Creation and Literary Re-Creation: Ambrose’s Use of Philo in the Hexaemeral Letters 9781463240882

Citation preview

Creation and Literary Re-creation

Gorgias Studies in Early Christianity and Patristics 72

Series Editorial Board Carly Daniel-Hughes Jeanne-Nicole Mellon Saint-Lauren Adam Serfass Ilaria Ramelli Helen Rhee

Gorgias Studies in Early Christianity and Patristics is designed to advance our understanding of various aspects of early Christianity. The scope of the series is broad, with volumes addressing the historical, cultural, literary, theological and philosophical contexts of the early Church. The series, reflecting the most current scholarship, is essential to advanced students and scholars of early Christianity. Gorgias welcomes proposals from senior scholars as well as younger scholars whose dissertations have made an important contribution to the field of early Christianity.

Creation and Literary Re-creation

Ambrose’s Use of Philo in the Hexaemeral Letters

Paul M.C. Elliott

gp 2019

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2019 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܛ‬

1

2019

ISBN 978-1-4632-4087-5

ISSN 1935-6870

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ........................................................................... ix List of Tables ................................................................................... xi Abbreviations ................................................................................ xiii The Editions and Works of Philo .......................................... xiii The Editions and Works of Ambrose ..................................... xv Hebrew Bible/Old Testament .............................................. xvii New Testament ................................................................... xviii Periodicals, Reference Works, and Series ............................... xix Chapter One. Ambrose of Milan and the Context of His Epistolary Activity ....................................................................................... 1 Life of Ambrose of Milan ..........................................................3 Ambrose as Letter Writer ......................................................... 9 Ambrose the Exegete ............................................................... 12 The Originality of Ambrose .................................................... 15 Ambrose’s Writings on the Creation ...................................... 20 Conclusion............................................................................... 21 Chapter Two. Ambrose’s Use of Philo of Alexandria ...................... 23 Philo of Alexandria .................................................................. 23 Ambrose’s Relationship to Judaism........................................ 26 Previous Scholarship on Ambrose’s Use of Philo .................... 33 Ambrose’s Use of Philo in His Letters ..................................... 38 Ambrose’s Use of Other Jewish and Christian Sources ........... 46 Conclusion.............................................................................. 48 Chapter Three. The Hexaemeral Tradition ..................................... 51 Creation in Philo’s De opificio mundi ...................................... 53 The Development of Christian Hexaemeral Literature .......... 60 Theophilus of Antioch .......................................................... 60 v

vi

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Hippolytus ................................................................................ 63 Origen........................................................................................ 65 Basil of Caesarea ......................................................................70 Gregory of Nyssa ....................................................................74 Ambrose’s Homilies on the Hexaemeron ................................... 76 Pseudo-Eustathius of Antioch .............................................. 78 Didymus the Blind .................................................................. 78 The Antiochenes......................................................................80 John Chrysostom..................................................................... 83 Augustine of Hippo ................................................................ 84 Conclusion.............................................................................. 89 Chapter Four. Ambrose’s Use of Philo’s De opificio mundi in Letter 29 [PL#43]..................................................................... 91 The Origin of the Quaestio...................................................... 92 The Christian Reception of the Quaestio ................................ 96 Content of Letter 29 [PL#43] ................................................ 102 Ambrose’s Reordering of Philonic Material .......................... 106 Macrocosm and Microcosm................................................... 107 Ambrose’s Near Deletion of Philo’s Second Answer .............. 112 Four Answers or One Answer? ............................................... 113 Conclusion.............................................................................. 116 Chapter Five. Ambrose’s Use of Philo’s De opificio mundi in Letter 31 [PL#44] .................................................................... 119 Contents of Opif. 89–128 ....................................................... 120 Arithmology in Greek Philosophy..........................................123 Arithmology in the Church Fathers ........................................ 135 Contents of Letter 31 [PL#44] ............................................... 145 Unacceptable and Acceptable Forms of Arithmology in the Thought of Ambrose..................................................... 147 Exegesis of Eight..................................................................... 150 Conclusion............................................................................. 156 Chapter Six. Ambrose’s Use of Philo’s De opificio mundi in Letter 34 [PL#45]................................................................... 159 Addressee ............................................................................... 160 Contents of Letter 34 [PL#45] ................................................ 161 Ambrose’s Borrowing from Josephus .................................... 163 The Superiority of the First Man and the Decline of Humanity ...................................................................... 165

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

Allegory of Paradise and Its Trees ........................................... 171 Allegory of Man and Woman ................................................ 175 Conclusion............................................................................. 183 Conclusions ....................................................................................185 Bibliography ................................................................................... 191 Indices ............................................................................................ 217

