also analysis Bernoulli (1895) 115-l 17, 182-l 85. Some argu- ments are clearly hypercritical; e.g. the latter’s attempt to reduce Jerome’s unique infor- mation about Philo’s priestly descent to an inference from Eusebius’ report on Philo’s high standing in the Alexandrian community. This argument is rightly rejected by Schwartz (1984) 163.

l5 Courcelle (1969) 81-83; he should mean, of course, ‘non-Christian culture’.

l6 Adversus Iovinianum 2.14 (PL 23.303B-C), Ep. 22.35.8.

I7 Courcelle (1969) 82, n.171. The last statement is not entirely correct; at the beginning ot Contempl. Philo refers to a lost treatise on the Essenes as exemplars of the pies npaICTlKb&

The Essenes are also portrayed in Hypoth., which Jerome could have read at Eus. PE 8. I I. It is also possible that Jerome was acquainted with the Latin translation of Philo, which refers to the Essenes in its title; cf. above 0 I 1.5 and n. 80.

I8 Comm. in Amos 3.6, Dial. adv. Pelagianos 3.6.

I9 Comm. in Dan. 1.1.4.

20 Philo’s use of Xah&io~ as a synonym for ‘Eppa’ioq is puzzling; cf. now Wong (1992). It’

my suggestion is accepted, Jerome’s explanation yuicr Abruam de Chalduei.s,/irerit WOLIM he

an inference of his own; but cf. Abr. 67 etc.

,, I, ,. ,, ,, _.~ ~. .~ ~. ~. _.~. ~~ .~~~ _._ -_ - _ _ ._ - - - . _ _ _- .__.__~ - _ __-.. _ ^,. .._.._ __._ . . _.~ . _ _._ - _ -- ---. _-^I --___.---

lation was divinely inspired .*I The comment that Philo ‘compares the hya- in his writings: his primary interest is in the area of scriptural t e x t ,

cinth on the high-priestly robes to the air, through which the upper and translation and commentary. We have seen a few examples where he heavenly realm is thought to be signified’ could refer to Mos. 2.118, but also derives exegetical material from Philo. Jerome likes to ‘drop names’. The to two parallel passages in which a physical allegory is given, Spec. 1.85 mention of Philo’s name is a testimony to his erudition. There is also, and QE 2.117. In all three Philo clearly indicates the sub&nary realm. But however, another possibility. Jerome might also use Philo in the Ambrosian Jerome, expounding Ezech. 16:10, is primarily interested in mystical or manner, as a source for allegorical exegesis. If this is the case, then it is of eschatological exegesis. He ends the lemma by affirming that the sanctified course in his interest to conceal Philo’s name. Early on Jerome discovered

‘will be swept away in the air to meet the Lord and will hasten to the the breadth and power of Origen’s tropological exegesis, on which he never celestial realm’. This explains his careless reading of Philo. A little earlier ceases to draw throughout the length of his career. This continues even in the same commentary he makes another reference to the symbolism of after the two events that might have shaken his confidence, (a) his disco- the high-priestly robe, this time mentioning all four elements. The above- very of the Hebraica veritas (whereas Origen’s exegesis is primarily based mentioned passages cannot be the source, since they do not mention the on the LXX), and (b) his embroilment in the Origenist controversy with linen as symbol of the earth. This interpretation is found at Congr. 117, but Rufinus, which forced him to adopt an aggressive stance against Origen’s Philo’s passage has rather exact parallels at Josephus Ant. 3.185, BJ 5.213, more speculative philosophical and theological ideas. Given this heavy de- so, in the light of Jerome’s extensive use of these works, it is more likely pendence on Origen in the area of allegorical interpretation,28 is there still a

that these are his source.22 place for Philonic exegetical themes?

Courcelle concludes his brief survey by stating that Philo is regarded by Jerome primarily as a tool, and that his interest is more that of the historian than the philosopher. 23 This statement can be further refined. Philo is of interest for Jerome because he lived at the beginning of the Christian era.

He is also seen to belong to a broader ‘scriptural tradition’. For this reason Jerome can cite him in a sequence of apologists who make use of pagan literature in order to defend the faith (preceded by Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, Apollinaris, Josephus, followed by Quadratus, Aristides, Justin etc.).24 Philo is also a witness to other aspects of the Judaic tradition, as we have seen. For all his scholarly interests, Jerome does not have a critical historical sense.25 This make it all the easier for him to accept the Eusebian version of the legend of Philo Christianus.

Jerome recognizes Philo as proficient in philosophy. Otherwise he would not emphasize his connection with Plato and associate him with the pru- dentissimi philosophorum .26 He himself, however, is entirely devoid of any interest in this area, and adopts an anti-philosophical stance at least as rigorous that of Ambrose. 27 Even theological topics are not much discussed

This question has been raised by Savon in an illuminating treatment of Jerome as ‘lecteur de Philon’. He notes the various references to Philo, which might give the impression that Philo is more important for him than for Ambrose. But appearances can deceive. So he decides to examine a test-case, a passage in his Letter to Fabiola (Ep. 64) where an exegetical theme is dealt with which seems directly parallel to a treatment in Philo, namely the parts of the sacrificial victim that are the prerogative of the priest (cf. Spec. 1.145-147). Savon looks first at the literal interpretation (historia). Certain similarities to Philo’s exegesis are present, but these are very general, whereas a specific detail concerning Phineas appears closer to Rabbinic exegesis. Turning then to the allegorical exegesis that Jerome gives, Savon again notes general similarities coupled with specific differences. In both Philo and Jerome the psychological and physiological theories ultimately derive from Plato’s Timaeus. But the treatment of the tripartition of the soul is quite different: for Philo, as Plato, the rational part is in the head, for Jerome in the heart .30 Savon argues that it is much more likely that for this material Jerome is indebted to Origen.

*’ Cf. Praef. to Quaest. Hebr., CCL 72.301-304. One of the arguments is noteworthy: the translators deliberately concealed the Christian content of the OT in order to deceive Pto- lemy, who, thinking the Jews monotheists, did not want to hear about their worshipping a

‘second God’. This strongly recalls Eusebius’ and Isidore’s apologetic use of Philo.

** Cf. Ep. 29.7.1, where both Philo and Josephus are invoked as interpreters of the priestly dress. On Jerome’s use of Josephus see now Schreckenberg-Schubert (1992) 75-77.

I’H11~0 IN O’l‘HIiR I>/l’I‘IN AU I'HOKS 317

By way of conclusion Savon makes some interesting remarks on what Jerome tells us about his method of working. He says that when preparing his commentary on Galatians, he read various predecessors, accumulated a great deal of information in his mind, and then, when a stenographer had

28 For Jerome’s dependence on Origen see Nautin (1986) 3 11, Courcelle (1969) IOOff.; Jay (1980) points out, however, that Jerome generally prefers a division into a literal and a spiritual meaning of scripture, and not Origen’s triple schema.

29 Savon ( 1984).

30 Savon (1984) 752-755; a standard dispute in ancient doxographical literature, cf.

Mansfeld (1990) 3092-3 108. Philo vacillates somewhat, since he thinks Moses left the issue unclear; cf. Runia (1986) 267.

Courcelle ( 1969) 82-83.

Q?. 70.3-4.

Cf. Hagendahl-Waszink (1989) 135: ‘wie ihm.. historisches Denken viillig fremd ist’.

Resides the bibliographical notice cf. also Epp. 22.35.8, 70.3.3, Dial. ah. Pelagianns 3.6.

See the remarks of Courcelle ( 1969) 126-i 27.