THE PLACE OF JUDAISM IN PHILO'S THOUGHT

Israel, Jews, and Proselytes

 Program in Judaic Studies
Brown University
BROWN JUDAIC STUDIES

Edited by
Shaye J. D. Cohen and Calvin Goldscheider

Editor for Studia Philonica

Shaye J. D. Cohen

Number 290
Studia Philonica Monographs 2

The Place of Judaism in Philo's Thought

Israel, Jews, and Proselytes

by
Ellen Birnbaum
THE PLACE OF JUDAISM IN PHILO'S THOUGHT

Israel, Jews, and Proselytes

by

Ellen Birnbaum

Scholars Press
Atlanta, Georgia
 THE PLACE OF JUDAISM IN PHILO'S THOUGHT

Israel, Jews, and Proselytes

by
Ellen Birnbaum

© 1996
Brown University

Published with the assistance of the

Louis and Minna Epstein Fund of the
American Academy for Jewish Research

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Birnbaum, Ellen.
The place of Judaism in Philo's thought : Israel, Jews, and proselytes /
by Ellen Birnbaum.
p. cm. — (Studia Philonica monographs) (Brown Judaic studies ;
no. 290)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-7885-0182-8 (cloth : alk. paper)
1. Philo, of Alexandria—Views on Jewish identity. 2. Jews—
Identity—History of doctrines. I. Title. II. Series.
III. Series : Brown Judaic studies ; no. 290.
B689.Z7B56 1996
296.3Ό92—dc20 96-26263
CIP

Printed in the United States of America

on acid-free paper
 STUDIA PHILONICA MONOGRAPHS
STUDIES IN HELLENISTIC JUDAISM

EDITOR
D a v i d M. Hay, Coe College, Cedar Rapids

ADVISORY BOARD

H a n s D i e t e r B e t z , University of Chicago
P e d e r Borgen, University ofTrondheim
J a c q u e s C a z e a u x , CNRS, University of Lyon
Lester Grabbe, University of Hull
Robert G. Hemerton-Kelly, Stanford University
Richard D . Hecht, University of California at Santa Barbara
A n n e w i e s v a n d e n Hoek, Harvard Divinity School
P i e t e r W. v a n der Horst, Utrecht University
J e a n Laporte, Paris
B u r t o n L. Mack, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont
A l a n M e n d e l s o n , McMaster University
Birger A. P e a r s o n , University of California at Santa Barbara
Robert Radice, Sacred Heart University, Milan
J e a n Riaud, Catholic University, Angers
J a m e s R. Royse, San Francisco
D a v i d T. Runia, Universities of Leiden and Utrecht
Dorothy Sly, University of Windsor
Gregory E. Sterling, University of Notre Dame
A b r a h a m Terian, Sterling College
T h o m a s H. Tobin S. J., Loyola University, Chicago
Herold D . Weiss, St. Mary's College, Notre Dame
D a v i d W i n s t o n , Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley

Like The Studia Philonica Annual, the Studia Philonica Monographs series
accepts monographs in the area of Hellenistic Judaism, with special emphasis on
Philo and his Umwelt. Proposals for books to be published in the Monograph
series should be sent to Prof. David M. Hay, Coe College, Cedar Rapids, IA 52402,
U.SA.

Article-length contributions should be sent to the Editor of The Studia Philonica

Annual, Prof. David T. Runia, Rijnsburgerweg 116, 2333 AE Leiden, The Nether­
lands. Books for review in the Annual should be sent to the Book Review Editor,
Prof. Gregory E. Sterling, Dept. of Theology, University of Notre Dame, Notre
Dame, IN 46556, U.S.A.
 To
MY PARENTS,
RUTH AND MILTON BIRNBAUM,

AND

MY HUSBAND,
DONALD ALTSCHILLER
 CONTENTS

Acknowledgments xi

A N o t e to t h e R e a d e r xiv

Abbreviations xvii

Introduction 1

Chapter O n e . "Israel" a n d t h e Jews: A Survey o f A p p r o a c h e s a n d

S o m e Preliminary Observations 30

C h a p t e r T w o . "Israel" a n d t h e Vision o f G o d 61

Chapter Three. "Israel" a n d t h e O n e s W h o Can S e e 91

C h a p t e r Four. P h i l o n i c Interpretations o f the Relationship B e t w e e n

G o d a n d Biblical Israel 128

C h a p t e r Five. T h e Relationship B e t w e e n G o d a n d the Jews 160

C h a p t e r Six. Proselytes in Relation to G o d , Jews, a n d "Israel" 193

Summary and Conclusions 220

Bibliography 231

Indices 242
I n d e x o f Passages: Bible, A p o c r y p h a / P s e u d e p i g r a p h a , N e w
Testament 242
I n d e x o f Passages: P h i l o n i c Works 245
I n d e x o f Greek T e r m s 250
I n d e x o f M o d e r n Scholars 252
I n d e x o f Subjects 255
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T h i s b o o k , a lightly revised version o f my d o c t o r a l dissertation ( C o l u m b i a

University, 1 9 9 2 ) , h a s f o l l o w e d a l o n g p a t h f r o m its i n c e p t i o n t o its publi­
cation, a n d I a m pleased to acknowledge with m u c h appreciation the
m a n y p e o p l e w h o have c o n t r i b u t e d to a n d b e e n part o f t h e j o u r n e y .
O v e r t h e years, I have b e n e f i t t e d considerably f r o m t h e s c h o l a r s h i p a n d
c o l l e g i a l i t y o f t h e P h i l o o f A l e x a n d r i a G r o u p in t h e S o c i e t y o f Biblical
Literature. It is with gratitude a n d pleasure that I n o w p u b l i s h this study in
t h e n e w Studia P h i l o n i c a M o n o g r a p h s subseries o f Brown J u d a i c Studies. I
wish t o t h a n k D a v i d M. Hay, E d i t o r o f this subseries, for h i s g u i d a n c e ,
s u p p o r t , a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t . My a p p r e c i a t i o n also g o e s to A l a n M e n d e l -
s o n a n d David W i n s t o n for their many constructive c o m m e n t s a n d
s u g g e s t i o n s a n d to Shaye J. D . C o h e n , a n Editor o f B r o w n J u d a i c S t u d i e s ,
for his assistance. I a m also grateful to t h e A m e r i c a n A c a d e m y for J e w i s h
R e s e a r c h for awarding m e a grant to h e l p defray p u b l i c a t i o n e x p e n s e s .
As m y dissertation e v o l v e d i n t o this b o o k , I r e c e i v e d invaluable s u p p o r t
f r o m a n u m b e r o f i n d i v i d u a l s . M i c h a e l Carasik carefully r e a d t h r o u g h
the dissertation and offered m e m u c h worthwhile advice about h o w I
m i g h t revise it. D . Lowell W h i t e spared m e a great d e a l o f t i m e a n d effort
by h i s w o r k o n t h e i n d i c e s . David T. R u n i a a n d G o n n i R u n i a - D e e n i c k
h e l p e d s m o o t h t h e p a t h t o p u b l i c a t i o n in several ways. I a m e s p e c i a l l y
i n d e b t e d t o G o n n i R u n i a - D e e n i c k for h e r fine e x p e r t i s e in p r e p a r i n g t h e
c a m e r a - r e a d y c o p y o f this b o o k . S h e has g e n e r o u s l y a c c o m m o d a t e d m y
r e q u e s t s f o r late c h a n g e s a n d m y very specific p r e f e r e n c e s o n e v e n t h e
smallest details. I wish also t o thank David T. Runia, w h o was a g r a c i o u s
c o n s u l t a n t o n matters that r a n g e d f r o m p o s i t i o n i n g s u b h e a d s to l o c a t i n g
philosophical references about seeing God.
Patricia Benfari T u c k e r o f t h e Office for S p o n s o r e d R e s e a r c h at Harvard
U n i v e r s i t y k i n d l y p e r m i t t e d m e to adjust m y s c h e d u l e as m y a c a d e m i c
activities r e q u i r e d a n d a l l o w e d m e to p r o d u c e my w o r k o n office e q u i p ­
m e n t . I a m grateful t o h e r , Patrice A. Carroll, Carol Salway, a n d all t h e
o t h e r staff m e m b e r s at OSR, w h o p r o v i d e d a s u p p o r t i v e a n d c o n g e n i a l
c o m m u n i t y d u r i n g m y solitary a c a d e m i c pursuits.
J a m e s D u n k l y , w h o m I m e t w h e n h e was D i r e c t o r o f L i b r a r i e s at
E p i s c o p a l Divinity S c h o o l a n d W e s t o n S c h o o l o f T h e o l o g y , h a s n o t a b l y
e n h a n c e d m y a w a r e n e s s o f scholarly r e s o u r c e s in g e n e r a l a n d P h i l o n i c
s c h o l a r s h i p in particular. H e readily l e n t a n ear a n d was a c o n t i n u a l
s o u r c e o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t a n d assistance. I also w i s h t o e x p r e s s w a r m
XU ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

t h a n k s t o t h e f o l l o w i n g p e o p l e w h o l i s t e n e d , h e l p e d i n specific ways, o r
g e n e r a l l y s h a r e d w i t h m e t h e i r l e a r n i n g a n d e x p e r i e n c e : D o r o t h y Africa,
B r a d l e y C l o m p u s , S c o t t C o o k , J u l i e D u n c a n , Gary F i n d e r , H a y i m G o l d -
g r a b e r , K e n n e t h H . G r e e n , S h a r o n G r e e n , M a r g a r e t Hutaff, S h u l a m i t
K a h n , J a m e s L. K u g e l , Sherry Leffert, J o n D . L e v e n s o n , D i a n a L o b e l ,
Pamela Marshall, J e a n Rittmueller, Steven R o n n e r , J o e l R o s e n b e r g ,
T h o m a s H . T o b i n , Sze-kar W a n , Elliot W o l f s o n , Dvora Yanow, a n d G e r a l d
Zuriff.
I a m particularly grateful t o Prof. A l a n Segal, w h o willingly a g r e e d t o
b e c o m e m y advisor at C o l u m b i a University w h e n I was already a s t u d e n t
in absentia. H i s assistance a n d flexibility h e l p e d e a s e t h e difficulties p o s e d
by m y l o n g - d i s t a n c e r e s i d e n c e . H e e n c o u r a g e d m e t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e
C o l u m b i a c o m m u n i t y e v e n f r o m afar, s h o w e d e n t h u s i a s m f o r m y p r o j ­
ect, a n d o f f e r e d m a n y h e l p f u l c o m m e n t s a n d s u g g e s t i o n s f o r clarifying
m y i d e a s a n d i m p r o v i n g m y p r e s e n t a t i o n . I a m also i n d e b t e d t o Prof.
A r t h u r H y m a n for his astute remarks a n d observations a b o u t m y work in
p r o g r e s s . T h a n k s are d u e as w e l l t o o t h e r m e m b e r s o f m y d i s s e r t a t i o n
d e f e n s e c o m m i t t e e — P r o f s . David Weiss Halivni, R o b e r t S o m e r v i l l e , a n d
M i c h a e l Stanislawski.
With d e e p e s t a p p r e c i a t i o n , I wish to a c k n o w l e d g e Prof. J o h n Strugnell,
w h o h a s w a t c h e d t h e e v o l u t i o n o f this b o o k f r o m its b e g i n n i n g s a n d w h o
h a s e n r i c h e d m y e d u c a t i o n i n m a n y ways. A p r o f e s s o r at H a r v a r d
University w i t h n o official o b l i g a t i o n s toward m e , h e g e n e r o u s l y h e l p e d
facilitate m y p r o g r e s s b e f o r e t h e dissertation, offered d i r e c t i o n as I d e f i n e d
m y t o p i c , a n d i n v e s t e d m a n y h o u r s a n d m u c h care in r e a d i n g m y w o r k
a n d d i s c u s s i n g it w i t h m e . M o s t i m p o r t a n t , f r o m t h e first, h e g u i d e d a n d
s t o o d by m e , p r o v i d i n g a m p l e t i m e a n d r o o m so that I m i g h t l e a r n a n d
g r o w at m y o w n p a c e a n d p u r s u e m y curiosity w h e r e it w o u l d l e a d . I a m
very grateful for a n d have especially b e n e f i t t e d f r o m h i s e x p e r t instruc­
tion, w h i c h was finely t u n e d to my n e e d s a n d abilities a n d w h i c h
respected and fostered i n d e p e n d e n c e of mind.
Last, b u t hardly least, I wish to e x p r e s s loving gratitude to m y h u s b a n d ,
D o n a l d Altschiller, a n d m y parents, R u t h a n d M i l t o n B i r n b a u m , for t h e i r
h e l p , e n c o u r a g e m e n t , a n d c o n f i d e n c e in m e . My p a r e n t s — p r o f e s s o r s o f
J u d a i c s t u d i e s a n d E n g l i s h literature, respectively—are also m y t e a c h e r s .
F r o m t h e i r e x a m p l e , I h a v e a c q u i r e d a love o f l e a r n i n g , w h i c h has in­
spired a n d vitalized m y work o n this b o o k a n d w h i c h c o n t i n u e s to inspire
m y o t h e r e n d e a v o r s . I a m also grateful to my m o t h e r for r e a d i n g drafts o f
this work so carefully a n d to b o t h m y p a r e n t s for n u r t u r i n g m y interests
a n d c o n t r i b u t i n g to m y scholarly pursuits their o w n l e a r n e d perspectives.
D u r i n g t h e past few years, P h i l o , t h e b o o k , a n d their several a t t e n d a n t
i s s u e s h a v e subtly b e c o m e m e m b e r s o f m y h o u s e h o l d . My h u s b a n d
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii

a c c e p t e d t h e s e with f o r b e a r a n c e a n d a w o n d e r f u l s e n s e o f h u m o r , s p a r i n g
m e f r o m p o n d e r o u s n e s s by m a k i n g m e l a u g h w h e n t h i n g s s e e m e d m o s t
difficult. A writer a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l librarian with a r e m a r k a b l e ability t o
l o c a t e i n f o r m a t i o n , h e o f f e r e d editorial advice a n d b i b l i o g r a p h i c assist­
a n c e , k e e p i n g m e i n f o r m e d a b o u t a w i d e variety o f i t e m s . As t h e s e a s o n s
o f this b o o k e v o l v e d , h e p a t i e n t l y t o l e r a t e d m y n u m e r o u s a n d s u n d r y
p r e o c c u p a t i o n s . A b o v e all, his c o n s t a n t s u p p o r t t h r o u g h m a n y vicissitudes
has s u s t a i n e d m e f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g o f this project to its fulfillment.

Cambridge, Massachusetts
June 1996
 A Note to the Reader

In this b o o k , I e x p l o r e h o w P h i l o b a l a n c e s his particular J e w i s h loyalties

a n d h i s u n i v e r s a l spiritual strivings. My i n q u i r y h a s i n v o l v e d c a r e f u l
studies o f P h i l o n i c vocabulary a n d interpretation, a n d I h o p e t h e specialist
will f i n d m y p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e s e s t u d i e s t o b e u s e f u l . B e c a u s e t h e s e
studies have i m p l i c a t i o n s for issues b e y o n d P h i l o , as I s u g g e s t at t h e e n d o f
this N o t e , I also h o p e t h e i n t e r e s t e d non-specialist will n o t b e d e t e r r e d by
f o r e i g n w o r d s a n d e x e g e t i c a l analyses. B e l o w is i n f o r m a t i o n — i n t e n d e d to
h e l p b o t h k i n d s o f r e a d e r s — a b o u t stylistic matters, texts, translations, a n d
features o f P h i l o ' s writings.

1. T o m a k e t h e material m o r e accessible, I have translated all G r e e k

a n d H e b r e w terms a n d , in t h e I n d e x o f Greek T e r m s , I have transliterated
t h e m o s t significant G r e e k w o r d s a n d e x p r e s s i o n s . In m o s t c h a p t e r s w i t h
d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n o f P h i l o n i c terms a n d passages, I offer s u m m a r i e s —
g e n e r a l l y o r g a n i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e different series o f writings by P h i l o ,
as d e s c r i b e d further b e l o w a n d in t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n .

2. T r a n s l a t i o n s o f P h i l o ' s writings are f r o m T h e L o e b Classical Library

(LCL), e x c e p t w h e n otherwise indicated. Occasionally, I have replaced
p o r t i o n s o f t h e L C L translation w i t h a translation o f m y o w n , w h i c h is
i n c l u d e d w i t h i n b r a c k e t s in t h e e x c e r p t f r o m LCL. In rare i n s t a n c e s i n
w h i c h m a n u s c r i p t v a r i a t i o n s — r e c o r d e d in t h e C o h n - W e n d l a n d e d i t i o n o f
P h i l o — a r e particularly relevant, I have listed these in t h e n o t e s .
Bible translations are f r o m the Revised Standard V e r s i o n (RSV) ( 1 9 5 2 ) ,
e x c e p t w h e n t h e G r e e k Bible, w h i c h P h i l o uses, differs significantly f r o m
t h e H e b r e w text, u p o n w h i c h t h e RSV is b a s e d . In t h e s e cases, I h a v e
e i t h e r m o d i f i e d t h e RSV translation t o reflect t h e G r e e k a n d i n c l u d e d m y
modification within brackets, or I have provided my own translations
b a s e d u p o n t h e Greek. For t h e G r e e k Bible, I have u s e d A l f r e d Rahlfs's
e d i t i o n o f t h e Septuagint. W h e n Philo's Biblical q u o t a t i o n s differ f r o m this
text, I cite t h e d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e n o t e s . Full b i b l i o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n
a b o u t t h e e d i t i o n s o f LCL, C o h n - W e n d l a n d , a n d Rahlfs c a n b e f o u n d in
the Bibliography.

3. B e s i d e s i n c l u d i n g m y o w n a d a p t a t i o n s to translations f r o m LCL or
RSV, b r a c k e t s m a y s i m p l y i n d i c a t e w o r d s i n s e r t e d f o r clarity o r m a y
c o n t a i n alternative G r e e k articles a n d e n d i n g s for w o r d s that c a n b e e i t h e r
 A NOTE TO THE READER XV

m a s c u l i n e o r n e u t e r . T h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e brackets s h o u l d b e e v i d e n t in
e a c h case.

4. Initial c i t a t i o n s t o all works are p r o v i d e d in full in t h e n o t e s a n d

thereafter in s h o r t e n e d f o r m . Abbreviations o f P h i l o n i c treatises a n d o t h e r
works are listed i m m e d i a t e l y after this N o t e ; in s o m e cases, abbreviations
o f n o n - P h i l o n i c w o r k s differ f r o m t h o s e listed i n The Studia Philonica
Annual All r e f e r e n c e s in this b o o k to LCL are to t h e LCL e d i t i o n o f Philo's
w o r k s o n l y a n d n o t t o t h e works o f any o t h e r a u t h o r . W h e n a list o f
P h i l o n i c p a s s a g e s i n c l u d e s n u m b e r s in p a r e n t h e s e s after certain passages,
t h e s e n u m b e r s i n d i c a t e h o w m a n y t i m e s a w o r d o r e x p r e s s i o n o c c u r s in
t h o s e passages.

5. I f r e q u e n t l y m e n t i o n P h i l o ' s t h r e e e x e g e t i c a l s e r i e s — t h e A l l e g o r y ,
t h e E x p o s i t i o n , a n d Q u e s t i o n s a n d Answers o n G e n e s i s a n d E x o d u s ( Q G E ) .
T h e A l l e g o r y a n d t h e E x p o s i t i o n are also k n o w n by l o n g e r titles as T h e
A l l e g o r i c a l C o m m e n t a r y or T h e Allegory o f t h e Law, a n d T h e E x p o s i t i o n
o f t h e Law. B e s i d e s t h e s e t h r e e e x e g e t i c a l series, I refer to several miscel­
l a n e o u s treatises as n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works. A l t h o u g h t h e s e so-called n o n -
e x e g e t i c a l treatises may i n c l u d e s o m e Biblical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e y are n o t
primarily c o m m e n t a r i e s o n t h e Bible.

6. T h e List o f Abbreviations that follows this N o t e also shows t h e series

o r c a t e g o r y to w h i c h e a c h treatise b e l o n g s . In t h e L C L e d i t i o n , A l l e g o r y
treatises c a n b e f o u n d in vols. 1-5, a n d E x p o s i t i o n treatises in vols. 6-8, with
t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e E x p o s i t i o n treatise Opif., w h i c h is at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f
vol. 1. Q G E is p u b l i s h e d i n two s u p p l e m e n t a r y v o l u m e s . T h e o t h e r
w o r k s — e x c e p t for Anim. a n d Deo, w h i c h survive chiefly in A r m e n i a n a n d
n o t in G r e e k — a r e in vols. 9 a n d 10. Each LCL v o l u m e has a list o f treatises,
s h o w i n g t h e o r d e r in w h i c h t h e y are p r e s e n t e d a n d t h e v o l u m e s i n t o
w h i c h t h e y are d i v i d e d in this e d i t i o n .

7. B e c a u s e Philo*s e t y m o l o g y o f "Israel" is centrally i m p o r t a n t t o this

study, t h e f o l l o w i n g clarifications are in o r d e r . W h e n I s p e a k o f P h i l o ' s
e t y m o l o g y o f "Israel," I a m referring to t h e e x p r e s s i o n h e u s e s b o t h t o
e x p l a i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d "Israel" a n d t o d e s c r i b e t h e entity
"Israel."
P h i l o u s e s t h e e t y m o l o g y with a n d w i t h o u t d e f i n i t e articles. W h e n h e
e x p l a i n s t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d "Israel," h e gives t h e e t y m o l o g y as
όρων θ ε ό ν , w i t h o u t d e f i n i t e articles. In d e s c r i b i n g t h e e n t i t y "Israel,"
h o w e v e r , h e d o e s u s e a d e f i n i t e article w i t h ό ρ ω ν a n d s o m e t i m e s w i t h
θ ε ό ν . θεός, o r G o d , takes a m a s c u l i n e article. T h e participle όρων, h o w e v e r ,
xvi A NOTE TO THE READER

c a n b e e i t h e r m a s c u l i n e ( m . ) o r n e u t e r ( n . ) , so that P h i l o m a y d e s c r i b e
"Israel" as ό - or τό - ο ρ ώ ν [ τ ο ν ] θ ε ό ν . A l t h o u g h P h i l o g e n e r a l l y u s e s a
m a s c u l i n e article w i t h ο ρ ώ ν , h e also u s e s t h e n e u t e r article at least o n c e ;
a n d w h e n ο ρ ώ ν a p p e a r s with t h e article in t h e g e n i t i v e case, o n e c a n n o t
d e t e r m i n e t h e g e n d e r o f t h e s e words. W h e t h e r o r n o t τόν a p p e a r s b e f o r e
θεόν d o e s n o t affect t h e translation.
I have translated this e t y m o l o g y m o s t o f t e n as "[the] o n e w h o ( m . ) s e e s
G o d " o r " [ t h e ] o n e t h a t ( n . ) s e e s G o d , " u s i n g t h e d e f i n i t e article i n
E n g l i s h w h e n P h i l o u s e s it b e f o r e t h e G r e e k participle. W h e n t h e g e n d e r
is a m b i g u o u s b u t n o t relevant to t h e discussion, I h a v e u s e d t h e s e trans­
lations interchangeably. T o convey the ambiguity of the g e n d e r w h e n
this a m b i g u i t y is relevant, I u s e t h e translation "one that s e e s G o d . " After
t h e first few o c c u r r e n c e s o f t h e s e translations in this b o o k , I g e n e r a l l y
p r o v i d e t h e m w i t h o u t q u o t a t i o n marks. Various m o d e r n scholars, s o m e o f
w h o m I q u o t e i n this b o o k , h a v e r e n d e r e d t h e e t y m o l o g y ορών θ ε ό ν as
"seeing G o d , " translating t h e participle ορών as a g e r u n d . I myself, h o w ­
ever, d o n o t u s e this translation; instead I r e n d e r t h e participle ο ρ ώ ν , with
its n u m b e r a n d g e n d e r , as "one w h o sees" or "one that sees."

P h i l o ' s e t y m o l o g y o f "Israel" is significant precisely b e c a u s e it o p e n s t h e

way for h i m t o r e d e f i n e this entity b e y o n d a specific e t h n i c g r o u p . H i s
t r e a t m e n t o f o t h e r t h e m e s s u c h as the c o v e n a n t a n d the c h o s e n p e o p l e also
reflects a spiritual vision that r e a c h e s b e y o n d a particular n a t i o n . T h o u g h I
have f o c u s e d solely u p o n P h i l o , t h e topics c o v e r e d in this b o o k s h e d l i g h t
u p o n m u c h b r o a d e r q u e s t i o n s , t o w h i c h I h o p e t h e s e P h i l o n i c studies will
c o n t r i b u t e . A m o n g t h e b r o a d e r q u e s t i o n s are h o w t h e m e a n i n g o f "Israel"
evolves i n J e w i s h a n d Christian t h o u g h t , w h a t s i g n i f i c a n c e t h e c o v e n a n t
h o l d s i n t h e history o f J u d a i s m , h o w a p r e - r a b b i n i c — o r n o n - r a b b i n i c —
J e w m i g h t u n d e r s t a n d t h e role o f his p e o p l e in relation to G o d a n d to o t h e r
p e o p l e s , a n d h o w in a n t i q u i t y a n i n d i v i d u a l c o m m i t t e d t o a s p e c i f i c
tradition m i g h t n e g o t i a t e b e t w e e n t h e particular a n d t h e universal. S h o u l d
t h e r e a d e r r e c o g n i z e o t h e r issues t o w h i c h t h e s e P h i l o n i c s t u d i e s m i g h t
apply, so m u c h t h e better.
 ABBREVIATIONS

PHILONIC WORKS

A b b r e v i a t i o n s for P h i l o n i c works are listed alphabetically. T h e f o l l o w i n g

letters i n t h e r i g h t - h a n d c o l u m n i n d i c a t e t h e series o r c a t e g o r y t o w h i c h
e a c h treatise b e l o n g s , as it is d i s c u s s e d in this b o o k : A ( A l l e g o r y ) , Ε
(Exposition), Μ (miscellaneous), Ν (non-exegetical), and Q (Questions
and Answers o n Genesis and Exodus).

Abr. De Abrahamo Ε
Aet. De Aeternitate Mundi Ν
Agr. De Agricultura A
Anim. De Animalibus Ν
Cher. De Cherubim A
Conf. De Confusione Linguarum A
Congr. De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia A
Contempl. De Vita Contemplativa Ν
Decal. De Decalogo Ε
Deo De Deo Μ
Det. Quod Detenus Potion Insidian Solet A
Deus Quod Deus Immutabilis Sit A
Ebr. De Ebnetate A
Flacc. In Flaccum Ν
Fug. De Fuga et Inventione A
Gig. De Gigantibus A
Her. Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit A
Hypoth. Hypothetica (Apologia pro Iudaeis) Ν
Ios. De Iosepho Ε
Leg. 1-3 Legum Allegonae I-III A
Legal De Legations ad Gaium Ν
Migr. De Migratione Abrahami A
Mos. 1-2 De Vita Mosis I-II Ε
Mut. De Mutatione Nominum A
ομ/. De Opificio Mundi Ε
Plant. De Plantatione A
Post. De Postentate Caini A
XV111 ABBREVIATIONS

Praem. De Praemiis et Poenis Ε

Prob. Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit Ν
Prov. De Providentia Ν
QE1-2 Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum I-II Q
QG1-4 (Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim I-TV Q
QGE Q u e s t i o n s a n d Answers o n G e n e s i s a n d E x o d u s
Sacr. De Sacnficiis Abelis et Caini A
Sobr. De Sobrietate A
Somn. 1-2 De Somniis I-II A
Spec. 1-4 De Specialibus Legibus I-TV Ε
Wirt. De Virtutibus Ε

O T H E R WORKS

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt

BT Babylonian Talmud
CRINT C o m p e n d i a R e r u m I u d a i c a r u m ad N o v u m T e s t a m e n t u m
HTR Harvard Theological Review
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
LCL T h e L o e b Classical Library
LXX Septuagint
ΟΡΑ Les oeuvres de Philon dAlexandne
OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
ΡJ Prayer of Joseph
SBL Society o f Biblical Literature
SP Studia Philonica
SPhA The Studia Philonica Annual
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
TLG T h e s a u r u s L i n g u a e Graecae
 Introduction

F r o m Biblical t i m e s a n d i n d e e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e history o f J u d a i s m , o n e
c a n trace a p e r s i s t e n t t e n s i o n b e t w e e n particularism a n d universalism. T o
b e sure, o n e c a n d e f i n e t h e s e t e r m s difFerendy a n d e x a m i n e t h e t e n s i o n s
b e t w e e n t h e m w i t h i n different c o n t e x t s . In J e w i s h history, h o w e v e r , o n e
m i g h t well a r g u e that in o n e way o r a n o t h e r , t h e two o p p o s i n g t e n d e n c i e s
derive f r o m a f u n d a m e n t a l b e l i e f established at t h e very b e g i n n i n g o f t h e
H e b r e w S c r i p t u r e s , in t h e B o o k o f G e n e s i s . T h i s is t h e b e l i e f that t h e
C r e a t o r a n d F a t h e r o f t h e e n t i r e universe is also t h e particular, n a t i o n a l
G o d o f A b r a h a m , Isaac, J a c o b , a n d their d e s c e n d a n t p e o p l e , Israel.
T h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f Israel's n a t i o n a l G o d with t h e G o d o f all c r e a t i o n
c a n a n d d o e s raise several q u e s t i o n s for Jews a n d non-Jews alike. T o w h a t
e x t e n t , f o r e x a m p l e , are J e w s — w h o w o r s h i p t h e universal C r e a t o r i n a
p a r t i c u l a r w a y — d i f f e r e n t f r o m o r t h e s a m e as every o t h e r n a t i o n ? If
i n d e e d t h e G o d o f t h e Jews is also G o d o f the universe, m u s t o n e w o r s h i p
H i m o n l y i n t h e J e w i s h way? Is it n o t s i m p l y e n o u g h t o b e l i e v e — a s
m a n y n o n - J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h e r s d o — t h a t H e exists? A n d if this b e l i e f is
e n o u g h , why b e a Jew?
In t h e c e n t u r i e s f o l l o w i n g t h e c o n q u e s t s o f A l e x a n d e r t h e Great ( 3 3 4 -
3 2 3 B . C . E . ) , t h e i n t e r m i n g l i n g o f l o c a l cultures w i t h t h e H e l l e n i c way o f
life i n t r o d u c e d by A l e x a n d e r a n d his successors b r o u g h t t h e s e issues i n t o
s h a r p e r f o c u s for J u d e a n Jews as well as t h o s e in t h e diaspora. At issue was
h o w to p r e s e r v e t h e i r u n i q u e J e w i s h h e r i t a g e w h i l e p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e
i n t e r n a t i o n a l H e l l e n i s t i c c u l t u r e w h o s e very h a l l m a r k was t h e b l e n d o f
H e l l e n i c a n d local i n f l u e n c e s . C o u l d o n e b e a c o s m o p o l i t a n — a citizen o f
t h e w o r l d — a n d a disciple o f M o s e s at the s a m e time? A n d if so, how?
If o n e w e r e s e e k i n g to p o s e t h e s e various q u e s t i o n s — w h i c h c o n t i n u e t o
i n s p i r e d e b a t e in o u r o w n t i m e s — t o a J e w living in antiquity, o n e c o u l d
hardly f i n d a m o r e apt p a r t n e r in c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a n P h i l o o f A l e x a n d r i a
(ca. 2 0 B . C . E . - 5 0 C.E.). As a r e s i d e n t o f this thriving cultural c e n t e r d u r i n g
t h e first c e n t u r y C.E., h e is a n e x c e l l e n t witness to t h e forceful e n c o u n t e r
b e t w e e n J e w i s h a n d G r e e k values, beliefs, a n d practices. H e h a s left u s ,
m o r e o v e r , with a fairly g e n e r o u s r e c o r d o f his ideas.
A n y r e a d e r o f P h i l o c a n h a r d l y fail to n o t i c e that h e is e x t r e m e l y
d e v o t e d to t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e a n d their Scriptures, beliefs, a n d practices.
I n d e e d m o s t o f h i s w o r k s are B i b l i c a l c o m m e n t a r i e s , i n w h i c h h e
e x p o u n d s u p o n the writings of u t m o s t importance to Jews a n d also
e x p l a i n s t h e i r way o f life. P h i l o ' s d e d i c a t i o n t o h i s p e o p l e , m o r e o v e r ,
2 INTRODUCTION

e x t e n d s b e y o n d study a n d writing to political i n v o l v e m e n t , as e x e m p l i f i e d

by his p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a d e l e g a t i o n t o t h e E m p e r o r Caligula t o p l e a d o n
b e h a l f o f his suffering compatriots.
B e s i d e s this c o m m i t m e n t t o h i s p e o p l e a n d t h e i r r e l i g i o n , h o w e v e r ,
P h i l o s e e m s equally d e v o t e d to p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d spiritual pursuits w h i c h
m i g h t b e s h a r e d by any l i k e m i n d e d p e r s o n s , w h e t h e r J e w i s h o r n o t . T o
b e sure, P h i l o ' s works are a rich a n d c o m p l e x weave o f J e w i s h a n d G r e e k
strands o f t h o u g h t . N o t only d o e s h e use a n d criticize c o n c e p t s a n d v o c a b u ­
lary f r o m a variety o f c o n t e m p o r a r y p h i l o s o p h i c a l c u r r e n t s , b u t e v e n h i s
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c m e t h o d o f i n t e r p r e t i n g Scripture as a l l e g o r y reflects t h e
influence of his surrounding philosophical culture. T h e tensions in
P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t , h o w e v e r , derive n o t j u s t f r o m his b l e n d i n g o f J e w i s h a n d
H e l l e n i s t i c cultural e l e m e n t s , t h e y also spring f r o m his explicitly univer­
sal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s for t h e very particular details o f Scripture. Frequently,
for e x a m p l e , h e portrays individuals like A b r a h a m a n d M o s e s as wise o r
g o o d m e n i n g e n e r a l i n s t e a d o f as specific h i s t o r i c a l f i g u r e s , a n d h i s
allegorical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s transform individuals a n d n a t i o n s i n t o souls o r
characteristics o f t h e soul.
W h i l e n o o n e , t h e n , w o u l d q u e s t i o n P h i l o ' s steadfast c o m m i t m e n t t o
the Jews a n d their religion, his t e n d e n c i e s toward universalism a n d
i n d i v i d u a l i s m are m a r k e d e n o u g h to u n d e r m i n e o r at least p o s e a chal­
l e n g e t o this c o m m i t m e n t . H e himself, h o w e v e r , rarely a c k n o w l e d g e s o r
a d d r e s s e s this p o t e n t i a l c h a l l e n g e directly.
A l t h o u g h scholars have l o n g d e b a t e d the e x t e n t to w h i c h P h i l o is influ­
e n c e d by G r e e k o r J e w i s h s o u r c e s , n o o n e has t h o r o u g h l y e x a m i n e d t h e
t e n s i o n in h i s t h i n k i n g b e t w e e n p a r t i c u l a r i s m a n d u n i v e r s a l i s m . F o r
years, writers h a v e a r g u e d a b o u t w h e t h e r P h i l o is m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l l y
G r e e k o r J e w i s h , c o m p a r i n g h i s writings w i t h o t h e r m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f
J u d a i s m , v a r i o u s p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s , p a g a n mystery cults, G n o s t i c i s m ,
a n d Christianity. S c h o l a r s h a v e also e x a m i n e d P h i l o a s — a m o n g o t h e r
t h i n g s — a p h i l o s o p h e r , a mystic, a Jew, a Biblical interpreter, a n d a r h e t o ­
rician. W i t h o u t a d o u b t , t h e s e a p p r o a c h e s have c o n t r i b u t e d impressively t o
u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e writings o f this first-century A l e x a n d r i a n J e w . W h i l e
r e c o g n i z i n g his m a n i f o l d d i m e n s i o n s , h o w e v e r , t h e a u t h o r s o f t h e s e vari­
o u s studies address o n l y tangentially t h e basic q u e s t i o n o f h o w P h i l o h i m ­
self e v a l u a t e s h i s J e w i s h i d e n t i t y i n r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r e l e m e n t s i n h i s
thought.
In 1 9 7 1 , S a m u e l S a n d m e l p u b l i s h e d a work w h o s e title e p i t o m i z e s o n e
1
o f t h e a p p r o a c h e s j u s t d e s c r i b e d ; it is c a l l e d Philo's Place in Judaism.

1
Samuel S a n d m e l , Philo's Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish
Literature, a u g m e n t e d ed. (New York: Ktav, 1971).
 INTRODUCTION 3

S a n d m e l c o m p a r e s portrayals o f A b r a h a m in P h i l o n i c works w i t h t h o s e
f o u n d in rabbinic literature a n d c o n c l u d e s that P h i l o r e p r e s e n t s a J u d a i s m
quite different f r o m that o f t h e Rabbis. T h e tide o f t h e p r e s e n t study, "The
Place o f J u d a i s m in P h i l o ' s T h o u g h t , " is a d e l i b e r a t e r e w o r k i n g o f S a n d ­
m e l ' s t i d e . T h e shift in w o r d s is m e a n t t o signal t h e shift in f o c u s f r o m t h e
q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r P h i l o is m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l l y a G r e e k o r a J e w a n d
from the c o m p a r i s o n of his Judaism with other manifestations to the
q u e s t i o n o f h o w h e h i m s e l f assesses t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f b e i n g a J e w . A t
t h e outset, h o w e v e r , w e s h o u l d n o t e that P h i l o h i m s e l f n e v e r uses trie t e r m
2
" J u d a i s m " — t h o u g h it was in u s e d u r i n g his t i m e — n o r shall I s p e c u l a t e
a b o u t h o w h e m i g h t d e f i n e this p h e n o m e n o n . Instead I shall address t h e
q u e s t i o n o f why a n d h o w it is i m p o r t a n t to h i m .

Particularism and Universalism

A l t h o u g h this study p e r t a i n s directly t o t e n s i o n s b e t w e e n p a r t i c u l a r i s m

a n d universalism in P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t , I shall u s e t h e s e terms with c a u t i o n .
For o n e t h i n g , P h i l o h i m s e l f d o e s n o t u s e t h e s e w o r d s , e v e n t h o u g h h i s
writings m a y display particularist o r universalist c o n c e r n s . S e c o n d , a n d
p e r h a p s m o r e i m p o r t a n t , t h e two terms have quite varied m e a n i n g s e v e n
for t h o s e o f us w h o d o use t h e m .
I n d e e d "particularism" a n d "universalism" are i m p r e c i s e , a n d e a c h
w o r d h a s several d e f i n i t i o n s . T h e Oxford English Dictionary ( 2 n d e d . ) , for
e x a m p l e , offers a t h e o l o g i c a l d e f i n i t i o n a n d two s o m e w h a t g e n e r a l o n e s
for b o t h w o r d s . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e t h e o l o g i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s , particularism is
"the d o c t r i n e o f particular e l e c t i o n o r particular r e d e m p t i o n ; t h e d o g m a
that Divine grace is p r o v i d e d for or offered to a s e l e c t e d part, n o t t h e w h o l e ,
o f t h e h u m a n race." Universalism, in.contrast, r e p r e s e n t s "the d o c t r i n e o f
u n i v e r s a l salvation o r r e d e m p t i o n " ; p r e s u m a b l y , that is t h e b e l i e f t h a t
salvation o r r e d e m p t i o n is equally available to all h u m a n i t y .
A c c o r d i n g to the m o r e general definitions, particularism d e n o t e s
"exclusive a t t a c h m e n t o r d e v o t i o n t o o n e ' s particular party, sect, n a t i o n ,
etc.," w h i l e u n i v e r s a l i s m is "the fact o r c o n d i t i o n o f b e i n g universal i n
c h a r a c t e r o r s c o p e . " Finally, a c c o r d i n g to a n o t h e r g e n e r a l d e f i n i t i o n ,
p a r t i c u l a r i s m is "exclusive a t t e n t i o n t o a particular subject, s p e c i a l i s m , "
w h i l e u n i v e r s a l i s m d e n o t e s "the fact o r quality o f b e i n g c o n c e r n e d w i t h
or i n t e r e s t e d in all or a great variety o f subjects."

2
T h e Greek term Ι ο υ δ α ϊ σ μ ό ς first appears in 2 Maccabees (2:21, 8:1, 14:38). It is also
f o u n d in 4 Mace. 4:26 and Gal. 1:13-14. See Yehoshua Amir, "The T e r m Ι ο υ δ α ϊ σ μ ό ς :
A Study in Jewish-Hellenistic Self-Identification," Immanuel 14 (1982): 3 4 - 4 1 .
4 INTRODUCTION

B e c a u s e t h e s e two t e r m s c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d so differently, o n e c a n
p r e s e n t t e n s i o n s b e t w e e n particularism a n d universalism in various ways.
In P h i l o ' s works a l o n e , for e x a m p l e , o n e m i g h t f o c u s u p o n a figure like
M o s e s a n d e x a m i n e h i s s i g n i f i c a n c e t o P h i l o as a n a t i o n a l l e a d e r a n d
lawgiver o r as a spiritual e x e m p l a r for all. Or, o n e m i g h t c o n s i d e r P h i l o ' s
attitudes toward t h e special laws o f M o s e s a n d t h e laws o f n a t u r e o r toward
3
m e s s i a n i c e x p e c t a t i o n as a n a t i o n a l o r universal i d e a l .
T h e first two topics, P h i l o ' s attitude toward M o s e s a n d toward different
k i n d s o f laws, illustrate a m o r e g e n e r a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f p a r t i c u l a r i s m
a n d u n i v e r s a l i s m , n a m e l y , exclusive i n t e r e s t in a particular g r o u p versus
c o n c e r n f o r all h u m a n i t y . Insofar as o n e e m p h a s i z e s d i v i n e a u t h o r i t y
b e h i n d t h e laws o f M o s e s , a study o f Philo's attitudes toward t h e different
k i n d s o f laws m a y also involve a t h e o l o g i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e t e r m s ,
s i n c e o n e m a y ask w h e t h e r or n o t t h e Mosaic laws are divinely o r d a i n e d
for o n e g r o u p as o p p o s e d to all g r o u p s . Finally, t h e last t o p i c — m e s s i a n i c
expectation—suggests the theological definition of particularism and
universalism b e c a u s e this issue t o u c h e s u p o n w h e t h e r divine r e d e m p t i o n
e x t e n d s to all p e o p l e or o n l y to s o m e .
In this study, I shall c o n c e n t r a t e u p o n two kinds o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s to G o d
and offer a theological definition of universalism and particularism
w i t h i n this c o n t e x t . My primary f o c u s will n o t b e u p o n t h e s e t e r m s a n d
their definitions, however, but rather u p o n certain related questions.
Specifically, I a m i n t e r e s t e d in 1) t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l q u e s t t o "see G o d " o r

3
Examples of studies o n these topics i n c l u d e the following: Moses: Y e h o s h u a Amir,
"Mose als Verfasser der T o r a bei Philon," Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei
Philon von Alexandrien, Forschungen zum judisch-christlichen Dialog, ed. Yehuda
A s c h k e n a s y a n d H e i n z Kremers, n o . 5 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: N e u k i r c h e n e r Verlag,
1 9 8 3 ) , 7 7 - 1 0 6 ; Erwin R. G o o d e n o u g h , By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic
Judaism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935), 1 8 0 - 2 3 4 ; Burton L. Mack, "Imitatio
Mosis: Patterns o f C o s m o l o g y and Soteriology in the Hellenistic Synagogue," Studia
Philonica (SP) 1 (1972): 2 7 - 5 5 ; Natural Laws and Mosaic Laws: Andre Myre, "La loi d e la
nature e t la loi mosaique selon Philon d'Alexandrie, Science et Esprit 28 (1976): 1 6 3 - 8 1 ;
Valentin Nikiprowetzky, Le commentaire de VEcriture chez Philon d'Alexandrie: Son caractere
et sa portee; Observations philologiques, Arbeiten zur Literatur u n d Geschichte des hellen-
istischen J u d e n t u m s , ed. Κ. H. Rengstorf e t al., n o . 11 (Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 1 7 -
55; Harry A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam ( C a m b r i d g e : Harvard University Press, 1 9 7 5 , repr. 1 9 8 2 ) , 2 : 1 6 5 - 4 3 8 ;
Messianic Expectation: Peder Borgen, " T h e r e Shall C o m e Forth a Man': Reflections o n
Messianic Ideas in Philo," The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity,
e d . J a m e s H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1 9 9 2 ) , 3 4 1 - 6 1 ; F e r d i n a n d
D e x i n g e r , "Ein 'messianisches Szenarium' als G e m e i n g u t d e s J u d e n t u m s in n a c h -
herodianischer Zeit?" Kairos 17 (1975): 2 4 9 - 7 8 , esp. 2 5 0 - 5 5 ; Richard D. H e c h t , "Philo
a n d Messiah," Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, e d . J a c o b
N e u s n e r et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 1 3 9 - 6 8 .
 INTRODUCTION 5

t h e g o a l o f s e e i n g H i m a n d 2) t h e c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d Biblical
I s r a e l — a n d , by e x t e n s i o n , its J e w i s h d e s c e n d a n t s . My c h i e f c o n c e r n s will
be: D o e s P h i l o b e l i e v e that all p e o p l e c a n participate in t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s
or that o n l y s o m e p e o p l e c a n participate? If only s o m e c a n participate, t h e n
m u s t they b e Jews? If n o t , t h e n w h a t are t h e requirements?
W i t h i n this f r a m e w o r k , u n i v e r s a l i s m will r e p r e s e n t t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t
a n y o n e c a n participate in e i t h e r o f t h e two relationships with G o d , w h e r e ­
as particularism will r e p r e s e n t t h e p o s i t i o n that o n l y Jews c a n participate
in t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f this i n v e s t i g a t i o n , I shall
further amplify a n d refine t h e s e observations.
C o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r , t h e q u e s t to s e e G o d o r t h e g o a l o f s e e i n g H i m a n d
t h e c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n Israel a n d G o d d e s c r i b e d in t h e Bible have p o t e n ­
tially c o n f l i c t i n g aspects. A c l o s e r l o o k at e a c h r e l a t i o n s h i p h i g h l i g h t s j u s t
w h a t t h e s e aspects are.
F o r P h i l o , "seeing G o d " is t h e h e i g h t o f h u m a n h a p p i n e s s . H i s i d e a s
a b o u t this e x p e r i e n c e are strongly i n f l u e n c e d by G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c a l —
a n d , especially, P l a t o n i c — n o t i o n s . Since P h i l o is n o t c o n s i s t e n t a b o u t w h a t
it m e a n s t o s e e G o d , w e c a n n o t always d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e q u e s t to
see H i m a n d its fulfillment. I shall therefore speak o f s e e i n g G o d as b o t h a
q u e s t a n d a goal. I shall also u s e the w o r d "mystical" t o describe this q u e s t
or g o a l , u n d e r s t a n d i n g mysticism loosely as t h e i m p u l s e t o have a direct,
i.e., u n m e d i a t e d , e x p e r i e n c e o f G o d , w h o is t r a n s c e n d e n t a n d immaterial.
T h i s d e f i n i t i o n sidesteps s u c h issues as w h e t h e r t h e e x p e r i e n c e is i n t e l l e c ­
tual o r ecstatic o r b o t h a n d w h e t h e r "direct e x p e r i e n c e " i m p l i e s m e r e per­
c e p t i o n o f o r actual u n i o n with G o d . I shall, h o w e v e r , address t h e s e issues
as they p e r t a i n t o Philo's t h o u g h t in t h e course o f this study.
Several features o f t h e q u e s t to see or t h e goal o f s e e i n g G o d are particu­
larly relevant to o u r discussion. First, this q u e s t o r g o a l is c o n t e m p o r a r y t o
o n e ' s l i f e t i m e i n that o n e b e g i n s t h e q u e s t o r a c h i e v e s t h e g o a l o n l y
d u r i n g t h e s p a n o f o n e ' s life. Related to this observation is that s e e i n g G o d
c a n b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a n a c h i e v e m e n t o r a n ability, w h i c h m a y b e
e i t h e r i n n a t e or acquired. I n addition, the quest to see or goal o f s e e i n g G o d
m a y t h e o r e t i c a l l y b e c o n s i d e r e d universal s i n c e a n y o n e — J e w o r n o n -
J e w — m a y strive t o s e e H i m . H i g h l i g h t i n g this feature is that P h i l o rarely
4
if e v e r s p e a k s o f t h e q u e s t in explicitly J e w i s h t e r m s . Finally, w h i l e any

4
By "explicitly Jewish terms," I m e a n explicit use o f the word Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ς Qew) o r
Ι ο υ δ α ϊ κ ό ς (Jewish). T h u s , a l t h o u g h Philo uses the e x p r e s s i o n "disciple o f Moses"
(γνώριμος, ομιλητής, or φοιτητής Μωυσέως) (Det. 86; Post. 12; Con}. 39; Her. 81; Mos. 2.205;
Spec. 1.319, 345; Spec. 2.88, 256; Contempl. 63; Hypoth. 11.1; cf. Deus 120), o n e could argue
that such a disciple n e e d n o t necessarily be a Jew. Philo also uses "Israel" ( Ι σ ρ α ή λ ) to
describe spiritual seekers. T h e ambiguity of this term is amply discussed below a n d
t h r o u g h o u t this study.
6 INTRODUCTION

or all p e o p l e may p u r s u e this goal, t h e very nature o f t h e pursuit is separate

a n d i n d i v i d u a l , s i n c e P h i l o d e s c r i b e s s e e i n g G o d as a n i n t e r n a l e x p e r i ­
e n c e — a f u n c t i o n o f t h e m i n d o r soul. T h u s , a l t h o u g h h e s p e a k s o f t h e
c o l l e c t i v e r a c e o r class that c a n s e e — t h e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς — h e s p e a k s
e n o u g h a b o u t individual p e o p l e , m i n d s , a n d souls that s e e G o d to l e n d t h e
e x p e r i e n c e a d e c i d e d l y individualistic d i m e n s i o n .
B e s i d e s e m b r a c i n g this mystical a p p r o a c h to G o d , P h i l o is also h e i r to
Biblical claims that G o d c h o s e t h e n a t i o n Israel t o j o i n H i m in a c o v e n a n t
a n d b e H i s special p e o p l e . T h i s t h e m e is e x p r e s s e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e B i b l e ,
b e g i n n i n g in t h e B o o k o f G e n e s i s , in w h i c h G o d establishes H i s c o v e n a n t
with t h e patriarchs A b r a h a m , Isaac, a n d J a c o b a n d d e c l a r e s H i s i n t e n t i o n s
to b e G o d t o their d e s c e n d a n t s . In t h e B o o k o f E x o d u s , G o d p r o c l a i m s their
d e s c e n d a n t n a t i o n , Israel, to b e His o w n special p e o p l e , a n d H e establishes
H i s c o v e n a n t with t h e m . T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p serves as t h e f o u n d a t i o n for t h e
entire, s u b s e q u e n t history o f Biblical Israel.
In contrast t o P h i l o ' s d i s c u s s i o n o f s e e i n g G o d , t h e Biblical d e s c r i p t i o n
o f G o d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with Israel can b e characterized as historical, t h o u g h
also o n g o i n g ; i n h e r i t e d ; c o r p o r a t e , t h o u g h also individual; a n d e x c l u s i v e .
S i n c e G o d e s t a b l i s h e d H i s c o v e n a n t with Israel at a specific p o i n t in t h e
past, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p h a s a historical d i m e n s i o n , a n d m e m b e r s o f t h e
n a t i o n i n h e r i t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t h r o u g h tradition. A l t h o u g h e a c h p e r s o n
individually is part o f t h e c o v e n a n t , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p also has a c o r p o r a t e
d i m e n s i o n b e c a u s e G o d e s t a b l i s h e d it s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h t h e e n t i r e
n a t i o n . Finally, t h e c o v e n a n t is e x c l u s i v e b e c a u s e it was e s t a b l i s h e d o n l y
with Israel as o p p o s e d to any a n d all o t h e r p e o p l e s .
W h e n t h e s e two r e l a t i o n s h i p s with G o d , t h e n — i . e . , t h e q u e s t t o s e e o r
the goal of s e e i n g H i m a n d the c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n H i m and Biblical
Israel—are j u x t a p o s e d o r b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r in s o m e way, as t h e y are in
Philo's t h o u g h t , a t e n s i o n arises b e t w e e n the c o n f l i c t i n g qualities o f e a c h :
t h e quality o f b e i n g c o n t e m p o r a r y to o n e ' s life versus historical; i n n a t e o r
a c q u i r e d versus i n h e r i t e d ; i n d i v i d u a l versus c o r p o r a t e ; a n d m o s t i m p o r ­
tant, p e r h a p s , universal versus exclusive. As w e e x a m i n e w h e r e P h i l o lies
b e t w e e n t h e p o l e s o f particularism a n d universalism, it will b e u s e f u l t o
k e e p t h e s e c o m p o n e n t t e n s i o n s in m i n d .

Other Scholarly Approaches

Many scholars acknowledge the kinds of tensions just described, wheth­

e r t h e y u s e t e r m s like p a r t i c u l a r i s m , u n i v e r s a l i s m , n a t i o n a l i s m , indivi­
d u a l i s m , J u d a i s m , m y s t i c i s m , o r as o n e writer s u g g e s t s , r e l i g i o n a n d
 INTRODUCTION 7

5
religiosity. Although some authors may depict these tensions with
sensitivity, t h e y g e n e r a l l y a d d r e s s t h e m o n l y i n p a s s i n g .
S i n c e w e s h a l l b e c o n s i d e r i n g Philo's discussion of the quest to see or
g o a l o f s e e i n g G o d , h i s a t t i t u d e toward t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d
B i b l i c a l Israel, a n d h i s e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f b e i n g a J e w , of
s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t are t h o s e w o r k s w h i c h c l o s e l y e x a m i n e t h e s e t o p i c s a n d
the possible relationship a m o n g them. T o sample the range of approaches,
I shall briefly review w o r k s w h i c h c o n c e n t r a t e e i t h e r u p o n P h i l o ' s a t t i t u d e
6
toward J e w s a n d J e w i s h tradition o r u p o n his d e p i c t i o n o f a spiritual q u e s t .
A l t h o u g h I a m f o c u s i n g specifically u p o n t h e q u e s t f o r a v i s i o n o f G o d ,
P h i l o s p e a k s a b o u t t h e q u e s t f o r G o d in d i f f e r e n t ways, variously c a l l i n g it
a q u e s t for k n o w l e d g e , reverence, or vision of G o d , or simply a quest for
God Himself.
N o t e w o r t h y a m o n g those w h o investigate Philo's attitude toward Jews
a n d J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n are A n n i e J a u b e r t , A l a n M e n d e l s o n , a n d Y e h o s h u a
Amir. While t h e s e w r i t e r s l o o k at P h i l o ' s t r e a t m e n t o f J u d a i s m from
d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s , i n o n e way o r a n o t h e r , e a c h o f t h e m a c k n o w l e d g e s
a n d addresses t h e tensions we have b e e n discussing.
J a u b e r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f P h i l o c o m p r i s e s a r a t h e r l e n g t h y c h a p t e r in a
m u c h l o n g e r study e n t i t l e d La notion d Alliance dans kjudaisme aux abords de

5
S a m u e l S a n d m e l distinguishes b e t w e e n Philo's religion a n d religiosity in Philo of
Alexandria: An Introduction ( N e w York: Oxford University Press, 1 9 7 9 ) , 8 2 - 8 3 . H e
defines religiosity as "the t o n e a n d character o f the carrying o u t o f the religion o n
the part o f differing personalities within t h e tradition." While Philo's "religion" is
J u d a i s m , w h i c h is also t h e r e l i g i o n o f t h e Rabbis, S a n d m e l n o t e s that P h i l o ' s
religiosity is quite different from theirs. H e writes, "One clue to t h e distinction in
religiosity is the place o f the Laws o f Moses. In Rabbinic Judaism the Laws are an e n d
in themselves; in Philo they are a m e a n s to what h e c o n c e i v e s as a greater e n d .
T h e r e is n o e c h o I know o f in Rabbinic literature o f t h e central goal in P h i l o ' s
Judaism, that o f mystic c o m m u n i o n with the Godhead" ( 8 3 ) .
6
O n e c o u l d also select several noteworthy studies which incorporate both aspects o f
P h i l o — a s a J e w a n d a spiritual s e e k e r — b u t generally, these broader studies d o n o t
focus primarily u p o n these two aspects. A n e x c e p t i o n is Emile Brehier's Les idees
philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d'Alexandne, 2 n d ed., Etudes d e P h i l o s o p h i c Medie-
vale, e d . E t i e n n e Gilson, n o . 8 (Paris: J. Vrin, 1 9 2 5 ) . Brehier provides a b a l a n c e d
picture o f Philo's Jewish a n d spiritual sides, k e e p i n g t h e m , however, quite separate.
T h r e e o t h e r works w h i c h also p r e s e n t Philo's mystical a n d Jewish d i m e n s i o n s with
sensitivity are Erwin R. G o o d e n o u g h , An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, Brown Classics in
Judaica, e d . J a c o b N e u s n e r (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962; repr. L a n h a m , Maryland:
University Press o f America, 1986); H a n s Lewy, "Introduction," "Philo: Selections,"
Three Jewish Philosophers ( N e w York: Harper & Row, 1965), 7 - 2 5 ; a n d Sandmel, Philo of
Alexandria. G o o d e n o u g h ' s Introduction to Philo Judaeus presents a m o r e balanced view
than his By Light, Light, w h i c h is discussed later in the Introduction. In his m o n u ­
m e n t a l study o f P h i l o , Harry Wolfson d o e s n o t d e v e l o p Philo's mystical side at all.
For Wolfson's discussion o f seeing God, see Philo, 2:83-93.
8 INTRODUCTION

7
I'ere chretienne. Jaubert e x a m i n e s h o w Philo deals with such Biblical
t h e m e s as e l e c t i o n a n d m e s s i a n i s m , t h e law, t h e i d e a o f a priestly p e o p l e ,
a n d t h e n o t i o n o f "Israel." Finally, s h e reviews his v a r i o u s ways o f u s i n g
t h e w o r d for c o v e n a n t , δ ι α θ ή κ η . A l t h o u g h s h e r e c o g n i z e s that P h i l o values
t h e internal r e l a t i o n s h i p to G o d a b o v e all else, J a u b e r t c o n c l u d e s n o n e t h e ­
8
less that h e n e v e r d e n i e s any o f t h e prerogatives o f Israel.
In c o n t r a s t w i t h J a u b e r t , A l a n M e n d e l s o n , in h i s b o o k Philo's Jewish
9
Identity, p r e s e n t s b o t h a p h e n o m e n o l o g i c a l a n d a social analysis. First
M e n d e l s o n d e s c r i b e s P h i l o ' s b e l i e f s a n d practices in two s e c t i o n s c a l l e d
O r t h o d o x y " a n d O r t h o p r a x y , " respectively. H e t h e n c o n s i d e r s P h i l o ' s
works i n c o n t e x t o f t h e social realities o f his t i m e by e x p l o r i n g P h i l o ' s
r e f l e c t i o n s a b o u t his J e w i s h a n d non-Jewish e n v i r o n m e n t , his a p o l o g e t i c
s t a t e m e n t s in r e l a t i o n t o anti-Jewish p o l e m i c s , a n d , in t u r n , P h i l o ' s o w n
p o l e m i c s against non-Jewish beliefs a n d practices.
It is w h e n h e l o o k s at P h i l o ' s p o l e m i c s in r e l a t i o n t o his n o n - J e w i s h
n e i g h b o r s that M e n d e l s o n m o s t clearly a d d r e s s e s t h e k i n d s o f t e n s i o n s
we have b e e n discussing. M e n d e l s o n , however, places these tensions
squarely in t h e social a r e n a rather t h a n c o n f i n i n g t h e m to t h e r e a l m o f
t h o u g h t , as J a u b e r t d o e s . F r o m this perspective, h e e m p h a s i z e s t h e partic-
ularist s i d e o f P h i l o , n o t i n g that P h i l o p r e s e n t s t h e J e w s as spiritually
s u p e r i o r to o t h e r n a t i o n s . M e n d e l s o n c o n c l u d e s his b o o k e m p h a s i z i n g this
particularist attitude. H e writes, "Philo's s e n s e o f spiritual superiority m a y
have h e l p e d t o preserve t h e A l e x a n d r i a n J e w s ' r e l i g i o u s identity. But, as
in o t h e r t i m e s a n d p l a c e s , t h e J e w s o f A l e x a n d r i a p a i d a heavy p r i c e f o r
10
this s e n s e o f t h e m s e l v e s . "
Finally, w e s h a l l c o n s i d e r a n e x t e n d e d essay by Y e h o s h u a A m i r
c a l l e d "Philon u n d d i e j u d i s c h e Wirklichkeit s e i n e r Zeit," t h e first i n a
c o l l e c t i o n o f essays e n t i t l e d Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon
11
von Alexandnen. In this o p e n i n g essay, A m i r e x p l o r e s Philo's t r e a t m e n t o f
Biblical t h e m e s , aspects o f his J u d a i s m , a n d related social p h e n o m e n a . T o

7
A n n i e Jaubert, La notion d Alliance dans le judaisme aux abords de I'ere chretienne,
Patristica Sorbonensia, n o . 6 (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1963), 3 7 5 - 4 4 2 .
8
T h e reader may notice that s o m e of these prerogatives are accorded to Israel in the
Bible, a n d s o m e derive from Philo's own interpretations.
9
Alan M e n d e l s o n , Philo's Jewish Identity, Brown Judaic Studies, ed. J a c o b N e u s n e r et
al., n o . 161 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). In another study, M e n d e l s o n explores the
spiritual quest in Philo's works; see his Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria, M o n o ­
graphs o f the H e b r e w U n i o n C o l l e g e , n o . 7 (Cincinnati: H e b r e w U n i o n C o l l e g e
Press, 1982).
1 0
Philo's Jewish Identity, 138. A l t h o u g h h e d o e s n o t elaborate u p o n this i n n u e n d o ,
presumably M e n d e l s o n m e a n s that the Jewish sense o f superiority has e n g e n d e r e d
anti-Jewish f e e l i n g s a n d behavior, in Alexandria and e l s e w h e r e .
1 1
Y e h o s h u a Amir, "Philon u n d die j u d i s c h e Wirklichkeit seiner Zeit," Die hellenis­
tische Gestalt, 3 - 5 1 .
 INTRODUCTION 9

a certain e x t e n t , t h e n , h e brings t o g e t h e r the perspectives o f Biblical motifs

p r e s e n t e d by J a u b e r t a n d r e l i g i o u s p h e n o m e n a a n d social reality p r e ­
s e n t e d by M e n d e l s o n . A m i r i n c l u d e s s e c t i o n s d e a l i n g , for e x a m p l e , w i t h
P h i l o ' s attitude toward the Levites, messianic e x p e c t a t i o n , c o m m a n d m e n t s
o f t h e T o r a h , m o t h e r l a n d a n d diaspora, the Jewish p e o p l e , proselytes, a n d
t h e T h e r a p e u t a e . M a n y o f t h e s e t o p i c s directly p e r t a i n t o t h e t h e m e o f
particularism and universalism—in both a theological and a general
s e n s e — a n d A m i r a r g u e s that P h i l o p r e s e n t s a u n i v e r s a l i z e d v e r s i o n o f
J u d a i s m t h r o u g h his spiritualizing i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . In this essay a n d , in
fact, t h r o u g h o u t t h e b o o k , A m i r is k e e n l y aware o f t h e t e n s i o n s in P h i l o ' s
t h o u g h t b e t w e e n p a r t i c u l a r i s m a n d u n i v e r s a l i s m , always p l a c i n g h i m
1 2
closer to t h e universalist p o l e .
W h e n o n e t u r n s to works that d e s c r i b e a spiritual q u e s t in P h i l o ' s
writings, w h a t is e s p e c i a l l y striking is h o w little d i s c u s s i o n is d e v o t e d t o
the topics m e n t i o n e d above, even t h o u g h these works r e c o g n i z e a n d
i n d e e d e m p h a s i z e to different d e g r e e s that t h e spiritual q u e s t in P h i l o is a
J e w i s h o n e . C o m m o n to all t h e writers c o n s i d e r e d b e l o w is t h a t t h e y
u n d e r s t a n d t h e c e n t r a l e l e m e n t in P h i l o ' s r e l i g i o n to b e a q u e s t w i t h a
g o a l . W h i l e t h e a b o v e m e n t i o n e d a u t h o r s o n J e w i s h aspects o f P h i l o m a y
a c k n o w l e d g e this q u e s t a n d goal, they d o n o t m a k e t h e s e central.
H e r e I shall briefly m e n t i o n Erwin R. G o o d e n o u g h ' s By Light, Light,
W a l t h e r V o l k e r ' s Fortschntt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien, and
13
David W i n s t o n ' s Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandna. In By
Light, Light a n d e l s e w h e r e , G o o d e n o u g h a r g u e s that P h i l o ' s J u d a i s m is
actually a mystery r e l i g i o n w h i c h offers a "distinctly non-Jewish type o f
salvation," w h e r e b y "the spirit [is] r e l e a s e d f r o m t h e f l e s h in o r d e r t o
1 4
r e t u r n t o its spiritual s o u r c e in G o d . " H i s c h a p t e r s cover, a m o n g o t h e r
t h i n g s , "The G o d o f t h e Mystery," "The H i g h e r Law," "The T o r a h , " a n d
various figures w h o r e p r e s e n t different aspects o f t h e mystery o r d i f f e r e n t
types o f s e e k e r s : A a r o n ; E n o s , E n o c h , N o a h , a n d A b r a h a m ; Isaac a n d
J a c o b ; a n d M o s e s . A l t h o u g h t h e t h e m e s a n d f i g u r e s h e m e n t i o n s are

1 2
Amir has consistently shown an interest in these t e n s i o n s in Philo's t h o u g h t ,
b e g i n n i n g with his d i s s e r t a t i o n , w h o s e t h e m e is r e l a t e d to the p r e s e n t study.
Written u n d e r the n a m e H e r m a n n Neumark, it is entitled Die Verwendung griechischer
und judischer Motive in den Gedanken Philons uber die Stellung Gottes zu seinen Freunden
(Wurzburg, 1937). S o m e of Amir's other studies are cited in n n . 2, 3, 30, a n d 33.
1 3
G o o d e n o u g h , By Light, Light (see n. 3); Walther Volker, Fortschntt und Vollendung bei
Philo von Alexandrien: Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Frommigkeit, T e x t e u n d U n t e r -
s u c h u n g e n zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 49:1 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs,
1 9 3 8 ) ; David Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati:
H e b r e w U n i o n College Press, 1985).
1 4
G o o d e n o u g h , By Light, Light, 254; idem, Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 14; cf. By Light,
Light, 7.
10 INTRODUCTION

Biblical, t h e i r c h i e f s i g n i f i c a n c e lies n o t in their historical reality b u t in

t h e i r r o l e in P h i l o ' s J e w i s h mystery. G o o d e n o u g h , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t s e e
a t e n s i o n b e t w e e n P h i l o ' s J e w i s h a n d mystical s i d e s . E m p h a s i z i n g that
P h i l o ' s mystery is t h o r o u g h l y J e w i s h , h e p r e s e n t s h i s J u d a i s m as c o m ­
p l e t e l y t r a n s f o r m e d by t h e mystical q u e s t . As G o o d e n o u g h writes e l s e ­
w h e r e , h e b e l i e v e s that P h i l o is "not g o i n g o u t o f J u d a i s m b u t o n l y d e e p e r
15
into it."
W a l t h e r V o l k e r r e p u d i a t e s t h e i d e a that P h i l o h i m s e l f c o u l d e x p e r i e n c e
mystical vision, m a i n t a i n i n g that this e x p e r i e n c e is p o s s i b l e o n l y t h r o u g h
b e l i e f i n Christianity. I n s t e a d h e c l a i m s P h i l o u s e s mystical a n d p h i l o ­
s o p h i c a l l a n g u a g e t o serve as m e r e "window-dressing" for h i s e x e g e t i c a l
1 6
insights, n o t t o d e s c r i b e real ecstatic e x p e r i e n c e . Apart f r o m t h e p o l e m i ­
cal issue o f w h e t h e r o r n o t P h i l o ' s l a n g u a g e reflects h i s o w n g e n u i n e
e x p e r i e n c e , Volker outlines a s c h e m a of progress and perfection, which
c a n easily b e u n d e r s t o o d as a u n i v e r s a l p u r s u i t i n t h a t it m i g h t b e
u n d e r t a k e n by a n y o n e , w h e t h e r Jewish or n o t . V o l k e r d e s c r i b e s different
a s p e c t s o f t h e battle against t h e s e n s e s , t h e passions, a n d t h e w o r l d . H e
t h e n discusses various paths to perfection—via learning, practice, a n d
b e l i e f — a n d t h e i r different stages. Finally, V o l k e r f o c u s e s u p o n t h e e n d -
p o i n t s o f t h e s e various p a t h s — t h e virtuous life, vision o f G o d , a n d portrayal
o f t h e τέλειος, or perfect m a n .
B e c a u s e h e a r g u e s that Philo's d e p i c t i o n s o f ecstasy are drawn f r o m his
G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c a l h e r m e n e u t i c a n d d o n o t reflect h i s o w n firsthand
e x p e r i e n c e , V o l k e r ' s a s s e s s m e n t o f P h i l o ' s spirituality is c o m p l e t e l y o p p o ­
1 7
site t o that o f G o o d e n o u g h . Obviously, Volker's d e f i n i t i o n o f mysticism
as p o s s i b l e o n l y t h r o u g h Christianity p r e c l u d e s t h e o p i n i o n that P h i l o
c o u l d b e a true mystic. Ironically, t h o u g h , like G o o d e n o u g h , V o l k e r t o o
18
s e e s n o c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n P h i l o ' s J u d a i s m a n d his s p i r i t u a l i t y . Whereas
G o o d e n o u g h , however, understands Philo's Judaism to be c o m p l e t e l y
i n t e g r a t e d with his mysticism, V o l k e r rejects t h e g e n u i n e n e s s o f P h i l o ' s
mysticism entirely.
D a v i d W i n s t o n is a n o t h e r writer w h o discusses t h e spiritual q u e s t i n
P h i l o , e m p h a s i z i n g its G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c a l aspects. W i n s t o n d e v o t e s c h a p ­
ters t o "Philo's L o g o s D o c t r i n e A g a i n s t Its P l a t o n i c B a c k g r o u n d , " "The
Psyche a n d Its Extra-Terrestrial Life in Philo's A n t h r o p o l o g y , " a n d "Phi­
lo's Mystical T h e o l o g y . " H e n o t e s that for Philo, "man's g o a l a n d u l t i m a t e

1 5
G o o d e n o u g h , Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 153.
1 6
See, e.g., Volker, Fortschntt und Vollendung, xii, 287, 300, 3 1 3 - 1 7 .
1 7
S e e G o o d e n o u g h ' s review of Volker's book, "Problems o f M e t h o d in Studying
Philo J u d a e u s , " Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) 58 ( 1 9 3 9 ) : 5 1 - 5 8 , a n d his remarks
about Volker in his Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 14—16.
1 8
See, e.g., Volker, Fortschntt und Vollendung, 297.
 INTRODUCTION 11

19
bliss lie in t h e k n o w l e d g e o r vision o f G o d . " In his c o n c l u d i n g remarks,
Winston addresses the tension between nationalism and universalism in
t h e c o n t e x t o f Philo's eschatological h o p e s . H e c o m m e n t s as follows:

Everything said o f the Jewish nation in Lev. 26:12 and Deut. 28:13 is transferred by
Philo to the h u m a n m i n d , and in direct contrast to that verse G o d is designated by
Philo n o t as the G o d of Israel, but of all p e o p l e (Praem. 1 5 8 - 6 1 ) . Still, e n o u g h o f the
earthly s p h e r e r e m a i n s in Philo's messianic vision to reveal the i n n e r t e n s i o n s
in his t h o u g h t b e t w e e n nationalism a n d universalism, the mystical a n d the this-
2 0
worldly.

It is i n t e r e s t i n g that, o f t h e s e six authors w h o f o c u s u p o n P h i l o e i t h e r as

a J e w o r as a spiritual s e e k e r , o n l y A l a n M e n d e l s o n e m p h a s i z e s P h i l o ' s
p a r t i c u l a r i s m o v e r a n d above any universalist t e n d e n c i e s . F r o m M e n d e l -
s o n ' s p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e c h i e f t e n s i o n in Philo's works lies n o t b e t w e e n two
sides of Philo himself but b e t w e e n Philo and his non-Jewish environ­
m e n t . T h e o t h e r a u t h o r s pay d u e a t t e n t i o n to P h i l o ' s particular a n d uni­
versal s i d e s — w h e t h e r t h e y r e c o g n i z e a t e n s i o n b e t w e e n t h e s e f o r c e s —
like J a u b e r t , A m i r , a n d W i n s t o n — o r d e n y a t e n s i o n by v i e w i n g P h i l o ' s
J e w i s h a n d mystical s i d e s as w h o l l y i n t e g r a t e d ( G o o d e n o u g h ) o r c o m ­
pletely separate (Volker).
M e n d e l s o n , h o w e v e r , b e l i e v e s that any universalist t e n d e n c i e s P h i l o
m a y h a v e are o v e r s h a d o w e d by his s e n s e o f J e w i s h identity. M e n d e l s o n
c o m m e n t s , "Even as P h i l o p r o c l a i m s t h e o p e n n e s s o f t h e J e w s to o t h e r
peoples, we can detect a counter-current of exclusiveness which under­
21
m i n e s t h e very c o n c e p t h e e s p o u s e s . " P e r h a p s at t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f this
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , w e shall b e b e t t e r a b l e to evaluate M e n d e l s o n ' s s i n g u l a r
position.

Approach of the Present Study

In c o n t r a s t to t h e various a p p r o a c h e s o u t l i n e d above, in this study I shall

f o c u s u p o n b o t h aspects o f P h i l o as J e w a n d spiritual s e e k e r in o r d e r t o
e x a m i n e h o w h e d o e s o r d o e s n o t address t h e p o s s i b l e t e n s i o n s b e t w e e n
t h e s e a s p e c t s . H a p p i l y , P h i l o h i m s e l f p r o v i d e s us w i t h a t e r m that c o m ­
b i n e s t h e two aspects in o n e . T h i s t e r m is "Israel."
A s P h i l o f r e q u e n t l y e x p l a i n s , a c c o r d i n g t o its e t y m o l o g y , "Israel"
m e a n s "one that s e e s G o d " (όρων θ ε ό ν ) . W e have n o t e d that for P h i l o ,
s e e i n g G o d r e p r e s e n t s t h e h e i g h t o f h u m a n h a p p i n e s s a n d that, in a n d o f
itself, s e e i n g G o d m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d universal s i n c e a n y o n e — r e g a r d l e s s
o f b i r t h — m a y p u r s u e this q u e s t o r g o a l . At t h e s a m e t i m e , h o w e v e r ,

1 9
Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 54.
2 0
Ibid., 58.
2 1
M e n d e l s o n , Philo's Jewish Identity, 113.
12 INTRODUCTION

"Israel" is a l s o t h e n a m e u s e d i n t h e Bible for t h e n a t i o n o f P h i l o ' s

ancestors a n d for the Jews themselves before a n d d u r i n g his time.
Moreover, a c c o r d i n g to t h e Bible, Israel is the n a t i o n that G o d selects to b e
H i s o w n p e o p l e a n d t o serve H i m in a c o v e n a n t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . In P h i l o ' s
writings, t h e n — b o t h in his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a n d in q u o t a t i o n s o f Biblical
texts—"Israel" m a y p o t e n t i a l l y r e p r e s e n t o n e w h o s e e s G o d , t h e Biblical
n a t i o n a n d its Jewish d e s c e n d a n t s , o r b o t h .
Philo's b l e n d o f associations to "Israel" gives rise to a series o f q u e s t i o n s .
D o e s h e e q u a t e "Israel" o n l y w i t h t h e historical Biblical n a t i o n a n d its
J e w i s h d e s c e n d a n t s ? If s o , d o e s h e t h i n k that o n l y t h e y c a n s e e G o d ?
M o r e o v e r , d o e s h e b e l i e v e that t h e relationship b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel as
it is d e s c r i b e d i n t h e B i b l e a u t o m a t i c a l l y a p p l i e s t o h i s o w n J e w i s h
c o n t e m p o r a r i e s ? Conversely, d o e s h e r e d e f i n e Israel t o m e a n o n l y t h o s e
w h o s e e G o d , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r ancestry? If s o , t h e n h o w d o e s P h i l o
regard t h e Biblical a c c o u n t o f G o d ' s e l e c t i o n o f Israel? A n d w h a t relation­
s h i p d o e s P h i l o ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Israel as "the o n e that s e e s G o d " have
w i t h Biblical Israel o r w i t h any c o n t e m p o r a r y social g r o u p , particularly
h i s f e l l o w Jews?
B e c a u s e o f t h e a m b i g u i t i e s that result f r o m t h e way P h i l o u n d e r s t a n d s
"Israel," a key q u e s t i o n in this study is h o w h e uses t h e terms "Israel" a n d
"Jew" i n r e l a t i o n t o e a c h o t h e r . I n d e e d m y pivotal a r g u m e n t is that o n e
m a y i n fact d i s t i n g u i s h i n h i s w o r k b e t w e e n "Israel," a r a t h e r l o o s e l y
d e f i n e d entity that s e e s G o d , a n d t h e Jews, the real n a t i o n that b e l i e v e s in
a n d w o r s h i p s G o d . A c c o r d i n g l y , "Israel" is n o t a clearly r e c o g n i z a b l e
social g r o u p b u t i n s t e a d m a y b e similar to w h a t w e speak o f today as a n
"intellectual elite." In contrast, t h e Jews are a social, e t h n i c , a n d political
22
c o m m u n i t y w h o s e m e m b e r s — b y birth o r c h o i c e — a r e easily i d e n t i f i e d .
A l t h o u g h "Israel" a n d t h e Jews m a y overlap or i n d e e d b e t h e s a m e , P h i l o
discusses t h e m as two distinct entities.
T o s u p p o r t this a r g u m e n t , I offer a n d shall elaborate u p o n t h e f o l l o w i n g
observations:
1. Philo generally speaks about "Israel" and the Jews in different senes of
works, which are probably intended for different, though perhaps overlapping, audi­
ences. T h e t e r m s "Israel" a n d "Jew," in fact, a p p e a r t o g e t h e r o n l y o n c e , in

2 2
H e r e a n d t h r o u g h o u t this investigation, I speak of the Jewish nation or the Jewish
p e o p l e as "real" in the sense that they are a r e c o g n i z e d social, e t h n i c , or political
g r o u p . This is n o t to imply that "Israel" is n o t a "real" g r o u p , but rather that its m e m ­
bership is n o t readily identified. Also, in describing the Jews as clearly identifiable,
I am s i d e s t e p p i n g the controversy a b o u t w h o was a Jew in antiquity. Philo h i m s e l f
s e e m s to use the terms "Jew" a n d "proselyte" without ambiguity even t h o u g h h e d o e s
n o t define t h e m precisely. In contrast, his use of "Israel" appears to b e deliberately
ambiguous.
 INTRODUCTION 13

t h e p o l i t i c a l treatise Legat. N o o t h e r t r e a t i s e — e i t h e r e x e g e t i c a l o r n o n -
e x e g e t i c a l — m e n t i o n s b o t h "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s in t h e s a m e i n d i v i d u a l
work.
2. To describe "Israel" and the Jews as collectivities, Philo uses different words
with different connotations. W h i l e his terms for t h e Jews d e n o t e a p e o p l e
o r n a t i o n — w h e t h e r t h e y are d e f i n e d by birth o r s h a r e d l a w s — P h i l o ' s
t e r m f o r "Israel" ( γ έ ν ο ς ) h a s a r a n g e o f m e a n i n g s that i n c l u d e b u t g o
b e y o n d t h e i d e a o f a g r o u p d e t e r m i n e d by c o m m o n origins. A c c o r d i n g l y ,
"Israel" m a y also b e a class d e f i n e d by s h a r e d characteristics o r a n e b u ­
l o u s ideal.
3. Philo describes the relationship between God and each entity in different
ways. "Israel" is primarily associated with s e e i n g G o d , w h i l e t h e J e w s are
d e p i c t e d as t h e p e o p l e that b e l i e v e in a n d w o r s h i p H i m t h r o u g h specific
laws a n d c u s t o m s .
4. "Membership requirements" for belonging to "Israel" and the Jews appear to
be different. A l t h o u g h P h i l o d o e s n o t address this issue directly, o n e c a n
s p e c u l a t e that m e m b e r s h i p in "Israel" d e p e n d s u p o n spiritual capability,
w h i l e m e m b e r s h i p in t h e Jewish n a t i o n requires o n e a) to a b a n d o n false
beliefs a n d w o r s h i p to a d o p t b e l i e f in a n d worship o f the o n e G o d a n d b) to
leave b e h i n d o n e ' s family a n d friends to j o i n a n e w c o m m u n i t y .
B e s i d e s m a i n t a i n i n g that P h i l o d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d t h e
Jews, I shall also a r g u e that h e p r e s e n t s a potentially universalist vision o f
b o t h entities. B e c a u s e it r e p r e s e n t s t h e ideal o f s e e i n g G o d , "Israel" c o u l d
t h e o r e t i c a l l y e n c o m p a s s s o m e o r all Jews a n d p e r h a p s s o m e n o n - J e w s —
w h o e v e r is a b l e t o s e e G o d . Similarly, as t h e n a t i o n that b e l i e v e s in a n d
w o r s h i p s G o d , t h e Jews stand ready to e m b r a c e all p e o p l e — r e g a r d l e s s o f
b i r t h — w h o c h o o s e to serve t h e o n e G o d a l o n g with t h e m , i.e., proselytes.
We shall c o n s i d e r Philo's potential universalism further in the
conclusions.
It is w o r t h n o t i n g that in Philo's t i m e — t h e first part o f t h e first c e n t u r y
C.E.—Judaism was the only m o n o t h e i s t i c religion. P h i l o gives n o
e v i d e n c e o f k n o w i n g a b o u t t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f Christianity. W h i l e p h i l o ­
sophers may have believed in o n e God or o n e transcendent Being,
J u d a i s m was t h e o n l y r e l i g i o n that b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r b e l i e f in a n d w o r s h i p
o f this B e i n g , t h e Creator o f all t h e universe a n d p e r s o n a l G o d o f t h e Jews.
P h i l o ' s o p e n n e s s t o a n d e a g e r n e s s for proselytes to j o i n t h e Jewish p e o p l e
is, t o s o m e e x t e n t , characteristic o f o t h e r varieties o f J u d a i s m in this p e r i o d
as well.

T h e a r g u m e n t s o u t l i n e d above a n d their i m p l i c a t i o n s for h o w P h i l o evalu­

ates t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f b e i n g a J e w are set forth' in six c h a p t e r s . C h a p t e r
O n e lays t h e g r o u n d w o r k by carefully surveying h o w P h i l o u s e s c e r t a i n
14 INTRODUCTION

v o c a b u l a r y p e r t a i n i n g t o "Israel" a n d t h e Jews. C h a p t e r T w o a d d r e s s e s
w h a t h e m e a n s by "Israel," h o w h e derives its e t y m o l o g y , a n d h o w h e
u n d e r s t a n d s t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f s e e i n g G o d . C h a p t e r Three* e x p l o r e s w h o
P h i l o b e l i e v e s c a n s e e G o d . C h a p t e r F o u r takes u p w h e t h e r o r n o t P h i l o
affirms G o d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with Israel as t h e Bible p r e s e n t s it a n d w h e t h e r
o r n o t this r e l a t i o n s h i p a u t o m a t i c a l l y a p p l i e s t o all J e w s . Finally, i n
C h a p t e r s Five a n d Six respectively, I e x a m i n e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t o G o d —
first, o f o n e w h o is a J e w a n d t h e n , o f o n e w h o b e c o m e s a Jew.
B e f o r e w e p r o c e e d , a c o m m e n t a b o u t t e r m i n o l o g y is in o r d e r . S i n c e
"Israel" has b o t h a literal a n d a symbolic m e a n i n g , for t h e sake o f clarity,
w h e n s p e a k i n g a b o u t "Israel" as t h e n a t i o n m e n t i o n e d in t h e B i b l e , I u s e
t h e e x p r e s s i o n s "Biblical Israel" or "historical Israel." E i t h e r o f t h e s e e x ­
p r e s s i o n s d e n o t e s t h e real n a t i o n that existed d u r i n g Biblical times. W h e n
"Israel" refers b o t h t o t h e Biblical n a t i o n a n d its J e w i s h d e s c e n d a n t s — u p
t o a n d / o r d u r i n g P h i l o ' s t i m e — I say so explicitly. W h e n "Israel" d e n o t e s
a n entity that s e e s G o d , a n d it is u n c l e a r w h e t h e r this t e r m also d e n o t e s
t h e B i b l i c a l n a t i o n a n d / o r its J e w i s h d e s c e n d a n t s , I r e f e r s i m p l y t o
"Israel," a n d t h e q u o t a t i o n marks i n d i c a t e t h e a m b i g u i t y o f t h e r e f e r e n t ,
i.e., t h e specific social g r o u p or entity that "Israel" is m e a n t to r e p r e s e n t .
S i n c e P h i l o uses t h e w o r d 'Jew" t o refer to t h e Biblical n a t i o n a n d also
t o its J e w i s h d e s c e n d a n t s u p to his o w n day, w h e n e v e r p o s s i b l e , I i n d i c a t e
w h e t h e r h e is s p e a k i n g o f t h e n a t i o n in the past, in his p r e s e n t , o r b o t h . If
f u r t h e r r e f i n e m e n t s t o t h e s e various u s a g e s are necessary, t h e s e will b e
m a d e in the appropriate contexts.

Method

In 1 9 3 9 , E. R. G o o d e n o u g h n o t e d that in a d v a n c i n g a particular inter­

p r e t a t i o n o f P h i l o , any s c h o l a r m u s t necessarily s e l e c t c e r t a i n P h i l o n i c
p a s s a g e s , a n d e a c h s c h o l a r ' s s e l e c t i o n is b o u n d t o b e i n f l u e n c e d by
p r e c o n c e i v e d a n d o f t e n implicit p r e m i s e s . Since selectivity is u n a v o i d a b l e ,
h e a r g u e d , it is e s s e n t i a l for s c h o l a r s to m a k e e x p l i c i t t h e i r criteria o f
s e l e c t i o n a n d t h e i r u n s p o k e n a s s u m p t i o n s . As G o o d e n o u g h e m p h a s i z e d ,
2 3
"The first c o n s i d e r a t i o n in studying Philo m u s t b e that o f m e t h o d . "
M o r e t h a n h a l f a c e n t u r y later, G o o d e n o u g h ' s o b s e r v a t i o n still h o l d s
2 4
t r u e . T o b e sure, e v e n today scholars base studies u p o n s e l e c t e d P h i l o n i c
p a s s a g e s , o f f e r i n g n o e x p l a n a t i o n o f h o w they identify t h e s e p a s s a g e s o r
w h y t h e y r e g a r d t h e m as m o r e significant t h a n o t h e r s . A l s o c r u c i a l is
h o w o n e g o e s a b o u t i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e s e passages. In s t r o n g a g r e e m e n t that

2 3
G o o d e n o u g h , "Problems of Method," 58.
2 4
See, e.g., Borgen's o p e n i n g statement in his 1992 study "'There Shall C o m e Forth
a Man'" (341): "The p r o b l e m of m e t h o d is a critical issue in Philonic studies."
 INTRODUCTION 15

m e t h o d o l o g i c a l issues are o f p a r a m o u n t i m p o r t a n c e in s t u d y i n g P h i l o , I
p u r p o s e l y d e v o t e a m p l e a t t e n t i o n to t h e s e issues t h r o u g h o u t this investi­
25
gation.
Simply stated, my m e t h o d c o m b i n e s word studies and exegetical
analyses, b a s e d u p o n virtually all o f Philo's e x t a n t works. T o a great e x t e n t ,
this a p p r o a c h a g r e e s w i t h g u i d e l i n e s s u g g e s t e d by David T. R u n i a in a n
26
article e n t i d e d "How T o R e a d P h i l o . " R u n i a suggests that t o tackle any
p r o b l e m in P h i l o , a r e s e a r c h e r m u s t b e g i n by c o n s i d e r i n g all t h e relevant
p a s s a g e s a n d t h e n analyze t h e s e passages k e e p i n g in m i n d several factors,
listed further below.
T o identify all t h e relevant passages for this study, I have r e l i e d u p o n
w o r d s e a r c h e s , v e r s e s e a r c h e s , a n d a careful r e a d i n g t h r o u g h P h i l o ' s
2 7
w o r k s . I t h e n analyze t h e s e passages, g u i d e d by several c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ,
m o s t o f w h i c h R u n i a m e n t i o n s . H e n o t e s that in r e a d i n g P h i l o , o n e m u s t

1) Take into account the immediate exegetical context of each

p a s s a g e — t h a t is, identify w h a t Biblical v e r s e s are b e i n g i n t e r ­
p r e t e d — a n d the thematic context—i.e., the themes discussed in
s e c t i o n s a n d t h e w h o l e o f the treatise;

2) E s t a b l i s h t h e e x e g e t i c a l p r o b l e m that g i v e s rise to t h e inter­

pretation; a n d

3) A t t e m p t to u n d e r s t a n d the ideas w h i c h Philo uses in his

interpretation a n d t o s h o w h o w these ideas are u s e d to interpret t h e
passage.

2 5
As G o o d e n o u g h wrote, "It seems m u c h safer to keep the process in the conscious ...
As m e n we m u s t p r o c e e d in this way w h e t h e r we like it or not" ("Problems o f
Method," 5 6 ) . I am assuming G o o d e n o u g h would h o l d w o m e n to the same standards!
2 6
David T. Runia, "How to Read Philo," Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 40 ( 1 9 8 6 ) :
1 8 5 - 9 8 (reprinted as the s e c o n d entry in idem, Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on Philo of
Alexandria, Variorum Collected Studies [Hampshire, Great Britain: Variorum, 1 9 9 0 ] ) .
2 7
Word studies for works in Philo, trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, vols. 1 -
10, T h e L o e b Classical Library (LCL) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1 9 2 9 - 6 2 ) ,
e x c e p t for Prov., are based u p o n Gunter Mayer, Index Philoneus (Berlin: d e Gruyter,
1974) a n d the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) database o n IBYCUS (see David T.
Runia, "How to Search Philo," The Studia Philonica Annual [SPhA] 2 [1990]: 1 0 6 - 3 9 ) . For
t h e fragmentary Q u e s t i o n s and Answers o n G e n e s i s a n d E x o d u s ( Q G E ) , w h i c h
survives chiefly in A r m e n i a n , word studies are based u p o n the English translation
a n d I n d e x p r e p a r e d by Ralph Marcus in LCL, 2 supps. ( C a m b r i d g e : Harvard
University Press, 1953, repr. 1970 and 1979). Word studies d o n o t i n c l u d e fragments
or Anim., Deo, and Prov.—three works surviving chiefly in A r m e n i a n , w h o s e c o n t e n t s
are n o t central to this investigation. Biblical verse searches are based u p o n the I n d e x
biblique in Biblia Patristica: Supplement, Philon d'Alexandrie (Paris: Editions d u Centre
National d e la R e c h e r c h e Scientifique, 1982).
16 INTRODUCTION

T o t h e s e I have a d d e d two m o r e factors, namely, t h e n e e d to

4) B e aware o f t h e possibility that P h i l o m a y b e a d a p t i n g his p r e s e n ­

tation to suit a particular a u d i e n c e o r literary g e n r e ; a n d
5) R e c o g n i z e that s o m e o f P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s m a y d e r i v e f r o m
traditional J e w i s h e x e g e s i s .

A l t h o u g h I a m n o t providing any i m m e d i a t e illustrations of this

m e t h o d for r e a d i n g P h i l o , I h o p e that t h e n u m e r o u s analyses in t h e t e x t o f
this work will serve as fitting, c o n c r e t e e x a m p l e s .

Assumptions

I n f o r m i n g m y a p p r o a c h are several key a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t P h i l o a n d h i s

e n t e r p r i s e . D e t a i l e d b e l o w , t h e s e a s s u m p t i o n s p e r t a i n to P h i l o ' s role as a n
e x e g e t e , his a u d i e n c e (s) a n d t h e aims o f his various works, his i n t e l l e c t u a l
b a c k g r o u n d , a n d his a m b i g u i t y a n d s i l e n c e o n certain issues.

1. Philo as an Exegete

M o s t o f t h e P h i l o n i c writings d i s c u s s e d in this study are e x e g e t i c a l , a n d I

a m p r o c e e d i n g o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n that P h i l o is first a n d f o r e m o s t a n inter­
p r e t e r o f S c r i p t u r e i n s t e a d o f a p h i l o s o p h e r , as m a n y s c h o l a r s h a v e ar­
2 8
g u e d . T o b e sure, Philo's p h i l o s o p h i c a l interests run d e e p a n d o n e m i g h t
i n d e e d characterize m o s t o f his e x e g e s i s as p h i l o s o p h i c a l . In v i e w i n g h i m
primarily as a Scriptural i n t e r p r e t e r rather t h a n a p h i l o s o p h e r , h o w e v e r , I
a m a s s u m i n g that h e u s e s p h i l o s o p h i c a l n o t i o n s to e x p l i c a t e t h e Bible rath­
er t h a n u s i n g t h e Bible as a s p r i n g b o a r d to p r e s e n t s o m e k i n d o f u n i f i e d
philosophy. Whatever philosophical notions can be abstracted from his
works, t h e s e are u s e d to e x p l a i n Scripture rather t h a n to set forth a system­
atic way o f t h i n k i n g o r a definitive s t a t e m e n t a b o u t individual c o n c e p t s .
As m a n y s c h o l a r s h a v e o b s e r v e d , a m a j o r t h e m e o r h e r m e n e u t i c i n
2 9
P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s is t h e j o u r n e y o f t h e s o u l , a n d t o d e s c r i b e this
j o u r n e y P h i l o m o s t certainly u s e s l a n g u a g e a n d i d e a s f r o m h i s s u r r o u n d ­
i n g c u l t u r e , as w e shall s e e . T h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h e
a s s u m p t i o n that P h i l o is primarily a n e x e g e t e , h o w e v e r , is that p a s s a g e s
m u s t always b e c o n s i d e r e d in t h e i r e x e g e t i c a l c o n t e x t , i.e., i n r e l a t i o n t o
t h e v e r s e (s) t h e y are d i s c u s s i n g . T h u s , I shall g e n e r a l l y b e m o r e c o n ­
c e r n e d t o identify t h e e x e g e t i c a l f u n c t i o n o f P h i l o ' s l a n g u a g e a n d i d e a s
t h a n their s o u r c e s .

2 8
O n Philo as an e x e g e t e , see Nikiprowetzky, Le commentaire de VEcriture, esp. 1 7 0 - 2 4 2 .
2 9
S e e , e.g., G o o d e n o u g h , By Light, Light, 2 3 5 - 6 4 ; Nikiprowetzky, Le commentaire de
VEcriture, 239; Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 8 3 - 8 8 .
 INTRODUCTION 17

W h e t h e r o r n o t P h i l o k n e w H e b r e w — a n d it a p p e a r s u n l i k e l y that h e
k n e w it well if at all—his interpretations are b a s e d u p o n t h e Greek Bible o r
3 0
S e p t u a g i n t ( L X X ) . As to t h e literal m e a n i n g o f t h e G r e e k Bible, h e d o e s
n o t m a i n t a i n a c o n s i s t e n t p o s i t i o n . S o m e t i m e s P h i l o affirms this m e a n ­
i n g , s o m e t i m e s h e rejects it, a n d s o m e t i m e s h e simply p r o v i d e s a symbol­
ic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e t e x t w i t h o u t c o m m e n t i n g u p o n its literal s e n s e at
3 1
a l l . O n e c a n also o b s e r v e d i f f e r e n c e s a m o n g h i s v a r i o u s works in t h e
way h e a p p r o a c h e s t h e literal s e n s e o f Scripture.
It s h o u l d q u i c k l y b e n o t e d , h o w e v e r , that P h i l o ' s u s e o f t h e t e r m
32
" l i t e r a r itself is i n c o n s i s t e n t a n d s o m e w h a t e q u i v o c a l . For e x a m p l e , in
t h e E x p o s i t i o n , o n e o f h i s t h r e e e x e g e t i c a l series, w h a t h e c o n s i d e r s
"literal" is o f t e n in fact a reworking o f t h e text, w h i c h may e l a b o r a t e u p o n
o r e v e n o m i t c e r t a i n details. In his two o t h e r e x e g e t i c a l series, d i s c u s s e d
below, Philo may have somewhat different understandings of the term
"literal." R e g a r d l e s s o f t h e d i f f e r e n t ways in w h i c h h e m a y c o n c e i v e o f
o r d e a l w i t h t h e literal m e a n i n g o f Scripture, P h i l o n o n e t h e l e s s u n d e r ­
s t a n d s t h e authority b e h i n d t h e t e x t to b e ultimately d i v i n e , v i e w i n g t h e
B i b l e as a c o o p e r a t i v e v e n t u r e , as it w e r e , b e t w e e n G o d a n d his p r o p h e t
3 3
Moses.

2. Philo's Audience(s) and Aims

A s e c o n d a n d r a t h e r i m p o r t a n t a s s u m p t i o n for m y a r g u m e n t is t h a t
P h i l o ' s v a r i o u s w o r k s are d i r e c t e d t o w a r d d i f f e r e n t , t h o u g h p e r h a p s
o v e r l a p p i n g , a u d i e n c e s a n d are c o m p o s e d with different aims. A l t h o u g h I
h a v e c o n s i d e r e d "all P h i l o ' s e x t a n t w o r k s f o r this study, I a m c h i e f l y
c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h o s e in w h i c h h e discusses s e e i n g G o d a n d e s p e c i a l l y

3 0
For a g o o d overview of the debate about whether or n o t Philo knew Hebrew, see
N i k i p r o w e t z k y , Le commentaire de VEcriture, 5 0 - 9 6 . See also "The S o u r c e o f Philo's
Etymologies," below in Chapter Two. O n Philo's use of the Greek Bible, see Yehoshua
Amir, "Authority a n d Interpretation o f Scripture in the Writings o f Philo," Mikra:
Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early
Christianity, e d . Martin Jay Mulder, C o m p e n d i a Rerum Iudaicarum ad N o v u m Testa-
m e n turn (CRINT), sec. 2, vol. 1 (Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1 9 8 8 ) , 4 4 0 - 4 4 ; a n d
P e d e r B o r g e n , "Philo o f Alexandria: A Critical a n d Synthetical Survey o f R e s e a r c h
since World War II," Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt (ANRW): Geschichte und
Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, 2.21.1: Religion (Hellenistisches Judentum in rom-
ischer Zeit: Philon und Josephus), ed. Wolfgang Haase (Berlin: d e Gruyter, 1984), 1 2 1 - 2 3 .
3 1
S e e M o n t g o m e r y J. Shroyer, "Alexandrian Jewish Literalists," JBL 55 ( 1 9 3 6 ) : 2 6 1 -
84; Wolfson, Philo 1:120-31.
3 2
S e e B u r t o n L. Mack, "Philo J u d a e u s a n d Exegetical Traditions in Alexandria,"
ANRW, 2.21.1:258-59 and 2 6 1 - 6 2 .
3 3
Det. 13; Mos. 2.11, 34; Decal. 1 8 - 1 9 ; Praem. 1-2; Prob. 80. See also Yehoshua Amir,
"Philo a n d the Bible," SP 2 (1973): 1-8; i d e m , "Authority and Interpretation," 4 2 1 - 5 3 ;
i d e m , "Mose als Verfasser der Tora," 7 7 - 1 0 6 .
18 INTRODUCTION

t h o s e in w h i c h h e m e n t i o n s "Israel" a n d t h e Jews, w h e t h e r in t h e past o r

p r e s e n t , e x p l i c i t l y by n a m e o r implicitly w i t h o u t n a m e . My f o c u s , t h e r e ­
fore, is u p o n all P h i l o ' s e x e g e t i c a l writings, w h i c h fall i n t o t h r e e s e r i e s —
t h e Allegory, t h e E x p o s i t i o n , a n d Q u e s t i o n s a n d Answers o n G e n e s i s a n d
E x o d u s ( Q G E ) . A m o n g t h e n o n - e x e g e t i c a l writings, t h e m o s t relevant are
P h i l o ' s two p o l i t i c a l treatises, Flacc. a n d Legal, in w h i c h h e r e c o u n t s t h e
political travails o f his J e w i s h c o n t e m p o r a r i e s ; t h e fragmentary Apology for
the Jews (Hypoth.), in w h i c h h e refers t o t h e Biblical n a t i o n , h i s J e w i s h
c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , a n d t h e E s s e n e sect; a n d Contempt., in which Philo
d e s c r i b e s t h e life o f t h e T h e r a p e u t a e ( a n o t h e r c o n t e m p o r a r y sect) a n d
briefly m e n t i o n s t h e Biblical n a t i o n .
M u c h h a s b e e n written c o n c e r n i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f P h i l o ' s i n t e n d e d
3 4
r e a d e r s h i p (s) a n d a i m s . H e himself, h o w e v e r , rarely tells us w h o m h e
3 5
is a d d r e s s i n g . N o n e t h e l e s s , c e r t a i n characteristics o f h i s w r i t i n g s sug­
g e s t that t h e y are c o m p o s e d with different p u r p o s e s for individuals w h o
differ i n t h e i r spiritual sensibilities a n d in t h e i r familiarity w i t h J e w i s h
beliefs, practices, a n d p e o p l e . At best o n e can o n l y a t t e m p t to m a k e intelli­
g e n t g u e s s e s a b o u t w h o t h e s e various readers are a n d w h a t P h i l o ' s a i m s
m i g h t b e . W i t h this c a u t i o n in m i n d , I offer t h e f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s
a n d reflections a b o u t his works.
T h e A l l e g o r y p r e s u p p o s e s a n a u d i e n c e with a s o p h i s t i c a t e d k n o w l e d g e
o f b o t h Scripture a n d p h i l o s o p h y . T h i s series consists o f treatises that, for
t h e m o s t part, p r o v i d e a r u n n i n g c o m m e n t a r y o n t h e Bible. Usually t h e s e
treatises b e g i n w i t h a q u o t a t i o n f r o m S c r i p t u r e a n d t h e n set f o r t h a
s e q u e n c e o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o n individual s e c t i o n s o r w o r d s in t h e verse,
frequently incorporating secondary texts and interpretations. While
passages f r o m G e n e s i s serve as t h e bases o f t h e s e treatises, in t h e c o u r s e o f
e a c h work P h i l o q u o t e s f r o m o t h e r parts o f t h e Bible, p r e d o m i n a n d y f r o m

3 4
In his basic study, w h i c h is still cited, M. L. Massebieau classifies a n d discusses
the p u r p o s e s o f Philo's different writings in "Le classement des oeuvres d e Philon,"
Bibliotheque de VEcole des Hautes fctudes: Sciences religieuses 1 (1889): 1 - 9 1 . For references
to s u b s e q u e n t scholarship o n these questions, see J e n n y Morris, "The Jewish Philo­
s o p h e r Philo" in Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ
(175 B.C.-A.D. 135), rev. and ed. Geza Vermes et al. (Edinburgh: Τ. & T. Clark, 1 9 8 7 ) ,
3 : 2 : 8 0 9 - 8 9 . R e g a r d i n g the Allegory a n d the Exposition, see Erwin R. G o o d e n o u g h ,
"Philo's E x p o s i t i o n o f the Law a n d His D e Vita Mosis," Harvard Theological Review
(HTR) 2 6 ( 1 9 3 3 ) : 1 0 9 - 2 5 ; Nikiprowetzky, Le commentaire de VEcriture, 1 9 2 - 2 0 2 ; i d e m ,
"Breve n o t e sur le Commentaire Allegorique et VExposition de la Loi chez Philon d'Alexan­
drie," Melanges bibliques et orientaux en Vhonneur de M. Mathias Dehor, e d . Andre Caquot
et al. (Kevelaer: Butzon 8c Bercker, 1 9 8 5 ) , 3 2 1 - 2 9 . O n Philo's political treatises, Flacc.
a n d LegaL, see also Erwin R. G o o d e n o u g h , The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and
Theory ( N e w Haven: Yale University Press, 1938), 9 - 1 3 , 19.
3 5
In Mos. 1.1, Philo states that h e wishes to present the story o f Moses to "those w h o
are worthy n o t to be ignorant" of it (my translation).
 INTRODUCTION 19

t h e P e n t a t e u c h . O c c a s i o n a l l y , h e e x p l i c i t l y rejects t h e literal s e n s e o f
3 6
S c r i p t u r e o r e x p l i c i t l y favors allegorical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o v e r o t h e r s . A
d o m i n a n t c o n c e r n o f t h e s e allegorical e x e g e s e s is t h e j o u r n e y o f t h e s o u l ,
its struggle against t h e passions, a n d its q u e s t for G o d . M o s t likely, P h i l o ' s
r e a d e r s in this series are Jews like himself, w h o m a y l o o k to t h e A l l e g o r y
as a g u i d e t o r e a d i n g t h e Bible so that it will reveal to t h e m its secrets a b o u t
the soul's quest.
P h i l o ' s a u d i e n c e in Q G E is p r o b a b l y also q u i t e k n o w l e d g e a b l e a b o u t
S c r i p t u r e a n d p h i l o s o p h y , b u t this s e r i e s — w h i c h i n c l u d e s a b r o a d e r
spectrum of interpretations than the Allegory—may be i n t e n d e d for a
w i d e r J e w i s h a u d i e n c e . In contrast to t h e treatises o f t h e Allegory, Q G E is
written atomistically, presenting separate questions a n d answers o n
individual verses or parts o f verses. Frequently P h i l o j u x t a p o s e s literal a n d
s y m b o l i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s w i t h o u t c o m m e n t i n g a b o u t t h e i r relative m e r i t s .
I n d e e d t h e answers in this series o f t e n i n c l u d e w i t h o u t criticism a w i d e r
3 7
variety o f e x e g e s e s t h a n w e f i n d in t h e A l l e g o r y for e a c h v e r s e . Q G E
m a y t h e r e f o r e b e i n t e n d e d as a c o l l a t i o n o r d i g e s t o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
reflecting the opinions of a broader community of Alexandrian Jews than
j u s t t h o s e w h o share P h i l o ' s i n t e r e s t in allegory a n d t h e j o u r n e y o f t h e
s o u l . P e r h a p s , in fact, Q G E m a y f u n c t i o n as a s o u r c e b o o k o r e v e n a
3 8
t e x t b o o k for this b r o a d e r A l e x a n d r i a n Jewish c o m m u n i t y .
U n l i k e the Allegory and QGE, Philo's other exegetical series, the
E x p o s i t i o n , d o e s n o t necessarily a s s u m e any familiarity with Scripture at
all. I n s t e a d this c o l l e c t i o n o f t r e a t i s e s — w h i c h c o v e r Biblical t h e m e s a n d
3 9
figures, like C r e a t i o n , A b r a h a m , Moses, or t h e D e c a l o g u e — m i g h t serve
4 0
equally well for p e o p l e at different levels o f k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e B i b l e .

3 6
See, e.g., Leg. 1.43 o n Gen. 2:8 (cf. QG 1.6, in which Philo d o e s n o t reject the literal
m e a n i n g o f the verse); Leg. 2.19; Agr. 9 6 - 9 7 ; Plant. 32. See also Shroyer, "Alexandrian
Jewish Literalists," 2 7 1 - 7 9 .
3 7
David M. Hay, "References to Other Exegetes in Philo's Quaestiones " Both Literal
and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria's Questions and Answers o n Genesis a n d
Exodus, e d . David M. Hay, Brown Judaic Studies, ed. Ernest S. Frerichs et al., n o . 232
(Adanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 8 1 - 9 7 .
3 8
Cf. Gregory E. Sterling, "Philo's Quaestiones: P r o l e g o m e n a or Afterthought?" Both
Literal and Allegorical, ed. David M. Hay, 9 9 - 1 2 3 ; and Sze-kar Wan, "Philo's Quaestiones
et solutiones in Genesim et in Exodum: A Synoptic A p p r o a c h " ( T h . D . diss., Harvard
University, 1 9 9 2 ) .
3 9
O t h e r treatises deal with J o s e p h , Special Laws, Virtues, and Rewards a n d Punish­
m e n t s . Writings o n Isaac a n d J a c o b m e n t i o n e d in Ios. 1 are lost. Scholars have d e ­
bated how the treatises o n Moses are related to the Exposition as a whole. G o o d e n o u g h
("Philo's Exposition o f the Law") has suggested that these treatises are separate from
the E x p o s i t i o n . If h e were correct, however, the narrative in the Exposition w o u l d
have an u n a c c o u n t a b l e g a p between the life of J o s e p h and the D e c a l o g u e (see F. H.
Colson, "Introduction," Philo, LCL, 6:xiv-xvi).
4 0
Typically, P h i l o p r e s e n t s the material as a rewritten Bible, occasionally inter-
20 INTRODUCTION

In a d d i t i o n , s i n c e P h i l o resorts m u c h less frequently t o allegorical e x e g e ­

sis a n d s i n c e h i s d i s c u s s i o n s a r e , i n s o m e ways, less p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y
c o m p l e x t h a n t h o s e i n his o t h e r Biblical c o m m e n t a r i e s , h e m a y also b e
4 1
a d d r e s s i n g p e o p l e w i t h a v a r i e d r a n g e o f familiarity w i t h p h i l o s o p h y .
M o r e t o t h e p o i n t , P h i l o ' s o c c a s i o n a l e x h o r t a t i o n s a b o u t disloyal J e w s ,
a p o l o g e t i c r e m a r k s d e f e n d i n g t h e Jews a n d t h e i r practices, a n d w e l c o m ­
i n g attitude toward proselytes suggest that the E x p o s i t i o n is probably a i m e d
primarily at J e w s a n d n o n - J e w s — w h e t h e r h o s t i l e o r f r i e n d l y — w h o k n o w
little a b o u t J e w i s h b e l i e f s a n d practices. P h i l o m a y h a v e several a i m s in
m i n d h e r e : t o r e c l a i m t h e a l i e n a t e d Jews, e d u c a t e t h e less k n o w l e d g e a b l e
o n e s , a s s u a g e non-Jews w h o m a y b e h o s t i l e , a n d a p p e a l t o t h o s e w h o
might be interested.
A m o n g t h e n o n - e x e g e t i c a l w r i t i n g s , in t h e h i s t o r i c a l o r p o l i t i c a l
treatises Flacc. a n d Legat., P h i l o ' s a p p a r e n t p u r p o s e is to d e m o n s t r a t e that
4 2
G o d w a t c h e s o v e r t h e J e w s e s p e c i a l l y w h e n t h e y are in t r o u b l e . Both
treatises r e c o u n t t h e sufferings o f t h e Jews—particularly t h e A l e x a n d r i a n
J e w s — i n t h e latter part o f t h e f o u r t h d e c a d e C.E. In Flacc, w h i c h also tells
o f t h e p r e f e c t Flaccus's o w n s u b s e q u e n t travails, P h i l o has n o n e o t h e r t h a n
Flaccus h i m s e l f d e c l a r e that h e is b e i n g p u n i s h e d by t h e G o d o f t h e J e w s
{Flacc. 1 7 0 ) . S i n c e w e d o n o t have t h e final part o f Legat., w e c a n n o t k n o w
for sure h o w it e n d s . In t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y s e c t i o n (Legat. 1 - 7 ) , h o w e v e r ,
P h i l o stresses that G o d e x t e n d s p r o v i d e n c e toward all p e o p l e , e s p e c i a l l y
toward t h e Jews. O n e m i g h t e x p e c t therefore that t h e e n d i n g o f this treatise
4 3
d e s c r i b e s precisely h o w G o d delivers H i s p e o p l e .

s p e r s i n g his "literal" r e t e l l i n g s with symbolic interpretations. For symbolic inter­

pretations of narrative parts of the Bible, see, e.g., Abr. 68, 99, 119, 200; Ios. 28, 125; for
symbolic interpretations o f the non-narrative, legal parts of the Bible, see, e.g., Spec.
1.327, Spec. 2.29, et al.
4 1
An e x c e p t i o n to this observation is the treatise Opif., which G o o d e n o u g h regards as
Philo's "most difficult treatise" {Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 3 5 ) . This work is c o n ­
sidered part of the Exposition but is f o u n d in manuscripts at the b e g i n n i n g of the
Allegory. It has b e e n suggested that the treatise may serve as an introduction to both
series. S e e Morris, "The Jewish P h i l o s o p h e r Philo," 8 3 2 , 8 4 4 - 4 5 ; Nikiprowetzky, Le
commentaire de VEcriture, 1 9 7 - 2 0 0 . O n the lower frequency of allegorical exegesis in the
E x p o s i t i o n , s e e , e.g., T h o m a s H. T o b i n , "Tradition a n d Interpretation in P h i l o ' s
Portrait of the Patriarch Joseph," Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] 1986 Seminar Papers,
SBL S e m i n a r Papers Series, e d . Kent H a r o l d Richards, n o . 25 (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1986), 272.
4 2
Flacc, in particular, may reflect a genre of literature whose t h e m e is expressed in
the title of a later work, De Mortibus Persecutorum. This literature tries to d e m o n s t r a t e
that the o p p r e s s o r s o f the r i g h t e o u s or those w h o believe in G o d are eventually
p u n i s h e d t h e m s e l v e s . See Morris, "The Jewish P h i l o s o p h e r Philo," 8 6 1 . S e e also
Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum, ed. J. L. Creed (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1984), xxxv-xli.
4 3
Morris, "The Jewish Philosopher Philo," 8 6 0 - 6 2 ; E. Mary Smallwood, ed., Philonis
 INTRODUCTION 21

T h e s e t w o h i s t o r i c a l o r p o l i t i c a l w o r k s , Flacc. a n d Legat., may be

d i r e c t e d t o w a r d b o t h J e w s a n d non-Jews, r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r familiarity
w i t h t h e B i b l e o r t h e i r r e l i g i o u s s e n s i b i l i t i e s . By e m p h a s i z i n g d i v i n e
p r o v i d e n c e in b o t h t h e s e treatises, P h i l o may, o n t h e o n e h a n d , w i s h to
b o l s t e r t h e spirits o f his f e l l o w J e w s d u r i n g a t i m e o f suffering; o n t h e
o t h e r h a n d , h e may also wish t o s o u n d a w a r n i n g t o G e n t i l e s to stop t h e i r
m a l t r e a t m e n t o f his p e o p l e .
T w o r e m a i n i n g w o r k s p e r t a i n t o this study in o n l y a m i n o r way. T h e
Hypothetica, written in d e f e n s e o f t h e Jews, is m o s t likely i n t e n d e d for n o n -
Jews, a l t h o u g h Philo may also be addressing Jewish readers. As with
o t h e r a p o l o g e t i c literature, it is hard to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e a u d i e n c e is
44
t h e a u t h o r ' s o w n p e o p l e o r hostile o u t s i d e r s . Hypoth. briefly r e c o u n t s t h e
Biblical n a t i o n ' s e x o d u s f r o m Egypt a n d s e t t l e m e n t i n C a n a a n , reviews
s o m e o f t h e J e w i s h laws, a n d describes t h e E s s e n e sect.
Finally, i n Contempt., P h i l o sympathetically p r e s e n t s t h e T h e r a p e u t a e ,
d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r beliefs, practices, a n d allegorical m e t h o d o f i n t e r p r e t i n g
S c r i p t u r e . T h i s w o r k m a y b e written to i m p r e s s Jews as well as non-Jews
w i t h t h e ways o f this sect. P h i l o c o m p a r e s , for e x a m p l e , t h e m o d e s t b a n ­
q u e t s o f t h e T h e r a p e u t a e to Greek b a n q u e t s a n d to p h i l o s o p h i c a l symposia
d i s c u s s e d by X e n o p h o n a n d P l a t o , a d m i r i n g t h e frugal a n d c o n t i n e n t
ways o f t h e sect a n d d e p l o r i n g the sensual e x c e s s a n d frivolity o f t h e o t h e r
banquets.

3. Philo's Intellectual Background

My t h i r d a s s u m p t i o n a b o u t P h i l o a n d his e n t e r p r i s e p e r t a i n s t o h i s
i n t e l l e c t u a l a n t e c e d e n t s . I n d e e d , a l t h o u g h I focus a l m o s t exclusively u p o n
h i s o w n w r i t i n g s , I m o s t certainly d o n o t m e a n to i m p l y that P h i l o is
u n i n f l u e n c e d by o u t s i d e s o u r c e s . Many o f t h o s e works a l l u d e d t o earlier
— t h e o n e s w h i c h study w h e r e P h i l o stands i n r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r p h i l o ­
s o p h i c a l a n d r e l i g i o u s t r a d i t i o n s — s h o w quite c o n v i n c i n g l y that h e is part
o f a l o n g history o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h o u g h t a n d Jewish e x e g e s i s .
T h e A l e x a n d r i a n i n t e l l e c t u a l m i l i e u f r o m w h i c h P h i l o draws is q u i t e
c o m p l e x , c o n s i s t i n g o f d i f f e r e n t p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e n d s , p a g a n mystery
cults, a n d J e w i s h e x e g e t i c a l traditions. In k e e p i n g with m y u n d e r s t a n d ­
i n g o f P h i l o primarily as a Biblical interpreter instead o f a p h i l o s o p h e r , I
b e l i e v e t h a t h e draws f r o m a variety o f c o n t e m p o r a r y p h i l o s o p h i c a l
c u r r e n t s r a t h e r t h a n serving as t h e representative o f any s i n g l e s c h o o l o f
t h o u g h t , a l t h o u g h h e is p e r h a p s m o s t i n f l u e n c e d by P l a t o n i s m . T h u s
P h i l o is e x p o s e d to, selects f r o m , a n d criticizes i d e a s f r o m P l a t o n i c , Stoic,

Alexandria: Legatio ad Gaium, 2 n d ed. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970), 4 0 - 4 3 and 324, n. 373.
4 4
Victor Tcherikover, 'Jewish Apologetic Literature," Eos 4 8 / 3 (1956): 1 6 9 - 9 3 .
22 INTRODUCTION

4 5
Epicurean, Pythagorean, Peripatetic, and Sceptical t h o u g h t . T h e influ­
ence of philosophy, moreover, extends beyond intellectual content to
m e t h o d ; by t h e first c e n t u r y C.E., a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was a w e l l -
4 6
k n o w n a p p r o a c h u s e d by G r e e k c o m m e n t a t o r s o n H o m e r .
In Philo's time, of course, m a n y of the various positions n a m e d above
h a d already i n t e r m i n g l e d . Scholars have described a s c h o o l of Middle
P l a t o n i s m c h a r a c t e r i z e d , a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , by t h e b e l i e f i n a t r a n s c e n ­
d e n t G o d , aspiration to assimilate to G o d , and interest in numerology.
P h i l o ' s e x a c t r e l a t i o n t o t h e M i d d l e P l a t o n i s t s is still d e b a t e d , b u t h e is
4 7
certainly a sympathetic witness to many of their ideas a n d c o n c e r n s .
A n o t h e r q u e s t i o n t h a t h a s s p a r k e d s o m e d e b a t e i n P h i l o n i c s t u d i e s is
how he m i g h t have b e e n influenced by m y s t e r y c u l t s . S o m e scholars
h a v e s o e m p h a s i z e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e s e cults for u n d e r s t a n d i n g P h i l o
t h a t t h e y b e l i e v e h e h i m s e l f p r a c t i c e d a J e w i s h f o r m o f mystery. O f t h e
wide array of these cults, however, some precede Philo by several
c e n t u r i e s . W i t h t h e i r e m p h a s i s o n secrecy, i n i t i a t i o n , a n d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ,
t h e y h a v e o f f e r e d a r i c h m e t a p h o r i c a l v o c a b u l a r y t o p h i l o s o p h e r s at l e a s t

4 5
H. Chadwick, "Philo," The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philo­
sophy, e d . A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 3 7 - 5 7 ;
T h o m a s H. T o b i n , The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation, Catholic
Biblical Quarterly M o n o g r a p h Series, n o . 14 ( W a s h i n g t o n D . C . : T h e C a t h o l i c
Biblical Association o f America, 1983), 1 0 - 1 9 ; Wolfson, Philo 1:107-13.
4 6
Felix Buffiere, Les mythes d'Homere et la pensee grecque (Paris: Societe d'Edition "Les
Belles Lettres," 1956); David Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient
Alexandria (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1992), esp. 1-126; Robert Lamber-
ton a n d J o h n J. Keaney, eds., Homer's Ancient Readers: The Hermeneutics of Greek Epic's
Earliest Exegetes (Princeton: P r i n c e t o n University Press, 1 9 9 2 ) ; J e a n P e p i n , Mythe et
allegorie: les origines grecques et les contestations judeo-chretiennes, rev. e d . (Paris: Etudes
a u g u s t i n i e n n e s , 1976); David Winston, "Introduction," Philo of Alexandria: The Contem­
plative Life, The Giants, and Selections, .with a Preface by J o h n Dillon, T h e Classics o f
Western Spirituality ( N e w York: Paulist Press, 1981), 4 - 6 .
4 7
J o h n D i l l o n , The Middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 3 5 - 8 3 ; i d e m , "Self-Definition in Later Platonism," Jewish and Christian
Self-Definition, vol. 3: Self-Definition in the Greco-Roman World, e d . B e n F. Meyer a n d E. P.
Sanders (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 6 0 - 7 5 ; David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria
and the T i m a e u s of Plato, Philosophia Antiqua, e d . W. J. V e r d e n i u s a n d J. C. M. van
W i n d e n , vol. 4 4 (Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1 9 8 6 ) , 5 0 5 - 1 9 ; T o b i n , The Creation of Man, 1 1 - 1 9 ;
A n t o n i e Wlosok, Laktanz und die philosophische Gnosis: Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und
Terminologie der gnostischen Erlosungsvorstellung, A b h a n d l u n g d e r H e i d e l b e r g e r Akade-
m i e d e r Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, n o . 2 ( H e i d e l b e r g : Carl
Winter, Universitatsverlag, 1 9 6 0 ) , 5 0 - 6 0 . More recently, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n
Philo a n d Middle Platonism was debated in a special section o f SPhA 5 (1993): 9 5 - 1 5 5 .
T h e c o n t e n t s are as follows: G. E. Sterling, "Platonizing Moses: Philo a n d Middle
P l a t o n i s m " ( 9 6 - 1 1 1 ) ; D . T. Runia, "Was P h i l o a M i d d l e Platonist? a Difficult
Question Revisited" ( 1 1 2 - 4 0 ) ; D. Winston, "Response to Runia a n d Sterling" ( 1 4 1 - 4 6 ) ;
Τ. H. T o b i n , "Was Philo a Middle Platonist? S o m e suggestions" ( 1 4 7 - 5 0 ) ; J. D i l l o n ,
"A Response to Runia a n d Sterling" ( 1 5 1 - 5 5 ) .
 INTRODUCTION 23

as far b a c k as P l a t o . S i n c e w e h a v e n o c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e o f a J e w i s h
mystery, a n d s i n c e t h e u s e o f mystery l a n g u a g e w i t h o u t t h e p r a c t i c e of
mystery rites was by P h i l o ' s day a t i m e - h o n o r e d t r a d i t i o n i n p h i l o s o p h y , I
a s s u m e t h a t h e u s e s mystery v o c a b u l a r y o n l y as a m e t a p h o r t o d e s c r i b e
4 8
t h e s o u l ' s q u e s t for G o d a n d , q u i t e possibly, h i s o w n r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e .
B e s i d e s this rich b a c k g r o u n d o f Greek p h i l o s o p h y a n d p a g a n mystery
l a n g u a g e , Philo's work also relies u p o n Jewish e x e g e s i s that developed
4 9
well b e f o r e h i m . H e r e t h e difficulty p r e s e n t e d by t h e p a u c i t y o f s o u r c e s
can hardly b e overstated. N o n e t h e l e s s , b e g i n n i n g with the Septuagint, o n e
c a n trace i n A l e x a n d r i a n J e w i s h w o r k s t h e m e s , t e n d e n c i e s , a n d t r a d i t i o n s
— d e s c r i b e d b e l o w — w h i c h are e x h i b i t e d i n full d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e writ­
5 0
ings of P h i l o .

4 8
In By Light, Lighi, G o o d e n o u g h gives fullest expression to t h e view that Philo's
Judaism is a mystery religion. For a review o f his position a n d those o f his p r e d e c e s ­
sors, s e e G. Lease, "Jewish Mystery Cults Since G o o d e n o u g h , " ANRW, 2.20.2: Religion
(Hellenistisches Judentum in romischer Zeit: Allgemeines), e d . Wolfgang Haase (Berlin: d e
Gruyter, 1 9 8 7 ) , 8 5 8 - 8 0 . See also Chadwick, "Philo," 1 5 2 - 5 4 . For a useful perspective o n
mystery cults in g e n e r a l , s e e Walter Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1 9 8 7 ) . O n Philo's use o f mystery language as m e t a p h o r , s e e
ibid., 4 5 , 67, 80, a n d 9 2 .
4 9
This p o i n t o f view has b e e n e x p a n d e d u p o n in various ways by Richard Goulet, La
philosophie de Mo'ise: essai de reconstitution d'un commentaire philosophique prephilonien du
Pentateuque, Histoire d e s doctrines d e l'antiquite classiqiie, n o . 11 (Paris: Librairie
P h i l o s o p h i q u e J. Vrin, 1987) ( s e e also the review of this b o o k by David T. Runia in
Journal of Theological Studies \JTS] 4 0 [ 1 9 8 9 ] : 5 8 8 - 6 0 2 , reprinted as the seventh entry in
i d e m , Exegesis and Philosophy)-, Robert G. Hamerton-Kelly, "Sources a n d Traditions in
P h i l o J u d a e u s : P r o l e g o m e n a to an Analysis o f H i s Writings," SP 1 ( 1 9 7 2 ) : 3 - 2 6 ;
T o b i n , The Creation of Man; a n d Burton L. Mack in t h e following works: "Exegetical
T r a d i t i o n s in A l e x a n d r i a n Judaism: A Program for t h e Analysis o f t h e P h i l o n i c
Corpus," SP 3 ( 1 9 7 4 - 7 5 ) : 7 1 - 1 1 2 ; Logos und Sophia: Untersuchungen zur Weisheittheologie im
hellenistischen Judentum, Studien zur U m w e l t d e s N e u e n Testaments, vol. 10, e d . Karl
Georg Kuhn (Gottingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1973); "Philo Judaeus a n d Exeget­
ical Traditions," 2 2 7 - 7 1 ; a n d "Weisheit u n d Allegoric b e i Philo v o n A l e x a n d r i e n :
U n t e r s u c h u n g e n zur Traktat De Congressu eruditionis," SP 5 (1978): 5 7 - 1 0 5 . For a recent
e x p l o r a t i o n of t h e relationship b e t w e e n Philo's works a n d Palestinian traditions, s e e
N a o m i G. C o h e n , Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse, Beitrage zur Erforschung d e s
A l t e n T e s t a m e n t s u n d d e s antiken J u d e n t u m s , e d . Matthias Augustin a n d Michael
Mach, vol. 2 4 (Frankfurt a m Main: Peter Lang, 1995).
5 0
O n Philo's predecessors in general, see Peter Dalbert, Die Theologie der hellenistisch-
judischen Missions-Literatur unter Ausschluss von Philo und Josephus, T h e o l o g i s c h e For-
s c h u n g , n o . 4 ( H a m b u r g : H e r b e r t Reich Evangelischen Verlag, 1954); J a m e s D r u m -
m o n d , Philo Judaeus; or, The Jewish Alexandrian Philosophy in Its Development and Completion
( L o n d o n : Williams a n d Norgate, 1 8 8 8 ) , 1:131-255; P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria
( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1 9 7 2 , repr. 1 9 8 4 ) , 2 : 6 8 7 - 7 1 6 . O n Philo a n d individual
writers, s e e also P e d e r B o r g e n , "Aristobulus a n d Philo," Philo, John and Paul: New
Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity (Adanta: Scholars Press, 1 9 8 7 ) , 7 - 1 6 ; Carl
A. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. 3: Aristobulus, SBL Texts a n d
Translations 39; Pseudepigrapha Series 13, e d . Martha Himmelfarb (Adanta: Scholars
24 INTRODUCTION

T h e P e n t a t e u c h o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t , for e x a m p l e , d a t i n g f r o m t h e third
c e n t u r y B.C.E., already s h o w s a sensitivity i n its t r a n s l a t i o n s t o d e s c r i p ­
tions o f G o d in t h e H e b r e w Bible that are a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c a n d a n t h r o p o -
p a t h i c . T h e f r a g m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e f r o m A r i s t o b u l u s , w h o p r o b a b l y lived
in t h e m i d - s e c o n d c e n t u r y B.C.E., i n c l u d e s a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
similarly c o n c e r n e d w i t h a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m s . H i s writings also c o n t a i n
discussion of the Sabbath, highlighting the significance of the n u m b e r
s e v e n , a t h e m e u p o n w h i c h P h i l o e x p o u n d s as w e l l . I n g e n e r a l , t h e
f r a g m e n t s f r o m A r i s t o b u l u s reflect a n effort to r e c o n c i l e J e w i s h tradition
with Greek philosophy.
In t h e Letter o f Aristeas, w h o s e d a t i n g is m o r e u n c e r t a i n ( 2 5 0 B.C.E. to
t h e first c e n t u r y C . E . ) , w e find r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s o f J e w i s h laws t h r o u g h
s y m b o l i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ( s e c t i o n s 1 4 4 - 6 7 ) , similar t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s in
P h i l o . T h e L e t t e r also rejects idolatry a n d p o l y t h e i s m ( 1 3 4 - 3 8 ) a n d c o n ­
veys t h e a w a r e n e s s o f p r e s e n t i n g J u d a i s m t o a G e n t i l e a u d i e n c e by
e m p h a s i z i n g , a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , G o d ' s c o n c e r n for all h u m a n i t y , n o t
j u s t t h e J e w s ( 1 8 7 - 2 9 2 , p a s s i m ) . Finally, the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n — w h i c h ,
5 1
t h o u g h its d a t i n g is d e b a t e d , m a y b e c o n t e m p o r a r y t o P h i l o — a l s o
d e n o u n c e s idolatry a n d p o l y t h e i s m ( c h a p t e r 13) a n d m e n t i o n s r e f l e c t i o n
u p o n c r e a t i o n as a m e a n s to discover G o d . A passing r e f e r e n c e t o t h e h i g h
priest's r o b e ( 1 8 : 2 4 ) s u g g e s t s familiarity with a m o r e e l a b o r a t e a l l e g o r y
f o u n d in b o t h J o s e p h u s a n d Philo.
In a d d i t i o n t o t h e s c a t t e r e d e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e s e A l e x a n d r i a n J e w i s h
s o u r c e s , P h i l o h i m s e l f frequently refers to o t h e r e x e g e t e s a n d t h e i r inter­
5 2
p r e t a t i o n s . Even w h e n h e d o e s n o t refer explicitly t o o t h e r s , t h e level o f
s o p h i s t i c a t i o n o f s o m e o f his e x e g e s e s a n d his i m p l i c i t a s s u m p t i o n that
certain a s s o c i a t i o n s are u n d e r s t o o d w i t h o u t n e e d i n g f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n
c a n o n l y s u g g e s t that t h e s e various interpretations are b a s e d u p o n earlier,
w e l l - k n o w n t r a d i t i o n s . P r o m i n e n t a m o n g t h e s e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are t h e
n u m e r o u s e t y m o l o g i e s that a p p e a r t h r o u g h o u t his work. M o s t relevant for
o u r p u r p o s e s is t h e e t y m o l o g y for "Israel" as "one that s e e s G o d , " or ο ρ ώ ν
θεόν.
Given t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f Philo's b a c k g r o u n d , o n e c a n hardly e s c a p e t h e

Press, 1 9 9 5 ) ; Nikolaus Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos: Untersuchungen zu seinen

Fragmenten und zu pseudepigraphischen Resten der judische-hellenistischen Literatur, T e x t e u n d
U n t e r s u c h u n g e n zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. 86 (Berlin: Akade-
mie Verlag, 1 9 6 4 ) , esp. 5 8 - 8 6 and 1 4 1 - 4 9 ; David Winston, ed., The Wisdom of Solomon,
vol. 43 o f The Anchor Bible, e d . William Foxwell Albright a n d David N o e l F r e e d m a n
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979), 5 9 - 6 3 .
5 1
See Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 2 0 - 2 5 .
5 2
David M. Hay, "Philo's References to O t h e r Allegorists," SP 6 ( 1 9 7 9 - 8 0 ) : 4 1 - 7 5 ;
i d e m , "References to O t h e r Exegetes"; Shroyer, "Alexandrian Jewish Literalists";
Wolfson, Philo, 1:55-73.
 INTRODUCTION 25

c o n c l u s i o n t h a t m u c h o f h i s w o r k is d e e p l y i n f l u e n c e d by t h o s e w h o
c a m e b e f o r e h i m . I n d e e d s o m u c h d o e s P h i l o fit i n t o a history o f p h i l o ­
s o p h i c a l a n d J e w i s h traditions, that his p o s i t i o n s o n t h e very issues o f this
study are p r o b a b l y affected by his p r e d e c e s s o r s . Certainly P h i l o ' s n o t i o n s
a b o u t s e e i n g G o d are i n f l u e n c e d by G r e e k — a n d , especially, P l a t o n i c —
p h i l o s o p h y . M o r e o v e r , t h e e t y m o l o g y l i n k i n g "Israel" w i t h s e e i n g G o d
d e r i v e s i n all l i k e l i h o o d f r o m earlier J e w i s h e x e g e s i s . Similarly, s o m e o f
Philo's interpretations a b o u t t h e relationship b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel as d e ­
s c r i b e d in t h e Bible m a y also b e i n h e r i t e d f r o m his J e w i s h p r e d e c e s s o r s .
While r e c o g n i z i n g the inevitability of these various i n f l u e n c e s , I
n o n e t h e l e s s a s s u m e that t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n still d o e s r e p r e s e n t
P h i l o ' s o w n view. T h e q u e s t i o n s p o s e d i n this study, after all, are q u i t e
c o m p l e x . E v e n if w e c o u l d identify all t h e earlier traditions f o u n d in h i s
work, t o d e t e r m i n e P h i l o ' s p o s i t i o n o n t h e s e matters certainly r e q u i r e s u s
t o c o n s i d e r m o r e t h a n simply i n d i v i d u a l strands o f t h o u g h t o r specific
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . It a l s o r e q u i r e s that w e c o n s i d e r h o w all t h e v a r i o u s
e l e m e n t s are o r are n o t b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r in his work. M o r e o v e r , if P h i l o
d o e s in fact h a v e a rich b a n q u e t o f i d e a s a n d traditions f r o m w h i c h t o
c h o o s e , h e m o s t assuredly selects a n d h i g h l i g h t s t h e o n e s h e prefers.

