Skip to main content

Full text of "The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 

24 The Jewish Quarterly JRevieic. 


The great advance which historical science has made in 
this century is likewise to be witnessed in the study of 
Philo of Alexandria. While in former centuries people 
occupied themselves but very little with Philo, he has now 
for some time been zealously studied, and his doctrines and 
writings are being thoroughly examined in every direction. 
Philosophers and theologians have equal interest in an 
exact investigation of Philo's teaching. As the culmina- 
tion of Judseo-Alexandrian religious philosophy, Philo 
marks an important stage in the history of ancient 
philosophy, the latest systems of which are incompre- 
hensible without a knowledge of Philonic doctrine. 
But by reason of his intimate connection with the sacred 
literature of the Jews, and his unmistakable influence 
upon the origin and the older literature of Christianity, 
the study of his philosophy will always remain indispens- 
able for theologians, both Jewish and Christian. In the 
most recent times philologists also, and with good reason, 
have begun to direct their attention to him. As one of the 
best writers of the Hellenistic period he did not deserve to 
remain so long neglected by them. It is, however, partly 
due to the uncritical treatment of his text that Philo has 
hitherto been often misunderstood, and not met with due 

It is not my purpose to give here a complete account of 
all the literature bearing on Philo. 1 This literature is of 
such vast extent- that an exhaustive treatment would 

1 A good survey of the literature until the year 1885 is given by 
E. Schurer in his Oetehiekte des jiidischen Volkes zur Zeit Jean Christ i, 
Vol. II. (Leipzig, 188B), p. 831 seq. 

The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria. 25 

occupy a space out of all proportion to its usefulness. I 
only intend to report upon the present condition of re- 
search and upon the most recent labours, and to show 
what progress has been made of late years in our knowledge 
of Philo, at the same time pointing out how much still 
remains to be done by learned inquirers. Only by the co- 
operation of many forces can the solution of the numerous 
important problems be achieved. In particular, I would 
here earnestly exhort all those who are well versed in 
Jewish literature to occupy themselves more with Philo 
than has hitherto been done. They will find in him a pro- 
fitable field of labour. 

The first efforts at a complete presentation of the philo- 
sophy of Philo were the works of Gfrorer and Dahne. 1 
Both of these, meritorious as they were in their time, must 
still be on the whole considered as failures. Both writers 
approached Philo with preconceived opinions and with a 
decided tendency ; both were less concerned in interpreting 
Philo himself out of his writings than in explaining the 
origin of Christianity from Philo. By this method it was 
of course impossible for them to succeed in obtaining a just 
estimate of Philo. 2 Similarly, what they assert concerning 
the origin of the Judaeo-Alexandrian religious philosophy, 
and its traces in the pre-Philonic Jewish Hellenistic 
literature, is almost throughout incorrect. It is a totally 
perverse notion to regard the translation of the LXX. as 
produced under the influence of Greek philosophy. Of all 
the writings of the Judaeo-Hellenistic literature which arose 
before Philo, the Wisdom of Solomon is (Aristobulus apart) 
the only one in which the influence of Greek philosophy 
can be clearly traced. The first genuinely scientific pre- 
sentation of the Philonic philosophy was given by Ed. Zeller 

1 Gfrorer, Philo und die alexa-ndrinisehe Theosaphie, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 
1831). Dahne, Geschichtliche Darstellung der jiidisch-alexandrinischen 
Jteligions-Philosophie, 2 vols. (Halle, 1834). 

2 See Freudenthal, Frankel's Monatsschrift, 1869, p. 411 seq. 

26 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

in the standard work, "Die Philosophic der Griechen." 1 
With admirable lucidity and vividness, Zeller describes 
how Philo, starting from the Jewish belief in revelation and 
adhering strictly to it, but on the other hand filled with 
the Hellenic spirit and convinced of the great worth of 
Hellenic culture, sought by means of allegorical explanation 
of the actual words of the Bible to harmonise the religion of 
Judaism with Greek speculation, and thereby created a 
philosophical system, which, full though it be of contra- 
dictions and obscurities, still manifests an individual and 
independent character, and must be recognised as an 
essential link in the development of Greek philosophy. 
In the introductory remark's, too, concerning the origin of 
the Judaeo- Alexandrian philosophy, and the real and alleged 
traces of Greek influence in the Judseo-Hellenistic literature, 
Zeller's keen and impartial judgment is seen. Only in regard 
to the Essenes does he cling, even in his third edition, to the 
erroneous opinion that they were a product of the influence 
of neo-Pythagoreanism upon Judaism. This view, in my 
opinion, cannot hold its ground ; the Essenes were a purely 
Jewish sect, a society in which the Jewish laws of purity 
were practised with the utmost rigour, and carried to an 
exaggerated extreme. 

Besides Zeller's, we have now the delineation of James 
Drummond. 2 Dr. Drummond's work is a highly meritorious 
production based upon a thorough knowledge of Philo. 
In impartiality and objectivity, his treatment of the subject 
is not inferior to Zeller's, while he excels the German 
scholar in fulness. Both works, of course, deal only 
with the philosophical contents of the Philonic writings. 
In both reference is made, in the case of the most im- 
portant teachings, to the Greek sources from which Philo 
preferentially drew. Philo was notoriously eclectic ; in 

1 Part 3, Section 2 (3rd edition 1881), pp. 338-418. 

1 Philo'Judaius, or t/te Jewiih-Alerandrian philosophy in it* develop- 
ment and completion, by James Drummond, 2 vols. (London, 1888). 

The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria. 27 

the philosophical teachings which he derives from the 
words of the Bible he follows first one, then the other 
school. He has drawn most abundantly from Plato 
(doctrine of ideas, creation), and from the Stoics (doctrine 
of the Logos, Ethics) ; in his symbolism of numbers he 
attaches himself to the Pythagorean (or the Pythagorising 
Stoic) school ; but he has also borrowed much from the 
Peripatetic philosophy, and occasionally even did not 
disdain the teachings of the Sceptics. Philo's dependence 
upon different schools of philosophy requires to be more 
minutely investigated and established, for the better 
understanding of the various parts of his system and of 
some of his works. In this respect the first attempts 
only have hitherto been made. It is chiefly the doctrine 
of the Logos that has formed the subject of special in- 
vestigation. 1 Philo's theory of knowledge has lately been 
treated by a young Breslau scholar, Max Freudenthal. 2 If 
the various writings are more closely investigated with an 
eye to their philosophic contents, many not unimportant 
results for the history of the philosophy of the Hellenistic 
period may thereby be gained. J. Bernays gave an 
example of this in his unfortunately unfinished com- 
mentary on the Ilepl u<p9ap<ria<; Koafiov? Hans von 
Arnim's book contains a thorough examination of the 
sources. 4 It consists of three treatises. In the first the 
contents of the Ilepl acj>0aaiat k6<t/aov are analysed ; in the 
second it is shown that Philo, in the section of the Be 

1 Heinze, Die Lchre vom Logos in der grieehischen Philosophic, pp. 
204-297 (Leipsic, 1872) ; Soulier, La doctrine du Logos che: Philon oVAlex- 
andrie (Turin, 1876) ; ReVille, Le Logos d'apres Philon d 1 Alexandria 
(Geneve, 1877) ; La doctrine du Logos dans le quatrieme etangile et dans 
Its teuvres de Philon (Paris, 1881). 