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work began as my PhD dissertation at Hebrew Union CollegeJewish Institute of Religion. After finishing my dissertation in 2018, I conducted some further research in the area, which resulted in some minor expansions to supplement my original thesis. In particular, I have endeavored to place my findings more clearly within their historical context. I would like to thank my doctoral adviser and first reader, Dr. Adam Kamesar, for introducing me to the joys of Philonic studies, for helping me to discover and narrow my topic, and for providing useful insight and tireless feedback. I would also like to show appreciation for Dr. David Hunter, who served as my second reader. In particular, his intimate knowledge of the Church Fathers was valuable in refining the language, content, and bibliography of this study. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my colleague and friend, Jared Saltz, without whom it would have taken much longer to complete this work. He served as a vital soundingboard, editor, and psychologist thoughout the process of writing. Finally, I would like to thank my family: my parents and siblings for constant encouragement; my children, Lena and Evie, for filling my life with joy; and my loving and patient wife, Krista, for supporting me through my years of education, for sacrificing in order to make this dream a reality, and for being a constant source of love and kindness. I cannot thank her enough.

ix

LIST OF TABLES Table A (pp. 39–40): Ambrose’s Philonic Letters Table B (p. 103): Ambrose’s Borrowings from De opificio mundi in Letter 29 [PL#43] Table C (p. 114) : Transitional words used in Philo, De opificio mundi 77–88 to introduce each of the four answers, compared to the transitional words used in Ambrose, Letter 29 to introduce the same answers Table D (pp. 115–116) : Transitional words used by Ambrose in Letter 29, distinguishing between those that introduce one of Philo’s four answers and those that do not Table E (pp. 122–123) : Contents of Philo’s De opificio mundi 89–128 Table F (pp. 132–133) : The topics discussed in Philo, De opificio mundi 89–128 concerning the number seven in comparison with other arithmological texts Table G (pp. 146–147): Contents of Ambrose’s Letter 31 [PL#44] Table H (p. 162): Contents of Ambrose’s Letter 34 [PL#45]



xi

ABBREVIATIONS T HE EDITIONS AND WORKS OF PHILO PCW

PAPM

PCH

PLCL

Abr. Aet. Agr. Anim. Cher. Conf. Congr. Contempl. Decal.

L. Cohn, P. Wendland, and S. Reiter, eds., Philonis Alexandrini Opera quae supersunt, I-VII (Berlin, 1896–1930). R. Arnaldez, J. Pouilloux, C. Mondésert et al., eds., Les oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie, 1–36 (Paris, 1961– 1992). L. Cohn, I. Heinemann et al., eds., Philo von Alexandria, Die Werke in deutscher Übersetzung, I-VII (Breslau-Berlin, 1909–1964). F.H. Colson, G.H. Whitaker, and R. Marcus, eds., Philo, I-X, Supplements I-II (Cambridge, Mass., 1929– 1962). De Abrahamo (On Abraham) De aeternitate mundi (On the Eternity of the World) De agricultura (On Husbandry) De animalibus (On Animals) De cherubim (On the Cherubim) De confusione linguarum (On the Confusion of Tongues) De congressu eruditionis gratia (On Mating with the Preliminary Studies) De vita contemplativa (On the Contemplative Life) De decalogo (On the Decalogue) xiii

xiv

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Det.

Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat (That the Worse is Wont to Attack the Better) Quod Deus sit immutabilis (On the Unchangeableness of God) De ebrietate (On Drunkenness) In Flaccum (Flaccus) De fuga et inventione (On Flight and Finding) De gigantibus (On the Giants) Quis rerum divinarum heres sit (Who is the Heir of Divine Things?) Hypothetica De Josepho (On Joseph) Legum allegoriae (The Allegories of the Laws) Legatio ad Gaium (Embassy to Gaius) De migratione Abrahami (On the Migration of Abraham) De vita Mosis (On the Life of Moses) De mutatione nominum (On the Changes of Names) De opificio mundi (On the Creation) De plantatione (On Noah’s Work as a Planter) De posteritate Caini (On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile) De praemiis et poenis (On Rewards and Punishments) Quod omnis probus liber sit (Every Good Man is Free) De providentia (On Providence) Quaestiones in Exodum (Questions on Exodus) Quaestiones in Genesim (Questions on Genesis) De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain) De sobrietate (On Sobriety) De somniis (On Dreams) De specialibus legibus (On the Special Laws)

Deus Ebr. Flacc. Fug. Gig. Her. Hypoth. Jos. Leg. Legat. Migr. Mos. Mut. Opif. Plant. Post. Praem. Prob. Prov. QE QG Sacr. Sobr. Somn. Spec.

ABBREVIATIONS Virt.

xv

De virtutibus (On the Virtues)

T HE EDITIONS AND WORKS OF AMBROSE There exist two numbering systems for the collection of Ambrose’s letters. The numeration from the Faller-Zelzer edition has become the standard and will be used primarily in this document. However, the older numbering system from the Maurists, reprinted by Migne in the Patrologia Latina, volume 16, is still found in much of the secondary literature, and so these numbers will be given in brackets.