4. Ambiguity and Other Features in Philo's Work

R e f l e c t i o n s like t h e s e b r i n g m e to m y f o u r t h a s s u m p t i o n , n a m e l y , t h a t
w h a t P h i l o d o e s a n d d o e s n o t discuss is significant for this i n v e s t i g a t i o n
b u t , u l t i m a t e l y , o n e c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e t h e n a t u r e o f its s i g n i f i c a n c e t o
P h i l o h i m s e l f . T o b e s u r e , it is always s o m e w h a t risky t o s t u d y i s s u e s
w h i c h a n a u t h o r h i m s e l f — i n this case P h i l o — d o e s n o t explicitly address.
For e x a m p l e , P h i l o n o w h e r e tells us that Jews a n d o n l y Jews can s e e G o d ,
that non-Jews c a n s e e G o d , o r that "Israel" is a c o d e w o r d for t h o s e w h o
c a n s e e G o d a n d m a y i n c l u d e all Jews, s o m e Jews, o r e v e n non-Jews. N o r
d o e s h e take a n e x p l i c i t stand o n t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s for his J e w i s h c o n t e m ­
p o r a r i e s o f t h e Biblical t e a c h i n g that G o d c h o s e Israel. Last, a n d p e r h a p s
m o s t important, Philo never addresses why h e believes an individual
s h o u l d b e a J e w rather than, say, a Gentile p h i l o s o p h e r .
P e r h a p s P h i l o ' s c o n t e m p o r a r y readers d i d k n o w exactly what h e m e a n t
by "Israel," d i d u n d e r s t a n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n b e i n g a J e w a n d
s e e i n g G o d , w e r e familiar with his p o s i t i o n o n t h e c o v e n a n t d e s c r i b e d in
t h e B i b l e , a n d d i d u n d e r s t a n d why h e c o n s i d e r e d it i m p o r t a n t to b e a Jew.
If s o , t h e y u n d o u b t e d l y k n e w t h e s e t h i n g s n o t f r o m P h i l o ' s writings b u t
f r o m t h e i r s h a r e d e n v i r o n m e n t in w h i c h t h e s e issues w e r e p e r h a p s t a k e n
for g r a n t e d . W e w h o c o m e to P h i l o centuries later, however, c a n n o t b u t b e
struck by t h e r i c h a m b i g u i t y o f h i s d i s c u s s i o n s a n d h i s s i l e n c e a b o u t
26 INTRODUCTION

certain issues. I n d e e d , so striking are t h e s e qualities that it is h a r d n o t to

r e g a r d t h e m as significant. T h e y are significant, t h o u g h , p r e c i s e l y b e ­
cause o u r q u e s t i o n s pertain to t h e very issues a b o u t w h i c h h e is a m b i g u o u s
o r s i l e n t — i . e . , t h e e x a c t m e a n i n g o f "Israel," t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n
b e i n g a J e w a n d s e e i n g G o d , t h e r e l e v a n c e for his J e w i s h c o n t e m p o r a r i e s
o f t h e c o v e n a n t d e s c r i b e d in t h e Bible, a n d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f b e i n g a Jew.
S i n c e P h i l o h i m s e l f n e v e r a d d r e s s e s t h e s e i s s u e s directly, w e c a n n o t
d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r o r n o t o r to w h a t e x t e n t they are significant t o h i m .
With t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s in m i n d , I n o t e b e l o w f o u r features o f P h i l o ' s
d i s c u s s i o n , evaluate t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e for this study, a n d s p e c u l a t e a b o u t
why t h e s e features o c c u r . I c a n n o t , however, ultimately e x p l a i n t h e m .
First, P h i l o u s e s w o r d s w i t h several m e a n i n g s w h i c h c a n n o t always b e
clearly s e p a r a t e d s o that h i s p r e c i s e u n d e r s t a n d i n g e l u d e s us. S e c o n d ,
w i t h o n e e x c e p t i o n — t h e n o n - e x e g e t i c a l treatise Legat.—Philo uses the
t e r m s "Israel" a n d "Jew" i n s e p a r a t e writings. T h i r d , in h i s E x p o s i t i o n
treatises o n M o s e s , h e n e v e r uses t h e w o r d "Israel" to d e s c r i b e t h e Biblical
n a t i o n . F o u r t h a n d finally, P h i l o offers symbolic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f Bibli­
cal p a s s a g e s w i t h o u t explicitly affirming t h e literal s e n s e o f t h e s e p a s s a g e s
s o t h a t w e c a n n o t k n o w w h e t h e r h e a c c e p t s o r r e j e c t s t h e i r literal
m e a n i n g . T h e s e f o u r observations m e r i t s o m e e l a b o r a t i o n .
As t o t h e first, a certain a m b i g u i t y arises b e c a u s e P h i l o u s e s w o r d s —
like "Israel" a n d γ έ ν ο ς — t h a t carry different s e n s e s w h i c h m a y o p e r a t e at
o n c e . "Israel," h e e x p l a i n s , m e a n s "one that s e e s G o d . " "Israel," h o w e v e r ,
is also t h e n a m e o f t h e Biblical n a t i o n . W h e n P h i l o u s e s this t e r m , t h e n ,
d o e s h e m e a n t h e o n e that s e e s G o d , t h e Biblical n a t i o n — e x p a n d e d
p e r h a p s to i n c l u d e its Jewish d e s c e n d a n t s — o r both?
A n o t h e r p o l y s e m o u s w o r d that P h i l o uses is γ έ ν ο ς . T h i s w o r d c a n signi­
fy a race d e t e r m i n e d by birth; a class d e f i n e d by a c q u i r e d characteristics;
an abstract n a t u r e or kind; a g e n u s — i . e . , a collective class—as o p p o s e d to
individual species; o r an i d e a in t h e intelligible as o p p o s e d to t h e s e n s i b l e
world. T h e m a n y m e a n i n g s o f γ έ ν ο ς are p e r t i n e n t b e c a u s e P h i l o u s e s this
w o r d t o d e s c r i b e Israel as a collectivity b u t rarely u s e s it t o apply to t h e
n a t i o n o f J e w s o r H e b r e w s . Conversely, h e n e v e r directly calls Israel a
n a t i o n ( έ θ ν ο ς ) o r a p e o p l e ( λ α ό ς ) , w o r d s w h i c h d o n o t carry a m b i g u i t y as
γ έ ν ο ς d o e s . W h e n P h i l o speaks o f t h e γ έ ν ο ς Israel, t h e n , h e may m e a n t h e
lineal race that has t h e ability to see, the class o f p e o p l e w h o c a n see, s o m e
sort o f n e b u l o u s ideal, or p e r h a p s a little bit o f all these things.
A s e c o n d characteristic o f Philo's writings is that, with t h e e x c e p t i o n o f
t h e treatise LegaL, t h e terms "Israel" a n d 'Jew" n e v e r a p p e a r in t h e s a m e
work. Legat. is t h e o n l y treatise in w h i c h o n e c a n find b o t h words. In t h e
A l l e g o r y a n d Q G E , w h e r e P h i l o d o e s m e n t i o n "Israel," h e n e v e r speaks o f
t h e Jews by n a m e . By contrast, in t h e E x p o s i t i o n , P h i l o m e n t i o n s t h e J e w s
 INTRODUCTION 27

by n a m e , b u t h e rarely m e n t i o n s "Israel" a n d n e v e r m e n t i o n s t h e two i n

t h e s a m e treatise.
P h i l o ' s n o n - m e n t i o n o f "Israel" is particularly striking i n t h e two trea­
tises o n M o s e s — p a r t o f t h e E x p o s i t i o n s e r i e s — w h i c h are p r e d o m i n a n t l y
c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e Biblical n a t i o n Israel. In t h e s e treatises, P h i l o n e v e r
calls t h e p e o p l e "Israel," as t h e y are c a l l e d in t h e Bible, b u t i n s t e a d u s e s
t h e p r o p e r n a m e "Hebrews" o r else calls t h e m simply "the n a t i o n " o r "the
p e o p l e . " E v e n w h e n paraphrasing Scriptural q u o t a t i o n s in w h i c h t h e w o r d
"Israel" appears, h e c h a n g e s this t e r m to "Hebrews."
Finally, P h i l o frequently universalizes Biblical p a s s a g e s — w h e t h e r
t h r o u g h a l l e g o r i e s o f t h e s o u l o r t h r o u g h p r e s e n t a t i o n o f specific figures
like A b r a h a m o r M o s e s o r e v e n t h e n a t i o n Israel as g e n e r i c wise o r g o o d
p e o p l e . T h i s characteristic will b e especially r e l e v a n t w h e n w e e x a m i n e
P h i l o ' s e x e g e s i s o f verses a b o u t t h e relationship b e t w e e n G o d a n d Biblical
Israel. S i n c e h e c a n universalize t h e s e verses w i t h o u t t a k i n g a s t a n d o n
t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l d i m e n s i o n , it is difficult to k n o w w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e s e
universalizing i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s r e p l a c e or simply a u g m e n t t h e literal s e n s e .
T o evaluate t h e significance o f t h e above observations, o n e m a y c o n s u l t
scholarly d i s c u s s i o n s a b o u t t h e types a n d u s e s o f a m b i g u i t y i n d i f f e r e n t
k i n d s o f literature. Writers have u n d e r s t o o d ambiguity to b e p u r p o s e f u l o r
u n c o n s c i o u s , a quality w h i c h c a n p r o v i d e e n h a n c e d literary e n j o y m e n t ,
c o n v e y a n u n e x p r e s s e d attitude a b o u t c o m p o s i t i o n o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , o r
e v e n carry p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . In s o m e c a s e s , a m b i g u i t y is s e e n as
53
i n t e n t i o n a l d e c e p t i o n or e v a s i o n .
R e g a r d i n g P h i l o specifically, David W i n s t o n , in h i s s t u d i e s o f p h i l o ­
s o p h i c a l t h e m e s in P h i l o ' s work, c l a i m s that h e u s e s "a s u b t l e a n d d e ­
liberate ambiguity" in o r d e r to s i d e s t e p clashes b e t w e e n J e w i s h a n d G r e e k
ways o f t h i n k i n g . W i n s t o n s u g g e s t s that P h i l o u s e s this t e c h n i q u e to b e
i n t e n t i o n a l l y e s o t e r i c . H e writes, " A l t h o u g h [ P h i l o ] allows t h e J e w i s h
s i d e o f his t h o u g h t t h e d o m i n a n t p l a c e in his p r e s e n t a t i o n , h e invariably

5 3
T w o p r o m i n e n t book-length treatments of this subject are William E m p s o n , Seven
Types of Ambiguity, 3rd ed. (New York: N e w D i r e c t i o n s , n.d.) a n d William B. Stan­
ford, Ambiguity in Greek Literature: Studies in Theory and Practice (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1939; repr., N e w York: J o h n s o n Reprint Corporation, 1 9 7 2 ) . O t h e r useful discussions
can be f o u n d in Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash ( B l o o m i n g -
ton, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1 9 9 0 ) , esp. 5 7 - 7 9 ; J o h n A. Miles, Jr., "Radical
Editing, Redaktionsgeschichte a n d the Aesthetic of Willed Confusion," Traditions in
Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. Baruch Halpern and J o n D. Levenson
( W i n o n a Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1 9 8 1 ) , 9 - 3 1 ; Paul R. Rabbe, "Deliberate Ambi­
guity in the Psalter," JBL 110 ( 1 9 9 1 ) : 2 1 3 - 2 7 ; David Stern, "Midrash a n d Indetermi-
nancy," Critical Inquiry 15 (1988): 1 3 2 - 6 1 ; Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narra­
tive: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading ( B l o o m i n g t o n , Indiana: Indiana Uni­
versity Press, 1 9 8 5 ) , esp. 1 8 6 - 2 6 3 ; L e o Strauss, Persecution and the Art of Writing ( N e w
York: Free Press, 1952; repr., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), esp. 2 2 - 3 7 .
28 INTRODUCTION

t o n e s it d o w n by i n t r o d u c i n g s o m e p h i l o s o p h i c a l twist a n d by a l l o w i n g
54
t h e p e r c e p t i v e r e a d e r a g l i m p s e o f his true p o s i t i o n . "
T u r n i n g t o t h e f o u r f e a t u r e s d e s c r i b e d j u s t a b o v e , o n e c a n n o t easily
assess P h i l o ' s i n t e n t i o n s . D o his a m b i g u i t y a n d s i l e n c e o n s u c h issues as
t h e p r e c i s e m e a n i n g o f "Israel," t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n b e i n g a J e w a n d
b e i n g able to s e e G o d , t h e significance o f t h e c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d
Biblical Israel, a n d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f b e i n g a J e w b e s p e a k a wish t o b e
esoteric a b o u t his p o s i t i o n o n t h e s e issues?
L e t u s take as a n e x a m p l e Philo's u s e o f t h e terms "Israel," "Jews," a n d
"Hebrews." Is P h i l o d e l i b e r a t e l y h i d i n g or a v o i d i n g s o m e t h i n g by u s i n g
"Israel" a n d "Jew" i n s e p a r a t e works o r by s p e a k i n g o n l y o f "Hebrews"
rather t h a n o f "Israel" in his treatises o n Moses?
P h i l o ' s separate u s e s o f t h e s e t e r m s are i n d e e d p u z z l i n g t o t h e m o d e r n
r e a d e r , w h o m a y e x p e c t "Israel" a n d "Jews"—or, i n t h e c a s e o f t h e
Biblical n a t i o n in M o s e s ' s t i m e , "Israel" a n d "Hebrews"—to b e s y n o n y ­
m o u s . For P h i l o , h o w e v e r , "Israel" m a y r e p r e s e n t s o m e t h i n g e l s e — n a m e ­
ly, a l o o s e l y d e f i n e d entity c o m p r i s i n g t h o s e w h o c a n s e e G o d , w h i c h
t h e o r e t i c a l l y c o u l d i n c l u d e s o m e J e w s o r all J e w s a n d e v e n s o m e n o n -
Jews. T h e very fluidity o f t h e m e a n i n g o f "Israel" is s i m p l y h i g h l i g h t e d
by his d e p i c t i o n o f it as a γ έ ν ο ς , a n o t h e r w o r d with m a n y m e a n i n g s . T h e
Jews, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , e m b o d y t h e clearly identifiable n a t i o n that wor­
s h i p s G o d . T h u s P h i l o m a y r e g a r d "Israel" a n d "Jews"—or " H e b r e w s " —
as o v e r l a p p i n g in m e a n i n g b u t n o t necessarily s y n o n y m o u s .
If "Israel" a n d "Jews" o r "Hebrews" d o i n d e e d h a v e d i f f e r e n t t h o u g h
p e r h a p s o v e r l a p p i n g m e a n i n g s , t h e n it is o n l y l o g i c a l that P h i l o w o u l d
u s e t h e s e different terms in different places for different p u r p o s e s . M o r e ­
over, t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h "Israel" d o e s or d o e s n o t overlap with "Jews" o r
"Hebrews" m a y n o t have b e e n significant to P h i l o a n d his c o n t e m p o r a r y
r e a d e r s t h e way it is t o us, h i s m o d e r n r e a d e r s . O u r p u z z l e m e n t o v e r
P h i l o ' s a m b i g u i t y a n d s i l e n c e o n this a n d t h e o t h e r issues m e n t i o n e d
above m a y b e m o r e a reflection o f o u r o w n e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a n t h e o u t c o m e
o f his d e l i b e r a t e d e s i g n .
As t o w h y P h i l o k e e p s "Israel" so separate f r o m "Jews" a n d "Hebrews,"
o n e m a y s p e c u l a t e that i n s t e a d o f trying to b e esoteric, h e m a y simply b e
a d a p t i n g h i s d i s c u s s i o n t o suit d i f f e r e n t a u d i e n c e s . A m o n g h i s t h r e e
e x e g e t i c a l series, for e x a m p l e , P h i l o speaks o f "Israel" chiefly in t h e Alle­
gory, o c c a s i o n a l l y in Q G E , a n d o n l y rarely in t h e E x p o s i t i o n . In contrast,
h e s p e a k s o f t h e J e w s by n a m e o n l y in t h e E x p o s i t i o n . By r e c a l l i n g that
t h e s e t h r e e series m a y b e i n t e n d e d for r e a d e r s w i t h d i f f e r e n t spiritual

5 4
David W i n s t o n , "Judaism a n d H e l l e n i s m : H i d d e n T e n s i o n s in Philo's T h o u g h t , "
SPhA 2 (1990): 18, cf. 3; see also idem, Logos and Mystical Theology, 14.
 INTRODUCTION 29

s e n s i b i l i t i e s a n d l e v e l s o f familiarity w i t h t h e B i b l e , w e m a y p e r h a p s
a c c o u n t for t h e variation in Philo's use o f terms.
A c c o r d i n g l y , if "Israel" r e p r e s e n t s a soul, p e r s o n , o r g r o u p that c a n s e e
G o d , P h i l o may c o n f i n e his discussion o f "Israel" to t h e A l l e g o r y a n d , t o a
lesser e x t e n t , t o Q G E in o r d e r to address p e o p l e like h i m s e l f w h o u n d e r ­
s t a n d this g o a l o f s e e i n g G o d a n d strive toward it. M o r e o v e r , s i n c e t h e
t e r m "Israel" w o u l d b e m o r e m e a n i n g f u l for Jews familiar with t h e B i b l e
a n d J e w i s h tradition than it w o u l d b e for p e o p l e less k n o w l e d g e a b l e a b o u t
t h e s e s o u r c e s , t h o s e m o r e familiar with t h e t e r m w o u l d associate it with
their o w n h e r i t a g e a n d take p r i d e in t h e identification o f "Israel" with t h e
goal of seeing God.
A t t h e s a m e t i m e , P h i l o may avoid s p e a k i n g o f "Israel" i n t h e E x p o s i ­
tion, w h e r e his readers may b e Jews and non-Jews w h o have yet to
a c q u i r e t h e spiritual sensibility to a p p r e c i a t e what "Israel" stands for. L e t
us n o t f o r g e t , h o w e v e r , that a l t h o u g h P h i l o m e n t i o n s "Israel" o n l y twice
in t h e E x p o s i t i o n , h e d o e s n o t c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s p e a k i n g a b o u t it o r a b o u t
s e e i n g G o d . T h i s s u g g e s t s that P h i l o is n o t d e l i b e r a t e l y trying to h i d e
s o m e t h i n g f r o m h i s r e a d e r s b u t i n s t e a d m a y b e adjusting his d i s c u s s i o n
to fit their n e e d s a n d interests.
A s f o r w h y P h i l o d i s c u s s e s J e w s o n l y in t h e E x p o s i t i o n , w e m i g h t
r e a s o n a b l y e x p e c t h i m t o discuss t h e Jews in a series a i m e d primarily at
p e o p l e n o t well a c q u a i n t e d with Jewish history, beliefs, a n d practices. H e
w o u l d h a v e n o n e e d , h o w e v e r , to speak a b o u t t h e J e w s a n d their ways to
his m o r e k n o w l e d g e a b l e readers in t h e Allegory a n d Q G E .
In a n a l y z i n g t h e v a r i o u s literary u s e s o f a m b i g u i t y , W i l l i a m E m p s o n
c o m m e n t s a b o u t t h e a m b i g u i t y o f "ambiguity" itself. H e writes,

'Ambiguity' itself can m e a n an i n d e c i s i o n as to what you m e a n , an i n t e n t i o n to

m e a n several things, a probability that o n e or other or both of two things has b e e n
m e a n t , a n d the fact that a statement has several meanings. It is useful to be able to
separate these if y o u wish, but it is n o t obvious that in separating t h e m at any
55
particular p o i n t you will n o t be raising m o r e problems than you s o l v e .

With this caveat in m i n d , w e b e g i n this investigation. T h e c h a p t e r s that

f o l l o w will p r e s e n t a n d e l a b o r a t e u p o n t h e v a r i o u s f e a t u r e s o f P h i l o ' s
writings d e s c r i b e d above, paying h e e d to t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e s e features
for u n d e r s t a n d i n g h o w h e n e g o t i a t e s b e t w e e n t h e p o l e s o f particularism
a n d universalism. After reflecting u p o n t h e significance o f w h a t h e d o e s
a n d d o e s n o t say, we shall b e in a better p o s i t i o n to address t h e q u e s t i o n o f
h o w a n d why it is i m p o r t a n t to P h i l o to b e a Jew. L e t us n o w c o n s i d e r t h e
evidence.

5 5
E m p s o n , Seven Types of Ambiguity, 5.
 CHAPTER ONE

"ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS:

A SURVEY OF APPROACHES AND SOME
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS

S c h o l a r s h a v e o f t e n n o t i c e d that it is difficult to p i n p o i n t e x a c t l y w h a t
P h i l o m e a n s by "Israel." A l t h o u g h t h e Biblical d e s i g n a t i o n "Israel" m a y
r e f e r — d e p e n d i n g u p o n the c o n t e x t — t o t h e patriarch J a c o b , t h e n a t i o n o f
his d e s c e n d a n t s , o r t h e N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m , in P h i l o ' s works, t h e p r e c i s e
identity o f "Israel" is n o t easily d e f i n e d .
T w o features o f P h i l o ' s discussion c o n t r i b u t e to this ambiguity. First, as
h e o f t e n e x p l a i n s , e t y m o l o g i c a l l y "Israel" m e a n s ορών θ ε ό ν , o n e that s e e s
1
G o d . By u n d e r s t a n d i n g "Israel" as an entity that s e e s G o d , P h i l o assigns
t h e t e r m a m e a n i n g that h a s n o t h i n g to d o with birth a n d o r i g i n , b u t
r a t h e r with spiritual capacity. I n d e e d , theoretically, t h o s e w h o s e e G o d
m a y i n c l u d e non-Jews, w h i l e s o m e J e w s may n o t b e a b l e t o s e e G o d .
M o r e o v e r , s i n c e t h e participle ορών can b e either m a s c u l i n e or n e u t e r , it is
s o m e t i m e s u n c l e a r a b o u t w h o m o r w h a t P h i l o is s p e a k i n g w h e n h e
2
d e s c r i b e s "Israel" u s i n g t h e e t y m o l o g y .
S e c o n d , P h i l o frequently u n d e r s t a n d s "Israel" in a figurative s e n s e — f o r
e x a m p l e , as a collectivity that c a n n o t b e i d e n t i f i e d with a particular social
g r o u p , as a n i n d i v i d u a l , a s o u l , o r e v e n part o f a s o u l . B e c a u s e t h e s e
g e n e r a l o r s y m b o l i c t e r m s c a n apply b o t h t o J e w s a n d non-Jews, t h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d t h e Jews r e m a i n s u n c l e a r .
S c h o l a r s h a v e a s s e s s e d t h e a m b i g u o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n "Israel"
a n d t h e Jews in P h i l o ' s writings in different ways. As w e shall s e e , t h e i r
m e t h o d s a n d a s s u m p t i o n s c a n d e t e r m i n e t h e i r c o n c l u s i o n s . B e l o w is a
survey o f various scholarly a p p r o a c h e s , f o l l o w e d by m y o w n e x a m i n a t i o n
o f h o w P h i l o u s e s t h e w o r d s "Israel," 'Jew," a n d o t h e r r e l a t e d terms.

1
Congr. 5 1 , Somn. 2.173, Abr. 57, Praem. 44, et al.
2
W h e n e x p l a i n i n g the m e a n i n g o f the word "Israel," Philo gives the e t y m o l o g y
without an article (e.g., Congr. 5 1 , Fug. 208, Somn. 2.173, Abr. 57, Praem. 44, Legat. 4 ) .
W h e n d e s c r i b i n g the entity "Israel," however, Philo d o e s use an article with the
etymology. Usually, the article is masculine (e.g., Leg. 3.172, 212; Post. 92; Somn. 1.171),
but in Leg. 3.186, it is neuter. O n e c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e the g e n d e r o f the participle
w h e n it appears with the definite article in the genitive case (e.g., Leg. 3.38, Sacr. 134,
Conf. 56).
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 31

A Survey of Approaches

O f s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t are w o r k s by P e d e r B o r g e n , Erwin R. G o o d e n o u g h ,
A n n i e Jaubert, G e r h a r d D e l l i n g , Karl G e o r g K u h n , Walter G u t b r o d , J a c o b
Neusner, and Nils Dahl. T o highlight the importance of m e t h o d o l o g i c a l
a n d c o n c e p t u a l issues, I shall c o n s i d e r t h e s e works a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s e
issues, i n s t e a d o f in their c h r o n o l o g i c a l order.

Peder Borgen. P e d e r B o r g e n ' s i m p r e s s i v e variety o f s t u d i e s o n P h i l o

3
r a n g e s f r o m b r o a d surveys to very s p e c i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . W h i l e h e
briefly d i s c u s s e s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d t h e Jews in s o m e
o f t h e s e works, B o r g e n addresses this q u e s t i o n in m o s t detail in his b o o k
Bread From Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of
John and the Wntings of Philo. H e r e h e is i n t e r e s t e d in t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d t h e Jews b e c a u s e o n e o f t h e P h i l o n i c p a s s a g e s h e
analyzes (Mut. 2 5 3 - 6 3 ) refers indirectly to "Israel" as "the o n e that c a n
see" (ό [τό] όρατικός [ ό ν ] ) .
As it a p p e a r s in t h e dative case ( ό ρ α τ ι κ ω ) , we c a n n o t tell w h e t h e r t h e
w o r d is m a s c u l i n e o r n e u t e r . B o r g e n h i m s e l f i m p l i c i t l y a c k n o w l e d g e s
this a m b i g u i t y by first translating t h e t e r m as "the s e e i n g o n e . " H e g o e s
4
o n , h o w e v e r , to use F. H . C o l s o n ' s LCL translation, "nation o f v i s i o n , "
w h i c h gives t h e t e r m a m o r e c o n c r e t e m e a n i n g t h a n it has.
After e x p l a i n i n g that P h i l o ' s e t y m o l o g y for "Israel" p e r t a i n s to s e e i n g
G o d , B o r g e n asks, "Does P h i l o by this e t y m o l o g y refer to t h e J e w i s h race
in t h e c o n c r e t e s e n s e o r d o e s h e d e v e l o p it allegorically as a spiritualized
c o n c e p t only?" H a v i n g t h u s p o s e d t h e q u e s t i o n in e i t h e r - o r t e r m s , h e
5
surveys scholars that line u p o n o n e side or the o t h e r .

3
P e d e r B o r g e n , Bread From Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the
Gospel of John and the Wntings of Philo, S u p p l e m e n t s to N o v u m T e s t a m e n t u m , vol. 10
( L e i d e n : E. J. Brill, 1 9 6 5 ) ; i d e m , "Philo o f Alexandria: A Critical a n d Synthetical
Survey o f Research since World War II" (hereafter referred to as "Survey"), 9 8 - 1 5 4 ;
i d e m , "Philo of Alexandria," Jewish Wntings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha,
Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael E. Stone, CRINT,
sec. 2, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 2 3 3 - 8 2 . Several of Borgen's i n d e p e n ­
d e n t studies are collected in Paul Preaches Circumcision and Pleases Men and Other Essays
on Christian Origins, Relieff, n o . 8 (Trondheim: Tapir, 1983) and in Philo, John and Paul:
New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity, Brown Judaic Studies, ed. J a c o b Neus­
ner et al., n o . 131 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). See also i d e m , "There Shall C o m e
Forth a Man."
4
B o r g e n , Bread From Heaven, 115.
5
Ibid., 1 1 6 - 1 7 . A m o n g the scholars m e n t i o n e d w h o consider "Israel" and the Jews
as the s a m e are Harry A. W o l f s o n , E d m u n d Stein, Walther Volker, a n d N o r m a n
Bentwich. T h o s e cited w h o believe "Israel" designates only a g r o u p with the ability to
see G o d are J o s e p h Pascher, Richard Reitzenstein, Hans Leisegang, a n d H a n s Jonas.
B o r g e n discusses Nils Dahl as an e x a m p l e of the attempt "to m e d i a t e b e t w e e n these
32 CHAPTER ONE

B o r g e n ' s o w n s y m p a t h i e s lie with t h o s e w h o b e l i e v e that P h i l o i n t e n d s

"Israel" a n d t h e J e w s t o b e t h e s a m e . A l t h o u g h h e b a s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g
c o m m e n t specifically u p o n Mut. 2 5 3 - 6 3 , B o r g e n e l s e w h e r e a p p l i e s h i s
6
c o n c l u s i o n to P h i l o ' s work in g e n e r a l . H e writes,

T h e idea of the vision in Mut. 2 5 3 - 2 6 3 is ... d e t e r m i n e d both by Greek educational

ideas a n d the actual study of the Jewish p h i l o s o p h y in the s y n a g o g u e s o n the
Sabbath. T h u s the nation of vision is the p e o p l e that is selftaught by nature, even
7
the Jews, especially as they study the laws o f Moses o n the S a b b a t h .

C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f Mut. 2 5 3 - 6 3 shows that t h e a b o v e o b s e r v a t i o n b r i n g s

t o g e t h e r c o n c e p t s w h i c h P h i l o h i m s e l f d o e s n o t . In Mut. 2 5 3 - 6 3 , P h i l o
strings t o g e t h e r — a s h e often does—individual units of interpretation
8
w h o s e b o u n d a r i e s m u s t b e r e c o g n i z e d . R e f e r e n c e t o τω ό ρ α τ ι κ φ , o r t h e
o n e that c a n s e e , falls in Mut. 2 5 8 , w h e r e P h i l o i n t r o d u c e s t h e subject o f
m a n n a . Strictly s p e a k i n g , this d i s c u s s i o n o f m a n n a , w h i c h i n t e r p r e t s
E x o d . 16:4 a n d 2 2 - 3 0 , is c o n f i n e d to Mut. 2 5 8 - 6 0 . T h e t e r m ό ρ α τ ι κ ω falls
o n l y w i t h i n this s m a l l e r u n i t a n d d o e s n o t directly relate t o w h a t i m m e ­
diately p r e c e d e s it in Mut. 2 5 3 - 5 7 or what follows it in Mut. 2 6 1 - 6 3 .
B o r g e n , h o w e v e r , a d o p t i n g t h e translation "nation o f vision," e x p l a i n s
όρατικω using n o t i o n s which function i n d e p e n d e n t l y either in o t h e r
e x e g e t i c a l u n i t s w i t h i n t h e s a m e larger passage {Mut. 2 5 3 - 6 3 ) o r else in
c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s {Mos. 2 . 2 1 5 - 1 6 a n d Prob. 8 1 ) . In t h e c o m ­
m e n t q u o t e d a b o v e , for e x a m p l e , h e links vision (derived f r o m όρατικω in
Mut. 2 5 8 ) w i t h G r e e k e d u c a t i o n a l i d e a s ( f r o m Mut. 2 6 3 ) , w i t h S a b b a t h
study ( f r o m Mos. 2 . 2 1 5 - 1 6 a n d Prob. 8 1 ) , a n d with t h e Jews ( f r o m Mos.
2 . 2 1 5 - 1 6 ) . In so d o i n g , h e disregards the integrity o f t h e u n i t {Mut. 2 5 8 - 6 0 )
and makes connections between concepts which Philo himself keeps
separate.
Tn Bread From Heaven, t h e n , B o r g e n gives t h e a m b i g u o u s t e r m ό ρ α τ ι κ ω
t h e c o n c r e t e m e a n i n g "nation o f vision." H e t h e n e q u a t e s this "nation"
w i t h t h e J e w s by h a r m o n i z i n g discrete n o t i o n s f r o m d i f f e r e n t e x e g e t i c a l
c o n t e x t s . Finally, h e m a i n t a i n s that t h e "nation o f v i s i o n " a n d t h e J e w s
are t h e s a m e t h r o u g h o u t Philo's works, b a s e d u p o n his analysis o f this o n e
passage {Mut. 2 5 8 ) .

Erwin R. Goodenough. While Borgen attempts to h a r m o n i z e separate

P h i l o n i c p a s s a g e s , e a c h w i t h its o w n separate c o n t e x t , Erwin R. G o o d -

two conflicting views o f 'the n a t i o n o f vision.'" For discussion o f Dahl's work, see
further below.
6
B o r g e n , "Survey," 114; i d e m , "Philo of Alexandria," 269.
7
B o r g e n , Bread From Heaven, 118. For his analysis of the entire passage, see ibid.,
99-121.
8
See, e.g., Mack, "Exegetical Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism," 7 5 - 7 6 .
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 33

e n o u g h e x a m i n e s two different passages, arriving at two different c o n c l u ­

s i o n s a b o u t t h e identity o f "Israel." B a s e d u p o n o n e P h i l o n i c passage (Abr.
5 6 - 5 9 ) , G o o d e n o u g h writes in By Light, Light,
This race has g o t the n a m e of Israel, that is 'Seeing God,' and is distinguished by
the fact that it has the vision o f G o d at the e n d o f the mystic Road, the h i g h e s t
possible achievement, to which vision G o d draws the soul u p the Road by the action
o f the divine Powers. This is n o t a reference to the race o f Israel, but first to the
Patriarchs, a n d t h e n to t h o s e w h o g o t the vision, w h e t h e r Jew or G e n t i l e , a n d
only to those. For the true successors o f the Patriarchs, w h o have themselves b e e n
thus elevated, are n o t those d e s c e n d e d from them in the flesh but their spiritual
9
successors.

H e r e G o o d e n o u g h a r g u e s that for P h i l o "Israel" refers o n l y t o t h o s e

w h o h a v e t h e v i s i o n o f G o d — b e t h e y Jews o r non-Jews. B a s e d u p o n a
c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t P h i l o n i c p a s s a g e (Legat. 1 - 7 ) , h o w e v e r , this s a m e
s c h o l a r arrives at a different c o n c l u s i o n a b o u t "Israel." In The Politics of
Philo Judaeus, h e writes,

T h e Jews are Israel, w h i c h m e a n s , [Philo] says, ' s e e i n g God.' T h e mystic vision

given to Jews, vision of that Deity which is beyond all categories, even the catego­
ries o f virtue, is h i d d e n from o t h e r m e n , since they have n o h i g h e r gift than
reason, and reason can rise n o t even to the Powers of God, the Creative and Ruling
1 0
Powers.

It is n o t G o o d e n o u g h ' s p u r p o s e , o f course, to investigate P h i l o ' s overall

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f "Israel." Instead, h e is analyzing two separate p a s s a g e s
in two different c o n t e x t s — o n e , in a study o f P h i l o ' s r e l i g i o u s beliefs a n d
t h e o t h e r , in a study o f his political attitudes. T h a t h e c a n arrive at two
c o n t r a d i c t o r y c o n c l u s i o n s b a s e d u p o n different P h i l o n i c p a s s a g e s , h o w ­
ever, s u g g e s t s that P h i l o m a y i n d e e d use t h e t e r m "Israel" in a variety o f
ways. If G o o d e n o u g h is c o r r e c t , t h e n "Israel" m a y r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , d e p e n d i n g u p o n t h e c o n t e x t . A c c o r d i n g l y , to d e t e r m i n e
w h e t h e r P h i l o c o n s i d e r s "Israel" a n d t h e Jews to b e i d e n t i c a l , o n e m u s t
first e x a m i n e h o w h e u s e s t h e t e r m s "Israel" a n d "Jews" t h r o u g h o u t h i s
works.

Annie Jaubert. O n e s c h o l a r w h o d o e s survey a r a n g e o f P h i l o ' s u s e s o f

"Israel" is A n n i e J a u b e r t . In h e r e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e c o v e n a n t i d e a in
1 1
J u d a i s m d u r i n g t h e H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d , s h e c o n s i d e r s various P h i l o n i c
p a s s a g e s in w h i c h "Israel" appears, taking n o t e o f t h e different levels o n
w h i c h P h i l o i n t e r p r e t s this t e r m — a s a c o n c r e t e p e o p l e , a c o m p a n y o f
souls, a n individual sage, a n d t h e purest part o f t h e soul. Jaubert argues for

9
G o o d e n o u g h , By Light, Light, 136.
1 0
G o o d e n o u g h , The Politics of Philo Judaeus, 12.
1 1
Jaubert, La notion d 'Alliance.
34 CHAPTER ONE

a c o n t i n u i t y a m o n g t h e s e levels: "Because Israel is a spiritual p e o p l e , it is

1 2
the c o l l e c t i o n o f p i o u s souls; what applies to all c o u n t s also for e a c h o n e . "
A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s s c h o l a r , t h e n , P h i l o ' s s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t "Israel"
a p p l i e d to t h e individual o r t h e soul d o n o t n e g a t e that "Israel" as a real
c o m m u n i t y has a special standing with God; they simply convey his
p r e f e r e n c e for i n t e r n a l i z e d r e l i g i o n . For P h i l o , spiritual u n i t y is m o r e
i m p o r t a n t t h a n b l o o d k i n s h i p , a n d internal w o r s h i p m o r e essential t h a n
external.
Since Jaubert's p u r p o s e is to e x a m i n e the status o f the c o v e n a n t a n d relat­
e d t h e m e s in P h i l o ' s works, s h e d o e s n o t p u r s u e t h e p o s s i b l e a m b i g u i t i e s
i n t r o d u c e d by his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f "Israel." In k e e p i n g with t h e s c o p e o f
h e r study, s h e affirms t h e particularist aspects o f Philo's t h o u g h t — i . e . , t h e
s p e c i a l s t a n d i n g "Israel" h a s w i t h G o d — w i t h o u t fully e x p l o r i n g h i s
1 3
universalist d i m e n s i o n s , t h o u g h s h e s e e m s to b e aware o f t h e m .
T h e limits o f J a u b e r t ' s study, h o w e v e r , may b e instructive for us, if w e
reflect u p o n h o w h e r o b s e r v a t i o n s m i g h t b e e x t e n d e d . W e have n o t e d at
least two r e a s o n s w h y P h i l o ' s u s e o f t h e t e r m "Israel" is a m b i g u o u s a n d
w h y this g r o u p m a y n o t b e i d e n t i c a l with t h e Jews. First, h e r e d e f i n e s
"Israel" in spiritual t e r m s apart f r o m e t h n i c o r i g i n , as t h e o n e that s e e s
G o d . S e c o n d , h e i n t e r p r e t s "Israel" symbolically—as a c o m p a n y o f s o u l s ,
t h e individual sage, t h e soul, or e v e n a part o f the s o u l — w i t h o u t c o m m e n t ­
i n g u p o n t h e literal m e a n i n g o f "Israel."
Jaubert acknowledges—though she does not pursue—the second point,
n a m e l y , that P h i l o ' s symbolic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s may n o t apply strictly to t h e
Jews. S h e d o e s n o t , h o w e v e r , m e n t i o n t h e first p o i n t , i.e., that t h e etymol­
o g y o f the t e r m as "one that sees G o d " may also l e a d to a rather different
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f w h o b e l o n g s to t h e c o m m u n i t y o f "Israel." I n s t e a d s h e
a s s u m e s that P h i l o u s e s t h e w o r d s "Israel" a n d 'Jews" i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y .
In a r g u i n g , for e x a m p l e , that t h e unity a n d h a r m o n y o f "Israel" derive
f r o m its laws a n d beliefs rather t h a n f r o m b l o o d k i n s h i p , J a u b e r t q u o t e s
14
g e n e r o u s l y f r o m texts in t h e E x p o s i t i o n . T h e s e passages, h o w e v e r , lack
any m e n t i o n o f t h e t e r m "Israel" b u t instead speak a b o u t t h e Jews. I n d e e d ,
if P h i l o e q u a t e s "Israel" a n d the Jews in t h e s e passages, h e d o e s n o t d o so
explicitly.
J a u b e r t m a y well b e correct that P h i l o preserves t h e special r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d G o d . W e d o n o t , h o w e v e r , k n o w p r e c i s e l y w h o h e
t h i n k s "Israel" is. M o r e o v e r , h e may view t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d
a n d "Israel" as different f r o m t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e Jews.

1 2
Ibid., 407.
1 3
See, e.g., ibid., 4 0 2 - 3 , 4 1 2 - 1 4 .
1 4
Ibid., 4 0 8 - 9 .
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 35

W e shall s e e , in fact, that for P h i l o , "Israel"'s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h G o d is

l i n k e d t o its ability t o s e e H i m , w h e r e a s the Jews' r e l a t i o n s h i p with G o d is
b a s e d u p o n their b e l i e f in H i m a n d worship o f H i m t h r o u g h o b s e r v a n c e o f
t h e s p e c i a l laws.

Gerhard Delling. G e r h a r d D e l l i n g ' s study ' T h e O n e W h o S e e s G o d ' in

15
P h i l o , " p r o v i d e s a n interesting contrast to Jaubert, b e c a u s e h e a p p r o a c h e s
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d t h e Jews solely f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v e
o f t h e e t y m o l o g y o f "Israel" a n d i g n o r e s P h i l o ' s s y m b o l i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
o f t h e t e r m . V i e w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e s e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s as a "new
task," D e l l i n g s i m p l y asserts that they d o n o t n e g a t e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f
s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t "Israel" to t h e "past a n d p r e s e n t p e o p l e o f G o d , " n a m e l y ,
1 6
the J e w s .
Like Jaubert, D e l l i n g t o o assumes that "Israel" a n d t h e Jews are o n e a n d
t h e s a m e , a n d this a s s u m p t i o n u n d e r l i e s his e n t i r e a r g u m e n t . I n d e e d , h e
b e l i e v e s that "Israel" is n e i t h e r m o r e n o r less t h a n all t h e Jews, w i t h t h e
e x c l u s i o n o f a p o s t a t e s . D e l l i n g writes, " S e e i n g G o d is, after all, n o t a
p a r t i c u l a r gift t o a s e l e c t e d circle w i t h i n J u d a i s m , b u t (as t h e n a m e
i n d i c a t e s ) to all 'Israel.' P h i l o d o e s n o t mark off f r o m t h e rest o f Jewry a n
17
elite o f t h o s e w h o see G o d , but rather the apostates ..."
If D e l l i n g d o e s n o t allow that o n l y s o m e rather t h a n all J e w s m i g h t b e
able to s e e G o d , n e i t h e r d o e s h e directly address t h e possibility that n o n -
J e w s m i g h t also h a v e this ability. I n s t e a d , h e writes, "The gift o f s e e i n g
G o d is b o u n d u p with t h e particular relationship to G o d that G o d a c c o r d s
t h e J e w s ..." In a n o t e to this c o m m e n t , h e adds, " T h r o u g h c o n v e r s i o n t o
J u d a i s m , o n e b e c o m e s a m e m b e r fully e n t i t l e d to [this g i f t ] , " c i t i n g Spec.
1 8
1.51f. as h i s r e f e r e n c e . A l o o k at this p a s s a g e , h o w e v e r , reveals that
a l t h o u g h P h i l o m e n t i o n s proselytes, h e d o e s n o t talk a b o u t t h e gift o f see­
i n g G o d at all. Instead, h e e x h o r t s Jews to a c c e p t proselytes as their equals.
A s its title s u g g e s t s , D e l l i n g ' s study f o c u s e s u p o n t h e e t y m o l o g y o f
"Israel" as "one w h o s e e s G o d . " H e takes u p s u c h issues as t h e vocabulary
o f s e e i n g as it p e r t a i n s t o "Israel," t h e t h e o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f s e e i n g
for t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e , a n d parallel o c c u r r e n c e s o f t h e e t y m o l o g y in o t h e r
literature. H e r e w e shall c o n c e n t r a t e u p o n Philo's vocabulary, as this issue
is t h e m o s t relevant to o u r p r e s e n t discussion.

1 5
Gerhard D e l l i n g , "The O n e W h o Sees G o d ' in Philo," Nourished With Peace:
Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, ed. Frederick E. G r e e n s p a h n ,
Earle Hilgert, a n d Burton L. Mack, Scholars Press H o m a g e Series (Chico, California:
Scholars Press, 1984), 2 8 - 4 1 .
1 6
Ibid., 40.
1 7
Ibid., 39; see also 28.
1 8
Ibid., 35.
36 CHAPTER ONE

I n d e e d , D e l l i n g is particularly h e l p f u l w h e n h e surveys P h i l o ' s s p e c i a l

vocabulary for "seeing" in c o n n e c t i o n with "Israel." H e p o i n t s o u t , for e x ­
a m p l e , that t h e e t y m o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f "Israel" is "so firmly b o u n d
u p with t h e n a m e that a n abbreviation is sufficient to i n d i c a t e it. ' T h e o n e
w h o s e e s G o d ' is simply 'the o n e w h o sees.'" Similarly, h e n o t e s that t h e
e x p r e s s i o n for t h e "race able to see" (όρατικόν γένος) is always a periphrasis
for "Israel." In contrast, a l t h o u g h t h e w o r d w h i c h m e a n s "one w h o loves
t h e vision" ( φ ι λ ο θ ε ά μ ω ν ) occasionally refers to "Israel," it "does n o t b e l o n g
19
to t h e special vocabulary o f t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e n a m e 'Israel.'"
S i n c e P h i l o ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f "Israel" as t h e o n e that s e e s G o d m a y o r
m a y n o t e n c o m p a s s all J e w s , it w o u l d s e e m e s s e n t i a l t o d i s t i n g u i s h
p r e c i s e l y h o w P h i l o refers t o J e w s , "Israel," a n d t h o s e w h o s e e G o d .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , h o w e v e r , a l t h o u g h D e l l i n g discusses t h e r a n g e o f P h i l o ' s
t e r m i n o l o g y , h e n e v e r q u e s t i o n s his o w n a s s u m p t i o n that "Israel" a n d t h e
J e w s are i d e n t i c a l . W h i l e D e l l i n g is careful to n o t e , for e x a m p l e , w h e r e
a n d h o w m a n y t i m e s t h e t e r m "Jews" o c c u r s , h o w m a n y t i m e s t h e t e r m
"Israel" o c c u r s , a n d h o w o f t e n "Israel" a p p e a r s in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e
vocabulary for s e e i n g , h e fails to observe that P h i l o uses t h e w o r d s "Israel"
2 0
a n d "Jews" in t h e s a m e treatise o n l y o n c e .
By c a l l i n g a t t e n t i o n to P h i l o ' s varied vocabulary c o n n e c t e d to "Israel,"
Jews, a n d those w h o see G o d , Delling d o e s incorporate an important
m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n . H i s e q u a t i o n o f "Israel" a n d t h e Jews, h o w ­
ever, p r e v e n t s h i m f r o m fully d e v e l o p i n g t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f his m a n y
21
useful o b s e r v a t i o n s .

Approaches to "Israel" and the Jews From a Broader Perspective

W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f A n n i e J a u b e r t — w h o s e i n t e r e s t is in t h e c o v e n a n t
i d e a in S e c o n d T e m p l e l i t e r a t u r e — t h e scholars d i s c u s s e d u p to this p o i n t
have f o c u s e d exclusively u p o n P h i l o in trying to u n d e r s t a n d t h e m e a n i n g

1 9
Ibid., 3 0 - 3 1 a n d 37. T h e translation for όρατικόν γένος as "a race able to see" is
Delling's. I shall argue in the s e c o n d part of this chapter that γ έ ν ο ς is a m b i g u o u s a n d
may be u n d e r s t o o d as, a m o n g other things, a race defined by birth or a class d e f i n e d
by certain characteristics.
2 0
Ibid., 27, n. 3; 37. (Philo m e n t i o n s "Israel" a n d the Jews t o g e t h e r in the same
treatise only in Legat.)
2 1
Like D e l l i n g a n d Jaubert, E. P. Sanders also assumes that "Israel" a n d the Jews
are i d e n t i c a l , in "The C o v e n a n t as a Soteriological Category a n d the N a t u r e o f
Salvation in Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism," Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious
Culture in Late Antiquity. Essays in Honor of William David Davies, ed. Robert H a m e r t o n -
Kelly a n d R o b i n Scroggs ( L e i d e n : E. J. Brill, 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 1 - 4 4 , e s p . 2 5 - 3 8 . A l t h o u g h
Sanders discusses several issues relevant to o u r study, h e frames t h e s e issues in a
soteriological context. Since Philo uses the language o f salvation only rarely, if ever,
Sanders's framework d o e s n o t ultimately clarify Philo's own ideas.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 37

o f "Israel." T h e scholars w e are a b o u t to review—Karl G e o r g K u h n , Walter

G u t b r o d , J a c o b N e u s n e r , a n d N i l s D a h l — a l l p r o v i d e , i n o n e way o r
a n o t h e r , a larger c o n t e x t in w h i c h to c o n s i d e r P h i l o . A l t h o u g h this larger
c o n t e x t is b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f this study, it offers a useful perspective f r o m
22
w h i c h to u n d e r s t a n d Philo's use o f t h e terms "Israel" a n d "Jew."

Karl Georg Kuhn and Walter Gutbrod. As part o f a n entry u n d e r " Ι σ ρ α ή λ

[ I s r a e l ] " i n t h e Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Karl
G e o r g K u h n a n d Walter G u t b r o d survey h o w t h e t e r m s "Israel," "Jew,"
23
a n d "Hebrew" are u s e d in a variety o f w r i t i n g s . K u h n reviews a b r o a d
r a n g e o f post-Biblical J e w i s h works, e x c l u d i n g t h o s e o f P h i l o a n d J o s e ­
p h u s , w h i l e G u t b r o d reports o n t h e s e two Jewish a u t h o r s in a s e c t i o n o n
G r e e k H e l l e n i s t i c l i t e r a t u r e , w h i c h also i n c l u d e s p a g a n writers. S i n c e
K u h n ' s essay p r o v i d e s a larger Jewish c o n t e x t for c o n s i d e r i n g P h i l o , w e
shall briefly c o n s i d e r his remarks b e f o r e t u r n i n g to G u t b r o d .
As a g e n e r a l observation a b o u t post-Biblical usage, K u h n n o t e s that b o t h
terms "Israel" a n d "Jews" refer to a p e o p l e a n d "express b o t h n a t i o n a l a n d
r e l i g i o u s a l l e g i a n c e . " H e o b s e r v e s that t h e d e s i g n a t i o n "Jews" c a n b e a
n o n - J e w i s h way o f r e f e r r i n g t o t h e p e o p l e , b u t that "Israel" is w h a t t h e
p e o p l e calls itself: "Thus *?tnttP always e m p h a s i s e s [sic] t h e r e l i g i o u s
aspect, n a m e l y , that 'we are G o d ' s c h o s e n p e o p l e , ' w h e r e a s Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ς m a y
a c q u i r e o n t h e lips o f non-Jews a disrespectful a n d e v e n c o n t e m p t u o u s
s o u n d , t h o u g h this is n o t usual, since Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ς is u s e d quite freely w i t h o u t
2 4
a n y d i s p a r a g e m e n t . " A c c o r d i n g t o K u h n , t h e n , i n o t h e r J e w i s h litera­
ture as well as in P h i l o , t h e t e r m "Israel" suggests t h e spiritual d i m e n s i o n
o f t h e p e o p l e in a way that "Jew" may n o t .
In h i s r e v i e w o f H e l l e n i s t i c l i t e r a t u r e , G u t b r o d , like K u h n , a l s o
d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n J e w i s h a n d non-Jewish u s a g e . G u t b r o d n o t e s that
p a g a n s d o n o t u s e "Israel," s i n c e it is "a specifically J e w i s h t e r m w h i c h is

2 2
O t h e r studies of these and related terms which may s h e d light u p o n Philo's usage
can be f o u n d in R e n e e Bloch, "Israelite, juif, hebreu," Cahiers Sioniens 5 (1951): 1 1 - 3 1 ,
2 5 8 - 8 0 ; Dieter Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Connthians (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1 9 8 6 ) , 4 0 - 6 0 ; Peter J. T o m s o n , "The N a m e s Israel and Jew in A n c i e n t Judaism
a n d in the N e w Testament," Bijdragen 47 ( 1 9 8 6 ) : 1 2 0 - 4 0 , 2 6 6 - 8 9 ; S o l o m o n Zeitlin,
"The N a m e s H e b r e w , Jew a n d Israel: A Historical Study," Jewish Quarterly Review 4 3
( 1 9 5 2 - 5 3 ) : 3 6 5 - 7 9 . For reflections o n the m e a n i n g of these terms from a writer w h o
lived closer to Philo's d m e , see Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 7:6 and 8.
2 3
Karl Georg Kuhn, "Ισραήλ, Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ς , Ε β ρ α ί ο ς in Jewish Literature after the OT,"
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans, a n d e d .
Geoffrey W. B r o m i l e y ( G r a n d Rapids, Mich.: W. B. E e r d m a n s , 1 9 6 5 ) , 3 : 3 5 9 - 6 9 .
Walter Gutbrod, "Ιουδαίος, Ι σ ρ α ή λ , Ε β ρ α ί ο ς in Greek Hellenistic Literature," TDNT,
3:369-75.
2 4
Kuhn, "Ισραήλ, Ιουδαίος, Εβραίος," 360.
38 CHAPTER ONE

25
n o t based primarily o n nationality or external factors." Moreover,
J o s e p h u s — w h o m a y b e writing for a non-Jewish a u d i e n c e — d o e s n o t u s e
Ι σ ρ α ή λ (Israel) to describe t h e w h o l e p e o p l e b u t only t h e patriarch J a c o b .
Instead J o s e p h u s uses Ι σ ρ α η λ ί τ η ς (Israelite) "for m e m b e r s o f t h e p e o p l e o f
G o d in past days," b u t n o t for t h o s e in the present. G u t b r o d observes, "This
u s e is in k e e p i n g with t h e Biblical text a n d is also suitable for t h e r e a d e r s
26
w h o m h e h a s in v i e w . "
As a d i c t i o n a r y entry, G u t b r o d ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f P h i l o is n e c e s s a r i l y
brief, b u t h e m a k e s s o m e useful observations, particularly a b o u t P h i l o ' s
e t y m o l o g i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f "Israel." H e writes,
T h e vision of G o d expressed in the n a m e is the essential thing for Philo (Abr. 57-
59; Leg. Gaj., 4 ) . But this m e a n s that Ι σ ρ α ή λ may easily c o m e to transcend the
limits o f the Jewish p e o p l e . All oi του όρατικοΰ γένους μετέχοντες [those w h o b e l o n g
to the r a c e / c l a s s that can see] are Ι σ ρ α ή λ (Deus Imm., 144; Sacr. AC, 134). This
2 7
e x t e n s i o n is n o t directly stated; nevertheless, the way is clearly prepared for i t .

In t h e s e few w o r d s , G u t b r o d c a p t u r e s t h e e s s e n c e o f t h e p r o b l e m in
P h i l o ' s d e f i n i t i o n o f "Israel." By e x p l a i n i n g t h e t e r m as "one that s e e s
G o d , " P h i l o o p e n s t h e way to u n d e r s t a n d i n g "Israel" as different f r o m t h e
e n t i r e J e w i s h p e o p l e . P h i l o himself, h o w e v e r , n e v e r a d d r e s s e s this possi­
bility directly, l e a v i n g his r e a d e r s to p u z z l e — a s i n d e e d m a n y still d o —
over t h e a m b i g u o u s relationship b e t w e e n t h e Jews a n d "Israel, t h e o n e that
sees God."

Jacob Neusner. O n e scholar w h o especially emphasizes the different

c o n n o t a t i o n s o f "Israel" a n d "Jews" in various writings f r o m antiquity is
J a c o b N e u s n e r . N e u s n e r p r e s e n t s his a r g u m e n t s in a b o o k e n t i t l e d Judaism
and Its Social Metaphors: Israel in the History of Jewish Thought.^
N e u s n e r c o n t e n d s that o n e m u s t s p e a k o f "Judaisms" in t h e p l u r a l
r a t h e r t h a n "Judaism" in t h e singular. "A J u d a i s m " d e s c r i b e s a r e l i g i o u s
s y s t e m , w h i c h c o n s i s t s o f "a w o r l d v i e w , way o f life e x p r e s s i v e o f t h a t
worldview, a n d t h e social entity to w h i c h t h e worldview is a d d r e s s e d a n d
29
that e m b o d i e s t h e way o f l i f e . " Within s u c h a system, "Israel" is a m e t a ­
p h o r for t h e social entity w h i c h may b e , a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , a g r o u p , a
30
class, a caste, family, n a t i o n , o r " p o p u l a t i o n . " As a social m e t a p h o r ,

2 5
Gutbrod, "Ιουδαίος, Ισραήλ, Εβραίος," 371.
2 6
Ibid., 372.
2 7
Ibid.
2 8
J a c o b N e u s n e r , Judaism and Its Social Metaphors: Israel in the History of Jewish Thought
(Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1 9 8 9 ) . N e u s n e r also usefully s u m m a r i z e s
the main points of this b o o k in "Israel: Judaism and Its Social Metaphors," Journal of
the Amencan Academy of Religion 50 (1978): 3 3 1 - 6 1 .
2 9
N e u s n e r , Judaism and Its Social Metaphors, 205.
3 0
Ibid., 3 a n d i d e m , "Israel," 333.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 39

"Israel" c o n v e y s a g r o u p ' s self-definition by e x p r e s s i n g "the t h i n g s w i t h

w h i c h [ t h e y ] c o m p a r e t h e m s e l v e s in a c c o u n t i n g for t h e i r s o c i e t y t o ­
31
gether."
N e u s n e r f o c u s e s u p o n w h a t h e calls "the J u d a i s m o f t h e d u a l T o r a h , "
i.e., t h e written a n d oral T o r a h , w h o s e literature e n c o m p a s s e s t h e Mish-
n a h , two T a l m u d s , a n d a variety o f o t h e r m i d r a s h i c writings p r o d u c e d
d u r i n g t h e first five c e n t u r i e s C.E. H e also briefly c o n s i d e r s s o m e o t h e r
r e l i g i o u s systems, n a m e l y , t h o s e o f Paul, P h i l o , a n d t h e E s s e n e s o f Q u m -
ran. A m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , N e u s n e r m a i n t a i n s that t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f "an
Israel" reflects t h e larger interests o f a particular J u d a i s m a n d that t h e
i m p o r t a n c e o f "Israel" w i t h i n a system d e p e n d s u p o n "the g e n e r a t i v e
p r o b l e m a t i c — u r g e n t q u e s t i o n — o f t h e system-builders, a n d n o t o n t h e i r
32
social c i r c u m s t a n c e . "
"Israel," t h e n , is a rather elastic t e r m , w h i c h takes its s h a p e a c c o r d i n g
to t h e interests o f t h e shapers: "What an 'Israel' is d e p e n d s o n w h o w a n t s
to k n o w . P h i l o s o p h e r s i m a g i n e a p h i l o s o p h i c a l 'Israel,' a n d p o l i t i c i a n s
33
c o n c e i v e a political 'Israel.'" R e g a r d i n g P h i l o , N e u s n e r writes,

What m a k e s an 'Israel' into 'Israel' for Philo is a set o f essentially p h i l o s o p h i c a l

considerations, c o n c e r n i n g a d h e r e n c e to or perception of God. In the philosophical
system of Philo, 'Israel' constitutes a philosophical category, n o t a social entity in
3 4
an everyday s e n s e .

While closer examination of Neusner's hypotheses and observations

w o u l d take us b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f o u r study, t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e for o u r
i n v e s t i g a t i o n m u s t b e a c k n o w l e d g e d . I n d e e d , by a r g u i n g that "Israel"
f u n c t i o n s differently in different k i n d s o f J u d a i s m s , N e u s n e r i l l u m i n a t e s
a larger canvas u p o n w h i c h w e m i g h t draw a d e t a i l e d sketch o f P h i l o .

Nils Dahl. Nils D a h l is a n o t h e r s c h o l a r w h o a p p r o a c h e s t h e p r o b l e m o f

35
"Israel" a n d t h e Jews in P h i l o ' s works f r o m a b r o a d e r p e r s p e c t i v e . D a h l
b e g i n s h i s b o o k , Das Volk Gottes, by n o t i n g that in Gal. 6:16 Paul u s e s t h e
3 6
t e r m "Israel" t o d e s c r i b e the Christian C h u r c h . R e c o g n i z i n g that "Israel"
m u s t b e a flexible c o n c e p t for Paul to b e able to use it this way, h e p o s e s as
t h e c e n t r a l task o f h i s b o o k to u n d e r s t a n d h o w Paul's u s e o f t h e t e r m
"Israel" b e c a m e p o s s i b l e . T o w a r d this e n d , D a h l surveys a b r o a d r a n g e o f

3 1
N e u s n e r , Judaism and Its Social Metaphors, 1.
3 2
Ibid., 212.
3 3
Ibid., 220.
3 4
Ibid., 2 2 1 .
3 5
Nils A. Dahl, Das Volk Gottes. Eine Untersuchung turn Kirchenbewusstsein des Vrchristen-
tums (Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1941), 107-14.
3 6
Ibid., 1.
40 CHAPTER ONE

Biblical a n d post-Biblical literature to s e e h o w "Israel" a n d "the p e o p l e o f

G o d " are u n d e r s t o o d . It is in this c o n t e x t , t h e n , that h e takes u p P h i l o ' s
works specifically.
D a h l b e g i n s his d i s c u s s i o n o f P h i l o with an o p e n - e n d e d a p p r o a c h by
a s k i n g s i m p l y w h a t p e r c e p t i o n s P h i l o sets f o r t h a b o u t "Israel" a n d t h e
Jews. H e d i s t i n g u i s h e s a m o n g t h e t e r m s "Israel," "Jews," a n d "Hebrews,"
n o t i n g that P h i l o m e n t i o n s "Jews" m o s t o f t e n in h i s p o l i t i c a l treatises,
Flacc. a n d LegaL, b u t n e v e r in t h e Allegory, a n d that "Israel" a p p e a r s m o s t
37
f r e q u e n t l y in t h e A l l e g o r y .
D a h l t h e n i n c o r p o r a t e s "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s i n t o t h e m u c h l a r g e r
framework o f all r e l i g i o u s seekers m e n t i o n e d by P h i l o . I n d e e d , P h i l o u s e s
a b r o a d r a n g e o f g e n e r i c t e r m s for t h e s e s e e k e r s , t e r m s w h i c h h a v e n o
r e f e r e n c e t o e t h n i c o r i g i n . H e speaks, for e x a m p l e , o f t h e sage ( σ ο φ ό ς ) ;
m a n o f w o r t h ( α σ τ ε ί ο ς , σ π ο υ δ α ί ο ς ) ; lover o f w i s d o m ( ε ρ α σ τ ή ς σ ο φ ί α ς ) ;
disciple (γνώριμος, ομιλητής, φοιτητής) o f Moses, o f w i s d o m , o f t h e L o g o s
and of God; citizen of the world ( κ ο σ μ ο π ο λ ί τ η ς ) and the perfect m a n
(τέλειος).
D a h l suggests that P h i l o p r e s e n t s t h e s e seekers a c c o r d i n g t o a s c h e m e —
i n f l u e n c e d by w h a t D a h l calls t h e "Alexandrian w o r l d - s c h e m e " — w h i c h
c o n s i s t s o f d i f f e r e n t levels that c o r r e s p o n d to P h i l o ' s d i f f e r e n t levels o f
r e l i g i o u s identification. D a h l ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n is rather intricate a n d r e q u i r e s
c a r e f u l analysis.
O n t h e l o w e s t r u n g o f t h e s c h e m e is P h i l o ' s c o n t e m p o r a r y J e w i s h
c o m m u n i t y . P h i l o ' s political activity in b e h a l f o f t h e Jews, e x p r e s s i o n s o f
c o m m u n a l feeling, a n d messianic h o p e exemplify h i s . s t r o n g identifi­
3 8
c a t i o n with this c o m m u n i t y .
D a h l p e r c e i v e s a d i s t i n c t i o n in P h i l o ' s writings b e t w e e n w h a t h e calls
t h e "visible" a n d t h e "invisible c h u r c h , " arguing that t h e n e x t r u n g corre­
s p o n d s to t h e "invisible c h u r c h . " W h i l e t h e Jews s u p p o s e d l y r e p r e s e n t t h e
"visible c o m m u n i t y , " this "invisible c o m m u n i t y " is c o m p o s e d o f g r o u p s
c h a r a c t e r i z e d a n d u n i t e d by t h e i r spiritual qualities. S u c h g r o u p s w o u l d
i n c l u d e , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e patriarchs as m o d e l s o f virtue r a t h e r t h a n as
historical figures a n d o t h e r s e e k e r s d e s c r i b e d by g e n e r i c t e r m s s u c h as
39
t h o s e listed a b o v e .
F o l l o w i n g t h e "invisible c h u r c h , " D a h l d e s c r i b e s t h e n e x t stage, w h i c h
d i f f e r e n t i a t e s b e t w e e n earthly a n d h e a v e n l y e x i s t e n c e . O n this level, all
p e o p l e are c o n s i d e r e d s o j o u r n e r s o n earth b e c a u s e t h e i r true h o m e is in
h e a v e n . D a h l a r g u e s that P h i l o c o m b i n e s various motifs h e r e . O n t h e o n e

3 7
Ibid., 1 0 7 - 8 .
3 8
Ibid., 108.
3 9
Ibid., 1 0 9 - 1 0 .
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 41

h a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Stoic ideal, t h e s o j o u r n e r t h e m e a p p l i e s t o t h e
i n d i v i d u a l s a g e , w h o s e real h o m e l a n d is v i r t u e . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
a c c o r d i n g t o Platonic-Gnostic ideas, t h e sojourner m o t i f applies to t h e soul,
w h i c h is a m e r e visitor to t h e c o r p o r e a l world.
A s P h i l o m o v e s to h i g h e r levels, h e leaves b e h i n d t h e c o n c r e t e J e w i s h
p e o p l e a n d u s e s w h a t D a h l calls t h e l a n g u a g e o f mystery r e l i g i o n s . H e r e ,
for e x a m p l e , P h i l o speaks a b o u t the practicer, lover o f virtue, p r o p h e t , seer,
4 0
or student o f G o d .
C o n c e r n i n g t h e u n i q u e role o f t h e Jewish n a t i o n in this w h o l e s c h e m e ,
D a h l c o n c l u d e s that P h i l o n e i t h e r e m p h a s i z e s n o r d e n i e s J e w i s h particu­
larity. P h i l o rarely a l l u d e s to t h e special p o s i t i o n o f t h e Jews, for e x a m p l e ,
w h e n h e s p e a k s a b o u t t h e s o - c a l l e d "visible c o m m u n i t y . " I n s t e a d h e
e m p h a s i z e s virtue rather t h a n b l o o d ties as t h e basis o f c o m m o n citizen­
s h i p . I n d i s c u s s i n g t h e so-called "invisible c o m m u n i t y , " P h i l o s e e m s t o
m e s h t h e attributes o f t h e Jews with t h o s e o f t h e sage: "For P h i l o , o n t h e
o n e h a n d , t h e Jewish p e o p l e is t h e realization o f t h e Stoic ideal o f t h e sage;
o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , h e transfers all t h e n o b l e p r e d i c a t e s o f G o d ' s p e o p l e t o
41
the (Stoic) s a g e . "
As t o t h e o t h e r levels o f t h e s c h e m e , D a h l p o i n t s o u t that P h i l o ' s
t e n d e n c y t o s e e specific J e w i s h characteristics as s y m b o l s o f t h e c o s m o s
d o e s n o t c a n c e l J e w i s h particularity b u t i n s t e a d gives it d e e p e r m e a n i n g .
Similarly, P h i l o ' s mystery is n o t a d i f f e r e n t k i n d o f J u d a i s m f r o m t h e
"normative," b u t rather an interpretation o n the level o f t h e soul.
R e g a r d i n g t h e p l a c e o f "Israel" in this s c h e m e , D a h l e x p l a i n s t h a t
a c c o r d i n g t o P h i l o ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , "Israel" o p e r a t e s o n e a c h o f t h e
d i f f e r e n t levels. T h u s t h e t e r m c a n refer to t h e e m p i r i c a l J e w i s h n a t i o n ,
w h i c h a l o n e s e e s G o d ; t h e "invisible c o m m u n i t y , " o r t h e r a c e that c a n
see; t h e sage o r t h e individual God-seer; the soul or t h e part o f the soul that
4 2
s e e s G o d ; t h e abstract vision o f G o d ; a n d finally the L o g o s .
After a r g u i n g that P h i l o ' s u s e o f "Israel" e n c o m p a s s e s d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s
in this "Alexandrian w o r l d - s c h e m e , " D a h l raises t h e q u e s t i o n o f " I s r a e f ' s
s p e c i a l r o l e . Specifically, h e asks "whether this structure o f piety p e r m i t s
that in P h i l o t o o 'Israel a c c o r d i n g to the flesh' h o l d s a special p l a c e as t h e
p e o p l e o f G o d o r w h e t h e r t h e political a n d p h i l o s o p h i c - m y s t i c i d e a s i n
P h i l o part ways entirely."
"Without a d o u b t , " h e answers,

P h i l o e m b r a c e s b o t h trains of t h o u g h t with equal passion, a l t h o u g h h e considers

politics to be an intrusion. We could say that for him 'Israel according to the flesh'

4 0
Ibid., 1 1 0 - 1 2 .
4 1
Ibid., 111.
4 2
Ibid., 113.
42 CHAPTER ONE

is an i m a g e a n d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f 'Israel a c c o r d i n g to t h e spirit,' if t h e s e
expressions are allowed here. Just as the body is a h o u s e o f the soul for h i m a n d
the letter of the law a h o u s e of the spiritual content, so too the Jewish synagogue
43
b e c o m e s for h i m the h o m e of the invisible c o m m u n i t y .

D a h l ' s analysis h a s several m e r i t s . H e is careful t o d i s t i n g u i s h h o w

P h i l o u s e s vocabulary for 'Jews," "Hebrews," a n d "Israel," n o t i n g p a t t e r n s
in w h e r e t h e s e t e r m s a p p e a r in t h e different series. H e p r e s e n t s a s t r o n g
case f o r P h i l o ' s c o m m i t m e n t t o t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y b u t also d e m o n ­
strates h o w h i s t h o u g h t p o s e s several c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f
b e i n g a J e w by birth. D a h l p o i n t s o u t , for e x a m p l e , that P h i l o e m p h a s i z e s
virtue rather t h a n b l o o d as a b o n d o f k i n s h i p , p r e s e n t s t h e J e w as a Stoic
sage, a n d e l a b o r a t e s u p o n t h e internal a n d individual a s p e c t s o f r e l i g i o n
b e s i d e s t h e e x t e r n a l a n d g r o u p d i m e n s i o n s . Last a n d m o s t significant,
D a h l s h o w s that "Israel" c a n i n d e e d have several r e f e r e n t s . U n l i k e t h o s e
w h o ask w h e t h e r o r n o t "Israel" is e q u i v a l e n t to t h e Jews, D a h l allows for
several p o s s i b l e ways t o u n d e r s t a n d "Israel."
At t h e s a m e t i m e , h o w e v e r , D a h l ' s s c h e m a t i c p r e s e n t a t i o n is p e r h a p s
t o o a m b i t i o u s i n its a t t e m p t t o e n c o m p a s s a n d classify P h i l o ' s m a n y
e x p r e s s i o n s for r e l i g i o u s s e e k e r s . I n d e e d , to e l u c i d a t e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
a m o n g all t h e P h i l o n i c t e r m s for t h e s e seekers w o u l d b e a g r e a t contri­
b u t i o n to o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f this c o m p l i c a t e d e x e g e t e . In trying to d o
this, h o w e v e r , D a h l i m p o s e s u p o n P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t a n e x t e r n a l structure,
w h i c h h e calls t h e "Alexandrian w o r l d - s c h e m e , " a n d i n t r o d u c e s distinc­
t i o n s b e t w e e n a "visible" a n d a n "invisible c o m m u n i t y " a n d b e t w e e n
"Israel a c c o r d i n g t o t h e flesh" a n d "Israel a c c o r d i n g t o t h e spirit"—
4 4
distinctions which Philo himself does not m a k e .
Because h e uses categories and terminology n o t f o u n d in Philo's
writings, o n e m i g h t a r g u e that D a h l c o m p l i c a t e s t h e issue further. D e s p i t e
this c r i t i c i s m , h o w e v e r , o f all t h e P h i l o n i c s c h o l a r s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e ,
p e r h a p s D a h l allows for t h e g r e a t e s t flexibility in u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e
various ways "Israel" m a y f u n c t i o n i n P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t .

4 3
Ibid., 114.
4 4
T h e distinction b e t w e e n "Israel according to the flesh" a n d "Israel a c c o r d i n g to
the spirit" is s u g g e s t e d in several passages in the N e w T e s t a m e n t . 1 Cor. 10:18
explicitly m e n t i o n s Ι σ ρ α ή λ κατά σάρκα (Israel according to the flesh) but n o t Ι σ ρ α ή λ
κατά π ν ε ύ μ α (Israel a c c o r d i n g to the spirit). Other passages suggest that Abraham's
d e s c e n d a n t s or Israel may be d e t e r m i n e d n o t by birth, but rather by faith (Matt. 3 : 7 -
10; R o m . 4:16, 9:6-8, 1 1 : 1 7 - 2 4 ) . Rom. 2:28-29 contrasts the visible (έν τφ φανερω) Jew
with the private (έν τφ κρυπτφ) o n e and circumcision in the flesh (ή έν σαρκι περιτομή)
with circumcision of the heart (περιτομή καρδίας).
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 43

A Survey of Approaches: Summary

O u r review of h o w various scholars have a p p r o a c h e d the relationship

b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d t h e Jews in P h i l o ' s works offers s o m e useful l e s s o n s .
Consideration of Borgen and G o o d e n o u g h highlights the importance of
taking i n t o a c c o u n t all Philo's e x t a n t writings, n o t j u s t individual passages,
a n d o f a p p r o a c h i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s i n a
way that allows for several p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . Analysis o f t h e w o r k
o f J a u b e r t a n d D e l l i n g shows that to u n d e r s t a n d t h e a m b i g u i t y p o s e d by
Philo's use o f "Israel," o n e s h o u l d k e e p in m i n d b o t h that h e interprets t h e
t e r m s y m b o l i c a l l y a n d that t h e e t y m o l o g y allows "Israel" t o b e d e f i n e d
by spiritual capability rather t h a n c o m m o n origin.
By o b s e r v i n g that t h e w o r d s "Israel" a n d 'Jews" have different c o n n o ­
tations in various k i n d s o f Jewish discourse, K u h n , G u t b r o d , N e u s n e r , a n d
D a h l r e m i n d us that t h e s e different c o n n o t a t i o n s are a p h e n o m e n o n that
g o e s b e y o n d P h i l o ' s works a l o n e . Finally, t h e studies o f D e l l i n g , G u t b r o d ,
and Dahl yield important observations, which can be further e x p l o r e d ,
about Philo's vocabulary and patterns of usage t h r o u g h o u t his various
w r i t i n g s . W i t h t h e s e l e s s o n s in m i n d , w e are n o w r e a d y t o c o n s i d e r
P h i l o ' s d i s c u s s i o n o f "Israel" a n d t h e Jews.

Philo's Discussion of "Israel" and the Jews

Several w o r d s t u d i e s reveal s o m e distinct characteristics a n d p a t t e r n s in

t h e way P h i l o talks a b o u t "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s t h r o u g h o u t h i s w o r k s .
W h e n d i s c u s s i n g t h e real p e o p l e , h o w e v e r — e i t h e r t h e Biblical n a t i o n o r
his J e w i s h c o n t e m p o r a r i e s — h e d o e s n o t always n a m e t h e m with a p r o p e r
n o u n or e v e n a c o m m o n n o u n but s o m e t i m e s simply uses p r o n o u n s .
T h u s w e m u s t c o n s i d e r b o t h h o w P h i l o u s e s specific w o r d s like "Israel"
a n d "Jews" a n d also h o w h e speaks, g e n e r a l l y a b o u t t h e n a t i o n — i n t h e
past or present.
A careful e x a m i n a t i o n o f P h i l o ' s works yields t h e f o l l o w i n g observa­
tions:
1. To descnbe the real nation, Philo uses "Jews" or "Hebrews" but not "Israel."
Instead "Israel" seems to descnbe an entity which cannot be easily identified with a
particular social group. In every case w h e r e P h i l o u s e s t h e w o r d "Jews," t h e
c o n t e x t m a k e s clear that h e is referring to t h e real n a t i o n , w h e t h e r in t h e
past o r p r e s e n t . Similarly, "Hebrews" also i n d i c a t e s a n identifiable p e o p l e
— e i t h e r t h e Biblical n a t i o n o r past o r p r e s e n t s p e a k e r s o f t h e H e b r e w
l a n g u a g e — e x c e p t in a very few passages w h e r e t h e w o r d h a s a s y m b o l i c
4 5
c o n n o t a t i o n . By contrast, w h e n P h i l o u s e s "Israel"—with t h e e x c e p t i o n

4 5
See below, n. 50.
44 CHAPTER ONE

o f Legat. 4, in w h i c h t h e t e r m d e n o t e s t h e J e w s — w e c a n n o t easily identify

t h e g r o u p to w h i c h h e is referring.
2. To describe "Israel" and the jews as collectivities, Philo uses different words
with different connotations. T h u s h e refers to "Israel" as a γ έ ν ο ς (race o r
class), b u t to t h e Jews a n d H e b r e w s p r e d o m i n a n t l y as a n a t i o n ( έ θ ν ο ς ) o r a
p e o p l e ( λ α ό ς ) , b u t o n l y rarely as a γ έ ν ο ς . A l t h o u g h γ έ ν ο ς m a y overlap in
m e a n i n g w i t h έθνος or λ α ό ς , as P h i l o a p p l i e s t h e s e w o r d s to "Israel" a n d
"Jews" o r " H e b r e w s , " t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s in m e a n i n g are s i g n i f i c a n t .
Finally, P h i l o o c c a s i o n a l l y u s e s t h e w o r d π ο λ ι τ ε ί α (polity) to d e s c r i b e t h e
Jews in t h e past o r present, b u t n e v e r to describe "Israel."
3 . With one exception (the political treatise L e g a t . ) , Philo speaks about "Israel"
and the Jews by name in different treatises. Generally, t h e t e r m s "Israel" a n d
"Jew" a p p e a r in different series, w h i c h are probably i n t e n d e d for different
a u d i e n c e s . A m o n g t h e e x e g e t i c a l works, t h e E x p o s i t i o n stands apart f r o m
t h e A l l e g o r y a n d Q G E as t h e o n l y series in w h i c h P h i l o clearly m e n t i o n s
t h e J e w s by n a m e . It is also striking that h e refers to "Israel" o n l y twice in
t h e E x p o s i t i o n (Abr. 5 7 a n d Praem. 4 4 ) , w h e r e a s in t h e A l l e g o r y h e fre­
q u e n t l y s p e a k s a b o u t "Israel" a n d o c c a s i o n a l l y m e n t i o n s it in Q G E . T h e
n a t u r e a n d n u m b e r o f r e f e r e n c e s to Jews in t h e political treatises, Flacc.
a n d Legat., set t h e s e w r i t i n g s apart f r o m t h e e x e g e t i c a l c o m m e n t a r i e s ,
s i n c e P h i l o m e n t i o n s t h e J e w s q u i t e f r e q u e n t l y in t h e s e treatises. In t h e
n o n - e x e g e t i c a l w o r k s , "Israel" a p p e a r s o n l y o n c e (Legat. 4 ) . Finally,
"Hebrews" a n d "Israel" a p p e a r i n t h e s a m e works o n l y w h e n "Hebrews"
d e s i g n a t e s s p e a k e r s o f t h e H e b r e w l a n g u a g e , b u t n e v e r w h e n it refers to
t h e Biblical n a t i o n .
4. Among the three exegetical series, only in one—the Exposition—does Philo
speak at length about the Biblical nation and his Jewish contemporaries as real
histoncal or social entities. In t h e E x p o s i t i o n , especially in t h e treatises f r o m
Mos. 1 t h r o u g h Praem., P h i l o ' s m a i n p u r p o s e is to p r e s e n t t h e history a n d
p r a c t i c e s o f h i s p e o p l e . In t h e A l l e g o r y a n d Q G E , h o w e v e r , P h i l o ' s pri­
mary p u r p o s e is to e x p l i c a t e Biblical passages, n o t to narrate historical
events. T h e r e f o r e w h e n P h i l o refers to t h e Biblical p e o p l e in t h e A l l e g o r y
a n d Q G E , their real e x i s t e n c e is b e s i d e t h e p o i n t h e wishes to m a k e . In t h e
4 6
A l l e g o r y , P h i l o d o e s refer at least twice t o J e w i s h c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , b u t
t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s are t o individuals in specific social situations, n o t to t h e
entire p e o p l e . In Q G E , Jews are m e n t i o n e d o n c e in the translation (QGSA8,
discussed b e l o w ) , b u t s i n c e w e d o n o t have the Greek text, w e d o n o t k n o w
P h i l o ' s original d e s i g n a t i o n for t h e m .

46 jviigr. 8 9 - 9 3 and Somn. 2 . 1 2 3 - 2 4 . H e r e , h e seems to be addressing (Migr. 8 9 - 9 3 ) or

referring to (Somn. 2 . 1 2 3 - 2 4 ) his fellow Jews in Alexandria. T h r o u g h o u t all three
exegetical c o m m e n t a r i e s , h e also alludes to other exegetes, w h o are presumably Jews.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 45

T o s u p p o r t t h e s e various observations, b e l o w are t h e results o f several

4 7
w o r d s t u d i e s . W e shall first c o n s i d e r t h e e x e g e t i c a l w o r k s — n a m e l y , t h e
Allegory, E x p o s i t i o n , a n d Q G E — a n d t h e n t h e n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works.

The Exegetical Works

Proper Nouns

Ιουδαίος (Jew)

P e r h a p s t h e s i m p l e s t o b s e r v a t i o n is that t h e E x p o s i t i o n is t h e o n l y
e x e g e t i c a l series to u s e t h e w o r d "Jew" ( Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ς ) , w h i c h a p p e a r s twenty
4 8
times. This word never occurs in the Allegory and, a l t h o u g h the
English translation o f Q G E has it o n c e ( Q G 3 . 4 8 ) , t h e translator n o t e s that in
t h e A r m e n i a n , t h e w o r d is "Hebrews." U n f o r t u n a t e l y w e h a v e n o G r e e k
t e x t t o tell us w h e t h e r t h e o r i g i n a l w o r d is "Jews." T h e c o n t e x t m a k e s
clear, h o w e v e r , that P h i l o is s p e a k i n g a b o u t a c o n t e m p o r a r y p e o p l e . S i n c e
"Hebrews" h a s a d i f f e r e n t c o n n o t a t i o n — a s e i t h e r t h e Biblical n a t i o n o r
p e o p l e w h o s p e a k t h e H e b r e w l a n g u a g e — u s e o f t h e w o r d "Jews" in this
passage makes sense.
I n all t h e c a s e s w h e r e P h i l o u s e s "Jews" i n t h e E x p o s i t i o n , h e is
referring to t h e real n a t i o n — u s u a l l y in the p r e s e n t , b u t s o m e t i m e s in t h e
4 9
past. H e n e v e r i n t e r p r e t s t h e t e r m symbolically. P h i l o ' s e x a c t way o f
referring to t h e p e o p l e varies. Usually h e calls t h e m Jews ( Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ι ) , t h e
n a t i o n o f Jews (τό Ι ο υ δ α ί ω ν έ θ ν ο ς ) , or simply t h e n a t i o n (τό έ θ ν ο ς ) . In Virt.
108, h e calls t h e m t h e polity o f Jews (ή Ι ο υ δ α ί ω ν π ο λ ι τ ε ί α ) .

4 7
For m o s t o f the P h i l o n i c writings, we have fairly reliable word i n d e x e s . S e e
Mayer, Index Philoneus and the TLG database. (See also Runia, "How to Search Philo,"
1 0 6 - 3 9 . ) QGE presents a particular challenge for c o n d u c t i n g word studies, since m o s t
o f this c o m m e n t a r y is extant only in the a n c i e n t A r m e n i a n translation, a n d e v e n
this text may be i n c o m p l e t e . (We also have a portion o f QG 4 in Latin translation, a n d
w h e n this agrees with the A r m e n i a n , we can be m o r e c o n f i d e n t o f the text.) Greek
s e c t i o n s o f Q G E p r e s e r v e d in the works o f o t h e r writers are m e r e f r a g m e n t s .
Observations about QGE—based u p o n the English translation in LCL a n d Greek frag­
m e n t s , w h e n these are available—are necessarily of a very g e n e r a l nature. For the
Greek fragments o f QGE, see Frangoise Petit, ed., Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum:
Fragmenta Graeca, vol. 33 of Les oeuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie, ed. Roger Arnaldez, Claude
Mondesert, a n d Jean Pouilloux (Paris: Editions d u Cerf, 1978). (Hereafter the French
translation is referred to as ΟΡΑ.) Earle Hilgert has summarized the current state o f
scholarship o n QGE in "The Quaestiones: Texts and Translations," Both Literal and
Allegorical, ed. David M. Hay, 1-15.
4 8
Mos. 1.1, 7, 34; Mos. 2.17, 25, 4 1 , 193, 216; Decal 96; Spec. 1.97; Spec. 2.163, 166; Spec.
3.46; Spec. 4.179, 224; Virt. 65, 168, 206, 212, 226.
4 9
In two instances, Philo uses Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ς (Jew) in the treatises o n Moses to refer to the
Biblical p e o p l e (Mos. 1.34, Mos. 2.193).
46 CHAPTER ONE

Εβραίος (Hebrew)

" H e b r e w s " is a n o t h e r w o r d t h a t d e s i g n a t e s a clearly i d e n t i f i a b l e people.

O f t h e m o r e t h a n fifty o c c u r r e n c e s i n t h e A l l e g o r y a n d t h e E x p o s i t i o n ,
5 0
"Hebrews" is rarely interpreted symbolically. P h i l o u s e s it i n the
A l l e g o r y a n d t h e E x p o s i t i o n chiefly i n two ways, t o r e f e r t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l
nation m e n t i o n e d in the Bible a n d to those p e o p l e either before or c o n t e m ­
p o r a r y t o h i m w h o s p e a k t h e H e b r e w l a n g u a g e . T h e first u s e , w h e r e b y
"Hebrews" indicates the Biblical nation, occurs occasionally in the
A l l e g o r y , i n w h i c h t h e real e x i s t e n c e o f t h e n a t i o n is b e s i d e t h e p o i n t o f
5 1
the passage. I n t h e E x p o s i t i o n , h o w e v e r , a n d e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e treatises o n
Moses, "Hebrews" regularly designates the Biblical n a t i o n , w h o s e real
5 2
e x i s t e n c e is clearly p r e s u p p o s e d . T h e s e c o n d u s e o f "Hebrews," w h e r e b y
t h e w o r d d e n o t e s t h o s e w h o s p e a k t h e H e b r e w l a n g u a g e , is f o u n d i n b o t h
series, almost exclusively where Philo provides etymologies of Biblical
5 3
terms.
W h e n s p e a k i n g a b o u t t h e B i b l i c a l p e o p l e as a r e a l e n t i t y , P h i l o calls
t h e m H e b r e w s ( Ε β ρ α ί ο ι ) , t h e p e o p l e (ό λ α ό ς ) , o r t h e n a t i o n (τό έ θ ν ο ς ) . H e
5 4
n e v e r calls t h e m specifically t h e H e b r e w n a t i o n o r H e b r e w p e o p l e .
A s f o r Q G E , P h i l o u s e s "Hebrews" s o m e w h a t differently i n QG a n d QE.

5 0
In t h e Allegory, in Migr. 2 0 , Philo gives an etymology o f "Hebrew" as m e a n i n g
"migrant." H e writes that, in contrast to the Egyptian p r e o c c u p a t i o n with t h e body, a
characteristic o f the Hebrew race is to move away from the sense-perceptible realm to
the noetic. Similarly, Migr. 141 speaks o f Hebrew souls in contrast to Egyptian w o m e n ,
associating t h e f o r m e r with t h e intellectual world, t h e latter with t h e material.
Preference for t h e non-material as a trait o f the Hebrews is also suggested in Abr. 2 5 1 ,
but the word is n o t given an allegorical m e a n i n g n o r is it applied to the soul. T h e s e
are t h e only three instances in which Philo gives "Hebrews" a symbolic association.
5 1
"Hebrews" refers to t h e Biblical n a t i o n in t h e following seven o u t o f n i n e t e e n
references: Migr. 2 0 (2 references), 141 (see above, n. 5 0 ) ; Her. 128; Fug. 168; Mut. 117
( 2 ) . T h e r e m a i n i n g twelve references d e n o t e speakers o f the H e b r e w language.
5 2
"Hebrews" d e n o t e s t h e Biblical p e o p l e in thirty o u t o f forty r e f e r e n c e s in t h e
Exposition. T h e r e m a i n i n g ten d e n o t e speakers o f the H e b r e w language. All but o n e
(see n. 5 3 ) o f twenty-four references to "Hebrews" in Mos. 1 a n d 2 d e n o t e the Biblical
n a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , all three o c c u r r e n c e s o f Ε β ρ α ϊ κ ό ς ( H e b r e w ) — a w o r d w h i c h
appears only in Mos. 1.16, 2 4 0 , a n d 285—describe the Biblical p e o p l e .
5 3
S e e , e.g., Somn. 1.58, Somn. 2.250, Spec. 2.145. O n e case in which "Hebrews" is used
outside o f an etymological explanation to refer to speakers o f the H e b r e w language is
Mos. 2 . 3 2 . T h i s passage describes h o w t h e h i g h priest c h o s e a n d s e n t t h e m o s t
e s t e e m e d of the Hebrews (oi δοκιμώτατοι Ε β ρ α ί ω ν ) to Egypt to translate the Bible from
H e b r e w into Greek. T o m s o n ("The N a m e s Israel a n d Jew," 128 a n d 137) makes t h e
i m a g i n a t i v e — t h o u g h u n p r o v a b l e — s u g g e s t i o n that Philo may u s e "Hebrews" n o t only
for H e b r e w speakers but also for Hebrew readers, i.e., those Jews w h o read the Bible
in H e b r e w rather than in Greek.
5 4
Mos. 1.285 a n d 289 refer to the Hebrew host (ή Ε β ρ α ϊ κ ή στρατιά, στρατιά Ε β ρ α ί ω ν )
in the e p i s o d e with Balaam a n d Balak. This expression d o e s n o t appear in the corre­
s p o n d i n g Scriptural passages. For Mos. 1.289, e.g., see below, n. 6 5 .
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 47

In QG, t h e w o r d a p p e a r s p r e d o m i n a n t l y in e t y m o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s to
55
d e n o t e H e b r e w s p e a k e r s . QE, in w h i c h P h i l o interprets verses a b o u t t h e
Biblical n a t i o n , has very few o c c u r r e n c e s o f t h e w o r d "Hebrew" t o d e n o t e
t h e n a t i o n a n d n o o c c u r r e n c e t o d e n o t e s p e a k e r s o f t h e H e b r e w lan­
5 6
g u a g e . O n e passage, w h i c h has a parallel G r e e k f r a g m e n t , m e n t i o n s t h e
H e b r e w race (τό Έ β ρ α ΐ ο ν γένος, QE 2.2, d i s c u s s e d later in t h e c h a p t e r ) .
I n s t e a d o f u s i n g t h e p r o p e r n o u n "Hebrew," Q G E o f t e n s p e a k s o f t h e
57
Biblical n a t i o n as "they," "the nation," o r "the p e o p l e . "

Excursus: Χ α λ δ α ΐ ο ς (Chaldean)
In t h e E x p o s i t i o n a n d Q G E , P h i l o o c c a s i o n a l l y u s e s " C h a l d e a n " ( Χ α λ ­
δ α ΐ ο ς ) o r f o r m s o f this w o r d as a s y n o n y m for "Hebrew," g e n e r a l l y t o
5 8
m e a n speakers o f t h e H e b r e w l a n g u a g e a n d o n c e to d e n o t e H e b r e w race
5 9
o r d e s c e n t . "Chaldean" is n e v e r u s e d as a s y n o n y m for "Hebrew" in t h e
Allegory, however, in either sense. A different association with the
C h a l d e a n s as astrologers w h o s e l a n d A b r a h a m leaves a p p e a r s t h r o u g h o u t
60
all t h e e x e g e t i c a l w r i t i n g s .

Ισραήλ (Israel)
Especially i n t e r e s t i n g is P h i l o ' s use or n o n - u s e o f t h e w o r d "Israel," b o t h
w i t h r e g a r d t o w h e r e h e u s e s ( o r d o e s n o t u s e ) t h e t e r m a n d w h a t it

5 5
See, e.g., QG1.13; QG2A5, QG4.97, 102, 1 2 2 , 1 4 7 , 163, 191, 245.
5 6
T h e English translation, for e x a m p l e , has "Hebrew" in QE 1.7, 10; QE 2.2, 6. Only
the latter two passages have Greek fragments. T h e word "Hebrew" appears in the
Greek for QE 2.2, but n o t in QE 2.6. Petit (Quaestiones, ΟΡΑ, 33:243) n o t e s that the
Armenian text of QE 2.6 is obscure and differs from the Greek.
5 7
QG 3.18, 38, 49 (here Philo gives the n a m e of the nation as "Israel"; see below, n.
67); QG 4.153, 200; QE1.2, 4, 9, 10; QE2.22, 30, 31, 35, 49. Of these passages, only Q G 3 . 1 8
a n d QG 4 . 1 5 3 have parallel Greek fragments. For a discussion o f QG 3.18, see the
section below o n QGE u n d e r "Common Nouns." QG 4.153 uses the word γένος for the
p e o p l e in s p e a k i n g a b o u t A b r a h a m ( t h o u g h n o t by n a m e ) as "the o r i g i n a n d
forefather o f the race" (αρχή και προπάτωρ γένους).
5 8
Abr. 8, 12; Mos. 2.40 (2); Praem. 14, 23, 31; QG 2.43; QG 3.38, 43, 49; QG 4.1, 17, 97,
147, 239; QE 2.68. S e e also the following passages in w h i c h Χ α λ δ α ϊ σ τ ί , in the
Chaldean language, is used to d e n o t e the Hebrew language: Abr. 99, 201; Mos. 2.224;
Praem. 44. Χ α λ δ α ϊ κ ό ς , Chaldean, refers to the Hebrew language in Mos. 2.26, 38, 40.
5 9
Mos. 2.5. Hypoth. 6.1 also speaks about an ancestor o f Chaldean descent, but this
may refer to Abraham w h o in fact was of Chaldean descent. See below, n. 97.
6 0
Gig. 62; Migr. 178, 187; Her. 9 6 - 9 7 , 277; Congr. 50; Somn. 1.52, 53; Abr. 67, 69, 72, 188;
QG 3.1; QG 4.88. S e e also the following passages in w h i c h χ α λ δ α ι ζ ω , to follow
Chaldean beliefs, appears: Migr. 184; Her. 99; Mut. 16; Somn. 1.161; Abr. 70, 77 ( 2 ) . In
the following passages, Χ α λ δ α ϊ κ ό ς , Chaldean, refers to Chaldean beliefs: Ebr. 94; Migr.
177, 184; Her. 97, 280, 289; Congr. 49; Mut. 16; Abr. 7 1 , 82; Mos. 1.23, Praem. 58. For a
s o m e w h a t different classification o f Philo's usage, see C. K. W o n g , "Philo's U s e o f
Chaldaioi," SPhA 4 (1992): 1-14.
48 CHAPTER ONE

r e p r e s e n t s . In c o n t r a s t to t h e Allegory, in w h i c h it a p p e a r s o v e r s e v e n t y
t i m e s — b o t h in Biblical quotations and in the c o m m e n t a r y — i n the
6 1
E x p o s i t i o n , "Israel" a p p e a r s o n l y twice, in t h e c o m m e n t a r y . Similarly,
62
Q G E h a s very few d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e s t o "Israel." I n s t e a d , h e r e , P h i l o
f r e q u e n d y substitutes for "Israel" t h e periphrastic d e s i g n a t i o n "the race o r
class that c a n s e e " (τό όρατικόν γ έ ν ο ς ) , b o t h in Biblical q u o t a t i o n s a n d in
t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . W i t h o u t t h e Greek text o f Q G E , h o w e v e r , it is difficult
to assess t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f e i t h e r t h e p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e o f t h e actual
w o r d in this series.
T h e r e s t r i c t e d u s e o f "Israel" in t h e E x p o s i t i o n is e s p e c i a l l y striking
w h e n o n e l o o k s at t h e two treatises o n Moses, for t h e r e , m o r e t h a n in any
o t h e r work, P h i l o r e c o u n t s o n a literal level t h e Biblical narrative o f t h e
n a t i o n c a l l e d "Israel." T h e Scriptural a c c o u n t u s e s "Hebrews" a l o n g w i t h
"sons o f Israel" ( o r s o m e slight variation o f this e x p r e s s i o n ) w h i l e t h e
n a t i o n is still in Egypt, t h r o u g h E x o d u s 10. After E x o d u s 10, t h e Biblical
narrative b e g i n s t o r e f e r t o t h e p e o p l e r e g u l a r l y as "sons o f Israel."
6 3
"Hebrew" a p p e a r s o n l y twice later in t h e P e n t a t e u c h . In Mos. 1 - 2 , h o w ­
ever, e v e n after narrating t h e e x o d u s f r o m Egypt, P h i l o consistently refers
to t h e n a t i o n as t h e H e b r e w s , o r simply as t h e n a t i o n (τό έ θ ν ο ς ) o r t h e
p e o p l e (ό λ α ό ς ) . T h e w o r d "Israel" n e v e r a p p e a r s in t h e s e two treatises.
P h i l o ' s m e n t i o n o f "Hebrews" t h r o u g h o u t this paraphrase, t h e n , g o e s well
b e y o n d t h e Biblical u s a g e .
P h i l o ' s n o n - u s e o f "Israel" h e r e t o d e n o t e t h e actual Biblical p e o p l e
s e e m s t o b e a p u r p o s e f u l avoidance. O n e c a n n o t argue that h e simply u s e s
"Hebrews" i n s t e a d o f "Israel" to b e c o n s i s t e n t , s i n c e h e o c c a s i o n a l l y u s e s
o t h e r n a m e s as s y n o n y m s for t h e Biblical p e o p l e , s u c h as " C h a l d e a n "
64
a n d " J e w . " A l s o , w e h a v e s e e n that P h i l o c a n u s e o n e w o r d , like
"Hebrew" o r "Chaldean," in m o r e t h a n o n e way.
T h e Mos. 1 r e n d i t i o n s o f Balaam's p r o p h e c i e s in N u m . 23:7, 2 3 : 2 1 , a n d
24:5 p r o v i d e striking e x a m p l e s o f P h i l o ' s c h o i c e o f terms. In N u m . 23:7,
Balaam tells h o w Balak b r o u g h t h i m to curse t h e p e o p l e :

6 1
Philo's n u m e r o u s references to "Israel" in the Allegory are discussed extensively
in the n e x t chapter. T h e two Exposition references are Abr. 57 and Praem. 44.
6 2
QG 3.49; QG 4.233; QE 2.30, 37. In QG 3.49 and QG 4.233, Philo m e n t i o n s the word
in an interpretation. In QE 2.30, h e m e n t i o n s "Israel" in a paraphrase of Exod. 24:4;
in QE 2.37, h e m e n t i o n s it in a quotation of Exod. 24:10.
6 3
E x o d . 21:2 a n d Deut. 15:12. T h e Bible frequently uses "Hebrews" w h e n speaking
a b o u t Israel in relation to o t h e r p e o p l e s . S e e A n s o n F. Rainey, "Hebrews," Harper's
Bible Dictionary, e d . Paul J. A c h t e m e i e r (San Francisco: Harper 8c Row, 1 9 8 5 ) , 379. Cf.
T o m s o n , "The N a m e s Israel and Jew," 128.
6 4
Chaldean: Mos. 1.5; Jew. Mos. 1.34, Mos. 2.193.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 49

From M e s o p o t a m i a Balak s u m m o n e d m e ,
the king of Moab o u t of the mountains of the east,
'Come, curse Jacob for m e ,
a n d c o m e , call down curses for m e u p o n Israel.' (my translation)

In Conf. 7 2 , a passage in t h e Allegory, P h i l o q u o t e s t h e s e c o n d part o f

this verse exactly as t h e G r e e k Bible has it, i n c l u d i n g t h e n a m e s 'Jacob"
a n d "Israel." In Mos. 1.278, h o w e v e r , h e transforms B a l a a m ' s w o r d s as
follows: "From M e s o p o t a m i a h a t h Balak called m e , a far j o u r n e y f r o m t h e
East, t h a t h e m a y a v e n g e h i m o n t h e H e b r e w s t h r o u g h m y c u r s i n g . "
N u m . 23:21 a n d 24:5 also m e n t i o n J a c o b a n d Israel. W h e n P h i l o recasts
t h e s e v e r s e s i n Mos. 1.284 a n d 289, however, h e again substitutes
6 5
"Hebrews" for t h e two n a m e s . B e c a u s e Balaam's o r a c l e s a p p e a r as direct
q u o t a t i o n s b o t h in t h e B i b l e a n d i n P h i l o ' s r e n d i t i o n , t h e c o n s i s t e n t
c h a n g e f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l "Jacob" a n d "Israel" t o "Hebrews" is e s p e c i a l l y
salient.
If P h i l o ' s n o n - u s e o f "Israel" is striking, so t o o is his use o f t h e term. W e
have j u s t n o t e d that "Israel" is entirely a b s e n t f r o m P h i l o ' s literal r e t e l l i n g
o f t h e Biblical narrative a b o u t t h e n a t i o n in Mos. 1 a n d 2. T h i s observation
a n d t h e f o l l o w i n g o n e s s u g g e s t that P h i l o u n d e r s t a n d s "Israel" i n a
special, n o n l i t e r a l way.
In all t h r e e series, P h i l o frequently interprets "Israel" u s i n g t h e e t y m o l ­
o g y . In t h e A l l e g o r y , w h i c h h a s "Israel" o v e r s e v e n t y t i m e s , t h e w o r d
appears e i t h e r as part o f a Scriptural q u o t a t i o n , w h i c h is n o t e x p o u n d e d , o r
in a s y m b o l i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n that frequently refers to t h e e t y m o l o g y e i t h e r
directly o r indirectly. In t h e two passages in w h i c h P h i l o uses "Israel" in
t h e E x p o s i t i o n (Abr. 57 a n d Praem. 4 4 ) , h e also p r o v i d e s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
b a s e d u p o n t h e e t y m o l o g y . Q G E i n c l u d e s "Israel" twice in t h e q u e s t i o n s
6 6
a n d twice in t h e c o m m e n t a r y . B o t h latter i n s t a n c e s give t h e e t y m o l o g y .
A l t h o u g h P h i l o n e v e r rejects a literal u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e t e r m as t h e
real n a t i o n i n any o f h i s e x e g e t i c a l works, n e i t h e r d o e s h e e x p l i c i t l y
affirm this literal s e n s e .
Finally, w h e n "Israel" c o n n o t e s a g r o u p , P h i l o m o s t f r e q u e n t l y calls it
a race or class ( γ έ ν ο ς ) . H e n e v e r calls it a p e o p l e ( λ α ό ς ) . A l t h o u g h P h i l o
d o e s u s e "Israel" in c o n n e c t i o n with έ θ ν ο ς ( n a t i o n ) five times, w h e t h e r o r
67
n o t "Israel" is a n a t i o n is b e s i d e t h e p o i n t o f t h e p a s s a g e s . T h u s P h i l o ' s

6 5
N u m . 23:21: "There shall n o t b e trouble in Jacob, n o r will hardship be s e e n in
Israel" (my translation). Cf. Mos. 1.284: "There shall be n o trouble or labour a m o n g
the Hebrews."
N u m . 24:5: "How fair are your tents, Ο Jacob, Your e n c a m p m e n t s , Ο Israel!" Cf.
Mos. 1.289: "How goodly are thy dwellings, thou host of the Hebrews!"
6 6
See above, n. 62.
6 7
In Her. 279, Abr. 57, and QG 3.49, Philo writes that "Israel" is the name o f the
50 CHAPTER ONE

u s e o f γένος t o d e s c r i b e "Israel" as a collectivity a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h e s this

entity f r o m H e b r e w s a n d Jews, w h o are usually e i t h e r a n έθνος ( n a t i o n )
6 8
or a λαός ( p e o p l e ) ,

Common Nouns

Studies o f h o w P h i l o uses λαός ( p e o p l e ) , έθνος ( n a t i o n ) , πολιτεία ( p o l i t y ) ,

a n d γένος (race o r class) s u p p o r t t h e above observations. T h e G r e e k Penta­
t e u c h — i . e . , t h e part o f t h e Bible u p o n w h i c h Philo c o n c e n t r a t e s —
c o m m o n l y u s e s λαός, a translation o f t h e H e b r e w w o r d Dl>, t o refer t o t h e
p e o p l e o f Israel, έθνος, usually a translation o f t h e H e b r e w w o r d "η), rarely
6 9
d e s i g n a t e s this p e o p l e , a n d γένος is almost n e v e r u s e d for t h e m . T h e t e r m
πολιτεία d o e s n o t o c c u r i n t h e Greek P e n t a t e u c h .
B e l o w I shall discuss t h e s e c o m m o n n o u n s separately as t h e y a p p e a r i n
t h e A l l e g o r y a n d E x p o s i t i o n , a n d t h e n all t o g e t h e r as they o c c u r i n Q G E .
S i n c e P h i l o u s e s λαός ( p e o p l e ) a n d έθνος ( n a t i o n ) a l m o s t i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y ,
I shall c o n s i d e r t h e s e two w o r d s i n t h e s a m e s e c t i o n .

λαός ( P e o p l e ) a n d έθνος (Nation)

In P h i l o ' s A l l e g o r y , w h e n λαός ( p e o p l e ) a n d έθνος ( n a t i o n ) refer t o t h e
Biblical p e o p l e Israel, they o f t e n a p p e a r first i n a Scriptural q u o t a t i o n a n d
70
are t h e n i n t e r p r e t e d s y m b o l i c a l l y . W h e n P h i l o d o e s n o t i n t e r p r e t t h e s e
7 1
w o r d s , h e n e i t h e r affirms n o r d e n i e s their literal s e n s e .

nation, but h e d o e s n o t define "Israel" itself as a nation. Instead h e focuses u p o n t h e

s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e n a m e . Deus 148 a n d QE 2.30 have a w o r d for "nation" i n
interpretations o f verses in which "Israel" appears. T h e word έθνος occurs explicitly in
Her. 279, Abr. 57, a n d Deus 148. As we have n o Greek fragments for QG 3.49 or QE 2.30,
we c a n n o t k n o w Philo's original term for "nation" in these passages. In fact, t h e
A r m e n i a n w o r d for n a t i o n u s e d h e r e (azg) is ambiguous, a n d it is possible that t h e
original Greek was γ έ ν ο ς . (I a m i n d e b t e d to Prof. Sze-kar Wan for this information.)
See also further below c o n c e r n i n g QG 3.18.
6 8
Philo's use o f γένος to describe "Israel" is amply discussed in Chapter T h r e e . O t h e r
words to describe "Israel" as a collectivity can b e f o u n d in Plant. 5 8 , in which h e calls
"Israel" a b a n d o f wise souls (ψυχών σοφών ό θ ί α σ ο ς ) , a n d in Her. 2 0 3 , in w h i c h h e
refers to the Egyptian a n d Israelite host (ή Αιγυπτιακή και ή Ισραηλιτική στρατιά). T h e
latter passage has the only occurrence o f the word Ι σ ρ α η λ ι τ ι κ ό ς in Philo.
6 9
A n e x c e p t i o n is Exod. 1:9, which speaks of the race of the sons o f Israel (τό γένος τών
υιών Ι σ ρ α ή λ ) . In Migr. 54, Philo interprets this as the race that can s e e the Existent (τό
όρατικόν τοΰ δντος γ έ ν ο ς ) . This is consistent with many o f his o t h e r interpretations o f
"Israel."
7 0
For λ α ό ς , see, e.g., Leg. 2.77, Leg. 3 . 1 6 2 - 6 3 ; Agr. 44, 84, 88; Ebr. 37, 96; Migr. 14, 47,
Congr. 83; Somn. 1.71, 89. For έθνος, see Deus 148. T h e two words appear together in Post.
8 9 - 9 1 ; Plant. 59; Migr. 5 6 - 6 0 , 68.
7 1
For λ α ό ς , see Leg. 2.94; Cher. 87; Ebr. 67; Sobr. 10; Conf. 58, 94; Migr. 8 1 ; Her. 251 ( 2 ) ;
Congr. 163; Mut. 125. For έθνος, see Her. 174, 278; Fug. 185; Mut. 191; Somn. 1.167.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 51

I n contrast, i n t h e E x p o s i t i o n , P h i l o regularly u s e s λ α ό ς ( p e o p l e ) a n d
έθνος ( n a t i o n ) t o indicate t h e real n a t i o n . T h e s e w o r d s a p p e a r t o d e s c r i b e
t h e n a t i o n as a social o r political entity; n e i t h e r w o r d specifically d e l i m i t s
it as a g r o u p w i t h c o m m o n origins. As a rule, λ α ό ς d e n o t e s t h e a n c i e n t
72
Hebrews rather than Philo's Jewish c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . O f the d o z e n or so
a p p e a r a n c e s o f λ α ό ς i n t h e E x p o s i t i o n , o n l y two are e x p l a i n e d symboli­
7 3
cally.
P h i l o u s e s έ θ ν ο ς m o r e frequently t h a n λ α ό ς , w h e t h e r h e is s p e a k i n g o f
t h e Biblical p e o p l e or his Jewish c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . A l t h o u g h t h e P e n t a t e u c h
p r e f e r s λ α ό ς t o έ θ ν ο ς for t h e a n c i e n t H e b r e w s , P h i l o u s e s b o t h w o r d s
i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y t o refer t o t h e m . For t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y n a t i o n , h o w e v e r
— w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f Spec. 2 . 1 4 5 — h e g e n e r a l l y u s e s έ θ ν ο ς i n s t e a d o f
λ α ό ς . I n fact, P h i l o ' s usual way o f s p e a k i n g a b o u t e i t h e r t h e H e b r e w s o r
t h e J e w s — t h a t is, t h e historical o r t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y p e o p l e — i s simply t o
call t h e m "the n a t i o n " (τό έ θ ν ο ς ) . T h e t e r m έ θ ν ο ς is n e v e r a l l e g o r i z e d in
the Exposition.

πολιτεία (Polity)
In b o t h t h e Allegory a n d t h e E x p o s i t i o n , t h e w o r d π ο λ ι τ ε ί α has a r a n g e o f
m e a n i n g s . It c a n d e n o t e a c o n s t i t u t i o n o f laws, a f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t ,
political life in g e n e r a l , t h e political life o f a specific c o m m u n i t y , citizen­
ship, o r t h e p e o p l e w h o live u n d e r a c o m m o n f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t . T o b e
7 4
sure, o c c a s i o n a l l y m o r e t h a n o n e m e a n i n g may o b t a i n .
O f t h e two d o z e n o c c u r r e n c e s o f π ο λ ι τ ε ί α in t h e A l l e g o r y , t h r e e
p a s s a g e s specifically m e n t i o n t h e π ο λ ι τ ε ί α o f M o s e s , n o t i n g that h e h a s
b a n i s h e d f r o m h i s π ο λ ι τ ε ί α painters, sculptors, a n d their i d o l a t r o u s crafts.
In t h e s e passages, π ο λ ι τ ε ί α twice refers to Moses's legislation (Gig. 5 9 , Her.
169) a n d o n c e (Ebr. 109) to the c o m m u n i t y o f p e o p l e w h o live a c c o r d i n g t o
this l e g i s l a t i o n . T h i s last r e f e r e n c e , h o w e v e r , is v a g u e a n d d o e s n o t
necessarily i n d i c a t e a particular social g r o u p .

7 2
Spec. 2.145 is an exception where λ α ό ς refers to the contemporary nation.
7 3
Virt. 184 and Praem. 123. For discussion of these passages, see Chapter Four.
7 4
S e e , e.g., Aryeh Kasher, "The T e r m Politeia in Philo a n d J o s e p h u s , " The Jews in
Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights, Texte u n d Studien zum Antiken
J u d e n t u m , e d . Martin H e n g e l and Peter Schafer (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Sie-
b e c k ] , 1 9 8 5 ) , 3 5 8 - 6 4 . For varied uses of π ο λ ι τ ε ί α and other related words, see also
H e r m a n n Strathmann, "πόλις, κτλ," TDNT, 6:516-35; Harold W. Attridge, The Interpre­
tation of Biblical History in the A n t i q u i t a t e s J u d a i c a e of Flavins Josephus, Harvard
T h e o l o g i c a l Review; Harvard Dissertations in Religion, n o . 7, ed. Caroline B y n u m
a n d G e o r g e R u p p (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1 9 7 6 ) , 6 2 - 6 3 ; S m a l l w o o d ,
Philonis Alexandrini, 3 - 4 . Philo uses π ο λ ι τ ε ί α figuratively in the Allegory passages Gig.
61, Conf 108, and Somn. 1.78.
52 CHAPTER ONE

In t h e E x p o s i t i o n , P h i l o speaks m o r e frequently a b o u t t h e π ο λ ι τ ε ί α o f
M o s e s , b o t h as a f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t a n d as a s p e c i f i c c o m m u n i t y o f
75
p e o p l e w h o live a c c o r d i n g t o this f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t . In contrast t o t h e
A l l e g o r y , i n w h i c h this c o m m u n i t y is o n l y a v a g u e r e f e r e n c e , w e c a n
tell f r o m t h e c o n t e x t i n t h e E x p o s i t i o n that P h i l o h a s i n m i n d t h e Jews.
I n d e e d , i n Virt. 1 0 8 , h e specifically calls t h e m t h e polity o f t h e J e w s (ή
Ιουδαίων πολιτεία).

γένος (Race o r Glass)

Finally, a study o f γ έ ν ο ς i n t h e A l l e g o r y a n d t h e E x p o s i t i o n s h o w s that in
b o t h s e r i e s P h i l o u s e s this w o r d i n a variety o f ways. T h u s γ έ ν ο ς m a y
d e n o t e a class o r o r d e r o f p e o p l e o r things; c o m m o n o r i g i n , b i r t h , o r
d e s c e n t ; a n abstract k i n d o r nature; a g e n u s c o m p o s e d o f several s p e c i e s ;
a n d , i n t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l s e n s e , a n ideal. T h o u g h w e are n o w i n t e r e s t e d
only i n Philo's u s e o f γ έ ν ο ς t o refer t o p e o p l e , I shall presently c o n s i d e r t h e
philosophical nuances of the word.
With r e g a r d t o p e o p l e , γ έ ν ο ς m o s t frequently d e n o t e s a class o r o r d e r .
( W h i l e t h e E n g l i s h w o r d "race" m a y also b e u s e d i n this s e n s e , t o a v o i d
c o n f u s i o n , I shall u s e t h e w o r d "race" only to apply t o a g r o u p that shares
c o m m o n b i r t h o r o r i g i n s . ) W h e n γ έ ν ο ς d e n o t e s a class o r o r d e r , P h i l o
d e s c r i b e s t h e γ έ ν ο ς e i t h e r w i t h a n o u n in t h e g e n i t i v e case o r with a n
adjective. T h u s h e f r e q u e n t l y speaks a b o u t t h e class o r o r d e r o f h u m a n s
7 6
(γένος α ν θ ρ ώ π ω ν ) o r t h e mortal class (θνητόν γ έ ν ο ς ) . P h i l o also uses o t h e r
adjectives w i t h γ έ ν ο ς t o d e s c r i b e a m o r e specific class o f p e o p l e distin­
g u i s h e d by a certain quality o r pursuit. E x a m p l e s i n c l u d e t h e p o e t i c class
(ποιητικόν γ έ ν ο ς ) , t h e class o f sophists (σοφιστικόν γ έ ν ο ς ) , o r t h e p r o p h e t i c
77
class (προφητικόν γ έ ν ο ς ) .
B e s i d e s class o r o r d e r , γ έ ν ο ς m a y also indicate c o m m o n o r i g i n , birth, o r
d e s c e n t . It c a n , f o r e x a m p l e , refer t o a race o f p e o p l e w i t h c o m m o n
ancestry, s u c h as t h e G r e e k s o r Egyptians, w h o also c o n s t i t u t e a political
78
n a t i o n a l i t y . In t h e A l l e g o r y a n d t h e E x p o s i t i o n , P h i l o d o e s n o t m e n t i o n
γένος specifically with H e b r e w s or Jews, although h e d o e s use γ έ ν ο ς

7 5
Mos. 2.211; Decal. 98; Spec. 1.60, 6 3 , 314, 319; Spec. 2.123; Spec. 3.24, 5 1 ; Spec. 4.55,
100, 105; Virt. 87, 127, 175.
7 6
Cf. class or kind ( γ έ ν ο ς ) o f Magi, Spec. 3.100; o f f i s h , Opif. 6 3 , 65; Mos. 1.100; o f
birds, Opif. 63; o f living creatures, Opif. 64; of grasshoppers, Opif. 163; o f trees, Praem.
141; e t a l .
7 7
Poets: Opif. 133, 157; Sacr. 78; Agr. 4 1 ; Ios. 2; Spec. 2.164. Sophists: Opif. 157. Prophets:
Her. 249, 265; Migr. 84; Fug. 147; Mut. 110, 120. In s o m e of these passages, γένος m a y
also m e a n nature or kind, in an abstract sense, rather than class of p e o p l e .
7 8
Conf. 70: the body-loving race of the Egyptians (τό φιλοσώματον γένος των Αιγυπτίων);
Ios. 56: the Greek a n d barbarian race (τό τε Έλληνικόν και βαρβαρικόν γένος).
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 53

a l o n e — a l b e i t i n f r e q u e n t l y — i n a way that m i g h t refer t o t h e race u n i t e d

7 9
by H e b r e w o r J e w i s h d e s c e n t .
In a d d i t i o n to race by birth, γ έ ν ο ς can also d e n o t e a smaller g r o u p , s u c h
as a family o r c l a n , a l i n e o f d e s c e n t , a single offspring, k i n s h i p o r b l o o d
8 0
r e l a t i o n s h i p , a n d birth o r c o m m o n o r i g i n in g e n e r a l . Because these
senses often overlap, assignment of o n e m e a n i n g over another can some­
times b e difficult.
W i t h r e s p e c t to p e o p l e , t h e n , P h i l o uses the word γένος to indicate e i t h e r
class o r d e s c e n t . T h e s e c o n d m e a n i n g o c c u r s mostly i n t h e E x p o s i t i o n , in
w h i c h P h i l o o f t e n d i s c u s s e s k i n s h i p a n d o r i g i n . T h i s m e a n i n g rarely
81
o c c u r s in t h e A l l e g o r y .
In l i g h t o f t h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s , w e c a n n o w r e c o g n i z e that w h e n P h i l o
refers to Israel as t h e όρατικόν γένος, or the γένος that c a n s e e , "Israel" m a y
b e t h e p r o p e r n a m e o f the class o f p e o p l e w h o are able to "see" o r o f a g r o u p
w i t h this ability that shares a c o m m o n ancestry. P e r h a p s t o o P h i l o m a y
i n t e n d b o t h s e n s e s at o n c e . In t h e s e cases, t h e n , w h e n translating γ έ ν ο ς , I
shall u s e t h e d e s i g n a t i o n "race/class" to indicate t h e ambiguity.
Without a doubt, the correct m e a n i n g of γ έ ν ο ς in c o n n e c t i o n with
"Israel" g o e s b e y o n d linguistic c o n c e r n s a n d t o u c h e s u p o n t h e very issue
o f t h i s w h o l e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Is t h e ability t o " s e e " — w h i c h "Israel"
p o s s e s s e s — i n h e r i t e d o r acquired? If it is o n l y i n h e r i t e d , t h e n t h e racial
g r o u p Israel a n d t h e Jews are t h e s a m e . If it is o n l y a c q u i r e d , t h e n "Israel"
b e c o m e s a different sort o f entity. If this vision is i n h e r i t e d b u t c a n also b e
a c q u i r e d , t h e n t h e identity o f t h e g r o u p c h a n g e s again. In C h a p t e r T h r e e ,
w e shall e x p l o r e f u r t h e r t h e various possibilities for u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e
i d e n t i t y o f "Israel."
B e s i d e s ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν , P h i l o u s e s o t h e r adjectives with γ έ ν ο ς to d e s c r i b e t h e
r a c e / c l a s s "Israel." H e calls this γ έ ν ο ς t h e c h o s e n ( έ π ί λ ε κ τ ο ν , Post. 9 2 ; cf.

7 9
Her. 278, Fug. 73, Mut. 88, Somn. 1.159, Ios. 42, Mos. 1.324, Spec. 2.217, Virt. 206; see
also n. 8 4 below. In Migr. 20, Philo speaks of Moses as a single offspring o f the
Hebrews (γένος Ε β ρ α ί ω ν ) .
8 0
Family or clan: Det. 25; Post. 109; Fug. 107, 114; Mut. 117; Abr. 50; Ios. 233; Mos. 1.302,
304; Mos. 2.8, 142, 245; Decal. 130; Spec. 1.118; Spec. 2.111, 129; Spec. 3.157; Virt. 191, 193,
197.
Line of descent. Her. 6 1 , 82; Somn. 2.16; Mos. 1.147; Mos. 2.289; Spec. 1.110; Spec. 3.21;
Spec. 4.192, 206; Virt. 60.
Single offspring. Migr. 20, Congr. 132, Virt. 212.
Kinship: Det. 99; Somn. 1.166; Spec. 2.237, 239; Spec. 3.11, 162; Virt. 225.
Birth or common origin: Congr. 41; Abr. 211; Mos. 1.5; Mos. 2.8; Decal. 71; Spec. 1.160;
Spec. 2.95, 114; Spec. 3.27, 113 (second appearance of γένος), 165, 192; Spec. 4.18; Virt. 123,
132,199.
8 1
In n. 80, of the fifty-six passages in which γένος d e n o t e s descent, only thirteen are
from the Allegory. T h e rest are from the Exposition.
54 CHAPTER ONE

8 2
Conf. 56) , t h e best (άριστον, Congr. 5 1 ) , t h e self-controlled a n d G o d - b e l o v e d
(εγκρατές κ α ι θεοφιλές, Her. 2 0 3 ; cf. Migr. 114, 1 5 8 ) , a n d t h e r a c e / c l a s s o f
8 3
w i s d o m (τό σ ο φ ί α ς γ έ ν ο ς , Migr. 1 2 5 , Somn. 1 . 1 7 5 ) . I n s o m e o f t h e s e
interpretations, γ έ ν ο ς may n o l o n g e r d e n o t e a class o f p e o p l e b u t instead a n
abstract n a t u r e o r k i n d . A l m o s t all o f t h e s e e x a m p l e s o c c u r i n t h e A l l e ­
8 4
gory, in w h i c h P h i l o usually u s e s γ έ ν ο ς t o m e a n class a n d rarely o r i g i n .
M o r e o v e r , w h e n h e clearly s p e a k s o f g r o u p s w i t h c o m m o n d e s c e n t , h e
85
generally uses γ έ ν ο ς without an adjective. Nevertheless for now, we
c a n n o t rule o u t t h e s e n s e o f t h e γένος "Israel" as a race u n i t e d by c o m m o n
descent.

QGE

B e c a u s e s o little o f this series h a s survived in Greek, it is i m p o s s i b l e t o say

very m u c h a b o u t P h i l o ' s u s e h e r e o f t h e c o m m o n n o u n s λ α ό ς , έ θ ν ο ς ,
π ο λ ι τ ε ί α , o r γένος. M o s t o f t h e passages w h i c h m e n t i o n t h e Biblical n a t i o n
are n o t e x t a n t in Greek. Ironically, in o n e o f t h e s e passages, w h i c h d o e s
have G r e e k f r a g m e n t s (QG 3 . 1 8 ) , o n e source has έθνος; a n o t h e r h a s γ έ ν ο ς .
T o c o m p l i c a t e m a t t e r s , t h e A r m e n i a n w o r d azg d o e s n o t d i s t i n g u i s h i n
8 6
m e a n i n g b e t w e e n έ θ ν ο ς a n d γ έ ν ο ς . In a n o t h e r passage w h i c h h a s G r e e k
f r a g m e n t s (QE 2 . 2 ) , P h i l o refers explicitly t o t h e H e b r e w race (τό Έ β ρ α ΐ ο ν
γ έ ν ο ς ) . T h i s is t h e o n l y passage i n all h i s works i n w h i c h h e u s e s γ έ ν ο ς
e x p l i c i d y with Έ β ρ α ΐ ο ν to d e n o t e t h e race.
D e s p i t e t h e difficulty in c o n d u c t i n g a w o r d study f o r Q G E , w e c a n still
m a k e s o m e s i g n i f i c a n t o b s e r v a t i o n s . W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f QG 3 . 4 8

8 2
QGE also has several references to the Biblical p e o p l e as c h o s e n or as the "chosen
race": QG 2.65; QG 3.49; QE 2.38, 4 2 , 4 3 , 46. Of these passages, "Israel" is m e n t i o n e d by
n a m e only in QG 3.49. In s o m e cases, it is difficult to ascertain w h e t h e r o r n o t Philo
is talking a b o u t the real Biblical nation. For further discussion o f these passages, see
Chapters T h r e e a n d Four.
8 3
This reference d o e s n o t m e n t i o n "Israel" explicitly by n a m e b u t refers to Jacob's
descendants.
8 4
T w o passages in the Exposition w h i c h use γ έ ν ο ς with adjectives are Mos. 2.189,
which speaks o f "the race/class that worships Him" (τό θεραπευτικόν αύτοΰ γένος) a n d
Mos. 2.196, w h i c h m e n t i o n s "the s e e i n g a n d knowing r a c e / c l a s s " (τό όρατικόν και
έπιστημονικόν γένος). T h e s e expressions clearly refer to the actual Biblical nation, but
"Israel" is n e v e r m e n t i o n e d by n a m e in this treatise. Strictly s p e a k i n g , t h e n , w e
c a n n o t say that these expressions describe "Israel."
8 5
E x c e p t i o n s i n c l u d e Conf. 7 0 , in w h i c h h e m e n t i o n s the body-loving race o f t h e
Egyptians (see above, n. 7 8 ) ; Her. 82: γένος τό ίερωμένον, the consecrated line; Virt. 197:
λ α μ π ρ ά γένη, illustrious lineages; a n d Virt. 199: γένος έξαίρετον, extraordinary origin.
W h e n Philo speaks about the priestly (Ιερατικόν) γένος in Spec. 1.243, the word γ έ ν ο ς
may m e a n either class or family, t h o u g h family is m o r e likely. Cf. Spec. 1.111, in
w h i c h γ ε ν ε ά Ιερατική is clearly "priestly family."
8 6
Petit, Quaestiones, ΟΡΑ, 33:131.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 55

( d i s c u s s e d earlier), this series d o e s n o t m e n t i o n c o n t e m p o r a r y Jews. S o m e

Q u e s t i o n s a n d A n s w e r s in t h e E n g l i s h translation refer t o t h e Biblical
8 7
p e o p l e as "they," "the n a t i o n , " o r "the p e o p l e . " W h i l e s o m e o f t h e s e
p a s s a g e s specifically d e s c r i b e as "literal" (τό ρητόν) t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s in
88
w h i c h t h e s e w o r d s appear, o t h e r s d o n o t describe t h e interpretation at a l l .
N o n e t h e l e s s , since Philo's p u r p o s e h e r e is to explicate t h e text rather t h a n
to narrate Biblical history, t h e real e x i s t e n c e o f t h e p e o p l e is b e s i d e t h e
p o i n t o f t h e passages.
In a d d i t i o n , b o t h within Biblical q u o t a t i o n s a n d in t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ,
P h i l o c o m m o n l y s u b s t i t u t e s f o r t h e p r o p e r n a m e "Israel" s u c h e t y m o -
logically d e r i v e d d e s i g n a t i o n s as "the r a c e / c l a s s that c a n see" (τό ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν
8 9
γ έ ν ο ς ) o r "the s e e i n g o n e " (o [or τ ό ] ο ρ ώ ν ) . T h e s e p h r a s e s are always
i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e o n l y with "Israel"; t h e y n e v e r r e p l a c e any o t h e r p r o p e r
n a m e a n d n e v e r i n d i c a t e any o t h e r g r o u p apart f r o m "Israel." T w o o f t h e
six i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s w h i c h have s u c h p e r i p h r a s e s for "Israel" d e s c r i b e t h e
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as "literal" (QE 1.12, 2 1 ) . H e r e , "the o n e that c a n see" o r "the
r a c e / c l a s s t h a t c a n s e e " m a y p o s s i b l y b e u n d e r s t o o d as t h e B i b l i c a l
n a t i o n Israel i n a d d i t i o n t o a n entity d e f i n e d by its spiritual ability. W e
shall e x p l o r e t h e possible i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e s e p e r i p h r a s e s in C h a p t e r
Three.

Philo's Discussion of "Israel" and the Jews in the Exegetical Works: Summary and
Conclusions

In h i s e x e g e t i c a l works, P h i l o u s e s different vocabulary t o d e s c r i b e t h e

real historical a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y n a t i o n , o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d "Israel,"
o n t h e o t h e r . For t h e m o s t part, h e speaks a b o u t the real n a t i o n — e i t h e r past
o r p r e s e n t — a n d "Israel" in separate works.
O n e m a y p e r h a p s attribute this s e c o n d observation to P h i l o ' s different
a u d i e n c e s for his e x e g e t i c a l series, as discussed in t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n . T h a t
is, P h i l o d o e s n o t s p e a k o f his J e w i s h c o n t e m p o r a r i e s in t h e A l l e g o r y o r

8 7
See above, n. 57.
8 8
Passages in w h i c h r e f e r e n c e to the n a t i o n is i n c l u d e d in a "literal" interpreta­
tion: QG 3.18; QG 4.153, 200; QE 1.2, 4; QE 2.31. Passages that d o n o t describe the
interpretation in w h i c h reference to the nation is made: QG 3.38, 49; QE 1.9, 10; QE
2.22, 35, 49.
8 9
A p e r i p h r a s i s — m o s t likely όρατικόν γένος ( r a c e / c l a s s that can s e e ) — o c c u r s in
Philo's commentary, n o t the Biblical citation, in QE 1.21; QE 2.42, 43, 46, 76. Only QE
2.46 exists (in part) in the Greek, but this fragment attests to Philo's use o f the phrase
όρατικόν γένος. QE 1.12 may have the adjective, όρατικός (able to s e e ) , a l o n e — t h a t is,
w i t h o u t γ έ ν ο ς — a s a substantive. QE 2.38 substitutes "the c h o s e n s e e i n g o n e s " for
"Israel" in the Biblical quotation of Exod. 24:11, and QE 2.47 substitutes "the s e e i n g
o n e " for "Israel" in the Biblical quotation of Exod. 24:17.
56 CHAPTER ONE

Q G E , possibly b e c a u s e his readers are already quite familiar with t h e J e w s

a n d t h e i r ways. L i k e w i s e , t h e s e r e a d e r s are p r o b a b l y m o r e likely t h a n
t h o s e i n t h e E x p o s i t i o n t o u n d e r s t a n d a n d a p p r e c i a t e t h e special signif­
i c a n c e o f "Israel." In contrast, P h i l o discusses J e w s at l e n g t h in t h e E x p o ­
sition, i n w h i c h h i s a u d i e n c e m a y b e less familiar w i t h t h e i r history a n d
p r a c t i c e s . Finally, Q G E m a y have m o r e expressly "literal" i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
a b o u t t h e n a t i o n t h a n t h e Allegory d o e s , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e Q G E is i n t e n d e d
for a w i d e r r a n g e o f J e w i s h readers, i n c l u d i n g t h o s e w h o value t h e literal
approach to Scripture,

Philonic Reflections Upon the Meaning of λαός and γένος

I h a v e s u g g e s t e d that P h i l o ' s way o f r e f e r r i n g t o "Israel" is s i g n i f i c a n t

b e c a u s e h e describes it as a γένος ( r a c e / c l a s s ) b u t n o t a λ α ό ς ( p e o p l e ) or a n
έθνος ( n a t i o n ) . M o r e o v e r , in d e s c r i b i n g "Israel" specifically as t h e ό ρ α τ ι ­
κόν γένος, o r t h e r a c e / c l a s s that c a n see, h e may u n d e r s t a n d this γ έ ν ο ς as a
class o f p e o p l e that c a n s e e in a d d i t i o n to or instead o f as a race u n i t e d by
birth that i n h e r i t s this ability. B e f o r e w e e x a m i n e P h i l o ' s v o c a b u l a r y in
t h e n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works, t h e r e f o r e , it may b e instructive t o c o n s i d e r o n e
i n s t a n c e in w h i c h h e h i m s e l f c o m m e n t s directly a b o u t two o f t h e
9 0
relevant terms, λ α ό ς ( p e o p l e ) a n d γένος ( r a c e / c l a s s ) .
T h e passage is Sacr. 6 - 7 , w h i c h interprets G e n . 35:29. P h i l o n o t i c e s that
this verse m e n t i o n i n g Isaac's d e a t h differs in o n e w o r d f r o m t h e verses
m e n t i o n i n g t h e d e a t h s o f A b r a h a m ( G e n . 25:8) a n d J a c o b ( G e n . 4 9 : 3 3 ) . In
t h e M a s o r e t i c text, all t h r e e e x p r e s s i o n s are t h e s a m e : νηΰ bto *]0m, "And
h e was g a t h e r e d to his p e o p l e . " T h e Greek Bible, h o w e v e r , translates vol?
as λ α ό ς in b o t h verses a b o u t A b r a h a m a n d J a c o b (και προσετέθη τον λ α ό ν
αύτοΰ) b u t r e n d e r s t h e n o u n as γένος in t h e verse a b o u t Isaac.
T o e x p l a i n this discrepancy, P h i l o u s e s a p a r a d i g m in w h i c h t h e t h r e e
patriarchs r e p r e s e n t differently a c q u i r e d virtues. A c c o r d i n g t o this para­
d i g m , w h i c h is c o m m o n p l a c e in h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , A b r a h a m s y m b o l ­
izes virtue a c q u i r e d by l e a r n i n g ; Isaac, virtue a c q u i r e d by n a t u r e ; a n d
91
J a c o b , virtue g a i n e d by p r a c t i c e . In Sacr. 6 - 7 , P h i l o e x p l a i n s that Isaac is
d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e o t h e r two patriarchs b e c a u s e natural o r i n h e r e n t
virtue is s u p e r i o r to that acquired by learning or practice:

O n c e m o r e t h e r e is Isaac to w h o m was g r a n t e d the h i g h e r gift o f self-learnt

k n o w l e d g e . H e t o o a b a n d o n [s] all such bodily e l e m e n t s as h a d b e e n interwoven

9 0
P h i l o may also c o m m e n t o n the distinction b e t w e e n p e o p l e ( λ α ό ς ) a n d n a t i o n
( έ θ ν ο ς ) in QG 4.157, w h i c h interprets G e n . 25:23, the p r o p h e c y to Rebecca: "Two
n a t i o n s ( ε θ ν η ) are in thy w o m b , and two p e o p l e s ( λ α ο ί ) will be separated from thy
womb." Unfortunately, the m e a n i n g o f the interpretation is obscure.
9 1
See, e.g., Congr. 3 4 - 3 8 , Mut. 88, Abr. 5 2 - 5 5 , Praem. 2 4 - 2 7 , et al.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 57

with the soul, a n d is a d d e d a n d allotted to a n o t h e r company; but n o t this t i m e ,

with the others, to a p e o p l e ( λ α ό ς ) , but to a 'race' or 'genus' ( γ έ ν ο ς ) , as Moses says.
For g e n u s is o n e , that w h i c h is above all, but p e o p l e is a n a m e for many. T h o s e
w h o have advanced to perfection as pupils u n d e r a teacher have their place a m o n g
m a n y others; for those w h o learn by hearing a n d instruction are n o small n u m ­
ber, a n d these h e calls a p e o p l e . But those w h o have dispensed with the instruction
o f m e n a n d have b e c o m e apt pupils of G o d receive the free unlaboured k n o w l e d g e
a n d are translated into the g e n u s o f the imperishable and fully perfect. Theirs is a
h a p p i e r l o t than the lot o f the p e o p l e , a n d in this sacred b a n d Isaac stands
confessed as a chorister. (Sacr. 6 - 7 )

In this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , P h i l o ' s r e a s o n i n g s e e m s to b e as follows: U n l i k e

A b r a h a m a n d J a c o b , w h o l e a r n f r o m a t e a c h e r , Isaac a c q u i r e s h i s self-
taught k n o w l e d g e from God. Since many p e o p l e learn from teachers,
A b r a h a m a n d J a c o b b e l o n g w i t h "people," a w o r d that i n d i c a t e s several
individuals. Isaac, however, is o n e o f t h e few students o f G o d . H e t h e r e f o r e
g o e s to a race or γένος, w h i c h is o n e .
U n d o u b t e d l y t h e literal m e a n i n g o f γ έ ν ο ς in G e n . 35:29 a m o u n t s t o t h e
s a m e t h i n g as λ α ό ς , a p e o p l e , a n d t h e r e is n o o b v i o u s r e a s o n w h y t h e
G r e e k translator u s e s γ έ ν ο ς instead o f λ α ό ς in this verse. P h i l o , h o w e v e r ,
u n d e r s t a n d s γ έ ν ο ς h e r e in a p h i l o s o p h i c a l s e n s e , d e s c r i b i n g it as o n e ( ε ν ) ,
t h e h i g h e s t ( ά ν ω τ ά τ ω ) , imperishable ( α φ θ α ρ τ ο ν ) , a n d m o s t perfect (τελειώ-
τ α τ ο ν ) . T h e s e remarks about γένος e c h o statements h e makes elsewhere
92
about the relationship between genus and species.
F r o m o n e p e r s p e c t i v e , this r e l a t i o n s h i p d e s c r i b e s o n e w h o l e a n d m a n y
9 3
p a r t s . W h i l e t h e r e are m a n y s p e c i e s , t h e y b e l o n g t o o n e g e n u s .
Although an exact correspondence between people and species would
r e q u i r e P h i l o to refer to m a n y p e o p l e s , t h e t h o u g h t h e r e is s i m p l y t h a t
" p e o p l e " is a collectivity o f m a n y , t o w h i c h t h e o n e g e n u s s t a n d s i n
c o n t r a s t . T h u s , γ έ ν ο ς is logically t h e "highest" o r stands a b o v e all in t h e
s e n s e that t h e w h o l e c o m e s b e f o r e the parts a n d c a n b e divided i n t o parts.
T h e n o t i o n that a γ έ ν ο ς is i m p e r i s h a b l e a n d p e r f e c t is c o n n e c t e d to t h e
i d e a that G o d first c r e a t e s t h e g e n u s as a n o r i g i n a l o r a r c h e t y p e o f t h e
particular o r t h e s p e c i e s . All that is g e n e r i c is i m p e r i s h a b l e , w h i l e all that
94
is specific is p e r i s h a b l e . T h u s , γ έ ν ο ς is closer to G o d a n d is "the h i g h e s t "
in a t e m p o r a l o r m e t a p h y s i c a l s e n s e as well as a logical o n e , b e c a u s e G o d
creates t h e g e n u s b e f o r e t h e species. As a direct p u p i l o f G o d rather t h a n o f
h u m a n s , Isaac ranks a m o n g t h e i m p e r i s h a b l e g e n e r i c r a t h e r t h a n t h e
p e r i s h a b l e specific.

9 2
T h o m a s H. T o b i n discusses the philosophical n u a n c e s in Philo's use o f the w o r d
γένος in The Creation of Man, 1 1 3 - 1 9 .
9 3
Cf. Con}. 192.
9 4
Cf. Leg. 1.22-23, Leg. 2.13, Cher. 5 - 7 , Mut. 7 8 - 8 0 , Her. 118, QG3.53.
58 CHAPTER ONE

In Sacr. 6 - 7 , P h i l o takes a d v a n t a g e o f t h e Scriptural irregularity w h e r e

λ α ό ς is u s e d in verses a b o u t A b r a h a m a n d J a c o b a n d γ έ ν ο ς is u s e d in t h e
verse a b o u t Isaac, to e x p a n d u p o n t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n A b r a h a m a n d
J a c o b , o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d Isaac, o n the o t h e r , in t h e way they a c q u i r e
virtue. By j u x t a p o s i n g t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l s e n s e o f γ έ ν ο ς w i t h t h e literal
s e n s e o f λ α ό ς , o r p e o p l e , h e u n d e r s c o r e s Isaac's superiority to t h e o t h e r
patriarchs, as well as t h e superiority o f γένος to λ α ό ς .
Clearly, P h i l o h a s a b r o a d r a n g e o f associations with γ έ ν ο ς , a n d h e c a n
apply t h e s e different associations s i m u l t a n e o u s l y o n different levels. Sacr.
6 - 7 is t h e o n l y p a s s a g e i n w h i c h h e e x p l i c i t l y a t t a c h e s p h i l o s o p h i c a l
i m p o r t t o this w o r d w h e n h e r e c o g n i z e s that it also f u n c t i o n s literally to
m e a n a race o r a p e o p l e in Scripture. N o n e t h e l e s s , this e x a m p l e is e n o u g h
t o s h o w that γ έ ν ο ς — t h e t e r m P h i l o u s e s m o s t f r e q u e n t l y t o d e s c r i b e
"Israel" as a collectivity—carries for h i m significant n u a n c e s .

The Non-Exegetical Works

U n l i k e t h e e x e g e t i c a l treatises, w h i c h can b e o r g a n i z e d by series, t h e n o n -

e x e g e t i c a l works r e p r e s e n t a m i s c e l l a n e o u s c o l l e c t i o n o f writings. For o u r
p u r p o s e s , t h e m o s t relevant are P h i l o ' s two political treatises, Flacc. a n d
Legat., in w h i c h h e speaks a b o u t t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y Jewish n a t i o n , a n d t h e
f r a g m e n t a r y Apology for the Jews (Hypoth.), in w h i c h h e m e n t i o n s b o t h t h e
Biblical a n d t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y n a t i o n s . In Contempl., P h i l o also refers to
t h e Biblical n a t i o n briefly. Finally, in t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l treatises Prob. a n d
Aet., P h i l o m e n t i o n s t h e J e w s i n p a s s i n g , m o s t f r e q u e n t l y w h e n c i t i n g
95
M o s e s as t h e i r l a w g i v e r . T h e s e r e f e r e n c e s in Prob. a n d Aet., h o w e v e r , are
riot significant t o o u r study.
T h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n is o r g a n i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o r e f e r e n c e s —
w h e t h e r by p r o p e r o r c o m m o n n o u n s — t o Philo's J e w i s h c o n t e m p o r a r i e s ,
t h e Biblical p e o p l e , a n d finally to Israel.