2 Max Freudenthal, Die ErJtenntnislehre Philos von Alexandria (Berlin, 

3 Abhandlungen der Berliner Ahademie der Wissenscluiften (Fhilox. 
Hist. Classc, 1882). 

* Hans von Arnim, Quellenstudien zu Philo von Alexandria (Berlin, 

28 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

Ebrietate (Mang. I. 383-388), which deals with the un- 
trustworthiness of sensuous perceptions, made use of the 
well-known rpoirot of the sceptic Aenesidemus, to which, 
moreover, one passage of the book Be Vita Josephi (Mang. 
II. 59) is referred ; in the third treatise Arnim deals with 
the Stoic problem, el fieOvadtfaerai 6 <ro<f>6<}, discussed by 
Philo in his work De Plantatione Noe (Mang. I. 350-356)* 
It is greatly to be desired that more of such investigations 
were set on foot; then in time it could be precisely 
determined in how far Philo, in his philosophical views, is 
dependent upon Greek philosophy, and to what extent he 
is original. 

The philosophical teachings of Philo show us the author 
from one side only, viz., that on which he appears most 
closely united to Hellenism. The other side of the Philonic 
literature is the theological, from which he approaches us as 
a professor and defender of Judaism. Philo is not only a 
philosopher, but in a still higher degree a writer on religion 
and a Bible exegete. Few of his writings are purely 
philosophical ; most of them are in their essence expository 
works on the Bible, philosophical teachings, which, in 
reality, have grown up on Greek soil, and been attached 
to the words of Holy Writ. The kind of exegesis of 
which Philo mostly made use, was, as is well known, the 
method of allegory. This system of exegesis was not 
invented by Philo; long before his time it was prac- 
tised by the Greeks as well as by the Jews. The Stoics 
employed allegory in their explanation of the Homeric 
poems, and in the interpretation of the Greek myths of 
gods and heroes ; by aid of allegorical explanation they 
sought to indicate that their own philosophical teachings 
were already displayed in Homer and in the ancient 
myths. Among the men of his own faith also, Philo had 
forerunners in the art of allegorical interpretation. He 
himself testifies to this, for in his explanation of passages 
in Scripture he frequently appeals to older exegetes, and 
adduces at times various interpretations of a single 

The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria. 29 

Biblical passage which point to well-known traditions. 
He farther reports that in the societies of the Essenes and 
Therapeutae the Biblical writings used to be explained 
allegorically. Besides this, we know that, before Philo, 
Aristobutus sought, by means of allegorical interpreta- 
tions, to trace doctrines of Greek philosophy in the Jewish 

To Philo's Bible exegesis many weighty problems are 
attached. The first question is — What is Philo's relation to 
the Septuagint? It is certain that Philo did not make use 
of the Hebrew text of the Holy Scripture, but of the Greek 
translation by the LXX. True, he was not quite unac- 
quainted with Hebrew, as we can infer from his etymo- 
logies of Hebrew expressions, but he was not so conversant 
with it as with Greek ; he, therefore, preferred to base his 
exegesis upon the translation of the LXX., commonly 
employed by the Alexandrian Jews, ascribing to it the 
same sanctity and binding force as to the Hebrew original. 
As Philo is the earliest writer who made use of the LXX, 
which he frequently quotes, it is evident how high a value 
his citations and interpretations have for the criticism and 
the restoration of the original form of the Septuagint, the 
text of which has, in the course of time, undergone so 
many changes and disfigurements. We can, in fact, per- 
ceive that Philo, in certain passages, had before him another 
and better text of the Greek translation, than is offered by 
the extant MSS. and editions of the Septuagint. I will only 
quote one example. The text of the Septuagint, Gen. iii. 24, 
is, koX il-e/3a.\ev tov 'ASap, teal Karauuaev avTov aTrevavri, 
tov irapahdaov t>)? rpv(f>r}<; xal eral-ev t<x ^e/30i»y3t/i xal 
t^v (pXoyivrjv popspaiav ttjv aTp€(popUvt}v <f>v\dacreiv Ttjv 6B6v 
toO %vKov tt)? fa>»/9. Here, owing to the additions of avrov 
and koX era^ev, which are not found in the Hebrew text, 
the meaning of the sentence is completely altered. But 
Philo, in De Cherubim 4 (I. p. 140), reproduces this sentence 
in the modified form, Tore koX i) <p\o<yLvr) poptpaia kcu to. 
Xepovftlfi avTiKpv tov irapaBeiaov rrjv oiktjo-iv ta^ei. Hence 

30 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

we must assume that Philo, in his copy of the Septua- 
gint, read .... /cat KaraucMrev airivavri tov irapaSeCtrov 
rrjs rpvcpfj? ret, xepovftlfi teal t^v <f>\oylvr)V pou><patav, i.e., 
exactly in accordance with the Masoretic text. On the 
Bible quotations in Philo, Zach. Frankel, in his learned and 
ingenious writings on the Septuagint, 1 has incidentally 
made several observations. C. Siegfried 2 has collected 
Philo's Bible quotations and compared them with the 
text of the Septuagint. But a final solution of the question 
has not been brought about, and, indeed, has not hitherto 
been possible. For the text of Philo as presented in exist- 
ing editions is not trustworthy; frequently the Biblical 
citations have not the same form in which Philo wrote 
them ; they have been altered, partly by the copyists of the 
MSS. and partly by the editors, to bring them into agree- 
ment with the accepted text of the Septuagint. From the 
oldest traditional sources, however, the correct reading can 
at times be restored. Philo's relation to the Septuagint 
will only be accurately determined when the new edition 
of his works, with the text emended according to the 
best MSS., lies before us. 

Z. Frankel was the first to duly recognise and correctly 
represent the true character of Philo's interpretation of the 
Bible, and its sharp contrast to the Palestinian exegesis. 3 
But notwithstanding this essential difference in the 
conception and explanation of Holy Writ, we still find 
points of contact between Philo and Palestinian works. 
Not a few of Philo's allegorical interpretations are to 
be met with in the Midrashim (Bereshit Rabba, Jalkut, 
etc.). Here arises the important question : Has Philo drawn 
from the Palestinian Midrash, or have Philonic ideas and 

1 Vurstudien ztt der S-ptuajinta (Leipsic, 1841") ; Ueber den Einfluss der 
Palaestinisehen Exegese avf die alexandrmUchc Hermenewtik (Leipsic, 

* Zeitschnft fur wusensehaftliche Theologie (1873). 

3 Ueber palastinUclte nnd alexandrinische Schriftforschung (Programm. 
Breslau, 1854). 

The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria. 31 

expositions passed over into the Midrashim ? To answer 
this question, a thorough investigation is needed into the 
origin, sources and dates of the Midrashim. It were 
greatly to be desired that those learned in Talmudic 
literature should apply themselves to this important task. 
A few parallels from Midrashic literature C. Siegfried has 
collected in his book on Philo. This learned work 1 is a most 
valuable contribution to the exegesis of Philo, and to the 
history of his influence upon later literature. The first part 
of the book treats of the rules of the allegorical interpre- 
tation of Scripture, and then gives a complete view of the 
teaching of Philo according to his allegorical explanations. 
In the second part Siegfried discusses Philo's influence upon 
later Jewish, and particularly upon Christian literature (New 
Testament and Church-fathers). Obviously, however, the 
section on Philo's relation to Hebrew literature requires, 
after what has been said above, to be considerably supple- 
mented. The introduction contains among other things 
an industriously collected, but still very incomplete Philonic 

A.s the allegorical method of exposition preponderates in 
the Philonic writings, we find, upon bringing the Palestinian 
religious sources into comparison, that Philo occupies him- 
self chiefly with that element of the Talmudic literature 
which it is customary to sum up under the term Agada.. 
The Philonic writings represent, so to speak, the Alex- 
andrian Agada. But the other side of the Talmudic 
literature, the Halacha is, likewise, not altogether absent in 
Philo. It is to be met with in those writings in which the 
allegorical is pushed into the background by the historico- 
ethical explanation, especially in the work De specialibus 
legibus, in which Philo interprets in systematic fashion the 
Mosaic legislation. The relation of Philo to the Palestinian 

1 Carl Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria ah Audeger des alien Testaments 
an sich selbst und nach seinem gcscMchtliclwn Einjhiss oetraehtet. (Jena, 

32 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

HalacJia B. Ritter has made clear in an able monograph. 1 
Philo does not simply offer a paraphrase to the Biblical laws ; 
in his representation and exposition he frequently travels 
beyond the letter of the Mosaic ordinances. It is not to 
be assumed that such expansions of the Biblical commands 
were invented by Philo himself ; it is much more probable 
that they were founded upon a particular tradition or 
upon the actual practice then in vogue in Egypt. Some 
of the legal decisions mentioned by Philo which do not 
directly follow from the Bible, occur also, as Ritter 
proves, in the Palestinian Halacha. On the other hand, 
however, there are also decisions in which Philo di- 
verges from the Talmudic sources. In these cases, too, we 
have probably no mere subjective opinions of Philo. The 
presumption was entertained by Z. Frankel, that in 
Egypt, in many cases, different usages may have prevailed 
from those which obtained in Palestine. Ritter is of the 
same opinion, and not without justification refers back 
many of those laws in Philo which are not in accord with 
the Palestinian Halacha, to decisions and ordinances of 
the Jewish Synhedrion of Alexandria. 

We now come to the literary and historical works on 
Philo, and will, in the first place, state the results which 
have recently been arrived at, concerning the order and 
classification of the Philonic writings. A definite tradition 
of the order and sequence of the Philonic works does not 
exist. Eusebius (Hist. Heel., ii. 18), it is true, gives a list 
of the writings of Philo, but it is so confused that we can 
make no practical use of it as a systematic arrangement. 
In the MSS., the sequence of the writings is entirely 
different, and nowhere is any definite system of arrange- 
ment recognisable. We must, therefore, endeavour to 
supply a proper division and sequence, according to the 
contents of his writings. The first editor, Adrianus 

1 Philo und die Halacha. Eine vergleichende Studie unter tteter 
BerucktichtigKng det Josephvs. (Leipsic, 1879.) 

The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria. 33 

Turnebus, already attempted to introduce some order 
in the confusion, and to group together writings of 
similar import, but with no marked success. Far 
better is the arrangement and sequence of the writings 
in Mangey's edition, which to the present time remains 
of paramount authority. During this century, valuable 
contributions to the correct classification of the works 
of Philo have been supplied by Gfrorer (see p. 25, 
note 1 above). Dahne, 1 Grossmann, 2 Ewald, 3 and quite 
recently by Schiirer and Massebieau. 4 I here briefly 
summarise the most important results yielded by these 
treatises. Speaking in general terms, three great categories 
can be distinguished in the works of Philo, viz., writings 
on the exposition of the Pentateuch, historico-apologetic 
Avritings, and philosophical writings. The first group is 
the most comprehensive, embracing more than three- 
quarters of the Philonic writings. 

I. Exegetical Writings on the Pentateuch. — For the explana- 
tion of the Pentateuch, Philo composed three great works, 
each of which is again divided into several books. 

1. Quastiones et Solutiones (Zij-n^aTa xal \u<r«s), a 
short explanation of the Bible according to the literal sense 
(to prjrov, ad litteram), and the allegorical sense (-irpbs 
Sidvoiav, ad mentem), in the form of question and answer. 
Of this work, Eusebius mentions eleven books, six books 
on Genesis, and five on Exodus. The Greek original is 
lost ; we know the work chiefly through an Armenian 
translation, which was edited by Aucher, together with a 
Latin translation (Venice, 182G). The Armenian transla- 
tion contains four books on Genesis (ii. — xxviii.), and two 
books on Exodus (xii. 2 — 23, and xx. 25 — xxviii. 38.) The 
four books on Genesis correspond probably to the six 

1 Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1833, pages 984-1040. 

2 De Philonis Judcei operum eontinua serie et ordine chronologieo, I., II. 
(Leipsic, 1841, 1842.) 

3 Gesehichte des Volkes Israel, 3rd edition, vol. vi., pages 257-312. 

4 Le Classement des (Euvres de Philon, (Paris, 1889.) 
VOL. V. C 

34* The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

books of Eusebius, the fourth book on Genesis containing 
no doubt also the fifth and sixth mentioned by Eusebius. 
The two books on Exodus are very likely the same as the 
second and fifth of the five books referred to by Eusebius. 
This work was much used in the Middle Age by the 
Church-fathers and in anthologies ; hence it is possible to 
restore the Greek text in many sections. 