Philo's Jewish Contemporaries

T h r o u g h o u t t h e political treatises, Flacc. a n d Legat., P h i l o talks extensively

a b o u t his Jewish c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , referring to t h e m as t h e Jews ( Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ι ) ,
t h e n a t i o n o f Jews (τό Ι ο υ δ α ί ω ν έ θ ν ο ς ) , or the n a t i o n (τό έ θ ν ο ς ) . T h e w o r d
λ α ό ς ( p e o p l e ) d o e s n o t a p p e a r at all. In all t h e s e i n s t a n c e s , t h e Jews are
u n d e r s t o o d to b e t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y n a t i o n a n d usually, m o r e specifically,

9 5
Occasionally Philo m e n t i o n s the legislation or the lawgiver of the Jews w h e n h e
wishes to bring in a Biblical interpretation to buttress a philosophical p o i n t (Prob. 29,
43, 57, 68; Aet. 19). H e also speaks of the Essenes as b e l o n g i n g to the p o p u l o u s Jewish
nation (Prob. 75).
 "ISRAEL" AND THE JEWS 59

96
t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y in A l e x a n d r i a . In a few cases in Legat., P h i l o also
refers to t h e Jewish race (τό Ι ο υ δ α ί ω ν γένος, 178, 346; τό Ί ο υ δ α ϊ κ ό ν γένος,
2 0 1 ) . T h i s d e s i g n a t i o n s e e m s to e n c o m p a s s all Jews e v e r y w h e r e — w h e t h ­
er by birth o r c h o i c e — r a t h e r t h a n j u s t t h e A l e x a n d r i a n c o m m u n i t y . T h e
c o m b i n a t i o n o f γ έ ν ο ς specifically w i t h t h e w o r d s "Jews" o r "Jewish"
a p p e a r s o n l y h e r e a m o n g P h i l o ' s works. In g e n e r a l , t h e n o n - e x e g e t i c a l
works d o n o t reveal any n e w a p p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e w o r d γ έ ν ο ς . As in t h e
Biblical c o m m e n t a r i e s , h e r e t o o γ έ ν ο ς refers to race, family, k i n s h i p , o r
class. T h e n o n - e x e g e t i c a l treatises d o n o t u s e γ έ ν ο ς in t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l
s e n s e at all.
Finally, in Flacc. a n d Legat., P h i l o also uses the w o r d π ο λ ι τ ε ί α (polity) in
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e Jews, referring explicitly to t h e polity o f t h e J e w s (ή
π ο λ ι τ ε ί α ή Ι ο υ δ α ί ω ν ) in Legat. 194. In these treatises, h e appears to apply t h e
t e r m m o r e b r o a d l y w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e J e w s t h a n h e d o e s in t h e
E x p o s i t i o n . In t h e E x p o s i t i o n , w h e n P h i l o d e s c r i b e s t h e J e w i s h c o m m u ­
nity as h a v i n g o r b e i n g a π ο λ ι τ ε ί α , h e s e e m s to associate t h e w o r d e i t h e r
with M o s e s ' s legislation o r with t h e p e o p l e living u n d e r this legislation. In
Flacc. a n d Legat., h o w e v e r , w h e n P h i l o uses π ο λ ι τ ε ί α to refer t o t h e J e w s
a n d t h e i r f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t , h e s e e m s to u n d e r s t a n d t h e i r f o r m o f
g o v e r n m e n t as i n c l u d i n g b o t h t h e i r ancestral c u s t o m s — p r e s u m a b l y e m ­
b o d i e d in M o s e s ' s legislation a n d in the interpretation o f this l e g i s l a t i o n —
a n d their c o n t e m p o r a r y political organization (see, e.g., Flacc. 5 3 ) .
P h i l o also speaks a b o u t t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y n a t i o n in Hypoth. 7 . 1 - 2 0 , in
w h i c h h e d e s c r i b e s its laws a n d c u s t o m s . In this treatise, h e s e e m s to h a v e
in m i n d the w h o l e p e o p l e , n o t just the Alexandrian c o m m u n i t y .
A l t h o u g h h e refers to t h e m o n c e as the n a t i o n , (τό έθνος, Hypoth. 6 . 1 ) , in
g e n e r a l , h e talks a b o u t t h e Jews o f his day with a third p e r s o n p r o n o u n
(αυτοί, ε κ ε ί ν ο ι ) , w i t h o u t any p r o p e r or c o m m o n n o u n s .

The Biblical Nation

T h e Biblical n a t i o n is m e n t i o n e d in Hypoth. a n d in Contempl. Hypoth. 6 . 1 - 9

d i s c u s s e s t h e Biblical p e o p l e in a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e i r e x o d u s f r o m Egypt
a n d c o n q u e s t o f t h e p r o m i s e d land, a n d Contempl 8 5 - 8 7 briefly m e n t i o n s
t h e c r o s s i n g o f t h e R e d Sea. In b o t h o f t h e s e treatises, P h i l o u s e s t h e
c o m m o n n o u n λ α ό ς , p e o p l e , for t h e Biblical n a t i o n , as h e d o e s in t h e
Exposition.
N e i t h e r o f t h e s e two works uses a p r o p e r n o u n for t h e Biblical p e o p l e . In
fact, "Hebrews" is m i s s i n g c o m p l e t e l y f r o m t h e n o n - e x e g e t i c a l writings.

9 6
In contrast, w h e n Philo speaks of the Jews in the Exposition, h e s e e m s to m e a n
the entire p e o p l e rather than just the Alexandrian community.
60 CHAPTER ONE

W h e n h e gives an e t y m o l o g y in Legat. 4, P h i l o uses a f o r m o f t h e w o r d for

C h a l d e a n ( Χ α λ δ α ϊ σ τ ί ) as a s y n o n y m for t h e H e b r e w l a n g u a g e . A l s o , i n
Hypoth. 6.1, h e calls t h e a n c i e n t ancestor (ό π α λ α ι ό ς πρόγονος) o f t h e p e o p l e
a C h a l d e a n (από Χ α λ δ α ί ω ν ) . This may be a reference to A b r a h a m ,
97
h o w e v e r , w h o actually was f r o m t h e l a n d o f C h a l d e a .

Israel

A m o n g all t h e e x t a n t n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works, "Israel" is m e n t i o n e d o n l y

o n c e , in Legat. 4, in t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Philo's treatise a b o u t t h e political
w o e s o f his J e w i s h c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . T h e r e , P h i l o i d e n t i f i e s "Israel" as t h e
n a m e o f t h e suppliants' race (τό ίκετικόν γένος) a n d e x p l a i n s that t h e w o r d
m e a n s "one w h o s e e s G o d " (ορών θ ε ό ν ) . By d e s c r i b i n g "Israel" as a γ έ ν ο ς
( r a c e / c l a s s ) r a t h e r t h a n a n έ θ ν ο ς ( n a t i o n ) o r λ α ό ς ( p e o p l e ) a n d by
i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e e t y m o l o g y , P h i l o u s e s t h e t e r m "Israel" c o n s i s t e n t l y
w i t h h i s r e f e r e n c e s in t h e e x e g e t i c a l treatises. T h i s is t h e o n l y treatise,
h o w e v e r , in w h i c h h e m e n t i o n s "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s by n a m e i n t h e
s a m e c o n t e x t . T o assess t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f this i m p o r t a n t p a s s a g e , w e
shall have t o e x a m i n e it t o g e t h e r with Philo's o t h e r r e f e r e n c e s t o "Israel"
a n d "the Jews." T o that task w e n o w turn.

9 7
In a n o t e to the passage in LCL, F. H. Colson identifies this ancestor as J a c o b and
d e f e n d s Philo's use o f "Chaldean" by m e n t i o n i n g Mos. 1.5, in which h e calls Moses a
C h a l d e a n . T h e d e s c r i p t i o n in Hypoth., however, can also suit A b r a h a m a n d may
m a k e m o r e s e n s e if taken this way since Abraham was from C h a l d e a , a n d P h i l o
usually m e n t i o n s h i m as the p r o m i n e n t ancestor (Her. 278, Virt. 212) but d o e s n o t
single o u t J a c o b in this way. Like J a c o b , Abraham also w e n t d o w n to Egypt a n d
p r o s p e r e d greatly ( G e n e s i s 1 2 - 1 3 ) . O n the o t h e r h a n d , the c h i e f p r o b l e m in
associating this ancestor with Abraham instead o f with J a c o b is that P h i l o i m p l i e s
that the nation had a c o n t i n u o u s presence in Egypt from his time until the Exodus, a
description that d o e s n o t apply in Abraham's case.
 CHAPTER TWO

"ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD

In t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r w e saw that P h i l o u s e s "Israel" differently f r o m

"Jews" a n d "Hebrews" a n d that h e s p e a k s o f "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s in
d i f f e r e n t w o r k s , m e n t i o n i n g t h e m in t h e s a m e treatise o n l y "once. W e
shall n o w l o o k m o r e c l o s e l y at h o w P h i l o talks a b o u t "Israel" a n d c o n ­
sider s u c h r e l a t e d issues as t h e s o u r c e o f t h e e t y m o l o g y ορών θ ε ό ν , o r o n e
that s e e s G o d ; Philo's ideas a b o u t s e e i n g G o d a n d possible i n f l u e n c e s u p o n
his ideas; a n d finally, his u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e e x p e r i e n c e itself.

Philo's Discussion of "Israel"

By far, m o s t o f P h i l o ' s e x p l i c i t r e f e r e n c e s t o "Israel" i n c l u d e t h e

e t y m o l o g y e i t h e r directly o r indirectly. In a d d i t i o n , i n s t e a d o f u s i n g t h e
t e r m "Israel" itself, h e frequently substitutes for it a variety o f e x p r e s s i o n s ,
w h i c h i n o n e way o r a n o t h e r p e r t a i n to s e e i n g o r s e e i n g G o d . P h i l o ' s
p r e d o m i n a n t a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h "Israel," t h e n , w h e t h e r t h e w o r d o c c u r s
e x p l i c i t l y o r n o t , d e p e n d s u p o n h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f its e t y m o l o g y as
ορών θεόν, o n e that sees G o d .
B e l o w w e shall f o c u s u p o n t h e explicit o c c u r r e n c e s o f "Israel" in P h i l o ' s
works a n d t h e n briefly u p o n periphrastic e x p r e s s i o n s that substitute for
"Israel" w h e r e t h e w o r d itself d o e s n o t a p p e a r . T h e s e p e r i p h r a s t i c
e x p r e s s i o n s will b e discussed m o r e extensively in t h e n e x t c h a p t e r .

Explicit Occurrences of the Word "Israel"

In all, t h e w o r d "Israel" a p p e a r s s e v e n t y - e i g h t t i m e s in P h i l o ' s e x t a n t

G r e e k w o r k s . T o t h e s e w e m i g h t a d d f o u r o c c u r r e n c e s in t h e E n g l i s h
translation o f Q G E , t h o u g h w e have n o parallel G r e e k f r a g m e n t s t o verify
1
P h i l o ' s u s e o f t h e w o r d h e r e . In a d d i t i o n , t h e adjective Ισραηλιτικός
(Israelite) appears o n c e (Her. 2 0 3 ) .
T h e s e eighty-three explicit citations o f Ι σ ρ α ή λ a n d Ι σ ρ α η λ ι τ ι κ ό ς c a n b e
d i v i d e d r o u g h l y i n t o t h e f o u r c a t e g o r i e s listed b e l o w . For r e a s o n s t o b e
e x p l a i n e d p r e s e n t l y , t h e n u m b e r s in p a r e n t h e s e s p r o v i d e o n l y a g e n e r a l

1
For the extant Greek works (fragments are n o t i n c l u d e d ) , see u n d e r " Ι σ ρ α ή λ " in
Mayer, Index Philoneus, 150. "Israel" appears in the English translation of QGE in QG
3.49, QG 4.233, and QE 2.S0 and 37.
62 CHAPTER TWO

rather t h a n a n e x a c t picture o f h o w t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s c a n b e classed. T h e

c a t e g o r i e s are as follows:

A) R e f e r e n c e s , usually in Biblical q u o t a t i o n s , that are n o t i n t e r p r e t e d

(15 r e f e r e n c e s ) ;
B) R e f e r e n c e s t h a t are i n t e r p r e t e d in a way n o t r e l a t e d t o the
etymology (17);
C) R e f e r e n c e s that are i n t e r p r e t e d in a way r e l a t e d t o t h e e t y m o l o g y
(49); a n d
D) R e f e r e n c e s in w h i c h t h e e x a c t interpretation o f "Israel" is u n c l e a r ,
b u t t h e m e t a p h o r o f s e e i n g is u s e d ( 2 ) .

Methodological Considerations

T h e a t t e m p t t o categorize Philo's usage o f "Israel" is b e s e t by m e t h o d o l o g i ­

cal difficulties, w h i c h are n o t u n i q u e t o t h e t e r m "Israel" b u t i n s t e a d
i n h e r e in t h e n a t u r e o f Biblical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d P h i l o ' s style o f writing
in g e n e r a l . It is difficult, for e x a m p l e , to b e n u m e r i c a l l y p r e c i s e in classi­
fying P h i l o ' s e i g h t y - t h r e e r e f e r e n c e s . O n t h e o n e h a n d , a p a s s a g e m a y
m e n t i o n "Israel" explicitly several t i m e s — e i t h e r in t h e Biblical verse o r
2
in t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n — b u t P h i l o m a y interpret t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s o n l y o n c e .
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a Biblical verse m a y cite "Israel" o n l y o n c e , b u t t h e
e n s u i n g d i s c u s s i o n m a y offer several associations with o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
o f t h e t e r m , s o m e o f w h i c h m a y r e p e a t t h e w o r d "Israel" a n d s o m e o f
which may not. Moreover, s o m e associations or interpretations may
i n c l u d e o r b e r e l a t e d to t h e e t y m o l o g y , while o t h e r s m a y n o t . Finally, it is
s o m e t i m e s u n c l e a r w h e t h e r or n o t "Israel" p e r se is b e i n g i n t e r p r e t e d at
all.
T o p r o v i d e a g e n e r a l i m p r e s s i o n o f h o w P h i l o u s e s t h e t e r m "Israel"
relative t o t h e n u m b e r o f t i m e s t h e t e r m o c c u r s , I h a v e a s s i g n e d e a c h
r e f e r e n c e t o "Israel" t o o n l y o n e category. (All r e f e r e n c e s in t h e discus­
s i o n o f c a t e g o r i e s are o n l y to t h e passage in w h i c h "Israel" appears, e v e n
t h o u g h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e t e r m m a y b e f o u n d in o n e o r m o r e n e a r b y

2
T w o e x a m p l e s are Sacr. 118 and Somn. 1.171-72. Sacr. 118 q u o t e s N u m . 3 : 1 2 - 1 3 ,
w h i c h m e n t i o n s "Israel" three times. In his interpretation (in the first part o f Sacr.
1 1 9 ) , however, Philo understands all three references to "Israel" in the same way,
namely, as the soul. Sacr. 118, t h e n , contributes three citations to Category Β —
r e f e r e n c e s that are i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h o u t m e n t i o n o f s e e i n g — b u t the n u m b e r s are
misleading, since all three terms are collectively given only o n e interpretation. ( O n
this passage, see also below, n. 4.) Similarly, in Somn. 1.171-72, "Israel" is m e n t i o n e d
three t i m e s — o n c e in the Biblical verse ( G e n . 46:1) a n d twice in Philo's c o m m e n ­
tary—but the term is given only o n e interpretation. Because this e x e g e s i s d e p e n d s
u p o n the etymology, these three references are assigned to Category C.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD 63

p a s s a g e s . ) W h e n o n e B i b l i c a l r e f e r e n c e t o "Israel" s p a w n s s e v e r a l i n t e r ­
p r e t a t i o n s o r a s s o c i a t i o n s , at least o n e o f w h i c h i n c l u d e s o r is b a s e d u p o n
t h e e t y m o l o g y , t h a t r e f e r e n c e is a s s i g n e d t o C a t e g o r y C, "the s e e r s , " e v e n
t h o u g h t h e p a s s a g e m a y i n c l u d e o t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s that d o n o t m e n t i o n
either the etymology or seeing in general. T h e s e other associations are
3
cited in the n o t e s . W h e n e v e r "Israel" is m e n t i o n e d e x p l i c i t l y i n a s e p a ­
4
rate i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i t h i n a c h a i n , this c i t a t i o n is classified s e p a r a t e l y .
Finally, w h e r e it is d i f f i c u l t to determine whether or n o t Philo is
i n t e r p r e t i n g "Israel" i n t e n t i o n a l l y , I h a v e u s e d m y o w n j u d g m e n t about
5
h o w t o classify t h e r e f e r e n c e . I n two cases (Somn. 1.117 a n d Somn. 2 . 2 7 1 ) ,
t h e m e t a p h o r o f s e e i n g is p a r t o f t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , b u t it is u n c l e a r
w h e t h e r o r n o t "Israel" itself is m e a n t t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d . B e c a u s e these
interpretations may be related to the etymology—and therefore because
t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f "Israel" as t h e o n e t h a t s e e s G o d m a y b e signifi­
c a n t — t h e s e passages are i n c l u d e d separately in Category D , t h e u n c l e a r
references.

3
E x a m p l e s o f passages i n Category C that have multiple interpretations, n o t all o f
which are based u p o n the etymology, are Post. 9 2 , Plant. 59, Ebr. 8 2 , Migr. 113, Fug. 2 0 8 ,
Somn. 1.114, a n d Somn. 2.280. In Post. 9 2 , "Israel" is the c h o s e n race/class (τό έπίλεκτον
γένος) a n d the o n e that sees G o d (ό όρων τον θεόν). In Plant. 5 9 , "Israel" is t h e c o m p a n y
o f wise souls that sees m o s t sharply (ψυχών σοφών ό θίασος, ό όξυωπέστατα ορών), t h e
character that can s e e H i m a n d is a g e n u i n e worshipper (ό όρατικός αύτοΰ και γνήσιος
θεραπευτής τρόπος), a n d virtue ( α ρ ε τ ή ) . Ebr. 8 2 associates "Israel" with eyes in contrast
to ears, d e e d s in contrast to words, a n d perfection in contrast to progress. In Migr. 1 1 3 ,
"Israel" is t h e seer (ό ορών) a n d the God-beloved race/class (γένος τό θεοφιλές). Fug. 2 0 8
describes "Israel" as t h e g e n u i n e a n d firstborn s o n (ό γνήσιος υιός κ α ι πρωτόγονος),
associates "Israel" with sight ( δ ρ α σ ι ς ) , a n d provides the etymology, ορών θεόν. Somn.
1.114 associates "Israel," t h e s e e i n g o n e (ό β λ έ π ω ν ) , with reason (ό λόγος). In Somn.
2.280, "Israel" is t h e όρατικόν γένος, the race/class that can see, and also virtue (αρετή).
4
"Israel" appears in separate interpretations in Sacr. 1 1 8 - 2 0 , Deus 1 4 4 - 4 5 , a n d Cow/.
9 2 - 9 3 . I have assigned sections o f these c o m p o u n d passages to separate categories o n
the basis o f w h e t h e r t h e interpretation o f "Israel" pertains to seeing or n o t .
5
E x a m p l e s w h i c h I have a s s i g n e d t o Category A, t h e u n i n t e r p r e t e d r e f e r e n c e s ,
i n c l u d e Leg. 3.214, Plant. 6 3 , Migr. 1 6 8 - 6 9 , a n d Congr. 86. In Leg. 3.214, t h e cry o f
"Israel" is i n t e r p r e t e d as t h e suppliant word (ό ικέτης λόγος). H e r e t h e e m p h a s i s is
u p o n t h e cry, a n d it seems incidental that t h e cry belongs to "Israel" p e r se. Plant. 6 3
i m p l i e s a literal interpretation o f "Israel" as t h e twelve tribes, b u t this is b e s i d e t h e
m a i n point. I n Migr. 1 6 8 - 6 9 , Exod. 24:1, which m e n t i o n s t h e seventy elders o f Israel,
is i n t e r p r e t e d as a n allegory o f t h e soul. H e r e again, m e n t i o n o f "Israel" s e e m s
incidental to t h e interpretation. In Congr. 8 6 , "Israel" may b e linked t o "our mortal
race" ( m e n t i o n e d i n Congr. 8 5 ) , but the correspondence is n o t certain.
E x a m p l e s w h i c h I have assigned to Category B, r e f e r e n c e s with i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
u n r e l a t e d to t h e etymology, i n c l u d e Post. 158, Her. 124, a n d Somn. 1.89. In Post. 1 5 8 ,
"Israel" m a y b e c o n n e c t e d with t h e industrious soul (ψυχή α σ κ η τ ι κ ή ) ; in Her. 1 2 4 ,
"Israel" corresponds to m i n d ( δ ι ά ν ο ι α ) or perhaps t o soul (ψυχή, in 123); a n d in Somn.
1.89, "Israel" corresponds to m i n d (διάνοια, 9 1 ) .
64 CHAPTER TWO

Categories Describing Philo's Uses of "Israel"

O f all f o u r c a t e g o r i e s , t h e m o s t relevant t o this study are C a t e g o r i e s C a n d

D , w h i c h i n c l u d e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s that pertain t o s e e i n g o r s e e i n g G o d a n d
are t h e r e f o r e c o n n e c t e d — o r , in t h e case o f Category D , m a y b e c o n n e c t e d
— t o t h e e t y m o l o g y . T h e s e fifty-one i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e t h e majority
o f t h e eighty-three citations to "Israel." Since t h e citations in C a t e g o r i e s A
a n d Β are g e n e r a l l y t o o diffuse t o p e r m i t any f u r t h e r classification that
m i g h t b e h e l p f u l , t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s are u l t i m a t e l y n o t r e l e v a n t t o this
investigation. B e l o w is a brief description o f all four categories.

Category A: U n i n t e r p r e t e d R e f e r e n c e s (15)
S i m p l e s t t o d e s c r i b e , p e r h a p s , are t h e r e f e r e n c e s i n w h i c h "Israel" re­
6
m a i n s u n i n t e r p r e t e d . Typically in t h e s e instances, t h e t e r m a p p e a r s i n a
Biblical q u o t a t i o n a n d is e i t h e r i g n o r e d in o r r e m a i n s insignificant t o t h e
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , w h i c h f o c u s e s u p o n a n o t h e r issue in t h e Scriptural verse. In
t h r e e cases, P h i l o alludes to "Israel" outside o f a direct Scriptural q u o t a t i o n ,
o n c e in a paraphrase o f a verse {Leg. 3 . 1 1 , p a r a p h r a s i n g D e u t . 16:16—it is
c u r i o u s that in t h e Biblical verse "Israel" is n o t m e n t i o n e d ) a n d twice in
r e f e r e n c e s t o J a c o b ' s c h a n g e o f n a m e t o "Israel" {Leg. 3 . 1 5 , Mut. 8 3 ) . A s
with t h e o t h e r citations in this category, h e r e t o o P h i l o d o e s n o t i n t e r p r e t
the t e r m b u t c o n c e n t r a t e s instead u p o n a n o t h e r point.

Category B: Interpretations U n r e l a t e d to t h e Etymology ( 1 7 )

7
T h e s e p a s s a g e s , w h i c h o c c a s i o n a l l y i n t e r p r e t "Israel" m o r e t h a n o n c e ,
8
offer a r a n g e o f associations for t h e term. "Israel" is p r e s e n t e d as t h e s o u l ;
9
t h e m i n d ; e d u c a t i o n a n d c r e a t i o n ( π α ι δ ε ί α , γ έ ν ε σ ι ς , Ebr. 7 7 ) ; h i g h e r
( m a l e ) p a r e n t a g e {Deus 1 2 1 ) ; t h e sage (ό σοφός , Conf. 3 6 ) ; t h e G o d - b e l o v e d
(ό, ή [ o r x o ] θ ε ο φ ι λ ή ς [ ε ς ] , Sobr. 1 9 ) ; t h e self-controlled a n d G o d - b e l o v e d
1 0
r a c e / c l a s s (τό εγκρατές και θ ε ο φ ι λ έ ς γένος, Her. 203) ; suppliants (ίκέται,
Del. 9 4 ) ; m e n o f w o r t h ( σ π ο υ δ α ί ο ι , Conf. 3 6 ) ; t h e w i s e l y - m i n d e d (οί ε υ
φ ρ ο ν ο ΰ ν τ ε ς , Conf. 9 3 ) ; t h e virtue-loving h o s t (ή φιλάρετος π λ η θ ύ ς , Post. 5 4 ) ;

6
Leg. 2.94; Leg. 3.11, 15, 133, 214; Det. 67; Plant. 63; Migr. 168; Her. 113, 117; Congr. 86;
Mut. 83; Somn. 1.62; Somn. 2.222; Q £ 2 . 3 7 .
7
Leg. 2.77; Sacr. 118 (3); Det. 94; Post. 54, 158; Deus 121, 145; Ebr. 77; Sobr. 19; Conf. 36,
93; Her. 124, 203 (here the word is Ισραηλιτικός, see below, n. 10); Somn. 1.89; Q E 2 . 3 0 .
8
ψ υ χ ή : Leg. 2.77; Sacr. 118; Det. 9 4 (suppliant souls, ψυχαι ίκέτιδαι); Post. 158 (indus­
trious soul, ψυχή ασκητική); Deus 145 (the soul o f each of his [Moses's] disciples, ή
έκαστου ψυχή των γνωρίμων αύτοΰ).
9
δ ι ά ν ο ι α : Somn. 1.89; Her. 124 ("Israel" may also correspond to soul [ ψ υ χ ή ] in Her.
123); Her. 2 0 3 (thriving minds, διάνοιαι άρετώσαι).
1 0
Here reference is n o t to "Israel" but to the Israelite host (Ισραηλιτική στρατιά).
 "ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD 65

a n e n t i r e , very p o p u l o u s n a t i o n ( δ λ ο ν έθνος π ο λ υ α ν θ ρ ω π ό τ α τ ο ν , Deus 1 4 5 ) ,

a n d t h e Biblical n a t i o n ( Q E 2 . 3 0 ) .
N o n e of these interpretations appears with sufficient f r e q u e n c y to
establish a significant p a t t e r n a m o n g P h i l o ' s "non-seeing" i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
o f "Israel." E v e n w h e n P h i l o ' s "non-seeing" associations f r o m C a t e g o r y C
are c o n s i d e r e d , w e still d o n o t h a v e a significant p a t t e r n a m o n g inter­
11
p r e t a t i o n s o f "Israel" that are u n r e l a t e d to the e t y m o l o g y .
S i n c e w e are i n t e r e s t e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h o m P h i l o h a s i n m i n d
w h e n h e u s e s t h e t e r m "Israel" t o refer to a g r o u p o f p e o p l e , t h e m o s t
p e r t i n e n t p a s s a g e s are t h o s e in w h i c h h e s e e m s t o discuss "Israel" as a
c o l l e c t i v e entity. N o n e o f t h e s e passages, h o w e v e r , c o n t r i b u t e s significant­
ly t o this study. S o m e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s d e s c r i b e "Israel" as a fairly g e n e r a l
g r o u p — e . g . , m e n o f w o r t h , s u p p l i a n t s , t h e virtue-loving h o s t , t h e G o d -
beloved, or the self-controlled and God-beloved r a c e / c l a s s — a n d these
d e s c r i p t i o n s m a y refer to all p e o p l e w h o fit t h e description, n o t necessarily
t h e Biblical n a t i o n a l o n e . Even w h e r e t h e s e d e s c r i p t i o n s m a y b e i n t e n d e d
f o r t h e Biblical n a t i o n ( e . g . , t h e virtue-loving h o s t , Post. 5 4 ; t h e G o d -
b e l o v e d , Sobr. 19; or t h e self-con trolled a n d G o d - b e l o v e d r a c e / c l a s s , Her.
2 0 3 ) , t h e real e x i s t e n c e o f t h e n a t i o n is n o t the f o c u s o f t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
Similarly, p a s s a g e s i n w h i c h "Israel" is actually c a l l e d a n a t i o n {Deus 1 4 5
a n d QE 2.30) a d d little to this investigation, again s i n c e t h e real e x i s t e n c e
o f t h e n a t i o n is b e s i d e the p o i n t o f the interpretation.
In o n e case (Det. 9 4 ) , P h i l o rejects t h e literal m e a n i n g o f a Scriptural
verse ( E x o d . 2:23) a n d a l l e g o r i z e s o n t h e level o f t h e soul. H e r e a g a i n ,
h o w e v e r , h i s f o c u s is u p o n e x p l a i n i n g a particular difficulty in a Biblical
passage (Exod. 2:23), n o t u p o n affirming or d e n y i n g the historical
e x i s t e n c e o f t h e Biblical p e o p l e .

Category C: Interpretations Related to the Etymology (49)

P h i l o d i s c u s s e s "Israel" m o s t f r e q u e n t l y in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h h i s e t y m o l ­
1 2
o g y o f t h e t e r m as ορών θεόν, o n e that sees G o d . It is worth n o t i n g that h e
n e v e r i n c l u d e s in t h e e t y m o l o g y a w o r d f o r m a n ( ά ν ή ρ ) o r p e r s o n

1 1
See n. 3.
1 2
T h e forty-nine passages i n c l u d e d in Category C are listed below. A g a i n , refer­
e n c e s i n d i c a t e the passage in w h i c h "Israel" appears, a l t h o u g h the e x p r e s s i o n that
pertains to s e e i n g may occur in a nearby passage. N u m b e r s in p a r e n t h e s e s indicate
the n u m b e r o f times "Israel" occurs in the passage. Also, s o m e references are inter­
p r e t e d with m o r e than o n e expression that pertains to seeing. T h e passages are as
follows: Leg. 2.34; Leg. 3.186 ( 2 ) , 212; Sacr. 119, 120, 134 (2); Post. 63, 89, 92; Deus 144;
Plant. 59; Ebr. 82 (2); Conf. 56, 72 (2), 92, 146, 148; Migr. 15, 39, 54, 113, 125, 2 0 1 , 224;
Her. 78, 279; Congr. 51; Fug. 208; Mut. 81 (2), 207; Somn. 1.114, 129, 171, 172 (2); Somn.
2.44, 172, 173, 280; Abr. 57; Praem. 44; Legat. 4; QG3.49; QG 4.233.
66 CHAPTER TWO

13
(άνθρωπος). A l t h o u g h he most often mentions the etymology explicitly,
h e s o m e t i m e s a l l u d e s t o it i n d i r e c t l y u s i n g o t h e r e x p r e s s i o n s t h a t p e r t a i n
t o s e e i n g , o t h e r o r a d d i t i o n a l e x p r e s s i o n s for G o d , o r o t h e r o r a d d i t i o n a l
1 4
d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e o b j e c t that is s e e n . Occasionally, Philo omits an object
a l t o g e t h e r , r e f e r r i n g t o "Israel," f o r e x a m p l e , simply as t h e s e e r ( ο ρ ώ ν o r
1 5
β λ έ π ω ν ) or the o n e that can see ( ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ς ) . Usually ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ς appears
t o g e t h e r w i t h a n o t h e r w o r d like γ έ ν ο ς (race/class), τρόπος (character),
δ ι ά ν ο ι α ( m i n d ) , or ν ο υ ς ( m i n d ) . I n s o m e p a s s a g e s a b o u t "Israel," P h i l o
d o e s n o t speak o f a subject that sees but instead m e n t i o n s sight (ορασις,
Conf. 7 2 ) ; t h e v i s i o n o f G o d ( δ ρ α σ ι ς θ ε ο ΰ , Ebr. 8 2 ) ; o r c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f t h e
o n l y wise o n e ( θ ε ω ρ ί α ή τ ο υ μ ο ν ο ΰ σ ο φ ο ΰ , Sacr. 1 1 9 - 2 0 ) .

C a t e g o r y D : T h e U n c l e a r R e f e r e n c e s (2)

T w o p a s s a g e s — S o m n . 1.117 a n d Somn. 2 . 2 7 1 — u s e t h e m e t a p h o r o f s e e i n g ,
b u t it is u n c l e a r h o w t h e m e t a p h o r is r e l a t e d t o "Israel." I n Somn. 1.117,
"Israel" serves as a n i m p l i e d c o n t r a s t t o "those w h o are b l i n d i n t h e e y e s
o f t h e s o u l r a t h e r t h a n o f t h e b o d y a n d d o n o t k n o w t h e rays o f v i r t u e "

1 3
T h e etymology occurs in relation to twenty-two appearances o f t h e term "Israel" in
the passages n o t e d below. N u m b e r s in p a r e n t h e s e s indicate t h e n u m b e r o f times
"Israel" appears in t h e passage. T h e passages are as follows: Leg. 3.186 ( 2 ) , 212; Sacr.
134 ( 2 ) ; Post. 6 3 , 8 9 , 92; Congr. 51; Conf. 56; Her. 78; Fug. 208; Mut. 8 1 ; Somn. 1.171, 172
(2); Somn. 2.172, 173; Abr. 57; Praem. 44; Legat. 4; QG 3.49 ( n o parallel Greek fragment
exists).
1 4
T h e m o s t f r e q u e n t alternative expressions that pertain to s e e i n g are m e n t i o n e d
immediately in t h e text a n d listed below in n. 15. Often an interpretation o f "Israel"
i n c l u d e s m a n y words related to s e e i n g . In Conf. 9 2 , for e x a m p l e , P h i l o describes
"Israel" as "the eye o f t h e soul, m o s t translucent, most pure, m o s t sharp-sighted o f all,
to w h i c h a l o n e it is p e r m i t t e d to b e h o l d G o d " (my translation). H e r e t h e w o r d s
c o n n e c t e d to s e e i n g include ο φ θ α λ μ ό ς (eye), όξυωπέστατος (most sharp-sighted), a n d
καθοράν (to b e h o l d ) . S o m e t i m e s , Philo gives "Israel" m o r e than o n e interpretation
related to seeing; see, e.g., Plant. 59, described above in n. 3.
E x a m p l e s o f o t h e r o r additional e x p r e s s i o n s for G o d or for t h e "object" s e e n
i n c l u d e t h e following: ό [ τ ό ] μ ό ν ο ς [ o v ] σοφός [ ό ν ] ( t h e only wise o n e , Sacr. 1 2 0 ) ;
άρχεγονώτατον ov ( t h e m o s t original being, Post. 6 3 ) ; φως τό θείον ( t h e divine light,
Migr. 3 9 ) ; ό [ τ ό ] ών [ o v ] ( t h e Existent, Migr. 54; cf. Mut. 8 1 , w h i c h clearly h a s t h e
masculine form); τά της φύσεως πράγματα (the things o f nature, Her. 279); τό άριστον, τό
Οντως δν ( t h e best, t h e truly Existent, Congr. 5 1 ) ; θεός τε και κόσμος ( G o d a n d t h e
universe, Somn. 2 . 1 7 2 - 7 3 ) ; ό πατήρ και ποιητής τών συμπάντων (the Father a n d Creator o f
all, Abr. 5 7 ) . (Translations are m i n e . W h e n t h e g e n d e r o f words c a n n o t b e deter­
m i n e d b e c a u s e they appear in cases in w h i c h masculine a n d n e u t e r have t h e s a m e
e n d i n g s , I have p u t n e u t e r articles, forms, or e n d i n g s in brackets.)
1 5
όρων: Leg 2.34; Plant. 59; Conf. 146, 148; Migr. 39, 113, 125; Somn. 1.129; Somn. 2.44; QG
4 . 2 3 3 ( n o parallel Greek f r a g m e n t exists; t h e Latin translation a n d t h e F r e n c h ,
which is based o n the Latin, have "nature" as the object s e e n ) , βλέπων: Migr. 224, Somn.
1.114. όρατικόν γένος: Deus 144, Migr. 5 4 (has ό [τό] ών [ δ ν ] , the Existent, as the "object"
s e e n ) , Somn. 2.280. όρατικός τρόπος: Plant. 59. όρατική διάνοια: Migr. 15. όρατικός νους:
Mut. 207.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD 67

( m y t r a n s l a t i o n ) . P h i l o d o e s n o t , h o w e v e r , say e x p l i c i t l y w h a t "Israel"
itself r e p r e s e n t s . In Somn. 2 . 2 7 1 , P h i l o s p e a k s a b o u t k n o w l e d g e w h i c h
w a t e r s "the r e a s o n i n g g r o u n d s in t h e s o u l s o f t h o s e w h o are f o n d o f
s e e i n g ( φ ι λ ο θ ε ά μ ο ν ε ς ) " (my translation). It is u n c l e a r , h o w e v e r , w h e t h e r
or n o t "Israel" c o r r e s p o n d s to "those w h o are f o n d o f seeing." S i n c e P h i l o ' s
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f "Israel" r e m a i n a m b i g u o u s h e r e , I shall simply n o t e that
they may be c o n n e c t e d — a l b e i t indirectly—to the etymology.

Penphrastic Expressions for "Israel"

P h i l o f r e q u e n t l y u s e s e x p r e s s i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to s e e i n g to r e p r e s e n t "Israel"
in passages w h e r e t h e w o r d "Israel" d o e s n o t a p p e a r explicitly. T h e e x p r e s ­
s i o n s h e u s e s m o s t o f t e n are ό [or τό ] ορών [ τ ο ν ] θ ε ό ν ( t h e o n e that s e e s
G o d ) , ό [or τ ό ] ό ρ ω ν ( t h e o n e that s e e s ) , a n d τό ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς ( t h e
r a c e / c l a s s that c a n s e e ) . T h e s e e x p r e s s i o n s may r e p l a c e "Israel" w i t h i n a
Biblical q u o t a t i o n o r else in a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in w h i c h "Israel" is clearly
u n d e r s t o o d t o b e t h e referent. In the n e x t chapter, w e shall e x a m i n e t h e s e
periphrastic e x p r e s s i o n s in m o r e detail.
For o u r p r e s e n t p u r p o s e s , t h e s e periphrases are significant b e c a u s e they
f u r t h e r s u p p o r t t h e o b s e r v a t i o n that P h i l o m o s t f r e q u e n t l y i n t e r p r e t s
"Israel" w i t h d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e to t h e e t y m o l o g y όρων θ ε ό ν .
B e f o r e d e v o t i n g a t t e n t i o n , t h e n , to t h e s e specific e x p r e s s i o n s a n d to t h e
q u e s t i o n o f h o w P h i l o i d e n t i f i e s t h e s e "seers" with real p e o p l e , w e shall
first c o n s i d e r t h e s o u r c e s for his e t y m o l o g y , Philo's n o t i o n s a b o u t s e e i n g
God and the possible influences u p o n these notions, and Philo's
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e e x p e r i e n c e itself.

Philo's Etymology for "Israel"

In d i s c u s s i n g P h i l o ' s e t y m o l o g y for "Israel"— όρων θ ε ό ν , o r o n e that s e e s

G o d — s c h o l a r s h a v e i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e s o u r c e o f this e t y m o l o g y a n d o f
P h i l o ' s e t y m o l o g i e s in g e n e r a l ; t h e H e b r e w basis f o r ο ρ ώ ν θ ε ό ν ; a n d
p a r a l l e l o c c u r r e n c e s o f this e t y m o l o g y i n o t h e r l i t e r a t u r e . V a r i o u s
a p p r o a c h e s to t h e s e three issues are surveyed below.

The Source of Philo's Etymologies

C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f P h i l o ' s e t y m o l o g y for "Israel" t o u c h e s u p o n t h e larger

issue o f h o w h e derives all t h e e t y m o l o g i e s f o u n d in his works. S c h o l a r s
have d e b a t e d w h e t h e r t h e s e w o r d e x p l a n a t i o n s are P h i l o ' s o w n c r e a t i o n s ,
a n d this q u e s t i o n in turn has l e d to the p r o b l e m o f w h e t h e r o r n o t h e k n e w
H e b r e w . A l t h o u g h t h e two q u e s t i o n s are n o t necessarily r e l a t e d , s c h o l a r s
have o f t e n a d d r e s s e d t h e m t o g e t h e r .
68 CHAPTER TWO

P h i l o ' s e t y m o l o g i e s h a v e i n fact b e e n u s e d t o b u t t r e s s b o t h s i d e s o f t h e
1 6
question of whether or not he knew Hebrew. It is g e n e r a l l y a g r e e d t h a t
s o m e o f h i s e t y m o l o g i e s fit a n o r i g i n a l H e b r e w q u i t e c l o s e l y , w h i l e o t h e r s
1 7
do not. S o m e are b a s e d u p o n r e a d i n g s in t h e S e p t u a g i n t t h a t differ f r o m
t h e H e b r e w B i b l e , a n d s o m e are G r e e k e t y m o l o g i e s f o r Biblical t e r m s . O c ­
c a s i o n a l l y , t h o s e e t y m o l o g i e s w h i c h defy a c l o s e fit t o t h e H e b r e w h a v e
18
g i v e n rise t o s o m e i m a g i n a t i v e s p e c u l a t i o n s a b o u t p o s s i b l e d e r i v a t i o n s .
S c h o l a r s a l s o a g r e e t h a t P h i l o m a y h a v e d r a w n at l e a s t s o m e o f h i s
etymologies from outside sources. W e know of various o n o m a s t i c a from
1 9
antiquity, a n d h e c o u l d h a v e h a d o n e o r m o r e s u c h lists available t o h i m .

1 6
For a g o o d overview o f w h e t h e r or n o t Philo knew Hebrew, s e e Nikiprowetzky, Le
commentaire de VEcriture, 5 0 - 9 6 . Nikiprowetzky c o n c l u d e s that P h i l o d i d n o t k n o w
Hebrew. O t h e r scholars w h o agree are E d m u n d Stein, Die allegorische Exegese des Philos
aus Alexandreia, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur d i e Alttestamendiche Wissenschaft, n o . 51
(Giessen: Alfred T o p e l m a n n , 1 9 2 9 ) , 2 0 - 2 6 ; Isaak H e i n e m a n n , Philons griechische und
judische Bildung: Kulturvergleichende Untersuchungen zu Philons Darstellung der judischen
Gesetze (Breslau: Marcus, 1 9 3 2 ; repr., H i l d e s h e i m : O l m s , 1 9 6 2 ) , 5 2 4 ; G o o d e n o u g h ,
Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 9; Sandmel, Philo's Place in Judaism, 1 1 - 1 3 , a n d i d e m ,
"Philo's K n o w l e d g e o f Hebrew," SP 5 ( 1 9 7 8 ) : 1 0 7 - 1 1 . A m o n g those w h o think Philo
d i d k n o w H e b r e w are Carl Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des alien
Testaments: an sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss betrachtet (Jena: H e r m a n n
Dufift, 1875), 1 4 2 - 4 5 ; Samuel Belkin, Philo and the Oral Law, Harvard Semitic Series, vol.
11 ( C a m b r i d g e : Harvard University Press, 1 9 4 0 ) , 2 9 - 4 8 ; i d e m , "Interpretation o f
N a m e s in Philo," Horeb 12 ( 1 9 5 6 ) : 3 - 6 1 ( H e b r e w ) ; Suzanne Daniel, "La H a l a c h a d e
P h i l o n s e l o n le p r e m i e r livre d e s 'Lois Speciales,'" Philon d'Alexandrie, Colloques
N a t i o n a u x d u Centre National d e la R e c h e r c h e Scientifique (Paris: Centre National d e
la R e c h e r c h e Scientifique, 1967), 2 2 1 - 4 0 ; a n d Wolfson, Philo, 1:88-90.
O n this q u e s t i o n , s e e also Y e h o s h u a Amir, "Explanation o f H e b r e w N a m e s i n
Philo," Tarbitz 31 ( 1 9 6 2 ) : 2 9 7 (Hebrew); H u g o D . Mantel, "Did Philo Know Hebrew?"
Tarbitz 3 2 ( 1 9 6 2 ) : 9 8 - 9 9 ( H e b r e w ) ; a n d J e a n - G e o r g e Kahn, "Did P h i l o K n o w
Hebrew?" Tarbitz 3 4 (1965): 3 3 7 - 4 5 (Hebrew).
1 7
For a full-length work o n Philo's etymologies, s e e Lester L. Grabbe, Etymology in
Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo, Brown Judaic Studies, e d . J a c o b
N e u s n e r e t al., n o . 115 (Adanta: Scholars Press, 1988). S e e also Goulet, La philosophie de
Motse, 4 6 - 5 2 , 5 8 - 6 2 . For different classifications o f Philo's e t y m o l o g i e s , s e e further:
Stein, Die allegorische Exegese, 5 0 - 6 1 ; Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria, 1 9 0 - 9 6 ; Jean-George
Kahn, e d . , De Confusione Linguarum, ΟΡΑ, 13:19-21; a n d A n t h o n y T. H a n s o n , "Philo's
Etymologies," JTS 18 (1967): 1 2 8 - 3 9 .
1 8
S e e especially H a n s o n , "Philo's Etymologies," a n d Nikiprowetzky's discussion o f
this topic in Le commentaire de VEcriture, 7 5 - 8 1 .
1 9
Grabbe, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation, 1 0 2 - 1 1 ; David R o k e a h , "A N e w
O n o m a s t i c o n Fragment from Oxyrhynchus a n d Philo's Etymologies," JTS 19 ( 1 9 6 8 ) :
7 0 - 8 2 . R o k e a h lists various e d i t i o n s o f Greek onomastica, 7 1 , n. 6. S e e also A d o l f
D e i s s m a n n , Veroffentlichungen aus der Heidelberger Papyrus-Sammlung ( H e i d e l b e r g : Carl
Winter, 1 9 0 5 ) , Papyrology o n Microfiche, ser. 2, vol. 31 (Missoula, Montana: Scholars
Press, n . d . ) , 1:86-93. D e i s s m a n n believes Philo himself may have a u t h o r e d such a
list. In contrast, S a n d m e l writes, "Philo says plainly o n m a n y o c c a s i o n s that t h e
etymologies are n o t his o w n , b u t that h e has heard them" (Philo's Place in Judaism, 1 2 ) .
 "ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD 69

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , s i n c e t h e e v i d e n c e d a t e s f r o m after P h i l o ' s t i m e , h i s
r e l i a n c e o n s u c h lists c a n o n l y b e h y p o t h e s i z e d .
W h i l e m o s t s c h o l a r s g e n e r a l l y c o n c u r that P h i l o u s e d o u t s i d e s o u r c e s ,
they d o n o t a g r e e u p o n w h i c h e t y m o l o g i e s h e d e r i v e d f r o m t h e s e s o u r c e s
a n d w h i c h h e i n v e n t e d himself. S i n c e t h e e t y m o l o g i c a l lists w h i c h m a y
h a v e b e e n available t o P h i l o are n o l o n g e r available t o u s , h o w e v e r , it
b e c o m e s i m p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e , w i t h o u t p r e j u d g i n g t h e issue, w h i c h o f
h i s e t y m o l o g i e s are o r i g i n a l a n d w h i c h are d e r i v e d . M o r e o v e r , s i n c e
e v e n t h e o n o m a s t i c a i n c l u d e e t y m o l o g i e s w h i c h r a n g e in t h e i r fit t o a n
o r i g i n a l H e b r e w , t h e e t y m o l o g i e s a l o n e — b e t h e y original o r b o r r o w e d —
d o n o t provide sufficient evidence to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r or n o t Philo
2 0
knew H e b r e w .
A s i d e f r o m t h e p r o b l e m o f w h i c h e t y m o l o g i e s are P h i l o n i c a n d w h i c h
are p r e - P h i l o n i c , t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f e t y m o l o g i e s a c c o r d i n g to their p r e c i s e
fit t o an original H e b r e w deserves s o m e a t t e n t i o n . T h e e t y m o l o g i e s in t h e
Bible itself d o n o t always precisely fit t h e words they are m e a n t to e x p l a i n ,
2 1
yet n o o n e q u e s t i o n s t h e H e b r e w l a n g u a g e skills o f t h e i r s o u r c e . T h e
p u r p o s e o f Biblical e t y m o l o g i e s s e e m s to b e e t i o l o g i c a l , e x p l a i n i n g after-
the-fact h o w p e o p l e a n d p l a c e s a c q u i r e d their n a m e s . T h e s e e x p l a n a t i o n s
d o n o t answer q u e s t i o n s a b o u t p h i l o l o g y b u t rather q u e s t i o n s a b o u t w h y
p e o p l e o r p l a c e s are called what they are.
Later i n t e r p r e t e r s o f t h e Bible frequently i n v e n t their o w n n e w e t y m o l ­
o g i e s f o r B i b l i c a l t e r m s . In s o d o i n g , t h e s e i n t e r p r e t e r s are trying t o
u n d e r s t a n d t h e text f r o m the perspective o f their o w n time a n d p l a c e . T h e
Rabbis, for e x a m p l e , d o n o t hesitate t o u s e their i m a g i n a t i o n s to create n e w
e t y m o l o g i e s , a n d t h e i r c r e a t i o n s reflect a p l a y f u l n e s s w i t h t h e H e b r e w
22
l a n g u a g e r a t h e r t h a n a p r e c i s e f i t . By d e v e l o p i n g n e w e t y m o l o g i e s for
Biblical t e r m s , t h e Rabbis are m a k i n g t h e Bible m e a n i n g f u l for t h e i r o w n
contemporary contexts.
Philo t o o uses s o m e non-Biblical etymologies to support his under­
s t a n d i n g o f t h e text. It is especially n o t e w o r t h y that h e usually d o e s n o t

(Unfortunately, S a n d m e l d o e s n o t cite specific references for such statements, a n d I

have n o t s c a n n e d Philo's works with this question in mind.)
2 0
A n o t h e r important issue for evaluating this question is w h e t h e r or n o t Philo u s e d
the Hebrew Bible. For various positions, see the authors cited above in n. 16.
2 1
S e e especially I m m a n u e l M. Casanowicz, Paronomasia in the Old Testament Qerusa-
lem: Makor, 1970; repr. o f 1892 dissertation), 3 6 - 4 0 ; H e r m a n n Gunkel, The Legends of
Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History, trans. W. H. Carruth (n.p., 1901; repr., N e w
York: S c h o c k e n Books, 1964), 2 7 - 3 0 .
2 2
Isaak H e i n e m a n n , Ways of the Aggadah Qerusalem: Magnes Press, 1 9 5 4 ) , 1 1 0 - 1 2
( H e b r e w ) ; J a m e s Kugel, "Two Introductions to Midrash," Prooftexts 3 ( 1 9 8 3 ) : 1 3 1 - 5 5 .
For e x a m p l e s o f rabbinic e t y m o l o g i e s , s e e H e i n e m a n n , Ways of the Aggadah, a n d
Belkin, "Interpretation of N a m e s in Philo," 3 - 6 .
70 CHAPTER TWO

b u i l d u p t o t h e e t y m o l o g y — t h a t is, h e d o e s n o t e x p l a i n h o w a c e r t a i n
2 3
n a m e c a m e t o b e , as t h e Bible d o e s , o r as rabbinic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s d o .
M o r e f r e q u e n t l y , h e s i m p l y gives t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e n a m e a n d t h e n
b u i l d s u p o n t h e e t y m o l o g y that h e already takes for g r a n t e d . A n e t y m o l ­
ogy, t h e n , is n o t usually t h e e n d - p o i n t o f his e x e g e s i s b u t r a t h e r t h e
starting p o i n t . T h i s characteristic l e n d s additional s u p p o r t t o t h e thesis that
h e probably d e r i v e d his e t y m o l o g i e s f r o m a n o t h e r s o u r c e .
P h i l o ' s t e n d e n c y t o take for g r a n t e d familiarity w i t h a n e t y m o l o g y is
particularly a p p a r e n t in his discussion o f "Israel" as t h e ορών θ ε ό ν , o r G o d -
2 4
s e e r . I n d e e d , h e f r e q u e n d y calls "Israel" t h e God-seer o r t h e s e e r ( ο ρ ώ ν ) ,
w i t h o u t m e n t i o n i n g specifically that this is t h e e t y m o l o g y o r part o f t h e
e t y m o l o g y . Similarly, h i s o t h e r p e r i p h r a s t i c e x p r e s s i o n s , s u c h as τ ό
ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς , t h e r a c e / c l a s s that c a n s e e , s e e m to b e b a s e d u p o n o r t o
2 5
presuppose the etymology. G i v e n t h e possibility that P h i l o d r e w h i s
e t y m o l o g i e s f r o m o t h e r s o u r c e s a n d that h e s e e m s t o take for g r a n t e d
familiarity with t h e specific e t y m o l o g y for "Israel," it w o u l d a p p e a r that
h e h i m s e l f d i d n o t o r i g i n a t e t h e e x p l a n a t i o n that "Israel" m e a n s ο ρ ώ ν
θ ε ό ν . As w e shall s e e later, this c o n c l u s i o n gains a d d i t i o n a l s u p p o r t f r o m
parallel o c c u r r e n c e s o f t h e e t y m o l o g y in o t h e r literature.

The Hebrew Derivation of the Etymology

In trying t o u n d e r s t a n d P h i l o ' s e t y m o l o g y o f "Israel" as ορών θ ε ό ν , s c h o l ­

ars have s u g g e s t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g possible derivations f r o m t h e H e b r e w :

1) *7K ΓΉΟ BPK, a m a n [who] saw/sees God (depending u p o n the

pointing);
2) ΠΚΊ, o n e [ w h o ] s a w / s e e s G o d ; a n d
2 6
3) *7K -wr, h e will see G o d .

2 3
In the cases o f Abraham and Sarah, Philo d o e s explain h o w their n a m e s are de­
rived, but these explanations are based u p o n the Greek letters rather than the Hebrew.
T h e explanations, therefore, have n o t h i n g to d o with the m e a n i n g s h e t h e n provides
that are based u p o n the Hebrew. See Mut. 6 0 - 8 0 , esp. 77; QG 3.43, 53; cf. Rokeah, "A
N e w O n o m a s t i c o n Fragment," 78.
2 4
S e e , e.g., Leg. 3.212, Post. 63, Conf. 56. J o n a t h a n Z. Smith c o m e s to a similar
c o n c l u s i o n about Philo's etymology for "Israel." H e writes, "As the derivation rests o n
a H e b r e w jeu de mots a n d as it is never argued but rather assumed by Philo, there is
g o o d reason to suggest that h e is drawing u p o n an earlier tradition" ("The Prayer o f
Joseph," Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. J a c o b
N e u s n e r , Studies in the History of Religions (Supplements to Numen), n o . 14 (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1 9 6 8 ) , 266. (Hereafter this article will be cited as "Smith, 'The Prayer o f
Joseph,' Religions")
2 5
T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the e t y m o l o g y a n d the e x p r e s s i o n ,όρατικόν γ έ ν ο ς is
e x p l o r e d in the n e x t chapter.
2 6
W i l h e l m Michaelis, "όράω," TDNT 5:337, n. 113; Smallwood, Philonis Alexandnni
 "ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD 71

U n l i k e t h e first two s u g g e s t i o n s w h i c h c o m e f r o m t h e r o o t ΠΚΊ, t o s e e , t h e

last c o m e s f r o m t h e less c o m m o n root, THD, t o s e e (cf. N u m . 23:9, 24:17;
Hos. 14:9; J o b 34:29).
O f t h e s e t h r e e p r o p o s a l s , t h e m o s t attractive is t h e first, that "Israel" is
based u p o n Π*η WK. T h i s proposal gains support from:

a) J a c o b / I s r a e l ' s words in G e n . 32:31;

b) t h e fit b e t w e e n t h e letters o f bunar a n d *?K ΠΚΊ BPK; a n d
c) parallels in o t h e r Hellenistic Jewish writings a n d patristic
literature.

H e r e I shall c o m m e n t u p o n t h e first two factors a n d c o n s i d e r t h e third i n a

separate section.
A particularly s t r o n g a r g u m e n t f o r b o t h p r o p o s a l s that are b a s e d u p o n
n m c o m e s f r o m t h e B i b l e itself. T h e passage i n w h i c h J a c o b ' s n a m e is
c h a n g e d t o "Israel" i n c l u d e s t w o e t y m o l o g i e s , o n e f o r "Israel" ( G e n .
32:29) a n d o n e f o r "Peniel" ( G e n . 32:31). A s t o t h e first, w h e n J a c o b ' s
adversary d u b s h i m "Israel," h e says, "Your n a m e will n o l o n g e r b e
c a l l e d J a c o b b u t Israel b e c a u s e y o u strove with G o d a n d with p e o p l e a n d
y o u p r e v a i l e d " (mom DIN art* as nnio ο bvmr dm Ό ηαϋ TU> n o r apjr *h
toim; G e n . 32:29 [my translation]).
T w o verses later, J a c o b gives t h e n a m e "Peniel" t o t h e s p o t w h e r e t h e
s t r u g g l e o c c u r s , e x p l a i n i n g , "because I saw G o d f a c e t o f a c e a n d m y
s o u l w a s p r e s e r v e d " (ίοεμ bsssm D*aa cna art* ' r r m >D; G e n . 32:31 [ m y
translation]).
T h e Biblical e t y m o l o g y for "Israel" t h e n is b a s e d u p o n n n o a n d nrtik,
w h i l e P e n i e l derives f r o m D*»3S a n d nrt*. J a c o b ' s very first w o r d s after h i s
n a m e b e c o m e s "Israel," h o w e v e r , are "I have s e e n G o d " (nrt\* T P t n
G e n . 32:31). N o t i c i n g this, a Biblical e x e g e t e m i g h t easily c o m e t o asso­
2 7
ciate "Israel" with s e e i n g G o d .
A n o t h e r a r g u m e n t for t h e first H e b r e w derivation p r o p o s e d above is that
bmnw is a c o n t r a c t i o n o f b* ΠΚΊ e w , a n d t h u s t h e letters o f *?mBP are all
a c c o u n t e d for. A l t h o u g h this s u g g e s t i o n is plausible, o n e o u g h t t o recall

1 5 3 - 5 4 ; G. A. Danell, Studies in the Name Israel in the Old Testament (Uppsala: Appelbergs
boktrychkeri-A.-B., 1 9 4 6 ) , 1 5 - 2 8 ; E. Sacchse, "Die Etymologie u n d alteste Aussprache
des N a m e n s · ? Ι Π Β \ " Zeitschrifi fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 3 4 (1914): 1-15; Kahn,
"Did P h i l o Know Hebrew?" 3 4 2 - 4 3 .
2 7
C l e m e n t c o n n e c t s t h e n a m e o f Israel with G e n . 32:31: ' T h e n also h e was n a m e d
Israel because h e saw G o d the Lord" (τότε και Ι σ ρ α ή λ έπωνόμασται, δτε είδε τον θεδν τον
κύριον; Paedagogus 1:7). Clement d o e s n o t give the etymology and seems to assume that
his readers are familiar with it.
Nikiprowetzky n o t e s o t h e r e x a m p l e s in which Philo's e t y m o l o g i e s can be l i n k e d
with t h e Biblical c o n t e x t rather than with the linguistic construction of the word; s e e
Le commentaire de PEcriture, 5 3 - 5 4 (examples of S o d o m and N o a h ) , 57 (Rebecca).
72 CHAPTER TWO

that t h e letters o f e t y m o l o g i e s d o n o t always precisely m a t c h t h e letters o f

t h e w o r d s they e x p l a i n .
T h o s e w h o o b j e c t t o this p r o p o s a l for t h e H e b r e w e m p h a s i z e that P h i l o
n e v e r u s e s t h e full f o r m u l a t i o n ά ν ή ρ o r άνθρωπος όρων θεόν a n d t h u s n e v e r
28
i n c l u d e s a G r e e k e q u i v a l e n t for 2ΓΚ. I shall discuss this o b j e c t i o n i n t h e
s e c t i o n o n parallels t o P h i l o ' s e t y m o l o g y .
T h e p r o p o s a l that t h e e t y m o l o g y c o m e s f r o m ΠΚΊ, that is, w i t h o u t era,
d o e s n o t g e t m u c h a t t e n t i o n . I n its favor, this f o r m u l a t i o n is m o r e i n
a c c o r d with P h i l o ' s e t y m o l o g y , w h i c h h a s ό ρ ω ν as a substantive w i t h o u t a
n o u n f o r "man." M o r e o v e r , u n l i k e bto ran bto PRO a d d s n o n e w w o r d s
to t h e Biblical e x p r e s s i o n in G e n . 32:31, D'rfrR ΤΡΚΊ "O.
As W i l h e l m M i c h a e l i s p o i n t s o u t , h o w e v e r , *7K ΠΚΊ leaves t h e first t w o
2 9
letters o f 'ΡΚΊΕΓ, n a m e l y , W, u n a c c o u n t e d f o r . A g a i n , s i n c e this k i n d o f
p r e c i s i o n is a p o o r c r i t e r i o n f o r j u d g i n g e t y m o l o g i e s , M i c h a e l i s ' s o b j e c ­
tion o n its o w n n e e d n o t e l i m i n a t e this possibility. Parallels i n o t h e r litera­
ture, h o w e v e r , provide stronger s u p p o r t for t h e full f o r m u l a t i o n *?R ΠΚΊ
T h e last s u g g e s t i o n , bto ΊΌ\ offers t h e best f i t — i n t e r m s o f m a t c h i n g
l e t t e r s — t o a n o r i g i n a l H e b r e w . E. Mary S m a l l w o o d o b s e r v e s t h a t this
alternative "would involve different p o i n t i n g b u t n o e l i m i n a t i o n o f letters"
30
f r o m *?miD\ U n l i k e t h e two p r o p o s a l s b a s e d u p o n t h e verb ΠΚΊ, h o w e v e r ,
this o n e is n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e Biblical passage that reports J a c o b ' s w o r d s
after h i s n a m e is c h a n g e d . N o r d o w e have parallels t h a t attest t o this
f o r m u l a t i o n i n a n y o t h e r l i t e r a t u r e . A l t h o u g h t h e l e t t e r s m a y fit t h e
H e b r e w m o r e p r e c i s e l y , t h e n , this c r i t e r i o n a l o n e d o e s n o t p r o v i d e a
s t r o n g e n o u g h a r g u m e n t , a n d 'ΡΚ Ί2Γ a p p e a r s least c o n v i n c i n g o f t h e
p o s s i b l e H e b r e w e x p r e s s i o n s b e h i n d t h e etymology.

Parallel Occurrences of the Etymology in Other Literature

Parallels t o a n d variants o f t h e e t y m o l o g y f o u n d i n P h i l o are a b u n d a n t i n

patristic literature a n d less a b u n d a n t i n H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h literature ( a
literature w h i c h is itself less a b u n d a n t ! ) . A Gnostic text f r o m t h e third o r
3 1
f o u r t h c e n t u r y i n c l u d e s a C o p t i c parallel t o "a m a n w h o s e e s G o d . " A
Hebrew instance of ΠΚΊ is f o u n d i n Seder Eliahu Rabbah, probably a
3 2
tenth century work. Finally, t h e e t y m o l o g y bit ΠΚΊ tZTK is also referred t o

2 8
Michaelis, "όράω ," 337, n. 113.
2 9
Ibid.
3 0
Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini, 154.
3 1
"On t h e Origin o f the World," trans. Hans-Gebhard B e t h g e a n d B e n d e y Layton,
The Nag Hammadi Library, 3rd e d . , e d . James M. Robinson (San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1 9 8 8 ) , 176; see also Smith, ' T h e Prayer of Joseph," Religions, 264.
3 2
Seder Eliahu Rabbah 25 ( 2 7 ) , e d . Meir Friedmann (Vienna: n.p., 1 9 0 2 ) , 1 3 8 - 3 9 .
 "ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD 73

33
in a Syriac t h e s a u r u s . W i t h o n e p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n — t h e Prayer of Joseph
(PJ), t o b e e x a m i n e d b e l o w — a l l t h e s e s o u r c e s are later t h a n P h i l o , a n d
m o s t o f t h e patristic parallels are probably d e p e n d e n t u p o n h i m .
T h e o n e H e b r e w i n s t a n c e , f o u n d i n Seder Eliahu Rabbah, a p p e a r s
c e n t u r i e s after P h i l o . N e v e r t h e l e s s this o c c u r r e n c e p r o v i d e s i m p o r t a n t
e v i d e n c e o f a H e b r e w f o r m u l a t i o n f o r t h e e t y m o l o g y *?R ΠΚΊ which
34
may i n d e e d reflect a n earlier t r a d i t i o n .
As t o G r e e k a n d Latin parallels, patristic writings i n c l u d e t h e e t y m o l ­
ogy i n v a r i o u s f o r m s . T h u s w e f i n d ορών θ ε ό ν , o n e w h o s e e s G o d ; ν ο υ ς
όρων θ ε ό ν , a m i n d that s e e s G o d ; a n d ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ς όρων θ ε ό ν , a p e r s o n w h o
35
s e e s G o d — a s w e l l as t h e i r Latin e q u i v a l e n t s . A r e f e r e n c e i n C l e m e n t
(Paedagogus 1:7), m o r e o v e r , e x p l i c i t l y c o n n e c t s t h e n a m e "Israel" w i t h
G e n . 3 2 : 3 1 , i n w h i c h J a c o b , n e w l y n a m e d Israel, e x c l a i m s , "I h a v e s e e n
3 6
G o d . " It is e s p e c i a l l y striking that t h e s e writings i n c l u d e t h e full f o r m
ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ς όρων θεόν . T h e s e i n s t a n c e s o f t h e fuller e t y m o l o g y l e n d s u p p o r t
to t h e p r o p o s i t i o n that it c o m e s originally f r o m t h e H e b r e w , ΠΚΊ CK.
In t h e s c a n t y H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h l i t e r a t u r e , w e c a n f i n d p a r a l l e l s t o
P h i l o ' s e t y m o l o g y f o r "Israel" i n t h e Prayer of Joseph. W e c a n a l s o f i n d
t h e m i n a C h r i s t i a n work, t h e Constitutiones Apostolorum, a guide for

3 3
Thesaurus Syriacus, e d . R. Payne Smith (1879), 1:163, cited by Smallwood, Philonis
Alexandrini, 153-54.
3 4
T h e text reads,
*ΛΟΕΓ TUttD "DTD3 D'SaJQ T Q R » .ΟΠΌΚ npiT ]12Π ΊΟΰΌ D'MID ΊΌΰ 'ΠΚΧΟϋ ΓΗΗΠ Κ ' ΐ
s
rw ηρΰrorrnow .rxb yyvaa VBHJD too . ron BTH K^K bunar η ρ τ ι 'τκ . ( ο sxm)

A n o t h e r point: At t h e time w h e n I f o u n d the twelve tribes w h o were d o i n g t h e

will o f J a c o b their father. As it is said, 'Like grapes in t h e desert I f o u n d Israel'
( H o s e a 9:10). D o n o t read 'Israel' but ran BPR [a m a n ( w h o ) saw, or sees, G o d ] .
B e c a u s e all his d e e d s are upright before H i m . T h e r e f o r e it is said, ' B e h o l d your
time is t h e time o f love.' (my translation)
T h i s section forms part o f a chain o f e x a m p l e s illustrating what is m e a n t by t h e
time o f love (onrr ni?), cited in Ezek. 16:8. T h e passage interprets H o s . 9:10 as a proof-
text to show that G o d f o u n d Israel acting in proper fashion a n d this is an e x a m p l e o f
the time o f love. ( T h e Friedmann edition cites the verse from H o s e a erroneously as 9:6
instead o f 9:10. I have corrected this citation in the H e b r e w q u o t e d above a n d in my
translation.) Cf. Kahn, "Did Philo Know Hebrew?" 342-43. Kahn q u o t e s t h e etymol­
ogy as ntno Ό rather than *?K n m urn, as it appears in the Friedmann edition.
3 5
For specific references, see Geoffrey William H u g o Lampe, A Patnstic Greek Lexicon
(Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1961), 678; Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini, 153-54; Smith,
"The Prayer o f J o s e p h , " Religions, 266, n. 3; a n d Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1925), 5:307, n. 253. A related citation t o
"Israel" as ό τφ δντι διορατικός, the o n e that discerns the Existent, is f o u n d in Clement,
Stromata 1:5, a n d o t h e r sources; s e e L a m p e , Patristic Greek Lexicon, 373, u n d e r
"διορατικός."
3 6
S e e above, n. 27.
74 CHAPTER TWO

Christian living c o m p i l e d in the late fourth century, which contains

prayers c o n s i d e r e d likely to b e o f Jewish origin. A l t h o u g h "Israel" is
identified in these prayers with the Gentiles a n d with Christians, the
l a n g u a g e d e s c r i b i n g "Israel" d i r e c t l y d o e s n o t vary f r o m P h i l o ' s u s a g e i n
that n e i t h e r reference m e n t i o n s a w o r d for "man." T h e s e references
3 7
t h e r e f o r e are n o t i m m e d i a t e l y h e l p f u l .
O f all t h e literature, t h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g e v i d e n c e c o m e s f r o m PJ, frag­
3 8
m e n t s o f w h i c h h a v e b e e n p r e s e r v e d by patristic w r i t e r s . The relevant
e x c e r p t is s p o k e n by J a c o b / I s r a e l a n d s e e m s t o r e f l e c t J a c o b ' s e n c o u n t e r
w i t h h i s adversary i n G e n . 3 2 : 2 5 - 3 3 . PJ h a s i l l u m i n a t i n g p a r a l l e l s t o P h i l o
as w e l l as i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . S i n c e t h e Prayer m a y b e c o n t e m p o r a r y t o
3 9
Philo, it p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n which may s h e d light u p o n how he
derived his etymology a n d adapted his sources.
C o m p a r i n g i ^ a n d a p a s s a g e f r o m P h i l o , Conf. 146, E d m u n d S t e i n j u x t a ­
p o s e s t h e n a m e s u s e d by t h e s p e a k e r i n PJ w i t h s i m i l a r e p i t h e t s u s e d by
4 0
P h i l o for t h e λ ό γ ο ς . T h e p e r t i n e n t part o f PJ'is as follows:

I, J a c o b , w h o is speaking to y o u , a m also Israel, an a n g e l o f G o d a n d a r u l i n g

spirit. Abraham a n d Isaac were created before any work. But I, J a c o b , w h o [ m ] m e n
call J a c o b b u t w h o s e n a m e is Israel, a m h e w h o [ m ] G o d c a l l e d Israel w h i c h
m e a n s , a m a n s e e i n g G o d , because I a m t h e firstborn o f every living t h i n g to
w h o m G o d gives life... Are y o u n o t Uriel, t h e e i g h t h after m e ? a n d I, Israel, t h e
archangel o f t h e power o f t h e Lord a n d t h e chief captain a m o n g t h e sons o f God?
A m I n o t Israel, the first minister before the face o f God?...

3 7
David A. Fiensy, Prayers Alleged To Be Jewish: An Examination of the C o n s t i t u t i o n e s
A p o s t o l o r u m , Brown Judaic Studies, e d . J a c o b N e u s n e r , n o . 6 5 ( C h i c o , California:
Scholars Press, 1 9 8 5 ) ; a n d D . R. Darnell a n d D . A. Fiensy, "Hellenistic Synagogal
Prayers," Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (OTP) e d . James H. Charlesworth (Garden City,
N e w York: Doubleday, 1 9 8 5 ) , 2:671-97. S e e also G o o d e n o u g h , By Light, Light, 3 0 6 - 5 8 .
T h e following text a n d translation are f o u n d in Fiensy, Prayers Alleged To Be Jewish:
Const. Ap. 7.36.2 (Fiensy, 7 6 - 7 7 ) : ό αληθινός Ισραήλ, ό θεοφιλής, ό όρων θεόν, "the true
Israel, t h e beloved o f G o d , t h e o n e w h o sees God." H e r e Israel is identified with
the Gentiles (τά εθνη).
Const. Ap. 8.15.77 (Fiensy, 1 1 0 - 1 1 ) : ό θεός Ι σ ρ α ή λ του άληθινώς όρώντος, "the G o d o f
Israel w h i c h truly sees." H e r e Israel is identified with believers in Christ (ό εις
Χριστόν πιστεύσας λαός σός).
3 8
Smith, ' T h e Prayer o f Joseph," Religions, 2 5 3 - 4 , and idem, "Prayer o f Joseph," OTP,
2:699-714. Citations in t h e text o f the chapter are taken from t h e translation provided
in OTP.
3 9
"The various parallels to both hellenistic a n d Aramaic materials w o u l d suggest a
first century date" (Smith, "Prayer o f Joseph," OTP, 2:700). S e e also t h e discussion o f
E d m u n d Stein in t h e text o f the chapter.
4 0
E d m u n d Stein, "Zur apokryphen Schrift 'Gebet Josephs,'" Monatsschrift fur Geschichte
und Wissenschafl des Judentums 81 (1937): 2 8 0 - 8 6 , esp. 2 8 2 - 8 3 .
 "ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD 75

Conf. 1 4 6 reads,
But if it h a p p e n s that s o m e o n e is n o t yet worthy to b e called s o n o f G o d , let h i m
hasten to b e placed with the Logos, His firstborn, the eldest o f angels, a kind o f
a r c h a n g e l , b e i n g many-named; for h e is called ' b e g i n n i n g ' a n d ' n a m e o f G o d '
a n d ' L o g o s ' a n d 'the m a n a c c o r d i n g to the i m a g e ' a n d 'the seer, Israel.' ( m y
translation)

A c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n t h e e p i t h e t s in i ^ a n d t h o s e in Conf. 1 4 6 reveals t h e
p a r a l l e l s s h o w n b e l o w a n d s u g g e s t s that t h e t w o p a s s a g e s m i g h t b e
c o n n e c t e d . W e c a n s e e that PJ p r o v i d e s t h e e t y m o l o g y f o r Israel as ά ν ή ρ
ο ρ ώ ν θ ε ό ν , w h i l e Conf. 1 4 6 h a s s i m p l y ό ό ρ ω ν . It is i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t
a l t h o u g h t h e e t y m o l o g y in PJ m e a n s "a m a n w h o s e e s G o d , " t h e p a s s a g e
also d e s c r i b e s "Israel" as a n a n g e l .

A Comparison of Epithets in PJ and Conf. 146

PJ Conf. 146

άγγελος θεοΰ ό αγγέλων πρεσβύτατος

angel of God t h e eldest o f a n g e l s

π ν ε ύ μ α άρχικόν [αρχάγγελος]*
r u l i n g spirit [archangel] *

Ισραήλ Ισραήλ
Israel Israel

ά ν ή ρ ορών θεόν ό όρων

a m a n w h o sees G o d t h e seer

πρωτόγονος παντός ζώου

ζωουμένου ύ π ό θεού ό πρωτόγονος αύτοΰ
firstborn o f every living t h i n g His [God's] firstborn
to w h o m G o d gives life

αρχάγγελος δυνάμεως Κυρίου αρχάγγελος

archangel of the power of the Lord archangel

ά ρ χ ι χ ι λ ί α ρ χ ο ς εν υίοΐς Θεοΰ [αρχάγγελος]*

c h i e f captain a m o n g t h e s o n s o f G o d [archangel] *

* T h e s e brackets indicate similar terms b u t n o t real parallels.

F o r r e a s o n s h e d o e s n o t e x p l a i n , Stein a s s u m e s that PJ is d e p e n d e n t
u p o n P h i l o . S i n c e PJ is n o t clearly later t h a n P h i l o , s u c h a d e p e n d e n c y is
4 1
n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t e d . S t e i n , h o w e v e r , b e l i e v i n g that P h i l o d i d n o t

4 1
S e e , e.g., Delling, "The ' O n e W h o Sees G o d ' in Philo," 38, n. 70.
76 CHAPTER TWO

k n o w H e b r e w , c o n t e n d s that t h e e t y m o l o g y for "Israel"—found i n b o t h

sources—is pre-Philonic.
Like t h e similar o c c u r r e n c e s in patristic literature, t h e full f o r m ά ν ή ρ
ό ρ ω ν θ ε ό ν i n PJ s u g g e s t s that this e t y m o l o g y m a y b e b a s e d u p o n a n
o r i g i n a l H e b r e w , *?K ΠΚΊ ΙΖΓΚ. B e c a u s e PJ m a y b e c o n t e m p o r a r y t o P h i l o ,
t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e e t y m o l o g y i n this s o u r c e i n d i c a t e s that P h i l o m a y n o t
have b e e n the original inventor of the etymology. I n d e e d , h e may have
b o r r o w e d it f r o m PJ, b o t h m a y have drawn u p o n a c o m m o n tradition, o r
PJ m a y h a v e t a k e n t h e e t y m o l o g y f r o m P h i l o . W e h a v e n o w a y t o
d e t e r m i n e w h o borrowed from w h o m or what source may have served
b o t h writers.
B e s i d e s p r o v i d i n g a parallel t o t h e e t y m o l o g y , t h e PJ p a s s a g e is illumi­
n a t i n g for y e t a n o t h e r r e a s o n . W h i l e t h e e p i t h e t s in PJ d e s c r i b e t h e a n g e l
n a m e d "Israel," P h i l o u s e s t h e s e s a m e e p i t h e t s for t h e λ ό γ ο ς in Conf. 1 4 6
4 2
and elsewhere. I n d i s c u s s i n g PJ, J o n a t h a n Z. S m i t h o b s e r v e s t h a t
different g r o u p s u s e t h e s a m e cluster o f titles for different figures. T h u s ,
t h e s e e p i t h e t s are a p p l i e d by PJ t o "Israel," "by P h i l o t o t h e Logos, by
r a b b i n i c literature t o M i c h a e l , by J e w i s h mystical literature t o M e t a t r o n
43
a n d by J e w i s h Christianity t o J e s u s . " Citing parallels in o t h e r works that
d e s c r i b e "Israel" with s o m e o f t h e s a m e titles f o u n d i n PJ, S m i t h s u g g e s t s
that b e h i n d t h e s e various parallels m a y lie a c o m m o n , e v o l v i n g tradition:
"In t h e PJ w e are g i v e n a p r e c i o u s f r a g m e n t o f a m y t h o l o g y c o n c e r n i n g
t h e Mystery o f Israel, a m y t h o l o g y w h i c h c o n t i n u e s i n t h e later Merka-
b a h a n d M e t a t r o n s p e c u l a t i o n a n d w h i c h is p r e s e n t in a ' d e m y t h o l o g i z e d '
:

44
f o r m in t h e writings o f P h i l o . "
T h e "de-mythologizing" character of the passage in Philo highlights
a n i n t e r e s t i n g issue r e l a t e d t o h i s e t y m o l o g y f o r "Israel." If i n d e e d t h e
o r i g i n a l G r e e k e t y m o l o g y was ά ν ή ρ o r άνθρωπος όρων θ ε ό ν , that is, if t h e
e t y m o l o g y o r i g i n a l l y i n c l u d e d a w o r d f o r "man," o n e m i g h t w e l l ask
why this fuller f o r m n e v e r a p p e a r s in Philo's works. T h e contrast with PJ
is e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g , s i n c e PJ retains a w o r d f o r "man" e v e n t h o u g h
t h e a u t h o r also calls "Israel" a n a n g e l .
T h e c o n s i s t e n t a b s e n c e o f a w o r d f o r "man" i n P h i l o ' s e t y m o l o g y f o r
"Israel" raises t h e possibility that h e — o r p e r h a p s o n e o f h i s p r e d e c e s s o r s —
may deliberately o m i t a w o r d for "man" b e c a u s e t h e a m b i g u o u s participle
ό ρ ω ν b e t t e r suits h i s e x e g e t i c a l p u r p o s e s — o r t h o s e o f t h e tradition u p o n
w h i c h h e draws. For e x a m p l e , in Conf. 146, discussed above, όρων refers t o
t h e λ ό γ ο ς — n o t a m a n , b u t a n abstraction. E l s e w h e r e , as w e h a v e s e e n ,

4 2
Smith lists these parallel epithets in "Prayer o f Joseph," OTP, 2:701, n. 11.
4 3
Smith, "The Prayer o f Joseph," Religions, 259.
4 4
Ibid., 260. See also Smith, "Prayer of Joseph," OTP, 2:704.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD 77

P h i l o also speaks o f "Israel" as a n abstraction—for e x a m p l e , as t h e m i n d o r

t h e s o u l . In a d d i t i o n , e v e n w h e r e "Israel" may r e p r e s e n t a n i n d i v i d u a l o r
a collectivity i n s t e a d o f a n abstract c o n c e p t , its i d e n t i t y r e m a i n s v a g u e .
Finally, as w e shall s o o n discuss, P h i l o is equivocal a b o u t w h e t h e r o r n o t it
is p o s s i b l e f o r a p e r s o n to "see" G o d . T h u s P h i l o — o r a t r a d i t i o n u p o n
w h i c h h e r e l i e s — m a y d e l i b e r a t e l y d r o p a w o r d f o r "man" f r o m t h e
e t y m o l o g y t o d e h i s t o r i c i z e t h e patriarch J a c o b a n d h i s d e s c e n d a n t s , t o
allow for flexibility in r e p r e s e n t i n g "Israel" as a n abstraction, o r t o a v o i d
4 5
giving t h e i m p r e s s i o n that it is possible for a m a n to see G o d .
W h e t h e r o r n o t P h i l o d e l i b e r a t e l y o m i t s a w o r d for "man" f r o m a n
e a r l i e r e t y m o l o g y , h e m o s t certainly u s e s t h e e t y m o l o g y t o link "Israel"
with a w e l l - d e v e l o p e d set o f n o t i o n s a b o u t s e e i n g a n d s e e i n g G o d . A c c o r d ­
i n g t o h i m , s e e i n g G o d r e p r e s e n t s t h e greatest h u m a n h a p p i n e s s a n d t h e
46
b e s t o f all p o s s e s s i o n s . I n d e e d , t h e very ability to s e e H i m is w h a t c o n f e r s
47
u p o n "Israel" its distinct s t a n d i n g .
T h u s , w h i l e P h i l o may derive f r o m tradition t h e e t y m o l o g y for "Israel"
as "one that s e e s G o d , " this e t y m o l o g y serves to p l a c e "Israel" in a p o s i t i o n
o f p r i m e i m p o r t a n c e in h i s t h o u g h t b e c a u s e o f t h e very s i g n i f i c a n c e h e
a s c r i b e s t o t h i s ability t o s e e H i m . B e s i d e s c o n c e n t r a t i n g u p o n t h e
derivation o f a n d parallels to P h i l o ' s e t y m o l o g y for "Israel," t h e n , w e m u s t
also e x a m i n e h o w a n d w h y t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f s e e i n g a n d s e e i n g G o d
carries s o m u c h significance in his t h o u g h t .

Philo's Ideas About Seeing God and Possible Influences Upon These Ideas

H o w e v e r P h i l o m a y arrive at t h e e t y m o l o g y for "Israel" as "one that s e e s

G o d , " it is clear that t h e m o t i f o f s e e i n g G o d r u n s t h r o u g h o u t h i s works
a n d e x t e n d s well b e y o n d his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f "Israel." S o m e t i m e s P h i l o
discusses this m o t i f in relation to Biblical verses a b o u t s e e i n g G o d , w h i c h
w e shall c o n s i d e r b e l o w , a n d s o m e t i m e s h e i n t r o d u c e s this t h e m e w h e n
it is n o t i m m e d i a t e l y i n d i c a t e d e i t h e r by a Biblical verse o r by m e n t i o n o f
48
" I s r a e l . " A l s o n o t e w o r t h y is that P h i l o refers t o s e e i n g G o d t h r o u g h o u t
all t h r e e e x e g e t i c a l series, a n d occasionally in his n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works as
4 9
w e l l . Finally, b e s i d e s e x p o u n d i n g u p o n s e e i n g G o d p e r se, P h i l o a l s o
50
f r e q u e n t l y e x t o l s t h e s e n s e o f sight in g e n e r a l .

4 5
This last possibility was suggested to m e by Prof. J o h n Strugnell in private conver­
sation.
4 6
Ebr. 83, Abr. 57, Legat. 4; cf. Praem. 4 3 - 4 6 .
4 7
Post. 63, 92; Congr. 51; Plant. 5 8 - 6 0 ; cf. Praem. 4 3 - 4 6 .
4 8
E.g., Opif. 6 9 - 7 1 , Somn. 1.64-67, Somn. 2.226-27, QG 4.196.
4 9
Examples o f references in his exegetical series are listed above, i n n . 4 8 , a n d below,
in n. 5 1 . References in his non-exegetical writings include Contempl. 11 and Legat. 4 - 6 .
5 0
Abr. 57; Ebr. 82; Conf 72, 148; Migr. 39; Fug. 208. See also the discussion a n d
78 CHAPTER TWO

Seeing God in the Bible

Biblical verses vary in t h e way they p r e s e n t t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f s e e i n g G o d .

A l t h o u g h t h i s t h e m e a p p e a r s t h r o u g h o u t S c r i p t u r e , P h i l o d e v e l o p s it
especially in c o n n e c t i o n with the following passages from Genesis a n d
5 1
E x o d u s : G e n . 12:7, 17:1, 3 2 : 2 5 - 3 3 , a n d E x o d . 2 4 : 9 - 1 1 a n d 3 3 : 1 2 - 2 3 . ( T h e
f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n is b a s e d u p o n t h e G r e e k B i b l e , w h i c h differs i n
places from the Hebrew.)
Occasionally Scripture depicts the e x p e r i e n c e o f s e e i n g G o d in the
passive. In G e n . 12:7 a n d 17:1, for e x a m p l e , it says, "And t h e L o r d ap­
52
p e a r e d t o (was s e e n by) A b r a m a n d H e s a i d . . . " N e i t h e r verse e l a b o r a t e s
u p o n God's appearance, which simply p r e c e d e s and introduces His
message.
At o t h e r times , Scripture p r e s e n t s t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f s e e i n g G o d in m o r e
active, physical t e r m s . In G e n . 3 2 : 2 5 - 3 3 — t h e a l l - i m p o r t a n t p a s s a g e f o r
P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t that narrates J a c o b ' s c h a n g e o f n a m e to "Israel"—the patri­
a r c h wrestles w i t h a m a n ( ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ς ) . Afterwards, h o w e v e r , i n n a m i n g
P e n i e l , h e says, "I have s e e n G o d face to face."
A n o t h e r p a s s a g e , E x o d . 2 4 : 9 - 1 1 , also d e s c r i b e s physical sight, t h o u g h
G o d H i m s e l f is n o t directly s e e n . It says,

A n d Moses w e n t u p , and Aaron and N a d a b and Abihu and seventy o f the elders o f
Israel, and they saw the place where the G o d of Israel was standing; a n d there was
u n d e r His feet as it were a work of sapphire stone, just like the appearance of the
firmament of heaven in purity. A n d n o t o n e of the c h o s e n o n e s o f Israel perished;
53
and they appeared in the place of God and ate and drank, (my t r a n s l a t i o n )

Finally, t h e Bible also carries t h e i d e a that h u m a n s are n o t p e r m i t t e d t o

s e e G o d a n d live. T h i s is implicit above in E x o d . 2 4 : 1 1 , w h e r e it says that
"not o n e o f t h e c h o s e n o n e s o f Israel p e r i s h e d . " In E x o d . 3 3 : 1 2 - 2 3 ,

passages cited by Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the T i m a e u s of Plato, 2 7 0 - 7 6 .

5 1
Passages in w h i c h P h i l o discusses the vision of G o d in c o n n e c t i o n with these
verses i n c l u d e the following: G e n . 12:7: Abr. 7 7 - 8 0 , Det. 159. Gen. 17:1: Mut. 3 - 6 , 1 5 -
17; QG 3.39. G e n . 32:25-33: Ebr. 8 2 - 8 3 ; Migr. 199, 201; Mut. 8 1 - 8 2 ; Somn. 1.129; Praem.
3 6 - 4 6 . Exod. 2 4 : 9 - 1 1 : Conf. 9 6 - 9 7 , QE 2 . 3 7 - 3 9 . Exod. 33:12-23: Post. 1 3 - 1 6 , Mut. 8 - 1 0 ,
Spec. 1.41-50.
5 2
Both Gen. 12:7 and 17:1 have the Hebrew: CTOK " t e n . For both verses, the L X X
has m l ώφθη κύριος τφ Ά β ρ ά μ . In Abr. 77 and Det. 159, Philo's citation of Gen. 12:7 has
θεός instead of κύριος. O n Gen. 17:1, see QG 3.39; Mut. 1, 15-17. H e r e h e uses κύριος as
d o e s the LXX.
5 3
In H e b r e w , the relevant parts of Exod. 24:10 and 11 are as follows: Τί^Κ ΠΚ "lim
... DY^an ΠΚ w n . . . ^toer; "And they saw the G o d of Israel... A n d they b e h e l d G o d . . . "
T h e L X X , w h i c h Philo uses, has a slightly different reading for these phrases: κ α ι
ειδον τον τόπον, ου είστήκει εκεί ό θεός του Ι σ ρ α ή λ . . . και ώφθησαν έν τφ τόπω του θεού ... "And
they saw the place where the G o d of Israel was standing... A n d they a p p e a r e d in the
place of G o d . . . " See Michaelis, "όράω," 3 3 1 - 3 2 .
 "ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD 79

h o w e v e r , in w h i c h M o s e s p e t i t i o n s G o d to reveal Himself, t h e n o t i o n is
m a d e e x p l i c i t . G o d tells M o s e s , "You c a n n o t s e e my face; for m a n shall
n o t s e e m e a n d live" ( E x o d . 33:20; cf. E x o d . 3:6 a n d 19:21). T h e r e f o r e G o d
shows h i m H i s back b u t n o t His face (Exod. 33:23).
Even in t h e s e few s a m p l e passages, t h e n , t h e Bible is i n c o n s i s t e n t a b o u t
s e e i n g G o d . G e n . 12:7 a n d 17:1 d o n o t describe t h e e x p e r i e n c e b u t i n s t e a d
take it for g r a n t e d . E x o d . 2 4 : 9 - 1 1 d e p i c t s an a s c e n t with d i r e c t physical
v i s i o n o f t h e p l a c e w h e r e G o d was s t a n d i n g . In G e n . 3 2 : 2 5 - 3 3 , J a c o b
wrestles w i t h a m a n , yet later h e d e c l a r e s that h e h a s s e e n G o d "face t o
face." In contrast, E x o d . 3 3 : 1 2 - 2 3 stresses that s u c h d i r e c t vision is life-
threatening to h u m a n s . N o n e of these passages claims, however, that
54
s e e i n g G o d is impossible; rather it is d a n g e r o u s a n d i n d e e d c a n b e f a t a l .

General Features of Philo's Discussion

P h i l o ' s n o t i o n s a b o u t s e e i n g G o d differ f r o m a n d g o well b e y o n d t h e

Biblical verses h e interprets. As with s o m u c h else in P h i l o ' s writings, his
d i s q u i s i t i o n s a b o u t s e e i n g G o d are s o m e t i m e s i n c o n s i s t e n t a n d e v e n
55
contradictory. N o n e t h e l e s s , certain features d o r e c u r .
A fairly c o n s t a n t t h e m e is that G o d is s e e n n o t with t h e eyes o f t h e
b o d y b u t with the eyes o f t h e soul or m i n d (Mut. 3 - 6 , Abr. 5 7 - 5 8 ) . I n d e e d a
t u r n i n g away o r withdrawal f r o m t h e b o d y s e e m s t o b e a p r e r e q u i s i t e for
t h e m i n d o r soul to s e e G o d (Det. 1 5 8 - 6 0 , Ebr. 9 9 - 1 0 3 ) . W h i l e P h i l o o c c a ­
sionally discusses s e e i n g G o d as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e m i n d , h o w e v e r , h e also
d e c l a r e s that o n e c a n r e a c h G o d o n l y after r e c o g n i z i n g t h e m i n d ' s limits
(Leg. 3 . 3 9 - 4 8 , Her. 6 8 - 7 4 ) . S o m e passages a b o u t t h e limits o f t h e m i n d also
s u g g e s t that s e e i n g G o d involves the e x p e r i e n c e o f ecstasy (Opif. 7 0 - 7 1 ; Her.
6 9 - 7 0 , 2 6 3 - 6 5 ) . O c c a s i o n a l l y t o o , P h i l o uses the l a n g u a g e o f t h e mysteries
to describe s e e i n g G o d as a process o f initiation (Leg. 3.100, Abr. 1 2 2 ) .
A l t h o u g h o n e m a y n o t always s u c c e e d in t h e q u e s t , s e e i n g G o d is a
g o a l that c a n b e a c h i e v e d d u r i n g o n e ' s lifetime (Leg. 3.47, Post. 1 3 - 2 1 , Spec.
1.32); it is implicit that t h e g o a l is n o t reserved for after d e a t h . P e o p l e m a y
arrive at a v i s i o n o f G o d via d i f f e r e n t paths. S o m e m a y b e l e d t o it by
c o n t e m p l a t i n g c r e a t i o n (Abr. 6 9 - 7 1 , Praem. 4 1 - 4 3 ) ; o t h e r s by p r a c t i c i n g
virtue (Ebr. 8 2 - 8 3 , Mut. 8 1 - 8 2 ) ; still o t h e r s — t h o u g h very f e w — s e e G o d

5 4
For Philo, s e e i n g G o d is impossible rather than dangerous. See, e.g., Fug. 141 o n
Exod. 3:6. See also Michaelis, "όράω," 337, η. 110.
5 5
R e f e r e n c e s p r o v i d e d in the e n s u i n g discussion are representative, n o t c o m p r e ­
hensive. For g o o d overviews of how Philo discusses seeing God, see Michaelis, "όράω,"
3 3 4 - 3 8 ; D o n a l d A. H a g n e r , "The Vision of G o d in Philo a n d J o h n : A C o m p a r a d v e
Study," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 14 (1971): 8 1 - 9 3 ; Kenneth E. Kirk, The
Vision of God: The Christian Doctrine of the Summum Bonum (New York: Harper 8c Row,
1931), 3 8 - 4 6 ; Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 5 4 - 5 5 .
80 CHAPTER TWO

t h r o u g h G o d H i m s e l f (Leg. 3 . 1 0 0 - 3 , Praem. 4 3 - 4 6 ) . In contrast, P h i l o s o m e ­

t i m e s d e c l a r e s that a p e r s o n c a n n o t by his o r h e r o w n abilities s e e G o d at
all, b u t o n l y G o d c a n reveal H i m s e l f to t h e s e e k e r (Post. 16, Abr. 8 0 ) .
A l t h o u g h P h i l o occasionally s e e m s to speak w i t h o u t qualification a b o u t
t h e possibility o f s e e i n g G o d , at o t h e r times h e claims that G o d c a n b e s e e n
o n l y t h r o u g h a p p r e h e n s i o n o f H i s various i n t e r m e d i a r i e s (Conf. 9 5 - 9 7 ,
Somn. 1 . 6 4 - 6 7 , QG 4 . 2 ) . H e is also careful to warn that G o d c a n n o t b e s e e n
as H e is; i n s t e a d , o n e s e e s o n l y "that H e is, n o t w h a t H e is" (Fug. 1 4 1 ,
Praem. 3 9 - 4 0 ) .
Finally, as t h e o n e that s e e s G o d , "Israel" h o l d s a s p e c i a l p l a c e i n
P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t . T h e passage b e l o w e x p r e s s e s this a n d o t h e r i d e a s charac­
teristic o f P h i l o . H e writes o f "Israel":

Its h i g h p o s i t i o n is shewn by the n a m e ; for the nation is called in the H e b r e w

t o n g u e Israel, which, b e i n g interpreted, is "He w h o sees God." N o w the sight of
the eyes is the m o s t e x c e l l e n t of all the senses, since by it alone we a p p r e h e n d the
m o s t e x c e l l e n t o f existing things, the sun a n d the m o o n a n d the w h o l e h e a v e n
and world; but the sight o f the mind, the d o m i n a n t e l e m e n t in the soul, surpasses
all the o t h e r faculties o f the m i n d , a n d this is wisdom w h i c h is the sight of the
u n d e r s t a n d i n g . But h e to w h o m it is given n o t only to a p p r e h e n d by m e a n s o f
k n o w l e d g e all else that nature has to shew, but also to see the Father and Maker of
all, may rest assured that h e is advanced to the crowning p o i n t o f happiness; for
n o t h i n g is h i g h e r than God, a n d w h o s o has stretched the eyesight o f the soul to
reach H i m should pray that h e may there abide and stand firm... (Abr. 5 7 - 5 8 )

Clearly, P h i l o ' s n o t i o n s a b o u t s e e i n g G o d are q u i t e c o m p l e x , a n d it is

b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f this study t o a d d r e s s t h e s e c o m p l e x i t i e s in d e p t h .
I n s t e a d , o u r c h i e f c o n c e r n is to u n d e r s t a n d h o w a n d why "Israel"—as t h e
o n e that s e e s G o d — h o l d s s u c h a n i m p o r t a n t p l a c e in P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t . I
shall t h e r e f o r e c o n c e n t r a t e u p o n P h i l o ' s h i g h e s t i m a t i o n o f t h e faculty o f
s e e i n g i n g e n e r a l a n d s e e i n g G o d in particular a n d u p o n h i s n o t i o n o f
G o d as t h e "object" s e e n . T o u n d e r s t a n d t h e s e i d e a s , w e m u s t c o n s i d e r
56
their p h i l o s o p h i c a l b a c k g r o u n d .

The Philosophical Background Behind Philo's Ideas About Seeing God

Plato. M a n y o f t h e individual strands f o u n d w o v e n t o g e t h e r in P h i l o ' s

c o m m e n t s a b o u t s e e i n g G o d c a n b e traced back to Plato. Plato himself,

5 6
For a b r o a d e r perspective o n the Hellenistic b a c k g r o u n d o f Philo's ideas, see
Charles H a r o l d D o d d , "Hellenism a n d Christianity," Harvard Divinity School Bulletin
( 1 9 3 7 ) , esp. 2 6 - 3 1 ; Alan F. Segal, "Heavenly A s c e n t in H e l l e n i s t i c J u d a i s m , Early
Christianity, a n d their E n v i r o n m e n t , " ANRW, 2.23.2: Religion (Vorkonstantinisches
Christentum: Verhaltnis zu romischem Staat und heidnischer Religion [Forts.]), ed. Wolfgang
Haase (Berlin: d e Gruyter, 1 9 8 0 ) , 1 3 3 3 - 9 4 ; i d e m , Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and
Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 3 8 - 5 6 .
 "ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD 81

h o w e v e r , o f t e n d o e s n o t c o m b i n e t h e s e strands, n o r d o e s h e a d d r e s s h o w
certain n o t i o n s i n his writings are m e a n t t o b e c o n n e c t e d .
R e g a r d i n g t h e s e n s e o f s i g h t a n d its r e l a t i o n t o t h e i n t e l l e c t , P l a t o
d e c l a r e s that sight is t o b e h i g h l y r e g a r d e d b e c a u s e it l e a d s t o c o n t e m ­
5 7
p l a t i o n o f t h e universe a n d t h e r e b y to p h i l o s o p h y (Timaeus 4 7 a - c ) . T h e
true v a l u e in c o n t e m p l a t i n g w h a t is visible is that it l e a d s to c o n t e m p l a t i o n
o f w h a t really is a n d is invisible (Republic 5 2 9 - 3 1 ) . I n t h e visible w o r l d , t h e
s u n is t h e s o u r c e o f l i g h t a n d t h e r e f o r e e n a b l e s sight t o see; in t h e s a m e
way t h e i d e a o f t h e G o o d in t h e intelligible w o r l d is t h e s o u r c e o f truth
a n d e n a b l e s t h e k n o w e r t o k n o w (Republic 5 0 7 - 8 ) . T h e objects o f t h i n k i n g
are invisible (Phaedo 79a, Timaeus 5 2 a ) ; a n d t h e s u p r e m e i d e a o f t h e G o o d
5 8
is b e y o n d B e i n g (Republic 5 0 8 - 9 ) .
As for w h a t o n e s h o u l d strive for in life, Plato observes that it is a task to
d i s c o v e r t h e C r e a t o r a n d Father o f t h e universe, a n d o n c e o n e d i s c o v e r s
H i m , it is i m p o s s i b l e to r e p o r t it t o e v e r y o n e (Timaeus 2 8 c ) . It b e h o o v e s
h u m a n k i n d to b e c o m e like G o d (Theaetetus 1 7 6 b , Republic 6 1 3 b ) ; a n d t h e
g o a l o f life is t o assimilate that w h i c h t h i n k s t o that w h i c h is t h o u g h t
(Timaeus 9 0 d ) .
Finally, r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o c e s s o f s e e i n g w h a t is u l t i m a t e , t h e b o d y
interferes with the ability o f t h e soul to b e h o l d the truth, a n d o n l y f r e e d o m
f r o m t h e b o d y after d e a t h will p e r m i t a t t a i n m e n t o f t h e d e s i r e d w i s d o m
5 9
(Phaedo 6 6 - 6 7 ) . O n e passage (Symposium 2 1 0 d - 2 1 2 a ) describes a s c e n t to a
vision o f t h e beautiful (τό κ α λ ό ν ) o r divine beauty (τό θείον κ α λ ό ν ) . H e r e
t h e subject o f t h e a s c e n t is left v a g u e , t h o u g h t h e m i n d o r soul is u n d e r ­
s t o o d . A n o t h e r passage (Phaedrus 2 4 6 e - 2 4 7 e , 2 4 9 c ) s p e a k s specifically o f
t h e a s c e n t o f t h e s o u l t o a vision o f t h e Existent (τό δ ν ) , w h i c h is visible
o n l y t o t h e m i n d , t h e p i l o t o f t h e soul. B o t h passages use t h e l a n g u a g e o f
the mysteries to describe initiation into the lore of these visions
(Symposium 210a, Phaedrus 2 4 9 c ) .

Thinkers After Plato. S i n c e Plato h i m s e l f discusses certain c o n c e p t s with­

o u t r e l a t i n g t h e m t o e a c h o t h e r , his followers are left to p o n d e r h o w s u c h
entities as G o d , t h e Creator a n d Father o f t h e universe, t h e w o r l d o f I d e a s
6 0
in g e n e r a l , a n d especially t h e i d e a o f the G o o d are all c o n n e c t e d . Plato's
i m m e d i a t e s u c c e s s o r , S p e u s i p p u s , already m e n t i o n s a first p r i n c i p l e , t h e

5 7
References provided here are to representative or especially important passages.
5 8
Philo d o e s n o t g o so far as to claim that G o d is beyond Being; see Runia, Philo of
Alexandria and the T i m a e u s of Plato, 135, 435.
5 9
A l t h o u g h Philo similarly believes that the body i m p e d e s the soul, h e d o e s n o t
assert that vision of G o d is possible only after death. Cf., however, Leg. 3.45.
6 0
Wolfson, Philo, 1:200-2; D r u m m o n d , Philo Judaeus, 1:59-60; Runia, Philo of Alexan­
dria and the T i m a e u s of Pfoto, 442.
82 CHAPTER TWO

O n e , w h i c h is p r i o r t o a n d s e p a r a t e f r o m all b e i n g . W e f i n d a similar
n o t i o n i n N e o p y t h a g o r e a n writings, n a m e l y , that G o d , t h e craftsman, is
s u p e r i o r t o m i n d a n d stands above t h e two principles o f F o r m a n d Matter,
61
w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d to t h e M o n a d a n d D y a d .
Acknowledging the supreme O n e of the Pythagoreans, the Alexan­
drian P l a t o n i s t E u d o r u s (latter part o f the first c e n t u r y B.C.E.) associates
this first p r i n c i p l e with t h e c a u s e o f m a t t e r a n d c r e a t e d t h i n g s a n d calls
this entity t h e s u p r e m e G o d (ό υ π ε ρ ά ν ω θ ε ό ς ) . E u d o r u s a p p e a r s to b e a
significant witness to the p r e s e n c e in Alexandria of a philosophical
a p p r o a c h that h a s c o m e t o b e k n o w n as M i d d l e P l a t o n i s m . Characteristic
o f this a p p r o a c h is b e l i e f in t h e t r a n s c e n d e n c e a n d immateriality o f G o d —
a b e l i e f w h i c h l e a d s to s p e c u l a t i o n a b o u t t h e i n t e r m e d i a r y w o r l d b e t w e e n
this t r a n s c e n d e n t B e i n g a n d c r e a t i o n — a n d , in g e n e r a l , a m o r e r e l i g i o u s
62
or t h e o c e n t r i c o u t l o o k .
In his impressive study o f h o w P h i l o u n d e r s t a n d s a n d u s e s t h e Timaeus
o f Plato, David T. R u n i a portrays t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f this o u t l o o k as follows:

T h e difference between Plato and his later followers obviously d o e s n o t lie in their
t h e o l o g i c a l c o n c e r n as such. Plato is passionately c o n c e r n e d with the subject o f
Divinity a n d p r o p o s e s distastefully heavy p u n i s h m e n t s for atheists a n d those w h o
d e n y the workings of divine Providence. H e d o e s retain, however, an (admittedly
t e n u o u s ) separation o f abstract philosophical principles (the Ideas, the G o o d , the
O n e ) a n d theological entities (the d e m i u r g e , the cosmic soul, the g o d s of m y t h ) .
T h e M i d d l e Platonists disregard this separation. Abstract p r i n c i p l e s a n d t h e o ­
l o g i c a l c o n c e p t i o n s are b r o u g h t i n t o relation with e a c h o t h e r a n d f u s e d in
63
θ ε ο λ ο γ ί α , the highest form of k n o w l e d g e .

P e r v a d i n g t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f M i d d l e P l a t o n i s m , t h e n , is a
d e e p c o n c e r n for the divine a n d its relation to the world.

Philo in Relation to His Philosophical Background. Against this b a c k g r o u n d ,

w e c a n d i s c e r n that P h i l o ' s i d e a s a b o u t s e e i n g a n d s e e i n g G o d are q u i t e
c o m p a t i b l e with t h e spirit o f his t i m e . By his day, it was c o m m o n p l a c e t o
e s t e e m sight h i g h l y as t h e sense that leads to p h i l o s o p h y a n d to regard t h e
64
c o n t e m p l a t i v e life d e s c r i b e d by Aristotle as the best o f h u m a n p u r s u i t s .

6 1
J o h n Dillon, The Transcendence of God in Philo: Some Possible Sources, Protocol of the
Colloquy of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and M o d e r n Culture,
ed. W i l h e l m Wuellner, n o . 16 (Berkeley: Center for H e r m e n e u t i c a l Studies, 1 9 7 5 ) ,
1 - 3 . D i l l o n e m p h a s i z e s that the d a t i n g o f p s e u d o - P y t h a g o r e a n texts is far f r o m
certain. See also Winston, "Introduction," Philo of Alexandria, 22.
6 2
D i l l o n , The Transcendence of God, 4; idem, The Middle Platonists, 1 1 9 - 2 1 , 1 2 6 - 2 8 ;
T o b i n , The Creation of Man, 1 3 - 1 5 . O n Eudorus and Middle Platonism in general, see
Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 1 1 4 - 3 9 , and Tobin, The Creation of Man, 1 1 - 1 9 .
6 3
Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the T i m a e u s of Plato, 4 9 2 - 9 3 .
6 4
O n the estimation of sight, see ibid., 2 7 1 . Regarding Aristotle, s e e Michaelis,
 "ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD 83

M o r e o v e r , by e m p h a s i z i n g that G o d is t h e h i g h e s t o r best o b j e c t o f vision

o r c o n t e m p l a t i o n , P h i l o is very m u c h in a c c o r d w i t h his p h i l o s o p h i c a l
environment.
T o leave t h e i m p r e s s i o n that P h i l o is n o m o r e t h a n a r e f l e c t i o n o f this
e n v i r o n m e n t , h o w e v e r , w o u l d b e m i s l e a d i n g . H i s d i s c u s s i o n is d i s t i n ­
g u i s h e d by t h e way in w h i c h h e describes G o d f r o m b o t h a p h i l o s o p h i c a l
p e r s p e c t i v e a n d a p e r s o n a l , Biblical, or, o n e m i g h t say, Jewish p e r s p e c t i v e .
O n e c a n hardly fail to n o t i c e t h e variety o f f o r m u l a t i o n s P h i l o a p p l i e s t o
6 5
G o d a n d w h a t is s e e n . T h i s r a n g e o f d e s c r i p t i o n s m a y signify n o t h i n g
m o r e t h a n that P h i l o is drawing u p o n vocabulary f r o m different i n t e l l e c ­
tual t r a d i t i o n s w i t h o u t special regard for t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s .
H i s o c c a s i o n a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e o b j e c t o f c o n t e m p l a t i o n as n a t u r e , for
e x a m p l e , reflects the i n f l u e n c e o f Stoic p h i l o s o p h y .
A l t h o u g h P h i l o m a y i n d e e d simply a d o p t t h e v o c a b u l a r y o f h i s e n ­
v i r o n m e n t w i t h o u t c o n c e r n for any b r o a d e r i m p l i c a t i o n s , h o w e v e r , s o m e
o f h i s f o r m u l a t i o n s m a y b e c o n s t r u e d as an i n t e n t i o n a l p o l e m i c a g a i n s t
66
the p h i l o s o p h i c a l e q u a t i o n o f certain c o n c e p t s . T w o passages a b o u t s e e i n g
G o d offer particularly striking e x a m p l e s . In o n e , P h i l o writes a b o u t G o d ,
"For that w h i c h is b e t t e r t h a n t h e G o o d , m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e M o n a d ,
a n d p u r e r t h a n t h e O n e is impossible to b e s e e n by a n y o n e else, b e c a u s e it
is p e r m i t t e d to H i m a l o n e t o b e c o m p r e h e n d e d by H i m s e l f {Praem. 4 0 ,
my translation).
In a n o t h e r n o t e w o r t h y passage, P h i l o writes o f

souls w h o s e vision has soared above all created things and s c h o o l e d itself to b e h o l d
the u n c r e a t e d a n d divine, the primal g o o d , the excellent, the happy, the blessed,
w h i c h may truly b e called better than the g o o d , m o r e e x c e l l e n t than the e x c e l l e n t ,
m o r e b l e s s e d t h a n b l e s s e d n e s s , m o r e h a p p y than h a p p i n e s s itself, a n d any
perfection there may be greater than these. (Legat. 5)

In t h e s e passages, P h i l o g o e s o u t o f his way to p r e s e n t G o d as h i g h e r ,

b e t t e r , a n d m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n s u c h p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n s t r u c t s as t h e
M o n a d , t h e O n e , t h e G o o d , etc. F r o m this p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e n , h e m a y b e
s e e n as criticizing certain p h i l o s o p h i c a l trends in his e n v i r o n m e n t .

"δράω," 322; Kirk, The Vision of God, 33, 4 7 5 - 7 9 ; and A. Hilary Armstrong, "Gotteschau
(Visio beatifica)," Reallexicon fur Antike und Christentum: Sachworterbuch zur Auseinander-
setzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt, ed. T h e o d o r Klauser (Stuttgart: Hierse-
m a n n , 1 9 8 3 ) , 12:8. Aristode himself defines as the purpose (ου ένεκα) of h u m a n life to
worship and contemplate God (τον θεόν θεραπεύειν και θεωρεΐν) (Eudemian Ethics 8:3:15-16
[1249b]; NichomacheanEthics 10:7-8 [ I l 7 7 a - l l 7 8 b ] ) .
6 5
D r u m m o n d provides an impressive list o f Philonic appellations for G o d , Philo
Judaeus, 2:63. See also Wolfson, Philo, 1:210-11, and n. 14 above.
6 6
D i l l o n , The Transcendence of God, 9 - 1 2 ; the suggestion is put forth by Gerard E.
Caspary, a r e s p o n d e n t to Dillon's p r e s e n t a t i o n . N o t e the list o f passages Caspary
adduces o n p. 9. See also Wolfson, Philo, 1:201-2.
84 CHAPTER TWO

S o m e o f P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f G o d , h o w e v e r , have n o t h i n g to d o w i t h
the p h i l o s o p h i c a l formulations h e occasionally criticizes but instead
a c c o r d m o r e closely with t h e p e r s o n a l G o d o f t h e Bible. In contrast, f o r
e x a m p l e , t o t h e abstract, p h i l o s o p h i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n τό δν ( t h e E x i s t e n t ) ,
P h i l o s o m e t i m e s calls G o d ό ών ( H e that exists), b a s e d u p o n t h e n a m e G o d
e x p r e s s e s t o M o s e s in E x o d . 3:14. As o p p o s e d to t h e r e m o t e a n d transcen­
d e n t G o d o f p h i l o s o p h y , t h e Biblical G o d — t h e G o d o f A b r a h a m , Isaac, a n d
J a c o b — r e l a t e s to p e o p l e . T h e j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f t h e two different portrayals o f
67
G o d can be somewhat perplexing.
P e r h a p s few passages so capture t h e p a r a d o x o f Philo's t r a n s c e n d e n t yet
p e r s o n a l G o d as Spec. 1 . 4 1 - 5 0 , an interpretation o f M o s e s ' s r e q u e s t to s e e
G o d ( E x o d . 3 3 : 1 2 - 2 3 ) . In his interpretation, P h i l o p r e s e n t s a d i a l o g u e b e ­
t w e e n M o s e s a n d G o d in w h i c h M o s e s p l e a d s with G o d , u s i n g t h e s e c o n d
p e r s o n singular, to reveal H i m s e l f to h i m . P h i l o writes,
In these words w e may almost hear plainly the inspired cry 'This universe has
b e e n my teacher, to bring m e to the knowledge that T h o u art and dost subsist. As
thy son, it has told m e of its Father, as Thy work of its contriver. But what T h o u art
in Thy e s s e n c e I desire to understand, yet find in n o part o f the All any to g u i d e
m e to this knowledge. Therefore I pray and beseech T h e e to accept the supplication
of a suppliant, a lover of God, o n e w h o s e m i n d is set to serve T h e e alone; for as
knowledge of the light d o e s n o t c o m e by any other source but what itself supplies,
so too T h o u alone canst tell m e of Thyself.' (Spec. 1.41-42)

T o this request, P h i l o has G o d reply,

Thy zeal I approve as praiseworthy, but the request c a n n o t fitly b e g r a n t e d to
any that are b r o u g h t into b e i n g by creation. I freely bestow what is in accordance
with the recipient, for n o t all that I can give with ease is within m a n ' s power to
take and therefore to h i m that is worthy of my grace I e x t e n d all the b o o n s w h i c h
h e is capable o f receiving. But the a p p r e h e n s i o n of m e is s o m e t h i n g m o r e than
h u m a n nature, yea even the w h o l e heaven a n d universe will b e able to c o n t a i n .
(Spec. 1.43-44)

In this a n d t h e e n s u i n g d i a l o g u e , P h i l o p r e s e n t s w h a t is essentially a
p e r s o n a l c o n v e r s a t i o n in w h i c h G o d e x p l a i n s H i s t r a n s c e n d e n c e and
6 8
unknowability to M o s e s ! H e r e a n d e l s e w h e r e , t h e qualities o f a r e m o t e
a n d t r a n s c e n d e n t B e i n g are c o u n t e r p o i s e d by t h e qualities o f t h e F a t h e r
a n d Creator w h o cares for H i s creation.

6 7
As to how Philo reconciles the two approaches to God, Runia writes, O n this ques­
tion we can d o n o better than highly to r e c o m m e n d the discussion [of G o o d e n o u g h ,
Nikiprowetzky, a n d S a n d m e l ] , each of which is the fruit of a lifetime's study of Philo"
(Philo of Alexandria and the T i m a e u s of Plato, 436, n. 152). His references are to G o o d -
e n o u g h , Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 8 6 - 8 7 ; Nikiprowetzky, Le commentaire de VEcriture,
1 2 8 - 3 0 ; and Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 8 9 - 9 4 .
6 8
This passage g o e s o n to discuss apprehension of God's powers (Spec. 1 . 4 6 - 4 9 ) . For
other interpretations of Exod. 3 3 : 1 2 - 2 3 , see, e.g., Post. 13-16, 169; Fug. 1 6 4 - 5 ; and Mut.
8-10.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD 85

T h e Biblical p a s s a g e ( E x o d . 33:20) u p o n w h i c h t h e a b o v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
is b a s e d d e c l a r e s m e r e l y t h a t s e e i n g G o d is n o t p e r m i t t e d . A c c o r d i n g t o
P h i l o , h o w e v e r , s e e i n g G o d is b e y o n d t h e abilities o f a n y t h i n g c r e a t e d . In
postulating an invisible and unknowable God, Philo follows in the
6 9
tradition of Greek p h i l o s o p h y . At t h e s a m e time, h o w e v e r , t h e G o d t h a t is
"seen" is n o t o n l y τό δντως δ ν , t h e truly Existent, b u t a l s o t h e C r e a t o r a n d
F a t h e r o f t h e w o r l d w h o s e activity vis-a-vis H i s c r e a t i o n is n a r r a t e d i n t h e
B i b l e . If P h i l o c a n q u i t e c a p a b l y talk a b o u t G o d i n t h e lofty t e r m s o f a
p h i l o s o p h e r , s o t o o is h e a b l e t o p r e s e n t a s o l i c i t o u s G o d t a l k i n g t o H i s
c r e a t u r e s a b o u t Himself.

Philo's Understanding of the Experience of Seeing God

B e f o r e w e t u r n away f r o m P h i l o ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f s e e i n g G o d , it m a y b e
w o r t h w h i l e t o r e f l e c t briefly u p o n h o w h e c o n c e i v e s o f t h e experience
itself. S c h o l a r s h a v e d e b a t e d w h e t h e r P h i l o c o n s i d e r s t h e h u m a n expe­
r i e n c e o f s e e i n g G o d to b e rational or ecstatic—and w h e t h e r Philo in
particular ever e x p e r i e n c e d ecstatic v i s i o n — a n d also w h e t h e r P h i l o b e ­
l i e v e s t h a t G o d H i m s e l f — o r o n l y H i s i n t e r m e d i a r i e s , s u c h as t h e p o w e r s
or the Logos—can be seen.
O p i n i o n s o n t h e s e q u e s t i o n s vary w i d e l y . S o m e s c h o l a r s distinguish
b e t w e e n a r a t i o n a l a n d ecstatic k i n d o f e x p e r i e n c e , w h i l e o t h e r s d o n o t s e e
7 0
a necessary dichotomy between the t w o . O n e c l a i m s that P h i l o u s e s t h e

6 9
D i l l o n raises t h e question o f whether or n o t Philo was the first to i n t r o d u c e t h e
i d e a o f an u n k n o w a b l e G o d i n t o Greek t h o u g h t (The Middle Platonists, 155), and
Caspary w o n d e r s w h e t h e r or n o t h e may have b e e n "the inventor (or at least t h e
p h i l o s o p h i c a l formulator) o f t h e n o t i o n o f T r a n s c e n d e n t Being" (Dillon, The Tran­
scendence of God, 1 2 ) . B o t h acknowledge that the e l e m e n t s that contribute to Philo's
formulations were readily present in his philosophical e n v i r o n m e n t .
7 0
In relation to these issues, many authors m e n t i o n e d below also discuss prophecy.
See Brehier, Philon d'Alexandrie, 2:180-205; Hans Jonas, Gnosis und Spatantiker Geist, pt.
2 / 1 : Von der Mythologie zur mystischen Philosophie, F o r s c h u n g e n zur Religion u n d Litera­
tur d e s A l t e n u n d N e u e n Testaments, n o . 6 3 (n.s. 45) (Gottingen: V a n d e n h o e c k &
Ruprecht, 1 9 5 4 ) , 7 0 - 1 2 1 ; Jean-George Kahn, "Israel-Videns D e u m , " Tarbitz 4 3 ( 1 9 7 1 ) :
2 8 5 - 9 2 ( H e b r e w ) ; H a n s Leisegang, Der heilige Geist: Das wesen und werden der mystisch-
intuitiven Erkenntnis in der Philosophie und Religion der Griechen (Leipzig: B. G. T e u b n e r ,
1919) 1:145-231; Hans Lewy, Sobria Ebrietas: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der antiken Mys-
tik, B e i h e f t e zur Zeitschrift fur d i e n e u t e s t a m e n t l i c h e Wissenschaft u n d d i e K u n d e
der alteren Kirche, n o . 9 (Giessen: Alfred T o p e l m a n n , 1 9 2 9 ) , 3 - 4 1 ; Andrew L o u t h ,
The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition From Plato to Denys ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n
Press, 1 9 8 1 ) , 1 8 - 3 5 ; J o s e p h Pascher, ή βασιλική οδός: Der Konigsweg zu Wiedergeburt und
Vergottung bei Philon von Alexandria, Studien zur Geschichte u n d Kultur d e s Alterums,
vol. 17, n o s . 3 - 4 (Paderborn: S c h o n i n g h , 1931; repr., n.d. [ 1 9 6 8 ] ) , esp. 1 6 0 - 9 1 ; E. Van-
d e r l i n d e n , "Les divers m o d e s d e connaissance d e D i e u selon P h i l o n d'Alexandrie,"
Melanges de Science Religieuse 4 (1947): 2 8 5 - 3 0 4 ; Volker, Fortschritt und Vollendung, e s p .
2 7 9 - 3 1 7 ; David Winston, "Was Philo a Mystic?" Studies in Jewish Mysticism, e d . J o s e p h
86 CHAPTER TWO

l a n g u a g e o f ecstasy m e r e l y as a literary c o n v e n t i o n t o a p p e a l t o h i s
71
a u d i e n c e w i t h o u t actually k n o w i n g t h e e x p e r i e n c e f i r s t h a n d . Another
t h i n k s P h i l o c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d o n l y if o n e takes his d i s c u s s i o n s o f t h e s e
72
e x p e r i e n c e s s e r i o u s l y . Still a n o t h e r writer h o l d s that a c c o r d i n g t o P h i l o ,
p e o p l e c a n e x p e r i e n c e G o d o n l y t h r o u g h His L o g o s , a n e x p e r i e n c e w h i c h ,
73
t h o u g h rational, m a y c u l m i n a t e in e c s t a s y .
T o e n t e r i n t o t h e s e sundry d e b a t e s w o u l d take us b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f
this study. It is difficult, if n o t i m p o s s i b l e , to arrive at a definitive portrayal
o f w h a t P h i l o m a y m e a n by s e e i n g G o d b e c a u s e his p r e s e n t a t i o n is filled
w i t h c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a n d i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s . R a t h e r t h a n trying t o r e s o l v e
t h e s e v a r i o u s p r o b l e m s , I shall i n s t e a d s u g g e s t a d d i t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e s
f r o m w h i c h t o c o n s i d e r t h e issue.
I n s o r t i n g o u t t h e several i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s in w h a t P h i l o writes a b o u t
s e e i n g G o d , s c h o l a r s have o f t e n f o c u s e d exclusively u p o n his i d e a s with­
o u t t a k i n g n o t e o f s u c h o t h e r factors as t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e s e
i d e a s a n d t h e Biblical t e x t h e is i n t e r p r e t i n g , t h e p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e o f
earlier e x e g e t i c a l traditions, t h e literary g e n r e o f t h e work, P h i l o ' s audi­
e n c e ( s ) , a n d finally, t h e very n a t u r e o f s e e i n g G o d . After p r e s e n t i n g two
e x a m p l e s b e l o w o f P h i l o n i c passages a b o u t s e e i n g G o d — o n e passage f r o m
Q G E a n d o n e f r o m t h e A l l e g o r y — I shall d i s c u s s h o w a n d w h y t h e s e
various factors m a y b e important.

Two Philonic Examples

QG 4.2 and 4. T h e s e two passages, w h i c h pertain to w h e t h e r o r n o t it is

possible to s e e G o d w i t h o u t His intermediaries, illustrate the i m p o r t a n c e o f
c o n s i d e r i n g t h e Biblical verse (s) u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n a n d t h e literary g e n r e
o f Philo's writings. A c o n t r a d i c t i o n occurs b e t w e e n QG 4.2 a n d 4. In QG 4.2,
P h i l o claims that o n e c a n n o t see G o d a l o n e w i t h o u t H i s powers. In QG 4.4,
h o w e v e r , h e d e c l a r e s that A b r a h a m d o e s in fact see G o d in H i s o n e n e s s .
U p o n c l o s e r scrutiny, o n e c a n trace this c o n t r a d i c t i o n to t h e two Bibli­
cal verses e a c h passage is interpreting, G e n . 18:2 a n d 3. QG 4.2 addresses a
difficulty p o s e d by G e n . 18:1 a n d 2. In t h e s e verses, it says, "And G o d
a p p e a r e d t o h i m by t h e oak o f M a m r e , as h e sat at t h e d o o r o f his t e n t at
m i d d a y . Lifting u p his eyes, h e saw, a n d b e h o l d , t h r e e m e n s t o o d b e f o r e
7 4
him."

D a n a n d Frank T a l m a g e (Cambridge: Association for Jewish Studies, 1 9 8 2 ) , 1 5 - 3 9 .

For s o m e other related treatments, see n. 55.
7 1
Volker, Fortschntt und Vollendung, esp. 2 7 9 - 3 1 7 .
7 2
G o o d e n o u g h , Introduction to Philo Judaeus, esp. 1 3 - 1 4 , 1 3 4 - 6 0 ; this p o i n t of view is
presupposed in i d e m , By Light, Light.
7 3
Winston, "Was Philo a Mystic?" 15, 26.
7 4
My translation, based u p o n the LXX. T h e Hebrew has VHWH, the Greek has θεός.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD 87

In QG 4 . 2 , P h i l o r e s p o n d s to t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n p o s e d b e t w e e n verse 1,
w h i c h says t h a t "God a p p e a r e d , " a n d verse 2, w h i c h says that "three
m e n " w e r e s t a n d i n g b e f o r e A b r a h a m . H e solves this p r o b l e m by a r g u i n g
that G o d c a n n o t b e s e e n a l o n e as a unity b u t o n l y t o g e t h e r w i t h H i s two
p o w e r s , t h e r e b y giving t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f three.
In G e n . 18:3, h o w e v e r , A b r a h a m a d d r e s s e s t h e t h r e e m e n o f verse 2
with a s i n g u l a r n o u n , Κ ύ ρ ι ε , Lord. P h i l o n o t i c e s that A b r a h a m a d d r e s s e s
t h e t h r e e as o n e a n d claims that n o w A b r a h a m ' s m i n d "forms a n i m p r e s ­
s i o n with m o r e o p e n eyes a n d m o r e lucid vision," a n d t h e r e f o r e h e is able
to p e r c e i v e G o d as o n e . In direct contradiction, t h e n , to what h e says in QG
4.2, n a m e l y , that "God c a n n o t b e s e e n in H i s o n e n e s s w i t h o u t s o m e t h i n g
(else) P h i l o states in QG 4.4 that G o d n o w s h o w s H i m s e l f in H i s
7 5
unity.
T h e p r o x i m i t y o f t h e s e contradictory s t a t e m e n t s is rather striking. Yet
b e c a u s e t h e Q G E c o m m e n t a r y is written in a f o r m a t o f discrete q u e s t i o n s
a n d a n s w e r s , t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s c a n s t a n d s i d e by s i d e . A l t h o u g h t h i s
f o r m a t is u n i q u e to Q G E , it d o e s h i g h l i g h t an i m p o r t a n t feature o f P h i l o ' s
w r i t i n g that m u s t b e taken i n t o a c c o u n t e l s e w h e r e w h e n o n e d e a l s w i t h
h i s m a n y c o n t r a d i c t i o n s : as a careful e x e g e t e , P h i l o c a n b e s o verse-
7 6
f o c u s e d that h e may contradict h i m s e l f f r o m o n e m o m e n t to t h e n e x t .

Her. 68-85. T h i s passage c o n c e r n i n g ecstasy illustrates t h e i m p o r t a n c e

o f taking i n t o a c c o u n t t h e Biblical verse P h i l o is i n t e r p r e t i n g , b e c a u s e t h e
p a s s a g e s h o w s h o w a particular p h r a s e in a verse m a y "trigger" a c e r t a i n
k i n d o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In Her. 6 9 - 7 0 , P h i l o discusses G e n . 15:4, in w h i c h
G o d tells A b r a h a m , "He w h o shall c o m e o u t o f t h e e shall b e thy heir."
F o c u s i n g u p o n t h e words, "He w h o shall come out o / t h e e " (my e m p h a s i s ) ,
P h i l o i n t e r p r e t s this verse allegorically t o m e a n that t h e true "heir o f
d i v i n e a n d i n c o r p o r e a l t h i n g s " (Her. 63) is t h e soul o r m i n d that leaves
b e h i n d o r "comes o u t o f t h e body, s e n s e p e r c e p t i o n , s p e e c h , a n d finally,
itself. H e thus e x h o r t s the soul to

e s c a p e from yourself a n d stand outside yourself, b e i n g inspired like p o s s e s s e d

p e o p l e and corybants and being God-possessed as if in a sort of prophetic trance. For
w h e n the m i n d is divinely possessed and n o longer in itself but is wildly e x c i t e d
a n d driven m a d by a yearning for heaven and is led by the O n e w h o really is a n d

7 5
QG 4.2 also says, "For w h e n the m i n d begins to have an a p p r e h e n s i o n o f the
Existent O n e , H e is k n o w n to have arrived there, m a k i n g (Himself) u n i q u e , a n d
a p p e a r i n g as c h i e f a n d sovereign." While the m e a n i n g o f this remark is s o m e w h a t
unclear, it may be suggesting that the m i n d is capable of perceiving G o d as o n e . In
Abr. 1 1 9 - 2 3 , in w h i c h Philo interprets the same Biblical passage, h e makes explicit
that there are two stages o f a p p r e h e n s i o n , thus resolving the ambiguity. In o n e stage,
the m i n d can perceive G o d as o n e ; in another, lower stage, it perceives H i m as three.
7 6
See Kugel, "Two Introductions to Midrash," 145-47.
88 CHAPTER TWO

is drawn u p to H i m , with truth g o i n g a h e a d a n d removing [obstacles] before the

feet so that it may walk u p o n a s m o o t h road—this is the heir. (Her. 6 9 - 7 0 , my
7 7
translation)

T h e Biblical w o r d s , " c o m e o u t of," t h e n , l e a d P h i l o t o talk a b o u t t h e

m i n d l e a v i n g itself b e h i n d . O n e c a n easily s e e h o w h e m i g h t b e m o v e d t o
7 8
talk h e r e a b o u t ecstasy w h i c h m e a n s , literally, a s t a n d i n g o u t s i d e .

Factors That May Influence Philo^s Discussion of Seeing God

T h e e x a m p l e s j u s t d i s c u s s e d illustrate h o w certain factors m a y i n f l u e n c e

w h a t P h i l o says a b o u t s e e i n g G o d . T h e s e a n d o t h e r f a c t o r s are s u m ­
marized below.

1. Exegetical Context. B o t h p a s s a g e s above h i g h l i g h t h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e

exegetical f u n c t i o n may b e in Philo's remarks a b o u t s e e i n g G o d . His
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in QG 4.2 a n d 4 a b o u t G o d ' s powers a n d t h e capacity o f t h e
h u m a n m i n d to s e e is c o m p l e t e l y different f r o m t h e o n e i n Her. 6 8 - 8 5 ,
w h i c h f o c u s e s u p o n ecstasy a n d d i v i n e p o s s e s s i o n . In large part, this is
b e c a u s e the Scriptural verses b e h i n d e a c h passage p r e s e n t different
p r o b l e m s . QG 4.2 a n d 4 m e n t i o n G o d ' s p o w e r s as a way o f a d d r e s s i n g t h e
Scriptural fluctuation in G e n . 1 8 : 1 - 3 in portraying the n u m b e r of
A b r a h a m ' s visitors as o n e or as t h r e e . In contrast, Her. talks a b o u t ecstasy—
to s o m e e x t e n t at l e a s t — b e c a u s e o f t h e textual trigger o f t h e w o r d s in G e n .
15:4 a b o u t c o m i n g "out."
O n e c a n also p o i n t to o t h e r passages, h o w e v e r , in w h i c h - P h i l o similar­
ly i n t e r p r e t s g o i n g "outside" as t h e m i n d attributing t h e s o u r c e o f its
79
p o w e r s t o G o d b u t in w h i c h h e d o e s n o t speak a b o u t e c s t a s y . T h u s , w h i l e
a t t e n t i o n t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n P h i l o ' s i d e a s a n d t h e verses h e is
i n t e r p r e t i n g is i m p o r t a n t , clearly this factor a l o n e is n o t e n o u g h to a c c o u n t
for his various i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s in d e s c r i b i n g t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f s e e i n g G o d .

7 7
In Her. 70, it is unclear whether Philo is speaking about God, the O n e that really
is, as ό δντως ών (m.) or τό όντως όν ( η . ) , since the expression appears in the genitive.
Later in the passage, the p r o n o u n α υ τ ό appears, t h o u g h different manuscripts have
different readings: αυτω, αυτόν, αυτήν (see L e o p o l d C o h n and Paul W e n d l a n d , eds.,
Philonis Alexandrini: Opera Quae Supersunt [Berlin: Reimer, 1898; repr., Berlin: d e
Gruyter, 1 9 6 2 ] , 3:16). I have followed the reading "αυτόν," u n d e r s t a n d i n g the first
expression to be ό όντως ών.
7 8
Philo g o e s o n to explain that the m i n d leaving itself b e h i n d signifies that the
m i n d r e c o g n i z e s the limits o f its own abilities a n d a c k n o w l e d g e s G o d as the true
source of these abilities (Her. 7 3 - 7 4 ) . In this way, the m i n d b e c o m e s the heir of divine
things. In Her. 78, P h i l o links the o n e w h o g o e s "outside" with the o n e w h o sees
God, "Israel," thereby implicitly c o n n e c t i n g ecstasy with s e e i n g G o d .
7 9
See, e.g., Her. 7 5 - 7 8 o n Gen. 15:5 and the series of interpretations of this verse and
others in Leg. 3 . 3 9 - 4 8 .
 "ISRAEL" AND THE VISION OF GOD 89

2. Different Traditions. A n o t h e r p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e s e i n c o n s i s ­
t e n c i e s is that P h i l o m a y b e drawing f r o m d i f f e r e n t e x e g e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n s
8 0
w h i c h e m p h a s i z e d i f f e r e n t e l e m e n t s . A l t h o u g h t h e two e x a m p l e s g i v e n
a b o v e are b o t h a b o u t t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e soul, t h e i r different c o n c e r n s
may well reflect the existence of different pre-Philonic traditions. O n e
tradition, for e x a m p l e , m a y f o c u s u p o n G o d a n d H i s p o w e r s o r i n t e r m e ­
diaries ( Q G 4.2 a n d 4 ) , w h i l e a n o t h e r may c o n c e n t r a t e u p o n t h e j o u r n e y o f
the soul itself (Her. 6 8 - 8 5 ) .

3. Literary Genre. T h e literary f o r m o f P h i l o ' s d i f f e r e n t c o m m e n t a r i e s

m a y also i n f l u e n c e his p r e s e n t a t i o n . QG 4.2 a n d 4, for e x a m p l e , are f r o m
Q G E — a series o f separate q u e s t i o n s a n d answers a b o u t i n d i v i d u a l v e r s e s
or p r o b l e m s — w h o s e form d o e s n o t necessarily require resolution o f
contradictions from o n e unit to the next. Although the Allegory and the
E x p o s i t i o n are also c o m p o s e d largely o f discrete interpretations o f different
Scriptural p r o b l e m s , t h e treatise f o r m a t i n t h e s e series calls for l i n k i n g
together—however loosely—the units of interpretation and perhaps for
81
s m o o t h i n g o v e r o r at least a d d r e s s i n g glaring c o n t r a d i c t i o n s .

4. Philo's Audience(s). Since Philo may be addressing different audi­

e n c e s i n h i s d i f f e r e n t c o m m e n t a r i e s , h e m a y very well a d a p t h i s d i s c u s ­
82
s i o n s t o suit his r e a d e r s . It is particularly striking, for e x a m p l e , that o n
t h e w h o l e h e refers t o s e e i n g G o d m u c h less f r e q u e n t l y in t h e E x p o s i t i o n
t h a n i n t h e o t h e r two e x e g e t i c a l series. Moreover, u n l i k e t h e A l l e g o r y a n d
QGE, in w h i c h h e s o m e t i m e s m e n t i o n s seeing G o d in passing, w h e n
P h i l o d o e s speak a b o u t s e e i n g G o d in t h e E x p o s i t i o n , h e generally p r o v i d e s
8 3
s o m e e l a b o r a t i o n . Finally—again, in contrast to t h e o t h e r two s e r i e s —
84
P h i l o ' s r e m a r k s in t h e E x p o s i t i o n rarely m e n t i o n i n t e r m e d i a r i e s .

8 0
T h e possible e x i s t e n c e of earlier traditions in Philo's work has b e e n e x p l o r e d in
different ways by a n u m b e r o f scholars. See n. 49 in the Introduction.
8 1
Similar r e q u i r e m e n t s of literary g e n r e , for e x a m p l e , may lead Philo to tie togeth­
er in Abr. 1 1 9 - 2 3 the disparate explanations found in QG 4.2 and 4. See above, n. 75.
8 2
For a consideration o f Philo's a u d i e n c e ( s ) , see the Introduction.
8 3
E x a m p l e s in w h i c h Philo discusses s e e i n g G o d at l e n g t h in the E x p o s i t i o n are
Opif. 6 9 - 7 1 ; Abr. 5 7 - 5 9 , 7 7 - 8 0 , 1 1 9 - 1 2 3 ; Spec. 1.36-50; Virt. 2 1 5 - 1 7 ; and Praem. 3 6 - 4 6 . H e
m e n t i o n s s e e i n g G o d considerably less, if at all, in Ios. Mos. 1-2, Decal., a n d Spec. 2 -
y

4. Cf., however, Mos. 1.66, 158, 272, 289, and Mos. 2.69, which report but d o n o t e x p a n d
u p o n vision e x p e r i e n c e s d e s c r i b e d in the Bible. T h i s q u e s t i o n o f h o w P h i l o may
approach this topic differently in his various writings requires further investigation.
8 4
Abr. 1 1 9 - 2 3 (see n n . 75 and 81) a n d Spec. 1.45-50 are exceptions to this observation.
As an e x a m p l e o f the contrast b e t w e e n the Allegory and the E x p o s i t i o n , c o m p a r e
Somn. 1.129 o f the Allegory with Praem. 4 3 - 4 6 in the Exposition. In Somn. 1.129, the
λ ό γ ο ς (Logos) c h a n g e s Jacob's n a m e to "Israel, the o n e w h o sees," while in Praem. 4 3 -
46, "Israel" is granted the vision o f G o d through G o d Himself. Philo's discussion o f
intermediaries in the three series requires further investigation.
90 CHAPTER TWO

A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n for t h e s e observations is that in t h e E x p o s i t i o n ,

P h i l o m a y b e a d d r e s s i n g a less s o p h i s t i c a t e d r e a d e r s h i p t h a n i n t h e
A l l e g o r y a n d Q G E . T h i s m i g h t a c c o u n t for why h e refers to s e e i n g G o d
less f r e q u e n d y , why h e g o e s o u t o f his way t o e x p l a i n h i m s e l f w h e n h e
d o e s talk a b o u t s e e i n g G o d , a n d why h e g e n e r a l l y a v o i d s t h e m o r e
c o m p l e x issue o f i n t e r m e d i a r i e s , a n issue h e m a y reserve for "advanced
seers."

5. The Nature of Seeing God. Finally, t h e factors l i s t e d a b o v e — t h o u g h

certainly i m p o r t a n t — m a y n o t be sufficient to explain Philo's m a n y
i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s a b o u t s e e i n g G o d , b e c a u s e t h e very e x p e r i e n c e itself m a y
defy any s i n g l e d e s c r i p t i o n . T h u s , s e e i n g G o d may vary f r o m o n e indi­
vidual t o a n o t h e r a n d may also vary f r o m o n e t i m e t o t h e n e x t for t h e
s a m e p e r s o n . P h i l o h i m s e l f may e x p e r i e n c e o r e v e n j u s t c o n c e i v e o f this
vision in d i f f e r e n t ways, s o m e t i m e s as a rational p e r c e p t i o n , a n d s o m e ­
t i m e s as a n e c s t a t i c r a p t u r e . P e r h a p s o n l y w h e n w e c o n s i d e r all t h e
p e r s p e c t i v e s m e n t i o n e d h e r e — i n c l u d i n g t h e possibility t h a t t h e e x p e ­
r i e n c e itself m a y vary—will w e b e c l o s e r to u n d e r s t a n d i n g P h i l o ' s m a n y
contradictory statements.