2. The great Allegorical Commentary on Genesis (Nofiav 
lepw aXkrjyopla). — In this work allegory rules exclusively; 
by allegorising the events narrated in Genesis, Philo 
gives us a history of the human soul, a system of 
psychology and ethics, the aim of which is the union of 
the human soul with God. Of all Philo's works this is the 
most comprehensive ; to it belong all the writings which are 
printed in the first volume of Mangey's edition (with the 
exception of De Opificio Mundi): Legum Allegoriarum lib. I., 
II., III., De Cherubim, De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, Quod 
deterius potiori insidiari soleat, De posteritate Caini, De Gigan- 
tibus, Quod Dens sit immutabilis, De Agrieultura, De Planta- 
tione Noe, De Ebrietate (consisted originally of two books, 
the second, with the exception of a few fragments, being 
lost), De Sobrietate, De Con/usione Linguarum, De Migratione 
Abrahami, Quis Berum Divinarum Seres sit, De Congressu 
qucerendaB cruditionis gratia, De Prqfugis, De Mutatione No- 
minum, De Deo (only preserved in the Armenian translation), 
De Somniis, lib. I., II. (the last named originally contained, as 
Eusebius shows, five books, of which the first three are lost). 
On the origin of these writings, and their true character, 
Ewald and Frankel were the first to express the correct view, 
which was then more minutely expounded and defended 
by Prof. Freudenthal. 1 All writings belonging to this 
work probably proceeded from religious discourses which 
Philo delivered on the Jewish festivals to assemblies in 
Alexandria, and which he later worked out in connected 

1 Die Flavias Josephus beigelegte Sohrift uber die Herrschaft der 
Venranft (Breslau, 1869), pp. 7—9, 137—141. 

The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria. 35 

commentaries. This circumstance explains also the mani- 
fold points of contact with the Palestinian Midrashim, 
which likewise had their origin in religious discourses. 

3. The Presentation of the Mosaic Legislation. — In this 
historico-exegetic work Philo expounds the Mosaic ordi- 
nances chiefly according to their literal sense, without, how- 
ever, excluding the allegorical method of interpretation. 
The work may be divided into three parts. By way of 
introduction, Philo gives an account of the Biblical narrat- 
ing of the creation, which Moses, according to Philo, inten- 
tionally placed at the head of his legislation. Thereupon 
follow the biographies of the patriarchs, and then the 
exposition of the Mosaic legislation. To this work, accord- 
ingly, belong the following writings : — Be Opificio Mundi, 
Be Abrahamo, 1 Be Josepho, Be Becalogo, Be Specialibus 
Lcgibus. The work, Be Specialibus Legibus, treats in full 
detail of the Ten Commandments, and is divided into four 
books : in the first book the first and second commandments 
are dealt with ; in -the second book, the third, fourth, and 
fifth ; in the third book, the sixth and seventh ; in the 
fourth, the eighth, ninth, and tenth commandments. 
To these four books certain writings are to be assigned 
which have hitherto been mostly known under : 
special titles. To the first book belong: Be Circum- 
cisione, Be Homrchia, lib. I., II., Be Prmmiis Sacerdotum, 
Be Victimis, Be Victimas Offerentibus. Of the second 
book, only fragments are to be found in the ordinary 
editions ; the complete text was first edited by Tischen- 
dorf (Philonea, Leipsic, 18G8) from the Florentine 
MS. To the fourth book, which Mangey first edited 
in full from an Oxford MS., belong also the sections 
Be Judice, Be Concupiscentia, Be Justitia, Be Creatione 
Principum, and as appendix, Be Fortitudine, Be Praemiis 
et Pamis, Be Execrationibus. 

1 In the same manner, Philo appears to have described the lives of 
Isaac and Jacob, of which books, however, nothing has been preserved. 

C 2 

36 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

II. Historico- Apologetic Writings. — The writings of the 
first category appealed almost exclusively to Jewish 
readers. On the other hand, the writings which we sum 
up in these two groups were destined for a wider circle 
of readers. In them Philo has an apologetic object in 
view ; he wishes to make the Greeks acquainted with the 
moral teachings of Judaism, and to defend the Jewish 
religion against the attacks of its opponents. The 
allegorical method of interpretation is not made use of 
in these writings. The following works belong to this 
group : — 

1. The books, De Vita Mosis, a panegyric on Moses as 
leader of the people, as lawgiver, priest, and prophet. A 
few short tractates, De Caritate, De Posnitentia, De Nobili- 
tate, form an appendix to this work. One treatise, De 
Pietate (Jlepi evcre/Seias), to which reference is made at 
the commencement of De Caritate, is lost. In one part of 
the MSS., the work De Fortitudine is connected with the 
dissertations De Caritate and De Pcenitentia, and Schiirer 
attempts to justify this connection. On the other hand, 
Gfrorer and Dahne, and lately, Massebieau, have convinc- 
ingly demonstrated that De Fortitudine is more naturally 
connected with De Jmtitia, and, therefore, belongs to the 
work, De Specialibus Legibus. 

2. The writings Contra Flaccum and Legatio ad Caium. — 
Philo's account of the persecution under Caligula has not 
come down to us in a complete form. According to Euse- 
bius, the work consisted of five books ; the larger part is, 
therefore, lost. 

3. Two works of Philo, concerning which we have 
information only through quotations in Eusebius — the 
'TirodeTucd and7re/M 'IovSaluv (or AiroXoyia inrepIovSauov) — 
were likewise of apologetic character. From the 'Twoderttcd 
Eusebius quotes a fragment, in which Philo refutes the 
erroneous opinions of opponents on the origin of the Jewish 
nation, and gives a short abstract of the Mosaic laws. 
From the 'ATroXoyia virip 'lovhalav Eusebius quotes Philo's 

The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria. 37 

account of the Essenes. Massebieau conjectures that the 
writing, Be Vita Contemplativa, formed originally a con- 
stituent part of this AiroXoyta. I shall return to this work 
later on. 

III. Philosophical Writings. — In these works Philo dis- 
cusses specific philosophical problems quite in the manner 
of the Greek philosophers of his time, without reference to 
the Bible and without giving any prominence to his Jewish 
belief. Only in a few incidental remarks on the Jews, 
or in a short quotation from the Bible, does the Jewish 
religion of the author come into evidence. It is very 
probable that these are writings of Philo : s early 
youth ; that they date from a period when Philo, still 
occupied with his own intellectual and moral develop- 
ment, zealously applied himself to the study of Greek 
philosophy, and when he had not yet arrived at that 
independent Weltanschauung which was the offspring 
of a union of the Jewish belief in revelation with 
Greek philosophy. This accounts for the circumstance 
that certain external defects attach to these writings which 
we do not observe in the other works of Philo. To this 
group the following writings belong : — 1. Quod omnis probus 
liber sit (Ilepl tov ttclvtu airovhaiov e\ev8epov eivat) — the 
continuation of a lost work which Eusebius mentions, in 
which the converse proposition was proved (irepl tov irdvTa 
<pav\ov SovXov elvai). 2. De dEtcrnitate mundi (Ilepl atf>9apcria<i 
Koa/iov) — a work to which J. Bernays has devoted con- 
siderable labour, and which has recently been edited 
by Franz Cumont (Berlin, 1891). 3. De Providentia 
{Ilepl TTpovoias), preserved, as a whole, only in an 
Armenian translation consisting of two books, though the 
first book exists apparently not quite in its original form, 
but in a Christian revision. Two larger Greek fragments 
have come down to us from Eusebius. 4. Alexander, sive de 
Animalibus ('<4\e'favSpo? f) irepl tov Xoyov e^ecv tcl aXoya foSa), 
also preserved only in the Armenian translation. The two 
last-named writings are in dialogue form. 