O n e may c h o o s e then from a n u m b e r of solutions to h o w Philo perceives

t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f s e e i n g G o d , w h a t s o u r c e s m a y i n f l u e n c e his n o t i o n s
a b o u t this e x p e r i e n c e , a n d w h e r e h e derives his e t y m o l o g y f o r "Israel."
W h a t r e m a i n s i m p o r t a n t for this i n v e s t i g a t i o n , h o w e v e r , is t h e way h e
b r i n g s "Israel" t o g e t h e r w i t h s e e i n g G o d a n d t h e way this c o m b i n a t i o n
f u n c t i o n s i n h i s w o r k s . A l t h o u g h t h e e t y m o l o g y όρων θ ε ό ν m a y h a v e
originally b e e n l i n k e d w i t h J a c o b ' s vision n a r r a t e d in G e n e s i s 3 2 , P h i l o
u n d e r s t a n d s s e e i n g G o d in a radically different m a n n e r f r o m t h e B i b l e .
Because h e places a supreme value u p o n seeing God, Philo accords
"Israel," t h e ορών θ ε ό ν , a special p l a c e in his t h o u g h t . It is n o w t i m e for us
to d e t e r m i n e w h o b e l o n g s to this special P h i l o n i c entity.
 CHAPTER THREE

"ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE

By e x a m i n i n g p a s s a g e s w h i c h explicitly m e n t i o n "Israel," w e d i s c o v e r e d
that P h i l o u s e s "Israel" m o s t frequently with r e f e r e n c e to s e e i n g or s e e i n g
G o d , a n association that derives f r o m his e t y m o l o g y for t h e t e r m as ο ρ ώ ν
θ ε ό ν , o r o n e that s e e s G o d . W e shall n o w seek to u n d e r s t a n d h o w P h i l o
identifies "Israel" as a g r o u p that can see a n d to d e t e r m i n e w h a t relation­
s h i p , if any, this g r o u p m a y have to t h e historical Biblical p e o p l e o r t o
Philo's Jewish contemporaries.
T o a c c o m p l i s h t h e s e aims, it is first necessary to c o l l e c t all r e f e r e n c e s to
"Israel" as a n e n t i t y t h a t c a n s e e , w h e t h e r P h i l o m e n t i o n s "Israel"
explicitly or u s e s substitute e x p r e s s i o n s s u c h as 6 [or τό] ορών [ τ ο ν ] θ ε ό ν ,
t h e o n e that s e e s G o d ; ό ορών, the o n e that sees; or τό όρατικόν γένος, t h e
r a c e / c l a s s that c a n s e e . B e f o r e w e c o n s i d e r t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s in detail, a
few p r e l i m i n a r y observations are in o r d e r a b o u t t h e s e l e c t i o n o f p a s s a g e s
a n d P h i l o ' s vocabulary.

Selection of Passages

W h e n P h i l o talks a b o u t "Israel" as a n entity that s e e s G o d , h e m a y

i n t e r p r e t "Israel" as a soul, m i n d , individual, or r a c e / c l a s s . S o m e t i m e s t o o
h e d e s c r i b e s "Israel" as vision or c o n t e m p l a t i o n . S i n c e w e are i n t e r e s t e d
in l e a r n i n g a b o u t t h e p o s s i b l e social identity o f "Israel," I shall c o n c e n ­
trate o n l y u p o n t h o s e e t y m o l o g i c a l l y - r e l a t e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f "Israel"
w h i c h m a y refer to p e o p l e — w h e t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s o r c o l l e c t i v i t i e s — a n d
leave b e h i n d t h e abstract interpretations, like t h e soul or t h e m i n d , w h i c h
1
are i m p o s s i b l e to identify with real p e r s o n s .

1
Below are Philo's etymologically-related interpretations that refer to abstractions. I
have o m i t t e d s o m e additional adjectives. Translations are m i n e . T h e interpretations
are as follows: ή όρατικη διάνοια, the m i n d that can see (Migr. 14, Congr. 56 [here the
phrase has αυτός, H i m , as an object, referring to God, θεός]); ό όρατικός και φιλοθεάμον
ν ο υ ς , the m i n d that can see and loves to contemplate (Mut. 209); ή όρατικη ψυχή, the
soul that can see (Ebr. I l l , Fug. 139); ό όρατικός τρόπος, the character that can see (Plant.
6 0 ) ; ή φ ι λ ο θ ε ά μ ο ν ψ υ χ ή , the soul that loves to c o n t e m p l a t e (Her. 79, Mut. 8 8 ) ; α ί
φιλοθεάμονες διάνοιαι, minds that love to contemplate (Fug. 138); δρασις θεοΰ, vision of
G o d (Ebr. 8 2 ) ; δρασις ψυχής, sight of the soul (Conf. 72); θεωρία ή τοΰ μονού σοφοΰ,
c o n t e m p l a t i o n of the only wise b e i n g (Sacr. 120); ό νους θεωρητικός θεοΰ τε καΐ κόσμου,
the m i n d that is able to contemplate God and the cosmos (Somn. 2.173); τό θεωρητικόν
των τής φύσεως πραγμάτων ερνος, the plant able to survey the things of nature (Her. 279);
92 CHAPTER THREE

A l t h o u g h in t h e P e n t a t e u c h — t h e f o c u s o f m o s t o f P h i l o ' s e x e g e t i c a l
activity—"Israel" m a y refer t o e i t h e r t h e patriarch J a c o b / I s r a e l o r t h e
n a t i o n o f his d e s c e n d a n t s , in Philo's e x e g e s i s , b o t h t h e patriarch Israel a n d
t h e n a t i o n Israel may b e called ό [or τ ό ] όρων [τον] θ ε ό ν . T o u n d e r s t a n d ,
t h e r e f o r e , w h a t P h i l o m e a n s by "Israel, t h e o n e that s e e s G o d , " w e shall
c o n s i d e r all r e f e r e n c e s to "Israel" as t h e o n e that sees, regardless o f w h e t h ­
er t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s c o r r e s p o n d in t h e Bible to the patriarch o r t h e n a t i o n .
Finally, P h i l o o f t e n u s e s periphrastic e x p r e s s i o n s for "Israel" w h e r e t h e
t e r m itself d o e s n o t appear, b o t h within Biblical q u o t a t i o n s a n d in interpre­
tations w h e r e t h e periphrasis clearly signifies "Israel." T o c o l l e c t all refer­
e n c e s t o s e e r s w h o m P h i l o e q u a t e s w i t h "Israel," t h e n , I h a v e g a t h e r e d
e v i d e n c e n o t o n l y f r o m passages in w h i c h "Israel" a p p e a r s explicitly, b u t
2
also f r o m several studies o f h o w P h i l o uses words related to s e e i n g .

"Israel Seers" and Others

W h a t e m e r g e s f r o m t h e s e several s t u d i e s is that P h i l o m e n t i o n s t h o s e
w h o s e e in a variety o f c o n t e x t s , a n d it is s o m e t i m e s difficult t o d e t e r m i n e
w h e t h e r o r n o t h e e q u a t e s t h e s e seers with "Israel." Obviously, r e f e r e n c e s
to t h o s e w h o s e e in a purely physical s e n s e are n o t r e l e v a n t t o this study
s i n c e "Israel"'s d i s t i n c t i o n is its ability to s e e in a p h i l o s o p h i c a l s e n s e . T h e
r e l e v a n c e o f s o m e o t h e r r e f e r e n c e s , however, is less clear.
In a surprising n u m b e r o f cases, for e x a m p l e , P h i l o m a y b e u s i n g t h e
l a n g u a g e o f s e e i n g m e t a p h o r i c a l l y t o d e s c r i b e p e o p l e w i t h k e e n intelli­
g e n c e , w h o m h e d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y identify with "Israel." H e s p e a k s ,
for i n s t a n c e , a b o u t Scriptural i n t e r p r e t e r s o r s i m p l y p e o p l e w h o h a v e
special i n s i g h t as o i όρατικοί a n d oi ό ρ α ν δ υ ν ά μ ε ν ο ι ( b o t h o f w h i c h m e a n

τό ψυχής δμμα δ δή μόνον τον θεόν όραν πεπαίδευται, the soul's best eye which alone has
b e e n trained to see God (Mut. 203); 6 ψυχής οφθαλμός ό διαυγέστατος και καθαρώτατος και
πάντων όξυωπέστατος ω μόνω τον θεόν εξεστι καθοράν, the eye of the soul, most translucent,
m o s t p u r e , a n d m o s t sharp-sighted of all, the eye to w h i c h a l o n e it is p e r m i t t e d to
b e h o l d God ( C o w / 9 2 ) .
2
T h e passages selected are based u p o n studies of the following words: ά ν α β λ έ π ω , look
up; β λ έ π ω , see; ε ϊ δ ω , ο ΐ δ α , see, know; θ έ α , sight; θ έ α ο μ α ι , b e h o l d ; θ ε ω ρ έ ω , b e h o l d ,
contemplate; θεωρητικός, contemplative; θεωρία, contemplation; καθοράω, see disdncdy;
δ μ μ α , eye; ό ξ υ δ ε ρ κ έ ω , see sharply; ο ξ υ δ ε ρ κ ή ς , sharp-sighted; ό ξ υ ω π ή ς , sharp-sighted;
δ ρ α σ ι ς , sight; δ ρ α τ ι κ ό ς , able to see; ό ρ ά ω , see; ο φ θ α λ μ ό ς , eye; δ ψ ι ς , sight, eye;
φ ι λ ο θ ε ά μ ω ν , f o n d of c o n t e m p l a t i n g . All of these words are suggested by the various
expressions for s e e i n g that occur in passages in which "Israel" appears explicitly, as
discussed in Chapter Two. T h e list d o e s n o t exhaust all Philonic words c o n n e c t e d to
sight a n d therefore s o m e references to seers may be missing. B e c a u s e the list d o e s
capture P h i l o ' s basic vocabulary in this area, however, t h e results are certainly
representative of his references to those w h o see. I have also identified two additional
passages about "seers" (Prob. 74 and Spec. 2.44-48) through a careful reading of Philo's
works.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 93

"those w h o c a n see") o r o i ο ξ ύ κ α θ ο ρ α ν δ υ ν ά μ ε ν ο ι (those w h o can see

s h a r p l y ) . H e a l s o talks o f ο ί φ ι λ ο θ ε ά μ ο ν ε ς , t h o s e w h o a r e f o n d o f c o n ­
templating. Since t h e s e expressions may apply generally to any people
w h o fit t h e d e s c r i p t i o n , a n d s i n c e P h i l o d o e s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y call them
3
"Israel," w e c a n n o t k n o w for sure w h e t h e r t h e y are "Israel" o r n o t .
Besides these somewhat general characterizations of people whose
identity r e m a i n s vague, Philo s o m e t i m e s describes specific p e r s o n s like
4
A b r a h a m , J a c o b , M o s e s , o r a n i n d i v i d u a l Israelite as s e e r s . H e a l s o p o i n t s
o u t — p r e s u m a b l y o n t h e basis o f 1 S a m . 9 : 9 — t h a t p r o p h e t s w e r e f o r m e r l y
5
called seers (όρώντες or β λ έ π ο ν τ ε ς ) . All t h e s e p e o p l e m a y b e p a r t o f
"Israel," t h o u g h t h e y are certainly n o t e q u i v a l e n t t o it.
Finally, i n a s m a l l n u m b e r o f c a s e s , P h i l o r e f e r s u n a m b i g u o u s l y to
p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e m p o r a r y social e n t i t i e s as p e o p l e w h o c a n s e e . E s p e c i a l l y
s i g n i f i c a n t is t h a t s o m e o f t h e s e "seers" are n o t J e w s . E x a m p l e s include
t h e P e r s i a n M a g i , w h o "silently m a k e r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e facts o f n a t u r e t o
g a i n k n o w l e d g e o f t h e truth a n d t h r o u g h v i s i o n s ( έ μ φ ά σ ε ι ς ) c l e a r e r t h a n

3
E x p r e s s i o n s for seers w h o m w e c a n n o t identify with "Israel" are listed b e l o w .
Translations are my o w n . T h e expressions are as follows: oi όρατικοί, those w h o c a n
see (Somn. 1.39, Decal. 2 6 ) ; oi όρατικοί ά ν δ ρ ε ς , m e n w h o can s e e (Plant. 3 6 ) ; o i
όξυδερκέστερον όρώντες, those w h o see fairly sharply (Decal. 7); oi όξύ καθοραν δυνάμενοι,
those w h o can see sharply (Opif. 76, Somn. 2.3); oi φιλοθεάμονες, those w h o are f o n d o f
c o n t e m p l a t i n g (Opif. 158, Ebr. 124, Migr. 191, Somn. 1.39); oi όξυδερκοΰντες, those w h o
see sharply (Ebr. 8 8 ) ; οί δ ι ά ν ο ι α ν όξυδερκοΰντες, those w h o s e e sharply with t h e m i n d
(Somn. 1.11, Somn. 2.171, Decal. 82); οΐς τό της διανοίας όμμα όξυδερκεΐ, those in w h o m the
eye o f t h e m i n d sees sharply (Ios. 106); oi όξύ τη διανοία βλέπειν δυνάμενοι, those w h o
can s e e sharply with the m i n d (Mos. 1.188); τό όξυωπέστατον γένος, t h e m o s t sharp-
sighted r a c e / c l a s s (Migr. 46); ασώματα δσοι και γυμνά θεωρεΐν τά πράγματα δύνανται, as
many as can contemplate incorporeal a n d naked facts (Abr. 2 3 6 ) .
In Q G E , t h e following expressions are in t h e LCL English translation, b u t there
are n o parallel Greek fragments to verify Philo's original language: "those w h o are
able to s e e from afar what is distant with the sharp-sighted eyes o f t h e m i n d " (QG
2.65); "those w h o are able to see" (QG 4.2).
For m o r e elaborate descriptions o f seers w h o c a n n o t b e clearly identified with
"Israel," s e e Spec. 1.37; Spec. 2 . 4 4 - 4 8 (see also below, n. 3 9 ) ; Spec. 4.115; Praem. 26; Prob.
63, 74. In o n e passage (Spec. 3.161), Philo speaks about p e o p l e as "seers" w h o c a n n o t
clearly b e e q u a t e d with "Israel," at a specific historical m o m e n t . H e r e , h e narrates an
i n c i d e n t in w h i c h a regional tax collector wreaked v e n g e a n c e u p o n the relatives o f
debtors w h o h a d fled. T o escape torture, s o m e o f these relatives took their own lives.
Philo describes t h e m as p e o p l e "who perceived m o r e clearly through their souls than
t h r o u g h their eyes."
4
Expressions that describe specific individuals are as follows: ό βλέπων, t h e s e e i n g
o n e : Leg. 2.93 (Moses); ό ορών, the seeing o n e : Leg. 3.24 (Abraham), 38 (an individual
Israelite); Cher. 67 (Jacob, but n o t "Israel"; here ορών has as an object ή άποιος φύσις,
the nature without quality); Somn. 1.33 (Reuben—this reference, however, may imply
physical s e e i n g ) ; ό τοΰ δντος όρατικός, t h e o n e that can s e e t h e Existent: Ebr. 107
(Abraham).
5
Deus 139, Migr. 38, Her. 78, QG 4.138 (here the Greek is uncertain).
94 CHAPTER THREE

s p e e c h give a n d r e c e i v e t h e r e v e l a t i o n s o f divine e x c e l l e n c y " (Prob. 7 4 ) ;

t h e A t h e n i a n s , w h o are "the m o s t sharp-sighted ( ο ξ υ δ ε ρ κ έ σ τ α τ ο ι ) in m i n d
— f o r as t h e p u p i l is in t h e e y e o r r e a s o n in t h e s o u l , s o is A t h e n s in
G r e e c e " (Prob. 1 4 0 , m y t r a n s l a t i o n ) ; p h i l o s o p h e r s o f G r e e k a n d f o r e i g n
lands, w h o are "the best observers (θεωροί) o f n a t u r e a n d all t h i n g s in it"
(Spec. 2 . 4 5 , m y t r a n s l a t i o n ) ; a n d t h e T h e r a p e u t a e , w h o strive t o s e e G o d
(Contempl. 11; cf. Contempl. 6 4 , 6 6 , 9 0 ) . Even t h o u g h t h e treatise a b o u t t h e
T h e r a p e u t a e d e p i c t s t h e m as p e o p l e w h o strive to s e e G o d a n d portrays
t h e m implicitly as J e w s ( P h i l o n e v e r calls t h e m "Jews"), w e still c a n n o t
d e t e r m i n e t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o "Israel." "Seers," "Israel," a n d "Jews,"
t h e n , are n o t always s y n o n y m o u s .
T o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t h o s e seers w h o are clearly i d e n t i c a l t o "Israel"
a n d t h o s e w h o are n o t , I shall call t h e two g r o u p s "Israel seers" a n d "other
seers," respectively. At p r e s e n t w e are i n t e r e s t e d only in t h e "Israel seers,"
to learn w h e t h e r or n o t they c o r r e s p o n d t o an identifiable social g r o u p . It is
i n t e r e s t i n g , h o w e v e r , that a l t h o u g h P h i l o n e v e r calls t h e "other seers"
"Israel" p e r se, h e d o e s occasionally d e s c r i b e t h e m with e x p r e s s i o n s q u i t e
similar t o o n e s h e also u s e s for "Israel." I n d e e d , t h o u g h h e n e v e r says so
directly, P h i l o may e v e n c o n s i d e r t h e s e p e o p l e to b e part o f "Israel." I shall
a d d r e s s this possibility b e l o w , in t h e s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d "The M e m b e r s o f
'Israel.'*

Philo's Vocabulary

B e c a u s e P h i l o refers t o "Israel seers" a n d "other seers" in a similar way,

w e m u s t pay careful a t t e n t i o n t o his vocabulary. D o e s h e in fact h a v e a
"technical" l a n g u a g e for "Israel" apart f r o m his e x p r e s s i o n s f o r "other
seers"? T h a t is, d o e s h e u s e any e x p r e s s i o n s that always refer o n l y t o
"Israel"? Conversely, d o e s h e have a distinctive vocabulary for g r o u p s that
m a y o r m a y n o t b e "Israel"? Finally, w h a t e x p r e s s i o n s , if any, d o e s P h i l o
use b o t h for "Israel" a n d for "other seers"?
T h e results o f m y e x a m i n a t i o n s h o w that P h i l o d o e s i n d e e d h a v e a
" t e c h n i c a l " v o c a b u l a r y f o r "Israel"—the e t y m o l o g y ορών θ ε ό ν a n d t h e
p h r a s e τό ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γένος, t h e race o r class that c a n s e e . W h e n e v e r t h e s e
e x p r e s s i o n s o c c u r , t h e y always signify "Israel," w h e t h e r t h e w o r d a p p e a r s
6
explicitly o r n o t . In a d d i t i o n , P h i l o frequently uses a s h o r t e n e d f o r m o f

6
T h e e t y m o l o g y όρων θεόν appears with or without the definite article e i g h t e e n
times in the extant Greek works and o n c e in QG 3.49, where the Greek is uncertain.
T h e passages from the extant Greek works are as follows: Leg. 3.38, 172, 186, 212; Sacr.
134; Post. 63, 92; Conf. 56; Her. 78; Congr. 51; Fug. 208; Mut. 81 (2); Somn. 1.171; Somn.
2.173; Abr. 57; Praem. 44; Legat. 4. Two of these references are equated with abstractions
and are therefore n o t i n c l u d e d in my examination of passages: Leg. 3.186, in w h i c h
the expression is τό όρων τον θεόν (η.) and refers to the part of the m i n d ( ν ο υ ς ) that
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 95

the etymology ( ό ρ ω ν o r s o m e t i m e s β λ έ π ω ν ) t o m e a n "Israel," b u t t h e s e

words can also describe any p e r s o n that sees, w h e t h e r the seeing is
7
physical or p h i l o s o p h i c a l .
Philo's technical vocabulary for "Israel" m a y f u n c t i o n in different
ways. T h e e t y m o l o g y o r o n e o f its s h o r t e n e d f o r m s , f o r e x a m p l e , may
serve as a n e x p l a n a t o r y c o m m e n t , a n a p p o s i t i v e , a s u b s t i t u t e , o r a n alter­
n a t i v e e x p r e s s i o n f o r "Israel." Similarly, t h e p h r a s e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς m a y
f u n c t i o n as e i t h e r a substitute o r alternative p h r a s e for "Israel." ( U n l i k e t h e
e t y m o l o g y , this p h r a s e n e v e r serves as a n e x p l a n a t i o n o r a n a p p o s i t i v e . )
T h u s , w h e n P h i l o w r i t e s e x p l i c i t l y t h a t "Israel" m e a n s " o n e t h a t s e e s
God" or w h e n he uses similar words to indicate that the etymology
p r o v i d e s t h e m e a n i n g o f "Israel," t h e n t h e e t y m o l o g y f u n c t i o n s as a n
explanation* W h e n h e writes, "Israel, t h e o n e t h a t s e e s G o d , " t h e e t y m o l ­
o g y serves as a n appositive. S o m e t i m e s , t o o , "Israel" serves as a n a p p o s i t i v e
9
for the etymology. Finally, ό ρ ω ν θ ε ό ν a n d ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γένος function as
substitutes f o r "Israel" w h e n t h e w o r d "Israel" d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n the
i m m e d i a t e p a s s a g e ; w h e n t h e w o r d "Israel" d o e s a p p e a r i n t h e p a s s a g e ,
10
t h e n t h e s e p h r a s e s serve as alternative expressions.

sees G o d , a n d Somn. 2.173, in which the etymology explains what "Israel" m e a n s , but
"Israel" symbolizes "the m i n d that is able to contemplate G o d a n d the cosmos" (see n.
1).
T h e e x p r e s s i o n τό όρατικόν γένος appears eleven times in the extant Greek works
and possibly four other d m e s in QGE where the Greek is uncertain. T h e extant Greek
passages are as follows: Deus 144; Conf. 9 1 ; Migr. 18, 5 4 (here the phrase is τό όρατικόν
του δντος γένος, t h e race/class that can see the Existent); Fug. 140; Mut. 109, 189; Somn.
2.276, 2 7 9 ; Mos. 2 . 1 9 6 ( h e r e t h e phrase is amplified as follows: τό όρατικόν κ α ι
επιστημονικό ν γένος, the race/class that can see a n d know); QE 2.46 (this passage has a
Greek f r a g m e n t i n w h i c h t h e phrase appears). T h e QE passages where the Greek is
uncertain are QE 1.21; QE 2.42, 43, 76.
7
ό ρ ω ν stands for "Israel" thirteen times in the e x t a n t Greek works a n d in Q G E
possibly four times, b u t t h e Greek is uncertain. Passages in w h i c h ό ρ ω ν stands for
"Israel" in the extant Greek works are Leg. 2.34; Leg. 3.15; Sobr. 13; Conf. 146, 148, 159;
Migr. 2 1 , 39, 113, 125; Somn. 1.129; Somn. 2.23, 44. In Somn. 2.23, the plural όρώντες is
used. Conf. 146 is n o t i n c l u d e d in the examination o f passages because "Israel," t h e
ό ρ ω ν , is e q u a t e d with an abstraction, the λόγος (Logos). (This passage is discussed in
the previous chapter in c o n n e c t i o n with t h e Prayer of Joseph.) Passages in Q G E in
w h i c h t h e Greek is uncertain are QG 4.233; QE 2.38, 47 ( 2 ) . For passages in w h i c h
β λ έ π ω ν stands for "Israel," see below, n. 20.
8
E.g., Congr. 5 1 , Fug. 208, Abr. 57, Praem. 44, QG 3.49, QG 4.233, Legat. 4.
9
E.g., Leg. 2.34; Conf. 56; Migr. 113, 125, 224; Somn. 1.129, 171; Somn. 2.44. In s o m e o f
these examples, the shorter form o f the etymology, i.e., όρων or βλέπων is used.
1 0
For t h e etymology or a shorter form as a substitute, see, e.g., Leg. 3.15, 8 1 , 172; Sobr.
13; Conf. 159; QE 2.47. For t h e etymology as an alternative expression, s e e , e.g., Leg.
3.212; Sacr. 134; Post. 6 3 , 9 2 . Passages in which the phrase όρατικόν γένος serves as a
substitute include Migr. 18; Fug. 140; Mut. 109, 189; Somn. 2.276; Mos. 1.196; QE 1.21; QE
2.42, 4 3 , 4 6 , 76. Passages in which όρατικόν γένος serves as an alternative expression
include Deus 144, Conf. 9 1 , Migr. 54, Somn. 2.279.
96 CHAPTER THREE

In contrast t o όρων θεόν a n d όρατικόν γένος, Philo's o t h e r f o r m u l a t i o n s

c a n n o t b e c a t e g o r i z e d as t e c h n i c a l e x p r e s s i o n s in t h e s a m e way, e i t h e r
b e c a u s e they are u s e d for b o t h t h e "Israel seers" a n d t h e "other seers" o r
b e c a u s e n o o n e e x p r e s s i o n o c c u r s with significant f r e q u e n c y .
T h e o n l y t e r m s u s e d for b o t h sets o f "seers" are οί όρατικοί, t h o s e w h o
1 1
c a n s e e , a n d o i όρώντες, t h o s e w h o s e e . A n e x p r e s s i o n for "Israel seers"
w h i c h is u s e d twice (Agr. 8 1 , Fug. 19) a n d d o e s n o t have an e x a c t parallel
a m o n g t h e "other seers" is o i ο ξ ύ καθορώντες, t h o s e w h o s e e sharply. O n
t h e o t h e r h a n d , e x a m p l e s o f e x p r e s s i o n s for "other seers" w h i c h have n o
e x a c t parallels a m o n g t h e t e r m s for "Israel seers" are οί φ ι λ ο θ ε ά μ ο ν ε ς ,
t h o s e w h o are f o n d o f c o n t e m p l a t i n g ; οί ό ρ ά ν δ υ ν ά μ ε ν ο ι , t h o s e w h o c a n
see; oi ο ξ ύ κ α θ ο ρ α ν δ υ ν ά μ ε ν ο ι , t h o s e w h o can s e e sharply; a n d oi δ ι ά ν ο ι α ν
1 2
ό ξ υ δ ε ρ κ ο ύ ν τ ε ς , t h o s e w h o s e e sharply with t h e i r m i n d s . T h e s e t e r m s ,
h o w e v e r , d o n o t differ significantly in m e a n i n g f r o m t h o s e w h i c h
clearly d o d e s c r i b e "Israel." I n d e e d all t h e s e e x p r e s s i o n s carry m u c h t h e
s a m e m e a n i n g a n d d e n o t e g r o u p s that can see.

The Relationship Between the Etymology ορών θεόν and the Phrase όρατικόν
γένος

S i n c e όρων θεόν ( o n e that s e e s G o d ) a n d τό όρατικόν γένος ( t h e r a c e / c l a s s

that c a n s e e ) are two e x p r e s s i o n s w h i c h always refer o n l y t o "Israel," it
m a y b e w o r t h r e f l e c t i n g briefly u p o n h o w t h e y m a y b e r e l a t e d . W h i l e
P h i l o uses όρων θ ε ό ν — w h i c h is singular—for b o t h t h e patriarch Israel a n d
t h e n a t i o n o f his d e s c e n d a n t s , the e x p r e s s i o n όρατικόν γ έ ν ο ς by d e f i n i t i o n
d e s c r i b e s a collectivity.
As a t e r m for collective Israel, ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς r e p r e s e n t s a n i n t e r p r e ­
tation, o r at least a further a p p l i c a t i o n , o f t h e e t y m o l o g y όρων θ ε ό ν . First,
t h e e x p r e s s i o n e x t e n d s t h e ability to s e e f r o m "one w h o sees"—as c o n ­
v e y e d in t h e s i n g u l a r participle ό ρ ω ν — t o an entire race o r class ( γ έ ν ο ς ) .
S e c o n d , "God" as t h e "object" s e e n d r o p s out, so that w h i l e t h e ability t o
s e e is explicitly ascribed t o collective "Israel," t h e ability to s e e G o d p e r se
remains implicit.
As w e o b s e r v e d in t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r , P h i l o p r o b a b l y d e r i v e d f r o m
a n o t h e r s o u r c e h i s e t y m o l o g y for "Israel," w h i c h o r i g i n a l l y m a y h a v e
b e e n l i n k e d to J a c o b ' s struggle a n d his n a m i n g o f P e n i e l ( G e n . 3 2 : 2 5 - 3 3 ) .
In P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t , this e t y m o l o g y h o l d s great significance b e c a u s e o f t h e
supreme importance h e places u p o n seeing God. Philo's understanding of

1 1
oi όρατικοι, those w h o can see: Plant. 46 (here the referent is "Israel"); Somn. 1.39
and Decal. 24 (here the referent is unclear), oi όρώντες, those w h o see: Somn. 2.23 (here
the referent is "Israel"); Deus 139 and Her. 78 (here the word describes p r o p h e t s ) .
1 2
For other examples, see n. 3.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 97

s e e i n g G o d , h o w e v e r , is quite different f r o m t h e k i n d o f s e e i n g i m p l i e d in
t h e G e n e s i s narrative.
Like the etymology, the expression όρατικόν γένος may have h a d a
s i m i l a r p r e - P h i l o n i c history. A p p e a r i n g t h r o u g h o u t P h i l o ' s e x e g e t i c a l
writings a n d w i t h i n b o t h literal a n d symbolic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , this e x p r e s ­
sion may also be an inherited c o m m o n p l a c e , w h i c h originally served
simply as a title for t h e n a t i o n Israel. A c c o r d i n g l y , ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς m a y
h a v e b e e n a n e x e g e t i c a l "family n a m e " a d a p t e d f r o m t h e " e p o n y m o u s
1 3
a n c e s t o r " ο ρ ώ ν θ ε ό ν , [ t h e ] o n e that s e e s G o d . As s u c h , t h e p h r a s e
ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς m a y n o t originally have d e n o t e d t h e k i n d o f s e e i n g P h i l o
associates w i t h it. Instead, this e x p r e s s i o n t o o may have b e e n l i n k e d t o t h e
e x p e r i e n c e n a r r a t e d in G e n e s i s 3 2 o f its e p o n y m o u s a n c e s t o r "Israel,"
[ t h e ] o n e that s e e s G o d , or p e r h a p s to a separate e x p e r i e n c e in the n a t i o n ' s
history, s u c h as t h e revelation at M o u n t Sinai (see, e.g., E x o d . 2 0 : 2 2 ) .
B o t h ορών θ ε ό ν a n d ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γένος, t h e n , may have c h a n g e d in m e a n ­
i n g o v e r t i m e . W e h a v e j u s t o b s e r v e d that t h e k i n d o f s e e i n g o r i g i n a l l y
d e n o t e d by e a c h t e r m is q u i t e different f r o m P h i l o ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n ­
c e p t i o n s o f s e e i n g G o d . A s e c o n d i m p o r t a n t observation is that o c c a s i o n a l ­
ly w h e n P h i l o u s e s t h e s e e x p r e s s i o n s , t h e ability to s e e o r to s e e G o d d o e s
n o t a d d any m e a n i n g to t h e discussion. ( H e r e , o f c o u r s e , I a m s p e a k i n g o f
s e e i n g in t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l s e n s e . ) Instead, t h e t e r m s are simply equiva­
l e n t n a m e s o r a u t o m a t i c substitutes for "Israel."
W h e n t h e ability to see or to s e e G o d is relevant to the passage, t h e titles
carry t h e i r "semantic w e i g h t , " that is, they s e e m t o e m p h a s i z e t h e s e n s e
o f p e o p l e w h o c a n really s e e o r s e e G o d . W h e n t h e ability to s e e is n o t
relevant, t h e n this ability appears to exist in n a m e only. T h u s , in t h e s a m e
way t h a t s o m e o n e t o d a y w i t h t h e s u r n a m e "Baker" is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a
b a k e r o r s o m e o n e w i t h t h e s u r n a m e "Little" is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y o f s m a l l
stature, s o t o o , t h e entity c a l l e d ορών θ ε ό ν o r ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς m a y n o t
n e c e s s a r i l y b e spiritually s i g h t e d .
In brief, t h e n , t h e k i n d o f s e e i n g originally signified by ορών θ ε ό ν a n d
ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς m a y h a v e b e e n q u i t e different f r o m t h e k i n d o f s e e i n g
w h i c h P h i l o so h i g h l y values; a n d , in s o m e P h i l o n i c c o n t e x t s , t h e ability
t o s e e o r s e e G o d is n o t relevant, so that t h e s e e x p r e s s i o n s a p p e a r m e r e l y
as a u t o m a t i c e q u i v a l e n t s for "Israel." T h e s e two o b s e r v a t i o n s h i g h l i g h t
t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t ορών θ ε ό ν a n d ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς m a y h a v e g r a d u a l l y

1 3
In the Bible, the nation Israel derives its n a m e from the patriarch J a c o b / I s r a e l .
T h u s Israel the patriarch is the e p o n y m o u s ancestor, i.e., the original f o u n d e r w h o s e
n a m e b e c o m e s attached to the d e s c e n d a n t nation. In the case of the etymology, my
a r g u m e n t is that ορών θεόν serves somewhat inexactly as an "eponymous ancestor" of
the "descendant" όρατικόν γένος. While the γ έ ν ο ς d o e s n o t have precisely the same
n a m e , i.e., ορών θεόν, the adjective όρατικόν is adapted from the original etymology.
98 CHAPTER THREE

a c q u i r e d different n u a n c e s f r o m their original o n e s . In C h a p t e r O n e , w e

also saw that t h e t e r m "Israel" itself has a history in w h i c h it h a s b e e n
u n d e r s t o o d in different ways. L e t us e x a m i n e m o r e closely, t h e n , h o w all
t h r e e t e r m s — ο ρ ώ ν θεόν ( o n e that sees G o d ) , όρατικόν γένος ( r a c e / c l a s s that
c a n s e e ) , a n d "Israel"—evolved o r m a y h a v e e v o l v e d in m e a n i n g o v e r
time.

Evolution in Use of Terms: A Hypothesis

The Etymology

As w e saw i n t h e last c h a p t e r , e x t e r n a l e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t s t h e e t y m o l o g y
ο ρ ώ ν θ ε ό ν was p a r t o f a c o m m o n e x e g e t i c a l v o c a b u l a r y w h i c h P h i l o
i n h e r i t e d . Scholars have s p e c u l a t e d that it may b e b a s e d u p o n a n original
Hebrew etymology, ΠΚΊ a m a n [who] saw/sees God, and may be
d e r i v e d f r o m J a c o b ' s e n c o u n t e r d e s c r i b e d in G e n e s i s 3 2 . A l t h o u g h P h i l o
h i m s e l f n e v e r u s e s a n e q u i v a l e n t for man, some other Greek and
1 4
Latin s o u r c e s have ά ν ή ρ o r άνθρωπος ορών θ ε ό ν . Most o f t h e s e s o u r c e s are
later t h a n P h i l o , b u t o n e — t h e Prayer of Joseph—may b e c o n t e m p o r a r y t o
h i m . T h i s w o r k g i v e s t h e e t y m o l o g y as ά ν ή ρ ορών θ ε ό ν , a m a n w h o
sees G o d .
In t h e last c h a p t e r , I also s u g g e s t e d that P h i l o h i m s e l f — o r p e r h a p s a n
e a r l i e r t r a d i t i o n — m a y p u r p o s e l y d r o p a w o r d f o r en*, m a n , f r o m t h e
e t y m o l o g y i n o r d e r t o separate it f r o m i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with t h e historical
patriarch a n d his d e s c e n d a n t s ; to allow for m o r e flexibility to i n t e r p r e t t h e
e t y m o l o g y as a n abstraction, like t h e m i n d , soul, o r λ ό γ ο ς ( L o g o s ) ; o r to
d o w n p l a y t h e i m p r e s s i o n that a m a n c o u l d possibly s e e G o d . E l i m i n a t i o n
o f a w o r d f o r "man," t h e n , m a y e n a b l e P h i l o to d i s t a n c e t h e e t y m o l o g y
f r o m its original association with t h e patriarch's e n c o u n t e r in G e n e s i s 3 2
a n d to e m p h a s i z e i n s t e a d t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y p h i l o s o p h i c a l i m p o r t a n c e o f
seeing God.
As w e h a v e n o t e d , P h i l o d i s c u s s e s t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l i m p o r t a n c e o f
1 5
s e e i n g G o d n o t o n l y in r e l a t i o n to "Israel," b u t also in o t h e r c o n t e x t s .
Accordingly, s e e i n g G o d may have had an i n d e p e n d e n t p h i l o s o p h i c a l
significance, which eventually b e c a m e c o n n e c t e d with the etymology.
At s o m e p o i n t — p e r h a p s e v e n b e f o r e P h i l o — t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l i m p o r t a n c e
o f t h e ability to s e e G o d may have a d d e d to o r e v e n r e p l a c e d t h e original
h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i m p l i e d by t h e e t y m o l o g y . T h i s s p e c i f i c c a s e ,

1 4
For specific references, see Lampe, PatHstic Greek Lexicon, 678, u n d e r "Ισραήλ"; and
Smith, "The Prayer of Joseph," Religions, 266, n. 3.
1 5
E.g., Opif. 6 9 - 7 1 ; Somn. 1.64-67; Somn. 2.226-27; Abr. 119-30; Contempt. 11; QG 4.138,
196; QE 2.51.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 99

w h e r e b y "Israel, t h e o n e that s e e s G o d , " acquires a c o n t e m p o r a r y m e a n ­

i n g is simply representative o f a b r o a d e r a p p r o a c h to t h e B i b l e , w h e r e b y
all o f Scripture is read as t h e e m b o d i m e n t o f c o n t e m p o r a r y truths.

The Phrase όρατικόν γένος

T h e c a s e f o r a n e v o l u t i o n in m e a n i n g o f ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς is b u i l t u p o n
similar a s s u m p t i o n s to t h o s e j u s t described. Unfortunately, w e d o n o t have
e x t e r n a l e v i d e n c e , as w e d o with t h e e t y m o l o g y , to c l a i m that ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν
γ έ ν ο ς b e l o n g s t o a c o m m o n vocabulary. P h i l o is t h e o n l y writer w h o u s e s
this p r e c i s e p h r a s e , a n d variations o c c u r o n l y twice in later patristic
1 6
s o u r c e s . T h e a r g u m e n t offered b e l o w , t h e n , is b a s e d u p o n o b s e r v a t i o n s
o n l y a b o u t P h i l o ' s works t h e m s e l v e s .
D e s p i t e t h e lack o f o u t s i d e e v i d e n c e , h o w e v e r , o n e can p o i n t t o s o m e
distinct d i f f e r e n c e s within t h e P h i l o n i c works. In QE, for e x a m p l e , as w e
shall s e e , t h e p h r a s e όρατικόν γ έ ν ο ς appears to serve o n l y as an a u t o m a t i c
r e p l a c e m e n t for "Israel," b e c a u s e t h e ability t o s e e is n o t relevant. S i n c e
t h e c o n t e x t s o f t h e QE interpretations d o n o t provide positive i n f o r m a t i o n ,
we c a n n o t decisively identify the όρατικόν γένος with any particular
g r o u p , a l t h o u g h two p a s s a g e s favor u n d e r s t a n d i n g this entity as Biblical
Israel.
In t h e E x p o s i t i o n , specifically in Mos. 2.196, t h e p h r a s e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς
o c c u r s o n c e as a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e Biblical n a t i o n , a l t h o u g h P h i l o d o e s n o t
u s e t h e w o r d "Israel" in this treatise. H e r e , t h e ability t o s e e d o e s c o n ­
tribute t o t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e interpretation. In this passage, t h e n , it is clear
that P h i l o u s e s όρατικόν γένος to d e s i g n a t e t h e Biblical n a t i o n a n d that h e
also i n t e n d s t h e p h r a s e to h i g h l i g h t t h e n a t i o n ' s ability to "see."
Finally, in t h e A l l e g o r y , t h e p h r a s e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς f u n c t i o n s in a
variety o f ways. It may, for e x a m p l e , serve as an a u t o m a t i c substitute for
"Israel" w h e n t h e w o r d itself d o e s n o t a p p e a r or as an alternative e x p r e s ­
s i o n w h e n it d o e s appear. In s o m e c o n t e x t s , t h e ability to s e e is relevant to
t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e p a s s a g e , w h i l e in o t h e r c o n t e x t s , it is n o t . M o s t
i m p o r t a n t , n o n e o f t h e passages ever provides e n o u g h i n f o r m a t i o n t o allow
c o n c l u s i v e identification o f t h e όρατικόν γένος, so that w h e t h e r t h e p h r a s e
is a m e r e title o r a m e a n i n g f u l d e s c r i p t i o n , w e c a n n o t link it w i t h any
particular social g r o u p .
T h e different characteristics, just described, a m o n g Philo's various
w r i t i n g s m a y b e r e l a t e d t o his d i f f e r e n t a i m s a n d a u d i e n c e s f o r e a c h
series, as I shall s u g g e s t at t h e e n d o f this chapter. T h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s m a y

1 6
T h e phrase διορατικόν γένος occurs o n c e in Origen, Fragmenta in Evangelium Joannis
26:1, and o n c e in Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 4:7:2.
100 CHAPTER THREE

also, h o w e v e r , reflect different stages in t h e way t h e p h r a s e όρατικόν γ έ ν ο ς

was u n d e r s t o o d .
O r i g i n a l l y , t h i s p h r a s e m a y h a v e s e r v e d s i m p l y as a title f o r t h e
Biblical o r post-Biblical n a t i o n Israel, d e s c e n d a n t s o f a n a n c e s t o r w h o saw
G o d , o r t h e m s e l v e s a n a t i o n that saw G o d (e.g., d u r i n g t h e r e v e l a t i o n at
S i n a i ) . A t this s t a g e , t h e p h r a s e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς m a y o r m a y n o t h a v e
signified literally their ability to s e e G o d . If, in fact, t h e p h r a s e originally
d i d signify this ability, t h e k i n d o f s e e i n g it d e n o t e d is r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t
f r o m P h i l o ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . I n d e e d , for P h i l o , t h e p h r a s e carries a d d e d
significance because of the contemporary philosophical importance h e
attaches t o s e e i n g a n d s e e i n g G o d .
B e s i d e s t h e e n h a n c e d m e a n i n g c o n v e y e d by ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν (able to s e e ) , w e
have n o t e d that t h e w o r d γ έ ν ο ς t o o carries a range o f associations in P h i l o ' s
t h o u g h t . It c a n m e a n a race o f p e o p l e with c o m m o n ancestry, a class
d e f i n e d by a c q u i r e d characteristics, a n abstract n a t u r e o r k i n d , o r a n
o r i g i n a l ideal.
In its b e g i n n i n g s , t h e n , ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς m a y well h a v e b e e n a d a p t e d
f r o m t h e e t y m o l o g y όρων θεόν as a n a m e for t h e n a t i o n o r race o f Israel.
By P h i l o ' s t i m e , h o w e v e r , b o t h ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν a n d γένος have a c q u i r e d a d d i t i o n ­
al n u a n c e s , allowing t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e two words to b e u n d e r s t o o d in
several s e n s e s at o n c e .

"Israel"

T h i s t e r m b e g a n to evolve in m e a n i n g well b e f o r e P h i l o . In t h e Five B o o k s

o f M o s e s , "Israel" refers specifically to t h e patriarch J a c o b / I s r a e l o r his
d e s c e n d a n t n a t i o n . In s o m e p r o p h e t i c b o o k s o f t h e B i b l e , t h e n a m e also
i n d i c a t e s t h e N o r t h e r n K i n g d o m as distinct f r o m t h e S o u t h e r n K i n g d o m
o f J u d a h . W i t h t i m e , "Israel" s e e m s t o h a v e a c q u i r e d a self-referential
f u n c t i o n . D e p e n d i n g u p o n w h o is u s i n g t h e w o r d , "Israel" m a y d e s i g n a t e
any o f a variety o f g r o u p s — a l l Jews, a subset o f t h e Jews, o r a r e d e f i n e d
1 7
g r o u p w h i c h m a y or m a y n o t i n c l u d e J e w s .
P h i l o m o s t f r e q u e n t l y interprets "Israel" in relation to s e e i n g o r s e e i n g
G o d . O n l y o n c e , in Legat., d o e s h e e q u a t e "Israel" with a real social g r o u p ,
n a m e l y , h i s J e w i s h c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . In all o t h e r c a s e s , it is difficult t o
i d e n t i f y "Israel" d e c i s i v e l y w i t h any social g r o u p . In t h e w o r k s w h i c h
c o n c e n t r a t e u p o n Scriptural verses a b o u t the Biblical n a t i o n Israel (Mos. 1 -
2 a n d QE 1 - 2 ) , t h e w o r d "Israel" itself is c o n s p i c u o u s l y a b s e n t . M o s t

1 7
See Danell, Studies in the Name Israel; Kuhn, "Ισραήλ, Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ς , Εβραίος"; Gutbrod,
" Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ς , Ι σ ρ α ή λ , Ε β ρ α ί ο ς " ; N e u s n e r , "Israel: Judaism and Its Social Metaphors";
i d e m , Judaism and Its Social Metaphors.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 101

p r o b a b l y , P h i l o a v o i d s this t e r m h e r e b e c a u s e f o r h i m "Israel" h a s a
different c o n n o t a t i o n , namely, as t h e g r o u p o f p e o p l e that s e e s o r s e e s G o d .

With these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s in m i n d , w e can n o w turn to passages in

w h i c h P h i l o s p e a k s a b o u t "Israel seers" to try a n d identify a r e f e r e n t f o r
t h e m . I shall u s e t h e w o r d "referent" to d e s c r i b e t h e s o c i a l , e t h n i c , o r
political g r o u p [s] P h i l o may have in m i n d w h e n h e u s e s various t e r m s o r
e x p r e s s i o n s for "Israel seers." O u r task, t h e n , is t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h p e o p l e
P h i l o is referring to w h e n h e speaks a b o u t t h o s e w h o see w h o are "Israel."

Passages in Which Philo Mentions "Israel Seers"

In all, fifty-four p a s s a g e s d e s c r i b e "Israel" with e x p r e s s i o n s f o r s e e r s that

1 8
m a y refer to p e o p l e a n d n o t abstractions like t h e s o u l o r m i n d . B e s i d e s
t h e s e p a s s a g e s , f o u r o t h e r s i n c l u d e e x p r e s s i o n s for seers that may o r may
n o t b e r e l a t e d t o t h e e t y m o l o g y o f "Israel": Somn. 1.117, Somn. 2 . 2 7 1 , Mos.
2 . 2 7 1 , a n d Spec. 1.54. S i n c e t h e s e passages are n o t clearly related to t h e ety­
19
m o l o g y , I a m simply n o t i n g t h e m b u t n o t i n c l u d i n g t h e m i n this s t u d y .
T o d e s c r i b e t h e "Israel seers" in t h e s e passages, P h i l o u s e s t h e follow­
i n g e x p r e s s i o n s : ό [or τ ό ] ό ρ ω ν , t h e o n e that s e e s ( 1 5 p a s s a g e s ) ; [ό Ο Γ τ ό ]
ο ρ ώ ν [ τ ο ν ] θ ε ό ν , [ t h e ] o n e that s e e s G o d ( 1 5 ) ; τό ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς , t h e
r a c e / c l a s s t h a t c a n s e e ( 1 5 ) ; ό β λ έ π ω ν , t h e o n e that s e e s ( 5 ) ; ό [ o r τ ό ]
όρατικός [ ό ν ] , t h e o n e that c a n s e e ( 3 ) ; a n d οί ο ξ ύ καθορώντες, t h o s e w h o
2 0
s e e sharply ( 2 ) . P h i l o ' s m o s t f r e q u e n t e x p r e s s i o n s , t h e n , for t h o s e w h o

1 8
For expressions that include abstractions, see η . 1. Also, in three cases (Leg. 3.186,
Conf. 146, a n d Somn. 2 . 1 7 2 - 7 3 — s e e above, n n . 6 and 7 ) , even t h o u g h the expression for
seers itself d o e s n o t i n c l u d e an abstraction, the passage direcdy links the e x p r e s s i o n
with an abstraction, a n d so these passages are n o t c o u n t e d a m o n g the Fifty-four. In
s o m e o t h e r cases, Philo's expressions for seers may be part o f an interpretation a b o u t
the soul or m i n d , but the link between the expression a n d the abstraction is unclear.
See, e.g., the discussion below of Migr. 18 and n. 25.
1 9
Somn. 1.117 and Somn. 2.271 are discussed in Chapter Two as comprising Category
D — t h e unclear references. In S o m n . 1.117, "Israel" is n o t explicitly i n t e r p r e t e d b u t
serves as an i m p l i e d contrast to "those w h o are blind in the eyes o f the soul rather
than o f the body a n d d o n o t know the rays o f virtue" (my translation). Somn. 2 . 2 7 1 ,
w h i c h interprets N u m . 21:17, m e n t i o n s οί φιλοθεάμονες, those w h o are f o n d o f c o n t e m ­
plating, b u t it is unclear w h e t h e r these p e o p l e are i n t e n d e d to c o r r e s p o n d to "Israel,"
w h i c h is cited in the verse. Mos. 2.271 speaks of the Biblical n a t i o n as "the w h o l e
p e o p l e w h o until recently had b e e n the m o s t sharp-sighted o f all the nations" (my
t r a n s l a t i o n ) . Similarly, Spec. 1.54 describes apostates—i.e., "members o f t h e n a t i o n
[ w h o ] betray the h o n o u r d u e to the One"—as c h o o s i n g "darkness in preference to the
brightest l i g h t a n d [ b l i n d f o l d i n g ] the m i n d w h i c h h a d the power o f k e e n vision."
In the two latter cases, it is n o t certain w h e t h e r the characterizations are related to
t h e e t y m o l o g y for "Israel" or are instead simply metaphorical descriptions.
2 0
For a list o f passages that use όρων, όρων θεόν, and όρατικόν γένος, see above, n n . 6
102 CHAPTER THREE

s e e w h o are e q u a t e d with "Israel" are ό [or τό] ό ρ ω ν , [ό o r τ ό ] ό ρ ω ν [ τ ο ν ]

θεόν, a n d τό όρατικόν γένος.
A few observations a b o u t this tally are in order. First, with regard to t h e
c o u n t i n g , s i n c e o n e passage (Leg. 3.172) has two different e x p r e s s i o n s for
"Israel seers" (ό τον θεόν όρων a n d ό β λ έ π ω ν τον δ ν τ α ) , t h e n u m b e r o f
p a s s a g e s p r e s e n t e d a b o v e totals fifty-five. In o n e passage, Mut. 8 1 , ό όρων
τον θ ε ό ν a p p e a r s twice, b u t t h e p a s s a g e is c o u n t e d o n l y o n c e s i n c e t h e
e x p r e s s i o n is t h e s a m e . Similarly, in QE 2.47, t h e p h r a s e "the s e e i n g o n e "
— p r e s u m a b l y ό ό ρ ω ν — a p p e a r s twice b u t the passage is c o u n t e d o n l y o n c e .
S e c o n d , o c c a s i o n a l l y t h e terms o r e x p r e s s i o n s listed a b o v e a p p e a r with
variations. In Leg. 3.172, for e x a m p l e , ό βλέπων, the o n e that sees, has as an
object ό ών, t h e O n e w h o is. In Migr. 5 4 , τό όρατικόν γένος has as a n object ό
[τό] ών [ δ ν ] , t h e O n e w h o (or that, n.) is. Finally, in Mos. 2.196, t h e p h r a s e
τό ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς is amplified as τό όρατικόν καΐ έπιστημονικόν γένος, t h e
r a c e / c l a s s able to s e e a n d know.
Last, in several Q G E passages, the Greek is u n c e r t a i n , s i n c e t h e passages
in q u e s t i o n d o n o t have parallel Greek fragments. I have a s s u m e d that t h e
G r e e k p h r a s e ορών θ ε ό ν is b e h i n d t h e translation o f "seeing G o d " in QG
3.49, a n d that ό [or τό] ορών a n d οί όρώντες are b e h i n d t h e translations o f
"one w h o sees" in QG 4 . 2 3 3 a n d "the s e e i n g o n e ( s ) " in Q E 2 . 3 8 a n d 47.
QE 2 . 4 6 is o n e p a s s a g e with a parallel G r e e k f r a g m e n t in w h i c h t h e
e x p r e s s i o n ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς d o e s o c c u r . In t h e LCL e d i t i o n , R a l p h Marcus
translates this p h r a s e as " c o n t e m p l a t i v e n a t i o n . " H e also u s e s " c o n t e m ­
plative n a t i o n , " "seeing n a t i o n , " o r t h e w o r d " c o n t e m p l a t i v e " a l o n e in
several o t h e r passages. S i n c e t h e use o f όρατικόν γένος is attested to in o n e
p a s s a g e , a n d s i n c e P h i l o f r e q u e n t l y u s e s this e x p r e s s i o n i n h i s o t h e r
w r i t i n g s , I a m a s s u m i n g that ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς also u n d e r l i e s t h e o t h e r
i n s t a n c e s in w h i c h " c o n t e m p l a t i v e [ o r s e e i n g ] n a t i o n " o c c u r s i n t h e
E n g l i s h a n d similarly, that ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ς is t h e G r e e k b e h i n d "contemplative,"
w h e n this w o r d a p p e a r s a l o n e .
S i n c e t h e G r e e k is u n c e r t a i n in a n u m b e r o f cases, t h e f r e q u e n c y w i t h
w h i c h s o m e o f t h e e x p r e s s i o n s o c c u r , as r e p o r t e d a b o v e , m a y n o t b e
2 1
accurate. T h e q u e s t i o n a b l e Q G E passages are listed in t h e n o t e s .
A s always, i n t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n , b r a c k e t s w i t h i n t r a n s l a t i o n s
i n c l u d e m y o w n adaptations to translations f r o m t h e LCL e d i t i o n . Also, for

and 7. β λ έ π ω ν occurs in Leg. 2.46; Leg. 3.81, 172 (this passage has 6 ών, the O n e w h o
exists, as an object); Migr. 224; Somn. 1.114. όρατικός occurs in Mut. 258 (here the word
appears in the dative singular and may be either masculine or n e u t e r ) ; a n d Plant. 4 6
(here the word appears in the plural as ό ρ α τ ι κ ο ί ) . In QE 1.12, the word ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ς may
appear, but the Greek is uncertain. T h e phrase οί όξύ καθορώντες occurs in Agr. 81 and
Fug. 19.
2 1
See above, n n . 6 and 7.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 103

c o n v e n i e n c e , t h e e x e g e t i c a l s e r i e s t o w h i c h e a c h p a s s a g e b e l o n g s is
i n d i c a t e d i n p a r e n t h e s e s n e x t t o t h e n a m e o f t h e passage. O n l y Legat. 4
c o m e s f r o m a n o n - e x e g e t i c a l work.

Passages in Which a Referent for "Israel Seers" Can Be Determined

O f all t h e p a s s a g e s w h i c h h a v e e x p r e s s i o n s for "Israel s e e r s , " w e c a n

identify o n l y two w i t h a real social g r o u p . T h e s e passages are Mos. 2 . 1 9 6 ,
in w h i c h t h e p h r a s e τό ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν κ α ι έ π ι σ τ η μ ο ν ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς is t h e Biblical
n a t i o n , a n d Legat. 4, in w h i c h "Israel," t h e όρων θ ε ό ν , d e n o t e s t h e Jews. In
b o t h cases, o n l y t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e passage allows u s to identify a r e f e r e n t
for t h e s e e x p r e s s i o n s , as is e x p l a i n e d below.

Mos. 2.196 (Exposition)

O f primary i n t e r e s t in this passage is the phrase τό ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν και έ π ι σ τ η ­

μ ο ν ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς , t h e r a c e / c l a s s that c a n s e e a n d know. S i n c e P h i l o is clearly
n a r r a t i n g t h e history o f t h e Biblical n a t i o n in his two treatises o n M o s e s ,
this p h r a s e c a n n o t b e c o n s t r u e d as any o t h e r g r o u p . W e h a v e o b s e r v e d ,
h o w e v e r , that t h r o u g h o u t t h e s e two treatises, P h i l o refrains f r o m c a l l i n g
t h e n a t i o n "Israel." Strictly s p e a k i n g , t h e n , w e c a n n o t say t h a t t h e
ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν κ α ι έ π ι σ τ η μ ο ν ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς is "Israel," as h e u n d e r s t a n d s t h e t e r m ;
instead, it is t h e Biblical n a t i o n Israel.
In Mos. 2 . 1 9 6 , P h i l o paraphrases the i n c i d e n t narrated in Lev. 2 4 : 1 0 - 1 6 ,
q u o t e d b e l o w , a b o u t t h e b l a s p h e m e r . T h e larger c o n t e x t o f t h e p a s s a g e ,
Mos. 2 . 1 9 2 - 2 0 8 , is a d i s c u s s i o n o f o r a c l e s g i v e n i n q u e s t i o n a n d a n s w e r
e x c h a n g e between God and Moses. Philo presents the incident from
Leviticus t o illustrate this k i n d o f oracle. O u r specific c o n c e r n , h o w e v e r ,
is w i t h t h e way h e narrates t h e e p i s o d e l e a d i n g u p to t h e o r a c l e (Mos.
2.193-96).
Lev. 2 4 : 1 0 - 1 1 d e s c r i b e s t h e i n c i d e n t as f o l l o w s : "Now a n I s r a e l i t e
w o m a n ' s s o n , w h o s e father was a n Egyptian, w e n t o u t a m o n g t h e p e o p l e
o f Israel; a n d t h e Israelite w o m a n ' s s o n a n d a m a n o f Israel q u a r r e l l e d in
t h e c a m p , a n d t h e Israelite w o m a n ' s s o n b l a s p h e m e d t h e N a m e a n d
cursed."
I n r e t e l l i n g this e p i s o d e , P h i l o e l a b o r a t e s u p o n t h e b a c k g r o u n d o f t h e
b l a s p h e m e r . H e writes, "A certain base-born m a n , t h e c h i l d o f an u n e q u a l
m a r r i a g e , his f a t h e r a n Egyptian, his m o t h e r a J e w e s s , h a d set at n a u g h t
t h e ancestral c u s t o m s o f his m o t h e r a n d t u r n e d aside, as w e are told, t o t h e
i m p i e t y o f Egypt a n d e m b r a c e d the a t h e i s m o f the p e o p l e " (Mos. 2 . 1 9 3 ) .
B a s e d u p o n t h e brief a c c o u n t in Leviticus o f t h e m a n ' s p e d i g r e e — h e is
d e s c r i b e d as t h e s o n o f a n Israelite w o m a n a n d a n Egyptian f a t h e r — P h i l o
c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e m a n as b a s e b o r n a n d t h e offspring o f u n e q u a l s . H e also
104 CHAPTER THREE

e l a b o r a t e s that t h e m a n r e j e c t e d t h e ancestral c u s t o m s ( π ά τ ρ ι α εθη) f r o m

his m o t h e r ' s side in favor o f t h e atheistic impiety o f his father's p e o p l e . It
is i n t e r e s t i n g that P h i l o d e p i c t s t h e m o t h e r ' s h e r i t a g e as o n e o f "ancestral
c u s t o m s . " T h i s e x p r e s s i o n d e n o t e s a traditional f r a m e w o r k o f p r a c t i c e s ,
o n e w h i c h P h i l o d o e s n o t m e n t i o n in o t h e r p a s s a g e s w h e r e h e d i s c u s s e s
t h e "Israel seers."
It is also n o t e w o r t h y that w h i l e t h e B i b l e talks o f t h e m o t h e r as a n
Israelite w o m a n ( γ υ ν ή Ί σ ρ α η λ ΐ τ ι ς ) , P h i l o describes h e r as a J e w e s s ( Ι ο υ ­
δ α ί α ) . S i n c e h e u s e s "Hebrews" for t h e Biblical p e o p l e t h r o u g h o u t t h e two
treatises o n M o s e s , w e m i g h t e x p e c t h i m to d o s o h e r e as well, especially
b e c a u s e h e s e e m s to reserve t h e t e r m 'Jew" for his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s .
P h i l o g o e s o n to d e s c r i b e t h e w r o n g - h e a d e d b e l i e f s o f t h e Egyptians,
w h o revere earth as a g o d . H e writes,

For the Egyptians almost alone a m o n g the nations have set u p earth as a power to
c h a l l e n g e heaven. Earth they h e l d to be worthy of the h o n o u r s d u e to a g o d , a n d
refused to r e n d e r to heaven any special tribute of reverence, acting as t h o u g h it
were right to shew respect to the outermost regions rather than to the royal palace.
(Mos. 2.194)

C h a n g i n g f r o m t h e aorist to t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e , P h i l o t h e n g o e s o n to
e x p l a i n that t h e Egyptians revere t h e earth b e c a u s e , u n l i k e o t h e r c o u n t r i e s
w h i c h are w a t e r e d by rain f r o m h e a v e n , t h e l a n d o f Egypt is w a t e r e d by
t h e yearly f l o o d i n g o f t h e N i l e . T h e Egyptians t h e r e f o r e r e g a r d t h e river
with t h e k i n d o f r e v e r e n c e o w e d to a g o d (Mos. 2 . 1 9 5 ) .
After this brief d i g r e s s i o n f r o m t h e story, P h i l o d e s c r i b e s t h e e n c o u n t e r
b e t w e e n t h e b l a s p h e m e r a n d t h e Israelite:

A n d , lo, this half-bred p e r s o n , having a quarrel with s o m e o n e o f [the r a c e / c l a s s

able to see a n d know, τό όρατικόν και έπιστημονικόν γ έ ν ο ς ] , losing in his anger all
control over himself, and also u r g e d by f o n d n e s s for Egyptian atheism, e x t e n d e d
his impiety from earth to heaven, and with soul and t o n g u e a n d all the organism
o f s p e e c h alike accursed, foul, abominable, in the s u p e r a b u n d a n c e of his manifold
wickedness cursed H i m , w h o m even to bless is a privilege n o t p e r m i t t e d to all but
only to the best, even those w h o have received full and c o m p l e t e purification. (Mos.
2.196)

E s c h e w i n g s p e c u l a t i o n a b o u t t h e n a t u r e o f t h e quarrel, P h i l o e x p a n d s
i n s t e a d u p o n t h e character o f t h e half-Egyptian m a n , t e l l i n g that h e l o s e s
c o n t r o l o f h i m s e l f b e c a u s e o f h i s a n g e r a n d also that h e is z e a l o u s for
Egyptian a t h e i s m . W h a t m a k e s his transgression e s p e c i a l l y o u t r a g e o u s is
that h e dares t o curse G o d w h e n e v e n to bless H i m is reserved for o n l y t h e
b e s t a n d purest. It is u n c l e a r w h e t h e r P h i l o m e a n s by this last characteri­
z a t i o n t o d e s c r i b e o n l y t h e priests o r w h e t h e r h e m a y also i n c l u d e o t h e r s
w h o h a v e p u r i f i e d t h e m s e l v e s properly. In any event, t h e p e r s o n f r o m t h e
r a c e / c l a s s that is able to s e e a n d k n o w stands in sharp contrast to t h e half-
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 105

Egyptian m a n , w h o yields to his passions and n o t only d e n i e s G o d but

also b l a s p h e m e s H i m .
It is striking that this passage h a s t h e o n l y o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e e x p r e s s i o n
ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς in t h e treatises o n M o s e s a n d i n d e e d i n any o f t h e
E x p o s i t i o n treatises. P h i l o d o e s n o t explicitiy d e v e l o p t h e t h e m e o f s e e i n g
G o d h e r e , b u t t h e ability t o s e e a n d k n o w G o d d o e s c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e
m e a n i n g o f t h e d i s c u s s i o n , b e c a u s e P h i l o p o r t r a y s t h e E g y p t i a n s as
l a c k i n g this ability. A l t h o u g h t h e phrase όρατικόν και έπιστημονικόν γ έ ν ο ς
d o e s n o t specify a n object, it is implicit that what t h e γ έ ν ο ς s e e s a n d k n o w s
is G o d . In fact, P h i l o u s e s t h e Biblical i n c i d e n t — w h i c h is rather spare i n
d e t a i l — t o set u p a contrast b e t w e e n t h e γ έ ν ο ς that is able to s e e a n d k n o w
G o d , o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d t h e Egyptians, o n t h e o t h e r , w h o are charac­
t e r i z e d by i m p i e t y a n d d e n i a l o f G o d , a n d at least o n e o f w h o m s h o w s a
lack o f c o n t r o l .
O n t h e m o s t o b v i o u s level o f this r e t o l d narrative, t h e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν κ α ι
έ π ι σ τ η μ ο ν ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς s e e m s to b e t h e Biblical n a t i o n . By calling t h e m o t h e r
a "Jewess," h o w e v e r , r a t h e r t h a n a "Hebrew," by e l a b o r a t i n g u p o n t h e
b e l i e f s o f t h e E g y p t i a n s — a m o n g w h o m he" a n d p r o b a b l y m o s t o f h i s
r e a d e r s d w e l l i n A l e x a n d r i a — a n d by p o r t r a y i n g t h e s o n o f a m i x e d
m a r r i a g e as r e j e c t i n g h i s m o t h e r ' s "ancestral p r a c t i c e s , " P h i l o m a y b e
u s i n g this i n c i d e n t t o reflect c o n t e m p o r a r y issues as well. I shall a d d r e s s
this possibility in m y c o n c l u s i o n s to this chapter.

Legat. 4 (Non-Exegetical)
T h i s is a n o t h e r p a s s a g e in w h i c h w e c a n identify "Israel," t h e o n e t h a t
s e e s G o d , w i t h a real s o c i a l g r o u p , i.e., t h e J e w s . P h i l o e x p l a i n s t h a t
"Israel" m e a n s "one that s e e s G o d " in his p r o l o g u e to this treatise, w h i c h
tells a b o u t t h e travels o f a n A l e x a n d r i a n J e w i s h e m b a s s y to C a l i g u l a a n d
t h e e v e n t s that l e a d u p to it. T h i s is the only e x t a n t n o n - e x e g e t i c a l work in
w h i c h P h i l o u s e s t h e w o r d "Israel," a n d h e m e n t i o n s it h e r e o n l y o n c e ,
a l o n g w i t h t h e e t y m o l o g y . M u c h o f t h e treatise d e s c r i b e s t h e suffering o f
A l e x a n d r i a n Jewry a n d t o s o m e e x t e n t t h e travails o f Palestinian Jewry as
well. B e c a u s e t h e larger c o n t e x t o f t h e treatise is a b o u t t h e Jews, it is clear
that P h i l o m e a n s t o identify t h e m with "Israel."
O n e o f t h e c h i e f p u r p o s e s o f t h e p r o l o g u e is t o a r g u e for divine provi­
d e n c e . P h i l o b e g i n s with t h e o b s e r v a t i o n that p e o p l e p l a c e m o r e faith in
fate t h a n in n a t u r e , a n d h e attributes this m i s p l a c e d faith t o r e l i a n c e u p o n
s e n s e p e r c e p t i o n i n s t e a d o f i n t e l l e c t (Legat. 1 - 2 ) . W h i l e t h e sight o f t h e
s e n s e s s e e s o n l y w h a t is n e a r , t h e k e e n e r sight o f r e a s o n s e e s i n t o t h e
future. P e o p l e w e a k e n r e a s o n ' s vision, h o w e v e r , t h r o u g h drink a n d o t h e r
i n d u l g e n c e or, e v e n w o r s e , t h r o u g h i g n o r a n c e (Legat. 2 ) . N o n e t h e l e s s
106 CHAPTER THREE

P h i l o a r g u e s that t h e c u r r e n t situation s h o u l d c o n v i n c e e v e n t h o s e w h o
have lost faith in G o d ' s p r o v i d e n c e :

A n d yet the p r e s e n t time a n d the m a n y important q u e s t i o n s d e c i d e d in it are

strong e n o u g h to convince even those w h o have c o m e to disbelieve that the Deity
takes t h o u g h t for m e n , a n d particularly for [the suppliants' r a c e / c l a s s w h i c h has
b e e n allotted or w h i c h has allotted itself to] the Father and King of the Universe
and the source of all things. (Legat. 3)

H e r e P h i l o c l a i m s that t h e c u r r e n t e v e n t s display G o d ' s care n o t o n l y

for all m e n b u t especially for t h e suppliants' r a c e / c l a s s (τό ίκετικόν γ έ ν ο ς ) ,
w h i c h is H i s special p o r t i o n . H e c o n t i n u e s , "Now this race is c a l l e d in t h e
H e b r e w t o n g u e Israel, b u t e x p r e s s e d in [ G r e e k ] , t h e w o r d is ' h e that s e e s
G o d ' (ορών θ ε ό ν ) a n d to s e e H i m s e e m s to m e o f all p o s s e s s i o n s , p u b l i c o r
private, t h e m o s t precious" (Legat. 4 ) .
At this p o i n t , P h i l o digresses to e x t o l t h e vision o f G o d :

For if the sight of seniors or instructors or rulers or parents stirs the b e h o l d e r s to

respect for t h e m and d e c e n t behaviour a n d the desire to live a life of self-control,
h o w firmly based is the virtue and nobility of c o n d u c t which we may e x p e c t to find
in souls w h o s e vision has soared above all created things a n d s c h o o l e d itself to
b e h o l d the u n c r e a t e d and divine, the primal g o o d , the [beautiful], the happy, the
blessed, which may truly be called better than the g o o d , m o r e [beautiful] than the
[beautiful], m o r e blessed than blessedness, m o r e happy than happiness itself, a n d
any perfection there may be greater than these. (Legat. 5)

If t h e s i g h t o f h u m a n m o d e l s i n s p i r e s p r o p e r c o n d u c t , b e c a u s e G o d
e x e m p l i f i e s t h e h i g h e s t e x c e l l e n c e , it follows that vision o f H i m m u s t call
f o r t h w e l l - f o u n d e d virtue a n d e x c e l l e n c e in t h e b e h o l d e r s . H e r e , P h i l o
d e s c r i b e s G o d in s u c h a way as t o p l a c e H i m a b o v e any p h i l o s o p h i c a l
c o n c e p t , like the G o o d (τό αγαθόν) or t h e Beautiful (τό κ α λ ό ν ) .
P h i l o g o e s o n to say that r e a s o n (ό λόγος) c a n n o t s u c c e e d in ascending
to G o d , n o r c a n it e v e n find words to describe H i m or His p o w e r s (Legat. 6 ) .
In t h e rest o f t h e p r o l o g u e , P h i l o c o m m e n t s a b o u t G o d ' s p o w e r s (Legat. 6)
a n d a b o u t t h e b e n e f i c i a l a s p e c t s o f H i s p u n i t i v e p o w e r s in particular
(Legat. 7).
S i n c e this treatise d e p i c t s t h e s i t u a t i o n o f t h e Jews, "Israel" m u s t b e
u n d e r s t o o d implicitly t o refer to t h e m . B e s i d e s u s i n g t h e d e s i g n a t i o n s
"Israel" a n d "one that s e e s G o d , " P h i l o also describes t h e m as "the suppli­
ants' r a c e / c l a s s w h i c h has b e e n allotted or has allotted itself ( π ρ ο σ κ ε κ λ ή -
2 2
ρωται) t o G o d . " T h e n o t i o n that this r a c e / c l a s s is G o d ' s special p o r t i o n

2 2
Legat. 3 is the o n l y passage in w h i c h Philo uses the e x p r e s s i o n "suppliants'
race/class" (ίκετικόν γένος). O n c e again, his use of γένος, race/class, as o p p o s e d to έθνος,
n a t i o n , is worth n o t i n g as typical, since h e usually uses γ έ ν ο ς rather than έ θ ν ο ς in
relation to "Israel." T h r o u g h o u t Legat., Philo uses τό έθνος to refer to the Jews and
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 107

m a y c o m e f r o m D e u t . 32:9 o r f r o m a n o t h e r Biblical verse that e x p r e s s e s

23
t h e u n i q u e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d Biblical I s r a e l .
A t p r e s e n t , h o w e v e r , o u r i n t e r e s t is in Philo's d e s c r i p t i o n o f "Israel" as
t h e όρων θ ε ό ν a n d his i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f "Israel" with t h e Jews. C a l l i n g t h e
vision o f G o d t h e m o s t p r e c i o u s o f all p o s s e s s i o n s , private o r p u b l i c , h e
e m p h a s i z e s t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f s e e i n g G o d a n d associates t h o s e w h o c a n
s e e H i m w i t h virtue a n d e x c e l l e n c e . H e d o e s n o t , h o w e v e r , c l a i m that
"Israel" s e e s G o d b e c a u s e it is H i s special p o r t i o n o r that "Israel" is G o d ' s
s p e c i a l p o r t i o n b e c a u s e it s e e s H i m . Instead, t h e two a s s o c i a t i o n s — t h e
ability o f "Israel" to s e e G o d a n d its status as G o d ' s special p o r t i o n — s t a n d
side by side.
Finally, w h e n P h i l o writes in Legat. 6 that r e a s o n c a n n o t e x t e n d to rise
u p to G o d , h e i m p l i e s that p h i l o s o p h y a l o n e is n o t e n o u g h . I n d e e d , in this
p r o l o g u e , P h i l o m a y b e v a l i d a t i n g t h e J e w i s h way o f life e v e n a b o v e
p h i l o s o p h y . I shall e x p l o r e this possibility f u r t h e r i n C h a p t e r Five. F o r
n o w , h o w e v e r , w h a t is i m p o r t a n t is that P h i l o identifies "Israel," t h e o n e
that s e e s G o d , with t h e Jews.

Passages in Which a Referent for "Israel Seers" Cannot Be Determined

W e are a b l e t o identify P h i l o ' s e x p r e s s i o n s for s e e r s w i t h t h e Biblical

n a t i o n in Mos. 2 . 1 9 6 a n d with t h e Jews in Legat. 4 o n l y b e c a u s e t h e c o n t e x t
o f e a c h treatise p r o v i d e s e n o u g h i n f o r m a t i o n . In all t h e o t h e r p a s s a g e s ,

seems to m e a n by this specifically the Jews of Alexandria. H e uses γένος to describe the
Jews in Legat. 178, 2 0 1 , a n d 346. In each of these three cases, h e s e e m s to m e a n the
e n t i r e Jewish race ( w h e t h e r by birth or c h o i c e ) , as o p p o s e d to the A l e x a n d r i a n
Jewish έ θ ν ο ς .
A l t h o u g h the adjective ίκετικός d o e s n o t appear elsewhere, Philo d o e s use the word
ικέτης, suppliant, in a variety of ways to describe those w h o are suppliants of o t h e r
p e o p l e (e.g., the Jews in Egypt, Mos. 1.34-36; see also Prob. 64) and suppliants of G o d
(e.g., Migr. 124, Fug. 56, Spec. 2 . 2 1 7 ) . It is interesting that h e describes two specific
g r o u p s as suppliants: the Levites, as suppliants of G o d (Ebr. 94, Somn. 2 . 2 7 3 ) , a n d
proselytes, as suppliants o f God (Spec. 1.309) and of the law (Spec. 2.118). Philo's use of
Ικέτης in general suggests that the designation "the suppliants' r a c e / c l a s s " may be
i n t e n d e d to e m p h a s i z e that "Israel" or the Jews have a relationship to G o d w h i c h
m i g h t b e available to a n y o n e w h o c h o o s e s to b e c o m e His suppliant. Elsewhere in
P h i l o ' s works, for e x a m p l e , the s u p p l i a n t r e p r e s e n t s s o m e o n e w h o has a d i r e c t
relationship to G o d w h e t h e r or n o t that person b e l o n g s to a particular ethnic g r o u p .
Especially striking are Virt. 79 a n d 185, in which Philo suggests that the suppliant's
direct relationship to G o d is m o r e important than m e m b e r s h i p in the n a t i o n (i.e.,
Biblical Israel).
2 3
T h e s e verses are discussed in the n e x t chapter. T h e language in Deut. 32:9, w h i c h
says that Israel b e c a m e the portion of God's inheritance ( σ χ ο ί ν ι σ μ α κ λ η ρ ο ν ο μ ι ά ς ) , is
s o m e w h a t similar to the wording here, which says that Israel was allotted or allotted
itself (προσκεκλήρωται) to God. For Philo's use of the verb προσκληρόω in relation to the
Jews, see Chapter Five.
108 CHAPTER THREE

h o w e v e r , i n w h i c h P h i l o speaks a b o u t "Israel" as p e o p l e w h o c a n s e e , w e
c a n n o t decisively identify t h e s e p e o p l e with a real social g r o u p .
T o illustrate t h e n a t u r e o f t h e difficulties in i d e n t i f y i n g "Israel" w i t h a
p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p , b e l o w are six r e p r e s e n t a t i v e e x a m p l e s f r o m e a c h o f
Philo's e x e g e t i c a l series: t h r e e f r o m t h e Allegory (Congr. 5 1 , Migr. 18, Mut.
1 8 9 ) ; o n e f r o m the E x p o s i t i o n (Praem. 4 4 ) ; a n d two f r o m Q G E (QE 1.21 a n d
QE 2 . 4 3 ) . In a later s e c t i o n I shall review the overall characteristics o f e a c h
series.

Congr. 51 (Allegory)

In this passage, P h i l o d e s c r i b e s "Israel," the o n e that s e e s G o d , as t h e b e s t

r a c e / c l a s s (τό ά ρ ι σ τ ο ν γ έ ν ο ς ) . W e c a n n o t , however, identify this γ έ ν ο ς with
a real social g r o u p for several r e a s o n s . First, P h i l o d e n i e s t h e historical
d i m e n s i o n o f t h e figures h e is a b o u t to discuss. S e c o n d , h e d e f i n e s "Israel"
solely o n t h e basis o f its ability to s e e G o d . Finally, h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e
g r o u p i n t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h e i m p r e s s i o n that any c o n ­
t e m p o r a r y w h o c a n s e e G o d may b e l o n g to "Israel," regardless o f d e s c e n t .
T h e g e n e r a l t h e m e o f t h e treatise pertains to different k i n d s o f l e a r n i n g .
T h e i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t o f Congr. 51 (Congr. 4 3 - 5 3 ) d e s c r i b e s t h e different
k i n d s o f l e a r n e r s e x e m p l i f i e d by N a h o r , t h e b r o t h e r o f A b r a h a m ; M i l c a h ,
N a h o r ' s wife; a n d R e u m a h , his c o n c u b i n e . R e j e c t i n g t h e historical level
o f t h e story, P h i l o writes, "Now let n o sane m a n s u p p o s e that w e have h e r e
in t h e p a g e s o f t h e wise legislator a historical p e d i g r e e . W h a t w e h a v e is a
r e v e l a t i o n t h r o u g h symbols o f facts w h i c h may b e profitable to t h e soul"
(Congr. 4 4 ) .
P h i l o i n t r o d u c e s a r e f e r e n c e to "Israel" w h e n h e d e s c r i b e s M i l c a h a n d
R e u m a h . N o t i n g that M i l c a h stands for "queen," h e l i k e n s h e r t o knowl­
e d g e o f h e a v e n , w h i c h is " q u e e n o f t h e sciences," since h e a v e n is t h e b e s t
o f c r e a t e d t h i n g s (Congr. 5 0 ) . T h i s k i n d o f k n o w l e d g e is w h a t t h e
astronomers and Chaldeans pursue.
B e f o r e t a k i n g u p t h e subject o f R e u m a h , w h i c h m e a n s "the o n e [f.]
w h o s e e s s o m e t h i n g " (ή ό ρ ώ σ α τ ι ) — a n e t y m o l o g y n o d o u b t d e r i v e d f r o m
t h e H e b r e w , no ΊΚΊ—he writes:

N o w to see the best, that is the truly existing, is the lot o f the best [ r a c e / c l a s s ] ,
Israel, for Israel m e a n s [ o n e that sees G o d ] . T h e [race/class] that strives for s e c o n d
place sees the s e c o n d best, that is the heaven o f our senses, a n d therein the well-
o r d e r e d host of the stars, the choir that moves to the fullest and truest music. Third
are the sceptics, w h o d o n o t c o n c e r n themselves with the best things in nature,
w h e t h e r p e r c e i v e d by the s e n s e s or the m i n d , but s p e n d t h e m s e l v e s o n petty
quibbles a n d trifling disputes. T h e s e are the h o u s e m a t e s of R e u m a h , w h o 'sees
s o m e t h i n g , ' even the smallest, m e n incapable o f the quest for the better things
which m i g h t bring profit to their lives. (Congr. 5 1 - 5 2 )
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 109

By i n t r o d u c i n g t h e f i g u r e o f "Israel," P h i l o sets u p t h r e e g r o u p s o f
learners: Israel, M i l c a h , a n d R e u m a h . Israel, t h e b e s t class, s e e s t h e b e s t ,
i.e., G o d , "the truly e x i s t i n g (το δντως ov)"; in s e c o n d p l a c e is M i l c a h o r
t h e C h a l d e a n s , w h o s e e t h e h e a v e n s ; a n d last is R e u m a h o r t h e s c e p t i c s ,
w h o "see s o m e t h i n g . "
Clearly, h e r e "Israel" is t h e b e s t r a c e / c l a s s b e c a u s e it c a n s e e G o d .
M o r e o v e r , all t h r e e g r o u p s are d e f i n e d by w h a t t h e y c a n s e e , n o t by
ancestry. T o b e sure, Philo frequently uses the word "Chaldean" to
d e s c r i b e a s t r o n o m e r s , n o t necessarily a race d e f i n e d by birth. T h e sceptics
t o o are certainly n o t a g r o u p d e f i n e d by d e s c e n t . In a d d i t i o n , t h e p r e s e n t
s e n s e o f t h e verbs in this passage further l e n d s t h e i m p r e s s i o n that P h i l o is
d e s c r i b i n g t h r e e k i n d s o f c o n t e m p o r a r i e s w h o are classed a c c o r d i n g t o
what they can perceive.
In this passage, t h e n , "Israel" represents the class o f p e o p l e w h o c a n s e e
G o d , r e g a r d l e s s o f ancestry. A l t h o u g h w e c a n n o t rule o u t t h e possibility
that P h i l o m a y e q u a t e "Israel" with t h e Biblical n a t i o n o r h i s c o n t e m ­
porary Jews, n o t h i n g in t h e passage o r in the larger c o n t e x t o f t h e passage
m a k e s this e q u a t i o n definite. M o r e o v e r , Philo's earlier s t a t e m e n t that t h e
story p r e s e n t s facts a b o u t t h e s o u l a n d n o t a historical g e n e a l o g y o n l y
r e i n f o r c e s t h e i m p r e s s i o n that "Israel" d o e s n o t refer to t h e real historical
n a t i o n — e i t h e r in t h e past or p r e s e n t — b u t instead to a g r o u p d e f i n e d solely
2 4
by its ability to s e e G o d .

Migr. 18 (Allegory)

T h i s p a s s a g e illustrates t h e difficulty in d e t e r m i n i n g a r e f e r e n t for t h e

p h r a s e όρατικόν γ έ ν ο ς w h e n the e x p r e s s i o n appears in a n allegorical inter­
p r e t a t i o n . T h e p a s s a g e , Migr. 18, c o m m e n t s u p o n G e n . 5 0 : 2 4 - 2 5 , w h i c h
r e a d s as follows:

A n d J o s e p h said to his brothers, Ί am about to die, but G o d will visit y o u , a n d

bring y o u o u t o f this land which h e swore to Abraham, to Isaac, a n d to J a c o b . '
T h e n J o s e p h took an oath of the sons of Israel, saying, 'God will visit y o u , a n d y o u
shall carry u p my b o n e s from here.'

In Migr. 16, J o s e p h serves as an e x a m p l e o f s o m e o n e w h o has m a d e a

"truce with t h e body." P h i l o n o t e s that while t h e body-loving a n d p a s s i o n -
l o v i n g parts o f t h e s e p e o p l e o r types ( h e d o e s n o t provide a clear subject)

2 4
E x a m p l e s o f o t h e r passages in the Allegory where "Israel" appears to be u n d e r ­
stood primarily as o n e or a group that sees or sees God, but where we c a n n o t rule o u t
the possibility that it may also c o r r e s p o n d to the Biblical nation or the Jews, are as
follows: Post. 63; Deus 144; Sobr. 13; Conf. 148; Migr. 54, 113, 125; Her. 78; Fug. 19, 208;
Mut. 258; Somn. 2.276, 279. Similarly, in the following passages a b o u t J a c o b , it is
unclear w h e t h e r or n o t his identity as the o n e that sees God replaces or merely adds
to his historical identity: Migr. 39, Mut. 8 1 , Somn. 1.171-72.
110 CHAPTER THREE

are b u r i e d a n d f o r g o t t e n , any v i r t u e - l o v i n g t e n d e n c y is p r e s e r v e d by
m e m o r y . J o s e p h ' s b o n e s , t h e n , w h i c h t h e s o n s o f Israel will carry o u t
f r o m Egypt, r e p r e s e n t "those e l e m e n t s o f s u c h a s o u l as are left u n c o r -
r u p t e d a n d worthy o f b e i n g r e m e m b e r e d " (Migr. 17, m y translation).
O n e e x a m p l e o f w h a t r e n d e r s this soul worthy o f b e i n g r e m e m b e r e d is
J o s e p h ' s faith that G o d will save Israel f r o m Egypt o r i g n o r a n c e . P h i l o
writes, "These t h i n g s w e r e w o r t h y o f b e i n g r e m e m b e r e d : t h e b e l i e f that
' G o d will visit' t h e r a c e / c l a s s that c a n s e e a n d will n o t c o m p l e t e l y h a n d it
over to i g n o r a n c e , that b l i n d mistress" (Migr. 18, my translation).
T h i s e x e g e s i s , t h e n , is an allegory o f t h e s o u l — t h a t is, t h e "Joseph soul,"
part o f w h i c h l o v e s t h e b o d y a n d part o f w h i c h l o v e s virtue. Egypt, t h e
l a n d f r o m w h i c h G o d will b r i n g o u t t h e p e o p l e , is i n t e r p r e t e d symboli­
cally as i g n o r a n c e . A m i d t h e s e s y m b o l s , P h i l o ' s e x a c t u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f
t h e p h r a s e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς is u n c l e a r . H e m a y i n t e n d t h e p h r a s e t o
s y m b o l i z e w h a t is g o o d in t h e s o u l — i . e . , t h e quality o r n a t u r e o f b e i n g
able to s e e — a n d thus, J o s e p h ' s w o r d s e x p r e s s faith that G o d will preserve
w h a t is g o o d in t h e soul f r o m i g n o r a n c e . O n the o t h e r h a n d , h e may also
i n t e n d t h e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς to refer to t h e Biblical p e o p l e o r t o a l o o s e l y
d e f i n e d g r o u p o f t h o s e w h o s e e , w h o m G o d will save f r o m i g n o r a n c e .
S i n c e t h e p h r a s e όρατικόν γένος c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d in a variety o f ways, t h e
2 5
identity o f this γ έ ν ο ς r e m a i n s a m b i g u o u s .

Mut. 189 (Allegory)

T h i s p a s s a g e s h o w s h o w t h e e x p r e s s i o n όρατικόν γ έ ν ο ς c a n b e u s e d as a n
a u t o m a t i c substitute for t h e w o r d "Israel" w i t h o u t e m p h a s i z i n g t h e m e a n ­
i n g o f a g r o u p that is able to see. T h e passage is part o f an interpretation o f
G e n . 17:17, w h i c h d e s c r i b e s A b r a h a m ' s disbelief w h e n G o d tells h i m that
h i s wife will b e a r a s o n . A b r a h a m says, "Shall a s o n b e b o r n t o o n e o f a
h u n d r e d years a n d shall Sarah b e i n g n i n e t y years b e a r a s o n ? " ( L C L
t r a n s l a t i o n ) . P h i l o tries t o argue that rather t h a n disbelief, w h a t A b r a h a m
is e x p r e s s i n g is a prayer that s u c h a n illustrious birth s h o u l d take p l a c e
only u n d e r t h e perfect n u m b e r s ninety a n d o n e h u n d r e d (Mut. 1 8 8 ) .
T h e t h e m e in t h e larger c o n t e x t o f the passage (Mut. 1 8 8 - 9 2 ) is praise o f
t h e n u m b e r o n e h u n d r e d as a p e r f e c t n u m b e r , a n d P h i l o offers several
e x a m p l e s o f w h e r e t h e n u m b e r o n e h u n d r e d appears in Scripture. In Mut.
189, h e refers t o G e n . 11:10, w h i c h says that S h e m was a h u n d r e d years
o l d w h e n h e b e g a t A r p h a x a d . H e writes,

2 5
E x a m p l e s of o t h e r passages in the Allegory in which e x p r e s s i o n s for the "Israel
seers" are i n c l u d e d in allegorical or symbolic interpretations, a n d i t is difficult to
know h o w to interpret these expressions, include the following: Leg. 2.34; Leg. 3.38, 8 1 ,
172, 212; Sacr. 134; Post. 92; Agr. 81; Plant. 46; Conf. 56, 91; Migr. 224; Somn. 1.114.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 111

T o begin with S h e m , the son of the just N o a h , the ancestor of the [ r a c e / c l a s s that
can s e e ] ; h e is said to have b e e n a h u n d r e d years old w h e n h e begat Arphaxad, the
m e a n i n g of w h o s e n a m e is 'he disturbed affliction.' A n d surely it is e x c e l l e n t that
the soul's offspring s h o u l d harass and c o n f o u n d a n d destroy injustice, afflicted and
full o f evils as it is.

P h i l o m e n t i o n s S h e m b e c a u s e his a g e o f o n e h u n d r e d at t h e birth o f
A r p h a x a d illustrates t h e larger t h e m e h e is discussing. R e f e r e n c e t o S h e m
as s o n o f t h e j u s t N o a h a n d a n c e s t o r o f t h e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς s e e m s t o b e
purely p a r e n t h e t i c a l . I n d e e d since P h i l o g o e s o n to allegorize A r p h a x a d as
t h e s o u l ' s o f f s p r i n g , it is n o t e v e n c l e a r w h e t h e r h e is t a l k i n g a b o u t
biological or symbolic relationships.
T h e p h r a s e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς is similarly a m b i g u o u s . S e r v i n g as a
r e p l a c e m e n t p h r a s e for "Israel," it c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d e i t h e r as t h e Biblical
n a t i o n o r as a g r o u p o f s e e r s w h o s e d e s c e n t is irrelevant. In any c a s e ,
r e f e r e n c e to t h e όρατικόν γ έ ν ο ς is b e s i d e the m a i n p o i n t — i . e . , S h e m ' s a g e
o f o n e h u n d r e d at t h e birth o f A r p h a x a d — a n d t h e ability to s e e is n o t
e m p h a s i z e d in t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . It is t h e r e f o r e n o t clear w h e t h e r t h e
p h r a s e is m e a n t to d e s c r i b e a quality that "Israel" h a s o r s i m p l y t o
2 6
substitute for t h e n a m e .

Praem. 4 4 (Exposition)

T h i s p a s s a g e illustrates y e t a g a i n t h e difficulty in i d e n t i f y i n g a r e f e r e n t
for "Israel" w h e n t h e t e r m a p p e a r s to describe a g r o u p d e f i n e d solely by
its ability t o s e e . T h e larger c o n t e x t o f t h e passage (Praem. 3 6 - 4 6 ) is a d e ­
scription o f t h e life o f J a c o b , "the practicer" (ό α σ κ η τ ή ς ) , a n d h i s rewards,
especially the reward—i.e., the vision of G o d — w h i c h h e receives w h e n
h i s n a m e is c h a n g e d t o "Israel." T h e portrayal o f J a c o b as a "practicer,"
t h e i d e a o f patriarchal rewards as this treatise p r e s e n t s t h e m , a n d t h e
s i g n i f i c a n c e o f J a c o b ' s n e w n a m e "Israel" as "one that s e e s G o d " are n o t
f o u n d in t h e Bible, h o w e v e r , b u t only in Philo's interpretations. F r o m t h e
start, t h e n , Praem. is n o t d i s c u s s i n g t h e Biblical o r historical reality o f
J a c o b b u t rather h i s symbolic role in P h i l o n i c e x e g e s i s .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , this treatise d o e s n o t provide sufficient i n f o r m a t i o n for
u s t o d e t e r m i n e h o w far P h i l o i d e n t i f i e s t h e "practicer" o f h i s i n t e r ­
p r e t a t i o n s w i t h t h e Biblical o r historical patriarch J a c o b . In fact, Praem.
d o e s n o t e v e n m e n t i o n t h e Biblical figures by n a m e .
C o m m e n t i n g that p e o p l e vary i n their m e t h o d s o f a p p r e h e n d i n g G o d
(Praem. 4 0 - 4 6 ) , P h i l o e n d s his a c c o u n t o f the practicer's life by d e s c r i b i n g

2 6
O t h e r passages in the Allegory in w h i c h expressions for "Israel seers" may b e
substitute phrases, w h o s e intrinsic m e a n i n g is n o t e m p h a s i z e d , i n c l u d e the follow­
ing: Leg. 3.15, Conf. 159, Fug. 140, Mut. 109, and Somn. 2.23.
112 CHAPTER THREE

a s u p e r i o r m o d e o f p e r c e p t i o n , i.e., t h e ability to s e e G o d t h r o u g h Himself.

H e writes,

If any are able to grasp H i m t h r o u g h H i m s e l f u s i n g n o o t h e r r e a s o n i n g as

assistance towards the vision, let t h e m be e n r o l l e d a m o n g the holy a n d g e n u i n e
w o r s h i p p e r s a n d friends o f G o d in the true sense. A m o n g t h e m is h e w h o in
H e b r e w is called Israel but in Greek, o n e w h o sees G o d (όρων θ ε ό ν ) , n o t what H e
is—for that is impossible, as I said—but that H e is ... (Praem. 4 3 - 4 4 , my translation)

W i t h t h e w o r d s , "if any are able," P h i l o i n t r o d u c e s a t h e o r e t i c a l g r o u p

that c a n p e r c e i v e G o d t h r o u g h Himself. In this g r o u p h e i n c l u d e s "Israel,"
t h e o n e that s e e s G o d . T h e rest o f this passage d e s c r i b e s m o r e fully this
s u p e r i o r m o d e o f direct p e r c e p t i o n (Praem. 4 4 - 4 6 ) . For o u r p u r p o s e s , how­
ever, w h a t is i m p o r t a n t is that P h i l o discusses t h e a p p r e h e n s i o n o f G o d as
a n o n g o i n g c o n t e m p o r a r y e n d e a v o r — n o t a n e v e n t in t h e p a s t — w h e t h e r it
b e a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h i n f e r e n c e f r o m c r e a t i o n (Praem. 4 1 - 4 3 ) o r t h r o u g h
direct p e r c e p t i o n (Praem. 4 3 - 4 6 ) .
B e c a u s e o f t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y significance to P h i l o o f s e e i n g G o d a n d
b e c a u s e o f t h e m e a n i n g o f its n a m e , "Israel" h e r e is primarily a s y m b o l
o f o n e w h o s e e s G o d , a n d it is u n c l e a r w h e t h e r or n o t it also r e p r e s e n t s t h e
historical patriarch J a c o b o r t h e n a t i o n o f his d e s c e n d a n t s . C o m p l i c a t i n g
this d e t e r m i n a t i o n is that t h e a n t e c e d e n t for ο ρ ώ ν , o n e w h o sees, is v a g u e
a n d c o u l d r e p r e s e n t e i t h e r a singular o r a c o l l e c t i v e entity. In a d d i t i o n ,
P h i l o discusses t h e various seekers after G o d in t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e , further
l o o s e n i n g t h e a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d its historical n a m e s a k e s .
Finally, b e c a u s e t h e i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t in Praem. d o e s n o t discuss real
social g r o u p s , w e c a n n o t c o n c l u s i v e l y identify any r e f e r e n t for "Israel,"
2 7
the o n e w h o sees G o d .

2
QE 1.21 ( Q G E ) *

In this passage, t h e phrase όρατικόν γένος appears to serve as an a u t o m a t i c

substitute for "Israel." T h e passage raises a q u e s t i o n a b o u t E x o d . 12:17, "I
will b r i n g o u t y o u r f o r c e f r o m Egypt." P h i l o asks w h y t h e v e r s e says
"your force" i n s t e a d o f "you." H e answers as follows:

2 7
T h e o n e other passage in the Exposition that m e n t i o n s "Israel" and the etymology
όρων θεόν is Abr. 57. H e r e t o o , Philo e x p o u n d s u p o n s e e i n g God, calling this "the
h e i g h t o f happiness." It is difficult in this passage to discern w h e t h e r Philo has in
m i n d the Biblical nation and its Jewish d e s c e n d a n t s or any p e o p l e w h o are able to
see God.
2 8
A l t h o u g h there is a Greek f r a g m e n t for this passage, it d o e s n o t i n c l u d e the
relevant part w h i c h may have the phrase όρατικόν γένος ( r a c e / c l a s s that can s e e ) .
Again, since the fragment for QE 2.46 d o e s attest to Philo's use of this phrase, I have
a s s u m e d that h e uses it in his other QE interpretations, and I have substituted this
phrase in my translation of this passage a n d the next, w h e r e Marcus uses "seeing
nation" a n d "contemplative race," respectively.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 113

'Force* is the godly piety o f the [όρατικόν γ έ ν ο ς ] . N o w so l o n g as those w h o have this

force dwell in cities a n d villages, the cities and villages act well a n d properly, for
they are a d o r n e d at least with the virtue o f others if n o t with their own. But w h e n
(these inhabitants) depart, the portion o f c o m m o n g o o d fortune is c h a n g e d . For
g o o d m e n are the pillars o f w h o l e c o m m u n i t i e s , a n d they support cities a n d city-
2 9
g o v e r n m e n t s as [ c o l u m n s support] great houses. That is the literal m e a n i n g .

A c c o r d i n g t o this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , G o d says that H e will b r i n g o u t "your

force" r a t h e r t h a n "you," b e c a u s e "force" refers specifically t o t h e quality
o f p i e t y w h i c h t h e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς has. P h i l o e x p l a i n s that this f o r c e is
responsible for the " c o m m o n g o o d fortune" of a community, and h e
speaks o f t h o s e w h o have this force as "good m e n , " w h o s e piety a n d virtue
raise t h e s t a n d a r d o f g o o d n e s s within a particular c o m m u n i t y .
T h e Biblical verse, E x o d . 12:17, d o e s n o t m e n t i o n "Israel" specifically,
b u t it o b v i o u s l y r e f e r s t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l n a t i o n . A l t h o u g h P h i l o u s e s
ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς h e r e as a n e q u i v a l e n t n a m e for "Israel," it is u n c l e a r w h o
t h e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς is. H e u s e s this e x p r e s s i o n o n l y i n t h e o p e n i n g
s t a t e m e n t . F r o m t h e r e h e g o e s o n to g e n e r a l i z e , u s i n g t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e ,
a b o u t t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f virtuous p e o p l e to a c o m m u n i t y . T h e ability o f t h e
όρατικόν γένος to s e e appears irrelevant to t h e m e a n i n g o f the passage.
It m a y b e that t h e first s e n t e n c e — i n w h i c h t h e p h r a s e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς
o c c u r s — r e f e r s to t h e Biblical n a t i o n , while the rest o f t h e e x e g e s i s is a b o u t
v i r t u o u s p e o p l e in g e n e r a l . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς itself
m a y e n c o m p a s s all t h e v i r t u o u s p e o p l e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e p a s s a g e . S i n c e
b o t h c o n s t r u a l s are p o s s i b l e , identification o f t h e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς r e m a i n s
i n c o n c l u s i v e , a n d w e c a n o n l y o b s e r v e that t h e e x p r e s s i o n serves as a
3 0
substitute n a m e for "Israel," h o w e v e r "Israel" is u n d e r s t o o d .

QE2A3 (QGE)
In this s e c o n d e x a m p l e f r o m Q G E , t h e phrase ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς o n c e a g a i n
a p p e a r s t o b e an a u t o m a t i c substitute for "Israel." H e r e t o o , h o w e v e r , w e
c a n n o t identify this γ έ ν ο ς conclusively with a real g r o u p . QE 2 AS is also
o n e o f f o u r passages in w h i c h P h i l o uses t h e p h r a s e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς i n a n
interpretation of Exodus 24, which describes the establishment of the

2 9
T h i s translation is modified according to the suggestion o f Petit, Quaestiones, ΟΡΑ,
33:237. In the LCL edition, Marcus translates the s e c o n d to last s e n t e n c e as follows:
"For g o o d m e n are the pillars of w h o l e communities, and they support cities a n d city-
g o v e r n m e n t s as if they were great houses."
3 0
T h e "literal" interpretation cited h e r e is followed by a "deeper m e a n i n g , " w h i c h
speaks o f "force" as the godly piety o f the soul. T h e "deeper sense" d o e s n o t contribute
to this investigation. O t h e r e x a m p l e s from QGE in which ό ρ ω ν , όρώντες, or ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν
γ έ ν ο ς may serve as automatic substitutes for "Israel" are QE 1.12; QE 2.38, 42, 4 3
(discussed b e l o w ) , 46, 47, and 76.
114 CHAPTER THREE

c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel. It is striking that P h i l o links e l e c t i o n o f

t h e γ έ ν ο ς with t h e giving o f t h e law, since h e d o e s n o t usually link t h e s e
31
two features in his o t h e r w o r k s .
QE 2 A3 c o m m e n t s u p o n E x o d . 24:13, w h i c h says that M o s e s a n d J o s h u a
w e n t u p t o t h e m o u n t a i n o f G o d . P h i l o asks why J o s h u a a c c o m p a n i e s
M o s e s u p t h e m o u n t a i n w h e n in E x o d . 24:12, it says that G o d s u m m o n s
o n l y M o s e s . H i s answer is as follows:

T h e two [Moses and Joshua] are potentially o n e , since n o o n e w o u l d say that those
w h o are o f like m i n d a n d like sentiments with o n e a n o t h e r are the same single
(person) e x c e p t in respect of another species. For J o s h u a ' is to be interpreted as
'salvation.' But is b e i n g saved by G o d m o r e appropriate to a n y o n e else than the
inspired soul, in w h i c h p r o p h e c y resounds, since even in (Moses') lifetime h e was
over the rulers and at (Moses') death h e was his successor? Rightiy, therefore, d o e s
h e g o u p as an assurance of two most necessary things: o n e , of the election of the
[ ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς ] , a n d the other, that the Law s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d n o t as an
invention of the h u m a n m i n d but as a divine c o m m a n d and divine words.

P h i l o ' s m e a n i n g h e r e is o b s c u r e . T h e f o l l o w i n g is a p o s s i b l e construal:
M o s e s a n d J o s h u a m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d as o n e , s i n c e b o t h h a v e p r o p h e t i c
ability. T h i s s u g g e s t s that w h e n G o d calls o n l y M o s e s , J o s h u a is a l s o
i n c l u d e d implicitly. M o r e o v e r , s i n c e J o s h u a leads t h e p e o p l e b o t h b e f o r e
a n d after M o s e s ' s d e a t h , h i s a c c o m p a n i m e n t o f M o s e s t o g e t t h e law
assures t h o s e after M o s e s that t h e όρατικόν γένος is i n d e e d c h o s e n a n d that
t h e law has a divine a n d n o t a h u m a n origin.
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , P h i l o ' s o t h e r writings d o n o t p r o v i d e f u r t h e r i l l u m i n a ­
t i o n a b o u t this passage. T h e o t h e r i n s t a n c e s in w h i c h h e refers to J o s h u a
32
are n o t p e r t i n e n t , a n d h e d o e s n o t interpret E x o d . 24:13 anywhere else.
N e v e r t h e l e s s , P h i l o ' s e x e g e s i s in QE 2.43 s e e m s t o u n d e r s t a n d G o d ' s
g i v i n g t h e law t o M o s e s in t h e c o m p a n y o f J o s h u a as t h e e l e c t i o n o f t h e
ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς . T h e ability o f this γ έ ν ο ς to see d o e s n o t c o n t r i b u t e to t h e
s e n s e o f t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n n o r d o e s this ability s e e m to b e c o n n e c t e d with
the e l e c t i o n o f the γένος. T h e e x p r e s s i o n όρατικόν γένος, t h e n , appears to b e
m e r e l y a substitute for t h e n a m e "Israel." T h a t P h i l o d o e s n o t e x p l a i n this
3 3
p h r a s e suggests that h e a s s u m e s its m e a n i n g is u n d e r s t o o d .

3 1
This observation will be discussed further in the conclusions to this chapter. Other
QGE passages in which Philo describes "Israel" or the όρατικόν γένος as c h o s e n are QG
3.49; QE 2.38, 4 2 , a n d 46. In QG 3.49, h e s e e m s to link c h o s e n n e s s with the
c o m m a n d m e n t for circumcision; in the QE 2 passages, e l e c t i o n is linked with the
giving o f the law.
3 2
Ebr. 96; Mut. 121; Mos. 1.216; Virt. 55, 6 6 - 6 9 .
3 3
T h e e n d of QE 2.43 gives a n o t h e r explanation of why J o s h u a a c c o m p a n i e s Moses,
but this d o e s n o t add to the present discussion.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 115

The Members of "Israel"

As o n e c a n o b s e r v e f r o m t h e e x a m p l e s j u s t d i s c u s s e d , w h e n t h e l a r g e r
c o n t e x t o f a p a s s a g e d o e s n o t p r o v i d e e n o u g h relevant i n f o r m a t i o n , it is
difficult, if n o t i m p o s s i b l e , to d e t e r m i n e w h o m P h i l o h a s in m i n d w h e n
h e speaks o f "Israel" as t h e o n e that sees G o d or the r a c e / c l a s s that c a n s e e .
S i n c e h e p r o v i d e s n o f u r t h e r g u i d a n c e o n this m a t t e r , o n e c a n o n l y
s p e c u l a t e a b o u t w h o t h e s e God-seers o r seers may b e . F o u r g r o u p s , listed
b e l o w , s u g g e s t t h e m s e l v e s as possibilities for w h o m a y b e l o n g to P h i l o ' s
"Israel." T h e s e g r o u p s are c o m p o s e d o f the following:

1) all r e s p e c t e d p h i l o s o p h e r s , o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y - m i n d e d people,
w h e t h e r they are Jews o r not;
2) a s u b s e t o f t h e Jews w h o are p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y - m i n d e d ;
3) all Jews; o r
4) all Jews, w h e t h e r p h i l o s o p h e r s or n o t , a n d all r e s p e c t e d non-Jewish
34
philosophers.

L e t u s c o n s i d e r e a c h o f t h e s e s u g g e s t i o n s m o r e carefully. (All t h e
o b s e r v a t i o n s o f f e r e d b e l o w a b o u t P h i l o ' s attitude toward t h e J e w s are fully
d e v e l o p e d in C h a p t e r Five.)
T h e first p o s s i b i l i t y — t h a t "Israel" m a y consist o f all r e s p e c t e d p h i l o s ­
o p h e r s o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y - m i n d e d p e o p l e , w h e t h e r Jewish o r n o t — p l a c e s
i m p o r t a n c e u p o n p h i l o s o p h i c a l s o p h i s t i c a t i o n b u t n o t e t h n i c affiliation.
W e have n o t e d that P h i l o ' s very ideas a b o u t t h e vision o f G o d are strongly
i n f l u e n c e d by his n o n j e w i s h p h i l o s o p h i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t . S i n c e h e k e e p s
his d i s c u s s i o n s a b o u t s e e i n g G o d fairly separate f r o m his d i s c u s s i o n s about
J e w i s h b e l i e f s a n d p r a c t i c e s , it w o u l d s e e m that a n y o n e — J e w o r n o n -
J e w — w h o is spiritually c a p a b l e o f s e e i n g G o d m i g h t b e e l i g i b l e t o b e l o n g
to "Israel." P h i l o also speaks, h o w e v e r , a b o u t s e e i n g G o d in elitist t e r m s ,
o f t e n e m p h a s i z i n g h o w rare a n e x p e r i e n c e this is a n d h o w few are able to
attain it. T h e s e various observations suggest that "Israel" m i g h t e n c o m p a s s
a p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y k n o w l e d g e a b l e elite o f b o t h Jews a n d non-Jews.
T h e s e c o n d p o s s i b i l i t y — t h a t P h i l o has in m i n d a p h i l o s o p h i c a l e l i t e
consisting only of Jews—places importance u p o n both philosophical
s o p h i s t i c a t i o n a n d e t h n i c affiliation. As w e shall s e e , P h i l o b e l i e v e s t h e
J e w s are t h e o n l y p e o p l e w h o w o r s h i p the true G o d . T h o u g h h e d o e s n o t
say s o , h e m a y also t h i n k that o n l y m e m b e r s o f t h e p e o p l e w h o w o r s h i p
G o d c a n b e c a p a b l e o f s e e i n g H i m . In a d d i t i o n , w e have o b s e r v e d t h a t

3 4
I a m grateful to Prof. Alan M e n d e l s o n for p o i n t i n g o u t that Philo w o u l d n o t
i n c l u d e a thinker like Epicurus in the company of "Israel." I have therefore qualified
my s u g g e s t i o n s that n o n j e w i s h p h i l o s o p h e r s m i g h t be part o f Philo's "Israel" by
speaking only o f respected n o n j e w i s h p h i l o s o p h e r s .
116 CHAPTER THREE

P h i l o s p e a k s m o s t f r e q u e n t l y by far a b o u t "Israel seers" a n d a b o u t s e e i n g

G o d i n t h e A l l e g o r y , a series p r o b a b l y d i r e c t e d t o J e w s w h o are q u i t e
f a m i l i a r w i t h S c r i p t u r e a n d w h o are i n t e r e s t e d i n its d e e p e r spiritual
m e a n i n g . A c c o r d i n g l y , o n e c o u l d a r g u e that P h i l o e n v i s a g e s "Israel" t o
b e this s a m e J e w i s h elite.
Yet a t h i r d possibility is t h a t P h i l o e q u a t e s "Israel" w i t h all J e w s , a
p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t e m p h a s i z e s e t h n i c affiliation o n l y . I n Mos. 2 . 1 9 6 , f o r
e x a m p l e , h e clearly identifies t h e όρατικόν γ έ ν ο ς with t h e Biblical n a t i o n ,
a n d in Legat. 1 - 7 , h e implicitly e q u a t e s "Israel," t h e o n e that s e e s G o d ,
w i t h all Jews. In t h e latter passage, P h i l o also i m p l i e s that t h e J e w i s h way
o f life is s u p e r i o r t o p h i l o s o p h y a l o n e , s u g g e s t i n g that t h e G o d w h o m t h e
Jews s e e is s u p e r i o r t o any p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n c e p t a n d that a p h i l o s o p h i c a l
a p p r o a c h t o G o d is n o t e n o u g h . O n e m i g h t t h e r e f o r e i n f e r that P h i l o
thinks that all Jews, t h r o u g h b e l i e v i n g in a n d w o r s h i p p i n g G o d , are a b l e
to s e e H i m as well.
Finally, a f o u r t h possibility is that P h i l o c o n s i d e r s "Israel" t o i n c l u d e all
Jews a n d all r e s p e c t e d p h i l o s o p h e r s , w h e t h e r Jews o r n o t . T h i s possibility,
w h i c h p l a c e s i m p o r t a n c e u p o n e i t h e r e t h n i c affiliation o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l
s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , draws s u p p o r t f r o m a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d for t h e first a n d
third s u g g e s t i o n s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , n a m e l y , that s e e i n g G o d is a p u r s u i t
o f p h i l o s o p h e r s , b u t J e w s t o o h a v e special access t o H i m b e c a u s e t h e y
b e l i e v e in a n d w o r s h i p H i m . I n d e e d , in o n e p a s s a g e (Virt. 6 5 ) , P h i l o
e x p r e s s e s this p o i n t o f view q u i t e direcdy. H e writes, "What t h e d i s c i p l e s
o f t h e m o s t e x c e l l e n t p h i l o s o p h y g a i n f r o m its t e a c h i n g , t h e Jews g a i n
f r o m their c u s t o m s a n d laws, that is to k n o w t h e h i g h e s t , t h e m o s t a n c i e n t
Cause o f all t h i n g s a n d reject t h e d e l u s i o n o f created g o d s . "
O f all t h e possibilities m e n t i o n e d above, I believe t h e first to b e t h e m o s t
likely—that P h i l o ' s "Israel" consists o f all r e s p e c t e d p h i l o s o p h e r s , w h e t h e r
Jewish o r n o t . P h i l o d o e s i n d e e d e m p h a s i z e again a n d a g a i n h o w difficult
it is to s e e G o d a n d h o w few are able to achieve this vision (see, e.g., Post.
1 3 - 2 1 , Migr. 4 6 , Praem. 4 4 ) . A l t h o u g h h e may believe that Judaism
e m b o d i e s t h e b e s t way o f life t h r o u g h its beliefs a n d practices, h e o c c a ­
sionally s p e a k s d i s p a r a g i n g l y o f o t h e r Jews w h o i n t e r p r e t t h e Scriptures
3 5
literally. T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t h e d o e s n o t v i e w all J e w s as e q u a l l y
s o p h i s t i c a t e d a n d t h e r e f o r e may n o t regard t h e m all as equally c a p a b l e o f
b e i n g part o f t h e elite. In a d d i t i o n , if Philo believes that all Jews are capable
o f s e e i n g G o d , it is s u r p r i s i n g t h a t h e n e v e r m e n t i o n s t h i s i n t h e
E x p o s i t i o n , in w h i c h h e talks at l e n g t h a b o u t t h e Jews. T h e elitist n a t u r e o f

3 5
S e e , e.g., Cher. 4 2 , Det. 22, Migr. 45, Somn. 1.39. See also Shroyer, "Alexandrian
Jewish Literalists," esp. 2 7 1 - 7 9 ; and Wolfson, Philo, 1:57-66. A l t h o u g h Philo d o e s n o t
specifically call t h e m "Jews," presumably h e is speaking only a b o u t Jews.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 117

b e i n g able to see G o d , t h e n , seems to rule o u t the third a n d fourth

possibilities s u g g e s t e d a b o v e , w h i c h w o u l d i n c l u d e all Jews.
As t o t h e s e c o n d s u g g e s t i o n , that "Israel" is c o m p r i s e d o f a n elite g r o u p
o f J e w s a l o n e , a l t h o u g h this is certainly p o s s i b l e , n o t h i n g that P h i l o says
a b o u t s e e i n g G o d necessitates that o n e must b e a J e w t o a c h i e v e this vision.
I n d e e d , as P h i l o portrays it, t h e g o a l o f s e e i n g G o d appears t o b e available
t o a n y o n e a b l e t o strive toward it. E v e n t h o u g h h e m a y s p e a k a b o u t t h e
G o d w h o is s e e n in p e r s o n a l terms s u g g e s t e d by t h e Bible, G o d is still t h e
F a t h e r a n d M a k e r o f all, n o t simply t h e G o d o f t h e Jews. In a d d i t i o n ,
a l t h o u g h t h e J e w s b e l i e v e in a n d w o r s h i p G o d , P h i l o speaks a b o u t s e e i n g
H i m in different, m o r e p h i l o s o p h i c a l terms. T h u s , b e l i e v i n g i n G o d a n d
w o r s h i p p i n g H i m are n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t h e s a m e as s e e i n g H i m . O n t h e
basis o f t h e s e v a r i o u s observations, t h e n , P h i l o ' s vision o f "Israel" w o u l d
a p p e a r t o b e p o t e n t i a l l y universalist, e n c o m p a s s i n g all J e w s a n d non-Jews
w h o are spiritually c a p a b l e .
In c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p r o p o s a l that "Israel" m a y in t h e o r y i n c l u d e n o n -
J e w s , o n e m i g h t r e a s o n a b l y ask why P h i l o s p e a k s o f "Israel" c h i e f l y i n
works a d d r e s s e d t o k n o w l e d g e a b l e Jews, n a m e l y , t h e A l l e g o r y a n d Q G E .
If "Israel" is i n fact m e a n t t o i n c l u d e "outsiders," t h e n w h y d o e s h e
m e n t i o n this t e r m o n l y rarely i n s u c h works as t h e E x p o s i t i o n o r h i s
p o l i t i c a l t r e a t i s e s — w o r k s a p p a r e n t l y i n t e n d e d , at least in part, for n o n -
Jews?
In reply, I w o u l d o n l y r e p e a t m y s u g g e s t i o n f r o m t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n that
P h i l o restricts h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f "Israel" to t h e A l l e g o r y a n d Q G E b e c a u s e
t h e d e s i g n a t i o n "Israel" p r o b a b l y carries m o r e m e a n i n g f o r "insiders"
t h a n it d o e s for "outsiders." I n d e e d , we have s e e n that "Israel" is a self-
r e f e r e n t i a l t e r m u s e d by J e w s g e n e r a l l y to signify a p e r s o n ' s o w n social
set.
W h i l e P h i l o d o e s n o t c o m p l e t e l y refrain, t h e n , f r o m s p e a k i n g a b o u t
"Israel"—or a b o u t s e e i n g G o d — i n t h e E x p o s i t i o n o r his political treatise
Legat., n e i t h e r d o e s h e e m p h a s i z e t h e s e topics. In t h e s e works, h e c o n c e n ­
trates i n s t e a d u p o n p r e s e n t i n g a basic c o u r s e to h i s less k n o w l e d g e a b l e
a u d i e n c e , reserving issues f r o m "advanced J u d a i s m " for his m o r e s o p h i s ­
ticated J e w i s h readers.
T o b e sure, it a p p e a r s that Philo's a i m is to bring Jews i n t o t h e c o m p a n y
o f "Israel" a n d non-Jews i n t o t h e c o m m u n i t y o f Jews. P e r h a p s b e c a u s e h e
implicitly a c c e p t s that s o m e non-Jews may already b e l o n g to "Israel," h e
p r e s e n t s this e n t i t y t o h i s J e w i s h r e a d e r s as a n i d e a l t o w a r d w h i c h t o
strive.
118 CHAPTER THREE

Philo's Estimation of Non-Jewish Philosophers

If P h i l o d o e s in fact b e l i e v e that "Israel" may i n c l u d e s o m e n o n - J e w i s h

p h i l o s o p h e r s , t h e n w h a t m a y w e d e d u c e a b o u t his e s t i m a t i o n o f t h e s e
non-Jewish p h i l o s o p h e r s in r e l a t i o n to t h e Jews? O n this m a t t e r , w e f i n d
different p o s i t i o n s a m o n g his works.
W e saw a b o v e that in at least o n e passage, Virt. 6 5 , P h i l o s e e m s to view
t h e two g r o u p s e q u a l l y , w r i t i n g t h a t "what t h e d i s c i p l e s o f t h e m o s t
e x c e l l e n t p h i l o s o p h y g a i n f r o m its t e a c h i n g , t h e J e w s g a i n f r o m t h e i r
c u s t o m s a n d laws, that is to k n o w t h e h i g h e s t , t h e m o s t a n c i e n t C a u s e o f
36
all t h i n g s a n d reject t h e d e l u s i o n o f c r e a t e d g o d s . " A n o t h e r p e r s p e c t i v e ,
h o w e v e r , c a n b e f o u n d in Legat. 1-7, in w h i c h P h i l o s e e m s t o p l a c e t h e
J e w i s h way o f life a b o v e p h i l o s o p h y , i m p l y i n g t h a t p h i l o s o p h y — o r
3 7
r e a s o n — a l o n e is n o t e n o u g h to attain the vision o f G o d .
S i n c e P h i l o c a n say c o n t r a d i c t o r y t h i n g s t h r o u g h o u t h i s w o r k s , it is
difficult to k n o w h o w m u c h w e i g h t to p u t u p o n e i t h e r o f t h e s e p o i n t s o f
view. I n d e e d , o n e c o u l d a r g u e that P h i l o ' s d i f f e r i n g p o s i t i o n s m a y b e
e x p l a i n e d by t h e c o n t e x t s in w h i c h e a c h appears.
P h i l o ' s e q u a t i o n o f J e w s a n d non-Jewish p h i l o s o p h e r s i n Virt. 6 5 , for
e x a m p l e , o c c u r s in t h e E x p o s i t i o n , i n w h i c h h e a p p a r e n t l y w i s h e s t o
p r e s e n t J e w s a n d t h e i r way o f life in t h e b e s t l i g h t in o r d e r t o i m p r e s s
favorably t h o s e w h o may b e interested in or hostile toward t h e m .
A c c o r d i n g l y , P h i l o may e q u a t e Jews a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s in this passage, n o t
b e c a u s e h e necessarily regards t h e m as e q u a l , b u t b e c a u s e h e w i s h e s t o
s h o w that J u d a i s m i n c o r p o r a t e s t h e b e s t that p h i l o s o p h y h a s to offer.
Similarly, o n e c o u l d also a r g u e that in Legat., h e may wisri to portray his
s u f f e r i n g c o m p a t r i o t s as s u p e r i o r e v e n t o p h i l o s o p h e r s in o r d e r t o
h i g h l i g h t m o r e sharply t h e o u t r a g e o f t h e p e r s e c u t i o n o f t h e Jews. S i n c e
o n e c a n f i n d rationales for e i t h e r p o i n t o f v i e w — t h a t P h i l o e s t e e m s J e w s
and non-Jewish p h i l o s o p h e r s equally or that h e regards Jews m o r e
h i g h l y — a n y firm c o n c l u s i o n a b o u t w h a t h e really t h i n k s e l u d e s us.

3 6
O t h e r passages in w h i c h Philo highly praises n o n j e w i s h sages i n c l u d e Prob. 74
and Spec. 2 . 4 4 - 4 8 (see, e.g., below, n. 39).
3 7
This passage is discussed earlier in this chapter, and later, in Chapter Five. For
a n o t h e r passage in w h i c h Philo h o l d s the Jewish way o f life s u p e r i o r to that of
p h i l o s o p h e r s , s e e Contempl. 5 7 - 6 4 , w h e r e h e derisively c o m p a r e s t h e b a n q u e t s
described by X e n o p h o n and Plato with the banquets of the T h e r a p e u t a e , w h o live in
c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f the truths of nature, "following the truly sacred instructions o f the
p r o p h e t Moses" (Contempl. 6 4 ) . Strictly speaking, however, Philo's comparison here is
between the philosophers and the Therapeutae, n o t all Jews.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 119

"Other Seers" and "Israel"

It m a y b e a p p r o p r i a t e at this p o i n t to recall t h e "other seers," d i s c u s s e d at

t h e b e g i n n i n g o f this c h a p t e r , w h o m P h i l o m e n t i o n s b u t w h o m w e are
u n a b l e t o relate directly to "Israel." S o m e o f t h e s e seers P h i l o characterizes
r a t h e r g e n e r a l l y as οί ό ρ α τ ι κ ο ί ( t h o s e w h o can s e e ) o r o i φ ι λ ο θ ε ά μ ο ν ε ς
( t h o s e w h o are f o n d o f c o n t e m p l a t i n g ) , a n d it is certainly p o s s i b l e that
p e o p l e s o d e s c r i b e d m i g h t b e c o n s i d e r e d part o f "Israel." Conversely, P h i l o
c o u l d j u s t as easily apply t h e s a m e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n s t o "Israel" that h e
u s e s for t h e s e o t h e r seers.
T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d p r o p h e t s ( w h o m P h i l o d e s c r i b e s
as "seers") is s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t . T o b e s u r e , P h i l o w o u l d p r o b a b l y
c o n s i d e r all p r o p h e t s to b e part o f "Israel." T h e real q u e s t i o n , p e r h a p s , is
38
w h e t h e r o r n o t h e w o u l d c o n s i d e r all "Israel" to b e p r o p h e t s !
Especially p e r t i n e n t is t h e q u e s t i o n o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n "Israel"
a n d s p e c i f i c social g r o u p s like t h e T h e r a p e u t a e , t h e P e r s i a n M a g i , t h e
Athenians, or Greek and foreign philosophers, w h o m Philo describes in
o n e way o r a n o t h e r as b e i n g able to see. W i t h o u t a d o u b t , his treatise On the
Contemplative Life portrays t h e T h e r a p e u t a e as p e r f e c t c a n d i d a t e s f o r
i n c l u s i o n i n "Israel," e v e n t h o u g h P h i l o h i m s e l f n e v e r d e s c r i b e s t h e m as
s u c h . I n d e e d a g l a n c e at t h e f o u r g r o u p s s u g g e s t e d e a r l i e r as p o s s i b l y
c o m p r i s i n g t h e m e m b e r s o f "Israel" shows that t h e T h e r a p e u t a e fit i n t o
e a c h a n d every category.
In c o n t r a s t , P h i l o ' s d i s c u s s i o n s o f t h e Magi {Prob. 74) a n d t h e A t h e ­
n i a n s {Prob. 140) are j u s t t o o brief t o p e r m i t any j u d g m e n t s a b o u t t h e i r
r e l a t i o n s h i p t o "Israel." Finally, e v e n w h e r e h e d e s c r i b e s n o n - J e w i s h
p h i l o s o p h e r s at s o m e l e n g t h {Spec. 2 . 4 4 - 4 8 ) , h e n e v e r calls t h e m "Israel"
39
o r c o m m e n t s a b o u t t h e m i n r e l a t i o n to "Israel." S i n c e P h i l o n e v e r
e x p l i c i t l y a d d r e s s e s w h e t h e r o r n o t non-Jews may b e l o n g to "Israel," o u r
c o n c l u s i o n that they m a y b e l o n g c a n r e m a i n o n l y speculative.

3 8
O n this question, see Wolfson, Philo, 2:46-52, 61.
3 9
In this passage (Spec. 2 . 4 4 - 4 8 ) , Philo pays tribute to "all w h o practice w i s d o m
e i t h e r in Grecian or barbarian lands" (Spec. 2.44). H e describes t h e m as "the best
observers (θεωροί) of nature and all things in it" (my translation) and writes, "While
their b o d i e s are firmly p l a n t e d o n the land, they provide their souls with wings, so
that they may traverse the upper air and gain full contemplation ( π ε ρ ι α θ ρ ώ σ ι ) of the
powers w h i c h dwell there..." (Spec. 2.45). T h e context of this intriguing passage is a
discussion o f the Jewish holidays in general and, in specific, of the n o t i o n that every
d a y . i s a holiday. As Philo portrays it, the life of these p h i l o s o p h e r s e x e m p l i f i e s a
year-round holiday.
A l t h o u g h o n e m i g h t well i m a g i n e that such p e o p l e m i g h t b e c o n s i d e r e d part of
"Israel," Philo d o e s n o t call t h e m "Israel" nor d o e s h e address the question o f h o w
the two g r o u p s m i g h t be related. It is also interesting that this passage has n o n e of
the vocabulary for seeing that Philo uses in passages explicitly about "Israel" (see n. 2 ) .
120 CHAPTER THREE

O n e m i g h t well ask why in fact P h i l o d o e s n o t a d d r e s s this q u e s t i o n

directly. In t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n , I raised t h e issue o f w h e t h e r o r n o t P h i l o is
b e i n g d e l i b e r a t e l y a m b i g u o u s by r e m a i n i n g silent a b o u t m a t t e r s s u c h as
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e terms "Israel" a n d "Jew." T h e r e I s u g g e s t e d
that h e m a y k e e p his u s e o f t h e s e two words separate b e c a u s e they h o l d for
h i m different, t h o u g h p e r h a p s o v e r l a p p i n g , m e a n i n g s . If this w e r e t r u e ,
t h e n h e w o u l d have n o r e a s o n t o address why h e d o e s n o t u s e t h e w o r d s
i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y . W h a t a p p e a r s t o u s , h i s m o d e r n - d a y r e a d e r s , as a m b i ­
g u i t y o r p o s s i b l y e v e n e v a s i o n m a y b e p e r f e c t l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e if w e
a c k n o w l e d g e that h i s d e f i n i t i o n s o f t h e t e r m s "Israel" a n d "Jew" m a y dif­
fer f r o m w h a t w e e x p e c t t h e m to b e . Philo's ambiguity o n this m a t t e r m a y
thus be completely unintentional.
A similar d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n w h a t w e e x p e c t a n d w h a t P h i l o takes
for g r a n t e d m a y c o n t r i b u t e to o u r p e r p l e x i t y a b o u t w h o m a y b e l o n g t o
"Israel." T h e identity o f "Israel" m a y b e self-evident t o P h i l o i n t h e s a m e
way that today o n e m i g h t speak o f a n "intellectual elite" w i t h o u t c o n c e r n
f o r d e f i n i n g w h o e x a c t l y b e l o n g s t o this g r o u p . M e m b e r s h i p is self-
s e l e c t i n g a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s are obvious. Like this elite, "Israel" t o o m a y b e
a n u n s t r u c t u r e d sort o f entity. G o d - s e e r s n e e d n o t a p p l y t o b e l o n g ;
40
a c c e p t a n c e is a u t o m a t i c .

Further Observations and Conclusions

T h e study o f h o w P h i l o uses e x p r e s s i o n s for seers w h o m h e e q u a t e s w i t h

"Israel" y i e l d s a n i n t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n that r e i n f o r c e s o u r f i n d i n g s i n
earlier chapters—namely, that different series of writings display
different p a t t e r n s o f u s e . Especially striking are w h e r e , w h e t h e r , a n d h o w
P h i l o u s e s t h e w o r d "Israel." O u t s i d e t h e Allegory, t h e w o r d a p p e a r s o n l y
4 1
s e v e n t i m e s . A p a r t f r o m two cases in w h i c h "Israel" o c c u r s e i t h e r in a
Biblical q u o t a t i o n ( Q E 2 . 3 7 ) o r in a Biblical paraphrase ( Q E 2 . 3 0 ) , e a c h time
P h i l o u s e s "Israel" in works o t h e r t h a n t h e Allegory, h e also p r o v i d e s t h e
e t y m o l o g y t o e x p l a i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e n a m e . W i t h two e x c e p t i o n s ,
t h e n , "Israel" n e v e r a p p e a r s a l o n e — i . e . , w i t h o u t t h e e t y m o l o g y — i n
P h i l o ' s o t h e r works. In Mos. 1 - 2 a n d QE 1 - 2 , w h e r e h e d i s c u s s e s verses
p e r t a i n i n g specifically to the Biblical nation a n d w h e r e we s h o u l d
t h e r e f o r e e x p e c t h i m t o u s e t h e w o r d "Israel" i n h i s c o m m e n t a r y ,
surprisingly h e n e v e r d o e s , preferring o t h e r terms instead.
Finally, in o n l y two cases, Mos. 2 . 1 9 6 a n d Legat. 4, c a n w e link P h i l o ' s
e x p r e s s i o n s for "Israel seers" with a real social g r o u p . In Mos. 2 . 1 9 6 , "the

4 0
M e m b e r s h i p r e q u i r e m e n t s for "Israel"—and for the Jews—are discussed further
in Chapter Six.
4 1
Abr. 57; Praem. 44; QG 3.49; QG 4.233; QE 2.30, 37; Legat. 4.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 121

r a c e / c l a s s t h a t c a n s e e a n d k n o w " refers to t h e B i b l i c a l n a t i o n a n d
p e r h a p s its J e w i s h d e s c e n d a n t s , w h i l e in Legat. 4, P h i l o associates "Israel,"
t h e o n e that s e e s G o d , with his Jewish c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . B o t h p a s s a g e s are
f o u n d in works that are probably i n t e n d e d at least in part for "outsiders,"
a n d , as w e shall s e e , P h i l o m a y h a v e a s p e c i a l p u r p o s e h e r e w h e n h e
p r e s e n t s t h e past a n d p r e s e n t n a t i o n in this way.
B e l o w is a s u m m a r y , o r g a n i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o series, o f h o w P h i l o u s e s
"Israel," t h e e t y m o l o g y , t h e p h r a s e όρατικόν γένος, a n d o t h e r e x p r e s s i o n s
f o r "Israel seers." T h e d i f f e r e n c e s w e c a n o b s e r v e a m o n g h i s v a r i o u s
w r i t i n g s c a n p e r h a p s b e b e s t u n d e r s t o o d w h e n w e take i n t o a c c o u n t
P h i l o ' s different a i m s a n d a u d i e n c e s , as discussed in t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n .

The Allegory

O f all P h i l o ' s writings, e i t h e r e x e g e t i c a l o r n o n - e x e g e t i c a l , t h e A l l e g o r y

displays t h e m o s t f r e q u e n t a n d v a r i e d u s e o f all t h e t e r m s for "Israel
seers." T h e w o r d "Israel" a p p e a r s b o t h in Biblical q u o t a t i o n s a n d in t h e
c o m m e n t a r y . P h i l o u s e s it in relation t o t h e e t y m o l o g y a n d t h u s to s e e i n g
b u t also i n ways u n r e l a t e d t o s e e i n g o r t o s e e i n g G o d , as t h e p r e v i o u s
c h a p t e r s h o w s . T h e A l l e g o r y also h a s m o r e variations o n e x p r e s s i o n s f o r
"Israel seers" t h a n any o t h e r work, u s i n g t h e e t y m o l o g y όρων θ ε ό ν o r a
s h o r t e r t e r m ορών or βλέπων, t h e phrase όρατικόν γένος o r simply όρατικός,
a n d οί ό ξ ύ καθορώντες ( t h o s e w h o see sharply).
A l t h o u g h I d i d n o t d i s c u s s e x p r e s s i o n s for s e e r s w h i c h i n c l u d e a n
abstraction, like "the m i n d ( o r soul) that can see," it is w o r t h n o t i n g that
t h e s e e x p r e s s i o n s o c c u r o n l y in t h e A l l e g o r y . O n l y i n t h e A l l e g o r y ,
m o r e o v e r , d o w e f i n d r e f e r e n c e s t o "Israel seers" w i t h i n allegorical inter­
p r e t a t i o n s , as in t h e e x a m p l e o f Migr. 18, p r e s e n t e d earlier. Finally, in this
series, P h i l o o f t e n links "Israel" explicitly with t h e k i n d o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l
s e e i n g h e v a l u e s so h i g h l y (as in Congr. 5 1 , also d i s c u s s e d a b o v e ) . T h e s e
f e a t u r e s , m a n y o f w h i c h are u n i q u e t o t h e A l l e g o r y , c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e
i m p r e s s i o n that P h i l o c o m p o s e d this series for m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d J e w i s h
r e a d e r s w i t h a n interest in allegorical interpretation.
S i n c e P h i l o u s e s "Israel" in different ways t h r o u g h o u t t h e Allegory, t h e
a p p e a r a n c e o r n o n - a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e w o r d in i n d i v i d u a l c a s e s s e e m s
i n s i g n i f i c a n t . It is i n t e r e s t i n g , h o w e v e r , that P h i l o d o e s o c c a s i o n a l l y u s e
e x p r e s s i o n s for seers t o substitute for "Israel" in p a s s a g e s w h e r e vision is
42
n o t clearly r e l e v a n t to t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . T h u s , e v e n t h o u g h this series

4 2
For this use of the etymology or a shorter form, see, e.g., Leg. 3.15, 81; Sobr. 13. For
όρατικόν γένος, see, e.g., Fug. 140; Mut. 109, 189 (on this last passage, see earlier in the
c h a p t e r ) . Cf. Plant. 4 6 a n d Mut. 258, in which ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ς is u s e d . T h e s e i s o l a t e d
o c c u r r e n c e s , in w h i c h the terms s e e m to be m e r e exegetical n i c k n a m e s a n d d o n o t
122 CHAPTER THREE

displays a widely d e v e l o p e d a p p l i c a t i o n o f e x p r e s s i o n s for "Israel s e e r s " —

as j u s t d e s c r i b e d — t h e A l l e g o r y still h a s i n s t a n c e s i n w h i c h e x p r e s s i o n s
f o r s e e r s s e e m t o r e p l a c e "Israel" m e c h a n i c a l l y , s e r v i n g as e x e g e t i c a l
n i c k n a m e s w h o s e i n t r i n s i c m e a n i n g is i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e c o m m e n t a r y .
S u c h instances may represent Philo's retention of earlier, traditional
material.
O f all t h e r e f e r e n c e s t o "Israel seers" in t h e A l l e g o r y , n o n e c a n b e
clearly o r e x c l u s i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h e i t h e r B i b l i c a l Israel o r P h i l o ' s
Jewish contemporaries. A l t h o u g h such an identification c a n n o t be ruled
o u t , t h e s e seers m a y also b e u n d e r s t o o d as a g r o u p d e f i n e d o n l y by t h e i r
ability t o s e e . If P h i l o ' s a u d i e n c e for t h e A l l e g o r y is i n d e e d c o m p o s e d o f
p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d Jews, t h e n this e m p h a s i s u p o n t h e s y m b o l i c
m e a n i n g o f "Israel," w i t h o u t c o n c e r n for t h e literal, m a y o f f e r t h e s e
r e a d e r s j u s t w h a t t h e y are s e e k i n g .