38 The Jeicish Quarterly Review. 

The genuineness of some of Philo's writings has of late 
years been strongly contested. The greatest amount of 
doubt has been cast upon the authenticity of the work, Be 
Vita Contemplatim, which deals with the Therapeutae, 
because it was not believed that such an ascetic sect could 
have existed in the time of Philo. The view that the 
Therapeutae were not Jews, but Christians, is very old, and 
was predominant during the whole of the Middle Ages till 
modern times. Since Eusebius, all the Church fathers and 
theologians regarded the Therapeutae as Christian monks. 
As, however, Philo was known as the author of Be Vita 
Contemplativa, a legend was invented for the explanation 
of this contradiction, to the effect that Philo met the 
apostle Peter in Borne (as Seneca is alleged to have 
met Paul), and through him became acquainted with Chris- 
tianity. After Protestant criticism had overthrown this 
legend, opinions on the Therapeutae became divided. 
Some considered them as representatives of a philosophic 
tendency in Judaism, called forth by the Alexandrian 
philosophy ; another identified them with the Essenes, 
describing them, so to speak, as Egyptian Essenes. 
Some, however, wished to deny to the Therapeutae all 
historic reality, and regarded the work, Be Vita Contem- 
plativa, as a romance. But, during the most recent times, 
the opinion of the Church fathers, that the Therapeutae 
were Christian ascetics, has been again revived, and, as a 
consequence, the Philonic authorship of the Be Vita Contem- 
plativa had to be denied. Professor Graetz 1 was the first to 
assert the unauthenticity of this work, and he pronounced 
the Therapeutae to be Christian ascetics of the second or 
third century after Christ, and the Be Vita Contemplativa 
to be the work of a Christian belonging to the Gnostic or 
Montanistic circle, who wished to idealise the ascetic mode 
of life. At the same time others also took up their stand 
against Philo's authorship, although they did not exactly 

1 GescJiichte der Juden, Vol. III. (2nd edition), p. 463, teq. 

The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria. 89 

declare the Therapeutae to be Christians. Nicolas 1 was of 
opinion that Be Vita Contemplativa was written by a Jew 
living at the end of the third century, whose enthusiasm 
for ascetic life, and envy of Christian ascetics, induced 
him to set up an ideal image of Jewish asceticism. 
In the same manner, Kuenen 2 considered Be Vita Contem- 
plativa a romance of the third century. 

The view expressed by Professor Graetz was defended 
in the fullest manner and with extraordinary learn- 
ing and ingenuity by P. E. Lucius. 3 Lucius asserted 
Be Vita Contemplativa to be an apology of Christian 
asceticism, written in the third century under Philo's 
name. His demonstration appeared so convincing, that 
the ancient controversy was then deemed finally settled. 
In Germany, Lucius' theory received the unconditional 
assent of most scholars, men like Zeller, Schurer, Harnack, 
and others. In spite of all this, his view must be pro- 
nounced to have been mistaken. L. Massebieau, in an 
excellent essay, 4 has most successfully defended the 
genuineness of Be Vita Contemplativa against Lucius' 
attack. By means of an exact analysis, resting upon 
a thorough knowledge of Philo, and by comparison 
with Philo's other writings, he has shown that Be Vita 
Contemplativa moves throughout in the Philonic circle 
of ideas, and is nowhere opposed to Philo's philo- 
sophic opinions. The style is so completely Philonic 
that not one word occurs that is not used, or might 
not well have been used by him, while in the whole book 
there is scarcely a sentence which could not be supported 
by parallels from the other writings of Philo. This 
circumstance, if the work is authentic, has nothing remark - 

1 Revue de Theologie (Strasburg, 1868), p. 25, teg. 

2 Be Oodsdienst van Israel, Vol. II., p. 440, seg. 

' Die Therapeutenund Hire Stellmig in der Qesehichte der Askese. (Stras- 
burg, 1879.) 

« Revue de VHistoire des Religions, Vol. XVI. (1887), pp. 170-198, 

40 The Jewish Quarterly Reviexc. 

able in it, as Philo shows a fondness for repeating again 
and again the same ideas in the same words; it would, 
however, be inexplicable on the contrary hypothesis. 
An imitation is always in some way or other distinguish- 
able from an original work. Be Vita Contemplated 
differs in nothing from the other writings of Philo. 
That any one (and especially a Christian author of the 
third century) should have constructed out of diverse 
sentences and ideas of Philo a piece of mosaic in a manner 
so ingenious as to render it, in regard both to contents and 
style, undistinguishable from an authentic work of Philo's, 
is an impossible assumption. That under the Thera- 
peutse Christian ascetics are depicted, is not proved by 
the references of Lucius to Patristic literature. In the 
description of the Therapeutae there is nothing to pre- 
vent us from regarding them as a Jewish sect. While 
they differed from the great mass of Jews in many 
peculiarities of external life, in their religious views 
they did not separate themselves from those who were 
faithful followers of the law. It was precisely in Egypt, 
the home of the New-Pythagorean-Orphic mysticism, 
where the birth of a similar tendency in Judaism is not 
surprising. Lucius adduces as a proof of the unauthenticity 
of the work, that before Eusebius the Therapeut* are 
nowhere mentioned. An argiimentum ex sikntio has always 
something suspicious about it; in this case it is quite 
inadmissible. There are fasts enough in the history 
of mankind, and among them many more remarkable 
than the existence of the Therapeutse, for which we 
have only one witness, but which nevertheless admit of no 
doubt. For upon whom lay a necessity to make any men- 
tion of the Therapcutse ? Josephus might perhaps have 
referred to them in passing, but it was not necessary for 
him to do so, as he concerned himsalf little with the con- 
dition of the Egyptian Jews. Perhaps, also, in his time 
there were no longer any Therapeutfle, and it is doubtful 
whether he was acquainted with all the writings of Philo. 

The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria. 41 

Still less had Greek and Roman •writers cause to speak of 
a small society among the Jewish inhabitants of Egypt. 