The Exposition

In t h e E x p o s i t i o n P h i l o u s e s "Israel" twice {Abr. 5 7 a n d Praem. 4 4 ) , b o t h

t i m e s w i t h t h e e t y m o l o g y . T h e s e are t h e o n l y two p l a c e s i n t h e s e r i e s
w h e r e t h e e t y m o l o g y o c c u r s . T h e p h r a s e όρατικόν γ έ ν ο ς ( r a c e / c l a s s that
c a n s e e ) , o r to b e exact, τό όρατικόν καΐ έπιστημονικόν γένος ( t h e r a c e / c l a s s
that c a n s e e a n d k n o w ) , appears o n c e , in Mos. 2.196.
In t h e two p a s s a g e s i n w h i c h "Israel" a n d t h e e t y m o l o g y a p p e a r , w e
c a n n o t c o n c l u s i v e l y identify a r e f e r e n t . P h i l o e x p o u n d s u p o n t h e p h i l o ­
sophical significance of seeing G o d in b o t h passages, describing the
e x p e r i e n c e in Abr. 5 8 as t h e "height o f h a p p i n e s s " ( ά κ ρ ο ν ε υ δ α ι μ ο ν ί α ς ) .
B e c a u s e h e d e p i c t s t h e vision o f G o d as a universal p h i l o s o p h i c a l g o a l ,
w h e n P h i l o e x p l a i n s "Israel" as "one that s e e s God," h e s e e m s to b e speak­
ing about anyone w h o can see God.
If P h i l o ' s r e a d e r s in t h e E x p o s i t i o n are, as I suggest, n o t q u i t e familiar
with J e w i s h beliefs, Scriptures, a n d practices, t h e y m a y also vary in t h e i r
p h i l o s o p h i c a l s o p h i s t i c a t i o n as well. O n e c o u l d s p e c u l a t e that P h i l o g o e s
o u t o f his way in t h e s e two passages to elaborate u p o n t h e special k i n d o f
s e e i n g o f w h i c h "Israel" is c a p a b l e . H i s i n t e n t may b e b o t h t o e d u c a t e his
r e a d e r s w h o are u n f a m i l i a r w i t h p h i l o s o p h y a n d t o a c k n o w l e d g e t o h i s
m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d o n e s that this type o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n t e m p l a t i o n is
h i g h l y v a l u e d a m o n g t h e Jews. H e leaves t h e i d e n t i t y o f "Israel" v a g u e ,
h o w e v e r , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e h e regards s e e i n g G o d as r e s e r v e d for a n elite
a n d w i s h e s i n s t e a d t o f o c u s u p o n w h a t is c o m m o n to all Jews.
In c o n t r a s t t o t h e two p a s s a g e s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , in Mos. 2 . 1 9 6 , it is

e m p h a s i z e the ability to see, are similar to passages in QE, w h e r e e x p r e s s i o n s for

seers are automatic replacements for "Israel" throughout.
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 123

p o s s i b l e t o identify t h e όρατικόν και έπιστημονικόν γ έ ν ο ς with t h e Biblical

n a t i o n , b e c a u s e t h e treatise is narrating t h e history o f this n a t i o n . P h i l o
n e v e r actually u s e s t h e term "Israel" in e i t h e r o f his treatises o n M o s e s b u t
i n s t e a d usually substitutes "Hebrews," o r calls t h e m t h e n a t i o n (τό έθνος)
or t h e p e o p l e (ό λ α ό ς ) . Since t h e όρατικόν και έπιστημονικόν γένος is clearly
t h e Biblical n a t i o n , t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e t e r m "Israel" a p p e a r s significant,
c o n f i r m i n g t h e i m p r e s s i o n that P h i l o r e s e r v e s "Israel" t o d e s i g n a t e a
different k i n d o f entity.
If, h o w e v e r , P h i l o d o e s u n d e r s t a n d "Israel" as t h e g r o u p that c a n s e e ,
w h i c h m a y n o t always c o i n c i d e exactly w i t h Biblical Israel o r t h e J e w s ,
his c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e Biblical n a t i o n as a b l e t o s e e is all t h e m o r e
n o t e w o r t h y h e r e . Mos. 2 . 1 9 6 is t h e o n l y instance w h e r e P h i l o refers t o t h e
Biblical p e o p l e with a n e x p r e s s i o n that is clearly l i n k e d t o t h e e t y m o l o g y
for "Israel" a n d w h e r e t h e ability t o s e e , w h i c h t h e e x p r e s s i o n s u g g e s t s ,
c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h e m e a n i n g o f the discussion. If I a m correct that t h e p h r a s e
ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς h a s a history b e h i n d it, t h e n i n this p a s s a g e , P h i l o is
e m p l o y i n g a traditional e x p r e s s i o n for t h e Biblical n a t i o n a n d a m p l i f y i n g
it with t h e adjective έπιστημονικόν to e m p h a s i z e his characterization.
Mos. 2 . 1 9 6 , is u n u s u a l for a n o t h e r r e a s o n as well. T h i s p a s s a g e narrates
t h e i n c i d e n t f r o m Lev. 2 4 : 1 0 - 1 6 o f t h e b l a s p h e m e r , w h o is t h e s o n o f a n
Israelite m o t h e r a n d an Egyptian father. I n s t e a d o f c a l l i n g t h e m o t h e r a
" H e b r e w " — t h e w o r d h e u s e s for t h e Biblical n a t i o n — P h i l o calls h e r a
"Jewess" ( Ι ο υ δ α ί α ) . M o r e o v e r , h e e m b e l l i s h e s t h e Biblical tale by portray­
i n g E g y p t i a n b e l i e f s as i m p i o u s a n d by d e c l a r i n g t h a t t h e b l a s p h e m e r
a b a n d o n s his m o t h e r ' s ancestral practices a n d acts w i t h o u t restraint.
T h e s e a d d e d features s u g g e s t that P h i l o m a y b e u s i n g this p a s s a g e t o
m i r r o r h i s c o n t e m p o r a r y situation in A l e x a n d r i a . D e s c r i b i n g t h e n a t i o n
as t h e γ έ ν ο ς that c a n s e e a n d k n o w , h e h i g h l i g h t s t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n
this e n l i g h t e n e d r a c e — p r e s u m a b l y t h e J e w s — a n d t h e u n e n l i g h t e n e d
Egyptians, w h o still w o r s h i p e l e m e n t s o f creation rather than t h e Creator.
By p o r t r a y i n g t h e Egyptians in this way a n d by n o t i n g that t h e s o n o f t h e
m i x e d m a r r i a g e d e p a r t s f r o m his m o t h e r ' s ancestral c u s t o m s , P h i l o m a y
wish to c o n v e y a subtle m e s s a g e to his Jewish readers a b o u t t h e d a n g e r s o f
m i n g l i n g t o o closely with t h o s e f r o m t h e o u t s i d e culture.
Apart f r o m t h e s e t h r e e passages, t h e E x p o s i t i o n has n o o t h e r r e f e r e n c e s
to "Israel," " [ t h e ] o n e that s e e s G o d , " or "the r a c e / c l a s s that c a n s e e . "
P h i l o ' s sparse m e n t i o n o f t h e s e entities, h o w e v e r , m a y very well suit h i s
p u r p o s e s . I n this series, h e d o e s n o t c o n c e n t r a t e u p o n "Israel" a n d s e e i n g
G o d , p e r h a p s — a s I h a v e s u g g e s t e d — b e c a u s e t h e s e subjects b e l o n g t o a
m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d k i n d o f J u d a i s m . Instead, h e f o c u s e s h e r e u p o n t h e
history, b e l i e f s , a n d p r a c t i c e s o f all Jews, p r e s e n t i n g t h e i r way o f life as
exemplary.
124 CHAPTER THREE

QGE

In Q G E , t h e w o r d "Israel" a p p e a r s f o u r t i m e s — t w i c e i n P h i l o ' s c o m ­
m e n t a r y (QG 3.49 a n d QG 4 . 2 3 3 ) , b o t h times with t h e e t y m o l o g y , a n d twice
in q u e s t i o n s that e i t h e r paraphrase ( Q E 2 . 3 0 ) or q u o t e (QE 2.37) t h e Bible.
(In t h e latter two r e f e r e n c e s , "Israel" a p p e a r s w i t h o u t a c o r r e s p o n d i n g
e x p r e s s i o n for seers.) In QE, "Israel" o c c u r s o n l y in two Biblical c i t a t i o n s
(just n o t e d ) ; it is n e v e r u s e d in t h e c o m m e n t a r y . E x p r e s s i o n s for s e e r s
serve as substitute p h r a s e s in this work n o t o n l y in t h e c o m m e n t a r y (QE
1.12, 2 1 ; QE2A2, 4 3 , 4 6 , 7 6 ) , b u t also in two Scriptural q u o t a t i o n s (QE 2.38
a n d 4 7 ) . S i n c e QE c o m m e n t s u p o n t h e B o o k o f E x o d u s , w h i c h p e r t a i n s
s p e c i f i c a l l y t o B i b l i c a l Israel's d e p a r t u r e f r o m E g y p t a n d its j o u r n e y
t h r o u g h t h e desert, it is especially surprising that t h e t e r m "Israel" a p p e a r s
so rarely t h e r e .
P h i l o ' s t e n r e f e r e n c e s in Q G E to seers w h o are "Israel" are strikingly
d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h o s e in his o t h e r e x e g e t i c a l writings for several r e a s o n s .
First, t h e ability to s e e is a l m o s t always i n c i d e n t a l t o t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e
43
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In two cases (QG 3.49 a n d QG 4 . 2 3 3 ) , P h i l o m e n t i o n s t h e
e t y m o l o g y o r a s h o r t e n e d f o r m as m e r e l y p a r e n t h e t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t
t h e m e a n i n g o f "Israel," w i t h o u t at all d e v e l o p i n g t h e t h e m e o f s e e i n g o r
s e e i n g G o d . I n t h e e i g h t r e m a i n i n g p a s s a g e s , l i s t e d a b o v e , in w h i c h
e x p r e s s i o n s for seers o c c u r , t h e s e e x p r e s s i o n s appear to serve exclusively as
a u t o m a t i c s u b s t i t u t i o n s for "Israel." W h e t h e r "Israel" o r t h e s u b s t i t u t e
e x p r e s s i o n refers to t h e Biblical n a t i o n or to a g r o u p d e f i n e d o n l y by t h e
ability t o s e e is i m p o s s i b l e to d e t e r m i n e .
S e c o n d , c o n t r i b u t i n g to t h e i m p r e s s i o n that the expression^ for seers d o
n o t e m p h a s i z e t h e m e a n i n g o f a g r o u p that is able to s e e o r s e e G o d is that
P h i l o d o e s occasionally c o m m e n t in Q G E a b o u t the vision o f G o d as a c o n ­
4 4
t e m p o r a r y p h i l o s o p h i c a l pursuit o r g o a l , b u t n e v e r in passages in w h i c h
"Israel" o r e x p r e s s i o n s for "Israel seers" o c c u r . Instead, in this series, t h e
s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l g o a l o f s e e i n g G o d is a c k n o w l e d g e d
separately f r o m d i s c u s s i o n s o f "Israel seers." T h i s s e p a r a t e n e s s s u g g e s t s
t h e r e m a y well i n d e e d h a v e b e e n a n earlier stage o f u s e for b o t h t h e
e t y m o l o g y o f "Israel" a n d t h e p h r a s e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς , w h e r e i n t h e s e

4 3
T h e t h e m e of s e e i n g G o d is pertinent in QE 2.47, which interprets E x o d . 24:17:
"Now the appearance of the glory of the Lord was like a devouring fire o n the top of
the m o u n t a i n in the sight of ( ε ν α ν τ ί ο ν ) the p e o p l e of Israel." In the question, Philo
quotes the verse as follows: "The form of the glory of the Lord (was) like a fire burn­
ing before the sons of the s e e i n g o n e . " In the answer, however, Philo c o n c e n t r a t e s
u p o n the appearance of G o d rather than the ability of Israel to see H i m . "The s e e i n g
o n e " s e e m s to be merely a substitute expression for "Israel."
4 4
See, e.g., QG 2.34; QG 3.34; QG 4.1, 8, 2 1 , 138, 196; QE 2.39, 5 1 , 52. Especially striking
is QE 2.51: "For the b e g i n n i n g and e n d of happiness is to be able to see God."
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 125

expressions were n o t yet linked to the philosophical significance of

seeing God.
A t h i r d distinctive f e a t u r e o f t h e Q G E p a s s a g e s is that P h i l o c h a r a c ­
terizes as "literar t h r e e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s w h i c h have e x p r e s s i o n s for "Israel
seers" (QE 1.12, 2 1 ; QE 2 . 4 7 ) . W e s h o u l d bear in m i n d , h o w e v e r , that w h a t
P h i l o calls "literal" d o e s n o t always c o n f o r m t o t h e a p p a r e n t s e n s e o f t h e
Biblical narrative. T w o o f t h e s e passages (QE 1.12 a n d QE 2.47) m a y favor a
c o n s t r u a l o f t h e s e e i n g o n e s as Biblical Israel, b e c a u s e P h i l o u s e s t h e past
t e n s e a n d s e e m s t o f o l l o w t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e B i b l i c a l narrative fairly
c l o s e l y . T h e o t h e r p a s s a g e , QE 1.21, e x a m i n e d earlier, also p r e s e n t s a
"literal" i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , b u t t h e discussion is in t h e p r e s e n t t e n s e a n d d o e s
n o t clearly i n t e n d t h e Biblical n a t i o n . D e s p i t e t h e two i n s t a n c e s w h i c h
m a y favor a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e g r o u p as Biblical Israel, n o n e o f t h e s e
t h r e e p a s s a g e s p r o v i d e s e n o u g h i n f o r m a t i o n to identify c o n c l u s i v e l y t h e
o n e s w h o can see.
A f o u r t h n o t a b l e feature o f Q G E is that five o r half o f t h e r e f e r e n c e s to
"Israel seers" o c c u r in q u e s t i o n s o n E x o d u s 2 4 , w h i c h d e s c r i b e s e v e n t s
r e l a t e d to t h e giving o f t h e law at M o u n t Sinai (QE 2.38, 4 2 , 4 3 , 4 6 , 4 7 ) . In
h i s o t h e r writings, P h i l o d e v o t e s very little a t t e n t i o n t o this e v e n t o r t o
45
specific verses in this Biblical c h a p t e r .
Finally, in five p a s s a g e s in w h i c h P h i l o talks a b o u t "Israel" o r t h o s e
w h o c a n s e e , h e also m e n t i o n s t h e m as t h e " c h o s e n γ έ ν ο ς " o r refers t o
d i v i n e e l e c t i o n o f this γ έ ν ο ς , an a s p e c t h e rarely a l l u d e s to in h i s o t h e r
4 6
w o r k s . Especially n o t e w o r t h y is that t h e s e p a s s a g e s link e l e c t i o n w i t h
c i r c u m c i s i o n (QG 3.49) a n d with t h e giving o f t h e law as n a r r a t e d i n
E x o d u s 2 4 (QE 2 . 3 8 , 4 2 , 4 3 , 4 6 ) . A l t h o u g h t h e Bible explicitly associates
b o t h c i r c u m c i s i o n a n d t h e g i v i n g o f t h e law with t h e c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n
G o d a n d Israel, P h i l o rarely discusses e i t h e r c i r c u m c i s i o n o r t h e giving o f
t h e law a n d n e v e r associates t h e s e t h e m e s with t h e c o v e n a n t o r t h e i d e a
4 7
that "Israel" is c h o s e n .

4 5
For references to interpretations of verses from Exodus 2 4 in Philo's other works,
see Biblia Patristica: Supplement, 67—68.
4 6
T h e QGE passages in w h i c h Philo describes "Israel" as c h o s e n are QG 3.49; QE
2.38, 4 2 , 4 3 , 46. Philo explicitiy describes "Israel" as the c h o s e n r a c e / c l a s s in Post 92
(το έπίλεκτον γένος) and possibly in Conf. 56 (γένος των επίλεκτων). T h e latter passage is
a m b i g u o u s a b o u t w h e t h e r the γένος is part of or the same as "Israel." For two instances
in w h i c h P h i l o uses the d e s i g n a t i o n "chosen r a c e / c l a s s " w i t h o u t the word "Israel,"
see QG 2.58, w h e r e "Israel" is n o t necessarily i n t e n d e d , and QG 2.65, w h e r e "Israel"
is clearly i n t e n d e d , e v e n t h o u g h the word itself is n o t m e n t i o n e d . For a discussion
a b o u t h o w P h i l o interprets these phrases a n d also Biblical verses that d e p i c t the
covenantal reladonship between G o d and Israel, see the n e x t chapter.
4 7
S e e G e n . 17:11; E x o d . 19:5, 2 4 : 7 - 8 . Philonic passages outside QGE that m e n t i o n
circumcision are Sobr. 8, Migr. 92, Somn. 2.25, and Spec. 1.1-11. O n the giving o f the
law generally, see Decal., especially 1-49, and Her. 1 6 7 - 7 3 . Most of Philo's discussions
126 CHAPTER THREE

In different ways, t h e a b o v e m e n t i o n e d characteristics c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e

i m p r e s s i o n that Q G E is i n t e n d e d to reflect a w i d e r a n g e o f A l e x a n d r i a n
J e w i s h a p p r o a c h e s to t h e Bible. W e have j u s t n o t e d that t h e f o c u s in QE
u p o n E x o d u s 2 4 a n d t h e affirmation o f a link b e t w e e n t h e c h o s e n n e s s o f
"Israel" a n d t h e g i v i n g o f t h e l a w — o r in t h e case o f QG 3 . 4 9 , b e t w e e n
c h o s e n n e s s a n d c i r c u m c i s i o n — a r e n o t typically P h i l o n i c f e a t u r e s . T h e
p r e v a l e n c e a n d a c c e p t a n c e h e r e o f so-called "literal" i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s is
a n o t h e r feature uncharacteristic o f P h i l o in his o t h e r works. Finally, s i n c e
t h e e t y m o l o g y a n d ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς are n o t l i n k e d w i t h t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l
s i g n i f i c a n c e o f s e e i n g , P h i l o ' s u s e o f t h e s e two e x p r e s s i o n s a p p e a r s t o
reflect a n earlier, traditional u n d e r s t a n d i n g . If o n e regards Q G E , h o w e v e r ,
as a c o l l e c t i o n o f various types o f A l e x a n d r i a n Jewish e x e g e s i s for a b r o a d
s p e c t r u m o f J e w i s h r e a d e r s , t h e s e atypical features b e c o m e m o r e u n d e r ­
standable.

Non-Exegetical Works

O f all t h e n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works, o n l y Legat. m e n t i o n s "Israel" a n d t h e

e t y m o l o g y . T h e p h r a s e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς , r a c e / c l a s s that c a n s e e , d o e s n o t
o c c u r in any o f t h e n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works.
In Legat. 4, P h i l o u s e s t h e w o r d "Israel" a n d p r o v i d e s t h e e t y m o l o g y as
an e x p l a n a t i o n o f this n a m e . S i n c e h e elaborates u p o n t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l
i m p o r t a n c e o f s e e i n g G o d in this passage, "Israel," t h e ορών θ ε ό ν , o r o n e
that s e e s G o d , a p p e a r s to i n d i c a t e a g r o u p capable o f this spiritual vision.
F u r t h e r m o r e , s i n c e t h e treatise is a b o u t t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y political situa­
t i o n o f t h e J e w s in A l e x a n d r i a a n d e l s e w h e r e , w e c a n identify this g r o u p
with P h i l o ' s J e w i s h c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . In this p a s s a g e , t h e n , it w o u l d s e e m
that P h i l o e q u a t e s t h e o n e w h o s e e s G o d with t h e J e w s . M o r e o v e r , h e
suggests h e r e that t h e Jewish way is superior e v e n to that o f p h i l o s o p h y .
W h y w o u l d P h i l o w i s h t o e q u a t e "Israel" w i t h all J e w s i n t h i s
political treatise, w h e n h e d o e s n o t d o s o anywhere else? A n d why w o u l d
h e wish to e m p h a s i z e that "Israel"'s vision a n d t h e Jews' way o f life e x c e l s
any o t h e r v i s i o n o r way o f life? O n c e a g a i n , a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f P h i l o ' s
a i m s a n d a u d i e n c e m a y s h e d light u p o n t h e s e q u e s t i o n s . In this treatise,
P h i l o p r e s e n t s for all t o k n o w t h e story o f his p e r s e c u t e d c o u n t r y m e n .
P r e s u m a b l y h e h o p e s t o elicit sympathy, o u t r a g e , a n d finally a d m i r a t i o n

about the e p i s o d e at Sinai, narrated in Exodus 1 9 - 2 4 , focus u p o n specific verses a n d

laws rather than the significance of the event. See Jaubert, La notion d'Alliance, 3 7 5 - 4 4 2 ,
and J o h n J. Collins, "A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision a n d Salvation in the First
Century," "To See Ourselves As Others See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity,
Scholars Press Studies in the H u m a n i t i e s , e d . Jacob N e u s n e r a n d Ernest S. Frerichs
(Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1985), 1 6 3 - 8 6 .
 "ISRAEL" AND THE ONES WHO CAN SEE 127

for t h e m . T o w a r d this e n d , p e r h a p s , h e p r e s e n t s h i s p e o p l e as t h e finest

w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r m i n d s , their virtuous behavior, a n d their w o r s h i p o f
t h e greatest B e i n g .

D e p e n d i n g u p o n w h i c h P h i l o n i c work o n e reads, t h e n , "Israel," t h e ο ρ ώ ν

θ ε ό ν ( o n e that s e e s G o d ) , or t h e όρατικόν γένος ( r a c e / c l a s s that c a n s e e )
m a y b e s o m e w h a t different for t h e r e a s o n s j u s t d e s c r i b e d . H o w e v e r P h i l o
m a y u n d e r s t a n d "Israel" in his heart o f hearts, t h o u g h , it is certain that in
t h e B i b l e , "Israel" is t h e n a m e o f t h e n a t i o n c h o s e n by G o d t o b e H i s
special p e o p l e a n d to e n t e r i n t o a c o v e n a n t with H i m . U p to this p o i n t , w e
h a v e c o n c e n t r a t e d u p o n h o w P h i l o may r e d e f i n e "Israel." L e t u s n o w
c o n s i d e r h o w h e a p p r o a c h e s t h e relationship b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e n a t i o n
Israel as it is d e s c r i b e d in t h e Bible.
 CHAPTER FOUR

PHILONIC INTERPRETATIONS
OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD
AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL

Earlier c h a p t e r s h a v e s h o w n that P h i l o ' s "Israel" is s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t

f r o m t h e n a t i o n Israel w h o s e history is narrated i n t h e P e n t a t e u c h . W e
shall n o w l o o k at h o w P h i l o interprets t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d
this n a t i o n as t h e B i b l e portrays it. S i n c e P h i l o ' s e x e g e t i c a l efforts f o c u s
u p o n t h e P e n t a t e u c h , l e t u s b e g i n by c o n s i d e r i n g h o w t h e P e n t a t e u c h
p r e s e n t s this r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d w h a t s o m e p o s s i b l e r a m i f i c a t i o n s o f this
p r e s e n t a t i o n m i g h t b e . W e shall t h e n turn to Philo's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e
P e n t a t e u c h a l a c c o u n t by e x a m i n i n g a s e l e c t i o n o f p a s s a g e s f r o m h i s
works.

The Relationship Between God and Israel

As Described in the Pentateuch

In t h e B o o k o f E x o d u s (chapters 1 9 - 2 4 ) , G o d establishes His c o v e n a n t with

the p e o p l e o f Israel at M o u n t Sinai, a c o v e n a n t that fulfills H i s p r o m i s e s to
Israel's a n c e s t o r s — t h e patriarchs, A b r a h a m , Isaac, a n d J a c o b . T h e B i b l e
d o e s n o t p r o v i d e a c o m p l e t e l y c o n s i s t e n t a c c o u n t e i t h e r o f divine p r o m i s e s
to t h e patriarchs c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r d e s c e n d a n t n a t i o n o r o f t h e c o v e n a n t
b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel. I n s t e a d , Scripture u n f o l d s d e t a i l s a b o u t t h e s e
matters, r e p e a t i n g , reworking, o m i t t i n g , a n d a d d i n g to t h e s e details as t h e
narrative p r o g r e s s e s .
T o e a c h o f t h e patriarchs, A b r a h a m , Isaac, a n d J a c o b , G o d a n n o u n c e s
H i s i n t e n t i o n s for their d e s c e n d a n t s , p r o m i s i n g to m a k e t h e m a great a n d
p o p u l o u s n a t i o n , t o bless t h e m , to give t h e m t h e l a n d o f C a n a a n , a n d to
1
establish H i s c o v e n a n t with t h e m . At Sinai ( E x o d u s 1 9 - 2 4 ) , H e e n t e r s i n t o
a c o v e n a n t with t h e w h o l e n a t i o n Israel. S u b s e q u e n t parts o f t h e P e n t a ­
t e u c h a n d especially t h e B o o k o f D e u t e r o n o m y refer to a n d d e v e l o p vari­
2
o u s aspects o f this c o v e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p .

1
T h e s e promises appear several times with variations. For God's promises to Abra­
ham, see, e.g., G e n . 12:1-3, 7; 15:13-16, 1 8 - 2 1 ; 17:1-14, 16, 1 9 - 2 1 ; 18:18-19; 22:17-18;
Isaac: G e n . 2 6 : 2 - 5 , 24; Jacob: Gen. 2 8 : 1 3 - 1 5 ; 3 5 : 9 - 1 2 . God also establishes a covenant
with A b r a h a m .
2
For scholarly discussion about the covenant and related issues, see Klaus Baltzer,
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 129

Basically, t h e d i v i n e p r o m i s e s t o t h e p a t r i a r c h s a n d t h e c o v e n a n t
b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel involve G o d ' s c h o i c e o f o n e n a t i o n u p o n w h i c h
H e bestows His blessings. T h e covenant with the nation i n c l u d e s the
a d d e d feature o f a f o r m a l a g r e e m e n t e n t a i l i n g specific c o n d i t i o n s for t h e
3
p e o p l e t o f o l l o w , n a m e l y , o b e d i e n c e t o G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s . Israel
r e c e i v e s G o d ' s laws a n d statutes with few, if any, e x p l a n a t i o n s a b o u t t h e i r
i n t r i n s i c w o r t h o r m e a n i n g . F o r t h e m o s t part, t h e s e s t i p u l a t i o n s are
d e l i v e r e d with divine authority a n d n o o t h e r e x p l i c i t rationale.
T h e Bible d o e s n o t provide a c o n s i s t e n t reason for G o d ' s c h o i c e o f Israel
or its a n c e s t o r s . At t i m e s this c h o i c e r e m a i n s u n e x p l a i n e d ; at o t h e r t i m e s ,
it s e e m s t o b e b a s e d u p o n G o d ' s love; at still o t h e r times, G o d ' s c h o i c e o f t h e
n a t i o n is l i n k e d with H i s previous c o m m i t m e n t to t h e patriarchs.
In E x o d . 6 : 2 - 8 , for e x a m p l e , G o d declares that H e will bring t h e p e o p l e
o f Israel o u t o f Egypt t o t h e l a n d that H e p r o m i s e d t h e i r f o r e f a t h e r s ,
i n s t r u c t i n g M o s e s t o tell t h e n a t i o n , "I will take y o u for m y p e o p l e , a n d I
4
will b e y o u r G o d " ( E x o d . 6:7) .
E l s e w h e r e , G o d stresses that t h e p e o p l e m u s t fulfill certain o b l i g a t i o n s :
"And n o w , if y o u will o b e y My v o i c e a n d k e e p My c o v e n a n t , y o u shall
b e t o M e a special p e o p l e a m o n g all t h e nations; for all t h e earth is M i n e ,
a n d y o u shall b e to M e a royal p r i e s t h o o d a n d a h o l y n a t i o n " ( E x o d . 1 9 : 5 -
6, m y t r a n s l a t i o n ) . Similarly, i n Lev. 2 6 : 3 - 1 3 , G o d a n n o u n c e s that if t h e
p e o p l e fulfill H i s c o m m a n d m e n t s , H e will u p h o l d H i s c o v e n a n t w i t h

The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Chnstian Writings, trans. David
E. G r e e n (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1 9 7 1 ) ; Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old
Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, 2 vols., T h e Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: West­
minster Press, 1 9 6 1 ) , esp. vol. 1; Delbert R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical
Idea, S e m i n a r s in t h e History o f Ideas (Baltimore: J o h n s H o p k i n s Press, 1 9 6 9 ) ;
Jaubert, La notion d'Alliance, esp. 2 7 - 6 6 ; J o n D. Levenson, Sinai and lion: An Entry into the
Jewish Bible, N e w V o i c e s in Biblical Studies, ed. A d e l a Yarbro Collins a n d J o h n J.
C o l l i n s (San Francisco: H a r p e r & Row, 1 9 8 5 ) ; D e n n i s J. McCarthy, Treaty and
Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament, 2 n d ed.,
Analecta Biblica, 21 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978); George E. M e n d e n h a l l , Law and
Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Biblical C o l l o q u i u m , 1 9 5 5 ) ;
Gerhard v o n Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, 2 vols. (New York:
Harper & Row, 1962 and 1965), esp. vol. 1; Harold Henry Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine
of Election ( L o n d o n : Lutterworth Press, 1 9 5 2 ) ; Seock-Tae S o h n , The Divine Election of
Israel (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1991).
3
S o m e divine blessings to the patriarchs also m e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s but, aside from
circumcision (Genesis 1 7 ) , these c o n d i t i o n s pertain generally to o b e d i e n c e to God's
c o m m a n d s , w h i c h are n o t specified. See, e.g., Gen. 17:1, 18:19, 22:18, 26:5.
4
As e x p l a i n e d in t h e N o t e to the Reader, Bible translations are from t h e RSV
( 1 9 5 2 ) , u n l e s s otherwise indicated. Occasionally the Greek Bible, w h i c h Philo uses,
differs significantly from the H e b r e w text, u p o n w h i c h the RSV is based. In these
i n s t a n c e s , I have e i t h e r m o d i f i e d the RSV translation to reflect t h e G r e e k a n d
i n s e r t e d the m o d i f i c a t i o n within brackets, or I have provided my own translations
based u p o n the Greek.
130 CHAPTER FOUR

t h e m , d e c l a r i n g , "I will walk a m o n g y o u , a n d will b e y o u r G o d , a n d y o u

shall b e m y p e o p l e " (Lev. 2 6 : 1 2 ) .
In o t h e r p a s s a g e s , particularly in D e u t e r o n o m y , M o s e s r e m i n d s t h e
p e o p l e o f this r e l a t i o n s h i p , h i g h l i g h t i n g d i f f e r e n t e l e m e n t s at d i f f e r e n t
t i m e s . In o n e address to Israel, for e x a m p l e , h e m e n t i o n s divine love a n d
divine p r o m i s e s t o t h e n a t i o n ' s ancestors:

For you are a p e o p l e holy to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen y o u to
be [a special p e o p l e to H i m beyond all the nations] that are o n the face of the earth.
It was n o t because you [are] m o r e in n u m b e r than [all the nations] that the Lord
[preferred] you and chose you, for you [are] the fewest of all [the n a t i o n s ] ; but it is
because the Lord loves you, and is k e e p i n g the oath which h e swore to your fathers
... (Deut. 7:6-8)

In D e u t . 9:5, M o s e s d e n i e s that G o d gives Israel t h e p r o m i s e d l a n d

b e c a u s e o f t h e p e o p l e ' s o w n i n h e r e n t qualities. I n s t e a d h e c o n t e n d s that
G o d ' s b e h a v i o r is m o t i v a t e d by t h e i m p i e t y o f o t h e r n a t i o n s a n d by H i s
a g r e e m e n t with t h e patriarchs. M o s e s declares,

N o t b e c a u s e o f your righteousness or the piety of your heart are y o u g o i n g in to

possess their land, but because o f the impiety of these nations the Lord will utterly
destroy t h e m from before you, and that H e may establish His covenant w h i c h H e
swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. (Deut. 9:5, my translation)

Finally, w h i l e m o s t o f t h e s e p a s s a g e s d e p i c t G o d as i n i t i a t i n g t h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p by s e l e c t i n g Israel or its ancestors, D e u t . 2 6 : 1 6 - 1 9 s u g g e s t s a
mutual choice indicating the nation's o b e d i e n c e to divine c o m m a n d ­
m e n t s as a central c o m p o n e n t :

O n this day the Lord your G o d has c o m m a n d e d you to d o all these ordinances and
d e c r e e s a n d you shall k e e p and d o t h e m with all your heart and with all your soul.
Today you have c h o s e n God to be your God and to walk in His ways a n d k e e p His
ordinances a n d decrees and obey His voice; and the Lord has c h o s e n you today to be
a special p e o p l e to H i m , just as H e said to you, to keep all His c o m m a n d m e n t s , and
that you be above all the nations, as H e has m a d e you famous and an object Of pride
and glorified, that you be a holy p e o p l e to the Lord your God, just as H e has spoken.
(Deut. 2 6 : 1 6 - 1 9 , my translation)

T h e P e n t a t e u c h , t h e n , portrays t h e link b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel i n

different a n d s o m e w h a t i n c o n s i s t e n t ways. It is n o t clear why G o d selects
Israel a b o v e all t h e o t h e r n a t i o n s a n d i n d e e d H i s c h o i c e m a y a p p e a r
s o m e w h a t arbitrary. N o n e t h e l e s s , it is clear that G o d c h o o s e s Israel t o
e n t e r i n t o a special r e l a t i o n s h i p with H i m . Central to this r e l a t i o n s h i p is
t h e c o v e n a n t , the a g r e e m e n t H e m a k e s with the p e o p l e to b e their G o d a n d
to stand by t h e m if they follow His c o m m a n d m e n t s .
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 131

Potential Ramifications of the Pentateuchal Account

Certain features o f t h e a c c o u n t o u t l i n e d above are potentially offensive t o

d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e f o r any n u m b e r o f r e a s o n s . A l t h o u g h P h i l o n e v e r cites
specific c h a r g e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e Biblical claims, o n e may s p e c u l a t e a b o u t
p o s s i b l e o b j e c t i o n s o n t h e basis o f h o w h e p r e s e n t s Biblical Israel a n d
5
i n d e e d his o w n J e w i s h c o n t e m p o r a r i e s .
G o d ' s apparently arbitrary c h o i c e o f Israel, for e x a m p l e , m i g h t b e offen­
sive t o i n d i v i d u a l s — w h e t h e r J e w i s h o r n o t — w h o s e c o n c e p t i o n o f G o d is
p h i l o s o p h i c a l . T h e i d e a that t h e truly Existent m i g h t b e swayed by favorit­
i s m w o u l d b e i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e i r beliefs a b o u t H i s rational n a t u r e ,
s i n c e favoritism s u g g e s t s a n e m o t i o n a l , i.e., n o n - r a t i o n a l , c o m p o n e n t . A
r e l a t e d p r o b l e m is h o w o r why t h e universal G o d o f all c r e a t i o n m i g h t b e
e s p e c i a l l y c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e welfare o f o n e p a r t i c u l a r p e o p l e . Yet
a n o t h e r p o t e n t i a l l y t r o u b l i n g a s p e c t o f t h e c o v e n a n t is that G o d r e q u i r e s
s p e c i f i c p r a c t i c e s , s u c h as f o l l o w i n g dietary r e s t r i c t i o n s , w h i c h d o n o t
a p p e a r t o h a v e any rational basis. Finally, e v e n for t h o s e n o t c o n c e r n e d
a b o u t t h e s e various i n t e l l e c t u a l difficulties, t h e s e l f - p r o c l a m a t i o n o f o n e
n a t i o n t o b e s p e c i a l l y c h o s e n by G o d c a n a p p e a r b o a s t f u l a n d a r o u s e
6
hostility a m o n g o t h e r p e o p l e s .
W h e n P h i l o i n t e r p r e t s Biblical verses that d e a l e x p l i c i t l y w i t h d i v i n e
p r o m i s e s to t h e patriarchs or with t h e c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel, h e
m a y b e implicitly a d d r e s s i n g s o m e o f t h e s e c o n c e r n s . For o n e t h i n g , h e
r e d e f i n e s o r c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s m e n t i o n o f t h e w o r d "covenant," t h e r e b y
e l i m i n a t i n g t h e i m a g e o f a p r e s e t a g r e e m e n t . H e transforms t h e m e a n i n g
o f certain verses to s u g g e s t that G o d c h o o s e s n o t t h e n a t i o n Israel b u t any
virtuous p e r s o n o r soul. G o d ' s c h o i c e t h e n n o l o n g e r appears arbitrary b u t
i n s t e a d c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d to b e b a s e d u p o n merit. Finally, P h i l o d o e s n o t
m e n t i o n t h e particular statutes a n d c o m m a n d m e n t s as c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e
c o v e n a n t b u t rather speaks g e n e r a l l y a b o u t virtue a n d h a r m o n y i n o n e ' s
b e h a v i o r . T h e s e various characteristics o f Philo's a p p r o a c h are illustrated
below.

Philonic Interpretations of the Relationship Between God and Biblical Israel

A s is typical o f h i s a p p r o a c h t o m o s t Biblical t h e m e s , P h i l o d o e s n o t
a d d r e s s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel i n o n e p l a c e o r in a
u n i f o r m way. E v e n i n his treatises o n Moses, w h i c h retell in part t h e story

5
Our p r e s e n t c o n c e r n is with Philo's interpretations of the Biblical account. In the
n e x t chapter, we shall consider his remarks about the Jews a n d their ancestors.
6
O n s o m e o f these problems, see Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 149,
esp. η . 1; Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. Israel Abra­
h a m s (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 5 2 5 - 5 4 .
132 CHAPTER FOUR

o f Israel's e x o d u s f r o m Egypt, P h i l o c o n c e n t r a t e s m o r e u p o n t h e r o l e o f
M o s e s t h a n u p o n t h e n a t i o n . W h e r e t h e Bible narrates t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n G o d a n d Biblical Israel as a series o f e n c o u n t e r s b e t w e e n G o d a n d
t h e patriarchs a n d G o d a n d t h e n a t i o n , P h i l o deals with t h e s e e n c o u n t e r s
s y n c h r o n i c a l l y — n o t as a s e r i e s o f e v e n t s b u t as s e p a r a t e p a s s a g e s i n
d i f f e r e n t e x e g e t i c a l c o n t e x t s . T o l e a r n h o w h e u n d e r s t a n d s this r e l a t i o n ­
ship, t h e n , r e q u i r e s that w e e x a m i n e his discrete t r e a t m e n t s o f individual
p a s s a g e s . B e f o r e t u r n i n g t o this e x a m i n a t i o n , h o w e v e r , l e t u s briefly
c o n s i d e r h o w P h i l o d e a l s w i t h two specific t e r m s o r n o t i o n s w h i c h also
merit our attention, namely, the idea of the covenant and the phrase
"chosen p e o p l e [or r a c e / c l a s s ] . "

The Covenant. T h e B i b l e d e s c r i b e s a variety o f c o v e n a n t s — t h o s e that

take p l a c e b e t w e e n p e o p l e , b e t w e e n G o d a n d individuals, a n d b e t w e e n
G o d a n d t h e n a t i o n Israel. T h e G r e e k Bible, u p o n w h i c h P h i l o bases his
interpretations, translates t h e H e b r e w w o r d n n n , o r c o v e n a n t , as δ ι α θ ή κ η , a
w o r d w h i c h also carries t h e s e n s e o f a testament, will, o r d i s p o s i t i o n .
W h i l e o u r c h i e f interest is in t h e c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel, it is
w o r t h n o t i n g that e v e n w h e r e h e discusses o t h e r c o v e n a n t s , P h i l o n e v e r
affirms t h e Biblical s e n s e o f δ ι α θ ή κ η as a m u t u a l a g r e e m e n t w i t h stated
c o n d i t i o n s . O f t e n h e interprets t h e t e r m symbolically, w i t h o u t p r e s e n t i n g
a u n i f o r m u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f w h a t a c o v e n a n t , especially G o d ' s c o v e n a n t ,
is. A l t h o u g h h e refers t o two treatises o f his o w n o n t h e subject o f c o v e ­
7
n a n t s (Mut. 53; cf. QE 2 . 3 4 ) , unfortunately, t h e s e works have n o t survived.
While Philo occasionally speaks of God's covenants in the Allegory
8
a n d Q G E , h e n e v e r m e n t i o n s t h e m in t h e E x p o s i t i o n . Especially n o t e ­
w o r t h y is that d e s p i t e t h e centrality o f t h e c o v e n a n t t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel in t h e B i b l e , P h i l o m e n t i o n s this c o v e n a n t o n l y
f o u r t i m e s (Sacr. 57; Det. 67; QE 2.34, 1 0 6 ) . In t h e two passages in w h i c h h e
e x p o u n d s u p o n t h e t e r m (Sacr. 5 7 a n d QE 2 . 1 0 6 ) , h e i n t e r p r e t s it sym­
bolically.
G i v e n t h e p r e d o m i n a n c e o f t h e c o v e n a n t t h e m e in t h e B i b l e , P h i l o ' s
sparse m e n t i o n o f it is surprising. D i s c u s s i o n o f t h e c o v e n a n t , h o w e v e r , is
also rare in o t h e r literature f r o m this p e r i o d that m a y b e i n t e n d e d for

7
T h e word διαθήκη appears in the following Philonic passages: Leg. 3.85 (2); Sacr. 57
(2); Det. 6 7 - 6 8 ; Her. 313; Mut. 5 1 , 52 (3), 53, 57, 58 (3), 263; Somn. 2.223 (2), 224 ( 2 ) , 237;
Spec. 2.16. In addition, covenants are s p o k e n of in QG 3.40, 42, 60 and QE 2.34, 106.
E x c e p t for Spec. 2.16, in w h i c h the w o r d d e n o t e s a p e r s o n ' s will, all t h e o t h e r
references pertain to God's covenants with p e o p l e , e.g., N o a h , Abraham, Isaac, or the
n a t i o n Israel. For a survey of h o w Philo interprets God's covenant, see Jaubert, La
notion d 'Alliance, 4 1 4 - 3 7 .
8
In the Exposition, the word διαθήκη appears o n c e , in Spec. 2.16, where it refers to a
person's will. See also Colson, Philo, LCL, 7:316, nn. 1 and a.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 133

9
p e o p l e u n f a m i l i a r w i t h J e w s a n d J u d a i s m . A p o s s i b l e r e a s o n for this lack
o f a t t e n t i o n is t h a t writers m a y f e e l t h e d e p i c t i o n o f a n e x c l u s i v e , a n d
a p p a r e n t l y arbitrary, r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel o r b e t w e e n G o d
a n d t h e J e w s c o u l d b e offensive to outsiders. P e r h a p s this k i n d o f sensitiv­
ity t o h i s a u d i e n c e m a y e x p l a i n why P h i l o d o e s n o t discuss t h e c o v e n a n t
in t h e E x p o s i t i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e fact that h e u n d e r s t a n d s t h e t e r m in a
variety o f ways i n h i s o t h e r w r i t i n g s a n d t h a t h e n e v e r affirms t h e
Biblical s e n s e o f t h e c o v e n a n t suggests that h e may i n d e e d n o t c o n s i d e r it
central to t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel. W i t h o u t his treatises o n
t h e subject, h o w e v e r , w e c a n n o t draw any firm c o n c l u s i o n s .

The "Chosen People." B e s i d e s t h e n o t i o n o f t h e c o v e n a n t , a p h r a s e that

a l s o c o n v e y s G o d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o Israel is " c h o s e n p e o p l e [ o r r a c e /
c l a s s ] . " T h e e x a c t e x p r e s s i o n (τό γένος μου τό έκλεκτόν) a p p e a r s in Isaiah
43:20 b u t n o t in t h e P e n t a t e u c h . P e r h a p s the phrase closest i n m e a n i n g t o
this in t h e P e n t a t e u c h is λ α ό ς π ε ρ ι ο ύ σ ι ο ς , a special o r particular p e o p l e
( E x o d . 19:5, 2 3 : 2 2 ; D e u t . 7:6, 14:2, 2 6 : 1 8 ) . P h i l o u s e s d i f f e r e n t G r e e k
e q u i v a l e n t s for t h e e x p r e s s i o n "chosen p e o p l e [or r a c e / c l a s s ] " twice in t h e
1 0
A l l e g o r y (Post. 9 2 , Conf. 56) a n d o n c e in t h e E x p o s i t i o n (Praem. 1 2 3 ) ; a n d
t h e E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n o f Q G E h a s t h e e x p r e s s i o n " c h o s e n race" f o u r
t i m e s : QG 2 . 5 8 , 65; QE 2.38, 4 2 . P h i l o also speaks o f G o d ' s c h o i c e o f t h e
p e o p l e — w i t h o u t u s i n g an e x a c t p h r a s e for " c h o s e n p e o p l e [ o r r a c e /
class]"—two o t h e r times in t h e E x p o s i t i o n (Spec. 1.303, Virt. 184) a n d t h r e e
m o r e times in Q G E ( Q G 3 . 4 9 ; QE2.43, 4 6 ) .
D e s p i t e t h e s e v a r i o u s r e f e r e n c e s , h o w e v e r , it is n o t c l e a r that P h i l o
m e a n s to affirm that Israel is a p e o p l e c h o s e n by G o d . As w e shall s e e , in
t h e A l l e g o r y a n d t h e E x p o s i t i o n , h e gives n e w m e a n i n g to G o d ' s s e l e c t i o n
o f Israel, a n d in Q G E , h e u s e s t h e phrase " c h o s e n race" as a n a u t o m a t i c
d e s i g n a t i o n w i t h o u t necessarily i n t e n d i n g its literal s e n s e .

General Observations

T o b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a p p r o a c h u s e d t h r o u g h o u t this study, w e shall

c o n s i d e r P h i l o ' s t r e a t m e n t o f p a s s a g e s by series. P h i l o s p e a k s a b o u t t h e

9
Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 149, esp. η. 1. For a different perspec­
tive o n the use or non-use of a word for "covenant" in the rabbinic tradition, see Alan
F. Segal, "Covenant in Rabbinic Writings," The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity, Brown
Judaic Studies, ed. Jacob N e u s n e r et al., n o . 127 (Adanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 1 4 8 - 6 5 .
1 0
Post. 92: τό έπίλεκτον γένος; Conf 56: γένος των επίλεκτων; Praem. 123: λ α ό ς εξαίρετος.
Post. 9 1 - 9 2 a n d Praem. 123 are e x a m i n e d further below. In Conf 56, it is unclear
w h e t h e r the c h o s e n o n e s are part o f or equal to "Israel." This is because w h e n Philo
m e n t i o n s the race/class of the chosen o n e s of Israel, γένος των επίλεκτων του Ι σ ρ α ή λ , h e
is interpreting the following phrase from Exod. 24:11: οί επίλεκτοι του Ι σ ρ α ή λ , the
c h o s e n o n e s o f Israel, which indicates only s o m e m e m b e r s of Israel.
134 CHAPTER FOUR

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d Biblical Israel—either t h r o u g h t h e interpre­

t a t i o n o f r e l e v a n t p a s s a g e s o r m e n t i o n o f t h e " c h o s e n p e o p l e [or r a c e /
class]"—in all t h r e e e x e g e t i c a l c o m m e n t a r i e s . A l t h o u g h h e also d i s c u s s e s
this r e l a t i o n s h i p to s o m e e x t e n t in his a p o l o g e t i c work Hypoth., a n d m a y
allude t o it i n d i r e c d y in t h e political treatise Legat., h e d o e s n o t d e a l t h e r e
specifically with passages a b o u t G o d ' s c h o i c e o f Biblical Israel o r a b o u t H i s
c o v e n a n t w i t h t h e p e o p l e . (We shall e x a m i n e P h i l o ' s r e m a r k s in t h e s e
o t h e r writings in the n e x t chapter, w h e n we turn to the relationship
b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e Jews.)
O n e c a n certainly p o i n t t o d i f f e r e n c e s in P h i l o ' s a p p r o a c h a m o n g t h e
t h r e e e x e g e t i c a l series, a n d w e shall s e e that t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s m a y b e
e x p l a i n e d by t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e p o s s i b l e a i m s a n d a u d i e n c e (s) for
e a c h work. W h a t is c o m m o n to all P h i l o ' s writings, h o w e v e r , is that h e
n e i t h e r d e n i e s n o r affirms t h e literal s e n s e o f passages a b o u t t h e relation­
s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel. I n s t e a d , h e i n t r o d u c e s a variety o f n e w
m e a n i n g s t o this r e l a t i o n s h i p : h e i n t e r p r e t s Scriptural t e r m s as s y m b o l s ,
h e p r e s e n t s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p with G o d so that it a p p e a r s available t o any
v i r t u o u s p e r s o n , o r h e s i d e s t e p s t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p by
f o c u s i n g u p o n o t h e r issues. (As always, b r a c k e t e d p o r t i o n s in t h e P h i l o n i c
q u o t a t i o n s offered b e l o w are m y o w n adaptations to t h e LCL translation.)

The Allegory

In this s e c t i o n , w e shall c o n s i d e r Sacr. 57, 87; Post. 9 1 - 9 2 ; a n d Migr. 53-61.

T h e s e p a s s a g e s illustrate h o w P h i l o c h a n g e s t h e s e n s e o f Biblical verses
a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel by symbolically interpret­
i n g s u c h t e r m s as "covenant," "nation," a n d "Israel"; o m i t t i n g d e t a i l s
a b o u t G o d ' s love, H i s c o m m a n d m e n t s , a n d His p r o m i s e s t o t h e patriarchs;
a n d u s i n g verses as prooftexts to legitimate p o i n t s u n r e l a t e d to t h e Biblical
context.

Sacr. 57

In this p a s s a g e — t h e o n l y o n e in t h e A l l e g o r y w h i c h e x p a n d s u p o n G o d ' s
c o v e n a n t w i t h I s r a e l — P h i l o u n d e r s t a n d s "covenant" differently f r o m t h e
Bible. In a d d i t i o n , h e u s e s D e u t . 9:5, w h i c h m e n t i o n s t h e c o v e n a n t , as a
p r o o f t e x t to s u p p o r t a p o i n t u n c o n n e c t e d to G o d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p with Israel.
D e u t . 9:5, q u o t e d b e l o w , explicitly speaks o f G o d ' s c o v e n a n t with Israel's
forefathers as a basis for H i s special favor to t h e p e o p l e in b r i n g i n g t h e m
i n t o t h e p r o m i s e d land:

N o t because o f your righteousness or the piety of your heart are you g o i n g in to

possess their land, but because o f the impiety of these nations the Lord will utterly
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 135

destroy t h e m from before you, and that H e may establish His c o v e n a n t w h i c h H e

swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, ( m y translation)

P h i l o cites this verse in Sacr. 5 7 in t h e c o n t e x t o f a discussion a b o u t Cain

as a self-lover ( φ ί λ α υ τ ο ς , Sacr. 52) rather t h a n a lover o f G o d . T h e Biblical
c i t a t i o n that serves as t h e basis for this d i s c u s s i o n is G e n . 4:3, w h i c h says
that C a i n b r o u g h t a n o f f e r i n g t o G o d "after s o m e days." A c c o r d i n g t o
P h i l o , C a i n is at fault for d e l a y i n g to pay h o n o r t o G o d (Sacr. 5 2 ) . P h i l o
e x p l a i n s that t h e r e are t h r e e k i n d s o f p e o p l e w h o n e g l e c t this duty: t h o s e
w h o h a v e lost t h e f e e l i n g o f gratitude for their w e l l - b e i n g o u t o f forget-
f u l n e s s , t h o s e w h o ascribe t h e i r b l e s s i n g s t o t h e m s e l v e s r a t h e r t h a n t o
G o d , a n d finally t h o s e w h o a c k n o w l e d g e that G o d is t h e c a u s e o f g o o d
t h i n g s b u t think that they are worthy o f His favors o n a c c o u n t o f their o w n
virtue (Sacr. 5 4 ) .
In e l a b o r a t i n g u p o n this third type, P h i l o cites D e u t . 9:5, giving a n e w
s e n s e t o t h e i d e a o f covenant:

[ H e that] thinks himself worthy o f the possession a n d e n j o y m e n t o f g o o d may

learn a better lesson from the oracle which says 'Not for thy righteousness n o r for
the holiness of thy heart dost thou g o into the land to [inherit] it,' but first 'because
o f t h e i n i q u i t y o f t h e s e n a t i o n s , ' s i n c e G o d visited their w i c k e d n e s s with
destruction, a n d n e x t 'that h e m i g h t establish the covenant which h e sware to our
fathers.' N o w the covenant of G o d is an allegory of His gifts o f grace, a n d it may
n o t b e that any o f H i s gifts s h o u l d be imperfect. T h u s , all the b o u n t y o f the
U n c r e a t e d must be perfect a n d c o m p l e t e . But a m o n g s t all existing things the o n e
that is c o m p l e t e is virtue and virtuous actions. (Sacr. 57)

P h i l o s e e m s to b e saying h e r e that since all G o d ' s gifts are perfect, a n d

a m o n g c r e a t e d t h i n g s o n l y virtue is p e r f e c t , virtue a n d v i r t u o u s a c t i o n s
m u s t e m a n a t e f r o m G o d ' s g r a c e rather t h a n f r o m h u m a n will. T h e r e f o r e ,
t h o s e p e o p l e w h o t h i n k t h e m s e l v e s worthy o f d i v i n e b l e s s i n g s are mis­
t a k e n b e c a u s e they t h e m s e l v e s are n o t t h e s o u r c e o f their g o o d b e h a v i o r .
(His a r g u m e n t w o u l d have b e e n clearer p e r h a p s h a d h e a d d e d that p e r f e c t
things can c o m e only from G o d and nothing perfect can c o m e from what
is created.)
In any e v e n t , P h i l o is u s i n g D e u t . 9:5 h e r e b e c a u s e it e m p h a s i z e s that
G o d b r i n g s t h e p e o p l e i n t o t h e l a n d not because of their own nghteousness.
M o r e o v e r , by e x p l a i n i n g G o d ' s c o v e n a n t w i t h Israel's f o r e f a t h e r s as a
s y m b o l o f H i s g r a c e , P h i l o c h a n g e s t h e s e n s e o f t h e c o v e n a n t as a n
a g r e e m e n t e n t a i l i n g m u t u a l o b l i g a t i o n s b e t w e e n G o d a n d specific m e n ,
Israel's a n c e s t o r s . I n s t e a d , a c c o r d i n g to this e x e g e s i s , G o d ' s c o v e n a n t ,
11
grace, may b e u n d e r s t o o d to e x t e n d to all c r e a t i o n .

1 1
This is the only passage in which Philo interprets Deut. 9:5. In Mut. 52, the term
"covenant" is also e x p l a i n e d as a symbol of God's grace. This passage interprets G e n .
17:2, a verse that speaks of God's covenant with Abraham.
136 CHAPTER FOUR

Sacr. 87

In Sacr. 87, at t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f this s a m e discussion o f Cain's sacrifice in

G e n . 4:3, P h i l o illustrates G o d ' s r e a d i n e s s t o a c c e p t true w o r s h i p p e r s by
u s i n g as p r o o f t e x t s two o t h e r Biblical verses w h i c h d e s c r i b e t h e d i v i n e
a p p o i n t m e n t o f Israel. H e r e again h e sidesteps t h e literal s e n s e o f verses
that p e r t a i n specifically to G o d a n d t h e n a t i o n Israel by u s i n g t h e s e verses
to h i g h l i g h t a different p o i n t . In t h e Biblical c o n t e x t o f b o t h passages, E x o d .
6:7 a n d Lev. 2 6 : 1 2 - 1 3 , G o d instructs Moses to declare to Israel that H e will
take t h e m for H i s p e o p l e a n d H e will b e their G o d .
As n o t e d a b o v e , t h e P h i l o n i c passage is a discussion o f G e n . 4:3, w h i c h
reads as follows: "And it c a m e to pass after s o m e days that Cain b r o u g h t o f
t h e fruits o f t h e earth as an offering to G o d " (LCL translation). B a s e d u p o n
this verse, P h i l o finds two faults in Cain's behavior. First, as w e saw in t h e
d i s c u s s i o n o f Sacr. 5 7 , t h e w o r d s "after s o m e days" s u g g e s t to h i m that
Cain d e l a y e d in g i v i n g t h a n k s . S e c o n d , h e also b e l i e v e s that C a i n was
w r o n g b e c a u s e h e m a d e a n offering "of t h e fruits" b u t n o t o f t h e first fruits
(Sacr. 5 2 ) .
Sacr. 8 7 c o m e s at t h e e n d o f a l o n g a n d intricate discussion o f Lev. 2:14
c o n c e r n i n g t h e offering o f first fruits. In Sacr. 7 6 - 8 7 , P h i l o e x p o u n d s u p o n
w h a t it m e a n s t o o f f e r first fruits t h a t are n e w , r o a s t e d , s l i c e d , a n d
pounded. H e concludes,

W h e n t h e n you acknowledge as G o d wills these four things, the 'new,' that is the
b l o s s o m or vigour; the 'roasted,' that is the fire-tested and invincible reason; the
'sliced,' that is the division o f things into their classes; the ' p o u n d e d , ' that is the
persistent practice a n d exercise in what the m i n d has grasped, y o u will bring an
offering of the first-fruits, even the first and best offspring of the soul.

After i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e o f f e r i n g o f first fruits to b e a m a t t e r o f i n t e r n a l

d i s c i p l i n e o f t h e m i n d o r soul instead o f an e x t e r n a l c e r e m o n y , P h i l o n o w
says, "Yet e v e n if w e are slow to d o this, H e H i m s e l f is n o t slow to take to
H i m s e l f t h o s e w h o are fit for His service. Τ will take y o u , ' H e says, 'to b e
My p e o p l e a n d I will b e y o u r G o d ' [ E x o d . 6 : 7 ] , a n d 'ye shall b e to M e a
p e o p l e . I a m the Lord' [Lev. 2 6 : 1 2 - 1 3 ] . "
T h e p o i n t o f t h e s e p r o o f t e x t s is to stress that G o d r e s p o n d s readily to
t h o s e w h o w o r s h i p H i m . In E x o d . 6:7 a n d Lev. 2 6 : 1 2 - 1 3 , G o d ' s w o r d s are
i n t e n d e d for t h e p e o p l e o f Israel. In the E x o d u s c o n t e x t ( E x o d . 6 : 2 - 8 ) , G o d
m e n t i o n s H i s c o v e n a n t s with Israel's forefathers, w h i l e in Leviticus ( 2 6 : 3 -
1 3 ) , H e p r e s e n t s Israel's o b e d i e n c e to H i s c o m m a n d m e n t s as a c o n d i t i o n
o f His fulfillment o f p r o m i s e s to t h e m .
As P h i l o u s e s t h e verses, h o w e v e r , b o t h t h e historic identity o f t h e na­
tion Israel a n d t h e circumstances o f G o d ' s a d o p t i o n o f this p e o p l e disappear
a n d b e c o m e irrelevant. Instead, G o d ' s words n o w p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e o f H i s
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 137

i m m e d i a t e w i l l i n g n e s s to take to H i m s e l f true w o r s h i p p e r s , u n d e r s t o o d t o
b e t h o s e w h o offer "first fruits" in t h e way P h i l o d e s c r i b e s earlier. By
concentrating only u p o n the element of God's adoption of the people and
u s i n g this e l e m e n t t o s u p p o r t his o w n observation a b o u t G o d ' s r e a d i n e s s ,
12
P h i l o brackets entirely t h e original m e a n i n g o f t h e v e r s e s .

Post 91-92

This passage provides an example of h o w Philo redefines the "chosen

race." T h e passage interprets the following verses from Deuteronomy
(32:8-9):

8 W h e n the Most H i g h distributed nations,

W h e n h e dispersed the sons o f Adam,
H e set boundaries o f nations
According to the n u m b e r o f the angels of God,
9And Jacob His p e o p l e b e c a m e the Lord's portion,
13
Israel b e c a m e the lot of His i n h e r i t a n c e . (LCL translation)

M o s t i m p o r t a n t for o u r p u r p o s e s are t h e last two lines, for they s u g g e s t that

t h e p e o p l e o f Israel are u n i q u e l y l i n k e d with G o d .
T h e larger c o n t e x t o f t h e interpretation in Post. ( 8 3 - 9 3 ) is a d i s c u s s i o n
a b o u t t h e d a n g e r o f c h a n g i n g "the b o u n d a r i e s f i x e d for t h i n g s by n a t u r e "
(Post. 8 3 ) a n d by divine p r i n c i p l e s (Post. 8 9 ) . In Post. 9 1 , P h i l o offers t h e
f o l l o w i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f D e u t 32:8 as a n e x a m p l e o f b o u n d a r i e s set by
divine principles:

W h e n G o d divided and partitioned off the nations o f the soul, separating those o f
o n e c o m m o n s p e e c h from those of a n o t h e r t o n g u e , and causing t h e m to dwell
apart; w h e n H e dispersed a n d p u t away from H i m s e l f the children o f the earth,
w h o m t h e lawgiver calls 'sons o f A d a m , ' t h e n did H e fix the b o u n d a r i e s of the
offspring o f virtue c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the n u m b e r of the angels; for there are as
many forms or 'nations' o f virtue as there are words o f God.

W i t h o u t c o m m e n t i n g u p o n t h e literal sense o f t h e Biblical verses, P h i l o

u n d e r s t a n d s t h e m t o apply to t h e soul: t h e n a t i o n s that G o d distributes
b e c o m e "nations o f t h e soul" (τά της ψυχής ε θ ν η ) . T h e s e c o n d r e f e r e n c e t o

1 2
T h i s is the only passage w h i c h m e n t i o n s Exod. 6:7. T h e following passages also
interpret Lev. 26:12: Post. 122, Mut. 2 6 5 - 6 6 , Somn. 1.148, Somn. 2.248, Praem. 123. Except
for Praem. 123, discussed below, these other e x e g e s e s focus u p o n the first part o f the
verse—"I shall walk a m o n g you"—and redefine t h o s e a m o n g w h o m or "in w h o m "
G o d walks. Praem. 123 also interprets the s e c o n d part o f the verse: "You shall be a
p e o p l e to me."
1 3
T h e H e b r e w a n d Greek differ in the last part of Deut. 32:8. In the Hebrew, G o d
1
sets the b o u n d a r i e s of nations "according to the n u m b e r o f the sons of Israel (nBOD ?
' » ) " ; in the Greek, it is "according to the n u m b e r o f the angels o f G o d ( κ α τ ά
αριθμόν αγγέλων θεοΰ)."
138 CHAPTER FOUR

"nations" i n verse 8 is c o n s t r u e d as offspring ( ε κ γ ο ν ο ι ) o r f o r m s ( ε ϊ δ η ) o f

1 4
virtue. H e r e as e l s e w h e r e , P h i l o interprets a n g e l s as w o r d s o f G o d . T h u s
t h e a n g e l s o r w o r d s o f G o d are e q u a l in n u m b e r a n d c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e
f o r m s o f virtue. N e x t , h e i n t e r p r e t s t h e s o n s o f A d a m as c h i l d r e n o f t h e
earth, a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p r e s u m a b l y b a s e d u p o n t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n
t h e H e b r e w w o r d s for A d a m (D1») a n d earth (iiD"iK) (cf. Leg. 1.90). A c c o r d ­
ingly, G o d sets apart f r o m H i m s e l f t h o s e w h o are c o n c e r n e d w i t h earthly
m a t t e r s . T h e s e p a r a t i o n o f earthly a n d g o d l y p u r s u i t s is, o f c o u r s e , a
c o m m o n t h e m e i n P h i l o ' s work.
P h i l o t h e n c o n t i n u e s , i n c o r p o r a t i n g Deut.-32:9:

But what are t h e portions o f His angels, a n d what is the allotted share o f the All-
Sovereign Ruler? T h e particular virtues b e l o n g to the servants, to t h e Ruler t h e
c h o s e n [ r a c e / c l a s s ] o f Israel. For h e that sees G o d , drawn to h i m by surpassing
beauty, has b e e n allotted [or has allotted himself] as His portion to H i m [ w h o is
s e e n ] . (Post. 92)

T h i s passage contrasts t h e p o r t i o n s o f t h e angels with t h e p o r t i o n o f G o d .

T h e a n g e l s o r servants g e t t h e various forms o r s p e c i e s o f virtue (oci εν εΐδει
ά ρ ε τ α ί ) , w h i l e G o d t h e Master h a s f o r H i s o w n t h e "chosen r a c e / c l a s s " o f
Israel (τό έ π ί λ ε κ τ ο ν γ έ ν ο ς Ι σ ρ α ή λ ) . H e r e P h i l o plays u p o n a d o u b l e
m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d γ έ ν ο ς . A l t h o u g h it c a n signify race o r class, as w e
have s e e n , it also d e n o t e s t h e g e n u s , o r t h e g e n e r a l class, in contrast t o t h e
είδος, o r s p e c i e s . T h u s , t h e particulars o f virtue b e l o n g t o t h e s u b o r d i n a t e s
o f G o d , w h i l e t h e g e n u s o f virtue o r t h e r a c e / c l a s s , γ έ ν ο ς , o f Israel b e l o n g s
to H i m .
T h e n , u s i n g t h e e t y m o l o g y f o r Israel, P h i l o e x p l a i n s w h y "Israel"
b e l o n g s t o G o d : t h e o n e w h o sees G o d (ό ορών τον θεόν) b e l o n g s to t h e O n e
w h o is s e e n (ό ό ρ ώ μ ε ν ο ς ) . B e c a u s e t h e e t y m o l o g y assigns a n active r o l e t o
"Israel" as t h e o n e that s e e s , P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n t r o d u c e s a m o r e
reciprocal a s p e c t t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a n is portrayed i n t h e Bible. W h e r e ­
as t h e Scriptural verse offers n o a p p a r e n t reason for G o d ' s a p p o i n t m e n t o f
Israel, P h i l o p r o v i d e s a r a t i o n a l e that m a k e s G o d ' s c h o i c e s e e m l e s s
arbitrary.
In this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e n , t h e literal m e a n i n g o f a passage that m i g h t
b e c o n s t r u e d as indicative o f a special r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e
n a t i o n Israel d i s a p p e a r s c o m p l e t e l y . P h i l o retains t h e i d e a that Israel is
c h o s e n b u t i n t e r p r e t s Israel as b o t h g e n e r i c virtue a n d t h e o n e that s e e s
G o d . H e d o e s n o t d e n y that Israel is a real n a t i o n that is c h o s e n ; h e simply
15
ignores the issue.

1 4
See, e.g., Conf. 28, Migr. 173, Somn. 1.148.
1 5
S e e Plant. 5 8 - 6 0 for another e x a m p l e o f h o w Philo redefines Israel in an interpre­
tation of the same passage, Deut. 32:7-9.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 139

Migr. 53-61

T h e fairly i n t r i c a t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n this p a s s a g e p r o v i d e s a g o o d
i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e d i f f e r e n t ways i n w h i c h P h i l o c h a n g e s t h e s e n s e o f
Biblical verses a b o u t G o d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p to Israel. T h e p a s s a g e i n t e r p r e t s
t h r e e r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n s : G e n . 12:2, in w h i c h G o d p r o m i s e s A b r a h a m that
H e will m a k e h i m a "great n a t i o n " (Migr. 5 3 ) ; D e u t . 4 : 6 - 7 , w h i c h e m p h a ­
sizes that G o d is n e a r to t h e n a t i o n , calling it "a wise a n d k n o w i n g p e o p l e "
(Migr. 5 6 - 5 8 ) ; a n d D e u t . 7 : 7 - 8 , w h i c h says that G o d c h o o s e s t h e p e o p l e o f
Israel n o t b e c a u s e they are n u m e r o u s b u t b e c a u s e H e loves t h e m a n d is
k e e p i n g H i s o a t h with their forefathers (Migr. 5 9 - 6 1 ) . In this passage, P h i l o
c h a n g e s t h e s e n s e o f "great nation"; p r o v i d e s a different basis f r o m t h e
Bible for c a l l i n g it "a wise a n d k n o w i n g people"; r e d e f i n e s t h e "nation" t o
w h i c h G o d is near; a n d u s e s D e u t . 7 : 7 - 8 as a p r o o f text for an o b s e r v a t i o n
u n c o n n e c t e d to t h e Biblical c o n t e x t .
Migr. 5 3 - 6 1 is part o f a n e x t e n d e d allegory o f t h e soul, in w h i c h P h i l o
interprets G o d ' s d i r e c t i o n s to A b r a h a m t o leave his h o m e l a n d ( G e n . 1 2 : 1 -
3 ) . In this particular s e c t i o n , P h i l o is interpreting G e n . 12:2, in w h i c h G o d
p r o m i s e s A b r a h a m , "And I will m a k e o f y o u a great n a t i o n (έθνος μ έ γ α ) . "
P h i l o c o n s t r u e s this b l e s s i n g o f a "great n a t i o n " t o b e " i m p r o v e m e n t o f
t h e d o c t r i n e s o f virtue toward n u m b e r a n d g r e a t n e s s t o g e t h e r " (Migr. 5 3 ,
m y t r a n s l a t i o n ) . H e f o c u s e s u p o n t h e phrase "great n a t i o n " to d e v e l o p t h e
i d e a t h a t "great" signifies g r o w t h a n d i m p r o v e m e n t w h i l e "nation" d e ­
n o t e s p o p u l o u s n e s s o r large n u m b e r (Migr. 5 3 ) . T h e e n s u i n g t r e a t m e n t
( t h r o u g h Migr. 69) e x p o u n d s u p o n this t h e m e o f greatness a n d n u m b e r , or
quality a n d quantity, t h r o u g h e x p l o r a t i o n o f o t h e r o c c u r r e n c e s o f w o r d s
s u c h as "great," "many," o r "great n a t i o n " in o t h e r Biblical verses.
After Migr. 5 3 , o u r particular interest is in Migr. 5 6 - 5 8 , in w h i c h P h i l o
i n t e r p r e t s D e u t . 4 : 6 - 7 , a n d Migr. 5 9 - 6 1 , in w h i c h h e cites D e u t . 7 : 7 - 8 .
B e c a u s e this e x e g e s i s is fairly c o m p l i c a t e d , I h a v e d i v i d e d t h e d i s c u s s i o n
i n t o two sections.

Migr. 56-58. In Migr. 56, P h i l o turns to D e u t . 4 : 6 - 7 b e c a u s e this Biblical

p a s s a g e p r o v i d e s two e x a m p l e s o f t h e phrase "great n a t i o n . " In t h e B i b l e ,
t h e verses a p p e a r in t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n t e x t :
A d d r e s s i n g t h e Israelites, M o s e s declares,

5 B e h o l d I have shown you o r d i n a n c e s and decrees, as the Lord c o m m a n d e d m e ,

that you s h o u l d d o so in the land which you are entering to possess. 6And y o u will
observe a n d d o t h e m , because this is your wisdom a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g in the eyes
o f all the nations, as many as will hear all these o r d i n a n c e s , and they will say,
' B e h o l d this great nation is a wise a n d knowing p e o p l e . ' 7For what great n a t i o n
is there that has God drawing near to it as the Lord our G o d [draws near to us] in
all things for w h i c h we may call u p o n Him? (Deut. 4:5-7, my translation)
140 CHAPTER FOUR

A l t h o u g h t h e s e verses d o n o t m e n t i o n G o d ' s c h o i c e o f Israel as explicitly

as s o m e o f t h e o t h e r s c o n s i d e r e d so far, D e u t . 4:7 d o e s refer t o t h e n a t i o n ' s
special access to G o d .
As n o t e d , P h i l o b r i n g s in this passage b e c a u s e it h a s t h e p h r a s e "great
n a t i o n , " w h i c h o c c u r s t w i c e . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e B i b l e , i n t h e first
o c c u r r e n c e ( D e u t . 4 : 6 ) , t h e w o r d s "great n a t i o n " are attributed t o "all t h e
n a t i o n s " that, i m p r e s s e d by Israel's o b s e r v a n c e o f t h e M o s a i c statutes,
d e c l a r e , " B e h o l d this g r e a t n a t i o n is a wise a n d k n o w i n g p e o p l e . " T h e
s e c o n d o c c u r r e n c e ( D e u t . 4:7) is s p o k e n by Moses, w h o associates t h e great
n a t i o n , i.e., Israel, w i t h G o d ' s n e a r n e s s to it. In this s e c o n d verse, M o s e s
asks, "For w h a t great n a t i o n is t h e r e that has G o d drawing n e a r to it as t h e
L o r d o u r G o d [draws n e a r to us]? ..."
I g n o r i n g t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e first o c c u r r e n c e , n a m e l y , that t h e w o r d s are
s p o k e n by all t h e n a t i o n s in a d m i r a t i o n o f Israel's statutes, P h i l o links t h e
d e c l a r a t i o n o f t h e s e n a t i o n s w i t h M o s e s ' s q u e s t i o n w h i c h follows. As w e
shall s e e b e l o w , h e c o m b i n e s D e u t . 4:6 a n d 7 a n d uses this c o m b i n a t i o n in
two d i f f e r e n t ways.
In a d d i t i o n , a c c o r d i n g to t h e H e b r e w , Moses's q u e s t i o n in D e u t . 4:7 is
"For w h a t great n a t i o n is t h e r e (Vm "na Ό Ό) that has [ G o d ] so n e a r to it as
t h e L o r d o u r G o d is to us, w h e n e v e r w e call u p o n H i m ? " T h e i m p l i e d
a n s w e r is t h a t o n l y Israel is this g r e a t n a t i o n . T h e G r e e k , h o w e v e r ,
translates the H e b r e w interrogative "who" o r "which," as π ο ι ο ν — a
16
w o r d that c a n also m e a n "what k i n d of." T h u s , in t h e G r e e k , M o s e s ' s
q u e s t i o n c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d as "What k i n d o f great n a t i o n is there?" rather
t h a n as "What great n a t i o n is there?" In answer to t h e latter q u e s t i o n , o n e
w o u l d n a m e a particular nation; in answer to the former, o n e w o u l d
n a m e a quality.
T o return t o Migr. 56, w e find a c o m p l i c a t e d e x e g e s i s that c o m b i n e s this
different n u a n c e o f t h e G r e e k with Philo's c o n c e r n t o e x p l o r e t h e m e a n ­
i n g o f "great n a t i o n " as i m p l y i n g b o t h greatness a n d n u m b e r . H e writes,

T h e b e g i n n i n g and e n d of the greatness and large n u m b e r of the n o b l e (οί καλοί)

is the c o n t i n u o u s m e m o r y of G o d and the calling down of h e l p from H i m against
the familiar, confusing, a n d relentless batde of life, for it says, ' B e h o l d this great
n a d o n is a wise a n d knowing p e o p l e ; for what kind o f great nation is there that
has G o d drawing near to it as the Lord our God [draws near to us] in all things for
which we may call u p o n Him?' (Migr. 56, my translation)

In t h e first part o f this passage, P h i l o associates "great n a t i o n " w i t h t h e

m e m o r y o f G o d a n d t h e s u m m o n i n g o f H i s h e l p . H a v i n g already set
aside t h e literal m e a n i n g o f "great n a t i o n " by u n d e r s t a n d i n g "great" t o

1 6
This is the only instance in which the LXX translates *D as π ο ι ο ς . More c o m m o n ­
ly, it uses τίς or τις.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 141

signify g r e a t n e s s a n d "nation" t o signify p o p u l o u s n e s s , h e n o w a s c r i b e s

t h e s e qualities t o t h e n o b l e . T h e great n a t i o n , t h e n , consists o f t h e n o b l e
o n e s i n s t e a d o f a particular e t h n i c g r o u p .
N e x t , w h e n P h i l o q u o t e s D e u t . 4 : 6 - 7 as a p r o o f t e x t that t h e m e m o r y o f
a n d c a l l i n g u p o n G o d are a s s o c i a t e d with a g r e a t n a t i o n , h e m e r g e s t h e
two Biblical verses D e u t . 4:6 a n d 7 i n t o o n e . H e r e w e s e e h i s first u s e o f
t h e s e c o m b i n e d verses. As n o t e d a b o v e , in D e u t . 4:6, w h e n t h e n a t i o n s
b e h o l d Israel's o b s e r v a n c e o f divine statutes, they c o m m e n t , " B e h o l d this
g r e a t n a t i o n is a wise a n d k n o w i n g p e o p l e . " P h i l o turns t h e i r c o m m e n t
i n t o a n i m p l i e d a n s w e r t o M o s e s ' s q u e s t i o n that i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w s ,
n a m e l y , "What g r e a t n a t i o n is there? ..." B e c a u s e t h e w o r d π ο ι ο ν h a s a
different s e n s e , h o w e v e r , P h i l o u n d e r s t a n d s t h e q u e s t i o n to b e "What k i n d
o f g r e a t n a t i o n is there?" H e f i n d s t h e answer i n t h e p r e c e d i n g verse:
"This great n a t i o n is a wise a n d k n o w i n g p e o p l e . . . "
After f o c u s i n g u p o n t h e quality o f t h e great n a t i o n as a "wise a n d know­
i n g p e o p l e , " P h i l o n o w turns to t h e issue o f G o d ' s drawing n e a r , a n d h e
p o s e s a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n b a s e d u p o n D e u t . 4:7. In this passage h e u s e s t h e
c o m b i n e d verse D e u t . 4 : 6 - 7 in a slightly different way. H e writes,

So far it has b e e n shown that [at God's side a ready helpful power lies in wait to be
o f assistance] a n d that the Sovereign Ruler will H i m s e l f draw near for the benefit
o f those w h o are worthy to receive His benefits. But who are they that are worthy to
obtain these J Is it not clear that all the lovers of wisdom and knowledge are so? For these are
the wise a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g p e o p l e which was spoken of, e a c h m e m b e r o f w h i c h
is with g o o d reason great, since h e reaches o u t after great things; a n d after o n e
m o s t eagerly, never to be severed from God, the supremely Great, but without dis­
may stedfasdy to abide His approach as H e draws near. (Migr. 5 7 - 5 8 , my emphasis)

In this part o f his interpretation, P h i l o s e e m s to u n d e r s t a n d D e u t . 4 : 6 - 7

as f o l l o w s : "This g r e a t n a t i o n c o n s i s t s o f all wise a n d k n o w i n g p e o p l e
b e c a u s e w h a t [ o t h e r ] k i n d o f great n a t i o n is t h e r e that has G o d d r a w i n g
n e a r t o it?" T h u s , w h i l e t h e D e u t e r o n o m i c passage u s e s "wise a n d k n o w ­
i n g p e o p l e " to descnbe t h e great n a t i o n — n a m e l y , t h e e t h n i c g r o u p Israel—
in t h e eyes o f o t h e r n a t i o n s that b e h o l d their statutes, P h i l o uses t h e p h r a s e
"wise a n d k n o w i n g p e o p l e " to identify w h o t h e y are. Implicitly e l i m i n a t ­
i n g t h e e t h n i c identity o f t h e p e o p l e , h e a r g u e s that t h e g r e a t n a t i o n is
m a d e u p o f "all t h e lovers o f w i s d o m a n d k n o w l e d g e . "
Finally, P h i l o c o n c l u d e s by g o i n g o n e s t e p further. H e e x p l a i n s t h a t
wise a n d k n o w i n g p e o p l e are great precisely b e c a u s e they strive after G o d
a n d stand firm as H e draws near: "This is the d e f i n i n g mark o f t h e p e o p l e
that is 'great,' to draw n i g h to G o d , o r to b e that 'to w h i c h G o d draws n i g h ' "
(Migr. 5 9 ) . H e r e h e assigns t h e n a t i o n an active r o l e — n a m e l y , to draw
n e a r t o G o d — l e n d i n g it a quality that may e x p l a i n why G o d is n e a r t o it.
In Migr. 5 6 - 5 8 , t h e n , P h i l o transforms t h e m e a n i n g o f D e u t . 4 : 6 - 7 in
142 CHAPTER FOUR

several ways. By p r e s e n t i n g t h e great n a t i o n as wise a n d k n o w i n g p e o p l e ,

w h o are g r e a t b e c a u s e they strive toward G o d , P h i l o r e m o v e s any e t h n i c
a s s o c i a t i o n s f r o m t h e g r e a t n a t i o n . T o t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h o is w o r t h y o f
G o d ' s assistance, h e answers, "all lovers o f w i s d o m a n d k n o w l e d g e . " H e
also i g n o r e s t h e Biblical c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e n a t i o n ' s w i s d o m a n d t h e
divine c o m m a n d m e n t s a n d links t h e qualities o f w i s d o m a n d k n o w l e d g e
i n s t e a d with t h e striving toward G o d . In fact, the passage d o e s n o t m e n t i o n
G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s at all.

Migr. 59-61. F r o m this discussion, P h i l o g o e s o n to d e v e l o p t h e i d e a that

n u m b e r a l o n e w i t h o u t g r e a t n e s s is n o t e n o u g h ( 5 9 - 6 9 ) . T h e b e g i n n i n g o f
this a r g u m e n t is especially p e r t i n e n t b e c a u s e it cites D e u t . 7 : 7 - 8 , a Biblical
p a s s a g e that explicitly d e s c r i b e s G o d ' s s e l e c t i o n o f Israel. In t h e p a s s a g e ,
M o s e s a d d r e s s e s Israel as f o l l o w s : "It was n o t b e c a u s e y o u are m o r e
n u m e r o u s t h a n all t h e n a t i o n s that t h e Lord preferred y o u a n d c h o s e y o u ,
for y o u are t h e fewest c o m p a r e d with all the nations; b u t it is b e c a u s e t h e
L o r d loves y o u a n d is k e e p i n g t h e o a t h w h i c h H e swore to y o u r fathers..."
(my translation).
P h i l o writes, "Now t h e w o r l d a n d t h e wise m a n , t h e w o r l d - c i t i z e n , is
filled full o f g o o d t h i n g s , m a n y a n d great, b u t t h e r e m a i n i n g m a s s o f
m e n e x p e r i e n c e s evil t h i n g s in greater n u m b e r b u t fewer g o o d things; for
in t h e m e d l e y a n d c o n f u s i o n o f h u m a n life t h e g o o d is rare a n d scanty"
(Migr. 5 9 ) .
C o n t i n u i n g w i t h t h e t h e m e o f "great n a t i o n " as signifying g r e a t n e s s
a n d n u m b e r , P h i l o n o t e s that t h e g o o d t h i n g s that are b o t h m a n y a n d
g r e a t are p o s s e s s e d by a s e l e c t few. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , m a n y p e o p l e
partake o f evil t h i n g s in p l e n i t u d e b u t g o o d t h i n g s in scarcity, for i n t h e
m i x t u r e o f h u m a n life, w h a t is n o b l e is sparse. H e t h e n b r i n g s in D e u t .
7 : 7 - 8 as a n e x a m p l e o f t h e scarcity o f t h e g o o d a m o n g t h e m a n y a n d
interprets this verse o n the level o f the soul:

A n d for this reason the sacred oracles contain this utterance: 'Not because ye are
n u m e r o u s b e y o n d all the nations did the Lord prefer a n d c h o o s e you out; for ye
surpass all the nations in fewness; but because the Lord loveth you.' For were a m a n
to desire to distribute, as it were i n t o nations, the crowd c o n t a i n e d in a single
soul, m a n y disorderly c o m p a n i e s w o u l d h e find, c o m m a n d e d by p l e a s u r e s or
desires or griefs or fears or again by follies a n d w r o n g d o i n g s , a n d the nearest
kinsfolk of these, but o n e only well-ordered, of which right reason is the captain.
{Migr. 60)

P h i l o o m i t s t h e part o f t h e verse that m e n t i o n s G o d ' s p r o m i s e to t h e

n a t i o n ' s forefathers, a n d h e d o e s n o t refer in his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to G o d ' s
l o v e , a l t h o u g h h e d o e s i n c l u d e this part in t h e q u o t a t i o n . I n s t e a d h e
f o c u s e s u p o n t h e n a t i o n ' s small p o p u l a t i o n : "For ye surpass all t h e n a t i o n s
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 143

in fewness." P h i l o t h e n p r o v i d e s a n allegory o f t h e s o u l to e m p h a s i z e t h e
rarity o f w h a t is g o o d . Even t h e soul is a m i x t u r e o f g o o d a n d b a d , with t h e
b a d o u t n u m b e r i n g t h e g o o d . O n l y o n e e l e m e n t in t h e soul, right r e a s o n (o
ορθός λ ό γ ο ς ) , is w e l l - o r d e r e d . In this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f D e u t . 7 : 7 - 8 , t h e n ,
right reason, the only g o o d e l e m e n t a m o n g the e l e m e n t s of the soul,
c o r r e s p o n d s t o Israel, t h e smallest a m o n g the n a t i o n s .
P h i l o n o w shifts h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n away f r o m t h e a l l e g o r y o f t h e s o u l .
In Migr. 6 1 - 6 3 , h e a r g u e s that w h i l e h u m a n b e i n g s v a l u e t h e u n j u s t
m u l t i t u d e o v e r t h e s i n g l e j u s t p e r s o n , G o d p r e f e r s t h e few g o o d t o t h e
m a n y unjust. H e a d d u c e s further p r o o f t e x t s for this a r g u m e n t , b u t n o n e
pertains directly t o t h e s e l e c t i o n o f Israel.
In Migr. 5 9 - 6 1 , t h e n , P h i l o eclipses any s e n s e o f G o d ' s s e l e c t i o n o f t h e
e t h n i c g r o u p Israel by i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e n a t i o n as a symbol o f right r e a s o n
in t h e s o u l . M o r e o v e r , by a r g u i n g that G o d prefers t h e few g o o d t o t h e
m a n y evil, h e suggests that divine c h o i c e is b a s e d u p o n virtue rather t h a n ,
as t h e B i b l e i m p l i e s , l i n e a g e .

The Allegory: A Summary

In t h e s e e x a m p l e s f r o m the Allegory, P h i l o transforms or simply i g n o r e s

t h e Biblical d e p i c t i o n o f G o d ' s relationship with Israel. T h e Bible speaks o f
a h i s t o r i c n a t i o n Israel s t a n d i n g in a special c o v e n a n t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o
G o d , b o u n d by o b e d i e n c e to H i s o r d i n a n c e s , favored b e c a u s e o f its fore­
fathers, o r c h o s e n o u t o f G o d ' s love. Philo, however, gives n e w m e a n i n g to
t e r m s s u c h as "covenant" (Sacr. 5 7 ) , "Israel" (Post. 9 1 - 9 2 ) , " c h o s e n race"
(Post. 9 1 - 9 2 ) , a n d "nation" (Post. 9 1 - 9 2 , Migr. 5 3 - 6 1 ) . H e also i g n o r e s o r
o m i t s r e f e r e n c e t o G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s (Sacr. 87, Migr. 5 6 - 5 8 ) , H i s
earlier p r o m i s e s to t h e patriarchs (Sacr. 87, Migr. 5 9 - 6 0 ) , o r H i s love (Migr.
59-60).
Instead, P h i l o p r o v i d e s t h e basis for a relationship with G o d o t h e r t h a n
t h r o u g h t h e c o v e n a n t a n d , w h i l e r e t a i n i n g t h e n o t i o n that G o d c h o o s e s ,
h e r e d e f i n e s w h o o r w h a t is c h o s e n . In Sacr. 57, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h G o d
w o u l d s e e m t o exist solely o n a c c o u n t o f divine grace: p e o p l e c a n n o t b e
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r v i r t u e , s i n c e v i r t u o u s b e h a v i o r is a gift o f G o d ' s
c o v e n a n t . O t h e r passages, h o w e v e r , s u g g e s t that o n e e a r n s s p e c i a l stand­
i n g w i t h G o d t h r o u g h m e r i t . P h i l o e m p h a s i z e s , f o r e x a m p l e , that G o d
r e s p o n d s to t h e d e v o t e d w o r s h i p p e r (Sacr. 87) a n d to t h o s e w h o draw n e a r
t o H i m — i . e . , all wise a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g p e o p l e (Migr. 5 7 - 5 9 ) . R e d e f i n i n g
"Israel" as "the o n e that s e e s G o d , " h e also e x p l a i n s that t h e o n e that s e e s
b e l o n g s t o t h e o n e w h o is s e e n . T h i s "chosen race o f Israel," m o r e o v e r , is
virtue (Post. 9 1 - 9 2 ) .
Finally, P h i l o u s e s verses a b o u t t h e divine e l e c t i o n o f Israel as p r o o f t e x t s
144 CHAPTER FOUR

to s u p p o r t p o i n t s u n r e l a t e d to the Biblical c o n t e x t . In Sacr. 87, h e uses E x o d .

6:7 a n d Lev. 2 6 : 1 2 - 1 3 to d e m o n s t r a t e that G o d r e s p o n d s readily to t h e true
w o r s h i p p e r , a n d in Migr. 6 0 , h e uses D e u t . 7:7-8 to m a k e t h e p o i n t that t h e
17
g o o d is r a r e .
G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , t h e n , in this series, P h i l o reworks t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel to p r e s e n t t h e i m p r e s s i o n that G o d associates with
virtue a n d with wise a n d k n o w i n g p e o p l e , w h o r e a c h o u t to H i m a n d w h o
s e e H i m . T h i s a p p r o a c h t o t h e Bible appears c o n s i s t e n t with his a i m s a n d
a u d i e n c e in this series. If i n d e e d Philo's readers are p e o p l e like h i m s e l f —
p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d J e w s w h o are a l s o w e l l - v e r s e d i n J e w i s h
t r a d i t i o n — t h e n h e has n o n e e d to e m p h a s i z e Scripture's portrayal o f G o d ' s
c o v e n a n t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a particular n a t i o n . P r e s u m a b l y h i s r e a d e r s
are m e m b e r s o f this n a t i o n w h o are o r w h o strive to b e a m o n g t h o s e w h o
c a n "see"—i.e., "Israel," as P h i l o u n d e r s t a n d s t h e t e r m . T h e s e r e a d e r s
wish t o e x p l o r e a n d a c h i e v e a d e e p e r r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e
soul. T h r o u g h his various interpretations o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d
a n d t h e n a t i o n Israel, P h i l o shows h o w Scripture p o i n t s t h e way.

The Exposition

In t h e E x p o s i t i o n t o o , P h i l o c h a n g e s t h e m e a n i n g o f Biblical verses a b o u t
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d I s r a e l — b u t in a s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t
way. T h e A l l e g o r y f r e q u e n t l y i n t e r p r e t s i n d i v i d u a l t e r m s a n d w h o l e
verses allegorically o r else u s e s verses as prooftexts to s u p p o r t p o i n t s u n r e ­
lated to t h e Biblical c o n t e x t . T h e E x p o s i t i o n , in contrast, o f t e n universalizes
t h e m e a n i n g o f Scripture by a p p l y i n g to all g o o d p e o p l e w h a t is said o f
Israel in particular.
As n o t e d earlier, P h i l o d o e s n o t m e n t i o n c o v e n a n t s b e t w e e n p e o p l e a n d
G o d at all in this series, e v e n t o give t h e m a n e w m e a n i n g . H e d o e s
emphasize the importance of observing God's c o m m a n d m e n t s , but he
g e n e r a l i z e s h i s d i s c u s s i o n in two ways. First, h e p r e s e n t s G o d ' s i n j u n c ­
t i o n s as e x h o r t a t i o n s c a l l i n g for u p r i g h t o r virtuous b e h a v i o r in g e n e r a l
i n s t e a d o f as specific l e g a l o r ritual r e q u i r e m e n t s that are part o f a n
a g r e e m e n t . S e c o n d , h e s p e a k s as t h o u g h t h e s e c o m m a n d m e n t s w e r e
d i r e c t e d t o w a r d any v i r t u o u s p e r s o n — n o t j u s t toward a specific n a t i o n .
T h e s e f e a t u r e s m a y p e r h a p s b e a c c o u n t e d for w h e n o n e c o n s i d e r s that
P h i l o m a y b e w r i t i n g for a s s i m i l a t e d J e w s o r non-Jews u n f a m i l i a r w i t h
Jewish beliefs a n d practices.

1 7
A n o t h e r e x a m p l e from the Allegory in which Philo brackets the original m e a n ­
ing o f a verse by using it as a prooftext is Sobr. 66, which c o m m e n t s o n E x o d . 19:6:
"You shall b e to m e a royal priesthood and a holy nation." See also the interpretation
of this verse in the Exposition passage Abr. 57, and below, n. 18.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 145

T o illustrate t h e s e various characteristics, I shall discuss Spec. 1 . 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 ,

1 8
303; Praem. 8 3 - 8 4 , 123; a n d Virt. 1 8 4 - 8 6 .

Spec. 1.299-300, 303

These passages provide a g o o d example of how Philo renders God's

m e s s a g e to Israel a p p l i c a b l e to a b r o a d e r a u d i e n c e . In t h e larger c o n t e x t ,
Spec. 1 . 2 9 9 - 3 1 1 , h e e x p o u n d s u p o n the e x h o r t a t i o n s a d d r e s s e d to Israel in
D e u t . 1 0 : 1 2 - 2 1 . T h e Biblical passage o p e n s as follows:

A n d now, Israel, what d o e s the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord
your G o d , to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your G o d with all
your heart a n d with all your soul, and to k e e p the c o m m a n d m e n t s and statutes o f
the Lord, which I c o m m a n d you this day for your good? (Deut. 10:12-13)

P h i l o p r e s e n t s t h e s e words o f M o s e s as follows:

[For G o d , h e says, asks from you, Ο Mind, n o t h i n g ] that is heavy or complicated or

difficult, but only s o m e t h i n g quite simple and easy. A n d this is just to love H i m as
a benefactor, or failing this to fear H i m at least as a ruler and lord, and to tread in
every way that will lead t h e e to please H i m , to serve H i m n o t halfheartedly but
with thy w h o l e soul filled with the determination to love H i m a n d to cling to His
c o m m a n d m e n t s and to h o n o u r justice. (Spec. 1.299-300)

Several p o i n t s are o f interest in this interpretation. First, P h i l o c h a n g e s

t h e a d d r e s s e e f r o m Israel to t h e m i n d . H e e m p h a s i z e s that what G o d asks
is n o t a b u r d e n b u t rather s o m e t h i n g s i m p l e . C o n s i d e r i n g his d i s c u s s i o n
in t h e A l l e g o r y , it is striking that h e r e h e retains t h e i n j u n c t i o n t o k e e p
G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s . T o this h e a d d s that o n e s h o u l d h o n o r j u s t i c e .
Finally, w h i l e t h e Bible e n j o i n s Israel equally to fear a n d love G o d , P h i l o
p l a c e s t h e love o f G o d above fear o f H i m , i m p l y i n g that H e is m o r e kindly
19
than stern.
A n o t h e r i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e Bible a n d P h i l o ' s d i s c u s s i o n
c a n b e f o u n d later in this section (Spec. 1.303), w h e r e P h i l o interprets D e u t .
10:15. T h i s verse, w h i c h refers explicitly to G o d ' s c h o i c e o f Biblical Israel's
ancestors, reads as follows: 'Yet t h e L o r d deliberately c h o s e y o u r fathers to

1 8
Also of interest are Abr. 5 6 - 5 9 and Virt. 163-74. In Abr. 5 6 - 5 9 , Philo refers to Exod.
19:6: "You shall be to Me a royal p r i e s t h o o d a n d a holy nation" (my translation).
Philo e x p l a i n s that the n a m e o f the nation is "Israel," w h i c h m e a n s "one that sees
God," and h e g o e s o n to elaborate about the vision of God. H e r e t h e n , h e introduces
ambiguity a b o u t w h e t h e r "Israel" is the historical nation or a g r o u p d e f i n e d by its
ability to see G o d , ignoring the idea that G o d chooses the nation Israel to be a special
p e o p l e to H i m . In Virt. 1 6 3 - 7 4 , Philo interprets Deut. 8:11-18, which refers to God's
covenant with Israel. Philo omits m e n t i o n o f the covenant and interprets the verses as
applying to p e o p l e in general.
1 9
Philo also places love of God above fear of H i m in Deus 69; cf. Migr. 21.
146 CHAPTER FOUR

love t h e m a n d c h o s e their d e s c e n d a n t s after t h e m , y o u a b o v e all n a t i o n s ,

as o n this day" (my t r a n s l a t i o n ) . In contrast, P h i l o writes, "Yet o u t o f t h e
w h o l e h u m a n race H e c h o s e as o f special m e r i t ( ά ρ ι σ τ ί ν δ η ν ) a n d j u d g e d
worthy o f p r e - e m i n e n c e o v e r all, t h o s e w h o are in a true s e n s e m e n ( o i
προς ά λ ή θ ε ι α ν ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ι ) , a n d c a l l e d t h e m to service o f Himself..." (Spec.
1 . 3 0 3 ) . In this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , G o d ' s apparently arbitrary c h o i c e o f Israel's
a n c e s t o r s b e c o m e s H i s s e l e c t i o n o f "true p e r s o n s " o n a c c o u n t o f t h e i r
merit.
In this s e c t i o n o f Spec. 1, t h e n , P h i l o portrays M o s e s ' s a d d r e s s t o t h e
particular n a t i o n o f Israel as an e x h o r t a t i o n to t h e m i n d in g e n e r a l , a n d h e
d e p i c t s t h e specific o b l i g a t i o n s p l a c e d u p o n Israel as a way o f life that
s h o u l d b e attractive t o any v i r t u o u s p e r s o n . Like t h e B i b l e , P h i l o t o o
e n j o i n s o b s e r v a n c e o f G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s . By a d d i n g , h o w e v e r , t h e
w o r d s "to h o n o r justice," o n e o f t h e cardinal virtues, h e c o n v e y s t h e s e n s e
that k e e p i n g t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s is a matter o f u p h o l d i n g virtue. Finally,
P h i l o e l i m i n a t e s t h e s e e m i n g arbitrariness o f G o d ' s s e l e c t i o n o f Israel's
a n c e s t o r s as Scripture p r e s e n t s it. R e t a i n i n g the n o t i o n that G o d c h o o s e s a
s e l e c t g r o u p , h e r e d e f i n e s this g r o u p a n d attributes G o d ' s c h o i c e to t h e i r
merit.

Praem. 79-126

S o m e o f t h e features n o t e d a b o v e are also a p p a r e n t in Praem. 7 9 - 1 2 6 , in

w h i c h P h i l o tells a b o u t t h e b l e s s i n g s — m e n t i o n e d in Leviticus a n d D e u t e r ­
o n o m y — w h i c h are b e s t o w e d u p o n t h o s e w h o o b e y t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s .
E s p e c i a l l y n o t e w o r t h y is that P h i l o e m p h a s i z e s o b e d i e n c e t o t h e c o m ­
m a n d m e n t s (Praem. 9 8 , 1 0 1 , 106, 1 1 0 - 1 1 , 119, 126) a n d speaks a b o u t t h o s e
w h o receive t h e a t t e n d a n t blessings as g o o d o r wise m e n in g e n e r a l rather
t h a n as m e m b e r s o f Israel o r as Jews (Praem. 1 1 2 , 1 2 0 ) . B e l o w , w e shall
e x a m i n e two s e c t i o n s o f this l o n g passage—Praem. 8 3 - 8 4 a n d 123.

Praem. 83-84
T h i s first s e c t i o n c o m m e n t s u p o n D e u t . 4 : 6 - 7 , w h i c h P h i l o also interprets
in Migr. 5 6 - 5 9 , d i s c u s s e d above. In that passage f r o m t h e Allegory, P h i l o
o m i t s t h e Biblical e m p h a s i s o n t h e n a t i o n ' s o b e d i e n c e to t h e c o m m a n d ­
m e n t s . H e r e in Praem., h o w e v e r , h e a c k n o w l e d g e s t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e
c o m m a n d m e n t s but generalizes the a u d i e n c e to w h o m the Biblical
m e s s a g e is a d d r e s s e d .
A g a i n , Scripture reads as follows:

5 B e h o l d I have shown y o u o r d i n a n c e s a n d decrees, as the Lord c o m m a n d e d m e ,

that you should d o so in the land which you are entering to possess. 6And you will
observe and d o t h e m , because this is your wisdom a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g in the eyes
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 147

o f all the n a t i o n s , as many as will hear all these o r d i n a n c e s , a n d they will say,
' B e h o l d this great n a t i o n is a wise a n d knowing p e o p l e . ' 7For what great n a t i o n
is there that has G o d drawing near to it as the Lord our G o d [draws near to us] in
all things for w h i c h we may call u p o n Him? (Deut. 4:5-7, my translation)

H e r e Israel is d i s t i n g u i s h e d , o n t h e o n e h a n d , by its c o m m a n d m e n t s
(verse 6) a n d , o n t h e o t h e r , by its special access to G o d (verse 7 ) .
As n o t e d a b o v e , t h e t r e a t m e n t o f this passage in Praem. 8 3 - 8 4 is part o f
P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e rewards g r a n t e d for o b e d i e n c e t o t h e d i v i n e
c o m m a n d m e n t s . T h e first c a t e g o r y o f b l e s s i n g s is victory o v e r o n e ' s
e n e m i e s . P h i l o i n t r o d u c e s this category (Praem. 8 0 - 8 1 ) with s o m e g e n e r a l
c o m m e n t s b a s e d u p o n D e u t . 3 0 : 1 1 - 1 4 a b o u t h o w t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s are
n o t t o o b u r d e n s o m e a n d s h o u l d b e f o l l o w e d in w o r d s , t h o u g h t s , a n d
d e e d s . In Praem. 8 2 , h e turns to D e u t . 4:6 a n d writes,

N o w w h e n the c o m m a n d m e n t s o f the laws are m e r e l y s p o k e n , they m e e t with

little or n o acceptance, but w h e n c o n s e q u e n t and c o n c o m i t a n t d e e d s are a d d e d in
all the habits o f life, the c o m m a n d m e n t s will shine around, as it were, b r o u g h t u p
from d e e p darkness into light, through praise and acclamation, (my translation)

T h i s c o m m e n t that it is n o t e n o u g h simply t o give lip service t o t h e

laws b u t that t h e y s h o u l d also b e o b s e r v e d in practice may b e a c o n s t r u a l
o f t h e d o u b l e i n j u n c t i o n in D e u t . 4:6 that Israel s h o u l d observe t h e c o m ­
m a n d m e n t s a n d d o t h e m . F r o m t h e r e d u n d a n c y o f t h e two verbs, P h i l o
m a y d e d u c e t h a t t h e first signifies s p e a k i n g , w h i l e t h e s e c o n d s i g n i f i e s
a c t i n g . W h e t h e r o r n o t this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is p r o m p t e d by t h e v e r b a l
r e d u n d a n c y , h o w e v e r , P h i l o ' s s t a t e m e n t that t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e laws is
e n h a n c e d by t h e i r o b s e r v a n c e is q u i t e s i g n i f i c a n t . I n d e e d , h e rarely
e m p h a s i z e s p r a c t i c e o f t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s , p r e f e r r i n g i n s t e a d t o discuss
2 0
t h e i r spiritual m e a n i n g .
Philo continues,

For w h o e v e n o f t h o s e w h o are malicious in nature w o u l d n o t say, 'Surely this

r a c e / c l a s s ( γ έ ν ο ς ) a l o n e is wise and m o s t knowing to w h o m it befell to leave the
divine teachings n o t empty and void of the d e e d s akin to t h e m , but w h o fulfilled
the words with praiseworthy deeds'? (Praem. 83, my translation)

In t h e B i b l e , t h e o b s e r v a t i o n "Surely this g r e a t n a t i o n is a wise a n d

k n o w i n g p e o p l e " is attributed t o t h e o t h e r n a t i o n s w h e n t h e y b e h o l d t h e
o r d i n a n c e s w h i c h Israel obeys. H e r e , P h i l o c o m m e n t s that a n y o n e , e v e n
21
a m a l i c i o u s p e r s o n , w o u l d m a k e s u c h a n o b s e r v a t i o n . H e also s u g g e s t s

2 0
Cf. the often-quoted Migr. 93, in which Philo writes that observance of the laws is
as i m p o r t a n t as their spiritual m e a n i n g .
2 1
Perhaps since Philo is about to discuss victory over o n e ' s e n e m i e s as a reward for
following the c o m m a n d m e n t s , h e wishes to suggest that o b e d i e n c e to the laws w o u l d
stir a d m i r a t i o n e v e n a m o n g o n e ' s e n e m i e s . T h u s h e claims that the observation
148 CHAPTER FOUR

that t h e n a t i o n c o n t i n u e s t o d e s e r v e a d m i r a t i o n . M o r e o v e r , s i n c e P h i l o
speaks in t h e past t e n s e a b o u t t h e γ έ ν ο ς that has fulfilled G o d ' s c o m m a n d ­
m e n t s , h e appears to b e talking a b o u t t h e Jews a n d their ancestors.
Finally, h e c o n c l u d e s ,

Such a [ r a c e / c l a s s ( γ έ ν ο ς ) ] has its dwelling n o t far from God; it has the vision o f
ethereal loveliness always before its eyes, and its steps are g u i d e d by a heavenward
yearning. So that if o n e should ask 'what m a n n e r of nation is great?' (ποιον έθνος
μ έ γ α ) o t h e r s m i g h t aptly answer 'a n a t i o n which has G o d to listen to its [most
r e v e r e n t ] prayers a n d to draw n i g h w h e n they call u p o n h i m with a c l e a n
conscience.' (Praem. 84)

A g a i n , t h e G r e e k t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n i n D e u t . 4:7 c a n b e
u n d e r s t o o d e i t h e r as "What k i n d o f g r e a t n a t i o n is t h e r e ? " o r as "What
great n a t i o n is there?" as t h e H e b r e w i n t e n d s . In Migr. 5 6 - 5 9 , P h i l o an­
swers this q u e s t i o n with t h e w o r d s that p r e c e d e in D e u t . 4:6, n a m e l y , that
t h e great n a t i o n is m a d e u p o f wise a n d k n o w i n g p e o p l e . H e r e , h o w e v e r ,
h e divides t h e e n t i r e q u e s t i o n p o s e d in D e u t . 4:7 i n t o a q u e s t i o n a n d a n
answer. I n s t e a d o f "What k i n d o f great n a t i o n is t h e r e that has G o d draw­
i n g n e a r t o it? ..." h e asks, "What k i n d o f n a t i o n is great?" H i s answer is
b a s e d u p o n t h e rest o f D e u t . 4:7: t h e great n a t i o n is t h e o n e that has G o d
drawing n e a r to it w h e n e v e r its m e m b e r s call u p o n H i m .
In t h e q u e s t i o n p o s e d in Scripture, M o s e s i m p l i e s that Israel is t h e great
n a t i o n a n d h e calls G o d "our God." P h i l o , however, stops short o f identify­
i n g t h e n a t i o n . I n s t e a d h e simply answers in t h e third p e r s o n , amplifying
t h e n a t u r e o f t h e call a n d t h e i n t e n t i o n o f the callers. T h u s h e writes that
t h e great n a t i o n is t h e o n e whose most reverent prayers r e a c h G o d a n d w h o s e
m e m b e r s f i n d H i m n e a r w h e n t h e y call u p o n H i m with pure conscience
(Praem. 8 4 , m y e m p h a s i s ) . U n l i k e t h e Scriptural verse, w h i c h gives t h e
s e n s e that G o d r e s p o n d s a u t o m a t i c a l l y t o t h e n a t i o n Israel w h e n e v e r its
p e o p l e s u m m o n H i m , this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n suggests that H e r e s p o n d s o n l y
w h e n a call is m o t i v a t e d by g e n u i n e h o l i n e s s a n d purity.
W h a t is especially striking a b o u t this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n — a t least c o m p a r e d
with h i s t r e a t m e n t in t h e A l l e g o r y — i s P h i l o ' s e m p h a s i s u p o n f o l l o w i n g
t h e laws in p r a c t i c e . H e r e h e u p h o l d s b o t h characteristics o f t h e g r e a t
n a t i o n m e n t i o n e d in t h e B i b l e — o b s e r v a n c e o f t h e laws a n d n e a r n e s s t o
G o d . W h i l e t h e o r i g i n a l w o r d s in D e u t e r o n o m y are a d d r e s s e d t o t h e
historic p e o p l e Israel, h o w e v e r , P h i l o derives f r o m t h e m a g e n e r a l l e s s o n
for all t i m e : e v e n o n e ' s "worst e n e m i e s " will a d m i r e t h e k i n d o f p e o p l e
w h o u p h o l d t h e laws. By u s i n g t h e past t e n s e , h e i m p l i e s that u p u n t i l
n o w , t h e s e p e o p l e have b e e n t h e Jews a n d their ancestors.

m a d e by the nations would be m a d e even by a wicked person.

 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 149

B e s i d e s u s i n g t h e Biblical p h r a s e έθνος μέγα, g r e a t n a t i o n , P h i l o a l s o

uses the m o r e ambiguous word γένος, race/class or kind, to describe the
g r o u p that o b s e r v e s t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s . B e c a u s e h e u s e s γ έ ν ο ς sparingly
in his e x e g e t i c a l works w h e n h e speaks a b o u t t h e real Biblical o r c o n t e m ­
porary n a t i o n , h i s c h o i c e o f w o r d s h e r e m a y u n d e r s c o r e h i s e m p h a s i s i n
this p a s s a g e t h a t w h a t is primarily i m p o r t a n t is p r a c t i c e o f t h e laws a n d
t h e w o r s h i p p e r ' s purity o f i n t e n t i o n rather t h a n — a s t h e B i b l e i m p l i e s —
m e m b e r s h i p in t h e historic n a t i o n Israel.

Praem. 123

A t t h e e n d o f this l o n g passage in Praem. ( 7 9 - 1 2 6 ) a b o u t t h e b l e s s i n g s o r

rewards b e s t o w e d u p o n t h o s e w h o live virtuously a n d o b e y t h e c o m m a n d ­
m e n t s , P h i l o gives n e w m e a n i n g t o t h e p h r a s e " c h o s e n p e o p l e . " In this
larger s e c t i o n , h e discusses t h e blessings in c a t e g o r i e s , g r o u p i n g t o g e t h e r ,
for e x a m p l e , t h e blessings o f victory over e n e m i e s or blessings o f different
k i n d s o f w e a l t h . B e g i n n i n g i n Praem. 118, h e turns to the blessings
b e s t o w e d u p o n t h e body. Particularly relevant h e r e is his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f
Lev. 26:12, q u o t e d further below.
A l t h o u g h t h e blessings in t h e Biblical passages are d i r e c t e d toward t h e
n a t i o n Israel, P h i l o again c h a n g e s t h e r e c i p i e n t o f t h e s e b l e s s i n g s t o t h e
m o r e g e n e r a l "man o f worth" ( σ π ο υ δ α ί ο ς , Praem. 1 2 0 ) . In Praem. 1 2 0 - 2 2 ,
h e e x p l a i n s that b o d i l y h e a l t h is b e s t o w e d u p o n t h e m a n o f w o r t h particu­
larly for t h e sake o f t h e m i n d , that it m a y enjoy p e a c e f u l n e s s a n d d e v o t e
itself t o c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f w i s d o m a n d h o l y t h o u g h t s . A t this p o i n t , h e
b r i n g s in Lev. 26:12: "I shall walk a m o n g y o u (έν ήμΐν) a n d I shall b e G o d
t o y o u a n d y o u shall b e My p e o p l e " (my translation).
P h i l o t r a n s p o s e s t h e m e a n i n g o f this verse t o t h e level o f t h e m i n d
(νους, Praem. 120; δ ι ά ν ο ι α , Praem. 1 2 3 ) . L i k e n i n g t h e m i n d to G o d ' s h o u s e ,
h e e l a b o r a t e s u p o n t h e m e t a p h o r o f G o d walking, u n d e r s t a n d i n g έν ήμΐν,
a m o n g y o u , as "in you." It is t h e m i n d o f t h e g o o d m a n , h e declares,

in w h i c h G o d , so says the p r o p h e t , 'walks' as in a palace, for in truth the wise

m a n ' s m i n d is a palace and h o u s e of God. This it is which is d e c l a r e d to possess
personally the G o d w h o is the God o f all, this again is the chosen people ( λ α ό ς
ε ξ α ί ρ ε τ ο ς ) , the p e o p l e n o t of particular rulers, but of the o n e and only true ruler, [a
holy p e o p l e of a holy ruler]. (Praem. 123)

By i d e n t i f y i n g t h e " c h o s e n p e o p l e " as t h e m i n d o f t h e m a n o f w o r t h ,
P h i l o c o m p l e t e l y c h a n g e s t h e original m e a n i n g o f a verse that d e s c r i b e s
G o d ' s c h o i c e o f t h e n a t i o n Israel to b e His p e o p l e . T h e universal "God o f
all" b e c o m e s t h e p e r s o n a l G o d o f t h e m i n d o f t h e m a n o f w o r t h , n o t o f a
specific n a t i o n . M o r e o v e r , u n l i k e a specific p e o p l e , t h e m i n d is n o t subject
to any particular ruler, b u t to G o d a l o n e . In c h a n g i n g t h e r e c i p i e n t o f t h e
150 CHAPTER FOUR

b l e s s i n g s f r o m t h e n a t i o n Israel to t h e m a n o f w o r t h a n d in u n d e r s t a n d ­
i n g t h e " c h o s e n p e o p l e " to b e t h e m i n d o f s u c h a m a n , P h i l o s h o w s h i s
readers that t h e particular t e a c h i n g s o f J u d a i s m carry universal i m p o r t .

Virt. 184-86

In this p a s s a g e , P h i l o c o n v e y s a similar m e s s a g e t o his a u d i e n c e . T h e

larger c o n t e x t in Virt. ( 1 7 5 - 8 6 ) is a discussion o f r e p e n t a n c e o r c o n v e r s i o n
( μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α ) . As part o f this d i s c u s s i o n , P h i l o e m p h a s i z e s that e v e n o n e
w o r s h i p p e r m a y b e e q u a l in w o r t h t o a w h o l e n a t i o n . T o a r g u e this p o i n t ,
h e a g a i n c h a n g e s t h e s e n s e o f a Biblical passage ( D e u t . 2 6 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) t h a t
e x p r e s s e s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e n a t i o n Israel.
A l t h o u g h P h i l o b e g i n s t h e s e c t i o n by s p e a k i n g a b o u t μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α as
r e p e n t a n c e (Virt. 1 7 5 - 7 9 ) , h e t h e n turns to a different aspect o f μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α ,
i.e., t h e c h a n g e f r o m revering c r e a t e d things to h o n o r i n g G o d (Virt. 1 8 0 ) .
H e r e h e speaks a b o u t proselytes (Virt. 1 8 1 - 8 2 ) . In Virt. 1 8 3 , P h i l o g o e s o n to
e m p h a s i z e , o n t h e basis o f D e u t . 3 0 : 1 1 - 1 4 , that w h a t is r e q u i r e d is n o t
b e y o n d o n e ' s r e a c h . T h e D e u t e r o n o m y passage is as follows:

For the Lord your G o d will again rejoice in you for g o o d , j u s t as H e rejoiced in
your fathers, if you will listen to the voice of the Lord your God, to observe a n d d o
all His c o m m a n d m e n t s a n d His o r d i n a n c e s and His d e c r e e s that are written in
the b o o k o f this law, if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart a n d with
all your soul. For this c o m m a n d m e n t which I c o m m a n d you today is n o t excessive
n o r is it far from you... T h e word is very near you, in your m o u t h a n d in your
heart and in your hands, that you may d o it. (Deut. 3 0 : 9 - 1 1 , 14, my translation)

P h i l o u n d e r s t a n d s " m o u t h , h e a r t , a n d h a n d s " t o signify "words,

t h o u g h t s , a n d d e e d s , " e x p l a i n i n g , "For t h e m o u t h is a s y m b o l o f s p e e c h ,
t h e h e a r t [a s y m b o l ] o f t h o u g h t s a n d i n t e n t i o n s , a n d t h e h a n d s [a sym­
b o l ] o f a c t i o n a n d in t h e s e lies h a p p i n e s s " (Virt. 1 8 3 ) . H e elaborates, "For
w h e n t h o u g h t s c o r r e s p o n d to words a n d actions c o r r e s p o n d t o i n t e n t i o n s ,
life is p r a i s e w o r t h y a n d p e r f e c t , b u t w h e n t h e y are at strife w i t h e a c h
o t h e r , it is i m p e r f e c t a n d a matter for reproach" (Virt. 1 8 4 ) . In praising t h e
h a r m o n y o f w o r d s , t h o u g h t s , a n d d e e d s , P h i l o d o e s n o t specify t h e c o m ­
m a n d m e n t s , w h i c h are central to t h e original c o n t e x t i n D e u t e r o n o m y .
Instead, it w o u l d s e e m that this h a r m o n y is a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h u n s p e c i f i e d
means.
P h i l o t h e n m o d i f i e s D e u t . 2 6 : 1 7 - 1 8 . T h e Biblical verses r e a d , "Today
y o u have c h o s e n G o d to b e y o u r G o d a n d t o walk in H i s ways a n d k e e p
H i s o r d i n a n c e s a n d d e c r e e s a n d o b e y His voice; a n d t h e L o r d has c h o s e n
y o u today t o b e a special p e o p l e ( λ α ό ς περιούσιος) to H i m , j u s t as H e said to
y o u ( κ α θ ά π ε ρ είπεν σ ο ι ) , t o k e e p all H i s c o m m a n d m e n t s . . . " ( m y trans­
lation) .
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 151

In Virt. 1 8 4 - 8 5 , P h i l o writes,

If s o m e o n e d o e s n o t n e g l e c t this h a r m o n y [ a m o n g thoughts, words, a n d d e e d s ] ,

h e will be well-pleasing to G o d , b e c o m i n g at the same time God-loving a n d God-
b e l o v e d . W h e r e f o r e in full accord with these words, this oracle was delivered:
'Today you have chosen G o d to be God to you, and the Lord has chosen you today to
be a p e o p l e to Him.' Beautiful is the mutuality of the c h o i c e , with a person, o n the
o n e h a n d , h a s t e n i n g to serve the Existent, and, o n the o t h e r , G o d h a s t e n i n g
immediately to take to Himself the suppliant and to anticipate the intention o f the
o n e w h o sincerely and honestly c o m e s to His service.' (my translation)

C o m p a r i n g P h i l o ' s Scriptural q u o t a t i o n with t h e original verses,'we c a n

see that h e makes three omissions: the condition of o b e d i e n c e to the
c o m m a n d m e n t s , t h e r e f e r e n c e to G o d ' s earlier p r o m i s e ( κ α θ ά π ε ρ ε ι π ε ν
2 2
σ ο ι ) , a n d t h e adjective π ε ρ ι ο ύ σ ι ο ς , special, that m o d i f i e s λ α ό ς , p e o p l e . As
to t h e first, by u s i n g this passage as a p r o o f t e x t for w h a t h a p p e n s w h e n
o n e ' s t h o u g h t s , w o r d s , a n d d e e d s are in a g r e e m e n t , P h i l o i g n o r e s t h e
c o n d i t i o n o f o b e d i e n c e to t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s , c h a n g i n g it t o a c h i e v e ­
m e n t of h a r m o n y a m o n g thoughts, words, and deeds. Without explain­
i n g h o w o n e o u g h t t o a c h i e v e this h a r m o n y , h e a r g u e s t h a t w h e n
s o m e o n e d o e s arrive at this state, that p e r s o n will "be well-pleasing to G o d ,
b e c o m i n g at t h e s a m e t i m e God-loving a n d God-beloved." T h u s , i n s t e a d o f
m e n t i o n i n g o b e d i e n c e , P h i l o i n s t e a d stresses t h e i m m e d i a t e l y r e c i p r o c a l
n a t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d a n y o n e w h o a c h i e v e s har­
m o n y in his o r h e r behavior. In k e e p i n g with his earlier c l a i m that G o d ' s
r e q u i r e m e n t s are n o t b u r d e n s o m e , p e r h a p s h e prefers to p r e s e n t t h e s e
r e q u i r e m e n t s as s o m e w h a t g e n e r a l t h a n to call a t t e n t i o n to t h e specific
obligations of the commandments.
S e c o n d , by o m i t t i n g m e n t i o n o f G o d ' s p r o m i s e , P h i l o e l i m i n a t e s t h e
s e n s e that H i s a c t i o n is part o f a s t a n d i n g a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d a
particular p e o p l e . T h e third modification, omission of the word for
"special" to d e s c r i b e t h e p e o p l e , may o r may n o t b e significant.
T h e real p o i n t o f t h e interpretation, however, seems to be what Philo
says n e x t . H e c o n t i n u e s , "And t h e true servant a n d suppliant, e v e n t h o u g h
in actual n u m b e r h e b e b u t o n e , is in real value, w h a t G o d ' s o w n c h o i c e
makes him, the whole p e o p l e , in w o r t h e q u a l t o a c o m p l e t e n a t i o n "
23
(Virt. 1 8 5 ) .

2 2
Further discrepancies—which are n o t immediately relevant to the present discus­
s i o n — c a n be f o u n d in other manuscripts of this passage. See David T. Runia, "Under­
n e a t h C o h n and Colson: T h e T e x t o f Philo's De Virtutibus," SBL 1991 Seminar Papers,
SBL Seminar Paper Series, ed. E u g e n e Lovering, Jr., n o . 30 (Atlanta: Scholars Press),
126.
2 3
In the LCL edition, F. H. Colson n o t e s that the phrase καθάπερ αυτός αίρεΐται,
w h i c h h e translates, "what God's own c h o i c e makes him," is obscure, a n d h e suggests
several possible emendations. See LCL, 8:276-77, n. 3 and 448, n o t e o n Virt. 185.
152 CHAPTER FOUR

T h i s e x e g e s i s is b a s e d u p o n a p o i n t o f g r a m m a r i n D e u t . 2 6 : 1 7 - 1 8 ,
n a m e l y , t h a t t h e p r o n o u n "you" i n t h e s e v e r s e s is s i n g u l a r . B e c a u s e
M o s e s ' s w o r d s are a d d r e s s e d to a singular "you," a n d b e c a u s e a s i n g u l a r
"you" is said t o c h o o s e a n d b e c h o s e n , P h i l o derives t h e l e s s o n that a n
i n d i v i d u a l s u p p l i a n t is o f e q u a l value t o a w h o l e n a t i o n . H e c o n c l u d e s ,
"Against t h e w o r t h o f a w h o l e n a t i o n t h e wise m a n c a n h o l d h i s o w n ,
p r o t e c t e d by t h e i m p r e g n a b l e wall o f godliness" (Virt. 1 8 6 ) .
S i g n i f i c a n t l y , P h i l o d o e s n o t a c k n o w l e d g e t h e literal s e n s e o f t h e
Biblical verses that G o d a n d t h e p e o p l e o f Israel c h o o s e e a c h o t h e r , a n d h e
o m i t s r e f e r e n c e t o t h e n a t i o n ' s a g r e e m e n t to o b e y G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s .
I n s t e a d , h e c h a n g e s t h e s e n s e o f a passage that d e s c r i b e s t h e e x c l u s i v e
r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e historical n a t i o n to give t h e i m p r e s s i o n
that s u c h a r e l a t i o n s h i p c a n b e a c h i e v e d by any g e n u i n e suppliant, a wise
m a n , w h o seeks t o p l e a s e G o d a n d to serve H i m .

The Exposition: A Summary

In this series, P h i l o p r e s e n t s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d Biblical

Israel as o n e t h a t is a c c e s s i b l e to any v i r t u o u s p e r s o n . H e c h a n g e s t h e
a d d r e s s e e o f Moses's e x h o r t a t i o n s f r o m Israel to t h e m i n d (Spec. 1.299) a n d
t h e r e c i p i e n t o f G o d ' s b l e s s i n g s f r o m Israel t o t h e m a n o f w o r t h (Praem.
120). G o d d o e s i n d e e d have special relationships with p e o p l e ; the
"chosen," h o w e v e r , are n o t a particular historical or c o n t e m p o r a r y n a t i o n
b u t t h e m i n d o f t h e m a n o f w o r t h (Praem. 1 2 3 ) , t h o s e w h o are p e o p l e in
truth (Spec. 1.303), or the true suppliant (Virt. 1 8 5 - 8 6 ) .
A l t h o u g h P h i l o n o t e s that o b e d i e n c e to t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s is i m p o r ­
tant, h e stresses that w h a t G o d r e q u i r e s is easy a n d n o t t o o d e m a n d i n g
(Spec. 1 . 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 , Praem. 8 0 - 8 1 , Virt. 1 8 3 ) . I n d e e d , o b e y i n g t h e s e c o m m a n d ­
m e n t s is similar t o a c h i e v i n g h a r m o n y in w o r d s , t h o u g h t s , a n d d e e d s
(Praem. 8 1 , Virt. 1 8 4 ) . Even o n e ' s "worst e n e m i e s " m u s t a c k n o w l e d g e t h e
w i s d o m o f t h o s e w h o fulfill t h e s e o r d i n a n c e s (Praem. 8 3 ) . By c h a n g i n g
t h e m e a n i n g o f p a s s a g e s a b o u t Biblical Israel s o t h e y m i g h t a p p l y t o all
virtuous p e o p l e a n d by p r e s e n t i n g G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s as e x h o r t a t i o n s
to virtue a n d h a r m o n y — w h i c h are easy t o f o l l o w — P h i l o d e p i c t s J u d a i s m
as a way o f life that his readers m i g h t want to c o n s i d e r .

QGE

In this series, P h i l o d o e s n o t directly i n t e r p r e t any verses, s u c h as t h o s e

q u o t e d at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f the chapter, a b o u t the relationship b e t w e e n G o d
a n d Israel. H e d o e s , h o w e v e r , m e n t i o n G o d ' s c o v e n a n t s w i t h A b r a h a m ,
Isaac, a n d t h e n a t i o n Israel, a n d h e c o m m e n t s a b o u t t h e c o v e n a n t in
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 153

p a s s i n g w h e n s p e a k i n g o f t h e ark o f t h e c o v e n a n t . In a d d i t i o n , t h e E n g l i s h
translation uses the phrase "chosen race" several times, a n d s o m e
passages refer to t h e e l e c t i o n o f Israel o r t h e όρατικόν γένος ( t h e r a c e / c l a s s
2 4
that c a n s e e ) .
As w e saw i n t h e last c h a p t e r , P h i l o c o m m e n t s m o r e h e r e t h a n i n h i s
o t h e r e x e g e t i c a l w o r k s o n verses f r o m E x o d u s 2 4 , i n w h i c h G o d estab­
l i s h e s H i s c o v e n a n t with t h e p e o p l e o f Israel. O u t o f s e v e n r e f e r e n c e s in
Q G E to t h e " c h o s e n race" or to t h e e l e c t i o n o f t h e race, f o u r o c c u r in h i s
d i s c u s s i o n o f E x o d u s 2 4 . Finally, P h i l o links e l e c t i o n with t h e c o m m a n d ­
m e n t f o r c i r c u m c i s i o n a n d with t h e giving o f t h e law, b o t h o f w h i c h t h e
B i b l e associates w i t h G o d ' s c o v e n a n t s , first with A b r a h a m , a n d t h e n w i t h
Israel. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e relevant p a s s a g e s in this series
is fairly o b s c u r e . B e f o r e e x a m i n i n g two s a m p l e passages (QG 3.49 a n d QE
2 . 4 2 ) , I shall first review briefly Philo's c o m m e n t s a b o u t t h e c o v e n a n t w i t h
Israel a n d a b o u t t h e "chosen race."

The Covenant in QGE

P h i l o cites t h e c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel twice: first, in r e l a t i o n t o

E x o d . 24:7, in w h i c h M o s e s takes "the b o o k o f t h e c o v e n a n t " a n d r e a d s it
"to t h e ears o f t h e p e o p l e " (QE 2.34) a n d s e c o n d , i n relation to E x o d . 2 7 : 2 1 ,
w h i c h speaks o f t h e ark o f t h e c o v e n a n t (QE 2 . 1 0 6 ) . In his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f
E x o d . 24:7 (QE 2 . 3 4 ) , P h i l o f o c u s e s u p o n w h a t Scripture m e a n s w h e n it
says, "reading to t h e ears." H e quickly dismisses t h e t o p i c o f t h e d i v i n e
25
c o v e n a n t , n o t i n g that h e has s p o k e n o f this "in detail" e l s e w h e r e .
P h i l o ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e c o v e n a n t in QE 2 . 1 0 6 is s o m e w h a t o b s c u r e ,
2 6
a l t h o u g h it is c l e a r that h e gives it a different s e n s e f r o m t h e B i b l e .

2 4
For r e f e r e n c e s , s e e b e l o w u n d e r "The ' C h o s e n Race"' a n d also n. 27. W h e n
q u o t i n g from LCL, I use the expression "chosen race," as Marcus translates it, since we
have so few Greek fragments to verify Philo's original l a n g u a g e . S e e , however, the
discussion o f QE 2.42 and n. 31 below.
2 5
This is presumably a reference to Philo's two treatises about covenants, which have
n o t survived; cf. Mut. 53.
2 6
QE 2.106 is q u o t e d below. For a discussion of this passage, see Jaubert, La notion
d 'Alliance, 4 2 9 - 3 1 . T h e text of the passage is as follows:
Why d o e s H e say that they shall light the lamps 'outside the veil which is over the
covenant'?
May it n o t b e b e c a u s e the things within (the veil) were incorporeal a n d intelli­
gible a n d h a d n o n e e d o f sense-perceptible light, for they were themselves their
o w n l i g h t a n d m o r e l u m i n o u s stars than those w h i c h are seen? But the o n e
within the veil h e calls 'of testimony,' symbolically indicating that the c o v e n a n t o f
G o d is the o n l y true o n e , and that those w h i c h ( m e n ) write in testaments are
p e r m a n e n t a n d secure in themselves and are similar. A n d this is the m e a s u r e o f
all things in c o m m o n , the ideas a n d intelligible forms. N o w external things are
also secure but still n o t in the same way, since they have a sense-perceptible a n d
154 CHAPTER FOUR

I n d e e d n o n e o f P h i l o ' s discussions o f the c o v e n a n t in Q G E ( t h e o t h e r s are

in QG 3 . 4 0 , 4 2 , a n d 60) affirms t h e Biblical s e n s e o f divine c o v e n a n t s o r
treats t h e m as historical a g r e e m e n t s .

The "Chosen Race" in QGE

T h e e x p r e s s i o n " c h o s e n race" a p p e a r s f o u r t i m e s in t h e E n g l i s h trans­

lation o f Q G E : Q G 2 . 5 8 , 65; Q E 2 . 3 8 , 4 2 . Q G 3 . 4 9 also refers to t h e e l e c t i o n o f
Israel a n d QE 2.43 a n d 4 6 m e n t i o n t h e e l e c t i o n o f t h e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γένος, t h e
2 7
r a c e / c l a s s that c a n s e e . In o n e i n s t a n c e , QG 2.58, it is n o t clear w h o m
P h i l o m e a n s w h e n h e u s e s t h e p h r a s e "chosen race," b u t h e s e e m s to b e
s p e a k i n g a b o u t vegetarians. As to t h e o t h e r passages in w h i c h this p h r a s e
o c c u r s , P h i l o a p p e a r s t o u s e " c h o s e n race" as an a u t o m a t i c d e s i g n a t i o n ,
similar t o t h e way h e u s e s ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς ( r a c e / c l a s s that c a n s e e ) , as
d i s c u s s e d in t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r . U n l i k e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς , t h e p h r a s e
" c h o s e n race" d o e s n o t s e e m t o b e a literal e q u i v a l e n t f o r t h e w o r d
"Israel." N e v e r t h e l e s s , P h i l o ' s u s e o f this p h r a s e d o e s have a m e c h a n i c a l
quality t o it, a n d h e n e v e r e n t e r s i n t o w h a t it m e a n s t o b e c h o s e n .
R e g a r d l e s s o f h o w h e u n d e r s t a n d s c h o s e n n e s s , h o w e v e r , it is n o t c l e a r
that P h i l o is t a l k i n g a b o u t e i t h e r t h e real Biblical n a t i o n o r its J e w i s h
descendants.
In o u r e a r l i e r analysis o f QE 2 . 4 3 , w e saw that P h i l o a s s o c i a t e s t h e
e l e c t i o n o f t h e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς with t h e giving o f t h e law. H e e x p l a i n s that

c h a n g e a b l e nature and d o n o t have p e r m a n e n c e in themselves 'as d o incorporeal

things, a n d they m a k e use of external b o n d s , s o m e of w h i c h are in themselves
altogether eternal, but others only dissolve during l o n g periods.
2 7
Of these seven passages, three have parallel Greek fragments: QG 2.65; QE 2.38, 46.
A l t h o u g h Marcus's translation from the Armenian uses the phrase "chosen race" in
QG 2.65 a n d QE 2.38, the Greek for these passages differs from the Armenian a n d has
n o parallel phrase. In the English, QG 2.65 m e n t i o n s "the c h o s e n a n d God-beloved
race." T h e Greek has only ό θεοφιλής λ α ό ς , the G o d - b e l o v e d p e o p l e . S e e Petit,
Quaestiones, ΟΡΑ, 33:120.
T h e Greek for QE 2.38 has n o phrase that corresponds to "chosen race." In the
English translation, this phrase appears in the answer. It is i n t e r e s t i n g that this
passage interprets Exod. 24:11, which m e n t i o n s the επίλεκτοι του Ι σ ρ α ή λ , the c h o s e n
o n e s of Israel. (Cf. Conf. 56; see above, n. 10.) T h e English translation m e n t i o n s "the
c h o s e n s e e i n g o n e s " in the q u e s t i o n — a phrase that presumably c o r r e s p o n d s to o i
επίλεκτοι όρώντες, where "Israel" is u n d e r s t o o d as όρώντες, based u p o n the etymology.
T h e Greek fragment, however, d o e s n o t include the question. See Petit, Quaestiones,
ΟΡΑ, 33:264-65.
QE 2.46 d o e s n o t have the expression "chosen race," either in the English or the
Greek, but instead speaks of the election of the race/class that can see (ή τοΰ όρατικοΰ
γένους εκλογή) and includes the words τό γένος είλετο, h e chose the race/class. Again,
the Greek differs from the A r m e n i a n . As n o t e d in the previous chapter, this is the
only passage with a Greek f r a g m e n t that attests to Philo's use o f the e x p r e s s i o n
όρατικόν γένος in QGE. See LCL, suppl. 2:90-91 and Petit, Quaestiones, ΟΡΑ, 33:268.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 155

J o s h u a a c c o m p a n i e s M o s e s u p t h e m o u n t a i n "as a n a s s u r a n c e ... o f t h e
e l e c t i o n o f t h e [όρατικόν γ έ ν ο ς ] . " H e r e Philo d o e s n o t elaborate u p o n divine
e l e c t i o n b u t simply takes it for g r a n t e d . T h e s a m e is true for all t h e o t h e r
p a s s a g e s in w h i c h h e m e n t i o n s e i t h e r t h e "chosen race" or t h e e l e c t i o n o f
t h e race.
T h e f o l l o w i n g two p a s s a g e s illustrate s o m e o f t h e f e a t u r e s d i s c u s s e d
a b o v e : QG 3 . 4 9 s h o w s h o w P h i l o links t h e e l e c t i o n o f "Israel" w i t h t h e
c o m m a n d m e n t f o r c i r c u m c i s i o n , a n d QE 2 . 4 2 s h o w s h o w t h e p h r a s e
" c h o s e n race" s e e m s to b e an a u t o m a t i c d e s i g n a t i o n .

QG3A9™

In this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , P h i l o u n d e r s t a n d s t h e c o m m a n d for c i r c u m c i s i o n
as a sign o f t h e divine e l e c t i o n o f Israel. H e also draws parallels b e t w e e n
t h e e l e c t i o n o f Israel a n d creation (cf. QE 2 . 4 6 ) . H i s e x a c t u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f
"Israel," h o w e v e r , is n o t clear, a n d his e x p l a n a t i o n for t h e link b e t w e e n
c h o s e n n e s s a n d c i r c u m c i s i o n is vastly different f r o m t h e Biblical d e p i c ­
t i o n o f c i r c u m c i s i o n as a sign o f the covenant.
B a s i n g h i m s e l f u p o n G e n . 17:12, in w h i c h G o d c o m m a n d s A b r a h a m
that all m a l e s s h o u l d b e c i r c u m c i s e d o n t h e e i g h t h day, P h i l o asks w h y
c i r c u m c i s i o n is c o m m a n d e d for t h e e i g h t h day. After d e s c r i b i n g various
qualities a s s o c i a t e d with t h e n u m b e r e i g h t , h e e x p l a i n s w h y this n u m b e r
is l i n k e d w i t h c i r c u m c i s i o n :

T h i s n a t i o n of ours to w h i c h a c o m m a n d m e n t was given to circumcise o n t h e

e i g h t h day is called in Chaldean "Israel" and in A r m e n i a n , "one that sees God."
H e [God?] wishes that it [the nation?] participate in the naturally righteous things
a n d that w h i c h is according to election. That which is according to the principle
o f creation is t h r o u g h the first h e b d o m a d , w h i c h is right after creation [ a n d ]
w h i c h the Generator a n d Creator had shown clearly to the world [as] the celebra­
tion o f creation, having c o m p l e t e d it in six days. O n the other hand, that which is
according to election came about by m e a n s of the group of eight which is a s e c o n d
h e b d o m a d ' s b e g i n n i n g . As the o g d o a d is the h e b d o m a d a n d o n e , so the well-
o r d e r e d γ έ ν ο ς is always [a] γ έ ν ο ς a n d [has] received in addition that w h i c h is
e l e c t i o n by m e a n s of nature a n d according to the will and the g o o d n e s s o f the
2 9
Father.

A l t h o u g h t h e t h o u g h t in this passage is s o m e w h a t o b s c u r e , P h i l o s e e m s
t o b e saying that t h e n u m b e r e i g h t signifies two g r o u p s o f s e v e n ( h e b ­
d o m a d s ) , since eight encompasses o n e group of seven and the b e g i n n i n g
o f a s e c o n d g r o u p o f seven. T h e first h e b d o m a d is associated with c r e a t i o n ,

2 8
T h e Greek fragment for this passage d o e s n o t parallel the section u n d e r discussion.
2 9
I am i n d e b t e d to Prof. Sze-kar Wan for his assistance with this translation from
the A r m e n i a n . Bracketed suggestions and m i n o r modifications for the sake of clarity
are my own. U s e o f the word γένος is explained in n. 30.
156 CHAPTER FOUR

w h i l e t h e s e c o n d is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e e l e c t i o n o f Israel. S e v e n is
a s s o c i a t e d with c r e a t i o n b e c a u s e G o d c o m p l e t e d c r e a t i o n in six days a n d
c e l e b r a t e d this c o m p l e t i o n o n t h e seventh.
N o d i r e c t e x p l a n a t i o n is g i v e n for t h e link b e t w e e n e l e c t i o n a n d t h e
s e c o n d g r o u p o f s e v e n . A n implicit a s s u m p t i o n , h o w e v e r , s e e m s to b e that
c i r c u m c i s i o n s i g n i f i e s e l e c t i o n . S i n c e c i r c u m c i s i o n is c o m m a n d e d f o r
t h e e i g h t h day, t h a t is, t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e s e c o n d h e b d o m a d , this
second h e b d o m a d thereby represents election. Moreover, the passage
s e e m s t o c o n t e n d that t h e fact that c i r c u m c i s i o n is c o m m a n d e d for t h e
e i g h t h day s h o w s — t h r o u g h t h e s e two s y m b o l i c g r o u p s o f s e v e n — t h a t
Israel is naturally r i g h t e o u s , h a v i n g b e e n c r e a t e d that way, a n d is also
30
c h o s e n by G o d , as signified t h r o u g h t h e c o m m a n d for c i r c u m c i s i o n .
A n i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n a b o u t this passage is h o w P h i l o u n d e r s t a n d s
"Israel." H e writes that t h e n a t i o n w h i c h was c o m m a n d e d t o c i r c u m c i s e
is c a l l e d "Israel," w h i c h m e a n s "one that s e e s G o d . " T h i s c o m m e n t , h o w ­
ever, s e e m s m e r e l y t o p r o v i d e a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e n a m e a n d a d d s
n o t h i n g to t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e passage. B e c a u s e P h i l o u s e s t h e past t e n s e
a n d b e c a u s e , a c c o r d i n g to t h e Bible, Israel is i n d e e d t h e d e s c e n d a n t n a t i o n
o f A b r a h a m to w h o m t h e c o m m a n d m e n t was g i v e n , t h e m o s t r e a s o n a b l e
way to c o n s t r u e "Israel" h e r e is as t h e Biblical n a t i o n . P h i l o ' s c o n c e r n
with this n a t i o n , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t have to d o with its historical o r c o n ­
t e m p o r a r y reality o r with t h e m e a n i n g o f its e l e c t i o n . I n s t e a d , h e f o c u s e s
u p o n t h e s y m b o l i c i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e e i g h t h day w h e n c i r c u m c i s i o n is
commanded.

3 1
QE2.42

T h e m e a n i n g o f this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , w h i c h s p e a k s a b o u t t h e " c h o s e n
γ έ ν ο ς " in t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e g i v i n g o f t h e law, is similarly o b s c u r e .
N o n e t h e l e s s this p a s s a g e s h o w s that for P h i l o t h e p h r a s e " c h o s e n γ έ ν ο ς "
s e e m s t o b e a n a u t o m a t i c d e s i g n a t i o n . Even if P h i l o m a y i n t e n d to speak
o f t h e Biblical p e o p l e by u s i n g this d e s i g n a t i o n , h e d o e s n o t elaborate u p o n
t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f their b e i n g c h o s e n .

3 0
T h e n e x t part of this interpretation—which is n o t directly relevant to the present
d i s c u s s i o n — s e e m s to play u p o n Philo's various understandings of the word γ έ ν ο ς as a
g e n u s or idea a n d as a r a c e / c l a s s . In several places, Philo speaks a b o u t a γένος ( i . e . ,
g e n u s or idea) as incorruptible, in contrast to a species, which is corruptible. (See Cher.
5 - 7 , Post. 105, Her. 118, Mut. 7 8 - 8 0 , QG3.53; cf. Leg. 1.22-23 and Leg. 2.12-13.) W h e n h e
writes, therefore, that the γ έ ν ο ς will always be a γένος, presumably h e is playing u p o n
the different n u a n c e s o f the word. That is, the well-ordered γ έ ν ο ς (i.e., race or class)
will always be incorruptible γένος (genus or i d e a ) , never corruptible species.
3 1
B e c a u s e this passage has the phrase "contemplative race," I a m a s s u m i n g the
original Greek e x p r e s s i o n is όρατικόν γένος (race/class that can see) a n d have sub­
stituted γένος for "race" in the phrase "chosen race."
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 157

T h e passage is b a s e d u p o n E x o d . 24:12, w h i c h reads, "The L o r d said t o

4
M o s e s , C o m e u p t o m e o n t h e m o u n t a i n , a n d wait t h e r e ; a n d I will give
y o u t h e tables o f s t o n e , with t h e law a n d c o m m a n d m e n t s , w h i c h I h a v e
written for their instruction" (LCL translation).
In c o n n e c t i o n with t h e latter part o f this verse, P h i l o asks, "Does G o d
write t h e Law?" After a d d r e s s i n g t h e issue o f a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m a n d h o w
G o d m i g h t b e said to "write," P h i l o offers t h e following interpretation:

In t h e s e c o n d p l a c e , this world is a great city a n d is a legal o n e . A n d it is

necessary for it to use the best law of state. A n d it is fitting that it s h o u l d have a
worthy author o f law a n d legislator, since a m o n g m e n H e a p p o i n t e d the ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν
γ έ ν ο ς i n t h e s a m e m a n n e r (as t h e Law) for t h e world. A n d rightly d o e s H e
legislate for this γ έ ν ο ς , also prescribing (its Law) as a law for the world, for t h e
c h o s e n γ έ ν ο ς is a likeness o f the world, a n d its Law (is a likeness o f the laws) o f
the world.

In a n s w e r t o t h e q u e s t i o n , "Does G o d write t h e Law?" this e x e g e s i s

s e e m s t o a r g u e that it is fitting that t h e b e s t law s h o u l d h a v e a w o r t h y
a u t h o r a n d t h e r e f o r e this a u t h o r m u s t b e G o d . P h i l o associates t h e law f o r
t h e όρατικόν γένος with t h e law for t h e world. H e writes, m o r e o v e r , that t h e
c h o s e n γ έ ν ο ς is a l i k e n e s s o f t h e world a n d , as t h e translation suggests, its
law is a l i k e n e s s o f t h e laws o f t h e world.
T o s o m e e x t e n t , t h e s e i d e a s are r e m i n i s c e n t o f p a s s a g e s i n t h e
E x p o s i t i o n treatises Opif. a n d Abr., i n w h i c h P h i l o claims that t h e particular
o r s p e c i a l laws are c o p i e s o f t h e n a t u r a l law w h i c h w a s i m m a n e n t i n
3 2
creation. In QE 2 . 4 2 , h e d o e s n o t u s e specific t e r m s t o d i s t i n g u i s h
b e t w e e n t h e particular laws a n d nature, e v e n t h o u g h E x o d . 2 4 : 1 2 p e r t a i n s
to w h a t h e e l s e w h e r e d o e s call t h e particular laws. If t h e c o n c e p t s o f n a t u ­
ral a n d particular laws d o u n d e r l i e this passage, h o w e v e r , t h e r e a s o n i n g
h e r e m a y b e that t h e law for t h e όρατικόν γένος, w h i c h w o u l d c o r r e s p o n d
t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r laws, r e p r e s e n t s t h e law f o r t h e w o r l d , w h i c h w o u l d
c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e natural law. Alternatively, p e r h a p s P h i l o is s u g g e s t i n g
that t h e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς itself is a law for t h e world, j u s t as t h e patriarchs
r e p r e s e n t "laws e n d o w e d with life a n d reason" (Abr. 5 ) .
In a n y case, P h i l o u s e s t h e p h r a s e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς as a p e r i p h r a s i s f o r
"Israel," a n d h e also calls this g r o u p t h e " c h o s e n γ έ ν ο ς . " H e d o e s n o t ,
h o w e v e r , d e v e l o p t h e i d e a e i t h e r that t h e γ έ ν ο ς c a n s e e o r that it is c h o s e n .
I n s t e a d , b o t h e x p r e s s i o n s a p p e a r to substitute for t h e w o r d "Israel," w h o s e
i d e n t i t y h e implicitly takes f o r g r a n t e d . S i n c e h e p r o v i d e s n o c o n c l u s i v e

3 2
In Opif. 1 - 3 , Philo simply distinguishes between the law ( ν ό μ ο ς ) a n d t h e world
( κ ό σ μ ο ς ) . In Abr. 3 - 5 , h e uses designations such as special laws (νόμοι έπι μ έ ρ ο υ ς ) ,
e n a c t e d ordinances (τεθειμένα διατάγματα), a n d laws laid down (κείμενοι νόμοι), o n the
o n e h a n d , a n d , o n the other, nature ( φ ύ σ ι ς ) , unwritten law (άγραφος ν ο μ ο θ ε σ ί α ) , a n d
laws e n d o w e d with life a n d reason (έμψυχοι καΐ λογικοί νόμοι).
158 CHAPTER FOUR

i n f o r m a t i o n t o identify this γ έ ν ο ς w i t h a particular entity, t h e m o d e r n

r e a d e r c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r P h i l o m e a n s t h e historical p e o p l e Israel
a n d t h e i r d e s c e n d a n t s o r a g r o u p d e f i n e d o n l y by t h e ability t o s e e , o r
w h e t h e r h e e q u a t e s t h e two.
B e c a u s e t h e rest o f this p a s s a g e is u n c e r t a i n a n d o b s c u r e , I shall n o t
a t t e m p t further t o m a k e s e n s e o f it. For n o w , what is i m p o r t a n t is that t h e
d e s i g n a t i o n s "όρατικόν γένος" a n d "chosen γ έ ν ο ς " a p p e a r to b e part o f a
c o m m o n e x e g e t i c a l p a r l a n c e , s i n c e P h i l o d o e s n o t e x p l a i n t h e m specifi­
cally a n d s e e m s to a s s u m e their m e a n i n g is u n d e r s t o o d .

QGE: A Summary

T h e b r i e f i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by Q G E r e g a r d i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n G o d a n d Biblical Israel is c o n s o n a n t with o u r p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s
that this c o m m e n t a r y has features uncharacteristic o f P h i l o ' s o t h e r works.
H e r e , for e x a m p l e , P h i l o associates t h e c h o s e n n e s s o f Israel w i t h c i r c u m ­
c i s i o n a n d t h e giving o f t h e law, a c o n n e c t i o n w h i c h t h e Bible m a k e s b u t
w h i c h Philo himself d o e s n o t make elsewhere. A d d i n g to o u r earlier
o b s e r v a t i o n s is that P h i l o s e e m s to u s e t h e p h r a s e " c h o s e n race" as a n
a u t o m a t i c d e s i g n a t i o n . H i s u s e o f this p h r a s e , m o r e o v e r , a n d his discus­
s i o n o f t h e e l e c t i o n o f t h e race s e e m to p r e s u p p o s e an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f
w h a t e l e c t i o n m e a n s a n d w h o t h e "chosen race" is.
O n c e a g a i n , t h e n , o n e m i g h t c o n j e c t u r e that t h e atypical f e a t u r e s in
this series m a y reflect t h e o p i n i o n s o f a b r o a d e r c o m m u n i t y o f A l e x a n ­
drian Jewish e x e g e t e s than Philo's own l i k e m i n d e d associates. Even
t h o u g h n o t all s e g m e n t s o f this c o m m u n i t y may share t h e s a m e o u t l o o k
o n Scripture, t h e m e a n i n g o f a certain e x e g e t i c a l vocabulary is a s s u m e d
and understood.

Philonic Interpretations of the Relationship Between God and Biblical Israel:

A Summary

W h e n viewed through Philonic lenses, the covenant between G o d and

Biblical I s r a e l — b a s e d u p o n o b e d i e n c e to divine c o m m a n d m e n t s , G o d ' s
earlier p r o m i s e s to t h e n a t i o n ' s ancestors, o r divine l o v e — b e c o m e s s o m e ­
t h i n g q u i t e different. P h i l o n e v e r affirms that G o d c h o o s e s t h e n a t i o n
Israel to e n t e r i n t o a c o v e n a n t with H i m . A l t h o u g h h e n e v e r rejects this
m e a n i n g , h e t r a n s f o r m s it in d i f f e r e n t ways. A s i d e f r o m this g e n e r a l
o b s e r v a t i o n , o n e c a n also p o i n t to d i f f e r e n c e s a m o n g t h e t h r e e series,
differences w h i c h may b e attributable to Philo's different aims a n d
a u d i e n c e s for e a c h work.
In t h e A l l e g o r y , "Israel," t h e n a t i o n , t h e " c h o s e n p e o p l e [ o r r a c e /
c l a s s ] , " a n d t h e c o v e n a n t serve as s y m b o l s . H e r e P h i l o i g n o r e s s u c h
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND BIBLICAL ISRAEL 159

e l e m e n t s as G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s , H i s p r e v i o u s c o m m i t m e n t t o t h e
patriarchs, o r H i s love o f t h e n a t i o n . In fact, by u s i n g r e l e v a n t verses as
p r o o f t e x t s , h e c o m p l e t e l y sidesteps t h e literal m e a n i n g o f t h e s e verses. In
this series, p r e s u m a b l y P h i l o w i s h e s t o u n c o v e r t h e d e e p e r m e a n i n g o f
S c r i p t u r e f o r t h o s e like himself, w h o c a n o r w h o w a n t t o "see" it. H e
t h e r e f o r e has n o n e e d to dwell u p o n the literal m e a n i n g o f Scripture o r its
ramifications.
In t h e E x p o s i t i o n , P h i l o p r e s e n t s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d
Biblical Israel as available t o a n y o n e w h o c h o o s e s to turn to G o d a n d live
virtuously. H e r e t h e " c h o s e n p e o p l e " b e c o m e t h e m i n d o f t h e w o r t h y
p e r s o n , a n d any true s u p p l i a n t is e q u a l in w o r t h to a w h o l e n a t i o n . P h i l o
d o e s e n j o i n f o l l o w i n g t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s , b u t h i s e x h o r t a t i o n s are n o t
restricted to t h e n a t i o n Israel. T h i s a p p r o a c h , w h i c h portrays a r e l a t i o n s h i p
to G o d as accessible to all, is well-suited t o a n a u d i e n c e o f "outsiders," i.e.,
p e o p l e w h o are n o t familiar with J u d a i s m o r w h o m a y b e p u t off by its
c l a i m s t o a n exclusive r e l a t i o n s h i p with G o d or by t h e s e e m i n g b u r d e n o f
its laws.
Finally, Q G E i m p a r t s very little i n f o r m a t i o n o n this subject. O n e c a n ,
h o w e v e r , n o t i c e that certain features are n o t typical o f Philo's o t h e r works,
s u c h as u s e o f t h e p h r a s e " c h o s e n race" as a n a u t o m a t i c d e s i g n a t i o n ;
assumption of a c o n n e c t i o n between chosenness and circumcision or
c h o s e n n e s s a n d t h e giving o f t h e law; a n d a t t e n t i o n to parts o f t h e B i b l e
like E x o d u s 2 4 u p o n w h i c h P h i l o d o e s n o t otherwise c o n c e n t r a t e . A g a i n ,
s u c h f e a t u r e s m a y reflect t h e c o n c e r n s o f o t h e r J e w i s h e x e g e t e s , a n d this
series m a y b e i n t e n d e d for a b r o a d e r e x e g e t i c a l c o m m u n i t y t h a n P h i l o ' s
o w n particular circle.
W h a t e v e r factors m a y i n f l u e n c e Philo's p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n G o d a n d Biblical Israel, h e d o e s i n t r o d u c e to this r e l a t i o n s h i p a
r a n g e o f n e w m e a n i n g s . If, h o w e v e r , h e d o e s n o t affirm that Israel stands
in a c o v e n a n t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with G o d a n d if t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p portrayed in
t h e Bible is a p p l i c a b l e to any g o o d p e r s o n or virtuous soul, t h e n h o w d o e s
P h i l o view Israel's d e s c e n d a n t s , t h e Jews, a n d t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o G o d ?
T h i s is t h e q u e s t i o n to w h i c h we n o w turn.
 CHAPTER FIVE

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD

AND THE JEWS

O u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o far has s h o w n that, o n t h e o n e h a n d , P h i l o d o e s n o t

necessarily identify "Israel"—the o n e that s e e s G o d o r t h e r a c e / c l a s s that
c a n s e e — w i t h t h e real Biblical n a t i o n o r its J e w i s h d e s c e n d a n t s a n d , o n
t h e o t h e r h a n d , that h e d o e s n o t explicitly affirm that G o d c h o s e t h e
Biblical n a t i o n Israel t o participate in His c o v e n a n t a n d to b e H i s "special
p e o p l e . " O n e m i g h t w e l l ask, t h e n , w h a t b e i n g a J e w m e a n s t o P h i l o .
M o r e specifically, w h a t , if a n y t h i n g , is distinctive a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e Jews? T o answer this q u e s t i o n , w e m u s t take i n t o
a c c o u n t w h a t P h i l o writes a b o u t t h e Biblical n a t i o n a n d h i s J e w i s h c o n ­
t e m p o r a r i e s in all his works. T h u s , w h i l e t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r e x a m i n e s
h o w P h i l o explicitly i n t e r p r e t s t h e Biblical d e p i c t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel, this o n e will c o n s i d e r h o w h e implicitly inter­
prets this d e p i c t i o n in his various observations a b o u t G o d a n d t h e Jews, past
and present.
T h e d i s c u s s i o n will b e g i n with s o m e g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s a b o u t P h i l o ' s
vocabulary a n d t h e works in w h i c h h e speaks a b o u t t h e J e w s b e f o r e a n d
c o n t e m p o r a r y t o h i m . ( F o l l o w i n g P h i l o ' s p r a c t i c e , I shall u s e t h e w o r d
"Jews" for b o t h t h e past a n d p r e s e n t p e o p l e ; w h e n e v e r necessary, I shall
d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e Biblical n a t i o n a n d h i s o w n c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . )
After careful e x a m i n a t i o n o f five features that, a c c o r d i n g t o h i m , charac­
terize t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e J e w s , I shall analyze f o u r
P h i l o n i c p a s s a g e s t o s e e h o w h e p r e s e n t s t h e s e f e a t u r e s w i t h i n specific
contexts.

Philo's Discussion of the Jews: General Observations

P h i l o d i s c u s s e s t h e J e w s m o s t e x t e n s i v e l y in o n e e x e g e t i c a l series, t h e
E x p o s i t i o n ; his two political treatises, Flacc. a n d Legat.; a n d his a p o l o g e t i c
work, t h e Hypothetica. H e also m e n t i o n s t h e J e w s s p o r a d i c a l l y in two
1
p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r e a t i s e s , Prob. a n d Aet. Of the r e m a i n i n g works, the
A l l e g o r y n e v e r a l l u d e s t o t h e Jews by n a m e a n d s p e a k s o n l y rarely a n d

1
Philo refers to the nation itself in Prob. 75, but most of his references to the Jews in
the p h i l o s o p h i c a l works are primarily to Moses, w h o m h e calls "the lawgiver o f the
Jews" (Prob. 29, 43, 68; Aet. 19). In Prob. 57, Philo m e n t i o n s the legislation of the J e w s .
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 161

2
in p a s s i n g a b o u t m e m b e r s o f t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y . T h e E n g l i s h trans­
lation of QGE m e n t i o n s the Jews only o n c e , but in the A r m e n i a n , the
3
w o r d is "Hebrews. "
F o r t h e m o s t part, P h i l o refers t o t h e p e o p l e o f his t i m e as t h e J e w s ( o i
Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ι ) , t h e n a t i o n o f Jews (τό Ι ο υ δ α ί ω ν έ θ ν ο ς ) , o r simply "the n a t i o n "
o r "our n a t i o n " (τό o r ήμέτερον έ θ ν ο ς ) . S o m e t i m e s t o o , h e speaks o f t h e Jews
as a polity ( π ο λ ι τ ε ί α ) o r a γένος (see, eg., above, p . 5 9 ) . As for t h e Biblical
n a t i o n , P h i l o calls t h e m t h e H e b r e w s (οί Ε β ρ α ί ο ι ) o r t h e p e o p l e (ό λ α ό ς ) .
O c c a s i o n a l l y , P h i l o also u s e s t h e t e r m "Jews" t o refer t o t h e B i b l i c a l
p e o p l e a l o n e o r e l s e t o refer t o t h e n a t i o n as a c o n t i n u o u s entity f r o m
B i b l i c a l t i m e s t o h i s o w n . F o r e x a m p l e , h e writes t h a t t h e J e w s w e r e
strangers i n Egypt (Mos. 1.34) e v e n t h o u g h , stricdy s p e a k i n g , h e is talking
a b o u t t h e H e b r e w s o f Biblical times. H e also describes t h e m o t h e r o f a s o n
by m i x e d m a r r i a g e as a J e w e s s ( Ι ο υ δ α ί α ) rather t h a n a H e b r e w i n relat­
4
i n g a n e p i s o d e f r o m Lev. 2 4 : 1 0 - 1 6 . Finally, h e calls M o s e s "the legislator
5
o f t h e Jews" (ό των Τ ο υ δ α ί ω ν ν ο μ ο θ έ τ η ς ) a n d d e s c r i b e s A b r a h a m as "the
f o u n d e r o f t h e w h o l e J e w i s h n a t i o n " (ό του σ ύ μ π α ν τ ο ς Ι ο υ δ α ί ω ν έ θ ν ο υ ς
ά ρ χ η γ έ τ η ς , Mos. 1.7), u s i n g t h e t e r m "Jew" to d e n o t e t h e n a t i o n f r o m t h e
past u p t o his o w n time.
T h e Hypothetica, o n l y f r a g m e n t s o f w h i c h survive, h a s n o p r o p e r n a m e
f o r t h e n a t i o n e i t h e r b e f o r e o r d u r i n g P h i l o ' s t i m e ; i n s t e a d it u s e s ό
λ α ό ς ( t h e p e o p l e ) for t h e Biblical p e o p l e (Hypoth. 6.1, 2) o r τό έθνος ( t h e
n a t i o n ) f o r t h e past a n d p r e s e n t p e o p l e (Hypoth. 6 . 1 ) . O t h e r w i s e i n this
work, P h i l o s p e a k s o f b o t h past a n d p r e s e n t p e o p l e u s i n g a third p e r s o n
plural p r o n o u n .
T o s o m e e x t e n t , Philo's p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e J e w s — b o t h b e f o r e a n d c o n ­
t e m p o r a r y t o h i m — i s i n f l u e n c e d by a desire to portray t h e m in t h e b e s t
p o s s i b l e l i g h t , s i n c e all t h e w o r k s w h i c h m e n t i o n t h e m e x t e n s i v e l y
a p p e a r t o b e i n t e n d e d for a m i x e d a u d i e n c e o f J e w s a n d non-Jews. It is
striking that P h i l o d o e s n o t discuss t h e real Biblical o r J e w i s h n a t i o n i n
w o r k s m o s t likely i n t e n d e d f o r a s y m p a t h e t i c J e w i s h a u d i e n c e — i . e . , t h e
6
A l l e g o r y a n d Q G E . K e e p i n g in m i n d that P h i l o probably wants t o portray
t h e J e w s t o t h e i r b e s t advantage, I shall f o c u s n o t o n l y u p o n w h a t h e says

2
See, e.g., Migr. 8 9 - 9 3 and Somn. 2 . 1 2 3 - 2 4 .
3
QG 3.48 (see LCL, suppl. 1:243, n o t e d ) . In the context o f the passage, "Jews" makes
m o r e s e n s e than "Hebrews," since Philo is speaking a b o u t his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s w h o
practice circumcision. O n Philo's use of "Hebrews," see Chapter O n e .
4
Mos. 2.193. For a discussion o f this passage, see Chapter T h r e e .
5
Mos. 1.1; Prob. 29, 4 3 , 68; Aet. 19.
6
As I have argued earlier, Philo probably d o e s n o t discuss the nation in these works
b e c a u s e his readers are already familiar with Jewish beliefs a n d practices a n d are
i n s t e a d i n t e r e s t e d in e x p l o r i n g the m a n i f o l d m e a n i n g s o f Scripture. For further
discussion about Philo's different audiences, see the Introduction.
162 CHAPTER FIVE

a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e Jews b u t also u p o n h o w his

p r e s e n t a t i o n e n h a n c e s t h e i m p a c t o f his remarks.

Five Features That Characterize the Relationship Between God and the Jews

T h r o u g h o u t his writings a b o u t t h e Jews, P h i l o inserts various o b s e r v a t i o n s

a b o u t t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to G o d . O c c a s i o n a l l y , h e c o m m e n t s o n l y o n c e
7
w i t h o u t e l a b o r a t i o n , or else h e contradicts, o r at least t e m p e r s , a r e m a r k
a b o u t t h e J e w s by m a k i n g a similar observation in a n o t h e r p l a c e a b o u t all
8
p e o p l e . D e s p i t e t h e apparently desultory nature o f his remarks, h o w e v e r ,
w e c a n identify five f e a t u r e s — l i s t e d f u r t h e r b e l o w — t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o
P h i l o , characterize t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e Jews.
9
P h i l o h i m s e l f o f c o u r s e n e v e r lists t h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y .
I n s t e a d , h e i n c o r p o r a t e s h i s p e r s p e c t i v e w h i l e c o m m e n t i n g u p o n Scrip­
ture, r e w o r k i n g t h e o r i g i n a l m a t e r i a l t o suit his e d i t o r i a l a i m s . In t h e
E x p o s i t i o n a n d Hypothetica, P h i l o ' s editorial i n s e r t i o n s a p p e a r w i t h i n his
rewritten v e r s i o n o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h a n d his d e s c r i p t i o n s o f c o n t e m p o r a r y
J e w i s h o b s e r v a n c e s . In Flacc. a n d Legat., h e inserts h i s r e m a r k s e i t h e r
b e f o r e o r a m i d his portrayal o f r e c e n t political e v e n t s a f f e c t i n g J e w s i n
Alexandria and elsewhere.
S i n c e P h i l o p r e s e n t s his ideas a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d
t h e J e w s n o t in i s o l a t i o n b u t rather w i t h i n an o n g o i n g d i s c o u r s e , I shall
s e l e c t as s i g n i f i c a n t o n l y t h o s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w h i c h h e 1) m e n t i o n s
1 0
m o r e t h a n o n c e a n d 2) d o e s n o t c o n t r a d i c t e l s e w h e r e . A c c o r d i n g t o

7
C o m m e n t s that o c c u r only o n c e w i t h o u t elaboration are f o u n d in Abr. 98, Mos.
2.189, a n d Virt. 77. In Abr. 98, Philo claims that the nation o f Abraham a n d Sarah's
descendants receives the office of prophecy for all humanity. (This passage is discussed
later in this chapter and in n. 60.) In Mos. 2.189, h e describes oracles that G o d directs
toward all h u m a n i t y a n d particularly toward "the r a c e / c l a s s that worships H i m for
w h o m H e o p e n s u p the road which leads to happiness" (my translation; see below, n.
6 0 ) . Finally, in Virt. 77, P h i l o describes the n a t i o n as h o l d i n g "the h i g h e s t rank
u n d e r the c o m m a n d o f the Creator a n d Father of all." This d e p i c t i o n may be based
u p o n perceived military imagery in Deut. 3 3 : 2 - 3 .
8
C o m p a r e , e.g., Mos. 1.279, in w h i c h Philo writes of the H e b r e w s that they are
"near o f kin to God" ( ά γ χ ί σ π ο ρ ο ι θ ε ο ΰ ) , and Spec. 4.14, in which h e says the same
thing a b o u t p e o p l e in general (άνθρωπος άγχίσπορος θεοΰ). See LCL, 6:420, n o t e b; cf.
also Virt. 79.
9
For o n e of the few instances where Philo presents a list of ideas, see Opif. 1 7 0 - 7 2 ,
in w h i c h h e summarizes the five lessons taught by Moses in the creation a c c o u n t .
G o o d e n o u g h calls this list "the first creed of history" (Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 3 7 ) .
Cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:164-65; M e n d e l s o n , Philo's Jewish Identity, 2 9 - 4 9 .
1 0
Also significant w o u l d be a characteristic m e n t i o n e d only o n c e but with s o m e
elaboration; Philo, however, d o e s n o t provide any such instances. Since h e offers n o
further e x p l a n a t i o n a b o u t the o n e - t i m e c o m m e n t s cited in n. 7, it is difficult to
evaluate their significance in his overall thought.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 163

t h e s e c r i t e r i a , o n e c a n d i s t i n g u i s h f r o m a m o n g all h i s w r i t i n g s t h e
f o l l o w i n g five features that characterize t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d
t h e Jews:

1) T h e J e w s b e l i e v e in t h e o n e true G o d a n d w o r s h i p H i m by f o l l o w i n g
specific laws a n d c u s t o m s .
2) T h e J e w s serve as priestly intercessors b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e w h o l e
world.
3) T h e Jews have b e e n allotted or have allotted t h e m s e l v e s t o G o d .
4) T h e J e w s are especially b e l o v e d by G o d o r are especially G o d - l o v i n g .
5) T h e Jews are particular beneficiaries o f G o d ' s p r o v i d e n c e .

It is especially n o t e w o r t h y that P h i l o d o e s n o t speak a b o u t the Jews as be­

11
i n g a b l e to s e e G o d , a n ability h e associates p r e d o m i n a n t l y with "Israel."
Closer e x a m i n a t i o n o f the five features listed a b o v e reveals that e a c h o n e
h a s a basis in Scripture a n d , m o r e specifically, is l i n k e d e i t h e r t o d i v i n e
p r o m i s e s m a d e to t h e patriarchs a b o u t their d e s c e n d a n t n a t i o n o r t o t h e
c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e p e o p l e Israel. As w e shall s e e , h o w e v e r ,
P h i l o ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e s e features differs significantly f r o m t h e Biblical
sources.

The Biblical Sources Behind Philo's Discussion and Their Potential Ramifications

As n o t e d in t h e last c h a p t e r , t h e Bible p r e s e n t s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n
G o d a n d Israel by d e s c r i b i n g G o d ' s p r o m i s e s to t h e patriarchs a b o u t t h e i r
d e s c e n d a n t s a n d by t e l l i n g o f H i s c o v e n a n t with t h e n a t i o n Israel itself, a
c o v e n a n t w h i c h e n t a i l s t h e c o n d i t i o n o f o b e d i e n c e to H i s c o m m a n d ­
m e n t s . It is n o t clear why G o d c h o o s e s Israel o r its ancestors. O n e e x p l a ­
n a t i o n is that H e loves t h e p e o p l e (e.g., D e u t . 7 : 7 - 8 ) ; a n o t h e r is that H e
c h o o s e s t h e m b e c a u s e o f H i s previous c o m m i t m e n t to t h e patriarchs (e.g.,
D e u t . 4:31, 7 : 7 - 8 , cf. 10:15). S o m e t i m e s G o d ' s c h o i c e is simply u n e x p l a i n e d
(e.g., Exod. 19:3-6, Deut. 2 6 : 1 6 - 1 9 ) .
It was also n o t e d that the Biblical portrayal may b e offensive to different
p e o p l e for a variety o f r e a s o n s . P h i l o s o p h i c a l l y i n c l i n e d i n d i v i d u a l s , f o r
e x a m p l e — w h e t h e r J e w s o r n o n - J e w s — m i g h t b e t r o u b l e d by t h e a p p a r e n t

1 1
In Mos. 2.196 a n d Legat. 4, Philo applies language h e uses for "Israel" to the Jews.
S e e the discussion o f these exceptional passages in Chapter T h r e e . In addition, Philo
uses the m e t a p h o r o f sight in Mos. 2.271 and Spec. 1.54. In Mos. 2.271, h e n o t e s that
b e f o r e their worship of the g o l d e n calf, the p e o p l e h a d b e e n the m o s t sharp-sighted
( ό ξ υ ω π έ σ τ α τ ο ς ) of all the nations. In Spec. 1.54, h e says that m e m b e r s o f the nation
w h o give u p h o n o r of the O n e — i . e . , apostates—"have c h o s e n darkness in preference to
the brightest light a n d b l i n d f o l d e d the m i n d which h a d the p o w e r of k e e n vision
(τυφλήν άπεργαζόμενοι διάνοιαν όξύ καθοραν δυναμένην)." Neither passage quite says,
however, that the Biblical nation or Philo's Jewish contemporaries can "see God."
164 CHAPTER FIVE

arbitrariness o f G o d ' s c h o i c e o f Israel, since they w o u l d e x p e c t H i m t o act

in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h r e a s o n . A r e l a t e d difficulty is why o r h o w t h e F a t h e r
a n d M a k e r o f all c r e a t i o n m i g h t s h o w special a t t e n t i o n t o o n e particular
p e o p l e . In a d d i t i o n , m a n y o f t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s — w h i c h G o d r e q u i r e s as
p a r t o f H i s c o v e n a n t — s u c h as t h e dietary laws, d o n o t h a v e o b v i o u s ,
rational e x p l a n a t i o n s . Finally, e v e n for t h o s e n o t t r o u b l e d by t h e s e various
i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o b l e m s , t h e c l a i m o f o n e n a t i o n to b e specially c h o s e n by
G o d m i g h t a p p e a r boastful a n d cause r e s e n t m e n t a m o n g o t h e r p e o p l e s .
In t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r , w e saw that P h i l o may implicitly a d d r e s s s o m e
o f t h e s e c o n c e r n s in his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f relevant Biblical verses a n d o f
c o n c e p t s like "covenant" o r " c h o s e n race." H e a c c o m p l i s h e s this by re­
d e f i n i n g o r o m i t t i n g r e f e r e n c e to t h e c o v e n a n t , by p r e s e n t i n g t h e relation­
ship b e t w e e n G o d a n d "Israel" as applicable to any virtuous p e r s o n o r soul,
or by d e s c r i b i n g G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s as e x h o r t a t i o n s to p e o p l e to b e h a v e
virtuously in g e n e r a l .
In t h e s a m e way that P h i l o transforms t h e m e a n i n g o f specific Biblical
verses a b o u t G o d ' s c h o i c e o f Israel, so t o o d o e s h e rework a n d r e a p p l y
general t h e m e s derived from these verses to depict the relationship
b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e Jews in a favorable, i.e., inoffensive, m a n n e r . T h u s ,
in his c o m m e n t s a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e Jews, P h i l o
o m i t s m e n t i o n o f t h e c o v e n a n t , n e v e r p r e s e n t i n g J e w i s h laws a n d prac­
tices as a c o n d i t i o n o f a p r e s e t a g r e e m e n t . Instead o f giving t h e i m p r e s s i o n
that t h e J e w s have a n exclusive r e l a t i o n s h i p with G o d , P h i l o portrays t h e m
as s h o w i n g universal c o n c e r n for all h u m a n i t y in t h e i r w o r s h i p o f H i m .
Finally, as h e p r e s e n t s it, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e J e w s
a p p e a r s a c c e s s i b l e to any virtuous p e r s o n w h o turns to b e l i e f in t h e truly
Existent.
T h e s e various P h i l o n i c m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f Biblical t h e m e s are illustrated
12
in t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e five characteristics listed e a r l i e r .

1. The Jews believe in the one true God and worship Him by following specific
laws and customs.

P h i l o d i s c u s s e s J e w i s h laws a n d p r a c t i c e s at l e n g t h in h i s Exposition
treatises, especially in Decal.-Spec. 4, a n d h e occasionally observes that t h e
ancestral c u s t o m s o f t h e p e o p l e set t h e m apart f r o m o t h e r n a t i o n s (Mos.

1 2
It s h o u l d b e r e m e m b e r e d , o f course, that Philo inherits a tradition of exegesis and
d o e s n o t approach his Biblical sources in a vacuum. (See, e.g., the Introduction, esp. n.
49.) S o m e r e f e r e n c e s to o t h e r interpretations are cited in n n . 16, 2 2 , 35, a n d 38.
While it is n o t my p u r p o s e to trace the relationship b e t w e e n these interpretations
a n d t h o s e o f P h i l o , I offer these r e f e r e n c e s to illustrate h o w various e x e g e t e s in
antiquity a p p r o a c h e d similar Scriptural problems.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 165

1.278, Spec. 4 . 1 7 9 ) . T h r o u g h o u t t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s a n d e l s e w h e r e , t h e
n o t i o n that t h e J e w s b e l i e v e in t h e o n e true G o d is certainly implicit. In
t h r e e passages (Spec. 2 . 1 6 5 - 6 7 , Virt. 6 4 - 6 5 , a n d Legat. 1 1 5 ) , h o w e v e r , P h i l o
c o n n e c t s t h e J e w s ' b e l i e f in G o d with t h e i r laws a n d c u s t o m s , a s s e r t i n g
e x p l i c i t l y that t h e J e w s b e l i e v e in G o d a n d w o r s h i p H i m via t h e s e laws
and customs.
T h e t h r e e p a s s a g e s a p p e a r within different c o n t e x t s . Spec. 2 . 1 6 5 - 6 7 a n d
Virt. 6 4 - 6 5 are f r o m t h e E x p o s i t i o n , w h i l e Legat. 115 is part o f P h i l o ' s
political treatise a b o u t t h e embassy to Gaius. Spec. 2 . 1 6 5 - 6 7 — a n a l y z e d i n
m o r e d e t a i l l a t e r in this c h a p t e r — o c c u r s in a p a s s a g e i n w h i c h P h i l o
d e s c r i b e s t h e S h e a f Feast. T h e larger c o n t e x t o f t h e treatise is a d i s c u s s i o n
o f t h e J e w i s h h o l i d a y s in g e n e r a l . P h i l o n o t e s t h a t t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n
c h o o s e s ( έ λ ό μ ε ν ο ν , Spec. 2.166) w o r s h i p only o f t h e U n c r e a t e d a n d Eternal
a n d that it serves t h e truly existing G o d t h r o u g h its prayers, holidays, a n d
first-fruit offerings.
Virt. 6 4 - 6 5 o c c u r s in a passage in w h i c h P h i l o praises M o s e s for a s k i n g
G o d to c h o o s e his successor rather than c h o o s i n g the p e r s o n himself.
H e r e P h i l o writes t h a t t h e p e r s o n s e l e c t e d will l e a d n o t a n o r d i n a r y
n a t i o n , b u t t h e o n e that m a k e s supplication to the truly Existent, t h e M a k e r
a n d F a t h e r o f all. M o r e o v e r , t h r o u g h t h e i r laws a n d c u s t o m s , t h e J e w s
gain knowledge of God, a knowledge which others gain through the most
excellent teachings of philosophy.
Finally, Legat. 115 e x p l a i n s that t h e e m p e r o r Gaius dislikes t h e J e w s
b e c a u s e t h e y refuse to w o r s h i p h i m . Instead, trained by parents, t e a c h e r s ,
a n d t h e i r laws a n d unwritten c u s t o m s , they r e c o g n i z e t h e o n e G o d w h o is
F a t h e r a n d Maker o f all.
T o f i n d t h e Biblical roots o f t h e s e statements, o n e n e e d n o t s e a r c h far.
M o s t obviously, in t h e B o o k o f E x o d u s , c h a p t e r s 1 9 - 2 4 , w h e n G o d estab­
l i s h e s H i s c o v e n a n t w i t h t h e p e o p l e o f Israel, t h e i r o b e d i e n c e t o H i s
c o m m a n d m e n t s is part a n d parcel o f H i s c o v e n a n t . G o d c h a r g e s , "If y o u
will o b e y My v o i c e a n d k e e p My c o v e n a n t , y o u shall b e to M e a s p e c i a l
p e o p l e a m o n g all t h e nations" ( E x o d . 19:5, m y translation). T h i s c h a r g e is
f o l l o w e d by r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s a n d a variety o f o t h e r
laws p e r t a i n i n g to social a n d ritual matters ( E x o d u s 2 0 - 2 3 ) . I n d e e d , G o d ' s
c o m m a n d m e n t s t o Israel, w h i c h apply to a w i d e r a n g e o f d o m a i n s , are
p r e s e n t e d as a n integral part o f H i s c o v e n a n t with t h e n a t i o n t h r o u g h o u t
s u b s e q u e n t parts o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h as well. T h u s , a c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e ,
Israel's o b s e r v a n c e o f G o d ' s laws r e p r e s e n t s t h e p e o p l e ' s s i d e o f a n
a g r e e m e n t w h i c h H e initiates with t h e m .
W h e n P h i l o , h o w e v e r , m e n t i o n s t h e Jews' b e l i e f in G o d a n d t h e i r wor­
s h i p o f H i m t h r o u g h their laws a n d c u s t o m s , h e departs f r o m t h e Biblical
portrayal i n i m p o r t a n t ways, e m p h a s i z i n g s o m e details, w h i l e o m i t t i n g
166 CHAPTER FIVE

o t h e r s . T h u s , for e x a m p l e , h e d o e s n o t say that t h e J e w s p r a c t i c e G o d ' s

c o m m a n d m e n t s as part o f a c o v e n a n t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h G o d initiates.
In fact, i n s t e a d o f p r o c l a i m i n g that G o d c h o o s e s t h e Jews, h e d e c l a r e s t h e
Jews have c h o s e n H i m (Spec. 2 . 1 6 6 ) .
N o r i n t h e s e p a s s a g e s d o e s P h i l o speak o f the laws as G o d ' s c o m m a n d ­
m e n t s . I n s t e a d h e refers to t h e m simply as laws ( ν ό μ ο ι ) a n d c u s t o m s (εθη)
(Virt. 6 5 , Legat. 1 1 5 ) . T h e s e laws a n d c u s t o m s , m o r e o v e r , are n o t a n e n d in
t h e m s e l v e s b u t r a t h e r are t h e m e a n s t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e J e w s serve G o d
(Spec. 2.167) a n d i n d e e d t h r o u g h w h i c h they c o m e to k n o w H i m (Virt. 6 4 -
65, Legat. 1 1 5 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , Jewish laws a n d c u s t o m s a p p e a r n o t as part o f
a p r e s e t a g r e e m e n t h a n d e d d o w n by t h e Lord, b u t instead as a p a t h w h i c h
l e a d s t h e J e w s t o H i m . Implicitly, a n y o n e may f o l l o w this p a t h , n o t o n l y
t h e Jews. In a d d i t i o n , at t h e e n d o f this p a t h is n o t j u s t t h e G o d o f t h e Jews,
b u t t h e F a t h e r a n d M a k e r o f all (Spec. 2 . 1 6 5 , Virt. 6 4 , Legat. 1 1 5 ) , t h e
U n c r e a t e d a n d Eternal (Spec. 2 . 1 6 6 ) , the G o d o f the p h i l o s o p h e r s (Virt. 6 5 ) .

2 . The Jews serve as pnestly intercessors between God and the whole world.

P h i l o writes that t h e Jews serve as priests o r intercessors for all h u m a n i t y

1 3
in Abr. 9 8 , Mos. 1.149, Spec. 1.97, a n d Spec. 2 . 1 6 2 - 6 7 . T h i s priestly role is
1 4
also s u g g e s t e d b u t n o t stated directly in Spec. 4.180 a n d Legat. 3 . As to t h e
l a r g e r c o n t e x t s o f t h e s e r e m a r k s , i n r e c o u n t i n g Biblical history in t h e
Exposition, even before the nation appears o n the scene, Philo m e n t i o n s
that it is d e s t i n e d to b e c o m e t h e p r i e s t h o o d a n d to offer prayers for t h e
w o r l d (Abr. 9 8 , Mos. 1.149). Later, w h i l e d e s c r i b i n g t h e special practices o f
t h e Jews, h e portrays their h i g h priest b o t h as a n a t i o n a l figure a n d as o n e
w h o prays o n b e h a l f o f all p e o p l e a n d i n d e e d o f t h e w h o l e universe (Spec.
1 5
1.97). P h i l o ' s m o s t e x t e n d e d s t a t e m e n t o f t h e nation-as-priest t h e m e
a p p e a r s in a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e S h e a f Feast in Spec. 2 . 1 6 2 - 6 7 , in w h i c h h e
asserts that n o t o n l y d o the Jews act as the p r i e s t h o o d for all o t h e r n a t i o n s ,
16
b u t they also serve to correct t h e false worship o f these o t h e r n a t i o n s .

1 3
Abr. 98 and Spec. 2 . 1 6 2 - 6 7 are analyzed in the last section of this chapter.
1 4
B o t h o f these passages are discussed in the last section of this chapter. Cf. Mos.
2 . 1 8 9 , in w h i c h P h i l o calls the B i b l i c a l — a n d p e r h a p s c o n t e m p o r a r y — n a t i o n the
race/class that worships H i m (τό θεραπευτικόν αυτού γένος). O n Mos. 2.189, see above, n.
7, a n d below, n. 60.
1 5
It s h o u l d be n o t e d that this remark refers only to the Jewish h i g h priest a n d n o t
to the w h o l e n a t i o n . Philo arrives at the idea that the h i g h priest serves a universal
role based u p o n the symbols of the universe represented by his special garments. See
also Mos. 2 . 1 1 7 - 3 5 .
1 6
In general, Philo seems to speak about the Jews as priests in a metaphorical sense,
m e a n i n g , that is, that they serve as representatives for all humanity in the worship of
God. Spec. 2 . 1 6 2 - 6 7 , however, pertains to a real priestly ritual, namely, the offering of
first fruits. See also Spec. 1.168 a n d 190, w h i c h describe sacrifices m a d e o n behalf o f
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 167

A l t h o u g h P h i l o f r e q u e n t l y portrays t h e J e w s as w o r s h i p p e r s o f G o d
w h o s e p r a c t i c e s a n d c u s t o m s are a m e a n s f o r s e r v i n g H i m , w h a t dis­
1 7
t i n g u i s h e s t h e m f r o m o t h e r p e o p l e is that they alone serve G o d a n d that
t h e y serve H i m o n b e h a l f o f all h u m a n i t y . Related to this t h e m e is P h i l o ' s
d e n u n c i a t i o n o f all f o r m s o f false w o r s h i p . U n d e r this rubric h e i n c l u d e s ,
for e x a m p l e , w o r s h i p o f t h e four e l e m e n t s a n d parts o f nature (Decal. 5 3 - 6 5 ,
Spec. 1 . 1 3 - 2 0 ) ; i d o l s (Decal. 6 6 - 7 6 , Spec. 1 . 2 1 - 2 7 ) ; a n i m a l s (Decal 7 6 - 8 0 ) ;
a n d m y t h i c g o d s (Spec. 1 . 2 8 - 2 9 , Spec. 2.164) (cf. also Spec. 1 . 3 2 5 - 4 5 ) . In
contrast t o p e o p l e w h o h o l d t h e s e false beliefs, t h e Jews are d i s t i n g u i s h e d
by t h e i r faith in t h e o n e true G o d . In fact, they play a role in c o r r e c t i n g
this false w o r s h i p o f o t h e r n a t i o n s (Spec. 2 . 1 6 2 - 6 7 ) .
A basis for t h e i d e a that Israel is a n a t i o n o f priests c a n certainly b e
f o u n d in t h e Bible, for e x a m p l e , in G e n . 1 2 : 2 - 3 , E x o d . 19:6, o r Lev. 20:26.
W h i l e t h e s e v a r i o u s B i b l i c a l p a s s a g e s , h o w e v e r , m a y — i n o n e way o r
a n o t h e r — r e p r e s e n t t h e e n t i r e n a t i o n as priestly, n o n e o f t h e m c l a i m s
directly a n d u n a m b i g u o u s l y that t h e p e o p l e serve as priests o n b e h a l f o f
t h e w h o l e w o r l d . I n d e e d all t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s e m p h a s i z e t h e e x c l u s i v e
r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel, w i t h o u t clearly s p e c i f y i n g its r o l e
1 8
vis-a-vis o t h e r p e o p l e s .
A s t r o n g possibility for t h e Scriptural s u p p o r t b e h i n d P h i l o ' s c l a i m that
t h e n a t i o n serves as t h e p r i e s t h o o d for all h u m a n i t y c a n b e f o u n d a m o n g
t h e divine p r o m i s e s to the patriarchs. In G e n . 1 2 : 1 - 3 , for e x a m p l e , G o d tells
A b r a h a m to leave his h o m e l a n d , a n d H e blesses h i m as follows: "And I
will m a k e o f y o u a g r e a t n a t i o n , a n d I will b l e s s y o u , a n d m a k e y o u r
19
n a m e great, s o that y o u will b e b l e s s e d . I will bless t h o s e w h o bless y o u ,
a n d h i m w h o c u r s e s y o u I will curse; a n d in y o u all t h e f a m i l i e s o f t h e
earth shall b e blessed" ( G e n . 1 2 : 2 - 3 ) .
T h e latter part o f this verse—"in y o u all t h e families o f t h e e a r t h shall
b e b l e s s e d ( κ α ι έ ν ε ύ λ ο γ η θ ή σ ο ν τ α ι έν σ ο ι π α σ α ι αί φ υ λ α ι της γ η ς ) " — i s
2 0
a m b i g u o u s . B e c a u s e t h e verb έ ν ε υ λ ο γ η θ ή σ ο ν τ α ι is in t h e passive v o i c e ,

the Jewish nation and the w h o l e world. Cf. BT Sukkah 55b.

1 7
Spec. 2.165-67, Spec. 4 . 1 7 9 - 8 2 , Legat. 115-18.
1 8
Only later in the Bible, in S e c o n d Isaiah, is this role discussed. S e e , e.g., Isaiah
4 2 : 1 - 7 , 49:6. S e e also Robert Martin-Achard, A Light to the Nations: A Study of the Old
Testament Conception of Israel's Mission to the World, trans. J o h n P e n n e y Smith (Edin­
burgh: Oliver a n d Boyd, 1 9 6 2 ) , esp. 8 - 3 1 . For a somewhat different perspective, see
Harry M. Orlinsky, "Nationalism-Universalism a n d I n t e r n a t i o n a l i s m in A n c i e n t
Israel," Translating & Understanding the Old Testament: Essays in Honor of Herbert Gordon
May, e d . Harry T h o m a s Frank a n d William L. R e e d (Nashville: A b i n g d o n Press,
1970), esp. 2 2 7 - 2 8 .
1 9
καί εση εύλογητός. In the Hebrew, the last part of the verse says, "So that you will be
a blessing (ro"n rrrn)."
2 0
T h i s clause or a similar o n e is r e p e a t e d in Gen. 18:18, 22:18, 26:4, a n d 28:14,
where the verb ένευλογέομαι is always in the passive (ένευλογηθήσονται). In the Hebrew
168 CHAPTER FIVE

a n d b e c a u s e t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase έν σ ο ι ( i n y o u ) is n o t
p r e c i s e , it is u n c l e a r w h a t r o l e A b r a h a m o r h i s d e s c e n d a n t s will play i n
transmitting blessings t o t h e families o f t h e earth. A l s o , it s h o u l d b e n o t e d
that t h e p r o n o u n σ ύ , y o u , is singular.
O n e way o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e clause q u o t e d above is that t h e blessings
b e s t o w e d u p o n A b r a h a m m a y s p r e a d t h r o u g h a k i n d o f "trickle-down
effect" t o h i s d e s c e n d a n t s a n d all o t h e r n a t i o n s . I n o t h e r w o r d s , A b r a h a m
will serve as a s o u r c e o f b l e s s i n g s , b u t j u s t h o w t h e s e b l e s s i n g s will b e
2 1
s p r e a d r e m a i n s v a g u e . T h e c l a u s e m a y also, h o w e v e r , b e u n d e r s t o o d t o
s u g g e s t that all t h e families o f t h e earth will b e b l e s s e d by A b r a h a m a n d
p e r h a p s by h i s d e s c e n d a n t s . T h i s s e n s e m a y i m p l y that A b r a h a m ' s h e i r s
2 2
will play a direct role in c o n f e r r i n g blessings u p o n o t h e r p e o p l e s .
P h i l o ' s c l a i m that t h e J e w s serve as priests f o r t h e w h o l e w o r l d is m o r e
in a c c o r d with this latter construal. W h i l e t h e verse d o e s n o t d e c l a r e that
t h e n a t i o n will actively bless o t h e r s , t h e ambiguity o f t h e w o r d s certainly
p e r m i t s this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . O f t h e two possibilities j u s t m e n t i o n e d — n a m e ­
ly, that A b r a h a m will b e a s o u r c e o f blessings b u t j u s t h o w is u n c l e a r o r
that h e o r h i s d e s c e n d a n t s will actively spread t h e b l e s s i n g s t h e m s e l v e s —
t h e s e c o n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g m i g h t b e m o r e palatable t o o u t s i d e r s . T h i s is
b e c a u s e u n l i k e t h e first construal, t h e s e c o n d portrays A b r a h a m a n d h i s
d e s c e n d a n t s as actively "sharing t h e wealth."
2 3
B e s i d e s t h i s d i v i n e p r o m i s e t o Israel's a n c e s t o r s , other passages
a d d r e s s e d t o t h e n a t i o n itself c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d t o portray t h e m as priests.
For e x a m p l e , i n E x o d . 19:6, G o d p r o c l a i m s t o Israel, "You shall b e t o M e a

for these verses, the verb "pa is s o m e t i m e s in the bus: (Όηηϊ), G e n . 12:3, 18:18, 28:14)
a n d s o m e t i m e s in t h e busnn (on^nni, G e n . 22:18, 26:4). While the can be
translated in either a passive or reflexive sense, the ^uann is translated only as reflex­
ive or reciprocal: ' T h e y shall bless themselves." (Ephraim A. Speiser, e d . , Genesis, vol.
1 o f The Anchor Bible, e d . William Foxwell Albright a n d David N o e l F r e e d m a n
[ G a r d e n City, N e w York: D o u b l e d a y , 1964], 86.) T h i s further a m b i g u i t y i n t h e
Hebrew contributes to the different ways these verses have b e e n understood. S e e below,
n. 22.
2 1
Philo interprets G e n . 12:3 a l o n g these lines in Migr. 118-26. Cf., e.g., Migr. 121:
"For in truth t h e righteous m a n is the f o u n d a t i o n o n which m a n k i n d rests. All that
h e h i m s e l f has h e brings i n t o t h e c o m m o n stock a n d gives in a b u n d a n c e for the
benefit o f all w h o shall use them." H e r e , the righteous m a n is a source o f blessings
but d o e s n o t s e e m to confer t h e m direcdy u p o n the people.
2 2
For various interpretations o f this verse, see B e n Sira 44:21, Acts 3:25, Gal. 3:8. T h e
first two interpretations u n d e r s t a n d God's blessing to apply t o Abraham's d e s c e n d ­
ants, even t h o u g h the p r o n o u n in the phrase έν σοι is singular. Rabbinic a n d o t h e r
Jewish interpretations are c o l l e c t e d by M e n a h e m M. Kasher, Encyclopedia of Biblical
Interpretation: A Millennial Anthology, trans. Harry F r e e d m a n ( N e w York: A m e r i c a n
Biblical E n c y c l o p e d i a Society, 1955), 2:118-19. S e e also Martin-Achard, A Light to the
Nations, 33-37, and Jaubert, La notion d Alliance, 56-57.
2 3
T h e promise is repeated to Isaac (Gen. 26:4) and Jacob (Gen. 28:14). See above, n. 20.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 169

2 4
royal p r i e s t h o o d a n d a h o l y n a t i o n " (my translation). H e r e G o d actively
a n d explicitly c h o o s e s Israel t o serve H i m . I n d e e d , this characterization o f
t h e n a t i o n as a "royal p r i e s t h o o d " c o m e s at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e pivotal
e v e n t at Sinai w h e n t h e e x c l u s i v e b o n d is f o r g e d b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e
w h o l e p e o p l e ( E x o d u s 1 9 - 2 4 ) . E x o d . 19:6, h o w e v e r , d e f i n e s Israel's r o l e
o n l y i n r e l a t i o n t o G o d a n d d o e s n o t m e n t i o n o t h e r n a t i o n s . G o d says,
"You shall b e to Me a royal p r i e s t h o o d a n d a h o l y n a t i o n " ( m y e m p h a s i s ) .
W h e n P h i l o c l a i m s that t h e Jews serve as t h e p r i e s t h o o d for all h u m a n i t y ,
2 5
t h e n , h e g o e s b e y o n d a n d e x t e n d s the divine directive q u o t e d h e r e .
Lev. 2 0 : 2 6 is a n o t h e r verse that d e p i c t s Israel as a c o n s e c r a t e d p e o p l e .
H e r e , G o d says, "You shall b e h o l y t o Me, b e c a u s e I t h e L o r d y o u r G o d a m
h o l y , w h o h a s s e p a r a t e d y o u f r o m all t h e n a t i o n s to b e M i n e " ( m y trans­
l a t i o n , cf. Lev. 1 9 : 2 ) . T h i s verse e m p h a s i z e s G o d ' s s i n g l i n g o u t o f t h e
n a t i o n Israel to b e h o l y t o H i m . As in t h e p r e v i o u s e x a m p l e , h o w e v e r ,
e v e n t h o u g h t h e Bible characterizes Israel as c o n s e c r a t e d a n d holy, it stops
s h o r t o f d e c l a r i n g , as P h i l o d o e s , that Israel serves a r o l e for t h e w h o l e
2 6
world.
W h e n P h i l o p r o c l a i m s t h e n that t h e Jews act as priests f o r all h u m a n ­
ity, h e is significantly r e c a s t i n g t h e m e a n i n g o f d i v i n e p r o m i s e s t o t h e
n a t i o n ' s a n c e s t o r s a n d t h e c o v e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel.
I n s t e a d o f r e p e a t i n g Biblical claims that G o d bestows H i s blessings u p o n
o n e n a t i o n , a p p o i n t i n g it as H i s exclusive servant, P h i l o stresses that that
n a t i o n serves a role for o t h e r p e o p l e s , i n d e e d for t h e w h o l e world. W h e n
h e c l a i m s that t h e Jews correct t h e error o f t h e o t h e r n a t i o n s that w o r s h i p
falsely, h e i m p l i e s that o t h e r n a t i o n s t o o can serve G o d o n c e they r e c o g ­
n i z e t h e folly o f t h e i r ways. By p r e s e n t i n g t h e Jews as t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
p r i e s t h o o d for all p e o p l e , t h e n , P h i l o transforms w h a t in t h e Bible is part o f
a n e x c l u s i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p with G o d i n t o a role that b e n e f i t s all h u m a n i t y
a n d that c o n c e i v a b l y is available to a n y o n e w h o turns to b e l i e f in H i m .

3 . The Jews have been allotted or have allotted themselves to God.

In f o u r p l a c e s (Spec. 4.159, 180; Virt. 34; Legat. 3 ) , P h i l o writes that t h e Jews

2 7
have b e e n allotted o r have allotted themselves (προσκεκλήρωνται) to G o d .

2 4
β α σ ί λ ε ι ο ν ίεράτευμα. Cf. the Hebrew, wm ro'TDD, a kingdom of priests.
2 5
O n this verse, see also Martin-Achard, A Light to the Nations, 3 7 - 4 0 .
2 6
B e s i d e s t h e s e e x a m p l e s , Philo derives from E x o d . 12:6 that the w h o l e n a t i o n
serves as priests for o n e day, i.e., d u r i n g the Pascha feast. In this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ,
however, h e d o e s n o t m e n t i o n the nation's role o n behalf of all humanity. S e e QE
1.10, Mos. 2.224, Decal. 159, Spec. 2 . 1 4 5 - 4 6 .
2 7
Spec. 4.180 a n d Legat. 3 are analyzed in the last section o f this chapter a n d are
therefore n o t q u o t e d in the notes. Philo d o e s n o t speak about the nation in the same
way in these four passages. In Spec. 4.159, for e x a m p l e , h e d o e s n o t m e n t i o n the
170 CHAPTER FIVE

E a c h r e f e r e n c e a p p e a r s as a passing remark, u p o n w h i c h h e n e v e r e l a b o ­
rates. In all t h e s e passages, t h e remark falls in a c o n t e x t in w h i c h P h i l o is
d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h e Biblical n a t i o n o r t h e Jews f r o m f o r e i g n e r s o r f r o m all
o t h e r p e o p l e . In Spec. 4 . 1 5 9 , for e x a m p l e , h e says that all m e m b e r s o f t h e
n a t i o n are a s s i g n e d t o G o d , in t h e c o n t e x t o f e x p l a i n i n g why a f o r e i g n e r
28
c a n n o t b e their r u l e r . T h e r e f e r e n c e in Spec. 4 . 1 8 0 appears in a passage in
w h i c h h e c o m p a r e s t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y J e w i s h n a t i o n t o a n o r p h a n , in
c o n t r a s t t o o t h e r n a t i o n s w h i c h always h a v e allies. In Virt. 3 4 , P h i l o
d e s c r i b e s t h e p e o p l e as a l l o t t e d to G o d in r e c o u n t i n g t h e r e a s o n for t h e
M i d i a n i t e s ' hostility toward t h e Biblical n a t i o n , narrated in N u m . 2 5 : 1 - 1 8
2 9
a n d 3 L 1 - 1 8 . Finally, in Legat. 3, h e n o t e s that the Jews are allotted to G o d
in t h e c o n t e x t o f a r g u i n g that G o d e x t e n d s His p r o v i d e n c e to all p e o p l e ,
3 0
especially the J e w s .
It is particularly striking that in all t h e s e r e f e r e n c e s , P h i l o always u s e s
t h e verb π ρ ο σ κ λ η ρ ό ω , allot, in a f o r m that can express e i t h e r t h e m i d d l e o r
passive v o i c e , l e a v i n g s o m e a m b i g u i t y as to w h e t h e r t h e p e o p l e h a v e
31
a l l o t t e d t h e m s e l v e s t o G o d or G o d h a s allotted t h e m to H i m s e l f . Had
P h i l o w i s h e d t o b e e x p l i c i t o n this matter, h e certainly c o u l d h a v e b e e n .
I n d e e d a l t h o u g h t h e v e r b π ρ ο σ κ λ η ρ ό ω is fairly rare a m o n g G r e e k writers
in antiquity, P h i l o u s e s it t h e m o s t f r e q u e n t l y a n d in t h e m o s t v a r i e d
3 2
f o r m s . Occasionally, for e x a m p l e , h e uses π ρ ο σ κ λ η ρ ό ω in t h e active v o i c e

nation by n a m e but seems to m e a n the past and present p e o p l e . In Spec. 4.180, h e d o e s

n a m e the Jews explicitly (Spec. 4 . 1 7 9 ) , referring to the contemporary nation. Virt. 34
speaks a b o u t the Hebrews, i.e., the Biblical nation; and Legat. 3 m e n t i o n s "Israel,"
w h i c h , as we have s e e n , Philo implicitly identifies with the Jews.
2 8
This passage is based u p o n Deut. 17:15: "One from a m o n g your brethren you shall
set as king over you; you may n o t put a foreigner over you, w h o is n o t your brother." In
Spec. 4.159, Philo writes, "For h e assumed with g o o d reason that o n e w h o was their
fellow-tribesman a n d fellow-kinsman related to t h e m by the tie w h i c h brings the
h i g h e s t kinship, the kinship o f having o n e citizenship a n d the same law and [ o n e
G o d to w h o m all w h o b e l o n g to the n a t i o n have b e e n allotted or have allotted
themselves ( π ρ ο σ κ ε κ λ ή ρ ω ν τ α ι ) ] would never sin in the way just m e n t i o n e d . "
2 9
Virt. 34: "They [the Midianites] were hostile toward the Hebrews, for n o o t h e r
reason than that they reverence and h o n o r the most supreme and eldest cause, b e i n g
d e d i c a t e d ( π ρ ο σ κ ε κ λ η ρ ω μ έ ν ο ι ) to the Creator and Father of the universe" (my trans­
lation).
3 0
Again, Philo d o e s n o t use the word "Jews" explicitly in Legat. 3, a l t h o u g h they are
the implicit referent. See the discussion of Legat. 1-7 in the last section of this chapter.
3 1
For a d i s c u s s i o n o f a similar ambiguity in Acts 17:4, s e e W e r n e r Foerster,
"προσκληρόω," TDNT, 3:766. In two out of the four passages cited above (Spec. 4.159 and
Legat. 3 ) , Colson, in the LCL edition, opts for the sense that G o d assigns the p e o p l e to
Himself, translating the verb in the active voice with God as the subject.
3 2
Philo uses π ρ ο σ κ λ η ρ ό ω thirty-six times. Results of a search through the TLG data­
base show that the word also appears o n c e in each of the following sources: C l e m e n t
o f Alexandria, D i o Cassius, Diodorus Siculus, Eusebius, Pseudo-Lucian, J o s e p h u s , and
the N e w T e s t a m e n t (Acts 17:4); and three times in J o h n Chrysostom.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 171

33
to describe a subject that d e v o t e s itself to s o m e t h i n g . At the s a m e t i m e , h e
a l s o s p e a k s a b o u t G o d i n t h e active v o i c e as a s s i g n i n g s o m e t h i n g t o
3 4
Himself. S i n c e P h i l o u s e s t h e v e r b in t h e active v o i c e e l s e w h e r e , a n d
s i n c e h e c h o o s e s t h e m i d d l e o r passive v o i c e e a c h t i m e h e s p e a k s a b o u t
t h e J e w s b e i n g allotted to G o d , h e may wish to r e m a i n p u r p o s e l y a m b i g u ­
35
o u s a b o u t w h o allots t h e m to H i m — G o d or t h e p e o p l e t h e m s e l v e s .
Several Scriptural p a s s a g e s s u p p o r t , at least indirectly, t h e i d e a e i t h e r
t h a t Israel is e s p e c i a l l y a s s i g n e d t o G o d o r that G o d assigns Israel t o
Himself. E x a m p l e s o f t h e s e verses i n c l u d e E x o d . 4:22, 19:5; Lev. 20:26; a n d
D e u t . 3 2 : 8 - 9 . T h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , for e x a m p l e , cites Lev. 20:26, in w h i c h
G o d says H e h a s s e p a r a t e d Israel f r o m all o t h e r p e o p l e s t o b e H i s o w n .
Similarly, in E x o d . 19:5, G o d p r o c l a i m s Israel to b e H i s o w n special p e o p l e
( λ α ό ς π ε ρ ι ο ύ σ ι ο ς ) . In E x o d . 4:22, G o d calls Israel H i s firstborn s o n ( υ ι ό ς
πρωτότοκος μ ο υ Ι σ ρ α ή λ ) . A l t h o u g h this specific verse d o e s n o t d e s c r i b e
G o d as c h o o s i n g Israel, o n e finds t h r o u g h o u t the Bible t h e n o t i o n that t h e
firstborn o r first fruits b e l o n g t o G o d or that H e h a s t a k e n t h e m f o r
3 6
Himself.
O t h e r p a s s a g e s as w e l l c o u l d b e c i t e d as e x a m p l e s in w h i c h G o d
expressly "chooses" Israel or in w h i c h H e describes Israel as b e l o n g i n g to
H i m (e.g., D e u t . 7:6, 14:2). Perhaps t h e m o s t relevant in this case, h o w e v e r ,
is D e u t . 3 2 : 8 - 9 . H e r e it says,

8 W h e n the Most H i g h distributed nations,

W h e n H e dispersed the sons o f Adam,
H e set boundaries of nations
According to the n u m b e r of angels o f God,
9And Jacob His p e o p l e b e c a m e the Lord's portion;
37
Israel b e c a m e the lot of His i n h e r i t a n c e . (LCL translation)

T h i s p a s s a g e is e s p e c i a l l y attractive as a p o s s i b l e s o u r c e for P h i l o ' s

c l a i m s that Israel is a s s i g n e d to G o d . For o n e t h i n g , D e u t . 32:9 is v a g u e
a b o u t w h o assigns Israel to H i m , e v e n t h o u g h D e u t . 32:8 suggests that G o d
is t h e active a g e n t . T h u s , verse 8 says that "the M o s t H i g h d i s t r i b u t e d

3 3
E.g., Mut. 127, Abr. 198, Decal. 108.
3 4
E.g., Cher. 85, Sacr. 119, Somn. 2.227.
3 5
Cf. Spec. 1.114, in which the same ambiguity pertains to the high priest, described
as π ρ ο σ κ ε κ λ η ρ ω μ έ ν ο ς , allotted, to God. For rabbinic discussions about the mutuality o f
c h o i c e between G o d and Israel, see Urbach, The Sages, 5 3 0 - 3 1 .
3 6
Firstborn: Exod. 13:11-13, 34:19; Numbers 3:13, 8:17; et al. First fruits: Exod. 23:19,
34:26; et al. T h e injunctions about the firstborn and first fruits are probably based u p o n
the same principle, i.e., that the first p r o d u c e (of the w o m b or the earth) b e l o n g s to
God. See Baruch A. Levine, "Firstborn" and "First Fruits," Encyclopedia Judaica 6 : 1 3 0 6 -
08, 1312-14.
3 7
T h e Greek for Deut. 32:8 differs somewhat from the Hebrew. See Chapter Four, n.
13.
172 CHAPTER FIVE

n a t i o n s , " w h i l e v e r s e 9 says that "Israel b e c a m e t h e l o t o f H i s i n h e r i ­

3 8
t a n c e . " M o r e o v e r , in Post. 9 2 , P h i l o interprets this verse by c o m m e n t i n g
that t h e o n e w h o s e e s G o d (i.e., Israel) is assigned (προσκεκλήρωται) t o t h e
O n e w h o is s e e n . A l t h o u g h w e c a n n o t c o n c l u s i v e l y identify "Israel" w i t h
t h e J e w s in Post. 9 2 , it s e e m s p o s s i b l e , n e v e r t h e l e s s — s i n c e P h i l o u s e s t h e
verb π ρ ο σ κ λ η ρ ό ω in this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n — t h a t h e may have D e u t . 3 2 : 8 - 9 in
m i n d w h e n h e u s e s t h e s a m e v e r b e l s e w h e r e to d e s c r i b e t h e Biblical o r
c o n t e m p o r a r y n a t i o n as b e i n g d e d i c a t e d to G o d .
W h a t e v e r s p e c i f i c v e r s e (s) h e m a y h a v e i n m i n d , h o w e v e r , P h i l o ' s
f o r m u l a t i o n d o w n p l a y s o r alters t h e d e c l a r a t i o n that G o d actively c h o o s e s
o r d e s c r i b e s Israel as H i s special p e o p l e , a n assertion w h i c h m a y o f f e n d
his r e a d e r s . F u r t h e r m o r e , if o n e w e r e t o u n d e r s t a n d f r o m t h e a m b i g u i t y
o f t h e v e r b that t h e Jews have allotted t h e m s e l v e s to G o d , o n e m i g h t c o n ­
c l u d e that a n y o n e w h o c h o o s e s may d o t h e s a m e . I n d e e d P h i l o c o n t e n d s
explicitly in several p l a c e s that a n y o n e w h o w i s h e s m a y turn t o b e l i e f in
3 9
a n d w o r s h i p o f t h e true G o d . As a result, a l l o t m e n t to G o d n e e d n o t b e
s e e n as t h e exclusive d o m a i n o f t h e Jews.

4 . The Jews are especially beloved by God or are especially God-loving.

P h i l o talks a b o u t t h e J e w s — e i t h e r t h e Biblical n a t i o n o r t h e i r d e s c e n d ­
a n t s — a s b e l o v e d by G o d o r G o d - l o v i n g ( θ ε ο φ ι λ ή ς ) in Abr. 98; Mos. 1.147,
40
255; a n d Hypoth. 6 . 7 . In Abr. 9 8 , h e proclaims that t h e n a t i o n o f A b r a h a m
a n d Sarah's d e s c e n d a n t s is t h e o n e m o s t b e l o v e d by G o d o r m o s t G o d -
l o v i n g ( θ ε ο φ ι λ έ σ τ α τ ο ν ) a n d that it has r e c e i v e d t h e offices o f p r i e s t h o o d
a n d p r o p h e c y for all h u m a n i t y . In Mos. 1.147, h e m e n t i o n s that s o m e
p e o p l e j o i n t h e H e b r e w s in leaving Egypt, attracted by t h e divine favor o r
G o d - l o v i n g quality (τό θ ε ο φ ι λ έ ς ) o f t h e n a t i o n . Mos. 1.255 d e s c r i b e s t h e
Biblical n a t i o n as θ ε ο φ ι λ ε ί ς , t h o s e b e l o v e d by G o d o r God-loving, in telling
h o w they s i n g a s o n g o f thanks to H i m u p o n f i n d i n g a well o n t h e b o r d e r
o f t h e l a n d they are a b o u t to possess. Finally, in Hypoth. 6.7, P h i l o suggests
that t h e Biblical n a t i o n may c o n q u e r t h e l a n d ( C a n a a n ) n o t by f o r c e b u t
by w i n n i n g t h e r e s p e c t o f its i n h a b i t a n t s , a feat w h i c h w o u l d s h o w that

3 8
In the Allegory, Philo interprets these verses in Post. 9 1 - 9 2 and Plant. 5 8 - 6 0 . For a
discussion o f Post. 9 1 - 9 2 , m e n t i o n e d immediately below, see Chapter Four. Cf. also
Ben Sira 17:17.
3 9
Decal 58; Spec. 1.16-20, 51; Virt. 102, 177-79; et al.
4 0
Abr. 98 is discussed in the last section of this chapter. As e x p l a i n e d below, θεοφιλής
can m e a n either beloved by G o d or God-loving. Both understandings are possible in
the first three passages. In Hypoth. 6.7, however, the passive m e a n i n g , i.e., beloved by
G o d , m a k e s m o r e s e n s e than the active m e a n i n g , since the passage describes the
respect o f the nation's e n e m i e s for the nation, and it would s e e m that these e n e m i e s
would be m o r e impressed by God's love of the nation than by its love o f H i m .
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 173

e v e n t h e p e o p l e ' s e n e m i e s a c k n o w l e d g e t h e m as m o s t b e l o v e d o f G o d
(θεοφιλέστατοι).
W e c a n find Biblical s u p p o r t for t h e n o t i o n that t h e Jews are b e l o v e d by
G o d i n several passages, w h i c h e i t h e r declare or s u g g e s t that G o d loves o r
favors Israel especially ( D e u t . 4:37, 7 : 7 - 8 , 10:15; E x o d . 4:22; e t al.). Many o f
t h e s e p a s s a g e s a p p e a r i n c o n t e x t s w h i c h cite t h e c o v e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e p e o p l e . P h i l o , h o w e v e r , recasts t h e c l a i m that G o d
loves Israel, i n a way that w o u l d n o t o f f e n d his readers. For o n e t h i n g , h e
n e v e r refers explicitly t o t h e c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e n a t i o n , t h e r e ­
by e l i m i n a t i n g any s e n s e o f a p r e s e t relationship. Instead, to e x p r e s s G o d ' s
love for t h e p e o p l e , h e uses t h e w o r d θ ε ο φ ι λ ή ς , w h i c h is quite c o m m o n in
41
G r e e k a n d c a n b e u s e d t o describe p e o p l e , places, a n d t h i n g s .
Also, since Philo's contemporary Greek-speaking world had various
c o n c e p t i o n s o f divinity, t h e w o r d θ ε ο φ ι λ ή ς , i.e., "God-beloved" o r "god-
b e l o v e d , " c o u l d c o n n o t e different m e a n i n g s to different p e o p l e . Finally,
θ ε ο φ ι λ ή ς c a n also b e u n d e r s t o o d in a n active s e n s e , i.e., as G o d - l o v i n g .
T h u s t h e w o r d i n t r o d u c e s a n a m b i g u i t y as t o w h e t h e r t h e p e o p l e are
b e l o v e d by G o d o r are G o d - l o v i n g t h e m s e l v e s . W h e n P h i l o calls t h e
n a t i o n θεοφιλής, b e l o v e d o f G o d o r God-loving, or e v e n θεοφιλέστατος, m o s t
b e l o v e d o f G o d o r m o s t G o d - l o v i n g , t h e n this d e s c r i p t i o n is qualitatively
different f r o m a declaration that t h e G o d o f all creation favors o n e particu­
lar p e o p l e , n a m e l y , t h e Jews.
In a d d i t i o n , apart f r o m t h e flexibility or i n d e e d ambiguity o f t h e w o r d ' s
a p p l i c a t i o n s a n d c o n n o t a t i o n s , in two o f the four passages cited a b o v e , t h e
d i v i n e favor o f t h e J e w s is a c k n o w l e d g e d by outsiders—i.e., the "mixed
m u l t i t u d e , " w h o j o i n t h e p e o p l e w h e n they leave Egypt (Mos. 1 . 1 4 7 ) , a n d
t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f C a n a a n — t h e p e o p l e ' s very e n e m i e s ! — w h o P h i l o
s u g g e s t s m a y willingly yield t h e i r l a n d to t h e H e b r e w s (Hypoth. 6 . 7 ) . By
a s c r i b i n g t o o u t s i d e r s this o b s e r v a t i o n a b o u t t h e Biblical n a t i o n , P h i l o
portrays t h e n a t i o n as w o r t h y o f a d m i r a t i o n by o t h e r p e o p l e . In a third
case (Abr. 9 8 ) , P h i l o simply asserts that t h e p e o p l e are t h e m o s t b e l o v e d o f
G o d ( o r m o s t G o d - l o v i n g ) , w i t h o u t further discussion. Finally, t h e f o u r t h
p a s s a g e (Mos. 1.255) d e s c r i b e s t h e p e o p l e as θ ε ο φ ι λ ε ί ς w h e n they s i n g a
s o n g — p r e s u m a b l y o f t h a n k s — t o G o d . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e y are s h o w n as
a p p r e c i a t i n g G o d ' s favor or celebrating their d e v o t i o n to H i m . If in fact t h e
w o r d d e n o t e s that they are favored by G o d , t h e n they d o n o t take H i s favor
for g r a n t e d .

4 1
P h i l o , for e x a m p l e , also uses this word to describe Moses, J a c o b , N o a h , the soul,
God-beloved p e o p l e in general, and God-beloved beliefs and practices. See also Yeho-
shua Amir, "Die U m f o r m u n g des ε υ δ α ί μ ω ν in d e n θ ε ο φ ι λ ή ς bei Philon," Die hellenis-
tische Gestalt, 2 0 7 - 1 9 .
174 CHAPTER FIVE

As h e d o e s with t h e o t h e r features u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n , t h e n , in this case

t o o , P h i l o m a n a g e s t o preserve features f r o m the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d
a n d Israel as it is p o r t r a y e d in t h e Bible. At t h e s a m e t i m e , h o w e v e r , h e
s h e a r s t h e s e f e a t u r e s o f t h e i r p o s s i b l e o f f e n s i v e n e s s . By n o t m e n t i o n i n g
t h e c o v e n a n t , by u s i n g t h e familiar w o r d θ ε ο φ ι λ ή ς — w h i c h c a n carry
d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s a n d a s s o c i a t i o n s — a n d by attributing t o o u t s i d e r s t h e
o b s e r v a t i o n that t h e Jews are θ ε ο φ ι λ ε ί ς , h e t e m p e r s t h e Scriptural c l a i m
that t h e universal G o d H i m s e l f declares His special love to Israel.

5. The Jews are particular beneficianes of God's providence.

Philo m e n t i o n s that his Jewish contemporaries benefit from God's

p r o v i d e n c e ( π ρ ό ν ο ι α , Flacc. 170, Legat. 3 ) , His h e l p ( ε π ι κ ο υ ρ ί α , Flacc. 1 9 1 ) ,
a n d H i s pity a n d c o m p a s s i o n (έλεος και οίκτος, Spec. 4 . 1 7 9 - 8 2 ) . In Flacc.
a n d Legat., his observations pertain to G o d ' s watchfulness over t h e specific
c u r r e n t affairs o f t h e n a t i o n . I n d e e d t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e s e works s e e m s to b e
42
to d e m o n s t r a t e that G o d h e l p s t h e Jews, especially in t i m e s o f t r o u b l e . In
Spec. 4 . 1 7 9 - 8 2 , P h i l o d o e s n o t refer to specific c i r c u m s t a n c e s b u t r a t h e r
4 3
observes generally that the Jews are t h e object o f G o d ' s c o n c e r n .
U n l i k e t h e o t h e r f e a t u r e s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e w h o s e r o o t s w e c a n trace
primarily t o Biblical tradition, t h e i d e a that t h e Jews are particular b e n e ­
ficiaries o f G o d ' s p r o v i d e n c e b r i n g s P h i l o ' s Biblical a n d J e w i s h back­
g r o u n d i n t o c o n f l i c t with his p h i l o s o p h i c a l b a c k g r o u n d . I n d e e d b e l i e f in
divine p r o v i d e n c e , w h i c h c a n b e f o u n d in t h e writings o f Plato (esp. Laws,
B o o k 1 0 ) , b e c a m e m o r e p r o m i n e n t u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e Stoics. T h e
latter attributed all t h e w o r k i n g s o f t h e universe to p r o v i d e n c e , o r G o d ' s
r e a s o n , u n d e r s t o o d t o o p e r a t e t h r o u g h t h e law o f n a t u r e for t h e b e n e f i t o f
4 4
humanity.

4 2
Herbert Box, ed., Philonis Alexandnni: In Flaccum (London: Oxford University Press,
1939), xxxviii; Colson, Philo, LCL, 10:xiv-ix and 186, note a; G o o d e n o u g h , The Politics of
Philo Judaeus, 1 0 - 1 3 , 19; Massebieau, "Le classement d e s oeuvres d e Philon," 6 5 - 7 8 ;
Morris, "The Jewish P h i l o s o p h e r Philo," 8 5 9 - 6 4 ; Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini, 40
and 324, n. 373.
4 3
Spec. 4 . 1 7 9 - 8 2 and Legat. 3 are analyzed in detail in the last section of this chapter.
Besides the explicit declarations cited h e r e , Mos. 1.147 a n d 255, m e n t i o n e d in the
previous section, may imply that the Biblical nation benefits from God's providence.
In Mos. 1.147, if τό θεοφιλές is to be understood as "divine favor" rather than "the God-
loving quality" o f the p e o p l e , t h e n the "divine favor" may refer to God's role in the
circumstances o f the nation's departure, His p u n i s h m e n t of Israel's e n e m i e s in Egypt,
and thus His c o n c e r n for a n d involvement in the fate of the nation. Mos. 1.255 n o t e s
that G o d gives the p e o p l e the land a n d leads t h e m in their migration.
4 4
For the p h i l o s o p h i c a l background of Philo's position o n p r o v i d e n c e a n d related
issues, s e e D i l l o n , The Middle Platonists, 4 4 - 4 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 , 1 6 6 - 6 8 ; A. A. Long, Hellenistic
Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics, 2 n d ed. (London: Duckworth, 1986), 112, 1 6 9 - 7 0 ;
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 175

O n e p r o b l e m w i t h this p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n c e p t i o n o f a n i m p e r s o n a l , all-
e m b r a c i n g p r o v i d e n c e is that it c a n n o t offer a c o n v i n c i n g r a t i o n a l e for
e t h i c a l b e h a v i o r . It is n o t clear, for e x a m p l e , that p r o v i d e n c e is c o n c e r n e d
with t h e individual. In a d d i t i o n , if everything is in G o d ' s h a n d s , o n e m a y
w o n d e r w h e t h e r o r n o t i n d i v i d u a l s i n fact h a v e f r e e will t o c h o o s e
b e t w e e n g o o d a n d evil.
In g r a p p l i n g w i t h t h e s e d i l e m m a s , P h i l o was n o t a l o n e a m o n g the
t h i n k e r s o f his t i m e . As J o h n D i l l o n writes,

Philo is n e i t h e r a determinist n o r a believer in absolute free will... T h e Platonist

p o s i t i o n m a i n t a i n e d the a u t o n o m y o f the will, in order to preserve the basis o f
ethical j u d g m e n t s . In his assertion o f our free will, P h i l o is really c o n c e r n e d
above all to assert our liability to praise and blame. But yet every Platonist w i s h e d
to maintain the doctrine o f God's Providence. Without that, o n e w o u l d fall i n t o
E p i c u r e a n atheism... T h e Platonists are thus caught in what is, if n o t a contra­
diction, at least a p r o f o u n d tension between free will and determinism. If Philo's
various stances appear contradictory, therefore, the contradiction is at least n o t
45
peculiar to himself, but o n e c o m m o n to all P l a t o n i s t s .

P h i l o ' s c o m m e n t s a b o u t d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e , t h e n — w h e t h e r f o r all
p e o p l e in g e n e r a l o r for t h e Jews in particular—are m a r k e d by a c e r t a i n
v a g u e n e s s a b o u t t h e r o l e o f h u m a n b e h a v i o r in i n f l u e n c i n g p r o v i d e n c e .
A l t h o u g h h e a c k n o w l e d g e s that the Jews benefit from God's special
a t t e n t i o n , h e is s o m e w h a t u n c l e a r a b o u t w h a t entitles t h e m to this special
a t t e n t i o n . D e s p i t e h i s s o m e w h a t contradictory remarks, h o w e v e r , h e d o e s
s e e m to l e a n toward t h e i d e a that if o n e believes in G o d , t h e n o n e b e n e f i t s
f r o m H i s p r o v i d e n c e . A brief c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f P h i l o ' s g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t s
a b o u t divine providence may h e l p to put in perspective his specific
c o m m e n t s a b o u t t h e Jews.
P h i l o f r e q u e n t l y e m p h a s i z e s that G o d cares for a n d w a t c h e s o v e r all
4 6
c r e a t i o n . I n d e e d h e u n d e r s t a n d s G o d ' s p r o v i d e n c e as a necessary c o r o l ­
lary to H i s r o l e as Creator, calling it" a law o f n a t u r e that t h e m a k e r cares
4 7
for w h a t h a s b e e n m a d e .
D i v i n e care c a n b e b o t h directive a n d protective. G o d ' s p r o v i d e n c e is
d i r e c t i v e , f o r e x a m p l e , in t h a t it c a n i n f l u e n c e e v e n t s in t h e lives o f
4 8
i n d i v i d u a l s a n d n a t i o n s alike a n d c a n affect t h e c o u r s e o f n a t u r e . P h i l o
also speaks o f G o d ' s p r o v i d e n c e as protective, h o w e v e r , e.g., w h e n h e says

David W i n s t o n , "Freedom and D e t e r m i n i s m in Greek Philosophy," SP 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) : 4 0 -

50; Wolfson, Philo, 1:297-99; 2:283-86.
4 5
Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 168.
4 6
Abr. 7 1 , Mos. 1.149, Spec. 1.209, Spec. 2.260, Virt. 216.
4 7
Opif. 8 - 9 , 1 7 1 - 7 2 ; Spec. 3.189; Praem. 42; cf. Ebr. 13.
4 8
For e x a m p l e s o f God's providence as directive, see Ios. 99, 236; Mos. 1.67, 85, 132,
162, 211; Mos. 2.3, 5, 6, 261; Flacc. 125; Legat. 220, 336.
176 CHAPTER FIVE

that p r o s e l y t e s , o r p h a n s , a n d w i d o w s are o b j e c t s o f H i s pity a n d c o m ­

4 9
passion or w h e n h e mentions the help which G o d can g i v e .
B e y o n d c l a i m i n g that G o d cares f o r a n d directs h u m a n affairs, P h i l o
d o e s n o t m a k e e x p l i c i t w h a t p e o p l e c a n d o t o s e c u r e this watchful atten­
t i o n . I n s o m e p a s s a g e s h e s u g g e s t s that G o d e x t e n d s H i s p r o v i d e n c e t o
t h o s e w h o act virtuously a n d b e l i e v e i n H i m , as in t h e case o f t h e patri­
5 0
a r c h s . H e also d e v o t e s a treatise t o rewards a n d p u n i s h m e n t s (Praem., cf.
Mos. 2 . 5 2 - 6 5 ) , u s i n g e x a m p l e s f r o m S c r i p t u r e t o illustrate h o w G o d
rewards r i g h t e o u s n e s s a n d p u n i s h e s evil. Finally, P h i l o states that d i v i n e
p r o v i d e n c e is t h e b e s t i n c e n t i v e for piety (Opif. 8 - 9 ) , i m p l y i n g p e r h a p s —
t h o u g h n o t n e c e s s a r i l y — t h a t t h e p i o u s stand t o b e n e f i t e s p e c i a l l y f r o m
divine concern.
In spite o f these e x a m p l e s , however, Philo stops short o f stating
explicitly that piety o r virtue is a guarantee that o n e will w i n G o d ' s p r o t e c ­
tive c a r e . I n s t e a d , i n d i s c u s s i n g t h e b e n e f i t s o f k e e p i n g t h e first five
51
c o m m a n d m e n t s , h e a r g u e s that "virtue is its o w n r e w a r d . " M o r e o v e r , i n
h i s treatise o n divine p r o v i d e n c e h e writes that G o d ' s r e a s o n s f o r a c t i n g
are c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m h u m a n o n e s a n d w e c a n n o t e x p e c t t o
5 2
u n d e r s t a n d H i s actions (Prov. 3 5 - 3 6 , 5 4 ) ,
In s u m , t h e n , a l t h o u g h P h i l o believes that G o d rewards t h e virtuous a n d
p u n i s h e s t h e w i c k e d , h e d o e s n o t view divine p r o v i d e n c e as a p r e d i c t a b l e
o r g u a r a n t e e d r e s p o n s e t o virtuous behavior. I n s t e a d o f e x p l a i n i n g provi­
d e n c e f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f h u m a n activity, h e u n d e r s t a n d s it as a
necessary o u t c o m e o f G o d ' s role as Creator, a r g u i n g that t h e m a k e r cares
5 3
for w h a t is m a d e .
T h e ambiguity f o u n d in Philo's statements about the relationship be­
t w e e n divine p r o v i d e n c e a n d h u m a n b e h a v i o r in g e n e r a l is also r e f l e c t e d
in h i s r e m a r k s a b o u t t h e J e w s as special b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f this p r o v i d e n c e .
In Legat. 3 , f o r e x a m p l e , it w o u l d s e e m that t h e J e w s a r e s i m p l y o n e

4 9
Mos. 1.12, 17; Mos. 2.58; Spec. 1.308; Flacc. 191; cf. Opif. 9 - 1 0 .
5 0
Abr. 90, 235; Ios. 37; Mos. 1.148-49.
5 1
Spec. 2 . 2 5 7 - 6 2 . In part, this argument may be attributed to the fact that, e x c e p t for
the fifth c o m m a n d m e n t , the first four d o n o t explicitly m e n t i o n rewards. Virtue as its
own reward, however, is a c o m m o n Stoic n o t i o n , which Philo may a d o p t apart from
its suitability to this particular Scriptural context. See also Wolfson, Philo, 2:285.
5 2
R e g a r d i n g Philo's treatise On Providence, Dillon (The Middle Platonists, 167-68)
writes that Philo is "essentially appropriating a standard Stoic treatise o n providence
(the analogies with Cicero, De Natura Deorum II are very c l o s e ) , a n d fitting it into his
Platonic metaphysical s c h e m e . A reading o f this treatise by itself w o u l d lead o n e to
the c o n c l u s i o n that Philo was a determinist."
5 3
For o t h e r views o n p r o v i d e n c e from antiquity, see Attridge, The Interpretation of
Biblical History, 7 1 - 1 0 7 , 1 5 4 - 6 5 . Attridge shows, for e x a m p l e , that J o s e p h u s links
π ρ ό ν ο ι α with divine retribution. See also J o h a n n e s B e h m , "προνοέω, π ρ ό ν ο ι α , " TDNT,
4:1009-17; Urbach, The Sages, 2 5 5 - 8 5 .
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 177

illustration o f G o d ' s c o n c e r n for all o f creation. T h e r e P h i l o o b s e r v e s that

G o d e x t e n d s p r o v i d e n c e t o all p e o p l e a n d particularly t o t h e Jews, c a l l i n g
t h e m t h e s u p p l i a n t s ' r a c e / c l a s s (τό Ικετικόν γένος) a n d p o i n t i n g o u t that
t h e y h a v e b e e n a l l o t t e d o r have allotted t h e m s e l v e s ( π ρ ο σ κ ε κ λ ή ρ ω τ α ι ) t o
G o d . A l t h o u g h o n e m i g h t i n f e r that G o d takes special care o f t h e J e w s
because t h e y are t h e suppliants' r a c e / c l a s s o r b e c a u s e t h e y are a l l o t t e d t o
H i m , P h i l o h i m s e l f d o e s n o t m a k e this explicit.
I n a n o t h e r e x a m p l e , P h i l o c o n c l u d e s his treatise o n Flaccus as follows:
"These t h i n g s F l a c c u s t o o suffered, b e c o m i n g t h e surest p r o o f that t h e
n a t i o n o f t h e Jews was n o t d e p r i v e d o f t h e h e l p w h i c h c o m e s f r o m G o d "
(Flacc. 1 9 1 , m y t r a n s l a t i o n ) . O n t h e o n e h a n d , this s t a t e m e n t m a y m e a n
that h e l p f r o m G o d , w h i c h is available to all c r e a t i o n , was also available to
t h e J e w s d u r i n g t h e events d e s c r i b e d in t h e treatise. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , it
m a y also m e a n that h e l p f r o m G o d , w h i c h is always or usually e x t e n d e d
t o t h e J e w s , was n o t w i t h h e l d — a s s o m e may t h i n k — d u r i n g t h e a f o r e s a i d
e v e n t s . I n d e e d t h e latter construal is t h e m o r e likely s i n c e earlier i n t h e
work, P h i l o has n o n e o t h e r t h a n Flaccus h i m s e l f declare:

King o f g o d s a n d m e n ... so then T h o u dost n o t disregard the nation of the Jews,

n o r d o they misreport Thy Providence, but all who say that they [the Jews] d o n o t
find in T h e e a C h a m p i o n and D e f e n d e r , g o astray from the true creed. I a m a
clear p r o o f o f this, for all the acts w h i c h I madly c o m m i t t e d against the Jews I
have suffered myself. {Flacc. 170)

T h e s a m e p e r s p e c t i v e that G o d is especially c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e J e w s is
e x p r e s s e d in Legat. 196, in w h i c h P h i l o prays to G o d for h e l p a n d m e n t i o n s
that G o d "often saved t h e n a t i o n w h e n in h e l p l e s s straits."
In t h e s e e x a m p l e s f r o m Philo's two e x t a n t historical works, h e d e c l a r e s
w i t h o u t further e x p l a n a t i o n that t h e Jews have G o d as their Protector. It is
g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d that his p u r p o s e in these historical o r political writings
is to p r e s e n t c u r r e n t e v e n t s as a d e m o n s t r a t i o n that G o d cares e s p e c i a l l y
5 4
for t h e J e w s . T h i s assertion t h e n is his starting p o i n t , w h i c h h e s e e k s t o
prove b u t n o t necessarily to e x p l a i n or rationalize.
In contrast, in Spec. 4 . 1 7 9 - 8 2 , P h i l o sets forth a variety o f r e a s o n s t o
a c c o u n t for G o d ' s special care for t h e n a t i o n . T h i s passage claims that t h e
J e w s r e c e i v e G o d ' s pity a n d c o m p a s s i o n b e c a u s e t h e y are set apart f r o m
o t h e r p e o p l e a n d d e d i c a t e d to G o d ; b e c a u s e their ancestors are e x c e p t i o n ­
ally v i r t u o u s ; a n d implicitly b e c a u s e , like t h e i r a n c e s t o r s , t h e y t o o live
a c c o r d i n g to a h i g h standard o f virtue. U n l i k e Legat. 3, q u o t e d earlier, h e r e
P h i l o d o e s link G o d ' s special care for the Jews with their d e v o t i o n to H i m .
M o r e o v e r , i n c o n t r a s t to t h e i d e a that G o d ' s a c t i o n s are b e y o n d h u m a n
u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d therefore perhaps b e y o n d h u m a n i n f l u e n c e , this

5 4
See above, n. 42.
178 CHAPTER FIVE

p e r s p e c t i v e s u g g e s t s that p e o p l e can m a k e t h e m s e l v e s w o r t h y a n d e a r n
G o d ' s c o n c e r n , as t h e Jews have d o n e .
It was n o t e d earlier that P h i l o ' s a p p a r e n t i n c o n s i s t e n c y a b o u t w h e t h e r
or n o t p e o p l e ' s b e h a v i o r c a n i n f l u e n c e G o d ' s p r o v i d e n c e reflects a p h i l o ­
s o p h i c a l d i l e m m a o f his t i m e . B e s i d e s t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues, h o w e v e r ,
P h i l o is also h e i r t o a Biblical tradition w h i c h t e a c h e s that t h e n a t i o n Israel
a n d its J e w i s h d e s c e n d a n t s are t h e beneficiaries o f G o d ' s special c o n c e r n .
I n d e e d this n o t i o n is integral to t h e divine p r o m i s e s a n d t h e c o v e n a n t
t h e o l o g y d i s c u s s e d earlier. F r o m t h e Biblical p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e n , G o d ' s
b e n e v o l e n t p r o t e c t i o n r e p r e s e n t s b o t h t h e fulfillment o f H i s earlier p r o m ­
ises as well as H i s side o f a n o n g o i n g a g r e e m e n t with Israel. A c c o r d i n g t o
this a g r e e m e n t — p a r t i c u l a r l y as it is d e v e l o p e d in t h e B o o k o f D e u t e r o n ­
o m y a n d r e l a t e d B i b l i c a l b o o k s — i f t h e p e o p l e o f Israel f o l l o w G o d ' s
c o m m a n d m e n t s , H e will cause t h e n a t i o n to prosper. If t h e y fail to live u p
55
to t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s , t h e n a t i o n will s u f f e r .
I n f l u e n c e d by p h i l o s o p h i c a l i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g f r e e will a n d d i v i n e
p r o v i d e n c e , h o w e v e r , P h i l o transforms t h e i d e a that G o d ' s protective care
for t h e Jews is part e i t h e r o f p r o m i s e s to their ancestors o r o f a prior agree­
m e n t H e h a s w i t h t h e n a t i o n . I n s t e a d , his p o i n t s e e m s t o b e that G o d ' s
p r o v i d e n c e is available to e v e r y o n e , a n d particularly to t h o s e w h o b e l i e v e
in H i m as C r e a t o r a n d Provider. It w o u l d appear, t h e n , that a n y o n e w h o
b e l i e v e s in G o d m i g h t b e e l i g i b l e for H i s special p r o v i d e n c e , n o t o n l y
J e w s . G o d t h e r e f o r e d o e s n o t g u a r a n t e e H i s p r o t e c t i o n t o t h e J e w s by
p r e v i o u s c o m m i t m e n t . Instead H e shows t h e m His care b o t h b e c a u s e this
follows f r o m H i s r o l e as Creator o f t h e universe a n d b e c a u s e they b e l i e v e
in a n d w o r s h i p H i m .

T h e f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n illustrates h o w — i n various w a y s — P h i l o subtly

reinterprets Biblical motifs associated with divine p r o m i s e s a n d the
c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel, to r e n d e r t h e s e motifs less offensive to
his r e a d e r s a n d to portray t h e Jews favorably. T o b e sure, his p r e s e n t a t i o n
is at t i m e s s h a p e d by his p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n c e r n s — a s in t h e case o f divine
p r o v i d e n c e — o r by earlier e x e g e t i c a l a p p r o a c h e s — a s m a y b e t h e case in
56
his interpretation o f G o d ' s p r o m i s e to A b r a h a m in G e n . 1 2 : 3 .
Whatever may influence Philo's positions, however, h e s e e m s to
e n h a n c e his p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e Biblical motifs by carefully s e l e c t i n g t h e
contexts in w h i c h to discuss t h e m . Four passages cited in the above

5 5
Exod. 2 3 : 2 0 - 3 3 ; Deut. 7:12-16, 28; et al. See also Chapter Four, n. 2, and Ernest
W i l s o n N i c h o l s o n , Deuteronomy and Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1 9 6 7 ) ;
M o s h e W e i n f e l d , Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press,
1972).
5 6
See above, n. 22.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 179

d i s c u s s i o n s are particularly g o o d illustrations b o t h o f w h a t P h i l o says

a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e Jews a n d o f h o w a n d w h e r e
h e c h o o s e s t o say it. T h e s e passages—Abr. 9 8 , Spec. 2 . 1 6 2 - 6 7 , Spec. 4 . 1 7 9 - 8 2 ,
57
a n d Legat. 1 - 7 — a r e analyzed b e l o w .

Passages in Which Philo Speaks About the Relationship

Between God and the Jews

Abr. 98

In Abr. 9 8 , P h i l o describes t h e Jews as t h e m o s t G o d - b e l o v e d o r G o d - l o v i n g

n a t i o n ( ε θ ν ώ ν τό θ ε ο φ ι λ έ σ τ α τ ο ν ) a n d claims that t h e y are a s s i g n e d t h e
offices o f priest a n d p r o p h e t for t h e w h o l e world. T h e larger passage (Abr.
8 9 - 9 8 ) also portrays A b r a h a m as b e n e f i t t i n g f r o m G o d ' s p r o t e c t i o n . As w e
shall s e e , this p a s s a g e is especially n o t e w o r t h y b e c a u s e P h i l o i n t r o d u c e s
his o b s e r v a t i o n s w h e n A b r a h a m a n d Sarah are in a n Egyptian s e t t i n g a n d
also b e c a u s e h e includes s o m e details from different sections of the
Biblical a c c o u n t b u t o m i t s others.
Abr. 8 9 - 9 8 relates t h e story told in G e n . 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 o f A b r a h a m a n d Sarah
in Egypt. A c c o r d i n g to t h e Bible, A b r a h a m a n d Sarah g o to Egypt to g e t
away f r o m a f a m i n e ( G e n . 1 2 : 1 0 — t h e verse m e n t i o n s o n l y A b r a h a m ) .
F e a r i n g for his life b e c a u s e Sarah is so beautiful that t h e Egyptians w o u l d
kill h i m t o g e t h e r , A b r a h a m asks h e r t o c l a i m s h e is his sister, n o t h i s
wife ( G e n . 1 2 : 1 1 - 1 3 ) . W h e n they c o m e to Egypt, P h a r a o h , t a k e n by h e r
beauty, b r i n g s Sarah i n t o his h o u s e a n d treats A b r a h a m well, t h i n k i n g h e
is h e r b r o t h e r ( G e n . 1 2 : 1 4 - 1 6 ) . G o d afflicts P h a r a o h ' s h o u s e with p l a g u e s ,
however, w h e r e u p o n Pharaoh confronts Abraham about his d e c e p t i o n
5 8
a n d t h e n s e n d s h i m a n d Sarah o n their way ( G e n . 1 2 : 1 7 - 2 0 ) .
I n t r o d u c i n g the t h e m e of divine providence, Philo transforms this
Biblical e p i s o d e f r o m a story a b o u t A b r a h a m ' s d e c e p t i o n i n t o o n e a b o u t
G o d ' s p r o t e c t i o n o f A b r a h a m ' s marriage. T h i s p r o t e c t i o n , m o r e o v e r , is a
reward to A b r a h a m for rejecting t h e beliefs o f his fatherland, C h a l d e a , a n d
t u r n i n g t o G o d (Abr. 9 0 ) . In fact, P h i l o c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s t h e detail that
A b r a h a m asks Sarah t o m i s r e p r e s e n t t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . I n s t e a d , h e p o r ­
trays t h e k i n g o f Egypt as l i c e n t i o u s b e c a u s e h e w i s h e s to s h a m e t h e wife

5 7
A n o t h e r passage o f interest is Mos. 1 . 1 4 7 - 4 9 , w h i c h discusses several t h e m e s
related to this chapter. For e x a m p l e , the passage m e n t i o n s the θ ε ο φ ι λ έ ς (divine favor
or God-loving quality) o f the Biblical nation and describes it as "destined to be c o n ­
secrated above all others and to offer prayers for ever o n behalf o f the w h o l e h u m a n
race." T h e t h e m e o f divine providence is also pertinent because Philo n o t e s that God,
"who presides over a n d takes charge of all things," appoints Moses as leader o f the
p e o p l e as a reward for Moses's virtuous qualities.
5 8
T h e Greek adds that Lot was sent with them.
180 CHAPTER FIVE

o f a stranger (Abr. 9 4 ) . W h i l e t h e S e p t u a g i n t simply says, "And t h e y l e d

h e r i n t o P h a r a o h ' s h o u s e , " P h i l o a d d s that Sarah, h a v i n g n o o n e to p r o t e c t
h e r i n t h e f o r e i g n c o u n t r y , j o i n s h e r similarly h e l p l e s s h u s b a n d i n
fleeing t o G o d for h e l p (Abr. 9 5 ) . T h e n G o d , w h o s h o w s m e r c y t o t h o s e
w h o are maltreated, afflicts P h a r a o h with terrible p l a g u e s (Abr. 9 6 ) .
After d e s c r i b i n g t h e p l a g u e s w h i c h G o d inflicts u p o n P h a r a o h (Abr. 9 6 )
a n d u p o n P h a r a o h ' s h o u s e h o l d for failing to decry t h e o u t r a g e (Abr. 9 7 ) ,
P h i l o c o n c l u d e s t h e story as follows:

T h u s the chastity o f the w o m a n was preserved, while the nobility a n d piety o f the
m a n was e v i d e n c e d by God, W h o d e i g n e d to grant h i m this signal b o o n , that his
m a r r i a g e , w h i c h w o u l d have b e e n in a l m o s t i m m e d i a t e d a n g e r o f v i o l a t i o n ,
s h o u l d r e m a i n free from harm a n d outrage, that marriage from w h i c h was to
issue n o t a family o f a few sons a n d daughters, but a w h o l e nation, a n d that the
nation dearest of all to G o d [or m o s t God-loving], which, as I h o l d , has received
the gift o f priesthood and prophecy o n behalf of all mankind. (Abr. 98)

A t first g l a n c e , it is s o m e w h a t s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d P h i l o ' s c o m m e n t s
a b o u t t h e n a t i o n i n this c o n t e x t , s i n c e G e n . 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 d o e s n o t m e n t i o n
A b r a h a m a n d Sarah's d e s c e n d a n t s at all. Earlier in t h e G e n e s i s c h a p t e r ,
h o w e v e r , w h e n G o d tells A b r a h a m t o leave his h o m e l a n d , H e b l e s s e s
h i m as follows:

Go from your country and your kindred and your father's h o u s e to the land that I
will show y o u . A n d I will make o f you a great n a d o n , a n d I will bless y o u , a n d
make your n a m e great so that you will be blessed. I will bless those w h o bless you,
a n d [those w h o curse] y o u I will curse; and [in] you all the families of the earth
shall be blessed. (Gen. 12:1-3)

P h i l o ' s c o m m e n t s a b o u t t h e n a t i o n in Abr. 9 8 m a y well b e b a s e d u p o n

this b l e s s i n g . W h e n h e writes that A b r a h a m a n d Sarah will p r o d u c e "not
a few s o n s a n d d a u g h t e r s , b u t a w h o l e n a t i o n , " h e p r o b a b l y derives this
i d e a f r o m t h e p r o m i s e q u o t e d above, or p e r h a p s f r o m s u b s e q u e n t p r o m i s e s ,
5 9
that G o d will m a k e A b r a h a m a g r e a t n a t i o n . O f special i n t e r e s t t o us,
h o w e v e r , are P h i l o ' s observations that t h e n a t i o n is t h e m o s t G o d - b e l o v e d
o r G o d - l o v i n g ( θ ε ο φ ι λ έ σ τ α τ ο ν ) a n d that it has b e e n g r a n t e d t h e offices o f
p r i e s t h o o d a n d p r o p h e c y o n b e h a l f o f all humanity. It is w o r t h n o t i n g that
h e p r e f a c e s h i s r e m a r k s that t h e n a t i o n h a s r e c e i v e d t h e s e offices by
saying, "it s e e m s t o m e , " or "as I h o l d " (μοι δοκεΐ), i m p l y i n g that this is
his o w n o p i n i o n , rather t h a n an objective fact.
T h e i d e a that A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s are to serve as t h e p r i e s t h o o d for
t h e w h o l e w o r l d is m o s t probably c o n n e c t e d to t h e latter part o f G e n . 12:3,
as d i s c u s s e d earlier. As to P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e n a t i o n as m o s t G o d -
b e l o v e d or G o d - l o v i n g , this m a y simply b e a g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n a b o u t

5 9
E.g., Gen. 15:5, 17:4-6, 18:18, 22:17.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 181

God's attitude toward Abraham's descendants or their attitude toward

H i m , s i n c e n o n e o f t h e r e l e v a n t Biblical p r o m i s e s t o t h e patriarchs specifi­
cally m e n t i o n s H i s love for t h e p e o p l e o r t h e i r love for H i m .
A l t h o u g h P h i l o refers t o t h e q u a l i t i e s j u s t m e n t i o n e d e l s e w h e r e i n h i s
w o r k s , t h a t t h e n a t i o n serves as p r o p h e t for all p e o p l e is a characteristic h e
mentions only here. Since he m a k e s this observation only o n c e and
offers n o f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n , it is difficult t o k n o w p r e c i s e l y w h a t associa­
t i o n s l i e b e h i n d this c o m m e n t o r t o e v a l u a t e h o w s e r i o u s l y h e t a k e s t h e
r o l e o f t h e n a t i o n as p r o p h e t i n h i s overall t h i n k i n g a b o u t t h e J e w s . Per­
h a p s t h e m o s t likely e x p l a n a t i o n is that P h i l o is b a s i n g this c o m m e n t —
like t h e o n e a b o u t t h e n a t i o n s e r v i n g as t h e p r i e s t h o o d for a l l — u p o n t h e
b l e s s i n g g i v e n i n G e n . 12:3, "In y o u all t h e f a m i l i e s o f t h e e a r t h shall b e
b l e s s e d . " S i n c e b o t h priests a n d p r o p h e t s serve as i n t e r c e s s o r s b e t w e e n G o d
and humanity, theoretically either figure may convey blessings. Thus
Philo may perhaps understand from this verse that God assigns to
6 0
A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s b o t h roles, t h o s e o f priest a n d p r o p h e t .

6 0
A l t h o u g h this explanation for Philo's c o m m e n t is probably t h e m o s t likely, others
are also possible. For e x a m p l e , in Her. 78, Philo links "Israel," the o n e that sees G o d ,
with p r o p h e t s , w h o , h e points out, were o n c e known as seers. This association o f t h e
n a t i o n with p r o p h e c y t h r o u g h t h e etymology for Israel, however, is quite indirect,
especially since Philo d o e s n o t use the n a m e "Israel" for the real nation either before
or during his time, n o r d o e s h e speak of t h e m as "seers."
A n o t h e r possibility is that h e associates the office o f p r o p h e c y with t h e n a t i o n
because from this nation came the historical Biblical prophets. Philo, however, rarely
m e n t i o n s these prophets. Moreover, it is n o t clear that h e believes p r o p h e c y is limited
only to Jews (see, e.g., Her. 2 5 9 - 6 0 ) .
Yet a n o t h e r possible explanation for the assertion that the nation serves as p r o p h e t
for t h e world may be f o u n d in Philo's c o m m e n t in Spec. 4.192 that "the true priest is
necessarily a prophet" (ό προς άλήθειαν Ιερεύς ευθύς έστι προφήτης). Since h e understands
the n a t i o n to b e t h e priest for all humanity, h e may think that it is necessarily also
the p r o p h e t . As is t h e case with many Philonic statements, however, t h e observation
in Spec. 4.192 can probably be explained by the specific context in which it appears a n d
therefore may n o t be representative o f his thinking in general. (See, e.g., LCL, 8:436,
n o t e o n Spec. 4.190.)
Finally, y e t a n o t h e r c o m m e n t w h i c h may shed light o n Philo's d e p i c t i o n o f t h e
nation as p r o p h e t for all humanity can be found in Mos. 2.189, in which h e describes
different kinds o f divine oracles. T h e r e h e writes o f the divine utterances that
s o m e are s p o k e n by G o d in His own Person with His p r o p h e t for interpreter, in
s o m e t h e revelation c o m e s through question and answer, a n d others are s p o k e n
by M o s e s in his o w n p e r s o n , w h e n possessed by G o d a n d carried away o u t o f
himself. T h e first kind are absolutely a n d entirely signs o f t h e divine e x c e l ­
l e n c e s , graciousness a n d b e n e f i c e n c e , by w h i c h H e incites all m e n to n o b l e
c o n d u c t , a n d particularly the [race/class] o f His worshippers (τό θεραπευτικόν
αυτού γ έ ν ο ς ) , for w h o m H e o p e n s u p the road which leads to happiness. (Mos.
2.188-89)
In this passage, Philo says that m a n y o f God's directives delivered t h r o u g h t h e
182 CHAPTER FIVE

A l t h o u g h his remark that t h e n a t i o n serves as priest a n d p r o p h e t for all

h u m a n i t y m a y b e b a s e d u p o n G o d ' s b l e s s i n g i n G e n . 1 2 : 1 - 3 , it is
n o t e w o r t h y that P h i l o n e v e r explicitly m e n t i o n s this o r any o t h e r o f G o d ' s
b l e s s i n g s t o A b r a h a m , h e r e o r a n y w h e r e else i n Abr. A b r i e f review o f
t h e s e o m i s s i o n s will illustrate t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h P h i l o r e w o r k s t h e
Biblical narrative.
A m o n g t h e m o r e significant o f G o d ' s blessings to A b r a h a m are t h o s e
e x p r e s s e d i n G e n . 1 7 : 1 - 1 4 , c o n c e r n i n g t h e everlasting c o v e n a n t . In that
passage, G o d c h a n g e s t h e patriarch's n a m e f r o m A b r a m t o A b r a h a m a n d
promises,

N o l o n g e r shall your n a m e be Abram, but your n a m e shall be Abraham, for I have

m a d e you the father of a multitude o f nations. I will make you e x c e e d i n g l y fruitful;
a n d I will m a k e nations o f you, a n d kings shall c o m e forth from y o u . A n d I will
establish m y c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n m e a n d y o u a n d your d e s c e n d a n t s after y o u
t h r o u g h o u t their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be G o d to you and to
your d e s c e n d a n t s after you. A n d I will give to you, a n d to your d e s c e n d a n t s after
y o u , the l a n d o f your sojournings, all the land o f Canaan, for an everlasting
possession; a n d I will be their God. (Gen. 17:5-8)

T o c o n f i r m this c o v e n a n t , G o d e s t a b l i s h e s t h e c o m m a n d m e n t o f
c i r c u m c i s i o n as a sign t h r o u g h o u t t h e g e n e r a t i o n s ( G e n . 1 7 : 9 - 1 4 ) . O t h e r
Biblical p a s s a g e s in w h i c h G o d m e n t i o n s H i s i n t e n t i o n s f o r A b r a h a m ' s
d e s c e n d a n t s i n c l u d e G e n . 1 8 : 1 7 - 1 9 , w h e n H e is a b o u t to destroy S o d o m
6 1
and Gomorrah, and Gen. 22:15-18, following the binding of Isaac.
A l t h o u g h P h i l o i n c l u d e s all t h e s e e p i s o d e s in t h e treatise o n A b r a h a m , in
n o n e o f his r e t e l l i n g s d o e s h e refer to t h e divine b l e s s i n g s , n o r d o e s h e
m e n t i o n c i r c u m c i s i o n as a sign o f t h e c o v e n a n t .
As s u g g e s t e d earlier, P h i l o m a y o m i t t h e s e details in o r d e r to a v o i d
p r e s e n t i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e J e w s as t h e result o f a
p r e s e t a g r e e m e n t m e a n t o n l y for A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s . S u c h a p r e s e n ­
t a t i o n m i g h t o f f e n d his non-Jewish r e a d e r s a n d e n c o u r a g e c o m p l a c e n c y

p r o p h e t Moses are i n t e n d e d especially for the γένος that worships H i m . It d o e s n o t say

that this γ έ ν ο ς mediates God's message, but rather that it receives His words t h r o u g h
His p r o p h e t Moses. (For a different perspective, see Wolfson, Philo, 2:51-52.) A l t h o u g h
in this c o n t e x t the γ έ ν ο ς probably signifies the Jewish nation—past a n d present—it is
worth n o t i n g that Philo also describes the sect of the Therapeutae as the θ ε ρ α π ε υ τ ι κ ό ν
γένος (Contempt 11.)
6 1
Abraham's d e s c e n d a n t s are also m e n t i o n e d in Gen. 12:7, in w h i c h G o d promises
to give t h e m the land o f Canaan. Philo, however, d o e s n o t allude to this part of the
verse either in this treatise or elsewhere. In general, h e allegorizes God's p r o m i s e to
give the land o f Canaan to Abraham's descendants. See, e.g., Her. 9 6 - 9 9 , 3 1 3 - 1 6 , and
Somn. 2 . 2 5 5 - 5 8 o n Gen. 15:18; and QG 3.45 o n Gen. 17:8. See also Jaubert, La notion
d'Alliance, 4 1 4 - 1 8 . O t h e r relevant verses may be cited from Genesis 15, but with the
e x c e p t i o n o f Abr. 262, w h i c h c o m m e n t s o n Gen. 15:6, Philo d o e s n o t m e n t i o n this
Biblical chapter in the present treatise.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 183

in h i s J e w i s h r e a d e r s , w h o m a y feel they n e e d d o n o t h i n g to e a r n G o d ' s

favor (cf. Spec. 1.54, Spec. 4.182, Virt. 1 8 7 - 9 8 ) .
S o far w e have d i s c e r n e d Philo's editorial h a n d in his a d d e d r e m a r k s —
e.g., that t h e n a t i o n d e s c e n d e d f r o m A b r a h a m a n d Sarah is t h e m o s t G o d -
b e l o v e d o r G o d - l o v i n g a n d that it has r e c e i v e d t h e offices o f priest a n d
p r o p h e t for all h u m a n i t y — a n d in his o m i s s i o n s — e . g . , o f G o d ' s b l e s s i n g s
to A b r a h a m . It is also striking that P h i l o c h o o s e s t h e story a b o u t A b r a h a m
a n d Sarah in Egypt in which to include his observations about their
d e s c e n d a n t n a t i o n . N o t o n l y d o e s t h e Biblical a c c o u n t o f A b r a h a m a n d
Sarah's s o j o u r n in Egypt ( G e n . 1 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 ) m a k e n o m e n t i o n o f A b r a h a m ' s
heirs, b u t also P h i l o leaves o u t G o d ' s p r o m i s e s a b o u t A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d ­
ants f r o m two Biblical e p i s o d e s w h i c h h e r e c o u n t s before h e tells o f this
62
sojourn.
It s e e m s t h e r e f o r e that P h i l o m a y h a v e a s p e c i a l p u r p o s e w h e n h e
inserts his c o m m e n t a b o u t t h e n a t i o n specifically at t h e p o i n t w h e n Abra­
h a m a n d Sarah are in Egypt. I n d e e d h e m a y i n c l u d e his o b s e r v a t i o n s at
this p o i n t specifically t o c o n v e y a m e s s a g e t o h i s r e a d e r s , i.e., f e l l o w
J e w s — w h o m i g h t b e t e m p t e d to stray f r o m t h e i r ancestral b e l i e f s o r t o
intermarry or betray their marriages while living a m o n g the Egyp­
t i a n s — a n d n o n - J e w s — w h o may b e attracted to o r p u t off by J e w i s h beliefs.
T h e s e readers m i g h t derive from Philo's version of A b r a h a m a n d
S a r a h ' s s o j o u r n in Egypt at least t h e f o l l o w i n g two l e s s o n s : First, G o d
r e w a r d s t h o s e w h o b e l i e v e i n H i m , w h e t h e r t h e y are n e w c o m e r s o r
p r o s p e c t i v e n e w c o m e r s to b e l i e f in G o d , as s o m e o f his non-Jewish r e a d e r s
m a y b e , o r w h e t h e r t h e y are "strangers in a strange l a n d , " as his f e l l o w
J e w s m a y p e r c e i v e t h e m s e l v e s . O n e c a n l e a r n this l e s s o n f r o m t h e way
G o d p r e s e r v e s A b r a h a m ' s m a r r i a g e in Egypt as a r e w a r d t o h i m f o r
t u r n i n g h i s b a c k o n t h e m i s c o n c e p t i o n s o f his h o m e l a n d , C h a l d e a , i n
o r d e r to follow G o d (Abr. 90) a n d f r o m the way H e h e l p s Sarah, w h o also
flees to G o d for h e l p o n c e she is in Egypt (Abr. 9 5 ) .
S e c o n d , t h e n a t i o n w h o s e ancestral purity G o d preserves is a v e n e r a b l e
a n d p h i l a n t h r o p i c o n e i n d e e d , since it is His m o s t b e l o v e d o f n a t i o n s a n d
serves t h e roles o f priest a n d p r o p h e t o n b e h a l f o f all h u m a n i t y (Abr. 9 8 ) .
For his fellow Jews, t h e n , P h i l o p r e s e n t s t h e n a t i o n as o n e w h o s e purity is
w e l l w o r t h p r e s e r v i n g , w h i l e for all his r e a d e r s h e d e p i c t s t h e n a t i o n ' s
role o n b e h a l f o f all p e o p l e as b o t h m a g n a n i m o u s a n d l o n g s t a n d i n g .

6 2
T h e s e two episodes are Abraham's departure from Haran (Gen. 12:1-3, cf. Abr. 6 0 -
80) a n d the c h a n g e o f Abram's n a m e to Abraham ( G e n . 17:5; cf. Abr. 8 1 - 8 3 ) . In
p r e s e n t i n g A b r a h a m ' s c h a n g e o f n a m e before his a n d Sarah's sojourn in Egypt,
Philo departs from the Biblical arrangement of these incidents.
184 CHAPTER FIVE

Spec. 2.162-67

In this s e c t i o n , P h i l o d e c l a r e s that t h e Jews b e l i e v e in t h e o n e G o d a n d

serve H i m t h r o u g h specific practices. T h e passage also elaborates u p o n t h e
r o l e o f t h e J e w s as p r i e s t s f o r t h e w h o l e w o r l d . W h a t is e s p e c i a l l y
n o t e w o r t h y a b o u t P h i l o ' s d i s c u s s i o n is its explicitly a p o l o g e t i c n a t u r e , for
h e r e P h i l o directly answers t h e c h a r g e that t h e Jews are antisocial.
T h e p a s s a g e d i s c u s s e s t h e S h e a f Feast, b a s e d o n Lev. 2 3 : 1 0 - 1 4 , a n d
f o r m s p a r t o f a larger d i s c o u r s e a b o u t t h e J e w i s h h o l i d a y s in g e n e r a l ,
w h i c h P h i l o talks a b o u t u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g o f t h e S e c o n d C o m m a n d m e n t .
6 3
As h e d o e s w i t h s o m e o f t h e o t h e r h o l i d a y s , P h i l o p r o v i d e s b o t h a
n a t i o n a l a n d a universal s i g n i f i c a n c e for this feast. N o t i n g that t h e J e w s
b r i n g to t h e altar a s h e a f f r o m b o t h t h e Jewish h o m e l a n d a n d t h e w h o l e
6 4
e a r t h , h e e x p l a i n s that t h e y offer t h e s e as a t h a n k s g i v i n g o n t h e i r o w n
b e h a l f a n d o n b e h a l f o f the w h o l e h u m a n race {Spec. 2 . 1 6 2 ) .
P h i l o elaborates o n this practice as follows:

T h e reason o f this is that the Jewish nation is to the w h o l e inhabited world what
the priest is to the State. For the holy office in very truth b e l o n g s to the nation
because it carries o u t all the rites of purification and both in body a n d soul obeys
the injunctions o f the divine laws, which restrict the pleasures of the belly and the
parts below it and the horde... {Spec. 2.163)

T h i s p a s s a g e is a n i n t e r e s t i n g contrast to o t h e r p a s s a g e s (e.g., Abr. 9 8

a n d Mos. 1 . 1 4 9 ) , w h i c h may derive t h e characterization o f t h e n a t i o n as
priests f r o m G o d ' s blessings to t h e patriarchs or f r o m t h e divine c o v e n a n t
w i t h Israel. I n t h o s e passages, P h i l o is d e s c r i b i n g t h e Biblical n a t i o n a n d
its p r o m i s e for t h e future. In Spec. 2 . 1 6 3 , h o w e v e r , h e is d e s c r i b i n g his
Jewish c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , a n d h e attributes their priestly role to their observ­
a n c e o f t h e laws. H e r e , t h e n , t h e i r priestly office s e e m s to f o l l o w u p o n
rather t h a n p r e c e d e their observance.
In a d d i t i o n , P h i l o e x p l a i n s that t h e laws restrict t h e p l e a s u r e s o f t h e
body, t h e irrational senses, a n d the wild i m p u l s e s o f t h e soul {Spec. 2 . 1 6 3 ) .
T h u s , i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e B i b l e , w h i c h usually sets f o r t h t h e c o m m a n d ­
m e n t s o n divine authority with n o o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n , in this passage P h i l o
tries to s h o w that t h e s e laws serve a p u r p o s e .
By c o m m e n t i n g that t h e J e w s are c o n s i d e r e d priests for t h e w o r l d
b e c a u s e they observe t h e laws a n d by p r o v i d i n g a rationale for t h e s e laws,

6 3
S e e , e.g., Spec. 2.150 o n the "Crossing-Feast" and Spec. 2.188 o n the "Trumpet
Feast."
6 4
T h i s passage contrasts with Somn. 2.75, in which Philo interprets Lev. 23:10 as
m e a n i n g that the sheaf should c o m e only from the land which G o d gives the p e o p l e ,
i.e., Canaan. Cf. Belkin {Philo and the Oral Law, 2 1 8 ) , w h o i g n o r e s the contradiction
between the two interpretations o n this point. See also H e i n e m a n n , Philons griechische
undjudische Bildung, 125.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 185

P h i l o c o m p l e t e l y reworks t h e i d e a that t h e J e w s h a v e a s p e c i a l r e l a t i o n ­
s h i p w i t h G o d b a s e d u p o n a prior p a c t w h i c h stipulates t h e n a t i o n ' s o b e ­
d i e n c e t o t h e laws as a c o n d i t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , a c c o r d i n g to his portrayal,
it w o u l d s e e m that a n y o n e w h o follows t h e laws automatically b e c o m e s a
m e m b e r o f t h e c o m m u n i t y o f priests: " [ T ] h e l e g i s l a t i o n is in a way a
l e s s o n o n t h e priestly office a n d o n e w h o lives a c c o r d i n g t o t h e laws is
naturally ( ε υ θ ύ ς ) c o n s i d e r e d a priest or rather a h i g h priest in the
j u d g m e n t o f truth..." (Spec. 2.164, m y translation).
P h i l o a d d s a n o t h e r p o i n t . T h e w o r l d is filled with false deities, c r e a t e d
by h u m a n s , a n d different n a t i o n s w o r s h i p different g o d s (Spec. 2 . 1 6 4 ) . By
h o n o r i n g t h e true G o d , however, t h e Jews correct t h e error m a d e by t h o s e
w h o w o r s h i p false d e i t i e s . P h i l o writes,

But if H e exists W h o m all Greeks a n d barbarians u n a n i m o u s l y a c k n o w l e d g e , the

s u p r e m e Father o f g o d s a n d m e n a n d the Maker o f the w h o l e universe, w h o s e
nature is invisible a n d inscrutable n o t only by the eye, but by the m i n d ... t h e n it
was the duty o f all m e n to cleave to H i m and n o t to introduce n e w g o d s staged as by
machinery to receive the same h o n o u r s . [Since they slipped in regard to the m o s t
essential particular, the failure o f others was corrected, m o s t properly speaking, by
the Jewish n a t i o n ] which passed over all created objects because they were created
a n d naturally liable to destruction and chose the service only of the U n c r e a t e d a n d
Eternal... (Spec. 2 . 1 6 5 - 6 6 )

P h i l o ' s c l a i m that t h e G o d w o r s h i p p e d by J e w s is a c k n o w l e d g e d by all

o t h e r p e o p l e is surprising, a n d it is h a r d to k n o w q u i t e w h a t h e h a s i n
6 5
mind. In any e v e n t , by portraying t h e Jews as t h e o n e s w h o rectify t h e
m i s t a k e o f all t h e n a t i o n s , h e e n h a n c e s t h e role o f t h e J e w s as priests for
the world.
P h i l o ' s e x p l i c i t l y a p o l o g e t i c m o t i v e b e h i n d this c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n b e ­
c o m e s a p p a r e n t in his c o n c l u s i o n . H e writes,

A n d therefore it causes m e to w o n d e r how s o m e dare to charge with i n h u m a n i t y

the n a t i o n w h i c h exercises to such a great e x t e n t sociability a n d goodwill toward
all p e o p l e everywhere, i n a s m u c h as it celebrates its prayers a n d holidays a n d first
fruit offerings o n b e h a l f o f the h u m a n race generally a n d worships the truly
e x i s t e n t G o d o n its own behalf and o n behalf of others w h o have s h u n n e d their
obligatory service. (Spec. 2.167, my translation)

A l t h o u g h P h i l o n o t e s e l s e w h e r e that t h e Jews serve as t h e p r i e s t h o o d for

t h e h u m a n race, a n d a l t h o u g h h e also d e n o u n c e s false w o r s h i p in several
p l a c e s t h r o u g h o u t h i s works, this is t h e o n l y passage i n w h i c h h e m a k e s
e x p l i c i t t h e c l a i m that t h e Jews n o t o n l y r e p r e s e n t all h u m a n i t y b u t also
c o r r e c t its errors. M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h h e frequently portrays t h e J e w s a n d

6 5
S e e LCL, 7:408, n o t e a. In the French translation, Suzanne D a n i e l suggests that
Philo is talking about the G o d o f the philosophers a n d the s u p r e m e G o d o f popular
religions, De Specialibus Legibus I-II, ΟΡΑ, 24:332, η. 3.
186 CHAPTER FIVE

6 6
their practices as c h a r a c t e r i z e d by h u m a n i t y a n d g o o d w i l l — p e r h a p s im­
plicitly a n s w e r i n g c h a r g e s t o t h e c o n t r a r y — h e rarely refers d i r e c d y as h e
d o e s h e r e t o a c c u s a t i o n s o f i n h u m a n i t y against t h e n a t i o n (cf. Virt. 1 4 1 ) .
T h i s t h e n is o n e o f t h e few explicidy a p o l o g e t i c passages in t h e E x p o s i t i o n .
Finally, it is w o r t h a s k i n g w h y P h i l o c h o o s e s t h e S h e a f F e a s t as a
c o n t e x t in w h i c h to e m p h a s i z e t h e priesdy role o f t h e Jews, s i n c e t h e Bible
m e n t i o n s t h e s h e a f o f f e r i n g very briefly a n d d o e s n o t c o m m e n t t h e r e
6 7
u p o n a universal role for t h e p e o p l e . It may b e h e l p f u l to recall that P h i l o
p r e s e n t s this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a b o u t t h e Jews as t h e universal (in contrast t o
t h e n a t i o n a l ) significance o f t h e holiday. T h e m a i n f o c u s o f t h e o c c a s i o n
is t h e o f f e r i n g o f t h e s h e a f f r o m t h e first fruits, a n act i n v o l v i n g priestly
ritual. T h e Jews carry o u t this offering with first fruits b o t h f r o m their o w n
h o m e l a n d a n d f r o m t h e w h o l e earth. Finally, this is t h e first o f f e r i n g o f
first fruits in t h e h o l i d a y c y c l e . A l t h o u g h t h e h o l i d a y m a y e l s e w h e r e
a p p e a r t o b e fairly m i n o r , t h e n , it p r o v i d e s P h i l o with a suitable c o n t e x t in
w h i c h t o h i g h l i g h t t h e r o l e o f t h e J e w s as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ^priests f o r all
people.

Spec. 4.179-82

In this passage, P h i l o argues that t h e Jews receive G o d ' s c o m p a s s i o n ( έ λ ε ο ς

και ο ί κ τ ο ς ) , asserts that t h e y are a l l o t t e d or allot t h e m s e l v e s t o G o d , a n d
implicitly calls t o m i n d a n a s s o c i a t i o n to t h e m as priests f o r t h e w h o l e
world. H e also n o t e s that t h e n a t i o n b e n e f i t s f r o m G o d ' s special c o n c e r n
because it h a s b e e n a l l o t t e d o r h a s a l l o t t e d itself t o H i m a n d that this
a l l o t m e n t , in turn, results f r o m t h e virtue o f t h e n a t i o n ' s a n c e s t o r s a n d
i m p l i c i d y t h e virtue o f t h e n a t i o n itself.
P h i l o ' s c o m m e n t s a p p e a r within t h e c o n t e x t o f a discussion b a s e d u p o n
68
D e u t . 1 0 : 1 7 - 1 8 a b o u t G o d ' s j u s t i c e toward t h e p r o s e l y t e , o r p h a n , a n d
w i d o w . S i n c e t h e s e v e r s e s are basically a b o u t t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e d i n
6 9
g e n e r a l , t h e c o n t e x t itself a r o u s e s sympathy, e v e n b e f o r e o n e r e a d s his
specific r e m a r k s .

6 6
Spec. 1.324; Spec. 2.79, 104, 107, 110, 138, 141, 183; Spec. 4.24, 71; Virt. 5 1 - 1 7 4 .
6 7
O n this question, see also LCL, 7:406, n o t e a; and H e i n e m a n n , Philons griechische
und judische Bildung, 1 2 5 - 2 6 . In the Bible, the sheaf offering is n o t itself called a feast,
and in rabbinic tradition, this d o e s n o t constitute a full holiday. See also Daniel in De
Specialibus Legibus I-II, ΟΡΑ, 24:330, η. 3.
6 8
T h e term π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς appears in Deut. 10:18. Philo uses ε π η λ υ ς , έπηλύτης, a n d
έπήλυτος synonymously with προσήλυτος, understanding these terms to m e a n s o m e o n e
w h o has c o m e over to the Jewish polity. T h e issue o f the proselyte is addressed in the
n e x t chapter.
6 9
Cf. Spec. 1.308, in w h i c h Philo describes these individuals as "those m o s t h e l p ­
lessly in n e e d . "
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 187

After d e s c r i b i n g t h e s i t u a t i o n o f e a c h f i g u r e — t h e p r o s e l y t e , o r p h a n ,
a n d w i d o w — P h i l o c o m p a r e s t h e Jews t o a n o r p h a n b e c a u s e t h e y have n o
allies:

O n e may say that the w h o l e Jewish [ n a t i o n ] is in the p o s i t i o n o f an o r p h a n

c o m p a r e d with all the nations o n every side. T h e y w h e n misfortunes fall u p o n
t h e m w h i c h are n o t by the direct intervention o f h e a v e n are never, o w i n g to
international intercourse, u n p r o v i d e d with helpers w h o j o i n sides with t h e m . But
t h e Jewish n a t i o n has n o n e to take its part, as it lives u n d e r e x c e p t i o n a l laws
w h i c h are n e c e s s a r i l y grave a n d severe, b e c a u s e they i n c u l c a t e t h e h i g h e s t
standard o f virtue. But gravity is austere, a n d austerity is h e l d in aversion by the
great mass of m e n because they favour pleasure. (Spec. 4.179)

P h i l o c l a i m s that w h i l e o t h e r n a t i o n s always have allies, t h e J e w s s t a n d

a l o n e . M o r e o v e r , t h e y stand a l o n e b e c a u s e they live virtuously a c c o r d i n g
to their laws, i n contrast t o m o s t o t h e r p e o p l e , w h o are pleasure-loving. It is
i n t e r e s t i n g that h e attributes the isolation o f t h e Jews t o t h e severity o f their
laws a n d t h a t h e c l a i m s t h e s e laws i n c u l c a t e t h e h i g h e s t s t a n d a r d o f
virtue. F r o m this perspective, t h e isolation o f t h e Jews appears t o b e to their
credit.
In Spec. 4 . 1 8 0 , P h i l o o b s e r v e s that a l t h o u g h t h e J e w s h a v e n o allies
a m o n g t h e n a t i o n s , they d o enjoy G o d ' s special solicitude:

Nevertheless as Moses tells us the orphan-like desolate state of his p e o p l e is always

an object of pity and compassion to the Ruler o f the Universe [to w h o m it has b e e n
allotted or has allotted itself (φ π ρ ο σ κ ε κ λ ή ρ ω τ α ι ) ] , because it has b e e n set apart
( α π ε ν ε μ ή θ η ) o u t of the w h o l e h u m a n race as a kind o f first fruits to the Maker a n d
Father.

As was m e n t i o n e d earlier, b e c a u s e P h i l o u s e s t h e v e r b π ρ ο σ κ λ η ρ ό ω ,
allot, i n a f o r m that c a n b e e i t h e r m i d d l e o r passive, it is u n c l e a r w h e t h e r
G o d allots t h e J e w s t o H i m s e l f or t h e Jews d e d i c a t e t h e m s e l v e s to H i m . I n
this p a s s a g e , h o w e v e r , s i n c e h e u s e s t h e passive t o say that t h e J e w s are set
apart ( α π ε ν ε μ ή θ η ) , it is quite possible that προσκεκλήρωται also has a passive
sense here.
T h i s i m a g e o f t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n assigned to G o d as a k i n d o f first fruits
calls t o m i n d t h e t h e m e o f t h e p e o p l e as priests, t h r o u g h a s e r i e s o f
associations that w o u l d b e familiar to m o s t readers o f t h e Bible, t h o u g h n o t
n e c e s s a r i l y t o P h i l o ' s r e a d e r s o f this work. T h e s e a s s o c i a t i o n s p e r t a i n t o
t h e Biblical i n j u n c t i o n s that t h e firstborn a n d first fruits are set aside a n d
d e d i c a t e d to G o d a n d that t h e priestly tribe Levi is set aside to serve G o d in
p l a c e o f all t h e firstborn o f Israel. N u m . 3 : 1 1 - 1 3 describes this a p p o i n t m e n t
o f Levi as follows:

B e h o l d , I have taken the Levites from a m o n g the p e o p l e of Israel instead of every

first-born that o p e n s the w o m b a m o n g the p e o p l e o f Israel. T h e Levites shall be
m i n e , for all the first-born are m i n e ; o n the day that I slew all the first-born in
188 CHAPTER FIVE

the l a n d o f Egypt, I c o n s e c r a t e d for my own all the first-born in Israel, b o t h o f

7 0
m e n and o f beast; they shall be m i n e . I am the L o r d .

T h e portrayal o f t h e Jews set apart as a kind o f first fruits is r e m i n i s c e n t

o f t h e priestly tribe o f Levi set apart i n s t e a d o f t h e firstborn o f Israel.
M o r e o v e r , i n E x o d . 4:22, G o d d e s c r i b e s Israel itself as H i s firstborn s o n .
P h i l o ' s s t a t e m e n t in Spec. 4 . 1 8 0 , t h e n , indirectly e v o k e s t h e i d e a that Israel,
G o d ' s firstborn, is set apart o u t o f the w h o l e h u m a n race as t h e first fruits or
as t h e priestly Levites for t h e world, in t h e s a m e way that t h e tribe o f Levi
is set apart f r o m t h e w h o l e n a t i o n Israel as the firstborn o r priesdy tribe.
In t h e n e x t s e c t i o n (Spec. 4 . 1 8 1 ) , P h i l o remarks that G o d cares especially
for t h e J e w s o n a c c o u n t o f t h e r i g h t e o u s n e s s o f t h e i r a n c e s t o r s , e v e n
t h o u g h t h e d e s c e n d a n t s m a y b e sinners:

A n d the reason is the highly prized qualities of righteousness a n d virtue of the

f o u n d e r s o f the n a t i o n , qualities w h i c h persist like i m p e r i s h a b l e plants b e a r i n g
ever-blooming fruit, salutary to the d e s c e n d a n t s and beneficial toward all things,
e v e n t h o u g h the d e s c e n d a n t s may be sinners, but only with regard to curable
matters, n o t completely incorrigible o n e s . {Spec. 4.181, my translation)

As w e have o b s e r v e d , several Scriptural passages n o t e that G o d ' s cove-

nantal c o m m i t m e n t to t h e n a t i o n Israel derives f r o m H i s p r o m i s e s to their
7 1
a n c e s t o r s . T h e B i b l e , h o w e v e r , gives n o rational e x p l a n a t i o n for G o d ' s
c h o i c e o f t h e s e a n c e s t o r s , t h o u g h o c c a s i o n a l l y it says that H e c h o o s e s
A b r a h a m , Isaac, a n d J a c o b o u t o f love. W h e n P h i l o attributes G o d ' s c h o i c e
o f t h e patriarchs to their r i g h t e o u s n e s s a n d virtue, t h e n , h e subtly c h a n g e s
t h e Biblical d e p i c t i o n . Moreover, since G o d ' s c h o i c e is b a s e d u p o n virtue, it
a p p e a r s less arbitrary.
In a d d i t i o n , this e x p l a n a t i o n for G o d ' s c h o i c e e n a b l e s P h i l o to argue that
n o b l e l i n e a g e in itself is n o t e n o u g h . H e warns,

Yet let n o o n e think that g o o d lineage is a perfect blessing a n d then n e g l e c t n o b l e

actions, but reflect that greater anger is d u e to o n e w h o while his parentage is of
the best brings s h a m e u p o n his parents by the wickedness of his ways. Guilty is h e
w h o , having for his own m o d e l s of true excellence to copy, reproduces n o t h i n g that
serves to direct his life aright and k e e p it s o u n d and healthy. {Spec. 4.182)

In t h e s e c o m m e n t s w e c a n d i s c e r n P h i l o ' s awareness o f his a u d i e n c e .

For J e w s w h o m a y have strayed, h e suggests that they still have a c h a n c e
to be r e d e e m e d o n account of the righteousness of their ancestors. H e
stresses, h o w e v e r , that it is n o t e n o u g h to b e b o r n a Jew; o n e m u s t e m u l a t e
t h e a n c e s t o r s by living virtuously. M o r e o v e r , by a c k n o w l e d g i n g that virtu­
o u s b e h a v i o r is w h a t is really i m p o r t a n t , P h i l o c a n also a r g u e — a s h e d o e s

7 0
Cf. Deut. 18:1-5 and refs. given in n. 36.
7 1
E.g., Deut. 7:7-8, 8:18, 9:5, 29:13; cf. Deut. 4:37.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 189

e l s e w h e r e — t h a t t h e essential e l e m e n t s o f k i n s h i p are n o t b l o o d b u t p i o u s
beliefs a n d n o b l e behavior. Therefore p e o p l e without n o b l e lineage w h o
turn to a life o f piety a n d virtue, i.e., proselytes, deserve to b e e m b r a c e d by
7 2
t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y . Finally, by e m p h a s i z i n g that t h e n a t i o n is set
apart for G o d o n a c c o u n t o f t h e virtue o f its ancestors, P h i l o m a y also b e
a d d r e s s i n g c o n c e r n s o f e i t h e r Jews o r non-Jews r e g a r d i n g G o d ' s a p p a r e n t ­
ly arbitrary c h o i c e o f Israel as d e p i c t e d in S c r i p t u r e . If i n d e e d t h e s e
a n c e s t o r s are virtuous, t h e n H i s c h o i c e o f t h e m is m e r i t e d .