That the Church fathers, who lived before Euse- 
bius, never mentioned the sect of Therapeutae, certainly 
appears remarkable. But either they did not know the 
work Be Vita Contemplativa — for we need not take for 
granted that the writings of Philo were as familiar to 
all of them as to Eusebius — or they saw in the Thera- 
peutae nothing more than they really were, a Jewish 
brotherhood, and therefore considered that they had no 
occasion to concern themselves with them; while 
Eusebius, who drew up a complete inventory of the 
Philonic writings, thought he could recognise in the Thera- 
peuta; Christian ascetics, and therefore treated of them with 
much minuteness. In one point only was Lucius right, 
viz., in regard to the relation of the treatise on the Thera- 
peutae to the work Quod omnis probus liber sit. The work 
Be Vita Contemplativa begins with the words : — 'Etraaicov 
irept hiaXe^OeU, o't tov irpaKTiicbv e^qXaxrav icai Bierrovijaav 
fiiov .... avrUa tcai Trepl rav decopiav a<nra(Tafievcov 
a.Ko\ov6ia t/}<? 7rpayfiaTeia<} iTr6fif.vo<; ra irpoo-r)Kovra A.e£a>. 
It therefore presents itself as a pendant and continuation to 
a treatise on the Essenes. These words have generally been 
referred to the work Quod omnis probus liber sit, in which 
in one passage (§ 12, 13) the Essenes are spoken of, and in 
the editions, as well as in most of the MSS., the two 
writings are found side by side. Lucius quite correctly 
remarks that the connection is a forced and unnatural one. 
For Quod omnis probus liber sit does not exclusively depict 
the practical life of the Essenes (as Be Vita Contemplativa 
depicts the theoretical life of the Therapeutae), but discusses 
the philosophical theory that only the wise man is free, 
and only among other examples incidentally makes mention 
of the Essenes. The connection is also impossible for this 
reason : Quod omnis probus liber sit was probably a youthful 
work of Philo, while the other treatise on the Therapeutae 
must have been composed many years later, as Philo's fully 

42 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

formed and worked out philosophic doctrines are already to 
be found in it. Philo must have dealt with the Essenes in 
another work, in which he described them as an example of 
7rpa*TMeo?#w>9,andthe companion picture thereto was formed 
by the treatise on the Therapeutse, whom Philo depicts as 
representatives of OeaprjTiKo^ f3io<;. But that Philo spoke 
of the Essenes in another place also is expressly certified 
by Eusebius. From one of Philo's lost works, 'AiroXoyia. 
xnrep lovZalmv, Eusebius quotes a fragment which treats of 
the Essenes. Massebieau conjectures, with great probability, 
that the tractate on the Therapeutse also belonged originally 
to this apologetic work, but having afterwards become 
detached from it, was henceforward handed down as a 
separate treatise, while the remaining portions of the work 
were lost. 

Some have also attempted to deny to Philo the author- 
ship of the work, Quod omnis probus liber sit. Z. Frankel 1 
advanced several reasons against its genuineness, which are, 
however, of not much weight, because this work belongs to 
the purely philosophical treatises of Philo, which in their 
external form deviate slightly from his other writings. 
Frankel characterises the work in the following words : — 
" Upon close investigation it is seen that we have here the 
school exercise of a philosophical tyro. No original 
thought, no living exposition ; only a piling-up of borrowed 
sentences and examples." This is quite correct, but 
is no proof against the Philonic authorship. It is a 
youthful work of Philo; this explains everything. The 
style, however, is already distinctively Philonic. Recently 
a fresh attempt has been made by R. Ausfeld 2 to disprove 
the authenticity of the work, but without result ; he has 
been completely refuted by P. Wendland. 3 

1 Ueber Palcestinische una" Alcxandrinisclie Schriftforschung, p. 32. 
s De Libra Xlepi rov irdvra aicovdaiov ilvat iXcvQipov qui inter Philonis 
Alexandrini Opera fertur. (Diss. Gottingae, 1887.) 

1 Archivfiir Geschichtc der Philosophic, Vol. I. (1888), pp. 509-517. 

The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria. 43 

From similar reasons Z. Frankel had pronounced the 
treatise De jEternitate Mundi (Ilepl afyQapaias ko<t(iov) un- 
authentic, and J. Bernays concurred in his opinion. 
Bernays' authority on such matters was so influential, 
that its unauthenticity was generally regarded as certain. 
Latterly, however, F. Cumont, in the Prolegomena to 
his edition (Berlin, 1891), has successfully defended the 
genuineness of this work. Its Philonic character can as 
little be denied as in the case of Quod omnis probus liber sit. 
The same character, too, marks the treatise De Providentia, 
the genuineness of which will be established by my friend, 
P. Wendland, in a book already in the press. 1 

Unquestionably spurious is the little work De Mundo 
(Ilepl Koa-fiov), which is nothing but a compilation from 
various portions of the Ilepl a<pdap(Tia<; Koo-pov, and of 
other Philonic works. The De Sampsone and De Iona, 
discourses extant in Armenian, which have come by 
chance among the Philonic writings, also falsely bear the 
name of Philo. 

. What has chiefly been neglected hitherto is the text cf 
Philo's works. Since Thomas Mangey — i.e., for 150 years — 
no critical edition of Philo's works has been forthcoming. 
The few editions which have appeared since then are based 
mainly upon Mangey's text. Mangey's edition (two vols., 
London, 1742) was undeniably a great advance upon the 
cditio princeps (Paris, 1553) of Adrianus Turnebus. For 
that which he accomplished for Philo the highest credit 
is due to him. He introduced a better order into the 
Philonic writings; he edited for the first time some 
works which were missing in Turnebus' edition ; he com- 
pared, or caused to be compared, a number of important 
MSS., and partly by their help, and partly by means of 
his own shrewd conjectures, he emended the text in 
many places, and cleared it of mistakes; finally, he 

1 [It has just now appeared : Philo* Schrift iiber die Vorsehvtig. Uiu 
lieitrag zur GescMchte dcr naeharistotelizchai Philostyhk. Von. Paul 
Wendland, Berlin, 1892.] 

44 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

first collected the fragments of the lost works, and for this 
purpose made use of the various Catenae and Florilegia. 
But what progress has been made in science during the 
last 150 years ! How greatly have literary aids increased, 
how much have methods improved, how differently is 
philological criticism now employed! Who can, there- 
fore, wonder that Mangey's edition no longer suffices for 
our time ; who will deny that an edition of Philo, which 
should answer every scientific demand of the present day, 
would necessarily present a very different appearance ? 
MSS. must be more widely examined and utilised than 
was or could be done by Mangey, and in the estimation 
and employment of MSS. readings, a more methodical 
criticism must be followed. For the collection of frag- 
ments and the reconstruction of the lost writings much 
new and valuable material has been obtained, through the 
discovery of Armenian translations of Philo's works, 
through the researches into Church fathers, and among 
Christian anthologies. 

The need of a new edition of Philo has been felt for a 
long time. More than sixty years ago, Grossmann (Pro- 
fessor of Theology at Leipsic) formed the plan of preparing 
a critical edition. Acting under his direction, the celebrated 
C. Tischendorf compared the Philonic MSS. in Paris and 
Italy. But Grossmann died in 1857, without having made 
as much as a commencement towards carrying his purpose 
into execution. Another theologian, Dr. Otto, took up the 
scheme, but he also died without having brought it to 
realisation. The two complete editions which have ap- 
peared in Germany in this century— the one under the 
charge of Richter (8 vols., Leipsic, 1828—1830) ; the other 
the stereotyped edition of Tauchnitz (8 vols., Leipsic, 
1851 — 1853) — give in the main the text of Mangey's 
edition, and contain no other additional matter than the 
Latin translation of those works of Philo which were 
edited by Aucher from the Armenian. For the rest 
only a few writings have been edited in a separate form. 

The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria. 45 

Teschendorf, in his Philonea? upon the basis of a careful 
comparison of MSS., brought out a complete and improved 
text of two treatises, which were very imperfectly 
edited by Mangey, viz., the second book Be Specialibus 
Legibus, and the treatise Be Posteritate Caini. J. Bernays 
showed, in an ingenious treatise, 2 that in the work Ilepl 
a(f>0ap<rla<s icoa/Mou, the order was disturbed through a dis- 
placement of the leaves, and he afterwards edited the text, 
restored according to its original sequence, and greatly 
improved. 3 This work was recently again edited by F. 
Cumont, as is mentioned above. The Greek fragments of 
the books, either lost or only preserved in Armenian trans- 
lations, but which are also met with in Catena! or Florilegia, 
J. Rendel Harris has collected and edited. 4 But he has 
not by any means used the whole material now at our 

Now, at last, a new critical edition of the collected works 
of Philo is in course of preparation. The incentive 
thereto is due to the Berlin Academy of Sciences. The 
Academy gave as subject for a prize, in the year 1887, 
the critical treatment of Philo's book Be Opificio Mundi, and 
at the same time expressed the wish that this work might 
lead to a new collected edition of Philo. Of the treatises 
sent in, two were considered worthy of the prize, that of 
Dr. P. Wendland and my own. My work 5 appeared in the 
year 1889 ; it contains the amended text of the work Be 
Opificio Mundi, with critical remarks, and an introduction 
dealing with the earlier editions, the MSS. used, and the 
language of Philo. Soon afterwards Wendland and I 

1 Philonea, inedita altera, altera nunc demum reete ex vetere seriptura 
eruta. (Leipsic, 1868.) 

' Monattberichte der Berliner Ahademie der Wisscnschoften, 1863, page 
81, teq. 

* Abhandlungen der Berliner Ahademie d.\V.,philos.-1tist. Claste, 1876. 

4 Fragments of Philo- Judesus, newly edited by J. Rendel Harris. (Cam- 
bridge, 1886.) 

* Philoni* Alerandrini libellut de opificio mundi. Ed. Leopoldus Cohn 
(Vratislaviae, 1889.) 

46 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

resolved to unite our studies, and to prepare together a 
critical edition of Philo's works. Since then we have 
spent all our free time in collecting critical material, and 
in making ourselves most intimately acquainted with all 
that has come down to us, directly or indirectly, of Philo. 
My friend Wendland worked chiefly in the Italian libraries; 
I myself compared the MSS. in Munich and Vienna, and 
for the same purpose stayed some time last year in Oxford 
and Paris. In Oxford, where I worked for four weeks in 
the Bodleian Library, I enjoyed, as I here wish gratefully 
to acknowledge, the kind assistance of Dr. Neubauer. 

What important results were obtained from the investi- 
gation of the MSS. can be perceived in a few examples 
from Wendland's book published last year. 1 I will give 
a short summary of the contents of this book, attach- 
ing a few remarks to some points, and therewith close 
this survey. In the first place, a hitherto unknown text 
is published, which fills up a gap in Philo's work, Be 
Victhnis. This gap had not been noticed until then, 
although it is quite apparent. In De Victimis, § 3, Philo 
enumerates the offerings which were brought for the whole 
nation (or for the whole of mankind, as Philo adds), ai fiiv 
yap dvdyovrai Ka6' eicd<TTr]v y/xepav, ai Be rat? eftBofiais, ai Be 
vovfj,r}viat<; ical iepofirjviaif, ai Be vrjarreiatf, ai Be rpurl Kaipol? 
eopT&v. Thereupon Philo speaks of the offerings which 
were brought daily (icaO' eK.d<rrr\v rjfiepav), and of those 
that were brought on Sabbath (t<m? i/SSo^at?) ; but then 
(§ 4) he passes over to another subject. Between § 3 and 
§ 4 a section is obviously wanting, wherein the offerings on 
New Moon, New Year, Day of Atonement, and the Three 
Festivals were dealt with. This section is only preserved 
in one MS., which Wendland found in Florence. In it 
Philo expounds the sacrificial commands. Num. xxviii. 11 — 

1 Nev, entdeckte Fragmente Philos nebst einer Untersuchung uber die 
vrtpriinglichc Gestalt der Schrift de sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, von Paul 
Wendland. (Berlin, 1891.) 

The Latest Researches on Philo of Alexandria. 47 

xxix. Some additions are derived from the parallel pas- 
sages in Levit., such as the placing of the shewbread on the 
table on the Sabbath (Levit. xxiv. 6), the sacrifice as a peace- 
offering of two lambs on the Feast of Weeks (Levit. xxiii. 
19), the two goats and the ram on the Day of Atonement 
(Levit. xvi. 5 seq.) As a whole the piece contains nothing 
but a paraphrase of the Biblical account, to which Philo, 
according to his custom, adds an allegorical or moral inter- 
pretation. In this he agrees occasionally with Palestinian 
exegesis, e.g., he makes the twelve loaves of the shewbread 
have reference to the twelve months of the year (similarly 
Josephus Antiq. III. vii. 7). This interpretation does not 
seem to have been invented by Philo, for in the Jewish 
commentators of the Middle Age we find the shewbread 
connected with the twelve constellations (mbra a' 11 ), which 
comes to the same thing. In another respect again Philo 
differs from the Palestinian Rabbins. The daily sacrifices 
he explains as thank-offerings {inrep evxapunuK etcarepov, 
rbv (iev inrep ra>v fied' qfiepav, tov 8' virep t<Sv vvtcTap 
eiiepye<7i<bv, a? airaixiTWi ical dSiaoraTG)? tc5 y&vei twv 
av0pa>ira>v 6 Geo? X°PW e i-)- According to the Rabbinic con- 
ception, which is based upon Job i. 5, they are sin offerings 
for unconscious transgressions. 1 As to his relation to the 
Halacha, the conclusion arrived at by Ritfcer in the above 
quoted work is here also confirmed. Philo agrees in the 
main with the Talmudic decisions, although differences are 
also to be found, which can be referred back to a difference 
in ceremonial practice followed by the Alexandrian Jews 
(and in the Onias temple, so far as the sacrificial ritual is con- 
cerned). Most of the sacrificial laws of the Bible, discussed 
in this section by Philo, are so clear that no dispute on 
them could arise even among the Rabbins. Only in regard to 
the sacrifice on the Feast of Weeks a contradiction exists 
between Num. xxviii. 27 and Levit. xxiii. IS, inasmuch as 