Legat. 1-7

T h i s p a s s a g e , a n a l y z e d in part in C h a p t e r T h r e e , is u n i q u e i n P h i l o ' s
writings b e c a u s e it is t h e o n l y p l a c e w h e r e h e links "Israel," t h e o n e that
s e e s G o d , w i t h t h e J e w s . In a d d i t i o n , P h i l o c o m b i n e s p h i l o s o p h i c a l
t h e m e s , s u c h as t h e vision o f G o d a n d t h e n a t u r e o f G o d ' s p o w e r s , w i t h
c l a i m s b a s e d u p o n J e w i s h tradition a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d
a n d t h e n a t i o n . Specifically, h e n o t e s that t h e p e o p l e are p a r t i c u l a r
b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f divine p r o v i d e n c e , that they are a l l o t t e d o r have a l l o t t e d
t h e m s e l v e s t o G o d , a n d that they are t h e suppliants' r a c e / c l a s s (τό ικετικόν
γ έ ν ο ς ) , a c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n w h i c h calls to m i n d t h e i r i n t e r c e s s o r y r o l e as
priests for all p e o p l e .
W e have already s e e n that P h i l o d o e s n o t c o n n e c t t h e ability o f "Israel"
t o s e e G o d — w h i c h is i m p l i e d by t h e m e a n i n g o f its n a m e , ορών θ ε ό ν —
w i t h any o f t h e a b o v e m e n t i o n e d c l a i m s a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n
G o d a n d t h e Jews. In o t h e r words, it is n o t because they s e e G o d that t h e
J e w s are t h e s u p p l i a n t γ έ ν ο ς , that they have b e e n a l l o t t e d o r allot t h e m ­
73
selves t o G o d , o r that they b e n e f i t f r o m H i s p r o v i d e n c e . N o r d o e s P h i l o
a l l e g e that t h e J e w s c a n s e e G o d because o f t h e s e o t h e r characteristics o f
t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o H i m . W e shall n o w turn a g a i n to t h e p r o l o g u e in
Legat. t o e x a m i n e t h e effect c r e a t e d w h e n P h i l o b r i n g s t o g e t h e r t h e s e
various e l e m e n t s f r o m p h i l o s o p h y a n d Jewish tradition.
It was m e n t i o n e d that o n e o f t h e m a i n p u r p o s e s o f this i n t r o d u c t o r y
passage is t o argue that G o d e x t e n d s p r o v i d e n c e to all p e o p l e a n d especially
toward t h e Jews. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , s i n c e t h e work is i n c o m p l e t e , w e c a n n o t
s e e h o w P h i l o a p p l i e s t h e s e a r g u m e n t s to t h e p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n h e is
d e s c r i b i n g . N o n e t h e l e s s , h e m o s t likely i n t e n d e d t o s h o w h o w t h e

7 2
For Philo's c o m m e n t s o n kinship, see Abr. 31, Mos. 2.171, Spec. 1.317, Spec. 2.73.
O n proselytes: Spec. 1.51-52; Virt. 1 0 2 - 4 , 179; cf. Virt. 189 and 198. T h e s e topics will be
discussed in the n e x t chapter.
7 3
G o o d e n o u g h , in contrast, d o e s attribute the intercessory role o f the Jews to their
"mysdc powers o f vision" (The Politics of Philo Judaeus, 13).
190 CHAPTER FIVE

u n f o l d i n g o f e v e n t s — p e r h a p s t h e downfall o f t h e oppressors—substantiates
74
his c o n t e n t i o n that t h e Jews enjoy G o d ' s special p r o t e c t i o n .
T o review briefly t h e e n t i r e p a s s a g e , P h i l o b e g i n s by o b s e r v i n g t h a t
p e o p l e have m o r e c o n f i d e n c e in fate t h a n in nature, a n d h e attributes this
misplaced c o n f i d e n c e to reliance u p o n sense p e r c e p t i o n instead of
i n t e l l e c t (Legat. 1 - 2 ) . W h e r e a s t h e sight o f t h e s e n s e s p e r c e i v e s o n l y w h a t
is n e a r , t h e k e e n e r sight o f r e a s o n s e e s i n t o t h e f u t u r e . P e o p l e c o n f u s e
r e a s o n ' s v i s i o n , h o w e v e r , t h r o u g h drink a n d o t h e r i n d u l g e n c e or, e v e n
w o r s e , t h r o u g h i g n o r a n c e (Legat. 2 ) . N o n e t h e l e s s P h i l o a r g u e s that t h e
situation at h a n d s h o u l d c o n v i n c e e v e n t h o s e w h o have g i v e n u p o n G o d ' s
providence:

A n d yet the p r e s e n t time a n d the many important q u e s t i o n s d e c i d e d in it are

strong e n o u g h to c o n v i n c e even those w h o have c o m e to disbelieve that the Deity
takes t h o u g h t for (προνοεΐν) m e n , and particularly for [the suppliants' race/class (τό
ίκετικόν γένος) which has b e e n allotted or has allotted itself (προσκεκλήρωται) to] the
Father and King o f the Universe and the Source of all things. (Legat. 3)

T h i s passage p r e s e n t s w i t h o u t e l a b o r a t i o n s o m e o f t h e features d i s c u s s e d
a b o v e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e Jews. P h i l o asserts, f o r
e x a m p l e , that G o d , w h o cares for all p e o p l e , takes special t h o u g h t for t h e
Jews, w h o m h e d o e s n o t n a m e b u t calls "the suppliants' γ έ ν ο ς w h i c h h a s
b e e n a l l o t t e d o r h a s a l l o t t e d i t s e l f t o H i m . By d e s c r i b i n g t h e m i n this
way, h e i m p l i e s t h a t t h e n a t i o n m a y r e c e i v e G o d ' s s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n
because it serves H i m a n d is a l l o t t e d to H i m . M o r e o v e r , t h e d e s i g n a t i o n
"suppliants' γ έ ν ο ς " suggests that this γ έ ν ο ς serves a n intercessory r o l e for
all p e o p l e , t h o u g h P h i l o d o e s n o t explicidy m e n t i o n this role.
In Legat. 4, P h i l o d e c l a r e s that t h e n a m e o f t h e s u p p l i a n t s ' γ έ ν ο ς is
"Israel," w h i c h m e a n s "one that s e e s G o d . " H e t h e n a r g u e s that s e e i n g
H i m n e c e s s a r i l y e v o k e s a h i g h s t a n d a r d o f virtue a n d e x c e l l e n c e i n t h e
b e h o l d e r s a n d t h a t H e w h o is s e e n is b e t t e r t h a n any p h i l o s o p h i c a l
c o n c e p t , like t h e G o o d or the Beautiful (Legat. 5 ) .
In Legat. 6 - 7 , P h i l o turns to different issues. First h e m e n t i o n s that it is
i m p o s s i b l e for r e a s o n to a p p r o a c h G o d as H e is a n d that it is difficult t o find
w o r d s e v e n for G o d ' s powers, w h i c h h e t h e n describes as "the creative, t h e
kingly, t h e providential, a n d ... t h e o t h e r s all that are b o t h b e n e f i c i a l a n d
punitive..." (Legat. 7 ) .
H e r e , P h i l o reflects u p o n t h e role o f G o d ' s punitive powers, c o n s i d e r i n g
t h e m to b e part o f His beneficial powers. H e explains that

the punitive powers are to be classed a m o n g the beneficial o n e s , n o t only because

they are part o f laws and ordinances—for law is naturally m a d e c o m p l e t e by two
e l e m e n t s , reward o f the g o o d a n d p u n i s h m e n t of the w i c k e d — b u t also b e c a u s e

7 4
See n. 42.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND THE JEWS 191

p u n i s h m e n t a d m o n i s h e s a n d chastens often even those w h o have g o n e astray, but

75
if n o t , m o s t certainly their a s s o c i a t e s ; for p u n i s h m e n t s of others i m p r o v e the
m u l t i t u d e t h r o u g h fear that they may suffer similar things. {Legat. 7, m y trans­
lation)

W h a t is especially striking a b o u t this p r o l o g u e is that P h i l o i n t r o d u c e s

p h i l o s o p h i c a l motifs at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a work a b o u t t h e political situation
o f t h e Jews. T h e s e motifs i n c l u d e t h e description o f "Israel" as t h e o n e that
s e e s G o d ; t h e very i d e a o f s e e i n g G o d as inspiring virtuous behavior; t h e
inaccessibility o f G o d e v e n to reason; G o d ' s powers; a n d t h e i m p o r t a n c e t o
laws o f rewards a n d p u n i s h m e n t s .
P h i l o e l a b o r a t e s frequently u p o n s o m e o f t h e s e p h i l o s o p h i c a l m o t i f s i n
t h e A l l e g o r y a n d Q G E — t h o s e e x e g e t i c a l writings in w h i c h h e n e v e r talks
a b o u t t h e real n a t i o n . In t h e E x p o s i t i o n , however, especially w h e r e h e d o e s
m e n t i o n t h e J e w s , h e rarely d i s c u s s e s t h e s e m o t i f s . S i n c e h e s e e m s t o
k e e p d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e s e p h i l o s o p h i c a l motifs separate f r o m d i s c u s s i o n o f
t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n — a t least in his e x e g e t i c a l works—it is surprising t o f i n d
e v e n a s u m m a r y o f various p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h e m e s at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f this
political treatise.
W h y d o e s P h i l o b e g i n Legat. in this way? As w e h a v e n o t e d , i n all
l i k e l i h o o d , h e i n t e n d s this p r o l o g u e t o s h o w his r e a d e r s — b o t h J e w s a n d
G e n t i l e s — t h a t G o d w a t c h e s o u t especially for t h e Jews, p e r h a p s by p u n i s h ­
i n g t h o s e w h o mistreat t h e m , as o n e c a n see f r o m t h e c u r r e n t events. H e
m a y also w i s h to r e i n f o r c e his o w n faith a m i d t h e a n g u i s h h e h a s b e e n
suffering with his people. W h e n h e introduces philosophical motifs,
h o w e v e r , P h i l o vindicates his p e o p l e ' s way o f life f r o m a perspective o t h e r
t h a n that o f c u r r e n t events.
By i m p l i c i t l y l i n k i n g t h e J e w s w i t h "Israel," t h e o n e that s e e s G o d ,
P h i l o p r e s e n t s t h e m as e m b o d y i n g t h e h i g h e s t p h i l o s o p h i c a l g o a l , i.e.,
s e e i n g G o d . W h e n h e c o n t e n d s that r e a s o n c a n n o t attain this g o a l , h o w ­
ever, h e i m p l i e s that p h i l o s o p h y a l o n e is n o t e n o u g h . As t h e s u p p l i a n t s '
γ έ ν ο ς w h i c h is d e d i c a t e d to G o d , "Israel" or t h e Jews e x e m p l i f y s o m e t h i n g
g r e a t e r t h a n p h i l o s o p h y , i.e., w o r s h i p o f G o d t h r o u g h o b s e r v a n c e o f H i s
s p e c i a l laws. Laws, m o r e o v e r , are m a d e c o m p l e t e by p r o v i d i n g f o r re­
wards a n d p u n i s h m e n t s , a n d t h e s e rewards a n d p u n i s h m e n t s c o m e f r o m
G o d t h r o u g h H i s p o w e r s . In t h u s a r g u i n g that G o d p r o t e c t s t h e J e w s a n d
p u n i s h e s t h e i r e n e m i e s , P h i l o validates t h e J e w i s h p a t h , e v e n a b o v e t h e
7 6
philosophical o n e .

7 5
π λ η σ ι ά ζ ο ν τ ε ς . This c o u l d also be translated, "those w h o are close to sinning," as
S m a l l w o o d n o t e s (Philonis Alexandrine 157, n. 7 ) , citing H a n s Leisegang in JBL 5 7
( 1 9 3 8 ) : 3 8 3 ; but see Spec. 4.223 for a t h o u g h t similar to the o n e e x p r e s s e d by the
translation given h e r e .
7 6
Cf. Virt. 65, in which Philo s e e m s to equate Judaism with philosophy. ( T h e s e two
192 CHAPTER FIVE

In d i f f e r e n t ways, t h e n , t h e v a r i o u s p a s s a g e s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e e x p r e s s
P h i l o ' s i d e a s a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e Jews, past a n d
p r e s e n t . P h i l o ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s are c o n n e c t e d with t h e Biblical d e p i c t i o n o f
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel. As h e d o e s in his e x p l i c i t inter­
pretations o f that d e p i c t i o n , h e r e t o o in his c o m m e n t s a b o u t G o d ' s relation­
s h i p to t h e Jews a n d their a n c e s t o r s — w h i c h are implicit i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f
t h e Biblical d e p i c t i o n — P h i l o m o d i f i e s Biblical n o t i o n s t o suit h i s a i m s
a n d a u d i e n c e s . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e s e implicit interpretations, it w o u l d s e e m
that a n y o n e w h o c h o o s e s m a y a c h i e v e t h e s a m e s t a n d i n g with G o d as t h e
Jews have.
C o n s p i c u o u s l y a b s e n t f r o m P h i l o ' s d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t t h e J e w s is any
r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i r ability t o s e e G o d . Accordingly, o n e m i g h t a s s u m e that
G o d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e m is s o m e w h a t different f r o m t h e o n e H e h a s
with "Israel." In t h e n e x t chapter, w e shall have an o p p o r t u n i t y to c o m p a r e
t h e t w o r e l a t i o n s h i p s w h e n w e c o n s i d e r w h a t P h i l o says a b o u t n e w ­
c o m e r s t o G o d , or proselytes.

passages, Legat. 1-7 and Virt. 65, are discussed in Chapter T h r e e . ) For a n o t h e r per­
spective o n Legat. 1-7, see Wayne A. Meeks, "The Divine A g e n t a n d His Counterfeit
in Philo a n d the Fourth Gospel," Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early
Christianity, e d . Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, University o f N o t r e D a m e , Center for
the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity, n o . 2 (Notre D a m e , 1976), 4 9 - 5 4 .
 CHAPTER SIX

PROSELYTES IN RELATION TO
GOD, JEWS, AND "ISRAEL"

H a v i n g e s t a b l i s h e d that P h i l o links "Israel" w i t h t h e ability t o s e e G o d a n d

a s s o c i a t e s t h e J e w s w i t h a very d i f f e r e n t set o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , w e a r e n o w
p r e p a r e d t o test w h e t h e r o r n o t o u r d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d t h e
J e w s r e m a i n s v a l i d w h e n P h i l o talks a b o u t p r o s e l y t e s . T o d o this, w e shall
e x a m i n e the relationship b e t w e e n proselytes a n d G o d and c o m p a r e this
r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e o n e G o d h a s w i t h "Israel," o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d w i t h
t h e J e w s , o n t h e o t h e r . Finally, w e shall also c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r p r o s e l y t e s
b e c o m e m e m b e r s o f "Israel," t h e J e w s , o r b o t h . A l t h o u g h P h i l o himself
d o e s n o t usually a d d r e s s t h e s e i s s u e s directly, h i s d i s c u s s i o n s a b o u t p r o s e ­
lytes a n d o t h e r m a t t e r s d o p e r m i t u s t o draw s o m e r e l e v a n t c o n c l u s i o n s .
A few preliminary remarks regarding the c o m p l e x issue of proselytes
a n d c o n v e r s i o n in antiquity are p e r h a p s i n o r d e r . S o l u t i o n s t o t h e q u e s t i o n s
o f w h o w a s c o n s i d e r e d a J e w a n d h o w o n e b e c a m e a J e w are far f r o m
u n i f o r m . I n a n article e n t i t l e d "Crossing t h e B o u n d a r y a n d B e c o m i n g a
Jew," S h a y e J. D . C o h e n d e s c r i b e s t h e s i t u a t i o n i n antiquity as follows:

A gentile w h o was accepted as a proselyte by o n e community may n o t have b e e n so

regarded by another. N o r should we assume that the proselytes o f o n e c o m m u n i t y
were necessarily treated like those o f another, because the Jews o f antiquity h e l d a
w i d e r a n g e o f o p i n i o n s about the d e g r e e to which t h e proselyte b e c a m e j u s t like
1
the native b o r n .

1
Shaye J. D . C o h e n , "Crossing the Boundary a n d B e c o m i n g a Jew," HTR 8 2 ( 1 9 8 9 ) :
14. For other discussions o f proselytes during this period a n d related topics, s e e i d e m ,
"Conversion to Judaism in Historical Perspective: From Biblical Israel to Postbiblical
Judaism," Conservative Judaism 36 (1983): 3 1 - 4 5 ; Bernard J. Bamberger, Proselytism in
the Talmudic Period (Cincinnati: H e b r e w U n i o n College Press, 1939); J o h a n n e s B e h m
a n d Ernst Wurthwein, "μετανοέω, μετάνοια," TDNT, 4:975-1008; C. H. Cave, "Gentiles
a n d J u d a i s m : 'God-Fearers' a n d Proselytes," in Emil Schurer, History of the Jewish
People, rev. a n d e d . Geza Vermes et al. (Edinburgh: Τ. & T. Clark, 1 9 8 6 ) , 3:1:150-76;
Louis H . F e l d m a n , Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions From
Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993); Karl G e o r g K u h n ,
" π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς , " TDNT, 6 : 7 2 7 - 4 4 ; Scot McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish
Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period ( M i n n e a p o l i s : Fortress Press, 1 9 9 1 ) ;
Arthur Darby Nock, Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to
Augustine of Hippo (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1 9 3 3 ) , e s p . 1 - 1 6 ; G e o r g e F o o t e
M o o r e , Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim ( N e w
York: S c h o c k e n Books, 1 9 5 8 ) , 1:323-53; Alan F. Segal, "The Costs o f Proselytism a n d
Conversion," SBL 1988 Seminar Papers, SBL Seminar Paper Series, e d . David J. Lull, n o .
194 CHAPTER SIX

Diversity is a p p a r e n t n o t o n l y c o n c e r n i n g t h e b r o a d e r issues o f w h o
was c o n s i d e r e d a J e w a n d h o w o n e b e c a m e a J e w , b u t also a m o n g t h e
t e r m s u s e d by d i f f e r e n t c o m m u n i t i e s b o t h f o r i n d i v i d u a l s a n d f o r t h e
p r o c e s s o f t u r n i n g t o J u d a i s m . In s o m e c o m m u n i t i e s , f o r e x a m p l e , w e find
t e r m s i n G r e e k a n d H e b r e w f o r "God-reverers" o r "God-fearers" ( e . g . ,
θεοσεβεΐς; σ ε β ό μ ε ν ο ι o r φοβούμενοι τον θεόν; " nrp; UOD *trp), w h o s e p r e c i s e
s t a n d i n g w i t h t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y is u n c l e a r . R a b b i n i c literature h a s
r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e nenn Ί3, o r r e s i d e n t a l i e n , a n o t h e r figure w h o , w h i l e
a p p a r e n t l y s y m p a t h e t i c t o J u d a i s m , was n o t c o n s i d e r e d a Jew. T h e Rabbis
also s p e a k o f different k i n d s o f proselytes. B e s i d e s t h e ρτ* Ί3 ( t h e true o r
r i g h t e o u s p r o s e l y t e ) , t h e y m e n t i o n proselytes w h o c a m e o v e r t o J u d a i s m
2
o u t o f different motives, s o m e c o n s i d e r e d h o n o r a b l e , s o m e n o t .
Finally, variety also exists a m o n g w o r d s d e s c r i b i n g t h e activity o f t h e s e
d i f f e r e n t figures i n r e l a t i o n t o J e w s a n d J u d a i s m . T h u s t e r m s like μ ε τ ά ­
ν ο ι α , r e p e n t a n c e o r c o n v e r s i o n ; Ί ο υ δ α ι ζ ε ι ν , t o act like a J e w (Esther 8:17;
cf. t h e H e b r e w , nrrnn); a n d i^ynn , t o b e c o m e a proselyte, m a y e x p r e s s a
3
r a n g e o f b e h a v i o r f r o m acting like a J e w to b e c o m i n g o n e .
S o m e t i m e s variations o c c u r e v e n i n t h e way j u s t o n e w o r d is u s e d . A
t e r m like μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α , f o r e x a m p l e , h a s m o r e t h a n o n e m e a n i n g — e v e n i n
P h i l o ' s works a l o n e . W h e r e a s P h i l o m a y u s e μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α t o d e n o t e r e p e n t ­
ance or conversion—in the sense of turning from polytheistic belief to
b e l i e f i n t h e o n e G o d — i n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α signifies "conver­
4
sion" as a c o m p l e t e a n d irreversible religious t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .
T h e u n m i s t a k a b l e diversity o f t e r m s a n d p o s i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g w h o was
c o n s i d e r e d a J e w a n d h o w o n e b e c a m e a Jew w o u l d s e e m to reflect a
r a t h e r fluid s i t u a t i o n a m o n g t h e various c o m m u n i t i e s i n antiquity. N o n -
Jews, it a p p e a r s , m i g h t e x p r e s s a n i n t e r e s t i n J u d a i s m i n a n y n u m b e r o f
ways w i t h o u t b e c o m i n g a J e w .

27 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 3 3 6 - 6 9 ; idem, Paul the Convert, 7 2 - 7 5 .

2
O n these various figures, see, e.g., Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period, 1 3 3 -
40; Cave, "Gentiles a n d Judaism," 1 6 5 - 7 2 ; C o h e n , "Crossing t h e Boundary," 3 1 - 3 3 ;
F e l d m a n , Jew and Gentile, 3 4 2 - 8 2 ; i d e m , "Proselytes and 'Sympathizers' in the Light o f
the N e w Inscriptions From Aphrodisias," Revue des etudes juives 148 ( 1 9 8 9 ) : 2 6 5 - 3 0 5 ;
Kuhn, "προσήλυτος," 7 3 0 - 4 4 ; Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in Life and
Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II-IV Centuries C.E. ( N e w York: F e l d h e i m , 1 9 6 5 ) , 7 7 -
84; McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles, 9 0 - 1 0 1 , 110-14; Moore, Judaism, 1:323-41.
3
O n Ί ο υ δ α ι ζ ε ι ν , see Amir, ' T h e T e r m Ι ο υ δ α ϊ σ μ ό ς , " 36. Shaye C o h e n reviews various
uses o f Ί ο υ δ α ι ζ ε ι ν in an u n p u b l i s h e d paper e n t i d e d ' T h e Polemical U s e s o f Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ς
and Ί ο υ δ α ι ζ ε ι ν in Early Christian Writings," delivered at t h e 1991 SBL C o n f e r e n c e .
O n T O T , see Kuhn, "προσήλυτος," 7 3 6 - 3 7 .
4
Philo's n o t i o n s about μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α are discussed later in this chapter (see also below, n.
3 1 ) . For N e w T e s t a m e n t understandings o f this term, see B e h m , "μετανοέω, μετάνοια,"
TDNT, 4:999-1006.
 PROSELYTES IN RELATION TO GOD, JEWS, AND "ISRAEL" 195

R e c o g n i z i n g that t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n proselyte a n d J e w i n antiqui­

ty is far f r o m clear, I shall c o n c e n t r a t e h e r e e x c l u s i v e l y u p o n P h i l o ' s
a p p r o a c h t o t h e p r o s e l y t e — w h i c h in itself c a n b e s o m e w h a t a m b i g u o u s —
w i t h o u t trying t o c o m p a r e h i s d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h t h o s e o f o t h e r c o m m u ­
nities. L e t us b e g i n this c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f P h i l o with s o m e g e n e r a l observa­
tions.

Philo's Presentation of Proselytes: General Observations

Vocabulary and Definitions

In s i x t e e n passages, P h i l o u s e s t h e words, π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς , ε π η λ υ ς , έ π η λ ύ τ η ς ,
5
a n d έ π ή λ υ τ ο ς t o describe proselytes o r i n c o m e r s . (For c o n v e n i e n c e , I shall
refer to t h e last t h r e e terms as "επηλυς a n d its variations.") In Spec. 1.51, h e
p r o v i d e s a n e t y m o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n for π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ι , n o t i n g that t h e y are
s o - c a l l e d "because t h e y h a v e come to ( π ρ ο σ ε λ η λ υ θ έ ν α ι ) a n e w a n d G o d -
l o v i n g polity" ( m y e m p h a s i s ) .
In QE 2.2, in w h i c h P h i l o u s e s b o t h π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς a n d ε π η λ υ ς , h e e x p l a i n s
different n u a n c e s o f t h e w o r d ε π η λ υ ς as follows:

[ S ] o m e call strangers ( ξ έ ν ο ι ) 'incomers' ( έ π ή λ υ δ ε ς ) . But strangers are also t h o s e

w h o c o m e o f their o w n a c c o r d to the truth, in t h e s a m e way as t h o s e w h o
sojourned in Egypt. For the latter are incomers to the land, the former to laws a n d
6
customs. But the c o m m o n n a m e o f 'incomers' is ascribed to b o t h .

W i t h t h e i r basic m e a n i n g o f "one w h o c o m e s to," t h e n , π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς a n d

ε π η λ υ ς a n d its variations m a y b e u n d e r s t o o d in a n u m b e r o f ways. T h e s e
w o r d s c a n d e n o t e , for e x a m p l e , a p e r s o n o f f o r e i g n birth; o n e w h o dwells
w i t h t e m p o r a r y o r i n f e r i o r status a m o n g a f o r e i g n p o p u l a t i o n ; o n e w h o
j o i n s a n e w p e o p l e , a d o p t i n g t h e i r beliefs a n d practices; o r all t h e f o r e ­
g o i n g . A l t h o u g h w e are i n t e r e s t e d o n l y in t h o s e p a s s a g e s in w h i c h P h i l o
u n d e r s t a n d s π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς o r ε π η λ υ ς a n d its variations as m e a n i n g o n e w h o
j o i n s a n e w p e o p l e a n d a d o p t s their beliefs a n d practices, h e d o e s o c c a s i o n ­
ally u s e t h e s e w o r d s in o t h e r ways as well. I shall d i s c u s s t h e s e c a s e s
presently.

5
S o m e passages use m o r e than o n e o f these words. T h e passages are as follows: Cher.
108, 1 1 9 - 2 1 ; Somn. 1.160; Somn. 2.273; Mos. 1.7, 147; Spec. 1.51-53, 3 0 8 - 9 ; Spec. 2 . 1 1 8 - 1 9 ;
Spec. 4 . 1 7 6 - 7 8 ; Virt. 1 0 2 - 4 , 182, 219; Praem. 152; QE 2.2; Flacc. 54.
6
This is my translation based u p o n the Greek fragment. T h e Armenian adds a n e g ­
ative so that the s e n t e n c e reads, "[S]trangers are also those w h o have c o m e o f their
own a c c o r d to the truth not in the same way as those w h o sojourned in Egypt" (my
e m p h a s i s ) . B o t h ways o f reading the passage can make sense. Without the negative,
the passage e m p h a s i z e s the c o m m o n a l i t y that all i n c o m e r s share; with the negative,
the passage emphasizes the difference between what each i n c o m e r c o m e s to.
196 CHAPTER SIX

In t e n p a s s a g e s i n w h i c h P h i l o u s e s π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς o r ε π η λ υ ς a n d its
variations, h e e l a b o r a t e s u p o n t h e s e t e r m s a n d it is usually clear that h e
m e a n s by t h e m a p e r s o n w h o leaves b e h i n d o l d b e l i e f s a n d p r a c t i c e s as
w e l l as a c o m m u n i t y o f family a n d f r i e n d s t o a d o p t n e w b e l i e f s a n d
7
practices a n d t o j o i n a n e w c o m m u n i t y . In o n e passage (Somn. 2 . 2 7 2 - 7 3 ) ,
P h i l o d e s c r i b e s proselytes simply as μ ε τ α ν ά σ τ α ι καΐ π ρ ό σ φ υ γ ε ς , e m i g r a n t s
a n d r e f u g e e s . T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n m a k e s s e n s e , h o w e v e r , o n l y if o n e
u n d e r s t a n d s p r o s e l y t e s as e m i g r a n t s a n d r e f u g e e s w h o c o m e to G o d , n o t
merely emigrants a n d refugees w h o leave o n e physical h o m e for
8
another.
O f t h e t e n p a s s a g e s in w h i c h P h i l o d o e s d e f i n e t h e p r o s e l y t e in s o m e
9
way, e i g h t assert that h e o r s h e leaves b e h i n d s o m e t h i n g o l d and c o m e s
o v e r t o s o m e t h i n g n e w , w h i l e two m e n t i o n o n l y t h e c o m i n g o v e r t o
s o m e t h i n g new, a l t h o u g h the a b a n d o n m e n t of the old may also b e
i m p l i e d . T h e d u a l activity o f l e a v i n g b e h i n d t h e o l d a n d t a k i n g o n t h e
n e w a p p e a r s e s p e c i a l l y i m p o r t a n t , s i n c e t h e o l d ways a n d t h e n e w are
10
p r e s e n t e d as f u n d a m e n t a l l y i n c o m p a t i b l e .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y P h i l o n e v e r p r o v i d e s t h e s a m e list twice o f w h a t is left
a n d w h a t is a d o p t e d , n o r d o e s e v e n o n e specification a p p e a r c o n s i s t e n t l y
in every list. N o n e t h e l e s s w e m a y o b s e r v e g e n e r a l l y that t h e p r o s e l y t e
a b a n d o n s b e l i e f i n a n d w o r s h i p o f m a n y g o d s t o a d o p t b e l i e f in a n d
w o r s h i p o f t h e o n e G o d . M o r e specifically, P h i l o m e n t i o n s that proselytes
leave b e h i n d m y t h i c a l i n v e n t i o n s , polytheistic beliefs, ancestral c u s t o m s ,
family, f r i e n d s , a n d c o u n t r y a n d c o m e over to t h e o n e true G o d , truth,
piety, virtue, t h e laws, a n d a n e w polity. A l t h o u g h h e d o e s n o t d o so in
every case, P h i l o m o s t f r e q u e n t l y cites t h e t u r n i n g to G o d — w h e t h e r it b e
1 1
to h o n o r of, w o r s h i p of, or b e l i e f in H i m .

7
T h e s e ten passages are as follows: Somn. 1.160-62; Spec. 1.51-53, 3 0 8 - 9 ; Spec. 2 . 1 1 6 - 1 9 ;
Spec. 4 . 1 7 6 - 7 8 ; Virt. 1 0 2 - 4 , 1 8 0 - 8 2 , 219; Praem. 152; and QE 2.2. Spec. 2 . 1 1 6 - 1 9 , w h i c h
explains a Biblical law about buying h o u s e s within a city (Lev. 2 5 : 2 9 - 3 1 ) , understands
the proselyte in two senses, as o n e w h o c o m e s over to the laws and as a n e w c o m e r to
the land.
8
P h i l o ' s use o f m i g r a t i o n or pilgrimage vocabulary to describe the proselyte is
discussed further below. See also n n . 28 and 29.
9
I use b o t h g e n d e r s advisedly. As I argue later in the chapter, Tamar m i g h t serve as
an e x a m p l e o f a female proselyte. A l t h o u g h Philo d o e s n o t call her o n e explicidy, h e
employs the same language for her as h e d o e s for the proselyte.
1 0
O n the importance of the dual activity o f leaving old ways a n d adopting n e w o n e s ,
see Nock, Conversion, 7, 1 3 - 1 4 . T h e two passages which m e n t i o n only the c o m i n g over
to s o m e t h i n g new are Spec. 2 . 1 1 6 - 1 9 and Praem. 152. In Spec. 2.118, Philo describes the
έ π η λ ύ τ α ι as suppliants and refugees to the laws, while in Praem. 152, h e says that the
επηλυς c o m e s of his own accord to God. O n Spec. 2.116-19, see also above, n. 7.
1 1
O f the ten passages listed in n. 7, only Spec. 2 . 1 1 6 - 1 9 d o e s n o t m e n t i o n G o d . I
shall discuss the turning to God in m o r e detail further below.
 PROSELYTES IN RELATION TO GOD, JEWS, AND "ISRAEL" 197

It is w o r t h n o t i n g t h a t P h i l o m e n t i o n s t h e a d o p t i o n o f n e w laws o r
1 2
customs only twice. B e c a u s e h e s p e a k s o f t h e s e laws o r c u s t o m s i n o n l y
a g e n e r a l way, w e d o n o t h a v e sufficient e v i d e n c e t o b e a b l e t o identify t h e
legal requirements for either b e c o m i n g a proselyte or maintaining o n e ' s
s t a t u s as a m e m b e r o f t h e c o m m u n i t y . M o r e o v e r , o n t h e b a s i s o f w h a t
P h i l o tells u s , w e are u n a b l e t o d i s c e r n w h e t h e r o r n o t o r t o w h a t d e g r e e
t h e p r o s e l y t e is a c c e p t e d by t h e n e w c o m m u n i t y w h i c h h e o r s h e j o i n s .
P e r h a p s t h e m o s t w e c a n say t h e n a b o u t P h i l o ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e
p r o s e l y t e is t h a t h e o r s h e a b a n d o n s o l d p o l y t h e i s t i c b e l i e f s a n d p r a c t i c e s ,
leaving b e h i n d a c o m m u n i t y o f family a n d friends, a n d c o m e s over to
b e l i e f i n a n d w o r s h i p ( l o o s e l y d e f i n e d ) o f t h e o n e true G o d , b e c o m i n g part
o f a n e w c o m m u n i t y . F o r t h e rest o f this d i s c u s s i o n , I shall u s e t h e t e r m
"proselyte" t o d e n o t e this m e a n i n g . It is significant that, a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s
description, b e c o m i n g a proselyte has b o t h religious a n d social dimen­
sions.
A s t o t h e i n t e r c h a n g e a b i l i t y o f π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς a n d ε π η λ υ ς o r its variations,
P h i l o always u s e s t h e w o r d π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς o n l y w h e n it o c c u r s i n B i b l i c a l
1 3
passages he is d i s c u s s i n g . More frequently, he uses ε π η λ υ ς a n d its

1 2
Spec. 2.118 a n d QE 2.2 (the latter passage is quoted earlier); cf. Somn. 1.162. O n t h e
debate over whether or n o t circumcision is required o f proselytes, see below, n. 2 1 .
1 3
Cher. 108 (Lev. 25:23), 119-21 (Lev. 25:23); Somn. 2.273 (Deut. 26:13); Spec. 1.51-53
(Lev. 1 9 : 3 3 - 3 4 ) , 3 0 8 - 9 (Deut. 1 0 : 1 7 - 1 9 ) ; QE 2.2 (Exod. 22:20). In t h e Septuagint,
π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς is a translation for Ί3 from t h e H e b r e w Bible. B o t h Biblical terms are
a m b i g u o u s . In t h e H e b r e w Bible, t h e word Ί3 seems to carry at least two different
senses: It can refer to a foreigner or sojourner, as in the case o f Abraham a m o n g t h e
Hittites ( G e n . 23:4); Moses in Midian (Exod. 2:22, 18:3); Israel in Egypt (Exod. 22:20,
23:9; Lev. 19:34; Deut. 10:19); or Israel in relation to G o d (Lev. 25:23, 1 Chron. 29:15).
At t h e s a m e time, Ί2 also d e s i g n a t e s foreigners w h o live a m o n g t h e Israelites, n o t
merely as sojourners but as a class o f p e o p l e with certain rights—i.e., resident aliens
(Exod. 12:49, 22:20; Lev. 22:18; N u m . 35:15; Deut. 24:14). Although the Pentateuch d o e s
n o t give conclusive evidence to support understanding the Ί3 as a religious convert, in
s o m e o t h e r parts o f t h e Bible, t h e Ί3 a n d o t h e r d e s i g n a t i o n s m a y i n d e e d i n d i c a t e
p e o p l e w h o adopt Israelite beliefs a n d practices (Isa. 14:1, 56:3 a n d 6; Zech. 2:15; Esther
9:27; Ezra 6:21; N e h . 10:29). D e v e l o p m e n t s in the m e a n i n g o f t h e term n o d o u b t
reflect c h a n g i n g realities a m o n g t h e p e o p l e o f Israel after t h e e x i l e . S e e C o h e n ,
"Conversion to Judaism"; Yehezkel Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel, vol. 4:
From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy, trans. C. W. Efroymson ( N e w York:
Ktav, 1 9 7 7 ) , 4 2 - 4 6 , 1 3 6 - 3 9 , 2 3 3 , 3 4 1 - 4 3 ; Τ. M. Mauch, "Sojourner," Interpreter's Diction­
ary of the Bible, 4 : 3 9 7 - 9 9 ; T h e o p h i l e J a m e s Meek, "The Translation o f Ger in the
H e x a t e u c h a n d Its Bearing o n the Documentary Hypothesis," JBL 4 9 (1930): 1 7 2 - 8 0 .
T h e Septuagint translators, r e s p o n d i n g perhaps to the different n u a n c e s associated
with na, generally use either o f two different words for it: πάροικος or π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς . T h e
two terms, however, d o n o t correspond exacdy to the two different senses o f Ί3 m e n ­
t i o n e d above—i.e., sojourner a n d resident alien. For e x a m p l e , a l t h o u g h π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς
usually designates resident aliens a m o n g the Israelites, it also describes the p e o p l e o f
Israel as sojourners in Egypt (Exod. 22:20, 23:9; Lev. 19:34; Deut. 10:19) or in relation
198 CHAPTER SIX

variations, w h e t h e r t h e w o r d π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς appears in a related Scriptural text

o r n o t . In o n e Biblical q u o t a t i o n , in fact, h e substitutes έπήλυτος for π ρ ο σ ή ­
14
λ υ τ ο ς , w h i c h is f o u n d in t h e S e p t u a g i n t .
It m a y b e that P h i l o prefers ε π η λ υ ς a n d its variations t o π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς
b e c a u s e t h e s e w o r d s are m o r e familiar to his readers, π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς a p p e a r s
a l m o s t exclusively in J e w i s h a n d Christian writings, w h i l e ε π η λ υ ς a n d its
variations c a n b e f o u n d in classical G r e e k writings, in w h i c h t h e s e t e r m s
15
d e n o t e a f o r e i g n e r a n d i n d i c a t e o n l y a civic s t a n d i n g . By u s i n g ε π η λ υ ς
a n d its variations to signify o n e w h o a b a n d o n s p o l y t h e i s m to c o m e o v e r to
1 6
b e l i e f in G o d , t h e n , P h i l o adds a religious c o n n o t a t i o n to t h e s e w o r d s .
P h i l o d o e s , h o w e v e r , also u s e π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς a n d ε π η λ υ ς a n d its variations
w i t h o u t a r e l i g i o u s c o n n o t a t i o n in t h r e e passages. In Flacc. 5 4 , h e cites a
p r o c l a m a t i o n o f F l a c c u s a g a i n s t t h e J e w s , w h i c h d e n o u n c e s t h e m as
foreigners a n d aliens (ξένοι και έπήλυδες). Here, Philo's use of ε π η λ υ ς
reflects R o m a n classification o f his J e w i s h c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . Similarly, i n
Cher. 108 a n d 1 1 9 - 2 1 , π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς , ε π η λ υ ς , a n d έ π ή λ υ τ ο ς d e n o t e simply a
f o r e i g n e r or s o j o u r n e r . In t h e s e passages, w h i c h discuss t h e Israelites as
s o j o u r n e r s in relation to G o d , P h i l o ' s u s e o f t h e terms is b a s e d u p o n t h e
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς in t h e S e p t u a g i n t verse Lev. 25:23. B e c a u s e
n o n e o f t h e s e t h r e e passages are a b o u t proselytes, they are n o t relevant to
t h e p r e s e n t study.
In two p l a c e s , Mos. 1.7 a n d 147, P h i l o uses έπη λ ύ τ η ς a m b i g u o u s l y , s o
1 7
that t h e w o r d c a n d e n o t e a foreigner, a proselyte, or b o t h . Since t h e s e two

to G o d (Lev. 25:23). A l t h o u g h the Greek translators of the Bible may have u n d e r s t o o d

π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς as o n e w h o has left b e h i n d old beliefs and practices to adopt new o n e s , we
c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e this o n the basis of the Septuagint alone. For a different view, see
W. C. Allen, O n the M e a n i n g of π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς in the Septuagint," The Expositor A (10)
( 1 8 9 4 ) : 2 6 4 - 7 5 . See also Kuhn, "προσήλυτος," 7 2 7 - 3 1 and K. L. and M. A. Schmidt,
"πάροικος," TDNT, 5:841-48.
It is interesting that in Conf. 82, Philo uses the word γειώρας in q u o t i n g Exod. 2:22,
even t h o u g h the Septuagint translates Ί3 as π ά ρ ο ι κ ο ς . For a possible explanation, see
Suzanne Daniel, De Specialibus Legibus I-II, ΟΡΑ, 24:221-22.
1 4
Spec. 4.177, quoting Deut. 10:17^18. This passage is discussed later in the chapter.
1 5
Allen, "On the M e a n i n g of προσήλυτος," 2 6 4 - 6 5 ; Daniel, De Specialibus Legibus I-II,
ΟΡΑ, 24:221-22; Kuhn, "προσήλυτος," 728.
1 6
See QE 2.2 ( q u o t e d earlier), in which Philo explicitly presents the d o u b l e sense of
επηλυς.
1 7
In Mos. 1.7, Philo describes Abraham as an έ π η λ ύ τ η ς . T h e passage, however, is
actually a b o u t Moses. Philo writes, "He [Moses] is the seventh g e n e r a t i o n from the
first, w h o b e i n g an έ π η λ ύ τ η ς b e c a m e the f o u n d e r of the w h o l e Jewish nation" (my
translation). Since Philo elsewhere describes Abraham as both a sojourner (μέτοικος,
Mos. 2.58) a n d a proselyte (Somn. 1.160-62, Virt. 2 1 9 ) , we c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e w h i c h
m e a n i n g h e has in m i n d here, and either or both would certainly make sense.
A l t h o u g h Philo d o e s n o t elaborate u p o n the έ π η λ ύ τ α ι in Mos. 1.147, the c o n t e x t
favors the s e n s e o f "proselyte." This passage describes as follows the g r o u p that
 PROSELYTES IN RELATION TO GOD, JEWS, AND "ISRAEL" 199

p a s s a g e s at l e a s t a l l o w for a b r o a d e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e έ π η λ ύ τ η ς as a
proselyte, I shall i n c l u d e t h e m i n t h i s study. O f t h e s i x t e e n passages
w h i c h have the words π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς or ε π η λ υ ς a n d its v a r i a t i o n s , then,
18
t h i r t e e n are a b o u t o r m a y b e a b o u t p r o s e l y t e s .

Contexts in Which Philo Discusses Proselytes

All t h i r t e e n p a s s a g e s j u s t m e n t i o n e d are f o u n d o n l y in P h i l o ' s e x e g e t i c a l

w o r k s a n d m o s t are f r o m t h e E x p o s i t i o n . Specifically, t e n p a s s a g e s a p p e a r
in the Exposition, two in the Allegory, and one in Questions and
A n s w e r s . P h i l o d o e s n o t m e n t i o n p r o s e l y t e s at all i n h i s non-exegetical
1 9
works.
P h i l o ' s t w o r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e p r o s e l y t e in t h e A l l e g o r y (Somn. 1.160-62,
Somn. 2 . 2 7 2 - 7 3 ) o c c u r o n l y in s y m b o l i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . A l t h o u g h w e c a n
gain s o m e information from these instances about h o w Philo understands
the proselyte, in the Allegory this figure has primarily a symbolic
i m p o r t a n c e . T h e E x p o s i t i o n , i n c o n t r a s t , always d i s c u s s e s p r o s e l y t e s as

accompanies the Hebrews o u t o f Egypt:

T h e y [ t h e Hebrews] were a c c o m p a n i e d by a promiscuous, n o n d e s c r i p t a n d menial
crowd, a bastard host, so to speak, associated with t h e true-born. T h e s e were t h e
children o f Egyptian w o m e n by Hebrew fathers into w h o s e families they h a d b e e n
a d o p t e d a n d also those w h o , [admiring the m e n ' s quality o f b e i n g God-beloved or
God-loving, b e c a m e έπηλύται a n d such as were changed (μετεβάλοντο)] a n d brought
to a wiser m i n d by t h e magnitude a n d the n u m b e r of the successive p u n i s h m e n t s .
T h i s passage d e l i n e a t e s three g r o u p s w h o j o i n t h e H e b r e w s in their d e p a r t u r e
from Egypt: those born o f a m i x e d marriage, those w h o b e c o m e έ π η λ ύ τ α ι , a n d those
w h o are c h a n g e d . A l t h o u g h Philo d o e s n o t define έπηλύται per se, the context certain­
ly suggests that these are proselytes, i.e., p e o p l e w h o leave b e h i n d their backgrounds
to j o i n t h e H e b r e w s , by d e p a r t i n g b o t h from Egypt a n d from their beliefs a n d
practices. I n d e e d t h e only distinction between the s e c o n d a n d third groups—i.e., t h e
έ π η λ ύ τ α ι a n d t h e c h a n g e d o n e s — s e e m s to b e their different motives for j o i n i n g the
Hebrews. T h e έ π η λ ύ τ α ι j o i n t h e m o u t of a positive motive, namely, admiration o f t h e
p e o p l e ' s quality of b e i n g God-beloved or God-loving. ( O n t h e ambiguity of τό θεοφιλές,
see Chapter Five.) In contrast, the o n e s w h o are changed j o i n o u t of a negative motive,
n a m e l y , t h e fear instilled by t h e p u n i s h m e n t s inflicted u p o n t h e Egyptians. S i n c e
Philo, however, d o e s n o t state explicidy, as h e d o e s elsewhere, that t h e έ π η λ ύ τ α ι aban­
d o n their o l d beliefs to a d o p t those o f the Hebrews, it is still possible to view t h e m
simply as a g r o u p o f foreigners or newcomers to the Hebrews without the sense neces­
sarily that they adopt n e w beliefs a n d practices. For other discussions o f this passage,
s e e Amir, "Philon u n d d i e j u d i s c h e Wirklichkeit seiner Zeit," 26; a n d McKnight, A
Light Among the Gentiles, 9 3 - 9 6 . Regarding those w h o are c h a n g e d , s e e further below in
the chapter a n d n. 27.
1 8
T h e s e thirteen passages are Somn. 1.160-62; Somn. 2.272-73; Mos. 1.7, 147; Spec. 1 . 5 1 -
53, 3 0 8 - 9 ; Spec. 2.116-19; Spec. 4.176-78; Virt. 102-4, 1 8 0 - 8 2 , 2 1 2 - 1 9 ; Praem. 152; QE2.2.
1 9
As n o t e d earlier, in Flacc. 5 4 , h e uses t h e term έ'πηλυς with a n o n - r e l i g i o u s
meaning.
200 CHAPTER SIX

real p e o p l e — n e v e r as s y m b o l i c f i g u r e s — e i t h e r i n t h e p a s t o r i n P h i l o ' s
2 0
present. T h e E x p o s i t i o n is a l s o w h e r e w e f i n d m o s t o f t h e passages,
discussed further below, which d o n o t m e n t i o n proselytes explicitly but
p e r t a i n t o t h e m o r t o positive G e n t i l e attitudes towards t h e Jews.
Finally, i n t h e o n e p a s s a g e a b o u t proselytes i n Q G E (QE 2 . 2 ) , P h i l o u s e s
t h e t e r m π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς i n a s y m b o l i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f E x o d . 2 2 : 2 0 , in w h i c h
h e m e n t i o n s circumcision. His c o m m e n t s , however, d o n o t address the
p r a c t i c a l i s s u e o f w h e t h e r o r n o t c i r c u m c i s i o n is r e q u i r e d o f p r o s e l y t e s ,
2 1
a n d it is difficult t o k n o w h o w t o a p p l y h i s r e m a r k s t o real p r o s e l y t e s .
T h e s a m e p a s s a g e a l s o sets f o r t h two ways o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g έ π ή λ υ δ ε ς , as
incomers t o t h e l a n d o r t o laws a n d c u s t o m s . P h i l o ' s r e m a r k s about
p r o s e l y t e s i n t h i s p a s s a g e , h o w e v e r , are e i t h e r t o o a m b i g u o u s o r s p a r e t o
p e r m i t u s t o draw any firm c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t real p r o s e l y t e s .
In seven o f the thirteen passages u n d e r consideration, Philo discusses

2 0
T h e Exposition passages are as follows: Mos. 1.7, 147 (but see n. 17 c o n c e r n i n g t h e
ambiguity in these two passages); Spec. 1.51-53, 3 0 8 - 9 ; Spec. 2 . 1 1 6 - 1 9 ; Spec. 4 . 1 7 6 - 7 8 ;
Virt. 1 0 2 - 4 , 1 8 0 - 8 2 , 2 1 2 - 1 9 ; Praem. 152. By "real" proselytes, I m e a n potentially real,
since w e d o n o t have e v i d e n c e to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r or n o t Philo's A l e x a n d r i a n
Jewish c o m m u n i t y i n c l u d e d such individuals.
2 1
T h e s e p r o b l e m s have n o t p r e v e n t e d many scholars from trying, however! T h e
passage itself reads as follows:
[Exod. 22:20] Why d o e s (Scripture) in a d m o n i s h i n g , ' T h o u shalt n o t oppress a
sojourner,' a d d , 'For ye were sojourners in the land o f the Egyptians'?
(Scripture) first makes it clearly apparent a n d demonstrable that in reality t h e
s o j o u r n e r is o n e w h o circumcises n o t his u n c i r c u m c i s i o n b u t his desires a n d
sensual pleasures a n d t h e o t h e r passions o f the soul. For in Egypt t h e H e b r e w
nation was n o t circumcised but b e i n g mistreated with all (kinds of) mistreatment
by t h e inhabitants in their hatred o f strangers, it lived with t h e m in self-restraint
and e n d u r a n c e , n o t by necessity but rather of its own free c h o i c e , because it took
refuge in G o d t h e Saviour, W h o sent His b e n e f i c e n t power a n d delivered from
their difficult a n d h o p e l e s s situation t h o s e w h o m a d e s u p p l i c a t i o n (to H i m ) .
Therefore (Scripture) adds, 'Ye yourselves know the soul of the sojourner.' But what
is t h e m i n d o f t h e sojourner if n o t alienation from b e l i e f in m a n y g o d s a n d
familiarity with h o n o u r i n g the o n e G o d a n d Father o f all?

( T h e r e m a i n i n g part o f this passage, in which Philo offers two definitions for the
επηλυς, is q u o t e d at the b e g i n n i n g o f the chapter.) This passage seems to have a purely
exegetical purpose. W h e n Philo describes the Hebrews as uncircumcised but living in
self-restraint, for e x a m p l e , h e may b e answering t h e e x e g e t i c a l q u e s t i o n , "In what
way were t h e Hebrews 'proselytes' in Egypt?" N o n e t h e l e s s , h e sidesteps t h e issue o f
w h e t h e r or n o t proselytes are required to be circumcised. Similarly, his remark that
the real proselyte circumcises his desires, etc., also does n o t address the issue of physi­
cal circumcision. For a variety o f approaches to this controversial passage, see Belkin,
Philo and the Oral Law, 44—48; Borgen, Paul Preaches Circumcision, 1 6 - 1 8 , 8 6 - 9 0 ; Collins,
"A Symbol o f Otherness," 1 7 3 - 7 5 , 184; N . J. McEleney, "Conversion, Circumcision,
a n d t h e Law," New Testament Studies 20 (1974): 3 1 9 - 4 1 ; Moore, Judaism, 1:327-28; J.
N o l l a n d , "Uncircumcised Proselytes?" Journal for the Study of Judaism 12 (1981): 1 7 3 - 9 4 ;
Wolfson, Philo, 1:369-71.
 PROSELYTES IN RELATION TO GOD, JEWS, AND "ISRAEL" 201

p r o s e l y t e s in c o n n e c t i o n with Biblical verses that are explicitly a b o u t t h e

2 2 2 3
π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς . W i t h o n e e x c e p t i o n (Praem. 1 5 2 ) , t h e s e Biblical v e r s e s
d e s c r i b e rights o r t r e a t m e n t o f t h e proselyte by t h e c o m m u n i t y . O f t h e six
r e m a i n i n g P h i l o n i c passages, t h r e e d e s c r i b e A b r a h a m as a n έπη λ ύ τ η ς o r
έ π ή λ υ τ ο ς (Somn. 1.160, Mos. 1.7, Virt. 2 1 9 ) ; o n e uses έ π η λ ύ τ α ι to refer to a
2 4
g r o u p that leaves Egypt with t h e H e b r e w s (Mos. 1.147) ; o n e e x p l a i n s a
2 5
Biblical law as a p p l y i n g to έ π η λ ύ τ α ι (Spec. 2 . 1 1 6 - 1 9 ) ; a n d o n e m e n t i o n s
έ π η λ ύ τ α ι in a discussion o f μετάνοια, or conversion (Virt. 1 8 2 ) .

Passages Related to Proselytes Which Do Not Mention Them Explicitly

B e s i d e s t h e t h i r t e e n passages in w h i c h P h i l o explicitly u s e s π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς o r
ε π η λ υ ς a n d its variations t o signify o n e w h o leaves b e h i n d a social a n d
religious b a c k g r o u n d to a d o p t a new c o m m u n i t y and belief in a n d
w o r s h i p o f t h e o n e G o d , h e also discusses matters r e l a t e d to proselytes in
several o t h e r p l a c e s w i t h o u t u s i n g an e x p l i c i t w o r d for t h e m . O c c a s i o n ­
ally, f o r e x a m p l e , h e d e s c r i b e s p e o p l e in ways that s u g g e s t t h e y m a y b e
p r o s e l y t e s , w i t h o u t c a l l i n g t h e m "proselytes"; h e discusses t h e m e s r e l a t e d
t o t h e proselyte's e x p e r i e n c e , like m i g r a t i o n , r e p e n t a n c e , nobility o f birth,
o r k i n s h i p ; a n d h e s p e a k s o f non-Jews w h o w i s h t o j o i n t h e J e w i s h
c o m m u n i t y o r w h o a d m i r e t h e Jews. T h e s e t o p i c s are c o n s i d e r e d briefly
below.

People Who May Be But Are Not Called "Proselytes"

In t h r e e p a s s a g e s (Virt. 2 2 0 - 2 2 , Mos. 1.147, a n d Spec. 2 . 2 5 6 ) , P h i l o writes

a b o u t p e o p l e w h o may be proselytes without so n a m i n g t h e m . For
e x a m p l e , i n Virt. 2 2 0 - 2 2 , h e p r e s e n t s T a m a r as s o m e o n e w h o l e a v e s
b e h i n d b e l i e f in a n d w o r s h i p o f m a n y g o d s in o r d e r t o w o r s h i p t h e o n e
2 6
G o d . In Mos. 1.147, in w h i c h P h i l o d o e s in fact m e n t i o n έ π η λ ύ τ α ι , h e also
s p e a k s o f o t h e r s w h o "have b e e n c h a n g e d " ( μ ε τ ε β ά λ ο ν τ ο ) . T h i s p a s s a g e ,
w h i c h d e s c r i b e s t h e "mixed m u l t i t u d e " that departs f r o m Egypt w i t h t h e
H e b r e w s , may imply that these p e o p l e w h o have b e e n c h a n g e d or

2 2
Somn. 2 . 2 7 2 - 7 3 (Deut. 26:13); Spec. 1.51-53 (Lev. 19:33-34), 3 0 8 - 9 (Deut. 10:17-19);
Spec. 4 . 1 7 6 - 7 8 (Deut. 10:17-19); Virt. 1 0 2 - 4 (Lev. 19:33-34); Praem. 152 (Deut. 28:43); QE
2.2 (Exod. 22:20).
2 3
Praem. 152 c o m m e n t s o n Deut. 28:43, which reads, "The stranger ( π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς )
a m o n g y o u will m o u n t h i g h e r and h i g h e r and you will d e s c e n d lower a n d lower."
2 4
See n. 17.
2 5
See n. 7.
2 6
S e e M a d e l e i n e Petit, "Exploitations non-bibliques des t h e m e s d e Tamar et d e
G e n e s e 38: P h i l o n d'Alexandrie, textes et traditions juives j u s q u ' a u x T a l m u d i m , "
Alexandrina: Hellenisme, judatsme et christianisme a Alexandne, Melanges offerts au P. Claude
Mondesert, SJ. (Paris: Editions d u Cerf, 1987), 7 7 - 1 1 5 .
202 CHAPTER SIX

"turned a r o u n d " j o i n t h e H e b r e w s o u t o f fear. S i n c e h e d o e s n o t e l a b o r a t e

further a b o u t t h e m , h o w e v e r , a m o r e precise u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f their status
2 7
with t h e H e b r e w n a t i o n e l u d e s u s .
P h i l o also refers to individuals w h o b e c o m e disciples o f M o s e s (φοιτητής
γενόμενος Μωυσέως) in the context of explaining the p u n i s h m e n t for
d e n y i n g t h e true G o d a n d w o r s h i p p i n g lifeless t h i n g s , i.e., for b r e a c h o f
t h e first c o m m a n d m e n t (Spec. 2 . 2 5 6 ) . It is t e m p t i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e s e
i n d i v i d u a l s as p r o s e l y t e s , s i n c e P h i l o o f t e n n o t e s that p r o s e l y t e s leave a
b a c k g r o u n d w h i c h d e n i e s G o d a n d w o r s h i p s lifeless t h i n g s . T h e G r e e k
w o r d i n g , h o w e v e r , m a y s i m p l y m e a n o n e w h o is a d i s c i p l e o f M o s e s .
M o r e o v e r , if P h i l o d o e s m e a n o n e w h o becomes a d i s c i p l e o f M o s e s , h e
may have in m i n d Jews, n o t necessarily outsiders, w h o have b e c o m e
e a r n e s t followers o f M o s e s ' s t e a c h i n g s .

Themes Related to Proselytes

B e s i d e s a l l u d i n g t o p e o p l e w h o s o u n d like p r o s e l y t e s , P h i l o d i s c u s s e s
several t h e m e s r e l a t e d t o t h e a b a n d o n m e n t o f o n e ' s o l d r e l i g i o u s a n d
social b a c k g r o u n d a n d t h e a d o p t i o n o f n e w religious beliefs a n d practices
a n d a n e w social c o m m u n i t y . E x a m p l e s i n c l u d e p i l g r i m a g e o r m i g r a t i o n
motifs; μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α , r e p e n t a n c e or conversion; ε υ γ έ ν ε ι α , nobility o f birth; a n d
σ υ γ γ έ ν ε ι α , kinship.

Pilgrimage or Migration Motifs. P h i l o f r e q u e n t l y u s e s similar t e r m s t o

d e s c r i b e A b r a h a m ' s m i g r a t i o n f r o m C h a l d e a a n d t h e p r o s e l y t e ' s "migra­
tion." As s o m e o n e w h o leaves b e h i n d his family a n d b a c k g r o u n d o f false
beliefs to discover t h e o n e true G o d , A b r a h a m serves as a p r o t o t y p e o f t h e
2 8
proselyte. P h i l o also u s e s similar l a n g u a g e f o r p r o s e l y t e s a n d t h o s e
w h o make a pilgrimage to the temple. I n d e e d migration or pilgrimage
29
vocabulary i n g e n e r a l is quite prevalent in his d i s c u s s i o n o f p r o s e l y t e s .

2 7
See n. 17. T h e LCL translates μ ε τ ε β ά λ ο ν τ ο as "converted," w h e r e I have u s e d
"changed" or "turned around." While all these m e a n i n g s may b e equivalent, I have
n o t used "converted," so as to avoid the issue of whether or n o t formal procedures are
i n v o l v e d — a n issue w h i c h "converted," b e c a u s e o f its c o n t e m p o r a r y u s a g e , may
implicitly raise.
2 8
C o m p a r e Spec. 1.52, a passage about proselytes, with God's charge to Abraham in
G e n . 12:1. In Virt. 2 1 2 - 1 9 , Philo presents Abraham's migration from Chaldea as his
search for G o d and calls Abraham "a standard of nobility for all proselytes" ( ο ύ τ ο ς
α π α σ ι ν έπηλύταις ευγενείας έστι κανών, Virt. 2 1 9 ) . In general, Abraham's migration
from C h a l d e a is an i m p o r t a n t motif in Philo's writings, serving as the focus of his
Allegory treatise Migr. For o t h e r symbolic interpretations o f Abraham's migration,
see Ebr. 94, Her. 2 8 7 - 8 9 , Somn. 1.160-62, Abr. 6 0 - 8 0 . See also Wilfred Lawrence Knox,
"Abraham and the Quest for God," HTR 28 (1935): 5 5 - 6 1 .
2 9
C o m p a r e Spec. 1.52 and Spec. 1.68, both of which e c h o God's charge to Abraham in
 PROSELYTES IN RELATION TO GOD, JEWS, AND "ISRAEL" 203

μετάνοια. W i t h its r o o t m e a n i n g o f "afterthought," i n t h e s e n s e o f

" r e t h i n k i n g , " μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α is a n a m b i g u o u s t e r m w h i c h c a n m e a n r e c o n ­
3 0
sideration, improvement, repentance, or c o n v e r s i o n . Philo devotes a
w h o l e s e c t i o n in his treatise On the Virtues to μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α (Virt. 1 7 5 - 8 6 ) . In t h e
latter part o f this s e c t i o n (Virt. 1 8 2 ) , h e refers t o p r o s e l y t e s a n d clearly
u n d e r s t a n d s μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α to include a kind of religious c h a n g e , which
i n v o l v e s t u r n i n g f r o m false beliefs to b e l i e f in t h e o n e true G o d . I n t h e
o p e n i n g s e c t i o n (Virt. 1 7 5 - 7 7 ) , h o w e v e r , t h e t e r m m a y also m e a n s i m p l y
repentance.
P h i l o also discusses μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α in relation to E n o c h (Abr. 1 7 - 2 6 a n d Praem.
1 5 - 2 1 ) , w h e r e h e appears t o b e s p e a k i n g a b o u t i m p r o v e m e n t o r r e p e n t a n c e
rather than conversion. Improvement or repentance, however, d o e s share
c o m m o n traits with c o n v e r s i o n in that b o t h c o n c e p t s involve a m o v e t o
s o m e t h i n g b e t t e r . T h e y differ in that c o n v e r s i o n e n t a i l s c o m p l e t e a b a n ­
d o n m e n t of o n e ' s background, while improvement or repentance d o e s
n o t . R e p e n t a n c e , in fact, may signal t h e return t o an earlier state o f virtue.
In any case, a l t h o u g h P h i l o links proselytes with μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α in Virt. 1 8 2 , his
u s e o f t h e t e r m μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α is n o t r e s t r i c t e d t o d e s c r i b i n g t h e c h a n g e
31
u n d e r t a k e n by p r o s e l y t e s .

ευγένεια and συγγένεια. P h i l o devotes a n o t h e r s e c t i o n o f his treatise On

the Virtues t o ε υ γ έ ν ε ι α , o r n o b i l i t y o f birth (Virt. 1 8 7 - 2 2 7 ) . H e r e h e
e m p h a s i z e s that true nobility d e p e n d s n o t u p o n n o b l e ancestry b u t u p o n
i n d i v i d u a l v i r t u e . I n this s e c t i o n a n d e l s e w h e r e h e m a k e s t h e r e l a t e d
a r g u m e n t that k i n s h i p ( σ υ γ γ έ ν ε ι α ) consists n o t simply in b l o o d r e l a t i o n ­
3 2
s h i p s b u t i n similarity o f c o n d u c t a n d s h a r e d b e l i e f s . As w e shall s e e ,
these various remarks, in which Philo places m o r e value u p o n n o b l e
b e h a v i o r t h a n u p o n ancestry or b l o o d relationships, reflect a n o p e n n e s s t o
o u t s i d e r s w h o m a y wish to a d o p t Jewish beliefs a n d practices.

G e n . 12:1. Many passages describe proselytes as emigrants ( μ ε τ α ν ά σ τ α ι ) , r e f u g e e s

(πρόσφυγες), or o n e s w h o set out for a beautiful h o m e (καλήν άποικίαν στειλάμενοι). See,
e.g., Somn. 1.160; Somn. 2.273; Spec. 1.51-52, 3 0 8 - 9 ; Spec. 2 . 1 1 6 - 1 9 ; Spec. 4 . 1 7 6 - 7 8 ; Virt.
1 0 2 - 4 , 2 1 9 . For r e f l e c t i o n s o n P h i l o ' s use o f m i g r a t i o n imagery in r e l a t i o n to
proselytes, s e e Amir, "Philon u n d die j u d i s c h e Wirklichkeit seiner Zeit," 2 4 - 2 5 .
3 0
See B e h m and Wurthwein, "μετανοέω, μετάνοια," TDNT, 4:975-1008.
3 1
For Philo's use of μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α , see J o n N e l s o n Bailey, "Metanoia in the Writings o f
P h i l o J u d a e u s , " SBL 1991 Seminar Papers, SBL Seminar Paper Series, ed. E u g e n e H.
L o v e r i n g , Jr., n o . 3 0 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1 9 9 1 ) , 1 3 5 - 4 1 ; Alain M i c h e l , "La
metanoia chez Philon d'Alexandrie: D e Platon au Judeo-Christianisme e n passant par
Ciceron," Augustinus 32 (1987): 1 0 5 - 2 0 ; Winston, 'Judaism and Hellenism," 4 - 7 .
3 2
Mos. 2 . 1 7 1 , Spec. 1.317-18, Spec. 2.73 (see also the n o t e to this passage in LCL,
7:625), Virt. 195. Cf.Josephus, Contra Apionem 2:210.
204 CHAPTER SIX

Interested Non-Jews

Finally, P h i l o also m e n t i o n s non-Jews w h o m a y w i s h t o j o i n t h e J e w i s h

c o m m u n i t y o r w h o a d m i r e t h e Jews. C o m m e n t i n g o n D e u t . 2 3 : 8 - 9 in Virt.
108, for e x a m p l e , h e discusses h o w Jews s h o u l d treat setders (μέτοικοι, Virt.
105) w h o c o m e f r o m n a t i o n s that h a d b e e n i n h o s p i t a b l e t o t h e H e b r e w s
a n d w h o may wish "to pass over i n t o t h e polity o f t h e Jews" ( μ ε τ α λ λ ά ξ α σ -
33
θ α ι προς την Ι ο υ δ α ί ω ν π ο λ ι τ ε ί α ν ) . H e also refers to non-Jews w h o r e s p e c t
a n d h o n o r J e w i s h laws (Mos. 2 . 1 7 - 4 4 ) a n d n o t e s that J e w s w e l c o m e s u c h
a d m i r e r s "no less t h a n their o w n c o u n t r y m e n " (Legat. 2 1 1 ) .

N o w that w e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d P h i l o ' s d i s c u s s i o n o f proselytes in p a s s a g e s

in w h i c h h e m e n t i o n s t h e m e x p l i c i t l y a n d i n w h i c h h e s p e a k s a b o u t
topics related to t h e m , let us turn o u r attention specifically t o his d e p i c t i o n
o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n proselytes a n d G o d . For t h e sake o f p r e c i s i o n
a n d c o n s i s t e n c y in m e t h o d , t h e observations in this s e c t i o n will b e b a s e d
o n l y u p o n p a s s a g e s w h i c h have a n e x p l i c i t w o r d for "proselyte." W e shall
c o n s i d e r t h e o t h e r r e l a t e d p a s s a g e s later, w h e n w e t u r n t o t h e b r o a d e r
q u e s t i o n o f w h e r e proselytes fit in with "Israel" a n d t h e Jews.

The Relationship Between God and Proselytes According to Philo

Philo d o e s n o t frequently c o m m e n t about the relationship between G o d

a n d proselytes. M o r e o v e r , t h e o c c a s i o n a l observations h e d o e s m a k e m a y
n o t a c c u r a t e l y reflect his p o s i t i o n o n this issue, for a variety o f r e a s o n s
e x p l a i n e d b e l o w . I shall, h o w e v e r , c o n s i d e r e v e r y t h i n g t h a t P h i l o says
a b o u t G o d a n d proselytes a n d t h e n evaluate t h e e v i d e n c e .
T o b e g i n with the proselyte's side of the relationship, Philo most
3 4
f r e q u e n t l y speaks o f h i m o r h e r as t u r n i n g to G o d . Specifically, h e talks

3 3
D e u t . 2 3 : 8 - 9 reads as follows: "You shall n o t abhor an E d o m i t e , for h e is your
brother; y o u shall n o t abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner (πάροικος) in
his land. T h e children o f the third g e n e r a t i o n that are born to t h e m may enter the
assembly o f the Lord." It is interesting that Philo uses μέτοικος instead o f π ά ρ ο ι κ ο ς ,
which appears in the LXX. T h e word μέτοικος seems to d e n o t e a resident alien rather
than a temporary sojourner, as π ά ρ ο ι κ ο ς implies. Perhaps Philo is speaking a b o u t a
figure similar to o n e d e n o t e d by the rabbinic term 3tDin la.
3 4
In these passages about proselytes, Philo often speaks of God in different ways: e.g.,
Somn. 1.161: the Cause of all things (ό πάντων αίτιος); Spec. 1.52: the o n e God (ό εις θεός);
Spec. 1.53, 309: the truly Existing (ό δντως ών or τό δντως ov); Spec. 1.309, Praem. 152: G o d
(θεός); Spec. 4.178: the O n e worthy of h o n o r (6 εις τίμιος or τό εν τίμιον); Virt. 102: the
o n e a n d truly existing G o d (ό εις και δντως ών θεός); Virt. 181: the existing G o d (ό ών
θ ε ό ς ) ; Virt. 214: t h e O n e w h o a l o n e is eternal a n d father o f all intellectual a n d
sensible things (6 εις, ος έστιν άίδιος μόνος καΐ δλων πατήρ νοητών τε αυ και αισθητών); QE
2.2: G o d the savior (ό σωτήρ θεός); the O n e and father of all (ό εις και πατήρ τών δλων).
Cf. Virt. 221: the o n e Cause (ό εις αίτιος). (Translations are m i n e . ) See also A n t h o n y J.
 PROSELYTES IN RELATION TO GOD, JEWS, AND "ISRAEL" 205

o f t h e proselyte as c o m i n g to t h e h o n o r (τιμή) o f G o d (Spec. 1.52, Spec. 4 . 1 7 8 ,

Virt. 1 8 1 , QE 2 . 2 ) ; r e v e r e n c e ( σ ε β α σ μ ό ς ) o f G o d (Virt. 1 0 2 ) ; w o r s h i p
( θ ε ρ α π ε ί α ) o f G o d (Somn. 1.161); a n d G o d a l o n e , w i t h o u t a n o u n p r e c e d i n g
(Praem. 1 5 2 ) . H e also d e s c r i b e s p r o s e l y t e s as b e c o m i n g s u p p l i a n t s a n d
w o r s h i p p e r s (ικέται τε και θ ε ρ α π ε υ τ α ί ) o f G o d (Spec. 1.309, cf. Virt. 2 2 1 ) .
A m o n g these various e l e m e n t s , then, Philo cites h o n o r o f G o d m o s t
frequently.
In a d d i t i o n , i n Virt. 2 1 2 - 1 9 , P h i l o p r e s e n t s in various ways t h e s e a r c h
f o r G o d by A b r a h a m , w h o serves as a standard o f nobility for p r o s e l y t e s .
F o r e x a m p l e , h e s p e a k s o f A b r a h a m as w i s h i n g t o k n o w G o d , s e e k i n g
H i m , g a i n i n g c l e a r e r visions ( τ ρ α ν ό τ ε ρ α ι φ α ν τ α σ ί α ι ) o f H i m , b e l i e v i n g i n
3 5
H i m , y e a r n i n g for k i n s h i p with H i m , a n d striving t o b e c o m e H i s famil­
iar. A p a r t f r o m t h e r e f e r e n c e to A b r a h a m g a i n i n g c l e a r e r visions, P h i l o
3 6
n e v e r m e n t i o n s proselytes as s e e i n g G o d o r c o m i n g to a vision o f H i m .
B e s i d e s t h e c o m m e n t s j u s t d e s c r i b e d , w h i c h p e r t a i n t o P h i l o ' s very
d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e proselyte as o n e w h o c o m e s over to b e l i e f in a n d w o r s h i p
o f G o d a n d to a n e w c o m m u n i t y , P h i l o also m a k e s t h e f o l l o w i n g observa­
tions:

1) A p r o s e l y t e r e q u i r e s G o d ' s p o w e r s o f g o v e r n a n c e a n d kindness
(Somn. 1.160-62).
2) P r o s e l y t e s are a m o n g t h o s e c h o s e n for h i g h m e r i t t o t h e t e m p l e
ministry (Somn. 2 . 2 7 2 - 7 3 ) .
3) A b r a h a m , a s t a n d a r d o f n o b i l i t y ( ε υ γ έ ν ε ι α ) f o r all p r o s e l y t e s ,
r e c e i v e s s o v e r e i g n t y a m o n g h i s n e i g h b o r s by t h e e l e c t i o n o f t h e
v i r t u e - l o v i n g G o d , w h o rewards all lovers o f p i e t y w i t h p o w e r s t o
b e n e f i t t h o s e a r o u n d t h e m (Virt. 2 1 8 - 1 9 ) .

Guerra, ' T h e O n e G o d T o p o s in Spec. Leg, 1.52," SBL 1990 Seminar Papers, SBL Seminar
Paper Series, ed. David J. Lull, n o . 29 (Adanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 1 4 8 - 5 7 . For a list
o f the different ways in w h i c h Philo speaks about G o d in general, i.e., in passages
that are n o t only about proselytes, see D r u m m o n d , Philo Judaeus, 2:63.
3 5
G e n . 15:6 provides a textual basis for speaking o f Abraham as believing in G o d .
T h e verse begins, "And h e believed God..."
3 6
Philo d o e s e l s e w h e r e speak of Abraham as s e e i n g G o d but n o t in passages that
d e p i c t h i m as a proselyte. Philo uses m e t a p h o r s about light in Virt. 179 a n d 2 2 1 ,
passages w h i c h are related to proselytes but d o n o t m e n t i o n t h e m specifically. In Virt.
179, h e writes a b o u t t h o s e w h o c o m e to "embrace the rulership o f O n e instead o f
many" (my translation) that "we must rejoice with t h e m , as if, t h o u g h b l i n d at the
first they h a d r e c o v e r e d their sight a n d h a d c o m e from t h e d e e p e s t darkness to
b e h o l d the m o s t radiant light" (LCL translation). In Virt. 2 2 1 , h e writes that Tamar,
"emerging as if from d e e p darkness, was able to see a litde ray of truth." Spec. 1 . 5 1 -
5 3 , a passage about proselytes, immediately follows a long passage (Spec. 1.32-50) about
the search for G o d a n d Moses's request to see H i m (based u p o n Exod. 3 3 : 1 3 - 2 3 ) , but
Philo d o e s n o t m a k e any c o n n e c t i o n between proselytes and s e e i n g God.
206 CHAPTER SIX

4) G o d w e l c o m e s virtue that c o m e s f r o m i g n o b l e birth (Praem. 152).

5) Proselytes b e n e f i t f r o m G o d ' s π ρ ό ν ο ι α , or protective c o n c e r n (Spec.
1 . 3 0 8 - 9 a n d Spec. 4 . 1 7 6 - 7 8 ) .

All t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s , e x c e p t for t h e last, are in s o m e way p r o b l e m a t i c .

T h e first two r e m a r k s , for e x a m p l e , o c c u r in a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
a n d m a y n o t apply to real proselytes. At t h e least, h o w e v e r , t h e s e observa­
t i o n s c o n v e y P h i l o ' s s y m b o l i c a s s o c i a t i o n s to t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n
G o d a n d p r o s e l y t e s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , it is o f t e n i m p o s s i b l e t o k n o w h o w
m u c h P h i l o s e p a r a t e s s y m b o l f r o m reality. In fact, t h i s is t h e very
p r o b l e m w e face in trying t o d e t e r m i n e t h e social identity o f "Israel," t h e
o n e that sees G o d .
T h e t h i r d a n d f o u r t h o b s e r v a t i o n s c i t e d a b o v e are g e n e r a l l e s s o n s
w h i c h — t h o u g h t h e y are d e r i v e d f r o m G o d ' s b e h a v i o r toward p r o s e l y t e s —
m a y also apply t o a larger g r o u p . T h e third observation, for e x a m p l e , is
b a s e d u p o n a Biblical verse a b o u t A b r a h a m ( G e n . 2 3 : 6 ) , w h o m P h i l o
p r e s e n t s as a standard o f nobility for all proselytes. A l t h o u g h P h i l o writes
that A b r a h a m r e c e i v e s s o v e r e i g n t y a m o n g his n e i g h b o r s by t h e e l e c t i o n
o f G o d , w h e n h e says that G o d rewards all lovers o f piety w i t h p o w e r s t o
benefit their neighbors, h e generalizes b e y o n d Abraham to a larger
g r o u p — n a m e l y , l o v e r s o f piety. S i n c e lovers o f p i e t y m a y e n c o m p a s s
m o r e than just proselytes, we c a n n o t determine whether Philo's c o m ­
m e n t s apply o n l y to proselytes o r e x t e n d to t h e larger g r o u p . Similarly, t h e
f o u r t h o b s e r v a t i o n — t h a t G o d w e l c o m e s virtue that c o m e s f r o m i g n o b l e
b i r t h — m a y also i n c l u d e virtuous p e o p l e f r o m base b a c k g r o u n d s w h o are
n o t necessarily proselytes.
G i v e n t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , t h e n , t h e fifth o b s e r v a t i o n , n a m e l y , t h a t
p r o s e l y t e s b e n e f i t f r o m G o d ' s π ρ ό ν ο ι α , carries t h e m o s t w e i g h t , s i n c e it
clearly refers o n l y t o real proselytes. Also significant is that this c o m m e n t
a p p e a r s twice, w h e r e a s t h e o t h e r s o c c u r o n l y o n c e . W e shall t h e r e f o r e
f o c u s n o w o n l y u p o n t h e last observation, w h i c h c o n c e r n s G o d ' s π ρ ό ν ο ι α
toward proselytes.

Gods πρόνοια Toward Proselytes

B o t h p a s s a g e s w h i c h a l l u d e t o G o d ' s π ρ ό ν ο ι α toward p r o s e l y t e s , Spec.

1 . 3 0 8 - 9 a n d Spec. 4 . 1 7 6 - 7 8 , c o m m e n t o n t h e s a m e Biblical text, D e u t .
1 0 : 1 7 - 1 9 , w h i c h r e a d s as follows:

l 7 F o r the Lord your G o d is G o d of g o d s and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty,
and the terrible G o d w h o is n o t partial and takes n o bribe. 1 8 H e executes justice for
the [ π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς ] , the orphan, and the widow, and loves the [ π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς ] , giving
 PROSELYTES IN RELATION TO GOD, JEWS, AND "ISRAEL" 207

h i m f o o d a n d clothing. 19Love t h e [ π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς ] , therefore; for y o u were [ π ρ ο σ ή -

37
λυτοι] in t h e land o f E g y p t .

Spec. 1.308-9. In Spec. 1 . 3 0 8 - 9 , P h i l o c o m m e n t s o n t h e s e verses as part o f

a n e x h o r t a t i o n b a s e d u p o n D e u t . 1 0 : 1 2 - 1 4 : 1 (Spec. 1 . 2 9 9 - 3 1 8 ) . H e r e m a r k s
t h a t d e s p i t e G o d ' s m i g h t y p o w e r s , H e c a r e s for e v e n t h e n e e d i e s t . P h i l o
writes,

Yet vast as are his e x c e l l e n c e s a n d powers, h e takes pity a n d compassion o n those

m o s t helplessly in n e e d , a n d d o e s n o t disdain to give j u d g e m e n t to strangers
( π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ι ) or o r p h a n s or widows. H e h o l d s their low estate worthy o f H i s
3 8
providential care ( π ρ ό ν ο ι α ) , while o f kings a n d despots a n d great potentates, H e
takes n o account. {Spec. 1.308)

P h i l o g o e s o n to a c c o u n t for why e a c h figure in this g r o u p deserves

G o d ' s π ρ ό ν ο ι α . R e g a r d i n g proselytes, h e observes,

H e cares for the proselytes (έπήλυτοι) for this reason: after a b a n d o n i n g t h e ances­
tral customs in w h i c h they were raised, customs l o a d e d with false i n v e n t i o n s a n d
vanity, after b e c o m i n g g e n u i n e lovers o f modesty a n d truth, they migrated to piety.
Suppliants a n d worshippers o f t h e truly Existing as H e deserves, they partake i n
His π ρ ό ν ο ι α suited to them, as it is fitting, finding the fruit o f taking refuge in G o d
to be the h e l p that c o m e s from H i m . (Spec. 1.309, my translation)

P h i l o t h e n e x p l a i n s t h a t o r p h a n s a n d w i d o w s h a v e n o o n e e l s e t o take
care of t h e m since they have lost parents a n d h u s b a n d s respectively. He
writes,

[ I ] n this desolation n o refuge remains that m e n can give; a n d therefore they are
n o t d e n i e d t h e h o p e that is greatest o f all, t h e h o p e in G o d , w h o i n t h e
graciousness o f His nature d o e s n o t refuse the task o f caring for a n d watching over
t h e m in their desolate condition. (Spec. 1.310)

It is s i g n i f i c a n t that Philo's explanation for why proselytes receive

G o d ' s π ρ ό ν ο ι α is d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e o n e h e gives for o r p h a n s a n d w i d o w s .
T h e latter t w o g r o u p s h a v e G o d ' s p r o t e c t i o n b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e n o h u m a n
p r o t e c t o r s a n d t h e r e f o r e are n o t d e n i e d h o p e a l t o g e t h e r . In t h e case o f pros­
elytes, h o w e v e r , G o d ' s π ρ ό ν ο ι α s e e m s t o b e a reward t o t h e m for g i v i n g u p
t h e i r o l d ways, s i n c e P h i l o w r i t e s t h a t t h e y p a r t a k e o f G o d ' s πρόνοια,
f i n d i n g H i s h e l p t o b e t h e fruit (καρπός) of taking refuge in H i m . T h u s ,
G o d ' s p r o t e c t i o n a p p e a r s as a b e n e f i t p r o s e l y t e s g a i n f r o m t u r n i n g t o H i m .

3 7
This translation from t h e RSV uses t h e word "sojourner" where I have substituted
π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τ ο ς . Like t h e Septuagint, t h e RSV adds "sojourner" before t h e o r p h a n a n d
widow in verse 18, although the Hebrew omits the la from this group.
3 8
T h e critical edition o f Philo ( C o h n a n d Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini, 5:74) lists
the following two manuscript variants to προνοίας: προνομίας (privilege) a n d π ρ ο ν ο μ ί α ς
προνοίας (the privilege of [God's] protection).
208 CHAPTER SIX

Spec. 4.178-82. H e r e P h i l o c o m m e n t s o n t h e s a m e passage, D e u t . 10:1 Τ ­

Ι 9, q u o t e d earlier, t o illustrate that great q u e s t i o n s are t o b e j u d g e d by
h i g h e r r a t h e r t h a n lesser officials a n d also that g r e a t q u e s t i o n s are n o t
n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t e d t o t h o s e in w h i c h b o t h d i s p u t a n t s are d i s t i n g u i s h e d ,
rich, or powerful (Spec. 4 . 1 7 1 - 7 2 ) . In this passage, P h i l o d o e s n o t m e n t i o n
G o d ' s π ρ ό ν ο ι α specifically b u t speaks a b o u t His a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e ,
in k e e p i n g w i t h t h e w o r d i n g o f t h e B i b l e . T h e s e n s e o f t h e p a s s a g e ,
n o n e t h e l e s s , is that G o d offers special p r o t e c t i o n to certain g r o u p s . P h i l o
n o t e s that

lowliness a n d weakness are attributes o f the widow, the o r p h a n a n d the i n c o m e r

( έ π ή λ υ τ ο ς ) . It is to these that the s u p r e m e king w h o is invested with the govern­
m e n t of all s h o u l d administer justice, because according to Moses [even G o d , ] the
ruler o f the Universe, has n o t spurned t h e m from His jurisdiction. (Spec. 4.176)

After a l l u d i n g t o D e u t . 1 0 : 1 7 - 1 8 (in Spec. 4 . 1 7 7 ) , P h i l o e x p l a i n s why

each figure—the έπήλυτος, the orphan, and the widow—is deserving of
G o d ' s justice. G o d e x e c u t e s justice for the έπήλυτος, h e observes,

because h e has turned his kinsfolk, w h o in the ordinary course of things w o u l d be

his sole c o n f e d e r a t e s , into mortal e n e m i e s , by c o m i n g as a pilgrim to truth a n d
the h o n o u r i n g o f O n e w h o alone is worthy of h o n o u r , and by leaving the mythical
fables a n d multiplicity o f sovereigns, so highly h o n o u r e d by the p a r e n t s a n d
grand-parents a n d ancestors a n d b l o o d relations o f this i m m i g r a n t to a better
h o m e . (Spec. 4.178)

P h i l o n e x t remarks that o r p h a n s a n d widows b e n e f i t f r o m G o d ' s j u s t i c e

s i n c e t h e y t o o h a v e n o o n e t o p r o t e c t t h e m , h a v i n g lost p a r e n t s a n d
h u s b a n d s , respectively (Spec. 4 . 1 7 8 ) . T h i s passage, t h e n , differs f r o m Spec.
1 . 3 0 8 - 9 , in w h i c h P h i l o n o t e s that proselytes r e c e i v e G o d ' s π ρ ό ν ο ι α n o t
b e c a u s e t h e y are w i t h o u t allies—like t h e o r p h a n a n d w i d o w — b u t b e c a u s e
39
they a d o p t G o d a n d gain His p r o v i d e n c e as their r e w a r d .
It is i n t e r e s t i n g that P h i l o g o e s o n to c o m p a r e t h e J e w s to o r p h a n s ,
e x p l a i n i n g that J e w s t o o h a v e n o o t h e r allies, s i n c e t h e p l e a s u r e - l o v i n g
masses are p u t off by t h e austerity o f their laws. B e c a u s e o f t h e i r isolation,
t h e Jews t o o t h e n are an object o f pity a n d c o m p a s s i o n t o G o d . T h u s , in t h e
s a m e s e c t i o n , P h i l o g r o u p s proselytes, o r p h a n s , widows, a n d J e w s as b e n e ­
ficiaries o f G o d ' s p r o t e c t i o n , observing that n o o n e else will take their side.

3 9
T h e different c o n t e x t s o f the two passages probably a c c o u n t for their different
explanations a b o u t God's πρόνοια toward proselytes. Spec. 4 . 1 7 6 - 7 8 c o m m e n t s o n Deut.
10:17-19 to support the p o i n t that G o d has compassion for those in n e e d . Philo there­
fore u n d e r s c o r e s proselytes' n e e d i n e s s , w h i c h stems from their isolation. H i s re­
marks in Spec. 1.308-9, however, b e l o n g to a r u n n i n g c o m m e n t a r y o n D e u t . 10:12—
14:1 a n d are n o t ostensibly i n t e n d e d to support a particular a r g u m e n t . P h i l o can
t h e r e f o r e h i g h l i g h t a different p o i n t h e r e , namely, that proselytes are r e w a r d e d
w h e n they turn to God.
 PROSELYTES IN RELATION TO GOD, JEWS, AND "ISRAEL" 209

A l t h o u g h P h i l o d o e s speak o f proselytes a n d J e w s in t h e s a m e s e c t i o n ,
h e still d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n t h e m , g i v i n g d i f f e r e n t e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r
t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e situations: proselytes are a l o n e b e c a u s e t h e y leave t h e i r
c u s t o m a r y p r o t e c t o r s , w h i l e J e w s are a l o n e b e c a u s e t h e i r laws are c o n ­
s i d e r e d t o o severe. S i n c e , a c c o r d i n g t o Philo, t h e hallmark o f t h e proselyte
is t h a t h e o r s h e leaves o l d ways for n e w o n e s , it m a k e s s e n s e t h a t h e
w o u l d m e n t i o n t h e a b a n d o n i n g o f t h e i r b a c k g r o u n d s as t h e p r i m a r y
r e a s o n for proselytes' isolation, a n d this, to b e sure, is r e a s o n e n o u g h . E v e n
t h o u g h P h i l o a c c o u n t s for t h e isolation o f proselytes a n d Jews differently,
h o w e v e r , it w o u l d b e a mistake t o c o n c l u d e that h e s e e s t h e m as c o m ­
p l e t e l y separate g r o u p s . I n d e e d by b e c o m i n g Jews, proselytes w o u l d s e e m
t o i n c u r isolation for two reasons: n o t only d o they a b a n d o n their families,
b u t they also a d o p t laws t o o severe for m o s t p e o p l e !

T h e q u e s t i o n o f precisely h o w proselytes a n d Jews are related b r i n g s us t o

t h e l a r g e r issue o f w h e t h e r p r o s e l y t e s b e c o m e m e m b e r s o f "Israel," t h e
Jews, or b o t h . N o w that we have e x a m i n e d the relationship b e t w e e n
proselytes a n d G o d , w e c a n c o m p a r e this to the r e l a t i o n s h i p G o d h a s with
"Israel," o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d t h e J e w s , o n t h e o t h e r . A m o n g o t h e r
factors, this c o m p a r i s o n will h e l p us to d e t e r m i n e w h e r e p r o s e l y t e s s t a n d
in relation t o "Israel" a n d t h e Jews.

Proselytes, Jews, and "Israel"

I n e x a m i n i n g P h i l o ' s t r e a t m e n t o f "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s in previous

c h a p t e r s , w e w e r e a b l e to identify at least t h r e e features that d i s t i n g u i s h
t h e s e entities f r o m o n e another:

1) P h i l o speaks a b o u t "Israel" a n d t h e Jews in different writings;

2) h e uses different words with different c o n n o t a t i o n s to describe

"Israel" a n d t h e Jews as collectivities; a n d

3) h e portrays in different ways t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e a c h entity

and God.

T h e e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t s that for P h i l o , t h e Jews are a clearly identifiable

s o c i a l g r o u p , w h i l e "Israel" s e e m s to r e p r e s e n t a m o r e l o o s e l y d e f i n e d
entity. A l t h o u g h t h e two g r o u p s may b e i d e n t i c a l o r m a y o v e r l a p , t h e i r
precise relationship remains ambiguous.
B e f o r e t u r n i n g t o p r o s e l y t e s , I shall first briefly review t h e f e a t u r e s
w h i c h d i s t i n g u i s h "Israel" a n d t h e Jews. In a d d i t i o n to t h e t h r e e n o t e d
a b o v e , I shall also c o n s i d e r w h a t m i g h t c o n s t i t u t e m e m b e r s h i p r e q u i r e -
210 CHAPTER SIX

m e n t s for e a c h g r o u p . B e c a u s e P h i l o d o e s n o t address this issue directly,

m y r e m a r k s a b o u t m e m b e r s h i p r e q u i r e m e n t s are necessarily s p e c u l a t i v e .
After c o n s i d e r i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s in t h e s e
f o u r areas, I shall t h e n e x a m i n e w h e r e proselytes stand in relation to t h e s e
areas to s e e w h e r e they m i g h t fit in with "Israel" a n d t h e Jews.

1) Wntings in Which Philo Speaks About "Israel" and the Jews

P h i l o d i s c u s s e s "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s in different works, with a p p a r e n t l y

different p u r p o s e s . H e m e n t i o n s "Israel" m o s t f r e q u e n t l y in t h e A l l e g o r y ,
occasionally in Q G E , a n d twice in t h e E x p o s i t i o n . In contrast, h e speaks o f
t h e J e w s o n l y in t h e E x p o s i t i o n a n d n o n - e x e g e t i c a l writings. O n l y in h i s
political treatise Legat. d o e s P h i l o talk a b o u t "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s i n t h e
s a m e work.
A m o n g t h e e x e g e t i c a l w r i t i n g s , I shall c o n c e n t r a t e h e r e u p o n t h e
A l l e g o r y a n d E x p o s i t i o n s i n c e t h e s e two series p r o v i d e m o r e e x t e n s i v e
e v i d e n c e t h a n Q G E o f his u s e o f t h e two terms. I have h y p o t h e s i z e d that
r e a d e r s o f t h e A l l e g o r y m a y b e J e w s like P h i l o h i m s e l f w h o are i n t e r ­
e s t e d in t h e d e e p e r m e a n i n g o f Scripture, while readers o f t h e E x p o s i t i o n
m a y also i n c l u d e J e w s o r non-Jews w h o k n o w little a b o u t J e w i s h b e l i e f s
40
and practices.
If t h e s e s p e c u l a t i o n s are correct, it m a k e s s e n s e that P h i l o w o u l d n o t
s p e a k a b o u t Jews in t h e Allegory, s i n c e his fellow J e w s w o u l d already b e
q u i t e f a m i l i a r w i t h J e w i s h history, b e l i e f s , a n d p r a c t i c e s . It also m a k e s
s e n s e that h e w o u l d e l a b o r a t e in t h e A l l e g o r y u p o n "Israel" as a n i d e a l
entity that s e e s G o d , s i n c e his r e a d e r s w o u l d associate t h e t e r m "Israel"
w i t h t h e i r o w n h e r i t a g e a n d take p r i d e in t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f "Israel"
with t h e h i g h e s t g o a l o f p h i l o s o p h y .
As f o r t h e E x p o s i t i o n , if P h i l o is i n d e e d writing f o r t h o s e u n f a m i l i a r
with J e w i s h ways, it is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e that h e w o u l d f o c u s h e r e u p o n t h e
real J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y in o r d e r t o e d u c a t e his r e a d e r s . F u r t h e r m o r e ,
s i n c e t h e t e r m "Israel" m i g h t n o t have t h e s a m e r e s o n a n c e s as it w o u l d
for m o r e k n o w l e d g e a b l e Jews, it is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e that h e w o u l d n o t g o
o u t o f his way to e m p h a s i z e "Israel" as e m b o d y i n g t h e ideal o f s e e i n g G o d .
Finally, in t h e political treatise Legat., Philo's purpose seems to be to
p r e s e n t t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n in t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e l i g h t f o r a variety o f
r e a d e r s — J e w s a n d non-Jews. T o this e n d , w h e n h e m e n t i o n s "Israel" in
h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n , i m p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f y i n g "Israel" w i t h t h e J e w s , h e m a y
w i s h t o p o r t r a y t h e J e w s as h a v i n g a c h i e v e d t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l i d e a l
r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e e t y m o l o g y "one that s e e s G o d . "

4 0
For m o r e information about Philo's different audiences, see the Introduction.
 PROSELYTES IN RELATION TO GOD, JEWS, AND "ISRAEL" 211

2) Philo's Characterizations of "Israel" and the Jews as Collectivities

T o d e s c r i b e "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s as collectivities, P h i l o u s e s d i f f e r e n t
w o r d s w i t h d i f f e r e n t c o n n o t a t i o n s . H e m o s t f r e q u e n t l y calls "Israel" a
γ έ ν ο ς , b u t t h e Jews a n d their forbears, the Hebrews, usually e i t h e r a n έ θ ν ο ς
o r a λ α ό ς a n d o c c a s i o n a l l y a π ο λ ι τ ε ί α or a γ έ ν ο ς . In contrast, P h i l o n e v e r
calls "Israel" a λ α ό ς or π ο λ ι τ ε ί α . In t h e few passages in w h i c h h e d o e s u s e
έ θ ν ο ς with "Israel," w h e t h e r or n o t "Israel" is a n a t i o n is n o t p e r t i n e n t t o
41
the interpretation.
A l t h o u g h γ έ ν ο ς c a n refer to a race d e f i n e d by birth, t h e t e r m is a m b i g ­
u o u s a n d c a n also d e s c r i b e a class d e f i n e d by a c q u i r e d qualities, a g e n u s
as o p p o s e d to individual species, an abstract n a t u r e o r kind, o r a n ideal as
o p p o s e d t o a real entity. I n d e e d , P h i l o s e e m s t o take a d v a n t a g e o f this
a m b i g u i t y in s o m e p a s s a g e s w h e r e t h e γ έ ν ο ς "Israel" m a y b e u n d e r s t o o d
in d i f f e r e n t ways at t h e s a m e t i m e . W h e n h e calls "Israel" a γ έ ν ο ς , t h e n ,
t h e q u e s t i o n is m o o t w h e t h e r "Israel" is a race i n t o w h i c h o n e is b o r n , a
class d e f i n e d by a c q u i r e d characteristics, o r an i d e a i n t h e i n t e l l i g i b l e
world.
In c o n t r a s t to t h e ambiguity o f γ έ ν ο ς , t h e words έ θ ν ο ς a n d λ α ό ς d e n o t e
o n l y a n a t i o n or p e o p l e . W h e n P h i l o calls the H e b r e w s o r Jews a n έ θ ν ο ς o r
λ α ό ς , it is clear that h e is s p e a k i n g a b o u t a real social g r o u p . E v e n w h e n
h e calls t h e m a γ έ ν ο ς (Virt. 206, Legat. 1 7 8 ) , it is e v i d e n t f r o m t h e c o n t e x t
that h e m e a n s a race d e f i n e d by birth a n d p e r h a p s t o o a social o r political
entity. (Later in this chapter, I shall address the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f Philo's u s e
o f π ο λ ι τ ε ί α , polity, to describe t h e Jews.)

3) Relationship Between God and "Israel" and Between God and the Jews

P h i l o c h a r a c t e r i z e s i n d i f f e r e n t ways t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p G o d h a s w i t h
"Israel," o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d t h e Jews, o n t h e o t h e r . B a s e d u p o n its
e t y m o l o g y , όρων θ ε ό ν ( o n e that s e e s G o d ) , h e a s s o c i a t e s "Israel" w i t h
s e e i n g G o d a n d t h e ability t o s e e H i m . A l t h o u g h P h i l o o c c a s i o n a l l y
d e s c r i b e s "Israel" as w o r s h i p p i n g G o d , t h e s e d e s c r i p t i o n s are rare a n d h e
n e v e r specifies h o w "Israel" w o r s h i p s H i m . I n d e e d , t h o u g h h e s o m e t i m e s
m e n t i o n s o t h e r qualities o f "Israel" in relation t o G o d , t h e ability to s e e
42
H i m is by far t h e m o s t p r e d o m i n a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . Moreover, this
characteristic p e r t a i n s to b o t h sides o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p : "Israel" s e e s G o d
a n d G o d grants "Israel" t h e ability to s e e H i m .

4 1
See Chapter O n e , n. 67.
4 2
Philo m e n t i o n s "Israel" as worshipping God in Sacr. 120, Plant. 60, Praem. 44, a n d
Legat. 3. For additional descriptions of "Israel," see Chapter O n e u n d e r the discussion
of γένος and Chapter Two under "Category B."
212 CHAPTER SIX

4 3
In contrast, P h i l o n e v e r speaks directly a b o u t t h e J e w s as s e e i n g G o d .
Instead, h e p r e s e n t s t h e m as t h e o n l y o n e s w h o b e l i e v e in G o d a n d n o t e s
that t h e y w o r s h i p H i m by f o l l o w i n g specific laws a n d c u s t o m s . In addi­
t i o n , h e writes that t h e Jews act as priests for t h e w h o l e w o r l d , are a l l o t t e d
to G o d , are G o d - b e l o v e d o r God-loving, a n d b e n e f i t f r o m H i s π ρ ό ν ο ι α , o r
watchful c o n c e r n .

4 ) Membership Requirements for "Israel" and the Jews

T h e d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s G o d h a s with "Israel" a n d with t h e J e w s carry

i m p l i c a t i o n s for w h a t m i g h t c o n s t i t u t e e a c h g r o u p ' s m e m b e r s h i p r e q u i r e ­
m e n t s . A c c o r d i n g t o P h i l o , s e e i n g G o d , w h i c h "Israel" r e p r e s e n t s , is a n
i n t e l l e c t u a l activity. O n e s e e s G o d w i t h t h e eye o f t h e m i n d o r s o u l .
P h i l o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e e x p e r i e n c e , m o r e o v e r , is i m p r e c i s e . I n d e e d , h e
d e p i c t s s e e i n g G o d i n s u c h d i f f e r e n t ways that h e s e e m s at t i m e s t o b e
d e s c r i b i n g a g e n e r a l b e l i e f in o r awareness o f G o d — i . e . , s e e i n g that G o d
is—while at o t h e r times, h e s e e m s to b e describing a specific e x p e r i e n c e , a
mystical t r a n s p o r t . P h i l o also portrays s e e i n g G o d as a n ability o r a n
a c h i e v e m e n t . A c c o r d i n g l y , p e o p l e m a y strive to d e v e l o p t h e i r capacity t o
s e e H i m , m a y attain different k i n d s o f vision, a n d m a y a c h i e v e vision o f
H i m in d i f f e r e n t ways. Occasionally, h o w e v e r , P h i l o also e m p h a s i z e s that
n o o n e can see G o d without His help. Along these lines, h e s o m e t i m e s
speaks o f s e e i n g H i m as a reward, m o s t saliendy in t h e case o f J a c o b a n d
t h e c h a n g e o f his n a m e t o "Israel."
In c o n t r a s t t o t h e v i s i o n o f G o d , w i t h w h i c h "Israel" is a s s o c i a t e d ,
J e w i s h w o r s h i p , h o n o r , a n d service o f G o d are n o t a c h i e v e m e n t s o r
rewards b u t c o n s i s t i n very specific practices—prayers, festivals, first fruit
offerings, laws, a n d c u s t o m s . N o t o n l y d o Jews k n o w a n d serve G o d , t h e n ,
t h e y serve H i m i n p a r t i c u l a r ways, a n d t h e i r p r a c t i c e s r e i n f o r c e t h e i r
b e l i e f i n H i m . U n l i k e t h e v i s i o n o f G o d — w h i c h m a y b e a n ability,
a c h i e v e m e n t , o r r e w a r d — J e w i s h w o r s h i p a n d b e l i e f are r o o t e d i n a
d e l i b e r a t e c o m m i t m e n t a n d t h e c h o i c e to live a certain k i n d o f life.
P h i l o h i m s e l f d o e s n o t explicitly draw a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e vision
o f G o d a n d J e w i s h w o r s h i p o f H i m . W e m a y s p e c u l a t e that s e e i n g G o d
may l e a d o n e to w o r s h i p H i m in t h e Jewish way a n d w o r s h i p p i n g G o d i n
t h e Jewish way may l e a d o n e t o b e able to s e e H i m . D e s p i t e t h e s e possibili­
ties, h o w e v e r , J e w i s h w o r s h i p o f G o d a n d t h e vision o f H i m are n o t neces-
sanly c o n n e c t e d . W e t h e r e f o r e c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e p r e c i s e l y t h e r e l a t i o n ­
s h i p b e t w e e n t h o s e w h o s e e God—"Israel"—and t h o s e w h o w o r s h i p H i m
i n t h e J e w i s h w a y — t h e Jews. A l t h o u g h t h e two entities m a y overlap o r b e
o n e and the same, the exact connection between t h e m remains unclear.

4 3
See Chapter Five, n. 11.
 PROSELYTES IN RELATION TO GOD, JEWS, AND "ISRAEL" 213

If w e turn n o w to t h e q u e s t i o n o f m e m b e r s h i p r e q u i r e m e n t s for "Israel"

a n d t h e Jews, it w o u l d s e e m that "Israel," as t h e ορών θ ε ό ν ( o n e that s e e s
G o d ) o r ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς ( r a c e / c l a s s that can s e e ) , c a n i n c l u d e a n y o n e w h o
s e e s G o d . S e e i n g G o d , h o w e v e r , is by its very n a t u r e a n elusive ideal, a n
e x p e r i e n c e difficult t o m a i n t a i n a n d i m p o s s i b l e t o a c h i e v e w i t h o u t G o d ' s
h e l p . If "Israel" is i n d e e d t h e entity that s e e s G o d o r t h e r a c e / c l a s s that c a n
s e e , n o t o n l y w o u l d o n e b e c o m e a m e m b e r o f "Israel" by virtue o f spiritual
ability o r d i v i n e will, b u t t h e m e m b e r s h i p o f "Israel" itself m a y b e
c o n s t a n t l y fluctuating. T h u s o n e d o e s n o t "convert" t o "Israel"; rather o n e
strives b o t h to b e l o n g to a n d r e m a i n a m o n g t h o s e w h o can s e e .
T h e J e w s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , are a political a n d social g r o u p . O n e
b e c o m e s a m e m b e r o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e by b e i n g b o r n a J e w . A l t h o u g h
o n e c a n reject his o r h e r h e r i t a g e , it s e e m s n e v e r t h e l e s s that h e o r s h e
r e m a i n s a J e w . At t h e s a m e t i m e , h o w e v e r , P h i l o d e s c r i b e s t h e r e l a t i o n ­
s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e Jews in s u c h a way as to s u g g e s t that it m a y b e
available t o a n y o n e w h o w i s h e s t o p a r t i c i p a t e , r e g a r d l e s s o f b i r t h . F o r
e x a m p l e , t h e J e w s w o r s h i p G o d by f o l l o w i n g specific laws a n d p r a c t i c e s .
T h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e s e laws a n d practices is the result o f c h o i c e , n o t ability
o r d i v i n e will, as in t h e case o f s e e i n g G o d . P h i l o n o t e s in fact that e v e n
s o m e o f his non-Jewish c o n t e m p o r a r i e s c h o o s e to h o n o r J e w i s h p r a c t i c e s
(Mos. 2 . 1 7 - 4 4 ) .
In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e J e w s is m a r k e d by
f o u r o t h e r characteristics: t h e Jews serve as priests for t h e w h o l e w o r l d ;
t h e y are a l l o t t e d t o H i m ; they are G o d - b e l o v e d o r G o d - l o v i n g ; a n d t h e y
b e n e f i t f r o m H i s π ρ ό ν ο ι α . As P h i l o p r e s e n t s t h e s e f e a t u r e s , t h e y w o u l d
a p p e a r t o b e accessible to a n y o n e w h o believes in t h e true G o d .
B e s i d e s t h e factor o f birth, t h e n , m e m b e r s h i p in t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n also
involves b e l i e f in a n d w o r s h i p o f t h e o n e G o d . M o r e o v e r , this b e l i e f a n d
worship necessarily entail rejection of belief in and worship of m a n y
g o d s s i n c e t h e two s t a n c e s are contradictory. T h u s , if o n e is n o t b o r n a
J e w , o n e c a n a c h i e v e t h e s a m e r e l a t i o n s h i p J e w s h a v e w i t h G o d by
d e l i b e r a t e l y c h o o s i n g to a b a n d o n o l d ways a n d a d o p t n e w o n e s .
P h i l o u n d e r s c o r e s t h e g e n e r a l p o i n t that o n e c a n o v e r c o m e t h e c o n ­
d i t i o n s o f o n e ' s birth in several passages in w h i c h h e discusses n o b l e birth
( ε υ γ έ ν ε ι α ) a n d kinship ( σ υ γ γ έ ν ε ι α ) . Because t h e Jews are a p e o p l e o r n a t i o n
i n t o w h i c h o n e is b o r n , t h e s e c o m m e n t s a b o u t n o b l e birth a n d k i n s h i p
p e r t a i n directly to t h e situation o f o n e w h o is n o t b o r n a J e w b u t b e c o m e s
o n e . M o r e o v e r , P h i l o ' s characterization o f t h e Jews as a polity ( π ο λ ι τ ε ί α )
e m p h a s i z e s that t h e y are a g r o u p d e f i n e d n o t o n l y by birth b u t also by
s h a r e d laws. L e t us briefly c o n s i d e r P h i l o ' s c o m m e n t s a b o u t n o b l e b i r t h
a n d k i n s h i p a n d his u s e o f t h e t e r m π ο λ ι τ ε ί α to describe t h e Jews.
214 CHAPTER SIX

Nobility of Birth. As n o t e d earlier, P h i l o d e v o t e s a w h o l e s e c t i o n (Virt.

1 8 7 - 2 2 7 ) t o ε υ γ έ ν ε ι α , o r n o b l e birth, in w h i c h h e a r g u e s that n o b i l i t y
c o n s i s t s i n virtue r a t h e r t h a n g o o d p a r e n t a g e . H e p r o v i d e s e x a m p l e s o f
ε υ γ έ ν ε ι α f r o m h u m a n i t y in g e n e r a l a n d f r o m t h e Jews in particular (Virt.
2 0 6 ) . A m o n g t h e J e w s , P h i l o c i t e s two f i g u r e s w h o m h e c o n s i d e r s
4 4
p r o s e l y t e s — A b r a h a m a n d T a m a r . T h e s e two figures serve as illustra­
tions o f ε υ γ έ ν ε ι α s i n c e they c o m e f r o m i g n o b l e b a c k g r o u n d s a n d n o t o n l y
are virtuous b u t also turn t o b e l i e f in G o d . T h e t u r n i n g to G o d , o f c o u r s e , is
a key characteristic o f t h e proselyte.

The Basis of Kinship. R e l a t e d t o t h e t h e m e that nobility is b a s e d u p o n

virtue r a t h e r t h a n b i r t h are several r e m a r k s s c a t t e r e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e
E x p o s i t i o n in w h i c h P h i l o c l a i m s that k i n s h i p consists n o t o n l y in b l o o d
r e l a t i o n s h i p s b u t in similarity o f b e h a v i o r a n d pursuit o f t h e s a m e g o a l s ,
4 5
e s p e c i a l l y w o r s h i p o f G o d . P h i l o a p p l i e s t h e s e r e f l e c t i o n s specifically to
proselytes in a passage c o n c e r n i n g t h e Biblical e x h o r t a t i o n (Lev. 19:34) to
love t h e proselyte as oneself. H e e x p l a i n s this i n j u n c t i o n as follows:

A n d surely there is g o o d reason for this [injunction to befriend proselytes]; they

have left, h e says, their country, their kinsfolk and their friends for the sake o f
virtue a n d religion. Let t h e m n o t be d e n i e d a n o t h e r citizenship or o t h e r ties o f
family a n d f r i e n d s h i p , a n d let t h e m find places of shelter s t a n d i n g ready for
refugees to the camp o f piety. For the m o s t effectual love-charm, the chain w h i c h
binds indissolubly the goodwill w h i c h makes us o n e is to h o n o r the o n e G o d .
4 6
{Spec. 1 . 5 2 )

The Jews as α πολιτεία. P h i l o ' s remarks a b o u t n o b l e birth a n d ties o f

k i n s h i p are r e l a t e d t o t h e p r o b l e m o f m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n
b e c a u s e they address the issue of o v e r c o m i n g o n e ' s birth. T h e Jews,
h o w e v e r , are n o t o n l y a n a t i o n i n t o w h i c h o n e is b o r n , they also c o n s t i t u t e
a polity ( π ο λ ι τ ε ί α ) c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s h a r e d laws. P h i l o u s e s π ο λ ι τ ε ί α in
relation to t h e Jews to refer b o t h to t h e laws o f M o s e s as a f o r m o f g o v e r n ­
m e n t a n d to t h e c o m m u n i t y o f p e o p l e w h o live a c c o r d i n g to this f o r m o f
4 7
g o v e r n m e n t . A l t h o u g h h e s o m e t i m e s uses π ο λ ι τ ε ί α with r e f e r e n c e to t h e

4 4
As I have discussed, a l t h o u g h Philo d o e s n o t call Tamar a proselyte explicidy, h e
s e e m s to consider her o n e implicitly.
4 5
See n. 32.
4 6
By indicating "he says" ( φ η σ ί ) , Philo ascribes his own portrayal o f proselytes to
Moses himself! See also Virt. 179, which expresses a sense of kinship toward p e o p l e
w h o turn to the worship of God, ostensibly proselytes.
4 7
For Philo's various o t h e r uses of π ο λ ι τ ε ί α , see Chapter O n e , a n d Kasher, "The
T e r m Politeia in P h i l o a n d J o s e p h u s . " Passages in w h i c h P h i l o uses π ο λ ι τ ε ί α in
relation to the Jews include Mos. 2.211; Decal. 98; Spec. 1.60, 63, 314, 319; Spec. 2.123;
Spec. 3.24, 51; Spec. 4.55, 100, 105; Virt. 87, 127, 175; Flacc. 53.
 PROSELYTES IN RELATION TO GOD, JEWS, AND "ISRAEL" 215

J e w s w i t h o u t n a m i n g t h e m explicitly, in Virt. 1 0 8 a n d Legat. 1 9 4 , h e d o e s

specifically m e n t i o n "the polity o f t h e Jews" (ή Ι ο υ δ α ί ω ν π ο λ ι τ ε ί α ) .
I n t h e E x p o s i t i o n , w h e n P h i l o d e s c r i b e s t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y as
h a v i n g o r b e i n g a π ο λ ι τ ε ί α , h e s e e m s to m e a n e i t h e r Moses's legislation o r
t h e p e o p l e living u n d e r this legislation. In his political treatises Flacc. a n d
Legat., h o w e v e r , h e appears to u s e π ο λ ι τ ε ί α m o r e broadly to i n c l u d e b o t h
the ancestral customs of the Jews—presumably e m b o d i e d in Moses's
l e g i s l a t i o n a n d in t h e interpretation o f this l e g i s l a t i o n — a n d their c o n t e m ­
porary political o r g a n i z a t i o n ( s e e , e.g., Flacc. 5 3 ) . I shall f o c u s , h o w e v e r ,
u p o n P h i l o ' s u s e o f π ο λ ι τ ε ί α only in t h e E x p o s i t i o n s i n c e that is w h e r e h e
discusses proselytes. I n d e e d , in discussing proselytes, h e d o e s n o t
i n t r o d u c e c o n t e m p o r a r y political issues at all,
B e y o n d s p e a k i n g a b o u t π ο λ ι τ ε ί α as t h e f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t d e f i n e d by
t h e laws o f M o s e s o r t h e p e o p l e living u n d e r this f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t ,
P h i l o also identifies π ο λ ι τ ε ί α as an e l e m e n t that brings t h e p e o p l e t o g e t h e r .
C o m m e n t i n g , f o r e x a m p l e , u p o n t h e Biblical law ( D e u t . 17:15) w h i c h
p r o h i b i t s a f o r e i g n e r f r o m b e i n g c h o s e n to rule so as t o avoid t h e possi­
bility that t h e f o r e i g n e r m i g h t mistreat t h e native-born, h e writes,

For h e [Moses] a s s u m e d with g o o d reason that o n e w h o was their fellow-tribes­

m a n a n d fellow-kinsman related to t h e m by the tie w h i c h brings the h i g h e s t
kinship, that o f having o n e cidzenship (πολιτεία) and the same law and o n e G o d ...
w o u l d never sin in the way j u s t m e n t i o n e d . (Spec. 4.159; cf. Mos. 1.241 a n d Spec.
2.73)

In s u m , t h e n , t h e J e w s are c h a r a c t e r i z e d n o t o n l y by t h e i r c o m m o n
ancestry b u t also by their s h a r e d π ο λ ι τ ε ί α o f laws p r o m u l g a t e d by M o s e s .
As a c o m m u n i t y living u n d e r t h e s e laws, t h e y t h e m s e l v e s c o n s t i t u t e a
π ο λ ι τ ε ί α . Finally, w h i l e P h i l o s p e a k s o f t h e J e w s as b e i n g o r h a v i n g a
π ο λ ι τ ε ί α , h e n e v e r d e s c r i b e s "Israel" in this way.

W e h a v e j u s t c o n s i d e r e d t h e various differences b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d t h e

J e w s with r e s p e c t to four issues:

1) w h e r e P h i l o speaks a b o u t e a c h g r o u p ;

2) h o w h e c h a r a c t e r i z e s e a c h collectivity;

3) h o w h e describes t h e relationship o f e a c h to G o d ; a n d
4) w h a t m i g h t constitute m e m b e r s h i p r e q u i r e m e n t s for e a c h g r o u p .

W e are n o w r e a d y to e x a m i n e w h a t P h i l o says in e a c h o f t h e s e f o u r
a r e a s a b o u t p r o s e l y t e s , s o t h a t w e m a y a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r t h e y are
n e w c o m e r s to "Israel," to the Jews, or to b o t h .
216 CHAPTER SIX

1) Writings in Which Philo Discusses Proselytes

W e h a v e s e e n that P h i l o talks o f p r o s e l y t e s as real p e o p l e o n l y in t h e

E x p o s i t i o n , w h i c h is also t h e o n l y e x e g e t i c a l series in w h i c h h e d i s c u s s e s
4 8
t h e J e w s . In this series, m o r e o v e r , h e almost n e v e r m e n t i o n s "Israel." By
contrast, in the Allegory—in w h i c h Philo d o e s refer frequently to
"Israel"—he rarely talks o f p r o s e l y t e s , a n d w h e n h e d o e s , h e p r e s e n t s
t h e m as s y m b o l i c figures, n e v e r l i n k i n g t h e m w i t h "Israel." S i n c e P h i l o
d i s c u s s e s real p r o s e l y t e s a n d Jews, b u t n o t "Israel," in t h e s a m e works, it
stands to r e a s o n that h e s e e s proselytes as c o m i n g over to t h e J e w s b u t n o t
n e c e s s a r i l y to "Israel."
T h e o b s e r v a t i o n that P h i l o talks o f Jews a n d proselytes as real p e o p l e
o n l y i n t h e E x p o s i t i o n a l s o s u p p o r t s t h e h y p o t h e s i s that h i s i n t e n d e d
a u d i e n c e in this series m a y i n c l u d e non-Jews w h o m h e h o p e s t o b r i n g
i n t o t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y . I n d e e d t h e E x p o s i t i o n d i s c u s s e s t h e actual
s i t u a t i o n o f p r o s e l y t e s , d e s c r i b i n g , a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e i r rights a n d
t h e i r a c c e p t a n c e by this c o m m u n i t y . M o r e o v e r , a l m o s t all o f P h i l o ' s
remarks that pertain to proselytes b u t d o n o t m e n t i o n t h e m directly a p p e a r
in t h e E x p o s i t i o n . M o s t significant, in addressing t h e s e various topics, this
series e x p r e s s e s a n o p e n a n d w e l c o m i n g attitude toward p r o s e l y t e s a n d
other potential incomers.

2) Philo's Characterization of the Collectivity Which Proselytes Join

P h i l o n e v e r directly states that proselytes b e c o m e m e m b e r s o f "Israel" o r

t h e Jews. In his essay o n ε υ γ έ ν ε ι α , or n o b l e birth, h o w e v e r , h e cites a m o n g
his e x a m p l e s o f J e w s (Virt. 2 0 6 ) A b r a h a m a n d T a m a r , b o t h o f w h o m h e
also d e s c r i b e s as p r o s e l y t e s — e i t h e r explicitly, as in t h e case o f A b r a h a m ,
o r i m p l i c i t l y , as i n t h e c a s e o f T a m a r . P h i l o ' s u s e o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r
p r o s e l y t e s A b r a h a m a n d T a m a r as J e w i s h e x a m p l e s s u g g e s t s that h e s e e s
proselytes in g e n e r a l as part o f t h e Jewish c o m m u n i t y .
In a d d i t i o n , w e have s e e n that P h i l o m o s t frequently speaks o f "Israel"
as a γ έ ν ο ς ( r a c e / c l a s s ) a n d o f t h e H e b r e w s a n d Jews as an έθνος ( n a t i o n ) o r
λ α ό ς ( p e o p l e ) a n d s o m e t i m e s as a π ο λ ι τ ε ί α (polity) o r a γ έ ν ο ς . W h e n
discussing proselytes, h e d o e s n o t specify that they e n t e r a n έθνος, λ α ό ς , o r
γένος. H e d o e s write, however, that they c o m e over to a n e w π ο λ ι τ ε ί α (Spec.
1.51, Virt. 219; cf. Virt. 1 7 5 ) . S i n c e P h i l o uses this w o r d in c o n n e c t i o n with
t h e J e w s b u t n o t w i t h "Israel," w e m a y logically a s s u m e t h a t h e views
p r o s e l y t e s as j o i n i n g t h e π ο λ ι τ ε ί α o f t h e J e w s , i.e., t h e c o m m u n i t y o f

4 8
As m e n t i o n e d earlier, Philo's discussion of the proselyte in QE 2.2 provides too
litde information for o n e to evaluate how h e regards this figure.
 PROSELYTES IN RELATION TO GOD, JEWS, AND "ISRAEL" 217

p e o p l e w h o live a c c o r d i n g to t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f M o s e s . M o r e o v e r , in Spec.
1.51, h e n o t e s that proselytes are so-called b e c a u s e they have c o m e t o "a
n e w a n d G o d - l o v i n g polity" ( φ ι λ ό θ ε ο ς π ο λ ι τ ε ί α ) . Later, in Spec. 1.314, h e
describes his own community—implicitly the Jews—with the same
49
w o r d s , "God-loving p o l i t y . "
A l t h o u g h Philo usually m e n t i o n s the π ο λ ι τ ε ί α of Moses w i t h o u t
explicitly n a m i n g Jews o r any o t h e r g r o u p , as n o t e d earlier, h e d o e s call
t h e J e w s a π ο λ ι τ ε ί α in Virt. 108. T h e r e h e takes u p t h e case o f settlers
( μ έ τ ο ι κ ο ι ) f r o m n a t i o n s originally hostile to t h e J e w s — o r m o r e precisely,
t o t h e i r a n c e s t o r s , t h e H e b r e w s — w h o may wish t o b e c o m e part o f "the
polity o f t h e Jews." T h i s e x a m p l e is especially significant, since it p e r t a i n s
specifically to t h e case o f o u t s i d e r s w h o w a n t t o j o i n t h e J e w i s h c o m m u ­
nity. O n t h e basis, t h e n , o f this a n d t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g h o w
P h i l o d e s c r i b e s t h e collectivity w h i c h proselytes j o i n , w e c a n r e a s o n a b l y
a s s u m e that h e identifies this collectivity as t h e Jews b u t n o t necessarily as
"Israel."

3) Relationship Between Proselytes and God

W h e n w e recall w h a t P h i l o says a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p r o s e l y t e s
a n d G o d , w e s e e that h e r e t o o h i s c o m m e n t s are m o r e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h
w h a t h e says a b o u t J e w s t h a n a b o u t "Israel." A g a i n , t h e h a l l m a r k o f t h e
p r o s e l y t e is that h e o r s h e a b a n d o n s polytheistic b e l i e f s a n d w o r s h i p t o
a d o p t b e l i e f in a n d w o r s h i p o f t h e o n e G o d . In r e t u r n , p r o s e l y t e s e n j o y
G o d ' s πρόνοια, or protective care.
A m o n g t h e n e w t h i n g s that p r o s e l y t e s a d o p t are laws a n d — e s p e c i a l l y
— h o n o r , w o r s h i p , o r b e l i e f in t h e o n e G o d . T h e Jews, o f c o u r s e , are t h e
o n e s w h o h o n o r a n d w o r s h i p G o d t h r o u g h o b s e r v a n c e o f specific laws.

4 9
In Virt. 175, Philo introduces his section o n μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α — i . e . , r e p e n t a n c e or conver­
s i o n — a s follows:
Our m o s t holy Moses, w h o so dearly loved virtue and g o o d n e s s and especially his
fellow m e n , exhorts everyone everywhere to pursue piety and justice, and offers to
[ μ ε τ α ν ο ΰ ν τ ε ς ] in h o n o r o f their victory the high rewards of m e m b e r s h i p in [the
best polity (πολιτεία ή αρίστη)] and of the felicities both great a n d small which that
m e m b e r s h i p confers.
H e r e μ ε τ α ν ο ΰ ν τ ε ς can refer either to p e n i t e n t s or to proselytes, an observation
which b e c o m e s clear as Philo develops the t h e m e of μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α in the treatise. T h o u g h
h e d o e s n o t specify that "the best polity" refers to the Jews, this identification is
implicit since h e is talking a b o u t the π ο λ ι τ ε ί α of Moses, and the Jews are the very
c o m m u n i t y w h i c h lives according to his π ο λ ι τ ε ί α . Philo also uses the phrase ή αρίστη
π ο λ ι τ ε ί α in Spec. 3.167, w h e r e it signifies the best form of g o v e r n m e n t , a n d in the
f o l l o w i n g passages, w h e r e it signifies democracy: Agr. 45, Deus 176, Abr. 2 4 2 , Spec.
4.237 (see also the n o t e to this passage in LCL, 8:437); cf. Conf. 108 and Virt. 180.
218 CHAPTER SIX

P h i l o n e v e r d i s c u s s e s "Israel" as o b s e r v i n g laws. A l t h o u g h h e o c c a s i o n a l ­
5 0
ly m e n t i o n s that "Israel" w o r s h i p s G o d , h e m u c h m o r e f r e q u e n t l y char­
acterizes t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d G o d in t e r m s o f its s e e i n g
H i m . P h i l o n e v e r c l a i m s , h o w e v e r , that p r o s e l y t e s c a n s e e G o d o r that
they c o m e o v e r to a vision o f H i m . I n d e e d , o n t h e basis o f h o w proselytes
a n d "Israel" e a c h relate t o G o d a c c o r d i n g to P h i l o , w e c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e
w h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p , if any, proselytes have to "Israel."
As to Philo's o t h e r observations a b o u t the relationship b e t w e e n G o d a n d
p r o s e l y t e s , h i s c l e a r e s t s t a t e m e n t is that p r o s e l y t e s b e n e f i t f r o m G o d ' s
π ρ ό ν ο ι α . H e p r e s e n t s π ρ ό ν ο ι α b o t h as a reward to p r o s e l y t e s a n d as a
d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f G o d ' s j u s t i c e a n d k i n d n e s s toward t h o s e w h o n e e d h e l p
t h e m o s t . In o n e passage (Spec. 4 . 1 7 6 - 8 2 ) , h e also i n c l u d e s J e w s a m o n g
this g r o u p that n e e d s G o d ' s h e l p . B e s i d e s this i n s t a n c e , P h i l o p r o c l a i m s
e l s e w h e r e that t h e J e w s are b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f G o d ' s π ρ ό ν ο ι α , as w e saw in
C h a p t e r Five. A l t h o u g h h e d o e s m e n t i o n o n c e in Legat. t h a t "Israel"
enjoys G o d ' s π ρ ό ν ο ι α , in that c o n t e x t , h e implicitly identifies "Israel" with
t h e J e w s . T h i s is, m o r e o v e r , t h e o n l y p a s s a g e in w h i c h P h i l o m e n t i o n s
G o d ' s π ρ ό ν ο ι α in r e l a t i o n to "Israel." I n d e e d , if it is true that P h i l o s e e s
"Israel" as a r a t h e r l o o s e l y d e n n e d g r o u p — " n o t a s o c i a l e n t i t y in a n
51
everyday s e n s e , " as J a c o b N e u s n e r has p u t i t — i t s m e m b e r s w o u l d n o t
n e e d this k i n d o f d i v i n e p r o t e c t i o n , r e m o v e d as t h e y w o u l d b e f r o m
w o r l d l y affairs.
P h i l o ' s d e p i c t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d proselytes, t h e n ,
l i n k s t h e m by a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h e J e w s b u t n o t w i t h "Israel." J u s t as
p r o s e l y t e s c o m e o v e r to laws a n d w o r s h i p o f t h e o n e G o d , e n j o y i n g H i s
π ρ ό ν ο ι α in r e t u r n , so t o o are t h e J e w s t h e very p e o p l e w h o w o r s h i p G o d
t h r o u g h o b s e r v a n c e o f laws a n d w h o b e n e f i t f r o m H i s special p r o t e c t i o n .

4 ) Proselytes' Fulfillment of "Membership Requirements"

P h i l o p r e s e n t s b o t h "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s as t h e o r e t i c a l l y o p e n g r o u p s ,
d i s p l a y i n g i n d i f f e r e n t ways a s e n s e o f u n i v e r s a l i s m . S i n c e "Israel"
represents those w h o can see God, an achievement which d e p e n d s u p o n
spiritual c a p a c i t y , it w o u l d s e e m t h a t a n y o n e — J e w o r n o n - J e w — m a y
strive to j o i n "Israel" by d e v e l o p i n g this capacity. T h e J e w s , in contrast,
are a n a t i o n d e f i n e d by birth, a s h a r e d c o n s t i t u t i o n o f laws, a n d b e l i e f in
t h e o n e G o d . As a social c o m m u n i t y , Jews w o r s h i p G o d t h r o u g h specific
p r a c t i c e s a n d , in a d d i t i o n , they serve as t h e p r i e s t h o o d for all h u m a n i t y ,
are allotted to G o d , are G o d - b e l o v e d o r God-loving, a n d enjoy H i s π ρ ό ν ο ι α .

5 0
See above, n. 42.
5 1
N e u s n e r , Judaism and Its Social Metaphors, 221.
 PROSELYTES IN RELATION TO GOD, JEWS, AND "ISRAEL" 219

If a p e r s o n is n o t b o r n a Jew, h e o r s h e may still b e c o m e o n e . T o d o so, that

p e r s o n m u s t necessarily give u p h i s o r h e r b a c k g r o u n d o f i n c o m p a t i b l e
beliefs a n d practices a n d a d o p t n e w o n e s .
W e have s e e n that P h i l o d e p i c t s proselytes as p e o p l e w h o a b a n d o n t h e i r
b a c k g r o u n d s o f false beliefs, false w o r s h i p , family, a n d f r i e n d s t o a d o p t
h o n o r o f t h e o n e G o d , laws, a n d a n e w polity. A s s u c h , t h e y m o s t
certainly fulfill w h a t s e e m s to b e r e q u i r e d for b e c o m i n g a Jew, t h o u g h n o t
necessarily for b e c o m i n g a m e m b e r o f "Israel."
In s u m , t h e n , Philo's discussion of proselytes l e n d s support to o u r
d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s . A l t h o u g h h e p r e s e n t s b o t h
entities as potentially o p e n to outsiders, proselytes are t o b e associated with
t h e J e w s , b u t n o t necessarily w i t h "Israel." Like t h e vision o f G o d itself,
"Israel" a p p e a r s t o b e a n elusive a n d c h a n g e a b l e entity, able t o e n c o m p a s s
w h o e v e r is spiritually q u a l i f i e d , r e g a r d l e s s o f ancestry. T h e J e w s , h o w ­
ever, are d e f i n e d by birth a n d b e l i e f in a n d w o r s h i p o f t h e o n e G o d . If o n e
is n o t b o r n i n t o t h e n a t i o n , o n e may b e c o m e a J e w — n o t o n t h e basis o f
spiritual ability, as in t h e case o f "Israel"—but t h r o u g h a d e l i b e r a t e c h o i c e .
By l e a v i n g t h e i r past to j o i n a n e w polity, proselytes e x e r c i s e j u s t s u c h a
choice.
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This investigation b e g a n with the aim of u n d e r s t a n d i n g the place of

J u d a i s m in P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t . In p u r s u i t o f this u n d e r s t a n d i n g , w e h a v e
f o c u s e d u p o n h o w P h i l o discusses two k i n d s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s to G o d : first,
t h e q u e s t to s e e G o d or t h e g o a l o f s e e i n g H i m , a n d s e c o n d , t h e c o v e n a n t
b e t w e e n G o d a n d Biblical Israel a n d its J e w i s h d e s c e n d a n t s . W i t h i n this
f r a m e w o r k , I h a v e u s e d t h e t e r m s "particularism" a n d "universalism,"
d e f i n e d in specific ways.
W h i l e g u i d e d by a c o n c e r n with t h e s e b r o a d a n d i m p o r t a n t issues, o u r
search has involved the close scrutiny of many s e e m i n g l y disparate
details. S i n c e w e have investigated s u c h various topics as P h i l o ' s u s e o f t h e
w o r d γ έ ν ο ς , t h e s o u r c e o f his e t y m o l o g y for "Israel," his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f
D e u t . 3 2 : 8 - 9 , a n d his u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f proselytes, it m a y b e useful first t o
s u m m a r i z e o u r f i n d i n g s a n d t h e n t o c o n s i d e r t h e larger p i c t u r e to w h i c h
t h e s e discrete topics c o n t r i b u t e . B e f o r e w e turn to this summary, h o w e v e r ,
o u r study h a s y i e l d e d two s o m e w h a t g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s w h i c h d e s e r v e
e m p h a s i s — o n e p e r t a i n i n g to Philo's e x e g e t i c a l b a c k g r o u n d , t h e o t h e r , to
method.
A t various p o i n t s in this investigation, w e have n o t e d that P h i l o is h e i r
to a l o n g t r a d i t i o n o f J e w i s h e x e g e s i s . T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n is particularly
striking w h e n w e c o n s i d e r his use o f t h e e x p r e s s i o n s ορών θ ε ό ν ( o n e that
s e e s G o d ) a n d τό όρατικόν γένος ( t h e r a c e / c l a s s that can s e e ) . As d i s c u s s e d
in C h a p t e r T w o , we h a v e scarce e v i d e n c e o f t h e s e e x p r e s s i o n s in o t h e r
s o u r c e s . N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f a fuller f o r m o f t h e e t y m o l o g y ,
ά ν ή ρ ορών θεόν ( a m a n w h o sees G o d ) , in j u s t o n e o t h e r w o r k — t h e Prayer
of Joseph, w h i c h is p r o b a b l y c o n t e m p o r a r y to P h i l o — i s e n o u g h to s u g g e s t
that h e m a y h a v e d r a w n h i s e t y m o l o g y for "Israel" f r o m a t r a d i t i o n a l
e x e g e t i c a l vocabulary. M o r e o v e r , d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e way h e u s e s t h e two
expressions even within his own writings suggest that b e h i n d e a c h
e x p r e s s i o n lies a n i n t e r e s t i n g e v o l u t i o n a r y history. O n e c a n o n l y r e g r e t
t h e paucity o f e x t a n t e v i d e n c e f r o m w h a t m u s t have b e e n for c e n t u r i e s a
thriving c o m m u n i t y o f A l e x a n d r i a n J e w i s h e x e g e t e s .
With regard to m e t h o d , we have consistently observed significant
v a r i a t i o n s in t h e way P h i l o treats a n u m b e r o f t o p i c s t h r o u g h o u t h i s
different writings. P e r h a p s t h e m o s t salient e x a m p l e o f t h e s e variations is
that a m o n g t h e e x e g e t i c a l works, o n l y t h e E x p o s i t i o n speaks o f t h e Jews by
n a m e , m e n t i o n i n g "Israel" o n l y twice. W h i l e o n e c a n d o n o m o r e t h a n
s p e c u l a t e a b o u t why variations o c c u r f r o m o n e w o r k t o t h e n e x t , t h e
v a r i a t i o n s t h e m s e l v e s are clearly s i g n i f i c a n t . All t o o o f t e n , h o w e v e r ,
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 221

p a s s a g e s f r o m P h i l o are s t u d i e d w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o w h e r e t h e y fit in his

overall works a n d h o w their c o n t e x t s m a y i n f l u e n c e his p r e s e n t a t i o n . It is
h o p e d t h e r e f o r e that t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d in this study will h i g h l i g h t
t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i m p o r t a n c e o f taking i n t o a c c o u n t that P h i l o m a y b e
1
a d a p t i n g his remarks to suit a particular a u d i e n c e o r literary g e n r e .

Summary of Findings

W e h a v e s e e n that P h i l o d i s t i n g u i s h e s i m p l i c i t l y b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d
t h e J e w s , u s i n g t h e t e r m s Ι σ ρ α ή λ a n d Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ς in different ways a n d i n
separate c o n t e x t s . As t h e όρων θεόν, t h e o n e that sees G o d , or t h e ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν
γ έ ν ο ς , t h e r a c e / c l a s s that c a n s e e , "Israel" s e e m s to r e p r e s e n t a l o o s e l y
d e f i n e d e n t i t y — n o t a readily identifiable social g r o u p b u t rather a class o f
i n d i v i d u a l s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e i r spiritual capability. T h e J e w s , in c o n ­
trast, constitute t h e real n a t i o n that believes in a n d worships t h e o n e G o d o f
all c r e a t i o n t h r o u g h o b s e r v a n c e o f specific laws a n d c u s t o m s .
T h e g r o u n d s f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s i n
P h i l o ' s works c a n b e s u m m a r i z e d as follows:

1) P h i l o g e n e r a l l y speaks o f "Israel" a n d t h e Jews in different series o f

works, w h i c h are probably i n t e n d e d for different a u d i e n c e s .
2) T o d e s c r i b e "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s as c o l l e c t i v i t i e s , P h i l o uses
different w o r d s with different c o n n o t a t i o n s .
3) P h i l o p o r t r a y s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d "Israel" a n d
b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e Jews in different ways.
4) " M e m b e r s h i p r e q u i r e m e n t s " for "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s a p p e a r t o b e
different.

L e t us e x a m i n e t h e s e f o u r observations m o r e closely.

1) Philo generally speaks of "Israel" and the Jews in different senes of works,
which are probably intended for different audiences. O f P h i l o ' s t h r e e e x e g e t i c a l
c o m m e n t a r i e s , o n l y t h e E x p o s i t i o n discusses t h e J e w s explicitly, w h i l e it
c i t e s "Israel" b u t twice. T h e A l l e g o r y , in contrast, f r e q u e n t l y refers t o
"Israel." Q G E u s e s t h e w o r d occasionally, preferring i n s t e a d a p e r i p h r a s i s
like τό όρατικόν γένος, t h e r a c e / c l a s s that can s e e . T h e two words, "Israel"
a n d 'Jew" a p p e a r t o g e t h e r o n l y o n c e in t h e s a m e work, in t h e p o l i t i c a l
treatise Legat.
I h a v e s u g g e s t e d that in his e x e g e t i c a l writings, P h i l o speaks o f t h e Jews
o n l y in t h e E x p o s i t i o n to e d u c a t e readers w h o m a y n o t b e familiar w i t h
J e w i s h history, beliefs, a n d practices a n d to a p p e a l t o t h o s e w h o m a y b e

1
Cf. G o o d e n o u g h , Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 2 0 - 2 1 .
222 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

a l i e n a t e d f r o m o r h o s t i l e toward t h e Jews. In this s e r i e s , h e m e n t i o n s

"Israel" o n l y twice b e c a u s e t h e t e r m p r o b a b l y carries n o r e s o n a n c e for
"outsiders." P h i l o ' s n o n - u s e o f t h e w o r d "Israel" in t h e E x p o s i t i o n treatises
o n M o s e s , in w h i c h h e narrates t h e Biblical n a t i o n ' s e x o d u s f r o m Egypt, is
particularly striking a n d s e e m s t o c o n f i r m t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t "Israel"
s t a n d s f o r a s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t entity f r o m t h e Biblical n a t i o n o r t h e
Jews.
S i n c e his a u d i e n c e in t h e E x p o s i t i o n may n o t b e p r e p a r e d to grasp t h e
s i g n i f i c a n c e o f "Israel," P h i l o m a y reserve his d i s c u s s i o n o f this entity for
t h e A l l e g o r y , w i t h its m o r e k n o w l e d g e a b l e J e w i s h readers. T h i s a u d i e n c e
c a n a p p r e c i a t e t h e d o u b l e association o f "Israel" with t h e Biblical patriarch
a n d his d e s c e n d a n t n a t i o n , o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f s e e i n g
G o d , o n the other. Likewise, Philo n e e d n o t speak of the Jews h e r e ,
b e c a u s e his r e a d e r s w o u l d already b e quite familiar w i t h t h e p e o p l e a n d
t h e i r ways.
In Q G E , w h i c h s e e m s t o b e a c o l l a t i o n o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f r o m a b r o a d
s p e c t r u m o f t h e A l e x a n d r i a n J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y , two f e a t u r e s o f P h i l o ' s
d i s c u s s i o n o f "Israel" are e s p e c i a l l y n o t e w o r t h y . First, as w e h a v e j u s t
o b s e r v e d , t h o u g h P h i l o d o e s o c c a s i o n a l l y m e n t i o n "Israel" explicitly, h e
s e e m s to p r e f e r t h e substitute e x p r e s s i o n τό όρατικόν γένος, t h e r a c e / c l a s s
that c a n s e e . S e c o n d , w h e n u s i n g this phrase o r t h e e t y m o l o g y ορών θ ε ό ν ,
o n e that s e e s G o d , P h i l o d o e s n o t directly link e i t h e r e x p r e s s i o n with t h e
p h i l o s o p h i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f s e e i n g G o d . Q G E , t h e n , m a y p r o v i d e evi­
d e n c e o f a c o m m o n , traditional use o f t h e s e e x p r e s s i o n s — a u s e o n e m i g h t
e x p e c t in this series, w h i c h e n c o m p a s s e s a w i d e r a n g e o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
for a variety o f Jewish readers.
Finally, in his political treatise Legat., Philo's a i m s e e m s to b e to p r e s e n t
t h e Jews in t h e m o s t favorable light for a m i x e d a u d i e n c e o f Jews a n d n o n -
J e w s . T h a t h e s p e a k s o f "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s t o g e t h e r o n l y h e r e m a y
i n d i c a t e his w i s h t o i m p r e s s his r e a d e r s by d e p i c t i n g t h e J e w s as t h o s e
w h o e m b o d y t h e ideal o f s e e i n g G o d , w h i c h "Israel" r e p r e s e n t s .