1 PeslUa ed. Buber, p. 55 b. 1B>J»E> nUlJ? by "1B3D "int5> b& TOn 

: ova ibw nuiy by "lsao n^iyn pa bw Tom rbhi 

48 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

in Numbers two bullocks, one ram and seven lambs, and in 
Leviticus seven lambs, one bullock and two rams are com- 
manded to be offered. In the Talmud 1 there is a discussion 
how this is to be understood ; in the name of R. Akiba it 
is decided that both kinds of sacrifices were to be brought 
on Pentecost ; that mentioned in Numbers as a festival 
offering (DVn *pi»), and that in Leviticus on account of 
the bread which had to be offered as a firstling (bb:D 
Dmssn Dnbn). Philo appears to know nothing of this 
Halachic decision. He simply ignores the contradiction 
between the two passages in the Bible, and mentions for 
Pentecost only the offering prescribed in Numbers. Another 
deviation from the Palestinian Halacha appears in § 15, 
where the first offering of the priest (Levit. vi. 13 scq.) is 
spoken of. The indistinctness of the language of the Bible 
in this passage led to a discussion among the Rabbins con- 
cerning the mode of the offering. In the Talmud a dis- 
tinction is made between the high priest and the ordinary 
priest (loYHn ins). According to the Talmudic decision, 
the high priest brings the offering daily, commencing with 
the day of his anointing (bia ]i~D W2TI), the ordinary 
priest only on that day when he performed the service for 
the first time ("pa^n nna»). 2 Philo also explains the bibli- 
cal word T»n (Sta 7ravr6<; LXX.) to mean that the offering 
had to be brought daily (icaO' e«aaT>?v rj/iipav) ; but he does 
not make the distinction which the Rabbins make, but 
refers the ordinance to the priests generally (tepei?). 

In the second chapter of his book Wendland gives the 
fragments of the lost portion of the work Dc Ebrietate, 
which originally consisted of two books. It was formerly 
disputed whether the Flepi fiidt)<; was the first or the 
second book. Wendland proves that it was the first, and 
then gives a collection of the fragments of the lost second 
book, with critical and exegetical notes. All these frag- 

1 Talm. Bab. Menachot, fol. 45, cf. Sifra on Lev. xxiii. 18. 
* lb., fol. 51J, Sifra on Lev. vi. 12. 

Tlie Latest Researclies on Philo of Alexandria. 49 

merits are to be found in a Christian Florilegium, which, 
in the MSS., is usually referred to Johannes Damascenus ; 
Wendland uses the opportunity to give a review of the 
extant MSS. of this Florilegium {Sacra Parallela). The 
text of this Florilegium, which is of great importance to 
Philo and the older Church fathers, has not yet been edited 
in its complete form, and most of the MSS. have either been 
not at all or insufficiently utilised. Harris was the first, in 
his edition of the fragments of Philo, to turn an old Paris 
MS. to account. Still more valuable, however, are the 
so-called Codex Rupefucaldinus (which formerly belonged 
to the library of Sir Thomas Phillipps, in Cheltenham, and 
is now in Berlin), a Vatican MS., from both of which 
Wendland has made excerpts, and another Paris Codex 
which I have lately examined in Paris. The relation of the 
various MSS. to each other, and the origin of the whole work 
require to be more carefully investigated. 

The third and longest chapter of Wendland's book is 
of special importance. Therein Wendland proves that 
Procopius of Gaza (sixth century) in his commentary on 
the Bible, which has been preserved in a Munich MS., 
largely made use of, and frequently copied verbally from, 
Philo's Quaestiones on Genesis and Exodus. As, moreover, 
the Greek anthologies of the middle ages contain many quo- 
tations from Philo, we are in a position to reconstruct to a 
considerable extent the original Greek text of the Qumstiones 
in Genesim et Exodum. In an essay of my own I have 
added a supplement to this important discovery of 
Wendland. Wendland himself had already shown that in 
many places where Procopius employs Philo's Quaestiones, 
as well as in the printed Catena to the Pentateuch (Leipsic, 
1772), Philo is quoted, or obviously used ; hence it follows 
that Procopius must stand in a certain relation to the 
Catena. But we know that Procopius himself compiled a 
Catena Now in my essay I have shown that the printed 
Catena, which has been handed down anonymously in 
the MSS., was the work of no other than Procopius ; the 

VOL. V. D 

50 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

commentary of the Munich MS. is only an extract from the 
Catena, in which there is a running explanation, and the 
names of the authors placed under contribution are omitted. 
As, moreover, Philo is frequently copied in the Catena, where 
he is not expressly mentioned by name, the gain to the text 
of the Quaestiones resulting from this discovery is a 
very important one. Unfortunately Procopius must have 
read the Quaestiones in the same imperfect condition as they 
assume for us in the Armenian translation. 

In the fourth and fifth chapters Wendland discusses the 
relation of Theodoret and Origen to Philo. Both made use 
of him, but did not appropriate his explanations so literally 
as Procopius. 

The sixth chapter treats of the original form of the work 
De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini. In the editions of Philo is to 
be found a small treatise Uepi tov fiiaBwfia iropvip; eh to 
lepbv fir) irpoSixecdai, concerning which there has been some 
doubt into which larger work it should be fitted. 
Wendland proves that it has no right to form an inde- 
pendent treatise, but that it is a patch-work of two pieces, 
which originally belonged to two different writings of 
Philo. The larger piece (§§ 2 — 4) stands in most, as well 
as in the best, MSS. in the middle of the treatise Be Sacrificiis 
Abelis et Caini (§ 5), and has there its appropriate place. 
The beginning (§ 1), which has been clumsily joined to the 
other piece, has its correct position in the work De Victimas 
Offerentibus (between § 4 and § 5), as a Florentine MS. 

Leopold Cohn.