2) To describe "Israel" and the Jews as collectivities, Philo uses different words
with different connotations. H e m o s t f r e q u e n t l y c h a r a c t e r i z e s "Israel" as a
γ έ ν ο ς b u t calls t h e J e w s — a n d t h e i r a n c e s t o r s , t h e H e b r e w s — g e n e r a l l y a n
έθνος or a λ α ό ς , a n d occasionally a π ο λ ι τ ε ί α or a γένος.
P h i l o u s e s t h e w o r d γ έ ν ο ς in a variety o f ways so that it m a y m e a n a
race d e f i n e d by c o m m o n birth, a class d e f i n e d by s h a r e d characteristics,
a n abstract n a t u r e o r k i n d , a c o l l e c t i v e g e n u s as o p p o s e d t o i n d i v i d u a l
s p e c i e s , o r a n i d e a in t h e i n t e l l i g i b l e w o r l d . T h u s , w h e n h e d e s c r i b e s
"Israel" as a γ έ ν ο ς , it is u n c l e a r w h e t h e r h e m e a n s a race o f p e o p l e w i t h
c o m m o n d e s c e n t , a class o f p e o p l e with a s h a r e d quality, o r a n e b u l o u s
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 223

ideal. In contrast, o n t h e few o c c a s i o n s w h e n h e u s e s γ έ ν ο ς t o d e s c r i b e t h e

Jews, h e is evidently s p e a k i n g a b o u t a race o f p e o p l e w h o share c o m m o n
d e s c e n t a n d w h o also constitute a political entity.
P h i l o ' s m o r e f r e q u e n t l y u s e d w o r d s for t h e J e w s — έ θ ν ο ς ( n a t i o n ) a n d
λ α ό ς ( p e o p l e ) — c l e a r l y d e s i g n a t e t h e m as a n a t i o n , w h e t h e r its m e m b e r s
b e l o n g t h r o u g h birth o r c h o i c e . Finally, π ο λ ι τ ε ί α , o r p o l i t y — a w o r d P h i l o
u s e s in c o n n e c t i o n with t h e J e w s b u t n o t with "Israel"—denotes, a m o n g
o t h e r things, a c o n s t i t u t i o n o f laws o r a g r o u p o f p e o p l e living u n d e r s u c h a
constitution.
W h e n c o n s i d e r e d f r o m t h e perspective o f h o w P h i l o u s e s t h e s e various
w o r d s , "Israel" d o e s n o t e m e r g e as a clearly d e f i n e d social g r o u p , b u t
r a t h e r as a class that r e p r e s e n t s t h e ideal o f s e e i n g G o d . T h e Jews, o n t h e
o t h e r h a n d , are a n a c k n o w l e d g e d c o m m u n i t y , w h o s e m e m b e r s s h a r e i n
c o m m o n e i t h e r their origins or a c o n s t i t u t i o n o f laws, or b o t h .

3) Philo portrays the relationship between God and "Israel" and between God
and the Jews in different ways. P h i l o m o s t frequently associates "Israel" w i t h
s e e i n g G o d . For h i m , s e e i n g G o d r e p r e s e n t s t h e h e i g h t o f h u m a n h a p p i ­
n e s s , a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l g o a l , attainable o n l y t h r o u g h t h e
sight o f t h e m i n d with t h e h e l p o f G o d . Philo's n o t i o n s a b o u t s e e i n g G o d
are s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by t h e P l a t o n i c tradition, w h i c h e m p h a s i z e s t h e
s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e s e n s e o f sight a n d p r o c l a i m s b e l i e f in a t r a n s c e n d e n t
One.
T h e s o u r c e o f P h i l o ' s association b e t w e e n s e e i n g G o d a n d "Israel" is its
e t y m o l o g y ο ρ ώ ν θ ε ό ν , o r o n e that s e e s G o d . T h i s e t y m o l o g y a n d t h e
r e l a t e d p h r a s e τό ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν γ έ ν ο ς , t h e r a c e / c l a s s that c a n s e e , m a y h a v e
b e l o n g e d t o a b o d y o f traditional J e w i s h e x e g e s i s w h i c h P h i l o i n h e r i t e d .
O r i g i n a l l y t h e e t y m o l o g y m a y have b e e n b a s e d u p o n J a c o b ' s e n c o u n t e r
w i t h his adversary, n a r r a t e d in G e n e s i s 32; a n d t h e p h r a s e τό ό ρ α τ ι κ ό ν
γ έ ν ο ς m a y have b e e n an adaptation to the etymology, i n t e n d e d to d e s c r i b e
t h e n a t i o n Israel as a collectivity. In t i m e , h o w e v e r , b o t h e x p r e s s i o n s m a y
h a v e e v o l v e d in m e a n i n g to e n c o m p a s s t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l k i n d o f s e e i n g
a n d to separate from their original identification with the historical
patriarch a n d n a t i o n . As P h i l o u s e s t h e s e e x p r e s s i o n s , t h e p r e c i s e identity
o f t h e s e e r s they d e n o t e a l m o s t always r e m a i n s u n c e r t a i n .
In contrast to "Israel," w h o s e e s G o d , t h e Jews constitute t h e c o m m u n i t y
o f p e o p l e — p a s t a n d p r e s e n t — w h o b e l i e v e in a n d w o r s h i p G o d by observ­
i n g specific laws a n d c u s t o m s . In a d d i t i o n , they serve as t h e p r i e s t h o o d for
all h u m a n i t y , h a v e b e e n a l l o t t e d o r have allotted t h e m s e l v e s t o G o d , are
God-beloved or God-loving, and benefit from His π ρ ό ν ο ι α , or protective
concern.
By d e p i c t i n g t h e J e w s in this way, P h i l o implicitly transforms several
224 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

t h e m e s f r o m t h e Bible w h i c h pertain to t h e c o v e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n
G o d a n d Biblical Israel. M o r e o v e r , in t h e case o f divine π ρ ό ν ο ι α , h e also
adapts p h i l o s o p h i c a l beliefs—in addition to the Biblical n o t i o n s — t o
s u g g e s t that t h e J e w s e n j o y G o d ' s s p e c i a l care b e c a u s e t h e y b e l i e v e i n
H i m . A s e x p l a i n e d i n C h a p t e r Five, P h i l o p r e s e n t s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e Jews as o n e that is available o r accessible to a n y o n e
w h o c h o o s e s t o b e l i e v e in a n d w o r s h i p t h e C r e a t o r a n d F a t h e r o f all.
Similarly, P h i l o t r a n s f o r m s t h e s e n s e o f Biblical v e r s e s a n d t e r m s like
"covenant" o r " c h o s e n p e o p l e " s o that t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p d e p i c t e d in t h e
Bible b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel also a p p e a r s potentially o p e n t o e v e r y o n e .
A c c o r d i n g to his p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e n , t h e relationship b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e
Jews is n o t necessarily l i m i t e d to t h o s e b o r n i n t o the historical n a t i o n .

4 ) "Membership requirements" for "Israel" and the Jews appear to be

different S i n c e P h i l o d o e s n o t directly address w h o m a y b e l o n g to "Israel"
o r h o w o n e b e c o m e s a Jew, o n e c a n o n l y s p e c u l a t e a b o u t " m e m b e r s h i p
r e q u i r e m e n t s " for t h e s e two entities. B e c a u s e t h e d i s t i n g u i s h i n g mark o f
"Israel" is its ability t o s e e G o d , it w o u l d s e e m that a n y o n e w h o q u a l i f i e s —
w h e t h e r J e w o r n o n - J e w — m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d part o f "Israel." I n d e e d ,
P h i l o s p e a k s q u i t e a d m i r i n g l y o f non-Jews like t h e P e r s i a n M a g i a n d
other u n n a m e d sages from Greek and foreign lands. A l t h o u g h h e never
calls t h e s e p e o p l e "Israel" o r s p e a k s o f t h e m as s e e i n g G o d p e r se, his
d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e m w o u l d l e a d o n e to think that they m e e t t h e r e q u i r e ­
m e n t for b e l o n g i n g , n a m e l y , that they have t h e spiritual ability t o a p p r e ­
h e n d the existing God.
T h o u g h P h i l o is also n o t explicit a b o u t what is r e q u i r e d to b e c o m e a Jew,
w e saw in C h a p t e r Six that h e associates p r o s e l y t e s w i t h J e w s , b u t n o t
necessarily w i t h "Israel." T h e hallmark o f t h e proselyte, m o r e o v e r , is that
h e o r s h e a b a n d o n s b e l i e f in a n d w o r s h i p o f m a n y g o d s , leaving b e h i n d a
c o m m u n i t y o f family a n d f r i e n d s , t o a d o p t b e l i e f in a n d w o r s h i p o f t h e
o n e true G o d , b e c o m i n g part o f a n e w social c o m m u n i t y . In g e n e r a l ,
P h i l o d o e s n o t p r o v i d e e n o u g h i n f o r m a t i o n for us t o d e t e r m i n e what, if
any, l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s t h e proselyte m u s t fulfill. D e s p i t e w h a t h e d o e s
n o t say, h o w e v e r , it is clear that h e c o n s i d e r s t h e Jews to b e a n o p e n g r o u p
w h i c h gladly w e l c o m e s n e w c o m e r s a n d that it is t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y
which proselytes j o i n .

Particidarist or Universalist?

T a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t all t h e i n f o r m a t i o n j u s t p r e s e n t e d , let us n o w return to

t h e q u e s t i o n s p o s e d at t h e o u t s e t o f this study. F o c u s i n g u p o n two kinds o f
r e l a t i o n s h i p s to G o d — t h e q u e s t to s e e H i m or t h e g o a l o f s e e i n g H i m a n d
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 225

t h e c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n H i m a n d Biblical Israel a n d t h e J e w s — I have asked

w h e t h e r P h i l o b e l i e v e s all p e o p l e c a n participate in t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o r
o n l y s o m e p e o p l e . Further, if o n l y s o m e c a n p a r t i c i p a t e , m u s t t h e y b e
Jews? W i t h i n this framework, I have d e f i n e d universalism as t h e p o s i t i o n
that a n y o n e c a n participate in e i t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d particularism as t h e
p o s i t i o n that o n l y Jews can participate.
L e t us b e g i n with t h e particularist stance. O u r study suggests that P h i l o
d o e s not b e l i e v e o n l y a J e w can s e e G o d . Certainly, as t h o s e w h o b e l i e v e i n
t h e o n e G o d — a s o p p o s e d to m a n y g o d s o r n o g o d s — J e w s stand a b e t t e r
c h a n c e o f b e i n g able to "see" H i m . P h i l o d o e s , h o w e v e r , speak o f non-Jews
s u c h as t h e Persian Magi a n d o t h e r u n i d e n t i f i e d G e n t i l e s a g e s in a way
that s u g g e s t s t h e y t o o m a y b e c a p a b l e o f s e e i n g G o d . In o n e p a s s a g e , in
fact, h e e q u a t e s J e w i s h laws a n d c u s t o m s w i t h t h e t e a c h i n g s o f G r e e k
p h i l o s o p h y , i n t h a t b o t h l e a d t o k n o w l e d g e o f "the h i g h e s t , t h e m o s t
a n c i e n t c a u s e o f all things a n d [rejection of] t h e d e l u s i o n o f c r e a t e d g o d s "
(Virt. 6 5 ) . O n t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h o can s e e G o d , t h e n , P h i l o is n o t a particu­
larist, in t h e s e n s e that h e believes b o t h Jews a n d non-Jews are p o t e n t i a l l y
c a p a b l e o f s e e i n g H i m . I shall return to this observation below.
As t o w h e t h e r o n l y J e w s m a y participate in t h e c o v e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p
w i t h G o d , w e have s e e n that P h i l o transforms this r e l a t i o n s h i p in several
ways. W h i l e h e d o e s n o t affirm that G o d a n d Biblical Israel are b o u n d by
a c o v e n a n t , h e s e e m s n e v e r t h e l e s s to believe that this n a t i o n a n d its J e w i s h
d e s c e n d a n t s d o h a v e a special s t a n d i n g with G o d . H e e x p r e s s e s this i d e a
by m a i n t a i n i n g that t h e J e w s b e l i e v e in G o d a n d w o r s h i p H i m t h r o u g h
t h e i r laws a n d c u s t o m s , that t h e y serve as priests for all h u m a n i t y , that
they are a l l o t t e d to G o d , are G o d - b e l o v e d or God-loving, a n d b e n e f i t f r o m
H i s π ρ ό ν ο ι α , o r protective c o n c e r n . M o r e o v e r , in his i m p l i c i t a n d e x p l i c i t
interpretations o f Scripture, Philo depicts the relationship b e t w e e n G o d a n d
Biblical Israel a n d its J e w i s h d e s c e n d a n t s as a r e l a t i o n s h i p available a n d
a c c e s s i b l e t o all w h o c h o o s e it. T o c o n f i r m this i m p r e s s i o n , h e a l s o
e x h i b i t s a w e l c o m i n g attitude a n d o p e n n e s s toward proselytes.
S i n c e P h i l o transforms t h e c o v e n a n t yet still p r e s e n t s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e J e w s as distinctive, p e r h a p s at this p o i n t w e s h o u l d
shift t h e t e r m s o f t h e d i s c u s s i o n to reflect his p o s i t i o n m o r e accurately.
I n s t e a d o f s p e a k i n g a b o u t w h o P h i l o believes can s e e G o d or w h o c a n par­
ticipate in H i s c o v e n a n t , it is probably m o r e appropriate to speak o f w h o h e
b e l i e v e s m a y b e l o n g to "Israel" a n d / o r t h e Jews. B e c a u s e P h i l o d o e s n o t
a p p e a r to restrict m e m b e r s h i p e i t h e r in "Israel" o r t h e Jewish c o m m u n i t y
o n l y t o t h o s e w h o are b o r n as Jews, w e c a n n o t call h i m a particularist.
B e f o r e w e leave t h e m a t t e r h e r e , h o w e v e r , it m a y b e useful to r e c o n ­
s i d e r t h e view o f A l a n M e n d e l s o n , w h o , as w e saw in t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n ,
e m p h a s i z e s P h i l o ' s p a r t i c u l a r i s m a b o v e any u n i v e r s a l i s t t e n d e n c i e s .
226 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

I n d e e d , M e n d e l s o n a r g u e s that "even as P h i l o p r o c l a i m s t h e o p e n n e s s o f
t h e Jews t o o t h e r p e o p l e s , w e c a n d e t e c t a c o u n t e r - c u r r e n t o f e x c l u s i v e n e s s
2
w h i c h u n d e r m i n e s t h e very c o n c e p t h e e s p o u s e s . " H o w c a n w e r e c o n ­
cile M e n d e l s o n ' s view o f P h i l o ' s e x c l u s i v e n e s s with o u r o w n c o n c l u s i o n
that P h i l o is n o t a particularist?
As w e a p p r o a c h this q u e s t i o n , two p o i n t s are especially g e r m a n e . First,
M e n d e l s o n e v a l u a t e s P h i l o n o t f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f his t h o u g h t b u t
rather in t h e c o n t e x t o f his social e n v i r o n m e n t , e x a m i n i n g h o w Egyptians
a n d G r e e k s r e g a r d J e w s a n d h o w P h i l o in turn r e g a r d s E g y p t i a n s a n d
Greeks. M e n d e l s o n observes that "Philo's attitude toward p a g a n r e l i g i o n is
c o n d e s c e n d i n g a n d dismissive" a n d that h e has an "underlying c o n ­
3
t e m p t for t h e c u s t o m s o f o t h e r p e o p l e s . " F r o m t h e e v i d e n c e M e n d e l s o n
a d d u c e s a n d i n d e e d f r o m w h a t w e o u r s e l v e s have f o u n d , w e c a n h a r d l y
d i s a g r e e w i t h this a s s e s s m e n t .
S e c o n d , a l t h o u g h w e have r e j e c t e d t h e n o t i o n that P h i l o is a particu­
larist, w e h a v e n o t y e t e s t a b l i s h e d h i m as a universalist. F o r u s to d o so
w o u l d r e q u i r e t h a t P h i l o allow any a n d all p e o p l e t o b e l o n g e i t h e r t o
"Israel" o r to t h e Jews. In fact, however, this is n o t t h e case.
I n d e e d a p r e r e q u i s i t e for a n y o n e w h o b e l o n g s to e i t h e r entity is b e l i e f
in t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e o n e true G o d . Obviously, to b e able to s e e G o d a n d
t h u s to b e a m e m b e r o f "Israel," o n e m u s t also b e l i e v e that G o d exists. In
fact, as w e h a v e n o t e d , P h i l o o c c a s i o n a l l y d e s c r i b e s s e e i n g G o d as s e e i n g
that H e is, n o t what H e is. Similarly, to w o r s h i p G o d — a s t h e J e w s d o — o n e
a g a i n m u s t b e l i e v e that H e exists. In virtually all his d e s c r i p t i o n s o f pros­
elytes w h o j o i n t h e J e w i s h π ο λ ι τ ε ί α ( p o l i t y ) , P h i l o e m p h a s i z e s t h a t t h e y
m u s t leave b e h i n d a b a c k g r o u n d o f false b e l i e f a n d w o r s h i p to a d o p t b e l i e f
in a n d w o r s h i p o f t h e o n e true G o d .
A l t h o u g h P h i l o m a y e n v i s i o n "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s , t h e n , as p o t e n ­
tially o p e n to all p e o p l e , in his view, n e i t h e r entity c a n e n c o m p a s s all
p e o p l e as they are. T o b e sure, h e speaks quite disparagingly o f polytheists,
idolaters, a n d a t h e i s t s — t h a t is, p e o p l e w h o believe in m a n y g o d s , c r e a t e d
g o d s , or n o g o d . For P h i l o to e m b r a c e s u c h individuals as part o f "Israel"
o r t h e Jews, t h e s e individuals w o u l d first have to r e l i n q u i s h t h e i r w r o n g
beliefs a n d a d o p t t h e m o n o t h e i s t i c p r e m i s e .
B e c a u s e P h i l o w o u l d e x c l u d e f r o m "Israel" a n d t h e J e w s t h o s e w h o
d o n o t b e l i e v e in t h e o n e G o d , w e c a n n o t c o n s i d e r h i m a universalist,
a c c o r d i n g to o u r w o r k i n g d e f i n i t i o n . At t h e s a m e t i m e , h o w e v e r , n e i t h e r
is h e a particularist, s i n c e h e d e p i c t s b o t h entities as p o t e n t i a l l y o p e n to
non-Jews.

2
M e n d e l s o n , Philo's Jewish Identity, 113.
3
Ibid., 130 and 138.
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 227

O u r c o n c l u s i o n that P h i l o is n e i t h e r a particularist n o r a universalist

h i g h l i g h t s s o m e o f t h e difficulties i n h e r e n t in u s i n g t h e s e t e r m s , diffi­
c u l t i e s a l l u d e d t o briefly i n t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n , w h i c h n o w m e r i t f u r t h e r
c o m m e n t . J o n D. Levenson, o n e scholar w h o has reflected u p o n the
a m b i g u i t i e s o f "universalism," offers s o m e insightful o b s e r v a t i o n s a b o u t
t h e u s e o f this term. L e v e n s o n n o t e s that all religious traditions, like o t h e r
a s p e c t s o f h u m a n c u l t u r e , are particular. H e further o b s e r v e s that "while
n o r e l i g i o n is universal, s o m e aspire to b e . In this s e n s e , a u n i v e r s a l
r e l i g i o n ' m a y m e a n simply o n e that accepts proselytes, that is, o n e that is
4
w i l l i n g o r e a g e r t o e x t e n d its particularity indefinitely."
Paradoxically, t h e n , universalism m a y b e s e e n as a c o n c e r n "to e x t e n d
[ o n e ' s ] p a r t i c u l a r i t y i n d e f i n i t e l y . " In c o n t r a s t , as L e v e n s o n r e m a r k s ,
"Those w h o t h i n k o u t s i d e r s c a n have a p r o p e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h G o d as
5
they are will f e e l less o f a n i m p u l s e to m a k e t h e m i n t o i n s i d e r s " ( m y
e m p h a s i s ) . O n e m i g h t easily c o n s i d e r this latter attitude to b e universalist,
in t h e s e n s e that it affirms that all p e o p l e may have a valid r e l a t i o n s h i p
w i t h G o d , e v e n t h o u g h H i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h "insiders" a n d w i t h "out­
siders" m a y n o t b e i d e n t i c a l . T h i s s t a n c e d o e s n o t e v i n c e t h e d e s i r e "to
e x t e n d [ o n e ' s ] particularity indefinitely," n o r d o e s it imply a r e j e c t i o n o f
t h o s e o u t s i d e o n e ' s o w n g r o u p . I n s t e a d it affirms a n d a c c e p t s p e o p l e as
t h e y are. T h e l i n e b e t w e e n "particularism" a n d "universalism" c a n b e a
6
faint o n e i n d e e d !
In aspiring to e n c o m p a s s all p e o p l e , t h e n — e i t h e r within "Israel" o r t h e
J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y — P h i l o is a p o t e n t i a l universalist. T h o s e w h o d o n o t
b e l i e v e in t h e o n e G o d , h o w e v e r , m i g h t view h i m as w i s h i n g t o i m p o s e
u p o n o t h e r s n o t i o n s w h i c h are q u i t e particular. W h e t h e r o n e p e r c e i v e s

4
J o n D. L e v e n s o n , The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism, Jewish Perspectives
( N e w York: A m e r i c a n Jewish C o m m i t t e e , 1 9 8 5 ) , 2.
5
Ibid., 5.
6
Cf. t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n universalism a n d m i s s i o n p o i n t e d o u t by Martin-
A c h a r d , A Light to the Nations, 3. Also p e r t i n e n t is the f o l l o w i n g observation by
J o s e p h R. R o s e n b l o o m in Conversion to Judaism: From the Biblical Period to the Present
(Cincinnati: H e b r e w U n i o n C o l l e g e Press, 1 9 7 8 ) , 31: " [ T ] h e exilic literature was
filled with s t a t e m e n t s i n d i c a t i n g the universality o f Judaism. This universality h a d
its particularistic side in that non-Jews were e x p e c t e d to formally align t h e m s e l v e s
with J u d a i s m t h r o u g h an act w h i c h l o n g after the biblical p e r i o d was to b e called
' c o n v e r s i o n . ' " O t h e r r e l e v a n t d i s c u s s i o n s can b e f o u n d in Sandra B. Lubarsky,
Tolerance and Transformation: Jewish Approaches to Religious Pluralism (Cincinnati: H e b r e w
U n i o n C o l l e g e Press, 1 9 9 0 ) , e s p . 1-27; Orlinsky, "Nationalism-Universalism a n d
Internationalism in A n c i e n t Israel," 2 0 6 - 3 6 ; Alan F. Segal, Rebecca's Children: Judaism
and Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1 9 8 6 ) , 1 6 3 -
81; E p h r a i m E. U r b a c h , "Self-Isolation or Self-Affirmation in Judaism in the First
T h r e e Centuries: T h e o r y and Practice," Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2: Aspects
of Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period, e d . E. P. Sanders et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1981), 2 6 9 - 9 8 .
228 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

P h i l o to b e a universalist o r a particularist will obviously d e p e n d u p o n h o w

o n e u n d e r s t a n d s t h e s e two terms. T o a non-Jewish s a g e — w h o , b e c a u s e o f
his p h i l o s o p h i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g , w o u l d b e eligible to b e part o f "Israel"—
P h i l o m i g h t w e l l a p p e a r t o b e a universalist. H e w o u l d c e r t a i n l y n o t
appear so, however, to an idolater—who, because of his w r o n g beliefs,
w o u l d b e e x c l u d e d f r o m b o t h "Israel" and the Jews!

The Place of Judaism in Philo s Thought

In p r e s e n t i n g "Israel" a n d t h e Jews, P h i l o d e p i c t s r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h G o d
in w h i c h p o t e n t i a l l y all p e o p l e m i g h t participate. If, h o w e v e r , a non-Jew
m a y h a v e a l e g i t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h G o d by "seeing" H i m o r b e l o n g ­
i n g t o "Israel," t h e n why, a c c o r d i n g to P h i l o , s h o u l d that i n d i v i d u a l also
b e c o m e a Jew? M o r e o v e r , w h y s h o u l d a J e w w h o is a b l e t o s e e G o d
r e m a i n a Jew?
As we a p p r o a c h t h e s e q u e s t i o n s , let us n o t f o r g e t that w h i l e s e e i n g G o d
m a y b e a m a t t e r o n l y o f spiritual capacity, r e l a t i n g t o G o d as a J e w h a s
b o t h r e l i g i o u s a n d social d i m e n s i o n s . By b e c o m i n g a J e w , t h e p r o s e l y t e
leaves b o t h a n o l d r e l i g i o n a n d a social c o m m u n i t y to a d o p t b o t h a n e w
r e l i g i o n a n d a n e w c o m m u n i t y — t h e o n l y c o m m u n i t y , i n fact, t h a t
b e l i e v e s in a n d w o r s h i p s t h e o n e G o d . W h a t f u r t h e r d i s t i n g u i s h e s this
c o m m u n i t y is that its m e m b e r s serve as t h e p r i e s t h o o d for all h u m a n i t y ,
have b e e n allotted o r have allotted t h e m s e l v e s to G o d , are G o d - b e l o v e d o r
G o d - l o v i n g , a n d b e n e f i t particularly f r o m H i s π ρ ό ν ο ι α , o r p r o t e c t i v e
concern.
T o d a y , p e r h a p s , t h e s e characteristics m a y n o t strike u s as e s p e c i a l l y
c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n s for b e c o m i n g or r e m a i n i n g a J e w . T h i s is p r e d o m i ­
n a n t l y b e c a u s e in o u r t i m e s p e o p l e m a y b e l i e v e in a n d w o r s h i p t h e o n e
G o d w i t h i n a variety o f r e l i g i o u s a n d social c o m m u n i t i e s .
T o arrive at a truly fair a s s e s s m e n t , t h e n , w e m u s t r e m e m b e r first a n d
f o r e m o s t t o view P h i l o ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f J u d a i s m within its p r o p e r histori­
cal c o n t e x t . In P h i l o ' s t i m e , after all, J u d a i s m was t h e o n l y m o n o t h e i s t i c
r e l i g i o n . H e s h o w s n o familiarity w i t h t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f Christianity.
I n s t e a d , h e d e p i c t s his e n v i r o n m e n t as filled w i t h all k i n d s o f i d o l a t e r s ,
polytheists, a n d atheists. H i s c l a i m that t h e J e w s w e r e t h e o n l y n a t i o n t o
b e l i e v e in t h e o n e true G o d was a m e a n i n g f u l o n e i n d e e d , a c l a i m that
surely d i d distinguish t h e m as a p e o p l e apart.
D e s p i t e this o b s e r v a t i o n , h o w e v e r , if P h i l o d o e s allow for a l e g i t i m a t e
r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h G o d o u t s i d e J u d a i s m , t h e n h o w shall w e assess t h e p l a c e
o f J u d a i s m in his t h o u g h t ? Let us recall that t h o u g h P h i l o h i m s e l f d o e s n o t
u s e t h e w o r d "Judaism" ( Ι ο υ δ α ϊ σ μ ό ς ) , it was in u s e d u r i n g his t i m e .
Y e h o s h u a A m i r h a s o b s e r v e d that for Jews o f t h e H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d , this
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 229

t e r m e n c o m p a s s e d b o t h a legal a s p e c t a n d a p h i l o s o p h i c a l o n e . T h e legal
a s p e c t was e x p r e s s e d in t h e G r e e k t e r m s ν ό μ ο ς (law) a n d π ο λ ι τ ε ί α . A m i r
n o t e s that "Judaism d i d n o t consist in any o n e particular law b u t rather in
a s y s t e m o f laws w h i c h m a d e u p a s i n g l e entity. T h a t is w h a t t h e J e w s
t e r m e d with t h e lofty a p p e l l a t i o n π ο λ ι τ ε ί α (politeia), m e a n i n g ' c o n s t i t u t i o n '
7
in g e n e r a l , o r e v e n 'state.'"
T o illustrate t h e s e c o n d a s p e c t o f J u d a i s m , t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l o n e , A m i r
focuses u p o n Philo. H e comments,

Philo's attempt to interpret the T o r a h o f Moses as a p h i l o s o p h i c a l system w h i c h

fulfills a n d c o m p l e m e n t s all the true discoveries o f Greek p h i l o s o p h y is b u t the
c r o w n i n g a c h i e v e m e n t o f the p r o l o n g e d effort o f the Hellenistic Jews to p r e s e n t
the Jewish tradition in intellectual terms borrowed from Greece, as a theoretical
8
system which provided ultimate answers to ultimate q u e s t i o n s .

T o b e sure, P h i l o ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f J u d a i s m as a k i n d o f p h i l o s o p h y m a y
well deserve to be called the "crowning achievement" of Hellenistic
J e w i s h efforts. It is clear f r o m his works, h o w e v e r , that for h i m , b e i n g a
J e w is n o t o n l y a m a t t e r o f b e l i e v i n g in a c e r t a i n p h i l o s o p h y , it a l s o
involves a way o f life e m b o d i e d by a very particular c o m m u n i t y . T o h i m ,
t h e J e w i s h π ο λ ι τ ε ί α refers b o t h t o t h e laws o f this c o m m u n i t y a n d t o t h e
c o m m u n i t y itself.
In a s s e s s i n g t h e p l a c e o f J u d a i s m in P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t , t h e n , w e c a n
c o n c l u d e t h a t as a p h i l o s o p h y , "Judaism" r e p r e s e n t s o n e a p p r o a c h —
i n d e e d p r o b a b l y t h e b e s t a p p r o a c h — t o b e l i e f in t h e o n e G o d . W i t h o u t a
d o u b t , b e l i e f in G o d is s u p r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t in all P h i l o ' s w r i t i n g s .
J u d a i s m , h o w e v e r , is n o t t h e o n l y p a t h to this b e l i e f for, as h e n o t e s , "the
d i s c i p l e s o f t h e m o s t e x c e l l e n t p h i l o s o p h y " also g a i n k n o w l e d g e o f "the
h i g h e s t , t h e m o s t a n c i e n t Cause o f all things" (Virt. 6 5 ) .
P h i l o ' s o w n c o m m i t m e n t to b e i n g a J e w — s o a p p a r e n t f r o m his w o r k s
a n d t h e little w e k n o w o f his l i f e — t h u s c a n n o t b e fully e x p l a i n e d by h i s
t h o u g h t . I n s t e a d , his c o m m i t m e n t s e e m s r o o t e d in his e x i s t e n c e , i n h i s
i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y a n d its way o f life. B e c a u s e h e
b e l i e v e s that o n e n e e d n o t b e a J e w to embark u p o n t h e p a t h to G o d , P h i l o
is p o t e n t i a l l y universalist in h i s t h o u g h t , as w e h a v e s e e n . In h i s life,
h o w e v e r , h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a n d c o n c e r n for t h e p o l i t i c a l a n d s o c i a l
c o m m u n i t y o f t h e J e w s are unmistakably particular.
In his Introduction to Philo Judaeus, Erwin R. G o o d e n o u g h r e c o m m e n d s
that t h e n e w c o m e r t o P h i l o b e g i n by r e a d i n g his two p o l i t i c a l treatises,
Flacc. a n d Legat. As G o o d e n o u g h suggests,

7
Amir, "The T e r m Ι ο υ δ α ϊ σ μ ό ς , " 4 1 .
8
Ibid.
230 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

T h e first treatises o f Philo which o n e should read s e e m to m e to be the two, in the

first o f w h i c h h e d e f e n d s the Jews o f Alexandria for their relations with Flaccus,
a n d in the s e c o n d for their refusing, even to Gaius' face, to accept the e m p e r o r ' s
divinity... N o t o n l y are they Philo's m o s t vividly written treatises, but in t h e m
Philo speaks m o r e in the first person than in any others, a n d the reader o f Philo's
o t h e r works s h o u l d always have in m i n d that they were written by a m a n w h o
9
c o u l d write t h e s e .

It is striking that this s u g g e s t i o n is m a d e by a s c h o l a r w h o p e r h a p s

m o r e t h a n a n y o n e e l s e e m p h a s i z e s t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f w h a t h e calls a
1 0
"distinctly n o n - J e w i s h type o f s a l v a t i o n " in P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t . Good-
e n o u g h ' s s u g g e s t i o n h i g h l i g h t s that P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t m u s t b e s e e n as o n l y
o n e part o f a w h o l e . In P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t , t h e n , o n e m i g h t say that J u d a i s m
as a p h i l o s o p h y h o l d s t h e f o r e m o s t p l a c e , t h o u g h n o t t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f
o t h e r p h i l o s o p h i e s w h i c h believe in t h e o n e true G o d .
J u d a i s m , h o w e v e r , is m o r e t h a n a p h i l o s o p h y , a n d b e i n g a J e w e n c o m ­
passes m o r e t h a n a d h e r e n c e to Jewish beliefs a n d practices. C o m m i t m e n t
t o t h e J e w i s h π ο λ ι τ ε ί α is clearly i m p o r t a n t . Even to P h i l o , w h o r e p r e s e n t s
"the c r o w n i n g a c h i e v e m e n t " o f t h e a t t e m p t t o d e p i c t J u d a i s m as a
p h i l o s o p h y , b e i n g a J e w involves n o t o n l y b e l i e f in b u t also w o r s h i p o f
G o d t h r o u g h specific laws a n d c u s t o m s . M o r e o v e r , t h e J e w i s h π ο λ ι τ ε ί α
signifies n o t j u s t t h e s e laws a n d c u s t o m s b u t also t h e b o d y politic o f Jews,
t o w h o m h e was so d e v o t e d .
T h e p l a c e o f J u d a i s m , t h e n , c a n n o t b e m e a s u r e d in P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t
a l o n e . F o r a c o m p l e t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g , o n e m u s t also c o n s i d e r his life.

9
G o o d e n o u g h , Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 3 0 - 3 1 .
1 0
G o o d e n o u g h , By Light, Light, 254.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Bibliography consists of all works cited in this book. Texts, translations, and
indices of Philo's works are listed separately. Primary sources other than Philo's
works are listed only when a specific edition has been mentioned.

Texts, Translations, and Indices

of Philo's Works
Arnaldez, Roger, Claude Mondesert, and Jean Pouilloux, eds. Les oeuvres de Philon
dAlexandrie. 36 vols. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1961-92. Individual volumes
cited in the book are listed in this section under the name of the editor of
each volume.
Berkowitz, Luci and Karl A. Squitier, with technical assistance from William A.
Johnson. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works. 2nd ed.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Compact disc accessible o n
IBYCUS personal computer.
Biblia Patristica: Supplement, Philon dAlexandrie. Paris: Editions du Centre National
de la Recherche Scientifique, 1982.
Box, Herbert, ed. Philonis Alexandrini: In Flaccum. London: Oxford University Press,
1939.
Cohn, Leopold, Paul Wendland, Siegfried Reiter, and Hans Leisegang, eds.
Philonis Alexandrini: Opera Quae Supersunt. 7 vols. Berlin: Reimer, 1 8 9 6 - 1 9 3 0 ;
repr., Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962-63.
Colson, F. H., G. H. Whitaker, and Ralph Marcus, trans. Philo in Ten Volumes
(and Two Supplementary Volumes). T h e Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1929-62.
Daniel, Suzanne, ed. and trans. De Specialibus Legibus I-II. Vol. 24 of Les oeuvres de
Philon dAlexandrie. 1978. See Arnaldez, Roger et al., eds.
Kahn, Jean-George, ed. and trans. De Confusione Linguarum. Vol. 13 of Les oeuvres de
Philon dAlexandrie. 1963. See Arnaldez, Roger et al., eds.
Lewy, Hans, ed. "Philo: Selections." In Three Jewish Philosophers, 7-112. N e w
York: Harper & Row, 1965.
Mayer, Gunter. Index Philoneus. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974.
Petit, Frangoise, ed. (Quaestiones in Genesim et inExodum: Fragmenta Graeca. Vol. 33 of
Les oeuvres de Philon dAlexandrie. 1978. See Arnaldez, Roger et al., eds.
Smallwood, E. Mary, ed. and trans. Philonis Alexandrini: Legatio ad Gaium. 2nd ed.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970.
Winston, David, ed. Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, The Giants, and Selec­
tions, with a Preface by J o h n Dillon. The Classics of Western Spirituality.
New York: Paulist Press, 1981.

Other Works Cited

Allen, W. C. "On the Meaning of προσήλυτος in the Septuagint." The Expositor 4
(10) (1894): 264-75.
Amir, Yehoshua. "Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of
Philo." Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in
Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, e d . Martin Jay Mulder, 4 2 1 - 5 3 .
232 BIBLIOGRAPHY

C o m p e n d i a Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, sec. 2, vol. 1.

Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1988.
. "Explanation of Hebrew Names in Philo." TarbitzSl (1962): 297 (Hebrew).
. Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bet Philon von Alexandrien. Forschungen
zum judisch-christlichen Dialog, e d . Yehuda Aschkenasy a n d Heinz
Kremers, n o . 5. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983.
. "Mose als Verfasser der Tora bei Philon." S e e Amir, Yehoshua. Die
hellenistische Gestalt, 77-105.
. "Philo and the Bible." StudiaPhilonica2 (1973): 1-8.
. "Philon u n d die judische Wirklichkeit seiner Zeit." See Amir, Yehoshua.
Die hellenistische Gestalt, 3 - 5 1 .
. "The Term Ιουδαϊσμός : A Study in Jewish-Hellenistic Self-Identification."
Immanuel 14 (1982): 34-41.
. "Die U m f o r m u n g des ευδαίμων in den θεοφιλής bei Philon. S e e Amir,
Yehoshua. Die hellenistische Gestalt, 207-19.
Armstrong, A. Hilary. "Gotteschau (Visio beatifica)." In vol. 12 of Reallexicon fur
Antike und Christentum: Sachworterbuch zur Auseinandersetzung des Christentums mit
der antiken Welt, ed. Theodor Klauser, 1-19. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1983.
Attridge, Harold W. The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae
of Flavius Josephus. Harvard Theological Review; Harvard Dissertations in
Religion, ed. Caroline Bynum and George Rupp, n o . 7. Missoula, Montana:
Scholars Press, 1976.
Bailey, J o n Nelson. "Metanoia in the Writings of Philo Judaeus." In Society of
Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers, 135-41. Society of Biblical Literature
Seminar Paper Series, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, Jr., n o . 30. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1991.
Baltzer, Klaus. The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian
Writings, trans. David E. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.
Bamberger, Bernard J. Proselytism in the Talmudic Period. Cincinnati: Hebrew
Union College Press, 1939.
Behm, Johannes, "προνοέω, πρόνοια." In vol. 4 of Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, 1009-17.
B e h m , J o h a n n e s and Ernst Wurthwein. "μετανοέω, μ ε τ ά ν ο ι α . " In vol. 4 o f
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 975-1008.
Belkin, Samuel. "Interpretation of N a m e s in Philo." Horeb 12 (1956): 3-61
(Hebrew).
. Philo and the Oral Law: The Philonic Interpretation of Biblical Law in Refation to the
Palestinian Halakah. Harvard Semitic Series, vol. 11. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1940.
Bethge, Hans-Gebhard, a n d Bentley Layton, trans. O n the Origin o f the
World." In The NagHammadi Library, 3rd ed., ed. James M. Robinson, 170-89.
San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
Bloch, Renee. "Israelite, juif, hebreu." Cahiers Sioniens5 (1951): 11-31, 258-80.
Borgen, Peder. "Aristobulus and Philo." See Borgen, Peder. Philo, John and Paul,
7-16.
. Bread From Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of
fohn and the Writings of Philo. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 10.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965.
. Paul Preaches Circumcision and Pleases Men and Other Essays on Christian Origins.
Relieff, no. 8. Trondheim: Tapir, 1983.
. Philo, John and Paul: New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity. Brown
Judaic Studies, ed. Jacob Neusner, no. 131. Adanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 233

. "Philo of Alexandria." In Jewish Wntings of the Second Temple Period: Apocry­

pha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael E.
Stone, 233-82. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, sec.
2, vol. 2. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
. "Philo of Alexandria: A Critical and Synthetical Survey of Research since
World War II." In Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt: Geschichte und
Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Pt. 2, vol. 21, sec. 1: Religion
(Hellenistisches Judentum in romischer Zeit: Philon und Josephus), ed. Wolfgang
Haase, 98-154. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984.
. "'There Shall Come Forth a Man': Reflections o n Messianic Ideas in Philo."
In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H.
Charlesworth, 341-61. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Boyarin, Daniel. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington, Indiana:
Indiana University Press, 1990.
Brehier, Emile. Les idees philosophiques et religieuses de Philon dAlexandrie. 2nd ed.
Etudes de Philosophie Medievale, ed. Etienne Gilson, n o . 8. Paris: J. Vrin,
1925.
Buffi ere, Felix. Les mythes d'Homere et la pensee grecque. Paris: Societe d'Edition "Les
Belles Lettres," 1956.
Burkert, Walter. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.
Casanowicz, Immanuel M. Paronomasia in the Old Testament. Jerusalem: Makor,
1970; reprint of 1892 dissertation.
Cave, C. H. "Gentiles and Judaism: 'God-Fearers' and Proselytes." In vol. 3, pt. 1 of
Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. and
ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman, 150-76. Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1986.
Chadwick, Henry. "Philo." In The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early
Medieval Philosophy, e d . A. Hilary Armstrong, 1 3 7 - 5 7 . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1970.
Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday, 1985.
Cohen, Naomi G. Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse. Beitrage zur Erforschung
des Alten Testaments u n d des antiken Judentums, ed. Matthias Augustin
and Michael Mach, vol. 24. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. "Conversion to Judaism in Historical Perspective: From Bib­
lical Israel to Postbiblical Judaism." Conservative Judaism 36 (1983): 31-45.
. "Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew." Harvard Theological Review
82 (1989): 13-33.
. "The Polemical Uses of Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ς and Ί ο υ δ α ι ζ ε ι ν in Early Christian
Writings." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical
Literature, Kansas City, November 1991.
Collins, John J. "A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First
Century." In "To See Ourselves As Others See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" in
Late Antiquity, 163-86. Scholars Press Studies in the Humanities, ed. Jacob
Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1985.
Dahl, Nils A. Das Volk Gottes. Fine Untersuchung zum Kirchenbewusstsein des
Urchristentums. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1941.
Dalbert, Peter. Die Theologie der hellenistisch-judischen Missions-Literatur unter Aus-
schluss von Philo und Josephus. Theologische Forschung, n o . 4. Hamburg:
Herbert Reich Evangelischen Verlag, 1954.
Danell, G. A. Studies in the Name Israel in the Old Testament. Uppsala: Appelbergs
boktrychkeri-A.-B., 1946.
234 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Daniel, Suzanne. "La Halacha d e Philon selon le premier livre d e s 'Lois

Speciales.'" In Philon d'Alexandrie, 221-40. Colloques Nationaux du Centre
National d e la R e c h e r c h e Scientifique. Paris: Centre National d e la
Recherche Scientifique, 1967.
Darnell, D. R. and D. A. Fiensy. "Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers." In vol. 2 of Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, 671-97. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday, 1985.
Dawson, David. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.
Deissmann, Adolf. "Papyrus O n o m a s t i c o n Sacrum." Chapter in vol. 1 o f
Veroffentlichungen aus der Heidelberger Papyrus-Sammlung, 8 6 - 9 3 . Heidelberg:
Carl Winter, 1905. Papyrology o n Microfiche, ser. 2, vol. 3 1 . Missoula,
Montana: Scholars Press, n.d.
Delling, Gerhard. "The O n e Who Sees God' in Philo." In Nourished With Peace:
Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, ed. Frederick E.
Greenspahn, Earle Hilgert, and Burton L. Mack, 2 8 - 4 1 . Scholars Press
Homage Series. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1984.
Dexinger, Ferdinand. "Ein 'messianisches Szenarium' als G e m e i n g u t des
Judenturns in nachherodianischer Zeit?" Kairos 17 (1975): 249-78.
Dillon, John. The Middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1977.
. "A Response to Runia and Sterling." The Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993):
151-55.
. "Self-Definition in Later Platonism." In fewish and Christian Self-Definition.
Vol. 3: Self-Definition in the Greco-Roman World, ed. Ben F. Meyer and E. P.
Sanders, 60-75. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.
. The Transcendence of God in Philo: Some Possible Sources. Protocol of the
Colloquy of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern
Culture, ed. Wilhelm Wuellner, no. 16. Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical
Studies, 1975.
D o d d , Charles Harold. "Hellenism and Christianity." Harvard Divinity School
Bulletin (1937): 24-44.
D r u m m o n d , James. Philo Judaeus; or, The Jewish Alexandrian Philosophy in Its
Development and Completion. 2 vols. London: Williams and Norgate, 1888.
Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker. 2 vols. T h e Old
Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961.
Empson, William. Seven Types of Ambiguity. 3rd ed. New York: N e w Directions,
n.d.
Feldman, Louis H.Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions From
Alexander to Justinian. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
. "Proselytes and 'Sympathizers' in the Light of the New Inscriptions From
Aphrodisias." Revue des etudes juives 148 (1989): 265-305.
Fiensy, David A. Prayers Alleged To Be Jewish: An Examination of the Constitutiones
Apostolorum. Brown Judaic Studies, ed. Jacob Neusner, n o . 65. Chico,
California: Scholars Press, 1985.
Foerster, Werner, "προσκληρόω." In vol. 3 of Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, 765-66.
Fraser, P. M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972; repr.,
1984.
Friedmann, Meir, ed. Seder Eliahu Rabbah and Seder Eliahu Zuta. Vienna: n.p., 1902.
Georgi, Dieter. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1986.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 235

Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1909-38.
G o o d e n o u g h , Erwin R. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1935.
——. An Introduction to Philo Judaeus. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962. Reprinted by
Brown Classics in Judaica, e d . Jacob N e u s n e r . Lanham, Maryland:
University Press of America, 1986.
. "Philo's Exposition of the Law and His D e Vita Mosis." Harvard Theological
Review^ (1933): 109-25.
. The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and Theory. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1938.
. "Problems of Method in Studying Philo Judaeus." Journal of Biblical Literature
58 (1939): 51-58.
Goulet, Richard. La philosophie de Moi'se: essai de reconstitution d'un commentaire
philosophique prephilonien du Pentateuque. Histoire des doctrines de l'antiquite
classique, no. 11. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1987.
Grabbe, Lester L. Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo.
Brown Judaic Studies, ed. Jacob Neusner, no. 115. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
Guerra, Anthony J. "The O n e God Topos in Spec. Leg. 1.52." In Society of Biblical
Literature 1990 Seminar Papers, 148-57. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar
Paper Series, ed. David J. Lull, no. 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.
Gunkel, H e r m a n n . The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History, trans. W.
H. Carruth. N.p., 1901; repr., New York: Schocken Books, 1964.
Gutbrod, Walter. "Ιουδαίος, Ισραήλ, Εβραίος in Greek Hellenistic Literature." In
vol. 3 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 369-75.
Hagner, Donald A. "The Vision of God in Philo and John: A Comparative
Study. "Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 14 (1971): 81-93.
Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G. "Sources and Traditions in Philo Judaeus: Prolegom­
ena to an Analysis of His Writings." Studia Philonica 1 (1972): 3-26.
H a n s o n , Anthony T. "Philo's Etymologies." Journal of Theological Studies 18
(1967): 128-39.
Hay, David M. "Philo's References to Other Allegorists." Studia Philonica 6 ( 1 9 7 9 -
80): 41-75.
. "References to Other Exegetes in Philo's Quaestiones." See Hay, David M., ed.
Both Literal and Allegorical, 81-97.
, ed. Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria's Questions and
Answers o n Genesis and Exodus. Brown Judaic Studies, ed. Ernest S.
Frerichs., n o . 232. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.
Hecht, Richard D. "Philo and Messiah." In Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn
of the Christian Era, ed. Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, and Ernest S.
Frerichs, 139-68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
H e i n e m a n n , Isaak. Philons griechische und judische Bildung: Kulturvergleichende
Untersuchungen zu Philons Darstellung der judischen Gesetze. Breslau: Marcus,
1932; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1962.
. Ways of the Aggadah. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1954 (Hebrew).
Hilgert, Earle. "The Quaestiones: Texts and Translations." See Hay, David M., ed.
Both Literal and Allegorical, 1-15.
Hillers, Delbert R. Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea. Seminars in the History
of Ideas. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1969.
Holladay, Carl A. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Vol 3: Aristobulus.
SBL Texts and Translations 39; Pseudepigrapha Series 13, e d . Martha
Himmelfarb. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.
236 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jaubert, Annie. La notion d'Alliance dans le judaisme aux abords de I'ere chretienne.
Patristica Sorbonensia, no. 6. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1963.
Jonas, Hans. Gnosis und Spatantiker Geist. Pt. 2 / 1 : Von der Mythologie zur mystischen
Philosophie. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten u n d N e u e n
Testaments, no. 63 (n.s. 45). Gottingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht, 1954.
Kahn, Jean-George. "Did Philo Know Hebrew?" Tarbitz 34 (1965): 3 3 7 - 4 5
(Hebrew).
. "Israel-Videns Deum." Tarbitz43 (1971): 285-92 (Hebrew).
Kasher, Aryeh. "The Term Politeia in Philo and Josephus." Appendix in The Jews
in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights, 358-64. Texte u n d
Studien zum Antiken Judentum, ed. Martin H e n g e l and Peter Schafer.
Tubingen: J. G. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1985.
Kasher, M e n a h e m M. Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation: A Millennial Anthology,
translated under Harry Freedman, ed. 9 vols. New York: American Biblical
Encyclopedia Society, 1953-79.
Kaufmann, Yehezkel. History of the Religion of Israel. Vol. 4: From the Babylonian
Captivity to the End of Prophecy, trans. C. W. Efroymson. N e w York: Ktav,
1977.
Kirk, Kenneth E. The Vision of God: The Christian Doctrine of the Summum Bonum.
New York: Harper & Row, 1931.
Kittel, Gerhard. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans, and ed., Geoffrey
W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1964-76.
Knox, Wilfred Lawrence. "Abraham and the Quest for God." Harvard Theological
Review 28 (1935): 55-61.
Kugel, James. "Two Introductions to Midrash." Prooftexts 3 (1983): 131-55.
Kuhn, Karl Georg. "Ισραήλ, Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ς , Ε β ρ α ί ο ς in Jewish Literature after the
OT." In vol. 3 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 3 5 9 - 6 9 .
. "προσήλυτος." In vol. 6 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 727-44.
Lactantius. De Mortibus Persecutorum, ed. J. L. Creed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1984.
Lamberton, Robert and J o h n J. Keaney, eds. Homer's Ancient Readers: The
Hermeneutics of Greek Epics Earliest Exegetes. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1992.
Lampe, Geoffrey William H u g o . A Patnstic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1961.
Lease, G. "Jewish Mystery Cults Since Goodenough." In Aufstieg und Niedergang
der romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Pt
2, vol. 20, sec. 2: Religion (Hellenistisches Judentum in romischer Zeit: Allgemeines),
ed. Wolfgang Haase, 858-80. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987.
Leisegang, Hans. Der heilige Geist: Das wesen und werden der mystisch-intuitiven
Erkenntnis in der Philosophie und Religion der Griechen. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner,
1919.
Levenson, J o n D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. New Voices in
Biblical Studies, ed. Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins. San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1985.
. The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism. Jewish Perspectives. N e w York:
American Jewish Committee, 1985.
Levine, Baruch A. "First Fruits." In vol. 6 of Encyclopedia Judaica, 1312-16.
. "Firstborn." In vol. 6 of Encyclopedia Judaica, 1306-12.
Lewy, Hans. Sobria Ebrietas: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der antiken Mystik. Bei-
hefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft u n d die Kunde
der alteren Kirche, no. 9. Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1929.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 237

Lieberman, Saul. Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in Life and Manners of Jewish
Palestine in the II-IV Centuries C.E. New York: Feldheim, 1965.
L o n g , A. A. Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. 2nd ed. London:
Duckworth, 1986.
Louth, Andrew. The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition From Plato to Denys.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.
Lubarsky, Sandra B. Tolerance and Transformation: Jewish Approaches to Religious
Pluralism. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1990.
Mack, Burton L. "Exegetical Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism: A Program for
the Analysis of the Philonic Corpus." Studia Philonica 3 (1974-75): 71-112.
. "Imitatio Mosis: Patterns of Cosmology and Soteriology in the Hellenistic
Synagogue." Studia Philonica 1 (1972): 27-55.
. Logos und Sophia: Untersuchungen zur Weisheittheofogie im heUenistischen Judentum.
Studien zur Umwelt des N e u e n Testaments, ed. Karl Georg Kuhn, vol. 10.
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973.
. "Philo Judaeus and Exegetical Traditions in Alexandria." In Aufstiegund
Niedergang der romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren
Forschung. Pt. 2, vol. 21, sec. 1: Religion (Hellenistisches Judentum in romischer Zeit:
Philon und Josephus), ed. Wolfgang Haase, 227-71. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984.
. "Weisheit u n d Allegorie bei Philo von Alexandrien: Untersuchungen zur
Traktat De Congressu eruditionis." Studia Philonica 5 (1978): 57-105.
Mantel, H u g o D. "Did Philo Know Hebrew?" TarbitzS2 (1962): 98-99 (Hebrew).
Martin-Achard, Robert. A Light to the Nations: A Study of the Old Testament Conception
of Israels Mission to the World, trans. John Penney Smith. Edinburgh: Oliver
and Boyd, 1962.
Massebieau, M. L. "Le classement des oeuvres de Philon." Bibliotheque de PEcole
des Hautes Etudes: Sciences religieuses 1 (1889): 1-91.
Mauch, Τ. M. "Sojourner." In vol. 4 of Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, 397-99.
McCarthy, D e n n i s J. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental
Documents and in the Old Testament. 2 n d ed. Analecta Biblica, 2 1 . Rome:
Biblical Institute, 1978.
McEleney, N . J . "Conversion, Circumcision, and the Law." New Testament Studies
20 (1974): 319-41.
McKnight, Scot. A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second
Temple Period. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Meek, T h e o p h i l e James. "The Translation of Ger in the Hexateuch a n d Its
Bearing o n the Documentary Hypothesis." Journal of Biblical Literature 49
(1930): 172-80.
Meeks, Wayne A. "The Divine Agent and His Counterfeit in Philo and the
Fourth Gospel." In Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early
Christianity, ed. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, 43-67. Notre Dame: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1976.
Mendelson, Alan. PhiWs Jewish Identity. Brown Judaic Studies, ed. Jacob Neusner,
no. 161. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
. Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria. Monographs of the Hebrew Union
College, no. 7. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1982.
M e n d e n h a l l , G e o r g e E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East.
Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955.
Michaelis, W i l h e l m . "δράω." In vol. 5 of Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, 315-67.
Michel, Alain. "La metanoia chez Philon d'Alexandrie: D e Platon au J u d e o -
Christianisme e n passant par Ciceron." Augustinus 32 (1987): 105-20.
238 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Miles, J o h n Α., Jr. "Radical Editing, Redaktionsgeschichte and the Aesthetic of

Willed Confusion." In Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical
Faith, ed. Baruch Halpern and J o n D. Levenson, 9 - 3 1 . W i n o n a Lake,
Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1981.
Moore, George Foote. Judaism in the First Centunes of the Christian Era: The Age of the
Tannaim. 2 vols. New York: Schocken Books, 1958.
Morris, Jenny. "The Jewish Philosopher Philo." In vol. 3, pt. 2 of Emil Schurer,
The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), rev.
and e d . Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin G o o d m a n , 8 0 9 - 8 9 .
Edinburgh: Τ. & T. Clark, 1987.
Myre, Andre. "La loi de la nature et la loi mosa'ique selon Philon d'Alexandrie."
Science et Esprit 28 (1976): 163-81.
N e u m a r k , H e r m a n n . Die Verwendung griechischer und judischer Motive in den
Gedanken Philons iiber die Stellung Gottes zu seinen Freunden. Dissertation,
Wurzburg, 1937.
Neusner, Jacob. "Israel: Judaism and Its Social Metaphors." Journal of the American
Academy of Religion 50 (1978): 331-61.
.Judaism and Its Social Metaphors: Israel in the History of Jewish Thought.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Nicholson, Ernest Wilson. Deuteronomy and Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1967.
Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. "Breve note sur le Commentaire Allegorique et Γ Exposition
de la Loi chez Philon d'Alexandrie." In Melanges bibliques et orientaux en
Vhonneur de M. Mathias Delcor, ed. Andre Caquot, S. Legasse, and M. Tardieu,
321-29. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1985.
. Le commentaire de VEcriture chez Philon dAlexandrie: Son caractere et sa portee;
Observations philologiques. Arbeiten zur Literatur u n d G e s c h i c h t e des
hellenistischen Judentums, ed. Κ. H. Rengstorf, no. 11. Leiden: E . J . Brill,
1977.
Nock, Arthur Darby. Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the
Great to Augustine of Hippo. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933.
Nolland, J. "Uncircumcised Proselytes?" Journal for the Study ofJudaism 12 (1981):
173-94.
Orlinsky, Harry M. "Nationalism-Universalism a n d Internationalism in
A n c i e n t Israel." In Translating & Understanding the Old Testament: Essays in
Honor of Herbert Gordon May, ed. Harry Thomas Frank and William L. Reed,
206-36. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970.
Pascher, Joseph, ή βασιλική οδός : Der Konigsweg zu Wiedergeburt und Vergottung bei
Philon von Alexandreia. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alterums, vol.
17, nos. 3-4. Paderborn: Schoningh, 1931; repr., [1968].
Pepin, Jean. My the et allegorie: Us origines grecques et les contestations judeo-chretiennes.
Rev. ed. Paris: Etudes augustiniennes, 1976.
Petit, Madeleine. "Exploitations non-bibliques des themes de Tamar et de Genese
38: Philon d'Alexandrie, textes et traditions juives jusqu'aux Talmudim." In
Alexandrina: Hellenisms, judai'sme et christianisme a Alexandrie, Melanges offerts au
P. Claude Mondesert, S.J, 77-115. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1987.
"Philo and Middle Platonism." In a Special Section of The Studia Philonica Annual
5 (1993): 95-155.
Rabbe, Paul R. "Deliberate Ambiguity in the Psalter." Journal of Biblical Literature
110 (1991): 213-27.
Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes,
8th ed. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1965, ©1935.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 239

Rainey, Anson F. "Hebrews." In Harpers Bible Dictionary, ed. Paul J. Achtemeier,

378-80. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.
Rokeah, David. "A New Onomasticon Fragment from Oxyrhynchus and Philo's
Etymologies." Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968): 70-82.
Rosenbloom, Joseph R. Conversion to Judaism: From the Biblical Period to the Present.
Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1978.
Rowley, Harold Henry. The Biblical Doctrine of Election. London: Lutterworth
Press, 1952.
Runia, David T. Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on Philo of Alexandria. Variorum
Collected Studies. Hampshire, Great Britain: Variorum, 1990.
. "How to Read Philo." Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 40 (1986): 185-98. See
also Runia, David T. Exegesis and Philosophy, Study II.
. "How to Search Philo." The Studia Philonica Annual 2 (1990): 106-39.
. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Philosophia Antiqua, ed. W. J.
Verdenius and J. C. M. van Winden, vol. 44. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986.
. Review of La philosophie de Moise, by Richard Goulet. In Journal of Theological
Studies 40 (1989): 588-602. See also Runia, David T. Exegesis and Philosophy,
Study VII.
. "Underneath Cohn and Colson: T h e Text of Philo's De Virtutibus." In Society
of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers, 116-34. Society of Biblical Literature
Seminar Paper Series, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, Jr., no. 30. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1991.
. "Was Philo a Middle Platonist? a Difficult Question Revisited." The Studia
Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 112-40.
M
Sacchse, E. "Die Etymologie u n d alteste Aussprache d e s N a m e n s *?mBP.
Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschafi 34 (1914): 1-15.
Sanders, E. P. "The Covenant as a Soteriological Category and the Nature of
Salvation in Palestinian a n d Hellenistic Judaism." In Jews, Greeks and
Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity, ed. Robert Hamerton-Kelly and
Robin Scroggs, 11-44. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976.
Sandmel, Samuel. Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. N e w York: Oxford
University Press, 1979.
. "Philo's Knowledge of Hebrew." Studia Philonica 5 (1978): 107-11.
. Philo's Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature.
Augmented ed. New York: Ktav, 1971.
Schmidt, K. L. and Μ. Α. "πάροικος, παροικία, παροικέω." In vol. 5 of Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, 841-53.
Schurer, Emil. T h e history of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ (175
B.C.-A.D. 135). A New English Version, rev. and ed., Geza Vermes, Fergus
Millar, and Martin Goodman. 3 vols, in 4. Edinburgh: Τ. & T. Clark, 1 9 7 3 -
87.
Segal, Alan F. "The Costs of Proselytism and Conversion." In Society of Biblical
Literature 1988 Seminar Papers, 336-69. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar
Paper Series, ed. David J. Lull, no. 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
. "Covenant in Rabbinic Writings." Chapter in The Other Judaisms of Late
Antiquity, 148-65. Brown Judaic Studies, ed. Jacob Neusner, no. 127. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1987.
. "Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity, a n d their
Environment." In Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt: Geschichte und
Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Pt. 2, vol. 23 sec. 2: Religion
(Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Verhaltnis zu romischem Staat und heidnischer
Religion [Forts.]), ed. Wolfgang Haase, 1333-94. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980.
240 BIBLIOGRAPHY

. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. N e w Haven:
Yale University Press, 1990.
. Rebeccas Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1986.
Shroyer, Montgomery J. "Alexandrian Jewish Literalists." Journal of Biblical
Literaturebb (1936): 261-84.
Siegfried, Carl. Philo von Alexandria ah Ausleger des alten Testaments: an sich selbst
und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss betrachtet.Jena: Hermann Dufft, 1875.
Smith, Jonathan Z. "Prayer of Joseph." In vol. 2 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
ed. James H. Charlesworth, 6 9 9 - 7 1 4 . Garden City, N e w York: Doubleday,
1985.
. "The Prayer of Joseph." In Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin
Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. Jacob Neusner, 253-94. Studies in the History of
Religions (Supplements to Numen), no. 14. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968.
Smith, R. Payne, ed. Thesaurus Syriacus, 1:163. Cited by E. Mary Smallwood, ed.
and trans. Philonis Alexandrini: Legatio ad Gaium, 153-54. See in this
Bibliography under Texts, Translations, and Indices of Philo's Works.
S o h n , Seock-Tae. The Divine Election of Israel. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Eerdmans, 1991.
Speiser, Ephraim Α., ed. Genesis. Vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell
Albright and David N o e l Freedman. Garden City, N e w York: Doubleday,
1964.
Stanford, William B. Ambiguity in Greek Literature: Studies in Theory and Practice.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1939; repr., New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation,
1972.
Stein, Edmund. Die allegorische Exegese des Philos aus Alexandreia. Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, n o . 5 1 . Giessen: Alfred
Topelmann, 1929.
. "Zur apokryphen Schrift 'Gebet Josephs.'" Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und
Wissenschaft des Judentums 81 (1937): 280-86.
Sterling, Gregory E. "Philo's (Quaestiones'. Prolegomena or Afterthought?" See
Hay, David M , ed. Both Literal and Allegorical, 99-123.
. "Platonizing Moses: Philo and Middle Platonism." The Studia Philonica
Annual 5 (1993): 96-111.
Stern, David. "Midrash and Indeterminancy." Critical Inquiry 15 (1988): 132-61.
Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama
of Reading. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1985.
Strathmann, Hermann, "πόλις, κτλ." In vol. 6 of Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, 516-35.
Strauss, Leo. Persecution and the Art of Writing. New York: Free Press, 1952; repr.,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Tcherikover, Victor. "Jewish Apologetic Literature." Eos 4 8 / 3 (1956): 169-93.
T o b i n , T h o m a s H. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation.
Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, no. 14. Washington D.C.: T h e
Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983.
. "Tradition and Interpretation in Philo's Portrait of the Patriarch Joseph." In
Society of Biblical Literature 1986 Seminar Papers, 2 7 1 - 7 7 . Society of Biblical
Literature Seminar Papers Series, ed. Kent Harold Richards, no. 25. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1986.
. "Was Philo a Middle Platonist? Some suggestions." The Studia Philonica
Annual 5 (1993): 147-50.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 241

Tomson, Peter J. "The Names Israel and Jew in Ancient Judaism and in the
New Testament."Bijdragen 47 (1986): 120-40,266-289.
Urbach, Ephraim E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. Israel Abrahams.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.
. "Self-Isolation or Self-Affirmation in Judaism in the First Three Centuries:
Theory and Practice." In Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Vol. 2: Aspects of
Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period, ed. E. P. Sanders with A. I. Baumgarten a n d
Alan Mendelson, 269-98. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.
V a n d e r l i n d e n , E. "Les divers m o d e s de connaissance de Dieu selon Philon
d'Alexandrie." Melanges de Science Religieuse4 (1947): 285-304.
Volker, Walther. Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien: Fine Studie zur
Geschichte der Frommigkeit. Texte u n d Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
altchrisdichen Literatur 49:1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1938.
von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker. 2 vols. New
York: Harper & Row, 1962 and 1965.
Walter, Nikolaus. Der Thoraausleger Aristobuhs: Untersuchungen zu seinen Fragmenten
und zu pseudepigraphischen Resten der judische-hellenistischen Literatur. Texte u n d
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. 86. Berlin:
Akademie Verlag, 1964.
Wan, Sze-kar. "Philo's (Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim et in Exodum: A Synoptic
Approach." Th.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1992.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1972.
Winston, David. "Freedom and Determinism in Greek Philosophy." Studia
Philonica2 (1973): 40-50.
. 'Judaism and Hellenism: Hidden Tensions in Philo's Thought." The Studia
Philonica Annual 2 (1990): 1-19.
. Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew U n i o n
College Press, 1985.
. "Response to Runia and Sterling." The Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 141—
46.
. "Was Philo a Mystic?" Studies in Jewish Mysticism, ed. Joseph Dan and Frank
Talmage, 15-39. Cambridge: Association for Jewish Studies, 1982.
, ed. The Wisdom of Solomon. Vol. 43 of The Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell
Albright and David Noel Freedman. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979.
Wlosok, Antonie. Laktanzund die philosophische Gnosis: Untersuchungen zu Geschichte
und Terminologie der gnostischen Erlosungsvorstellung. Abhandlung der
Heidelberger A k a d e m i e d e r Wissenschaften, P h i l o s o p h i s c h - h i s t o r i s c h e
Klasse, n o . 2. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitatsverlag, 1960.
Wolfson, Harry A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975; repr., 1982.
Wong, C. K. "Philo's Use of Chaldaioi." The Studia Philonica Annual4 (1992): 1-14.
Zeitlin, S o l o m o n . "The Names Hebrew, Jew and Israel: A Historical Study."
Jewish Quarterly Review 43 (1952-53): 365-79.
 INDICES

Index of Passages

References to passages are listed in two separate indices u n d e r 1) Bible, A p o c r y p h a /

Pseudepigrapha, N e w Testament; and 2) Philonic Works. References to other ancient
sources are i n c l u d e d in the Index o f Subjects under the author or tide.

Bible, Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha, New Testament

Biblical passages shown below are listed as they are discussed in this b o o k a n d may
b e cited from the H e b r e w Bible or the Greek, d e p e n d i n g u p o n the c o n t e x t o f the
d i s c u s s i o n . O c c a s i o n a l l y verse n u m b e r s differ slightly in the H e b r e w a n d Greek.
Biblical b o o k s in this i n d e x follow the order of the Jewish Bible.

BIBLE

Genesis 18:18 167n.20, 180n.59

18:18-19 128n.l
2:8 19n.36
18:19 129n.3
4:3 135, 136
22:15-18 182
11:10 110
22:17 180n.59
12-13 60n.97
22:17-18 128n.l
12:1 202n.28, 203n.29
22:18 129n.3, 167n.20
12:1-3 1 2 8 n . l , 139, 167, 180, 182,
23:4 197n.l3
183n.62
23:6 206
12:2 139
25:8 56
12:3 168n.20, 168n.21, 178, 180,
25:23 56n.90
181
26:2-5 128n.l
12:7 78, 79, 1 2 8 n . l , 182n.61
26:4 167n.20, 168n.23
12:10-20 179,180,183
26:5 129n.3
15:4 87,88
26:24 128n.l
15:5 88n.79, 180n.59
28:13-15 128n.l
15:6 182n.61, 205n.35
28:14 167n.20, 168n.23
15:13-16 128n.l
32 90, 97, 98, 223
15:18 182n.61
32:25-33 74, 78, 79, 96
15:18-21 128n.l
32:29 71
17:1 78, 79, 129n.3
32:31 71, 72, 73
17:1-14 1 2 8 n . l , 182
35:9-12 128n.l
17:2 135n.ll
35:29 56,57
17:4-6 180n.59
46:1 62n.2
17:5 183n.62
49:33 56
17:5-8 182
50:24-25 109
17:8 182n.61
17:9-14 182
Exodus
17:11 125n.47
17:12 155 1:9 50n.69
17:16 128n.l 2:22 197n.l3, 198n.l3
17:17 110 2:23 65
17:19-21 128n.l 3:6 79
18:1-3 86-87,88 3:14 84
18:17-19 182 4:22 171,173,188
 BIBLE, APOCRYPHA/PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, NEW TESTAMENT 243

Exodus (cont'd) 25:29-31 196n.7

26:3-13 129,136
6:2-8 129,136
26:12 130, 1 3 7 n . l 2 , 149
6:7 129, 136, 1 3 7 n . l 2 , 144
26:12-13 136,144
10 48
12:6 169n.26
Numbers
12:17 112-13
12:49 197n.l3 3:11-13 187-88
13:11-13 171n.36 3:12-13 62n.2
18:3 197n.l3 3:13 171n.36
19-24 126n.47, 128, 165, 169 8:17 171n.36
19:3-6 163 21:17 lOln.19
19:5 125n.47, 133, 165, 171 23:7 48-49
19:5-6 129 23:9 71
19:6 1 4 4 n . l 7 , 1 4 5 n . l 8 , 167, 168- 23:21 48-49
69 24:5 48-49
19:21 79 24:17 71
20-23 165 25:1-18 170
20:22 97 31:1-18 170
21:2 48n.63 35:15 197n.l3
22:20 1 9 7 n . l 3 , 200, 200n.21,
201n.22 Deuteronomy
23:9 197n.l3 4:5-7 146-47
23:19 I71n.36
4:6-7 139-42,14649
23:20-33 I78n.55
4:31 163
23:22 133
4:37 173, 188n.7l
24 113, 125-26,153, 159
7:6 133,171
24:4 48n.62
7:6-8 130
24:7 153
7:7-8 139, 142-43,144, 1 6 3 , 1 7 3 ,
24:7-8 125n.47
188n.71
24:9-11 78,79
7:12-16 I78n.55
24:10 48n.62, 78n.53 7:28 I78n.55
24:11 55n.89, 78, 78n.53, 1 3 3 n . l 0 , 8:11-18 145n.l8
154n.27 8:18 188n.71
24:12 114,157 9:5 130, 134-35, 1 3 5 n . l l ,
24:13 114
188n.7l
24:17 55n.89, 124n.43
10:12-13 145
27:21 153
10:12-21 145
33:12-23 78, 79, 84, 84n.68
10:12-14:1 207,208n.39
33:13-23 205n.36
10:15 145-46,163,173
33:20 79,85
10:17-18 186, 1 9 8 n . l 4
33:23 79
10:17-19 1 9 7 n . l 3 , 201n.22, 206-7, 208,
34:19 171n.36
208n.39
34:26 I71n.36
10:18 186n.68
10:19 197n.l3
Leviticus 14:2 133,171
2:14 136 15:12 48n.63
19:2 169 16:16 64
19:33-34 1 9 7 n . l 3 , 201n.22 17:15 170n.28,215
19:34 197n.l3,214 18:1-5 188n.70
20:26 167, 169, 171 23:8-9 204,204n.33
22:18 197n.l3 24:14 197n.l3
23:10 184n.64 26:13 1 9 7 n . l 3 , 201n.22
23:10-14 184 26:16-19 130, 163
24:10-11 103 26:17-18 150-52
24:10-16 103, 1 2 3 , 1 6 1 26:18 133
25:23 1 9 7 n . l 3 , 198, 1 9 8 n . l 3 28:43 201n.22, 201n.23
244 INDEX OF PASSAGES

Deuteronomy (cont'd) Hosea

29:13 188n.7l 9:10 73n.34
30:9-11 150 14:9 71
30:11-14 147,150
30:14 150 Zechariah
32:7-9 138n.l5
2:15 197n.l3
32:8 137n.l3
32:8-9 137,171-72,220
32:9 107, 107n.23, 138 Job
33:2-3 162n.7
34:29 71
1 Samuel
Esther
9:9 93 8:17 194
9:27 197n.l3
Isaiah
14:1 197n.l3 Ezra
42:1-7 167n.l8 6:21 197n.l3
43:20 133
49:6 167n.l8 Nehemiah
56:3 197n.l3
56:6 197n.l3 10:29 197n.l3

Ezekiel 1 Chronicles
16:8 73n.34 29:15 197n.l3

APOCRYPHA/PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

B e n Sira 2 Maccabees
17:17 I72n.38 2:21 3n.2
44:21 168n.22 8:1 3n.2
14:38 3n.2

4 Maccabees
4:26 3n.2

NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew 1 Corinthians

3:7-10 42n.44 10:18 42n.44

Acts Galatians
3:25 168n.22 1:13-14 3n.2
17:4 I70n.32 3:8 168n.22
6:16 39
Romans
2:28-29 42n.44
4:16 42n.44
9:6-8 42n.44
11:17-24 42n.44
 Index of Passages

Philonic Works

Philonic treatises are listed in alphabetical order of their abbreviations. For a list o f
abbreviations, w h i c h also shows the series or category to w h i c h treatises b e l o n g , s e e
p. xvii. References to discussion of whole treatises are included in the I n d e x o f Subjects
u n d e r the treatise abbreviation.

Abr. (De Abrahamo) 95-97 80

146 74-76, 95n.7, 1 0 1 n . l 8
3-5 157n.32
5 157
Congr. (De Congressu Quaerendae
17-26 203
Eruditionis Gratia)
56-59 33, 1 4 5 n . l 8
57 44, 48n.61, 49, 49n.67, 43-53 108
112n.27, 120n.41, 122, 50 108
144n.l7 51 53, 108-9, 121
57-58 79,80 51-52 108
57-59 89n.83 86 63n.5
58 122
60-80 183n.62 Contempt. (De Vita Contemplativa)
69-71 79 11 77n.49, 94, 9 8 n . l 5 , 182n.60
77-80 89n.83 57-64 118n.37
80 80 85-87 59
81-83 183n.62
89-98 179-80 Decal. (De Decalogo)
90 183
95 183 1-49 125n.47
98 162n.7, 166, 172, 173, 179-83, 53-65 167
184 66-76 167
119-23 87n.75, 89n.81, 89n.83, 76-80 167
89n.84
119-30 98n.l5 Det. (Quod Detenus Potion Insidiari Solet)
122 79 67 132
251 46n.50 67-68 132n.7
94 64,65
Cher. (De Cherubim) 158-60 79
108 195n.5, 1 9 7 n . l 3 , 198
Deus (Quod Deus Immutabilis Sit)
119-21 195n.5, 1 9 7 n . l 3 , 198
69 145n.l9
Conf. (De Confusione Linguarum) 121 64
144-45 63n.4
36 64
145 65
56 53, 125n.46, 133, 1 3 3 n . l 0 , 148 50n.67
154n.27
70 52n.78, 54n.85 Ebr. (De Ebrietate)
72 49,66
82 198n.l3 77 64
92 66n.l4 82 63n.3, 66
92-93 63n.4 82-83 79
93 64 94 107n.22
246 INDEX OF PASSAGES

Ebr. (cont'd) 3.39-48 79, 88n.79

3.45 81n.59
99-103 79
3.47 79
109 51
3.85 132n.7
3.100 79
Flacc. (In Flaccum)
3.100-3 80
53 59,215 3.172 102
54 195n.5, 198, 1 9 9 n . l 9 3.186 94n.6, 1 0 1 n . l 8
170 174,177 3.214 63n.5
191 174,177
Legat. (De Legatione ad Gaium)
Fug. (De Fuga et Inventione) 1-7 2 0 , 3 3 , 105-7, 116, 118, 179,
56 107n.22 189-91
141 80 3 106, 106n.22, 166, 169, 170,
208 63n.3 170n.27, 174, 176, 177,
211n.42
Gig. (De Gigantibus) 4 44, 60, 103, 105-6, 107-8, 120-
21, 120n.41, 126, 1 6 3 n . l l
59 51
4-6 77
5 83,106
Her. (Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit)
115 165
63 87 115-18 167n.l7
68-74 79 178 59, 107n.22, 211
68-85 87-88,89 194 59,215
69-70 79 196 177
70 88n.77 201 59, 107n.22
73-74 88n.78 211 204
75-78 88n.79 346 59, 107n.22
78 88, 181n.60
124 63n.5 Migr. (De Migratione Abrahami)
167-73 125n.47
16 109-10
169 51
17 110
203 50n.68, 54, 6 1 , 64, 65
18 1 0 1 n . l 8 , 109-10, 121
259-60 181
20 46n.50, 53n.79
263-65 79
21 145n.l9
279 49n.67
46 116
313 132n.7
53 139
53-61 1 3 4 , 1 3 9 , 143
Hypoth. (Hypothetica [Apologia pro
54 50n.69, 102
Iudaeis])
56-58 139-42,143
6.1 60, 161 56-59 146,148
6.1-9 59 57-59 143
6.2 161 59 141
6.7 172, 1 7 2 n . 4 0 , 1 7 3 59-60 143
7.1-20 59 59-61 139,142-43
60 144
Ios. (De Iosepho) 61-63 143
89-93 44n.46, 161n.2
1 19n.39
92 125n.47
56 52n.78
93 147n.20
113 63n.3
Leg. (Legum Allegonae 1-3) 114 53
1.43 19n.36 118-26 168n.21
1.90 138 121 168n.21
3.11 64 124 107n.22
3.15 64 125 53
 PHILONIC WORKS 247

Migr. (cont'd) 189 110-11

141 46n.50 253-63 31,32
158 53 258 32
168-69 63n.5 263 32, 132n.7
265-66 137n.l2
Mos. (De Vita Mosis 1-2)
Opif. (De Opificio Mundi)
1.1 18n.35
1.5 59 1-3 157n.32
1.7 195n.5, 1 9 8 n . l 7 , 1 9 9 n . l 8 , 8-9 176
200n.20, 201 69-71 98n.l5
1.34 45n.49, 161 70-71 79
1.34-36 107n.22 170-72 162n.9
1.66 89n.83
1.147 172, 173, I74n.43, 195n.5, Plant. (De P^tatione)
1 9 8 n . l 7 , 1 9 9 n . l 8 , 200n.20, 58 50n.68
201 58-60 138n.l5, l72n.38
1.147-49 I79n.57 59 63n.3, 6 6 n . l 4
1.149 166, 184 60 211n.42
1.158 89n.83 63 63n.5
1.255 172, 173, I74n.43
1.272 89n.83 Post. (De Posteritate Caini)
1.278 49, 164-65
1.279 162n.8 13-21 79,116
1.284 49 16 80
1.285 46n.54 54 64,65
1.289 46n.54, 49, 89n.83 83-93 137
2.17-44 204,213 91-92 1 3 3 n . l 0 , 137-38, 143,
2.32 46n.53 172n.38
2.52-65 176 92 53, 63n.3, 125n.46, 133, 172
2.58 198n.l7 122 137n.l2
2.69 89n.83 158 63n.5
2.117-35 166n.l5
2.189 54n.84, 162n.7, 1 6 6 n . l 4 , Praem. (De Praemiis et Poenis)
181n.60 15-21 203
2.192-208 103 26 93n.3
2.193 45n.49, 103, 161n.4 3646 89n.83, 111-12
2.193-96 103-4 39-40 80
2.196 54n.84, 95n.6, 99, 101, 103-5, 40 83
107-8, 116, 120-21, 122-23, 41-43 79
163n.ll 43-46 80
2.215-16 32 44 44, 48n.61, 49, 111-12, 116,
2.224 169n.26 120n.41, 122, 211n.42
2.271 101, 1 0 1 n . l 9 , 1 6 3 n . l l 79-126 146
80-81 152
Mut. (De Mutatione Nominum) 81 152
3-6 79 82 147
51 132n.7 83 152
52 132n.7, 1 3 5 n . l l 83-84 145,146-49
53 132, 132n.7, 153n.25 120 152
57 132n.7 123 133, 1 3 7 n . l 2 , 145, 149-50,
58 132n.7 152
81 102 152 195n.5, 196n.7, 1 9 6 n . l 0 ,
81-82 79 1 9 9 n . l 8 , 200n.20, 201,
83 64 201n.22, 201n.23, 204n.34,
188-92 110 205, 206
248 INDEX OF PASSAGES

Prob. (Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit) 94n.6, 102, 120n.41, 124,
125, 125n.46, 126, 133, 153,
57 160n.l
154, 155-56
63 93n.3
3.60 132n.7, 154
64 107n.22
4.2 80, 86-87, 88, 89
74 92n.2, 93n.3, 94, 118n.36,
4.4 86-87, 88, 89
119
4.138 98n.l5
75 160n.l
4.157 56n.90
81 32
4.196 98n.l5
140 94,119
4.233 6 1 n . l , 102, 120n.41, 124
Prov. (De Providentia) Sacr. (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini)
35-36 176 6-7 56-57
54 176 52 135,136
54 135
QE ((Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 1-2) 57 132, 134-35, 143
1.10 169n.26 76-S7 136
1.12 55, 55n.89, 113n.30, 124, 125 87 134,136-37, 143, 144
1.21 55, 55n.89, 95n.6, 112-13, 118 62n.2
124,125 118-20 63n.4
2.2 47, 54, 195, 195n.5, 196n.7, 119-20 66
197n.l2, 197n.l3, 198n.l6, 120 211n.42
1 9 9 n . l 8 , 200, 200n.21,
201n.22, 204n.34, 205, Sobr. (De Sobrietate)
216n.48 8 125n.47
2.30 50n.67, 6 1 n . l , 65, 120, 19 64,65
120n.41, 124 66 144n.l7
2.34 132, 132n.7, 153
2.37 6 1 n . l , 120, 120n.41, 124 Somn. (De Somniis 1-2)
2.38 55n.89, 102, 113n.30, 124,
1.64-67 80, 9 8 n . l 5
125, 125n.46, 133, 154,
1.89 63n.5
154n.27
1.114 63n.3
2.42 55n.89, 95n.6, 113n.30, 124,
1.117 6 3 , 6 6 - 6 7 , 101, 1 0 1 n . l 9
125, 125n.46, 133, 153,
1.148 137n.l2
153n.24, 154, 155, 156-58
1.160 195n.5, 201, 203n.29
2.43 55n.89, 95n.6, 113-14,
1.160-62 196n.7, 1 9 8 n . l 7 , 1 9 9 n . l 8 ,
113n.30, 124, 125, 125n.46,
205
133, 154
1.161 204n.34,205
2.46 55n.89, 95n.6, 102, 112n.28,
1.162 197n.l2
113n.30, 124, 125, 125n.46,
1.171-72 62n.2
133, 154, 154n.27, 155
1.175 53
2.47 55n.89, 102, 113n.30, 124,
2.75 184n.64
124n.43, 125
2.123-24 44n.46, 161n.2
2.51 9 8 n . l 5 , 124n.44
2.172-73 101n.l8
2.76 55n.89, 95n.6, 113n.30, 124
2.173 95n.6
2.106 132, 132n.7, 153
2.223 132n.7
2.224 132n.7
QG (Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim 1-4)
2.225 125n.47
1.6 19n.36 2.226-27 98n.l5
2.58 125n.46, 133, 154 2.237 132n.7
2.65 125n.46, 133, 154, 154n.27 2.248 137n.l2
3.18 54 2.271 63, 66, 67, 101, 1 0 1 n . l 9
3.40 132n.7, 154 2.272-73 196, 1 9 9 n . l 8 , 201n.22, 205
3.42 132n.7, 154 2.273 107n.22, 195n.5, 1 9 7 n . l 3 ,
3.48 44, 45, 54, 161n.3 203n.29
3.49 49n.67, 54n.82, 6 1 n . l , 2.280 63n.3
 PHILONIC WORKS 249

Spec. (De Specialibus Legibus 1-4) 2.257-62 176n.51

3.161 93n.3
1.1-11 125n.47
4.14 162n.8
1.13-20 167
4.115 93n.3
1.21-27 167
4.159 1 6 9 , 1 6 9 n . 2 7 , 1 7 0 , 215
1.28-29 167
4.171-72 208
1.32-50 205n.36
4.176 208
1.36-50 89n.83
4.176-78 195n.5, 196n.7, 1 9 9 n . l 8 ,
1.37 93n.3
200n.20, 201n.22, 203n.29,
1.41-50 84
206, 208n.39
1.46-49 84n.68
4.176-S2 218
1.51 35, 195, 216, 217
4.177 198n.l4,208
1.51-52 203n.29
4.178 204n.34,205
1.51-53 1 9 5 n . l , 196n.7, 1 9 7 n . l 3 ,
4.178-82 208
1 9 9 n . l 8 , 200n.20, 201n.22,
4.179 165, 170n.27
205n.36
4.179-82 1 6 7 n . l 7 , 177, 179, 186-89
1.52 202n.28, 202n.29, 204n.34,
4.180 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 , 170, 170n.27
205, 205n.34, 214
4.192 181n.60
1.53 204n.34
4.223 191n.75
1.54 101, l O l n . 1 9 , 1 6 3 n . l l
1.68 202n.29
1.97 166 Virt. (De Virtutibus)
1.114 171Π.35 34 1 6 9 , 1 7 0 , 170n.27
1.168 166n.l6 64-65 165
1.190 166n.l6 65 116, 118, 191n.76, 225, 229
1.299 152 77 162n.7
1.299-300 145,152 79 107n.22, 162n.8
1.299-311 145 102 204n.34,205
1.299-318 207 102-4 195n.5, 196n.7, 1 9 9 n . l 8 ,
1.303 133,145-46,152 200n.20, 201n.22, 203n.29
1.308 186n.69 105 204
1.308-9 1 9 5 n . l , 196n.7, 1 9 7 n . l 3 , 108 45, 52, 204, 215, 217
1 9 9 n . l 8 , 200n.20, 201n.22, 141 186
203n.29, 206, 207, 208, 163-74 145n.l8
208n.39 175 216,217n.49
1.309 107n.22, 204n.34, 205 175-86 150,203
1.310 207 179 205n.36, 214n.46
1.314 217 180-82 196n.7, 1 9 9 n . l 8 , 2 0 0 n . 2 0
1.325-45 167 181 204n.34,205
2.16 132n.7, 132n.8 182 195n.5, 201, 203
2.44-48 92n.2, 93n.3, 118n.36, 119, 183 150,152
119n.39 184 133,152
2.45 94 184-86 145,150-52
2.116-19 196n.7, 1 9 6 n . l 0 , 1 9 6 n . l l , 185 107n.22
1 9 9 n . l 8 , 200n.20, 201, 185-86 152
203n.29 187-227 203,214
2.118 107n.22, 1 9 6 n . l 0 , 1 9 7 n . l 2 206 211,214,216
2.118-19 195n.5 212-19 1 9 9 n . l 8 , 200n.20, 202n.28,
2.145-46 169n.26 205
2.150 184n.63 214 204n.34
2.162-67 166, 167, 179, 184-86 215-17 89n.83
2.164 167 218-19 205
2.165-67 165, 1 6 7 n . l 7 219 195n.5, 196n.7, 1 9 8 n . l 7 ,
2.166 166 201, 203n.29, 216
2.188 184n.63 220-22 201
2.217 107n.22 221 204n.34, 205, 205n.36
2.256 201,202
 Index of Greek Terms

Page n u m b e r s in bold print refer to especially significant discussions. U n d e r Ι σ ρ α ή λ

(Israel), c o n t i n u a t i o n pages in parentheses indicate that after its initial appearance,
the Greek term is discussed i n its English translation. Definite articles have b e e n
omitted.

άνήρ όρων θεόν (aner horon theon), 72, 75, 76, 98, 220
άνθρωπος όρων θεόν (anthropos horon theon), 72,73,76,98

βλέπων (blepon), 63n.3, 66, 9 3 , 93n.4, 95, 101-2, 102n.20, 121

γένος (genos), 13, 26, 28, 3 6 n . l 9 , 44, 47, 47n.57, 49-50, 50, 52-54, 54, 56-58, 59, 60, 63n.3,
64, 66, 93n.3, 96, 100, 105, 106n.22, 108, 123, 125, 133, 1 3 3 n . l 0 , 138, 147, 148, 149,
154n.27, 155, 156, 156n.30, 156n.31, 157, 158, 161, 182n.60, 189, 190, 191, 211, 216,
220, 222-23

διαθήκη (diatheke), 8, 132, 132n.7, 132n.8

Ε β ρ α ί ο ς (Hebraios), 46-47,54,161
έθνος (ethnos), 26, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50-51, 54, 56, 56n.90, 58, 60, 65, 106n.22, 123, 137,
161, 179, 2 1 1 , 2 1 6 , 222, 223
έ'θνοςμέγα (ethnos mega), 139, 148, 149
επηλυς (epelys), 186n.68, 195-99, 200, 200n.21, 201
έπηλύτης (epelytes), 186n.68, 195, 1 9 6 n . l 0 , 198, 1 9 8 n . l 7 , 199, 201, 202n.28
έπήλυτος (epelytos), 186n.68, 195, 198, 201, 207, 208
ευγένεια (eugeneia), 202, 202n.28, 203, 205, 213, 214, 216

θεοφιλής (theophiles), 54, 63n.3, 64, 74n.37, 154n.27, 172-74, 174n.43, 179, I79n.57, 180,
199n.l7

θεραπευτικόν γένος (therapeutikon genos), 54n.84, 1 6 6 n . l 4 , 181n.60, 182n.60

ικέτης (hiketes), 63n.5, 64, 107n.22, 205

Ικετικόν γένος (hiketikon genos), 60, 106, 106n.22, 177, 189, 190
Ιουδαίος (Ioudaios), 5n.4, 37, 45, 52, 58-59, 104, 123, 161, 204, 215, 221
Ιουδαϊσμός (Ioudaismos), 3n.2, 2 2 8
Ι σ ρ α ή λ (Israel), 5n.4, 37-38, 47(-50), 61(-67), 74n.37, 75, 9 8 n . l 4 , 1 3 3 n . l 0 , 138, 171, 221
λαός (laos), 26, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50-51, 54, 56-58, 56n.90, 58, 59, 60, 123, 133, 149, 150, 151,
154n.27, 161, 171, 211, 216, 222, 223

μετάνοια (metanoia), 150, 194, 201, 202, 203, 2 l 7 n . 4 9

μέτοικος (metoikos), 1 9 8 n . l 7 , 204, 204n.33, 217

όρατικόν γένος (horatikon genos), 6, 36, 3 6 n . l 9 , 38, 48, 5 3 , 55, 56, 63n.3, 6 6 n . l 5 , 67, 70,
91, 94, 95, 95n.6, 96-98, 99-100, 101-2, 105, 109-11,112-14, 113n.30, 1 1 6 , 1 2 1 ,
121n.42, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 153, 154-55, 154n.27, 156n.31, 157-58, 213, 220,
221, 222, 223
όρατικόν και έπιστημονικόν γένος (horatikon kai epistemonikon genos), 54n.84, 95n.6, 102,
103-5, 122, 123
 INDEX OF GREEK TERMS 251

όρατικός (horatikos), 3 1 , 32, 55n.89, 63n.3, 66, 9 1 n . l , 9 2 , 93n.3, 93n.4, 96, 9 6 n . l l , 100,
101-2, 102n.20, 119, 121, 121n.42
όρων (horon), 30, 55, 63n.3, 66, 67, 70, 72, 74n.37, 75, 76, 9 1 , 9 3 , 93n.3, 93n.4, 95,
95n.7, 96, 101-2, 108, 112, 113n.30, 121, 154n.27
όρων θεόν (horon theon), 11, 24, 30, 60, 61, 63n.3, 65-66, 67, 70, 73, 74n.37, 90, 9 1 , 92, 94-
96, 94n.6, 96-98, 98, 101-2, 106, 107, 112, 112n.27, 121, 126, 127, 138, 189, 211, 2 1 3 ,
220, 221, 222, 223

πάροικος (paroikos), 1 9 7 n . l 3 , 1 9 8 n . l 3 , 204n.33

πολιτεία (politeia), 44, 45, 50, 51-52, 54, 59,161, 204, 211, 213, 214-15, 216-17, 217n.49,
222, 223, 226, 229, 230
πρόνοια (pronoia), 174, 176n.53, 206, 206-8, 212, 213, 217, 218, 223-24, 225, 228
προσήλυτος (proselytos), 186n.68, 195-99, 200, 201, 201n.23, 206-7,
προσκληρόω (proskleroo), 106, 107n.23, 169-72, 177, 187, 190

συγγένεια (syggenaa), 202,203,213

φιλοθεάμων (phibtheamon), 36, 67, 9 1 n . l , 92n.2, 9 3 , 93n.3, 96, 1 0 1 n . l 9 , 119

Χαλδαΐος (Chaldaios), 47, 60

 Index of Modern Scholars
Allen, W. C , 1 9 8 n . l 3 , 1 9 8 n . l 5
Amir, Yehoshua, 3n.2, 4 n . 3 , 7, 8-9, 11,
I7n.30, I 7 n . 3 3 , 6 8 n . l 6 , I 7 3 n . 4 1 ,
194n.3, 1 9 9 n . l 7 , 203n.29, 228-29
A r m s t r o n g , A. Hilary, 8 3 n . 6 4
Attridge, H a r o l d W., 5 1 n . 7 4 , 131n.6,
133n.9, I 7 6 n . 5 3
Bailey, J o n N e l s o n , 2 0 3 n . 3 1
Baltzer, Klaus, 128n.2
B a m b e r g e r , Bernard J., 1 9 3 n . l ,
194n.2
Behm, Johannes, I76n.53, 193n.l,
194n.4, 203n.30
Belkin, Samuel, 6 8 n . l 6 , 6 9 n . 2 2 ,
184n.64, 200n.21
Bentwich, Norman, 31n.5
B e t h g e , Hans-Gebhard, 72n.31
Bloch, Renee, 37n.22
B o r g e n , Peder, 4 n . 3 , 14n.24, I 7 n . 3 0 ,
23n.50, 31-32, 43, 200n.21
Box, Herbert, l 7 4 n . 4 2
Boyarin, D a n i e l , 2 7 n . 5 3
Brehier, E m i l e , 7 n . 6 , 8 5 n . 7 0
Buffiere, Felix, 2 2 n . 4 6
Burkert, Walter, 2 3 n . 4 8
Casanowicz, I m m a n u e l M., 6 9 n . 2 1
Caspary, Gerard E., 83n.66, 85n.69
Cave, C. H., 1 9 3 n . l , 194n.2
Chadwick, H., 2 2 n . 4 5 , 23n.48
C o h e n , N a o m i G., 2 3 n . 4 9
C o h e n , Shaye J. D., 193, 194n.2,
194n.3, 1 9 7 n . l 3
C o h n , L e o p o l d , 88n.77, 207n.38
Collins, J o h n J., 126n.47, 200n.21
Colson, F. H., 15n.27, 19n.39, 3 1 ,
60n.97, 132n.8, 151n.23, I 7 0 n . 3 1 ,
I74n.42
Dahl, Nils, 3 1 , 31n.5, 37, 39-42, 43
Dalbert, Peter, 2 3 n . 5 0
Danell, G. Α., 7 l n . 2 6 , 1 0 0 n . l 7
Daniel, Suzanne, 6 8 n . l 6 , 185n.65,
186n.67, 1 9 8 n . l 3 , 1 9 8 n . l 5
Darnell, D . R., 7 4 n . 3 7
D a w s o n , David, 2 2 n . 4 6
D e i s s m a n n , Adolf, 6 8 n . l 9
Delling, Gerhard, 3 1 , 35-36, 4 3 ,
75n.41
Dexinger, Ferdinand, 4n.3
Dillon, J o h n , 2 2 n . 4 7 , 8 2 n . 6 1 , 8 2 n . 6 2 ,
83n.66, 85n.69, I 7 4 n . 4 4 , 175,
I76n.52
D o d d , Charles Harold, 8 0 n . 5 6
Drummond, James, 23n.50, 81n.60,
83n.65, 205n.34
Eichrodt, Walther, 1 2 9 n . 2
E m p s o n , William, 2 7 n . 5 3 , 29
Feldman, Louis H., 1 9 3 n . l , 194n.2
Fiensy, David Α., 7 4 n . 3 7
Foerster, Werner, l 7 0 n . 3 1
Fraser, P. M., 2 3 n . 5 0
F r i e d m a n n , Meir, 7 2 n . 3 2 , 7 3 n . 3 4
Georgi, Dieter, 3 7 n . 2 2
Ginzberg, Louis, 7 3 n . 3 5
G o o d e n o u g h , Erwin R., 4 n . 3 , 7 n . 6 ,
9-10, 11, 14, 15n.25, 18n.34, 19n.39,
20n.41, 23n.48, 31, 32-33, 43, 6 8 n . l 6 ,
74n.37, 84n.67, 86n.72, 162n.9,
I74n.42, 189n.73, 2 2 1 n . l , 229-30
Goulet, Richard, 23n.49, 6 8 n . l 7
Grabbe, Lester L., 6 8 n . l 7 , 6 8 n . l 9
Guerra, A n t h o n y J., 204-5n.34
Gunkel, H e r m a n n , 6 9 n . 2 1
Gutbrod, Walter, 3 1 , 37-38, 4 3 ,
100n.l7
H a g n e r , D o n a l d Α., 7 9 n . 5 5
Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G., 2 3 n . 4 9
H a n s o n , A n t h o n y T., 6 8 n . l 7 , 6 8 n . l 8
Hay, David M., 19n.37, 2 4 n . 5 2
H e c h t , Richard D., 4 n . 3
H e i n e m a n n , Isaak, 6 8 n . l 6 , 6 9 n . 2 2 ,
184n.64, 186n.67
Hilgert, Earle, 4 5 n . 4 7
Hillers, Delbert R., 129n.2
Holladay, Carl R., 2 3 n . 5 0
Jaubert, Annie, 7-8, 11, 3 1 , 33-34, 35,
36, 36n.21, 43, 126n.47, 129n.2,
132n.7, 153n.26, 168n.22, 182n.61
Jonas, Hans, 31n.5, 8 5 n . 7 0
Kahn, Jean-George, 6 8 n . l 6 , 6 8 n . l 7 ,
7 l n . 2 6 , 73n.34, 85n.70
Kasher, Aryeh, 5 1 n . 7 4 , 2 1 4 n . 4 7
Kasher, M e n a h e m M., 1 6 8 n . 2 2
Kaufmann, Yehezkel, 1 9 7 n . l 3
 INDEX OF MODERN SCHOLARS
Keaney, J o h n J., 2 2 n . 4 6
Kirk, K e n n e t h E., 7 9 n . 5 5 , 8 3 n . 6 4
Knox, Wilfred Lawrence, 2 0 2 n . 2 8
Kugel, J a m e s , 6 9 n . 2 2 , 8 7 n . 7 6
Kuhn, Karl Georg, 3 1 , 37, 4 3 , 1 0 0 n . l 7 ,
1 9 3 n . l , 194n.2, 194n.3, 1 9 8 n . l 3 ,
198n.l5
Lamberton, Robert, 22n.46
L a m p e , Geoffrey William H u g o ,
73n.35, 9 8 n . l 4
Lay t o n , B e n d e y , 72n.31
Lease, G., 23n.48
Leisegang, Hans, 31n.5, 85n.70,
191n.75
Levenson, J o n D., 129n.2, 227
Levine, Baruch Α., I 7 l n . 3 6
Lewy, H a n s , 7n.6, 8 5 n . 7 0
L i e b e r m a n , Saul, 194n.2
L o n g , Α. Α., I 7 4 n . 4 4
L o u t h , Andrew, 8 5 n . 7 0
Lubarsky, Sandra B., 2 2 7 n . 6
Mack, Burton L., 4 n . 3 , I 7 n . 3 2 , 23n.49,
32n.8
Mantel, H u g o D., 6 8 n . l 6
Marcus, Ralph, 15n.27, 102, 112n.28,
154n.27
Martin-Achard, Robert, 1 6 7 n . l 8 ,
168n.22, 169n.25, 227n.6
Massebieau, M. L., 18n.34, I 7 4 n . 4 2
Mauch, Τ. M., 1 9 7 n . l 3
Mayer, Gunter, 15n.27, 45n.47, 6 1 n . l
McCarthy, D e n n i s J., 129n.2
McEleney, N . J., 200n.21
McKnight, Scot, 1 9 3 n . l , 194n.2,
199n.l7
Meek, T h e o p h i l e J a m e s , 1 9 7 n . l 3
M e e k s , Wayne Α., 1 9 2 n . 7 6
M e n d e l s o n , Alan, 7, 8, 11, 115n.34,
162n.9, 225-26
M e n d e n h a l l , G e o r g e E., 129n.2
M i c h a e l i s , W i l h e l m , 7 0 n . 2 6 , 72,
78n.53, 79n.54, 79n.55, 82n.64
Michel, Alain, 203n.31
Miles, J o h n Α., Jr., 2 7 n . 5 3
Moore, George Foote, 1 9 3 n . l , 194n.2,
200n.21
Morris, Jenny, 18n.34, 2 0 n . 4 1 , 2 0 n . 4 3 ,
I74n.42
Myre, A n d r e , 4 n . 3
Neumark, Hermann, 9 n . l 2
Neusner, Jacob, 3 1 , 3 7 , 3 8 - 3 9 , 4 3 ,
1 0 0 n . l 7 , 218
N i c h o l s o n , Ernest Wilson, I 7 8 n . 5 5
Nikiprowetzky, Valentin, 4n.3,
253
16n.28, I7n.30, 18n.34, 20n.41,
6 8 n . l 6 , 6 8 n . l 8 , 7 l n . 2 7 , 84n.67
Nock, Arthur Darby, 1 9 3 n . l , 1 9 6 n . l 0
N o l l a n d , J., 2 0 0 n . 2 1
Orlinsky, Harry M., 167n.l8, 227n.6
Pascher, J o s e p h , 31n.5, 8 5 n . 7 0
Pepin, J e a n , 2 2 n . 4 6
Pedt, Franςoise, 4 5 n . 4 7 , 5 4 n . 8 6 ,
154n.27
Pedt, M a d e l e i n e , 2 0 1 n . 2 6
Rabbe, Paul R., 27n.53
Rainey, A n s o n F., 4 8 n . 6 3
Reitzenstein, Richard, 3 I n . 5
Rokeah, David, 6 8 n . l 9 , 7 0 n . 2 3
R o s e n b l o o m , J o s e p h R., 227n.6
Rowley, H a r o l d Henry, 129n.2
Runia, David T., 15, 22n.47, 23n.49,
45n.47, 78n.50, 81n.58, 81n.60, 82,
84n.67, 151n.22
Sacchse, E., 7 l n . 2 6
Sanders, E. P., 36n.21
Sandmel, Samuel, 2-3, 7n.5, 7n.6,
6 8 n . l 6 , 6 8 n . l 9 , 84n.67
Schmidt, Κ L , 1 9 8 n . l 3
Schmidt, Μ. Α., 1 9 8 n . l 3
Segal, Alan F., 80n.56, 133n.9, 1 9 3 n . l ,
227n.6
Shroyer, M o n t g o m e r y J., I 7 n . 3 1 ,
19n.36, 24n.52, 116n.35
Siegfried, Carl, 6 8 n . l 6 , 6 8 n . l 7
Smallwood, E. Mary, 2 0 n . 4 3 , 5 1 n . 7 4 ,
70n.26, 72, 73n.33, 73n.35, I 7 4 n . 4 2 ,
191n.75
Smith, J o n a t h a n Z., 7 0 n . 2 4 , 7 2 n . 3 1 ,
73n.35, 74n.38, 74n.39, 76, 9 8 n . l 4
Smith, R. Payne, 7 3 n . 3 3
Sohn, Seock-Tae, 129n.2
Speiser, Ephraim Α., 1 6 8 n . 2 0
Stanford, William B., 2 7 n . 5 3
Stein, E d m u n d , 31n.5, 6 8 n . l 6 , 6 8 n . l 7 ,
74-76
Sterling, Gregory E., 19n.38, 2 2 n . 4 7
Stern, David, 2 7 n . 5 3
Sternberg, Meir, 2 7 n . 5 3
Strathmann, H e r m a n n , 5 I n . 7 4
Strauss, Leo, 27n.53
Strugnell, J o h n , 7 7 n . 4 5
Tcherikover, Victor, 2 I n . 4 4
Tobin, T h o m a s H., 2 0 n . 4 1 , 22n.45,
22n.47, 23n.49, 57n.92, 82n.62
T o m s o n , Peter J., 37n.22, 4 6 n . 5 3 ,
48n.63
254 INDEX OF MODERN SCHOLARS

Urbach, Ephraim E., 131n.6, I 7 l n . 3 5 , Winston, David, 9, 10-11, 2 2 n . 4 6 ,

176n.53, 227n.6 22n.47, 24n.50, 2 4 n . 5 1 , 27, 79n.55,
82n.61, 85n.70, 86n.73, I 7 5 n . 4 4 ,
V a n d e r l i n d e n , E., 8 5 n . 7 0 203n.31
Volker, Walther, 9, 10, 11, 31n.5, Wlosok, A n t o n i e , 2 2 n . 4 7
86n.7l Wolfson, Harry Α., 4 n . 3 , 7n.6, 2 4 n . 5 2 ,
v o n Rad, Gerhard, 129n.2 31n.5, 6 8 n . l 6 , 81n.60, 83n.65, 83n.66,
116n.35, 119n.38, 162n.9, I75n.44,
Walter, N i k o l a u s , 2 4 n . 5 0 I76n.51, 182n.60, 200n.21
Wan, Sze-kar, 19n.38, 5 0 n . 6 7 , W o n g , C. K., 4 7 n . 6 0
155n.29 Wurthwein, Ernst, 1 9 3 n . l , 2 0 3 n . 3 0
Weinfeld, Moshe, I78n.55
W e n d l a n d , Paul, 8 8 n . 7 7 , 2 0 7 n . 3 8 Zeitlin, S o l o m o n , 37n.22
Whitaker, G. H., 15n.27
 Index of Subjects
Abraham
a n d Chaldea, 47, 60, 202
a n d circumcision, 153, 155, 182
and covenant, 1 2 8 n . l , 1 3 5 n . l l , 153,
182
a n d divine blessings, 167-68, 180,
182
as f o u n d e r o f the Jewish nation,
161
in Philo a n d the Rabbis, 3
P h i l o n i c interpretations about, 56-
58, 86-87, 88, 110, 179-83
and proselytes, 1 9 8 n . l 7 , 2 0 1 , 202,
205, 206, 214, 216
as a seer, 9 3
See also Patriarchs
AeL, 58, 160
A l e x a n d e r the Great, 1
Allegorical interpretation, 2, 2 2 , 109-
10, 121, 139, 143, 206
Allegory ( P h i l o n i c exegetical series)
audience, 18-19, 55-56, 89-90, 116,
1 2 1 - 2 2 , 1 4 4 , 1 5 9 , 210, 222
Biblical Israel in, 44, 158-59
C h a l d e a n in, 47, 108-9
characteristics of, 18-19, 89
c h o s e n p e o p l e , race/class, or entity
in, 133, 137-38, 143, 158-59
covenant in, 134-35, 143, 158-59
divine e l e c t i o n in, 136-39, 140, 142-
43, 144
etymology o f "Israel" in, 49, 108,
121, 121n.42, 138
great nation in, 139-42
H e b r e w s in, 46
"Israel" in, 26, 40, 44, 48, 49, 55,
117,210, 221,222
"Israel seers" in, 108-11, 115-16,
121-22
Jews and, 26, 40, 44, 45, 55, 160-61,
210, 222
nation in, 50
p e o p l e in, 50
polity in, 51
proselytes in, 199, 216
r a c e / c l a s s in, 52-54
r a c e / c l a s s that can see in, 99, 109-
11, 121
s e e i n g G o d in, 89-90, 116
A m b i g u i t y , 25-29
a n d a u d i e n c e , 28-29
a n d polysemous words, 26, 28
purpose of, 27-29
See also "Israel," ambiguity of, in
Philo; Philo, a n d ambiguity
Aristeas, Letter of, 2 4
Aristobulus, 2 4
Aristotle, 8 2
Athenians, as seers, 9 4 , 119
Audience (s), Philo's adaptations o f
discussions for
in presentation o f a half-Egyptian
man, 105, 123
in presentation o f "Israel seers,"
122
in presentation of Jews, 118, 126-27,
161,172,173,178,182-83,188-89,
191,192,210
in presentation o f the relationship
between G o d a n d Biblical Israel,
144,152,158-59, 172,173,178,188-
89,192
in presentation o f s e e i n g God, 89-
90,117,122,126-27,191,210
in use of Egyptian setting, 183
in use o f "Israel" and Jews, 28-29,
55-56,117, 126-27,191, 210, 221-22
in use of the race/class that can see,
99
See also under individual series; Philo
Balaam, oracles of, 48-49
Bible. See Septuagint
Chaldean
in the Allegory, 47, 108-9
in the Exposition, 47, 48
in n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works, 6 0
in QGE, 47
Chosen p e o p l e , race/class, or entity,
1 3 3 , 1 3 4 , 224
in the Allegory, 133, 137-38, 143,
158-59
distribution o f references t h r o u g h o u t
Philo's works, 133
in the Exposition, 133, 149-50, 152,
159
Greek terms for, 133, 1 3 3 n . l 0
and "Israel," 5 3 , 6 3 n . 3 , 106-7,
125n.46
as m i n d of a worthy person, 149-50,
152,159
256 INDEX OF SUBJECTS
C h o s e n p e o p l e , race/class, or entity
(cont'd)
in QGE, 54n.82, 55n.89, 125, 133,
153, 154-55, 156-58, 159
as substitute for "Israel," 55n.89,
156-58, 159
See also Divine e l e c t i o n
Christianity, 13, 2 2 8
Circumcision
a n d Abraham, 153, 155, 182
and divine e l e c t i o n , in QGE, 125-
26, 153, 155-56, 1 5 8 , 1 5 9
Philo o n , 125, 125n.47
and proselytes, 200
C l e m e n t o f Alexandria, 7 l n . 2 7 , 73,
73n.35, I 7 0 n . 3 2
Commandments
b r o a d e n e d a u d i e n c e for, 145-46,
164
in the Exposition, 144, 145-52, 159
and o b e d i e n c e , 129, 129n.3, 130,
136, 141, 146, 147-49, 152, 159, 163,
165-66
omission of reference to, 142, 143,
150-52
See also Covenant; Divine election;
Jews, laws and customs of; Law
Constitutiones Apostolorum, 73-74
Contempl, 18, 2 1 , 58, 59
Conversion, 193-94, 2 0 2 n . 2 7
and a d o p t i o n o f n e w laws, 197
migration motifs for, 202
and nobility o f birth, 203, 2 1 4
and r e p e n t a n c e , 2 0 3
terms for, 194
and turning to God, 150, 196
See also Proselytes
Covenant
with A b r a h a m , 1 2 8 n . l , 1 3 5 n . l l ,
153,182
absence in the Exposition, 132-33,
144,
in the Allegory, 134-35, 143, 158-59
in the Bible, 6, 125, 128-30, 132,
163, 165, 1 7 8 , 1 8 8
characteristics of, 6, 128-30
and grace, 135, 1 3 5 n . l l
in Jewish literature, 132-33
omission o f reference to, 131, 144,
1 4 5 n . l 8 , 164, 174, 182
Philo o n , 132-33, 134-35, 158-59,
164, 182, 184-85, 223-24, 225
in QGE, 152-54
Divine e l e c t i o n
in the Allegory, 136-39, 140, 142-43,
144
in the Bible, 107, 128-30, 143, 168-
69,171,178
and circumcision, in QGE, 125-26,
153, 155-56,158, 159
in the Exposition, 133, 145-46, 149-52
and giving of the law, in QGE, 114,
125, 1 2 6 , 1 5 3 , 1 5 4 , 1 5 8 , 159
Philo's interpretation of, 106-7, 131,
133, 134, 136-37, 138, 143-44, 149-
50, 150-52, 154-55, 155-56, 158-59,
164, 172, 173, 174, 178, 184-85, 188-
89, 223-24
possible offensiveness of, 131, 133,
163-64,173
in QGE, 114, 125-26, 133, 152-58,
159
reasons for, 129-30, 163, 188-89
See also Chosen p e o p l e , race/class, or
entity; Covenant
Egypt and Egyptians
Philo's attitude toward, 226
Philo's polemical use of, 103-5, 123,
179,183
symbolic interpretation of, 46n.50,
110
Etymologies
Biblical, 6 9
Philonic, 24, 67-70
rabbinic, 69
Etymology o f "Israel"
in the Allegory, 49, 108, 121,
121n.42, 138
in the Bible, 71
evolution in m e a n i n g , 98-99, 124-
2 5 , 1 2 6 , 223
in the Exposition, 49, 122
Hebrew derivation of, 70-72
as interpretation o f "Israel," 49, 65-
66, 67, 88n.78, 9 1 , 95, 105, 108,
120,138,143
in non-exegetical works, 105, 126
omission o f "man" in Philo's, 65,
72, 76-77
parallel occurrences, 72-77
in C l e m e n t , 7 3 , 7 3 n . 3 5
in Constitutiones Apostolorum, 73-74
in Gnostic writings, 72
in patristic writings, 7 3
in Prayer of Joseph, 7 3 , 74-76
in Seder Eliahu Rabbah, 72, 73
as possible e x a m p l e o f earlier Jewish
exegesis, 24-25, 70-77, 96, 98, 124-
2 5 , 1 2 6 , 220, 222, 223
in QGE, 49, 102, 124, 126
and race/class that can see, 96-98
related expressions, 66, 9 1 , 94-95
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Eudorus, 82
Eusebius, 37n.22, 9 9 n . l 6 , 170n.32
Exposition
absence of covenant in, 132-33, 144
a u d i e n c e , 18n.34, 19-20, 56, 89-90,
1 2 2 , 1 4 4 , 1 5 9 , 210, 216, 221-22
Biblical Israel in, 44, 103-5, 159
C h a l d e a n in, 47, 48
characteristics of, 19-20, 89
c h o s e n p e o p l e , race/class, or entity
in, 133, 149-50, 152, 159
c o m m a n d m e n t s in, 144, 145-52, 159
divine e l e c t i o n in, 133, 145-46, 149-
52
etymology o f "Israel" in, 4 9 , 122
great nation in, 148-49
H e b r e w s in, 4 6
"Israel" in, 26-27, 44, 48, 49, 56,
117,122-23, 210, 220, 221, 222
"Israel seers" in, 103-5, 111-12, 122-
23
Jews in, 26-27, 44, 45, 56, 59n.96,
1 4 8 , 1 6 0 , 1 6 2 , 210, 220, 221-22
literal interpretations in, 17
n a t i o n in, 51
p e o p l e in, 51
polity in, 51-52, 59, 215
proselytes in, 199-200, 216
r a c e / c l a s s in, 52-53
r a c e / c l a s s that can see in, 99, 103-5,
122-23
s e e i n g G o d in, 89-90, 89n.83, 111-12
See also Mos. 1-2; Opif.
First fruits, 136, 186, 187-88, 212
Firstborn, 74, 75, 171, 187-88
Flacc, 18, 20-21, 162, 174, 229-30
Jews in, 40, 44, 58-59, 160, 162
polity in, 59, 215
Flaccus, 20, 177, 198
God
as object o f vision, 6 6 n . l 4 , 80, 83,
96, 105, 106, 109, 226
Philonic expressions for, 6 6 n . l 4 ,
83n.65, 84, 85, 106, 165, 166,
204n.34
Philonic ideas about, 83-85, 117,
145,166,175-76,190-91
Great n a t i o n
in the Allegory, 139-42
in the Exposition, 148-49
Hebrews
in the Allegory, 4 6
as the Biblical nation, 4 3 , 45, 46,
104
257
collective terms for, 44, 46-47, 2 1 1 ,
216, 222
in the Exposition, 4 6
as Hebrew speakers, 4 3 , 45, 46
a n d "Israel," 4 4
in Mos. 1-2, 26-27, 28, 46, 104, 123
a n d n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works, 5 9
in the Pentateuch, 48
in QGE, 46-47, 161
symbolic use of, 43, 46, 46n.50
Hellenism and Judaism, 1
Hypoth., 18, 2 1 , 58, 59, 134, 1 6 0 , 1 6 1 , 1 6 2
Isaac, 19n.39, 56-58
See also Patriarchs
"Israel"
abstract interpretations of, 6 3 n . 5 ,
64, 66, 77, 9 1 , 9 1 n . l , 94n.6, 95n.7,
1 0 1 n . l 8 , 121
in the Allegory, 26, 40, 44, 48, 49,
55,117,210, 221,222
ambiguity of, in Philo, 11-12, 26,
28, 30, 43-44, 53, 77, 108-9, 111-12,
1 2 0 , 1 2 7 , 222-23
Biblical. See Israel, Biblical
Biblical etymology of, 71
Biblical m e a n i n g of, 30, 92, 100, 127
categories of Philo's usage, 61-67
and m e t h o d , 62-63
related to the etymology, 6 1 ,
62n.2, 64, 65-66
unclear references, 63, 64, 66-67
u n i n t e r p r e t e d references, 6 3 n . 5 ,
64
unrelated to the etymology,
62n.2, 63n.5, 64-65
as chosen, 53, 63n.3, 106-7, 125n.46
collective terms for, 13, 44, 49-50,
50n.68, 60, 65, 96, 2 1 1 , 222-23
distribution of references t h r o u g h o u t
Philo's works, 44, 47-48, 120,
221-22
etymology of. See Etymology o f
"Israel"
evolution in m e a n i n g , 9 8 , 100-1
in the Exposition, 26-27, 44, 48, 49,
5 6 , 1 1 7 , 1 2 2 - 2 3 , 210, 220, 2 2 1 , 222
and Hebrews, 4 4
in Hellenistic literature, 37-38
identity of, 13, 94, 100-1, 115-20,
219, 2 2 1 , 2 2 2
Biblical nation, 65, 103-5, 116,
120-21
Jewish p h i l o s o p h i c a l elite, 115-
16,117
Jews, 105-7, 116, 120-21, 126, 189-
91
258 INDEX OF SUBJECTS
"Israel"
identity o f (cont'd)
Jews a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s , 116
m i x e d p h i l o s o p h i c a l elite, 115,
116-17
non-Jews, inclusion of, 115, 116-
17,119,218
importance of, 80
in Jewish literature, 37, 39
and Jews, 43-45, 94, 105-7, 189-91,
209-15, 221-24
distinction b e t w e e n , 12-13, 31n.5,
33, 34-35, 37-39, 42, 209-10, 219,
221
equation of, 31-32, 33, 34, 35-36,
105-7, 189-91
scholarly approaches to, 31-43
m e m b e r s h i p r e q u i r e m e n t s of, 13,
120, 213, 218-19, 224
in n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works, 44, 60,
105-7, 117, 126, 189-91
non-use of, 26-27, 48-49, 123
a n d "other seers," 92-94, 119-20
Paul's use of, 39
periphrastic expressions for, 6 1 , 67,
92, 94-95
See also under QGE
a n d plural Judaisms, 38-39
and proselytes, 216, 217, 218, 219,
224
in QGE, 26, 44, 48, 49, 56, 6 1 , 117,
124, 210, 221, 222
range o f m e a n i n g s of, in Philo, 33-
34, 41-42, 64-67
relationship with God, 13, 2 1 1 , 223
and seeing God, 30, 77, 80, 88n.78,
90, 9 1 , 100, 108-9, 111-12, 211, 212,
223
technical vocabulary for, 94-95, 98-
101, 101-2
a n d terminology, 14, 47-50
and w o r s h i p p i n g God, 2 1 1 ,
211n.42, 218
Israel, Biblical
in the Allegory, 44, 158-59
e l e c t i o n of. See Divine election
in the Exposition, 44, 103-5, 159
and "Israel seers," 103-5, 122-23
in n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works, 59-60, 134
in QGE, 4 4 , 4 7 , 5 4 - 5 5 , 1 1 3 , 1 2 4 , 1 2 5
a n d s e e i n g or s e e i n g God, 97,
1 0 1 n . l 9 , 103, 123
terms for, 43-44, 97, 100, 161
"Israel seers," 92, 9 4
in the Allegory, 108-11, 115-16, 121-
22
a n d Biblical Israel, 103-5, 122-23
in the Exposition, 103-5, 111-12,
122-23
identifiable referents, 103-7
and Jews, 105-7, 115-17
in non-exegetical works, 126-27
and "other seers," 92-94, 119-20
in QGE, 1 0 2 , 1 1 2 - 1 4 , 1 2 4 - 2 6
terms for, 96, 101-2
unidentifiable referents, 107-14,
122,125
Jacob
as ancient ancestor, 6 0 n . 9 7
and episode at Peniel, 7 1 , 73, 74,
78, 90, 96, 98, 223
lost treatise o n , 19n.39
and n a m e "Israel," 38, 64, 7 1 , 72,
73, 74, 78, 92, 9 7 n . l 3 , 98, 100, 212
and practice, 56-58, 111
relationship to Philo's etymology o f
"Israel," 77, 109n. 24, 111, 112
as a seer, 9 3
See also Patriarchs
Jews
Alexandrian, 8, 19, 20, 44n.46, 58-
59, 105, 107n.22, 123, 126, 158,
162, 222
and the Allegory, 26, 40, 44, 45, 55,
160-61,210, 222
as allotted to God, 106-7, 163, 169-72,
186, 187-89, 189, 212
and belief in God, 116, 163, 164-66,
184, 212, 213, 223
collective terms for, 13, 44, 58-59,
106n.22, 161, 211, 216, 222-23
distribution of term t h r o u g h o u t
Philo's works, 44, 160-61, 221-22
and divine providence, 20, 105-6,
1 6 3 , 1 7 4 - 7 8 , 1 8 6 , 1 8 9 - 9 0 , 1 9 1 , 208,
212, 218, 223, 2 2 4
in the Exposition, 26-27, 44, 45, 56,
59n.96, 148, 160, 162, 210, 220,
221-22
identification of, 12, 161, 2 2 1 , 223
isolation of, 187, 208-9
a n d "Israel." See "Israel," a n d Jews
and "Israel seers," 105-7, 115-17
in Jewish literature, 37
laws and customs of, 104, 163, 164-
6 6 , 1 8 4 , 187, 191, 208-9, 212, 213,
217, 223, 225, 229, 230
and love o f / f o r God, 163, 172-74,
179,180-81
m e m b e r s h i p r e q u i r e m e n t s of, 13,
213, 218-19, 224
in non-exegetical works, 44, 58-59,
105-7,160,161,210
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS 259

Jews (cont'd) polity in, 59, 215

Philo's positive presentation of, 123,
126-27,161-62, 1 6 4 , 1 7 8 , 1 8 5 - 8 6 , 210
as a polity, 5 2 , 5 9 , 2 1 3 , 2 1 4 - 1 5 , 2 1 7 ,
230
as p r i e s t h o o d for all humanity, 163,
166-69, 179, 180, 184-86, 186, 187-
88, 189, 190, 212
as prophet, 179, 180-81, 181n.60
a n d proselytes, 13, 208-9, 216-17,
218, 219, 224
in QGE, 44, 45, 56, 161
relationship with God, 13, 34-35,
162-63, 164, 166, 192, 211-12, 213,
218, 223-24, 225, 228
and s e e i n g God, 163, 1 6 3 n . l l , 189,
192, 212, 225
a n d terminology, 5 n . 4 , 12n.22, 14,
45, 160-61
a n d worship o f God, 116, 163, 164-
66, 184, 212, 213, 223, 230
Josephus, 38, I 7 0 n . 3 2 , 203n.32
Judaism
Greek term for, 3, 3n.2
and Hellenism, 1
legal aspect of, 229
as only first-century m o n o t h e i s t i c
^ r e l i g i o n , 13, 228
Philo's estimation of, 228-30
Philo's presentation of, 116, 118,
126-27,150, 191
philosophical aspect of, 229-30
a n d proselytes, 13, 193-94
social aspect of, 214-15, 228, 230
J u d a i s m s , 38-39
Kinship, 34, 42, 53, I70n.28, 189,
189n.72, 203, 2 1 3 , 2 1 4 , 2 1 5
Lactantius, 2 0 n . 4 2
Land, in Philo, 182n.61, 184, 184n.64,
186
Law
as divine, 114, 157
giving o f the, 125, 125n.47, 154
See also C o m m a n d m e n t s ; Divine
e l e c t i o n , a n d giving of the law,
in QGE; Jews, laws a n d customs
of
Legat, 18, 20-21, 117, 134, 162, 174, 210,
229-30
audience, 20-21, 126-27, 210, 222
Jews in, 40, 44, 58-59, 106n.22, 160,
162
only treatise that has "Israel" a n d
Jews together, 12-13, 26, 36n.20,
44, 60, 100, 210, 221
purpose of, 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 7 4 , 1 9 1 , 2 1 0 , 2 2 2
Levites
as priests, 187-88
as suppliants, 107n.22
Literal sense, 17, 19, 27, 65, 116, 133,
134,138, 152,159
See also QGE, literal interpretations
i η
Magi, 93, 119, 224, 225
Method, 14-16, 220-21
a n d ambiguity in Philo, 25-26
and analysis o f passages, 15-16, 86-
88
a n d categorization of Philo's use of
"Israel," 62-63
and other scholarly approaches, 4 3
a n d s e e i n g G o d in Philo, 86-90
a n d selection of passages, 14, 15, 17-
18, 91-92, 101-2, 162, 2 0 4
Middle Platonism, 22, 82
Monotheism, 13, 167, 226, 228
Mos. 1-2, 19n.39, 45n.49, 46, 89n.83,
103, 104, 105, 131-32
absence o f "Israel" in, 27, 28, 48,
1 0 0 , 1 0 3 , 1 2 0 , 1 2 3 , 222
Moses
addresses to Biblical Israel, 130,
1 4 5 , 1 4 6 , 148
as a Chaldean, 6 0 n . 9 7
disciples of, 5n.4, 40, 202
and divine authority of the Bible, 17
and divine providence, I 7 9 n . 5 7
as lawgiver of the Jews, 58, 1 6 0 n . l ,
161
in Mos. 1-2, 132
as a national or universal figure, 4
Philonic interpretations about, 84,
114,165
and request to see God, 79, 8 4
as a seer, 9 3
Mystery language, 22-23, 4 1 , 79, 81
Mysticism, 5, 10
Nation
in the Allegory, 50
in the Exposition, 51
in non-exegetical works, 58, 5 9
and p e o p l e , 50-51, 56n.90
in QGE, 54-55
N e o p y t h a g o r e a n writings, 82
Nobility o f birth, 203, 213, 2 1 4
N o n - e x e g e t i c a l works
a u d i e n c e , 20-21
Biblical Israel in, 59-60, 134
C h a l d e a n in, 6 0
260 INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Non-exegetical works (cont'd) intellectual background of, 21-25,

etymology o f "Israel" in, 105, 126 80-83
a n d Hebrews, 5 9 a n d Jewish exegetical traditions,
"Israel" in, 4 4 , 60, 105-7, 117, 126, 23-24, 68-70, 89, 96, 97, 9 8 , 1 2 2 ,
189-91 123, 126, 1 6 4 n . l 2 , 220, 222
"Israel seers" in, 126-27 knowledge of Hebrew, 17, 67-68, 69
Jews in, 44, 58-59, 160, 210 scholarly approaches to, 2, 6-11, 31-
n a d o n in, 5 8 , 5 9 43, 85-86
p e o p l e in, 58, 59 spiritual quest in, 5-6, 7, 9-11, 16
polity in, 59, 215 Plato, 2 1 , 23, 80-81, 82, 118n.37, 174
race/class in, 59 Platonism, 2 1 , 25, 4 1 , 175, 223
s e e i n g G o d in, 77, 106, 189-91 See also Middle Platonism
See also individual treatises Polity
Non-Jews in the Allegory, 51
interested in Jews, 2 0 4 in the Exposition, 51-52, 59, 215
a n d "Israel," 115, 116-17, 119, 228 of the Jews, 52, 59, 213, 214-15, 217,
in Philo's a u d i e n c e , 20-21, 29, 117, 230
144, 1 6 1 , 1 8 2 , 1 8 9 , 1 9 1 , 210, 222 of Moses, 5 1 - 5 2 , 5 9 , 2 1 7
Philo's estimation of, 118, 224, 226 in non-exegetical works, 5 9 , 215
as seers, 93-94, 119, 225 range o f m e a n i n g s , 5 1 , 2 1 4 n . 4 7
Praem. I l l , 176
Opif, 20n.41 Prayer of Joseph, 73, 74-76, 95n.7, 98, 220
Origen, 9 9 n . l 6 Prob., 58, 160
"Other seers," 92-94, 9 3 n . 3 , 96, 119, Prophets, 9 3 , 119, 181
225 Proselytes, 13, 189, 189n.72, 193-94,
227, 228
Particularism and Abraham, 1 9 8 n . l 7 , 2 0 1 , 2 0 2 ,
definition of, 3, 4-5, 225 205, 206, 214, 216
a n d Philo, 2 2 9 in the Allegory, 199, 2 1 6
potential offensiveness of, 131, 133, a n d circumcision, 200
163-64 distribution of terms for, t h r o u g h o u t
a n d universalism Philo's works, 199-201
in Philo, 4, 6-11, 224-28 divine protection of, 175-76, 206-9,
tension between, 1, 4, 6 217,218
See also Divine election; in the Exposition, 199-200, 216
Universalism implicit e x a m p l e s of, 200, 201-2,
Patriarchs 205n.36
a n d divine providence, 111 interchangeability o f terms for,
as exemplars of virtue, 56-58 186n.68, 197-98
promises to, 6, 128, 136, 142, 163, isolation of, 208-9
178,181,188 and "Israel," 216, 217, 218, 219,
rewards to, 111 224
See also Abraham; Isaac; J a c o b Jewish attitudes toward, 13, 193-94
People and Jews, 208-9, 216-17, 218, 219,
in the Allegory, 5 0 224
in the Exposition, 51 and kinship, 189, 189n.72, 2 0 3 , 2 1 3 ,
a n d nation, 50-51, 5 6 n . 9 0 214
in n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works, 58, 59 and laws, 197, 217, 2 2 4
in QGE, 54-55 and membership requirements,
a n d r a c e / c l a s s , 56-58 218-19, 224
Philo a n d migration imagery, 196, 2 0 2
and ambiguity, 25-29, 120, 176, 206 and new community, 197, 216-17,
audiences for, 17-21 219, 224, 228
as a critic o f philosophy, 83, 106, and n o b l e birth, 2 0 3 , 2 1 3 , 214
107,116,118,191 a n d n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works, 199
devotion to his p e o p l e , 1-2, 229-30 and orphans and widows, 176, 186,
as an e x e g e t e , 16-17, 87 207,208
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Proselytes (cont'd)
Philo's attitude toward, 13, 20, 203,
216, 225
Philo's d e f m i d o n of, 195-97, 205,
224
a n d polity, 216-17
in QGE, 195, 199, 200
relationship with God, 204-6, 217-18
and seeing God, 35, 205, 218
as suppliants, 107n.22, 205, 207
terms for, 186n.68, 194, 195-99
and turning to God, 150, 196, 197,
198, 204-5, 207, 214
See also Conversion
Prov., 176n.52
Providence a n d protection, divine
for A b r a h a m , 179
for all p e o p l e , 106, 174-76, 190
for "Israel," 105-6, 189, 218
for the Jews, 20, 105-6, 163, 174-78,
186, 1 8 9 - 9 0 , 1 9 1 , 208, 212, 218, 223,
224
a n d Moses, I 7 9 n . 5 7
Philo's ideas about, 174-78
philosophical n o t i o n s about, 174-75
for proselytes, 175-76, 206-9, 217, 218
QE 1-2, 99, 100, 120, 122n.42; 124
QGE
audience, 19, 55-56, 89-90, 126, 158,
159,222
Biblical Israel in, 44, 47, 54-55, 113,
124.125
C h a l d e a n in, 47
characteristics of, 19, 87, 89
c h o s e n p e o p l e , race/class, or entity
in, 5 4 n . 8 2 , 55n.89, 125, 133, 153,
154-55, 156-58, 159
circumcision in, 125-26, 153, 155-56,
158, 159, 200
c o v e n a n t in, 152-54
divine e l e c t i o n in, 114, 125-26, 133,
152-58, 159
etymology o f "Israel" in, 49, 102,
124.126
giving o f the law in, 114, 125, 126,
158,159
Hebrews in, 46-47, 161
"Israel" in, 26, 44, 48, 49, 56, 6 1 ,
117, 124, 210, 2 2 1 , 2 2 2
"Israel seers" in, 102, 112-14, 124-26
Jews in, 44, 45, 56, 161
literal interpretations in, 19, 55,
113,125,126
n a t i o n in, 54-55
"other seers" in, 9 3 n . 3
p e o p l e in, 54-55
261
periphrastic expressions for "Israel"
in, 48, 55, 99, 113, 113n.30, 124,
157, 221, 222
proselytes in, 195, 199, 200
r a c e / c l a s s in, 5 4
race/class that can see in, 5 5 n . 8 9 ,
95n.6, 99, 102, 112-14, 124, 126,
157, 221, 222
seeing God in, 86-87, 89-90, 124,
124n.44
See also QE 1-2
Rabbinic literature and Rabbis, 3,
7n.5, 69-70, 76, 133n.9, 168n.22,
I 7 l n . 3 5 , 186n.67, 194, 204n.33
See also T a l m u d , Babylonian
Race/class
in the Allegory, 52-54
in the Exposition, 52-53
in n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works, 5 9
and p e o p l e , 56-58
in QGE, 5 4
range o f m e a n i n g s , 13, 26, 3 6 n . l 9 ,
5 2 - 5 3 , 1 0 0 , 1 3 8 , 222-23
Race/class that can see
in the Allegory, 99, 109-11, 121
and the etymology of "Israel," 96-
98
evolution in m e a n i n g , 99-100, 123,
124-25,126
in the Exposition, 99, 103-5, 122-23
and non-exegetical works, 126
as periphrasis for "Israel," 5 5 n . 8 9 ,
95, 9 9 , 1 1 2 - 1 4 , 1 5 7 , 2 2 1 , 2 2 2
in QGE, 55n.89, 95n.6, 99, 102, 112-
1 4 , 1 2 4 , 1 2 6 , 1 5 7 , 221, 222
R e l i g i o n a n d religiosity, 7 n . 5
Sceptics, 108, 109
Seder Eliahu Rabbah, 72, 73
Seeing, Philo's vocabulary for, 36, 92,
92n.2, 119n.39
Seeing God
in the Allegory, 89-90, 116
in the Bible, 78-79
a n d divine i n t e r m e d i a r i e s , 80,
84n.68, 85, 86, 86-87, 88, 89, 9 0
and ecstasy, 79, 85-86, 88, 90
evolution in m e a n i n g , 97-98, 100
in the Exposition, 89-90, 8 9 n . 8 3 ,
111-12
factors affecting Philo's discussion of,
86, 88-90
and "Israel," 30, 77, 80, 88n.78, 90,
91, 100, 108-9, 111-12, 2 1 1 , 212, 2 2 3
and the Jews, 163, 1 6 3 n . l l , 189,
192, 212, 225
262 INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Seeing G o d (cont'd)
a n d mysticism, 5-6
nature of, 90, 212, 2 1 3
in n o n - e x e g e t i c a l works, 77, 106,
189-91
in Philo, 5-6, 11, 53, 77, 79-80, 82,
85-90, 96-97, 106, 111-12, 117, 190-
91, 212, 213, 223, 226
philosophical importance of, 98,
100,124-25
philosophical influence u p o n Philo's
conception of, 25, 80-82, 223-25
in Plato, 80-81
and proselytes, 35, 205, 218
in QGE, 86-87, 89-90, 124, 124n.44
and worship o f God, 212
Seers. See "Israel seers"; "Other seers"
Septuagint, 17, 23-24, 68, 1 4 0 n . l 6 ,
207n.37
Sheaf Feast, 1 6 5 , 1 6 6 , 1 8 4 , 1 8 6
Sight
Philo's estimation of, 77, 80, 82
philosophical estimation of, 8 1 , 82,
82n.64, 223
Soul, j o u r n e y of the, 16, 19, 23, 89
Speusippus, 81-82
Stoic thought and Stoics, 4 1 , 42, 83,
174, I 7 6 n . 5 1 , I76n.52
Suppliants, 107n.22, 151, 152, 159, 205,
207
Suppliants' race/class, 60, 106, 106n.22,
177,189,190
Talmud, Babylonian ( B T ) , 1 6 7 n . l 6
Tamar, 196n.9, 2 0 1 , 205n.36, 214, 216
Therapeutae, 2 1 , 94, 118n.37, 119,
182n.60
Universalism
definition of, 3, 4-5, 225
as e x t e n s i o n o f particularism, 227
and Philo, 2, 13, 117, 218, 226, 227-
28, 229
See also Particularism;
Universalizing i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
Universalizing interpretations, 2, 27,
144-52,159, 164, 169, 172, 173-74,
178,184-86, 192, 224
Wisdom of S o l o m o n , 24
Xenophon, 2 1 , 118n.37