PL

J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina. (Paris, 1844–1864). CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina. (Turnholt, 1953– ). CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. (Vienna, 1886–). The letters are found in O. Faller and M. Zelzer, eds., Epistulae et acta, 82.1–3 (1968–1990). OOSA Opera Omnia di Sant’Ambrogio. 27 vols (Rome, 1977– ). This reprints the CSEL edition and adds an Italian translation and extensive notes. FaCh Fathers of the Church. (Washington, D.C., 1947–). Abr. De Abraham (On Abraham) Apol. Dav. De apologia prophetae David (On the Apology of the Prophet David) Aux. Sermo contra Auxentium de Basilicis tradendis (Sermon against Auxentius) Bon. Mort. De bono mortis (Death as a Good) Cain De Cain et Abel (On Cain and Abel) Enarrat. Ps. Enarrationes in XII Psalmos davidicos (Explanations of Twelve Psalms of David) Ep. Epistulae (Letters) Exc. De excussu fratris (On the Passing of His Brother Saturius) Exh. Virginit. Exhortatio virginitatis (Exhortation for Virginity)

xvi

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Expl. Symb. Explanatio symoboli ad initiandos (Explanation of the Symbols for Initiates) Exp. Luc. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam (Exposition of the Gospel of Luke) Exp. Isa. Expositio Isaiae prophetae (Exposition of the Prophet Isaiah) Exp. Ps. 118 Expositio Psalmi CXVIII (Exposition of Psalm 118) Fid. De fide (On Faith) Fid. Grat. De fide ad Gratianum (On Faith to Gratian) Fug. De fuga saeculi (Flight from the World) Hel. De Helia et ieiunio (On Elijah, or Fasting) Hex. Hexaemeron (Six Days of Creation) Hymn. Hymni (Hymns) Incarn. De incarnationis dominicae sacramento (The Sacrament of the Incarnation of the Lord) Instit. De institutione virginis (On the Institution of Virginity) Interp. De interpellatione Iob et David (On the Conversation of Job and David) Isaac De Isaac et anima (On Isaac, or the Soul) Jac. De Jacob et vita beata (On Jacob, or the Blessed Life) Jos. De Joseph patriarchia (On the Patriarch Joseph) Myst. De mysteriis (The Mysteries) Nab. De Nabuthae historia (On the Story of Naboth) Noe De Noe (On Noah) Ob. Theo. De obitu Theodosii (On the Death of Theodosius) Ob. Val. De obitu Valentinani (On the Death of Valentinian) Off. De officiis (On Duty) Parad. De paradiso (On Paradise) Patr. De benedictionibus patriarcharum (The Patriarchs) Poen. De poenitentia (On Penance) Sacr. De sacramentis (On the Sacraments)

ABBREVIATIONS

xvii

Sacr. regen. De sacramento regenerationis sive de philosophia (On the Sacrament of Regeneration, or On Philosophy) Spir. De Spiritu Sancto (On the Holy Spirit) Symb. Explanatio symboli (Explanation of the Symbols) Tob. De Tobia (On Tobias) Vid. De viduis (On Widows) Virg. De virginibus (On Virgins) Virginit. De virginitate (On Virginity)

H EBREW BIBLE/OLD T ESTAMENT Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Josh Judg Ruth 1–2 Sam 1–2 Kgs 1–2 Chr Ezra Neh Esth Job Ps Prov Eccl Song Isa Jer Lam

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1–2 Samuel 1–2 Kings 1–2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations

xviii

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Ezek Dan Hos Joel Amos Obad Jonah Mic Nah Hab Zeph Hag Zech Mal

Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

N EW T ESTAMENT Matt Mark Luke John Acts Rom 1–2 Cor Gal Eph Phil Col 1–2 Thess 1–2 Tim Titus Phlm Heb

Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1–2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1–2 Thessalonians 1–2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews

ABBREVIATIONS Jas 1–2 Pet 1–3 John Jude Rev

xix

James 1–2 Peter 1–3 John Jude Revelation

PERIODICALS, REFERENCE WORKS, AND SERIES ANRW DNP LCL PRE SVF



Aufstieg und Niedergnag der römischen Welt Der Neue Pauly Loeb Classical Library G. Wissowa et al. (eds.) Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft H. von Arnim (ed.), Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, IIV (Leipzig 1903–1924)

CHAPTER ONE. AMBROSE OF MILAN AND THE CONTEXT OF HIS EPISTOLARY ACTIVITY Philo of Alexandria and Ambrose of Milan are two figures that would appear to have more separating them than uniting them. First of all, they are divided by nearly four tumultuous centuries of history. Second, they stand on opposite sides of the schism between Judaism and Christianity that had been widening over the intervening years. Third, the contemporary philosophical currents of which they each partook were noticeably different—from the schools of the Hellenistic era to those of the later Roman Empire. Yet, in spite of all this, Ambrose of Milan saw an essential kinship of thought with Philo of Alexandria, and this led him to borrow extensively from his Jewish forebear. Ambrose’s use of Philo is exceptionally pervasive, far beyond what is seen in any other Church Father. While he only acknowledges his source once by name, Ambrose’s works are steeped in quotations, allusions, and ideas taken over from Philo. For Ambrose, Philo is an authoritative member of the orthodox tradition, an almost un-Jewish Jew in his eyes. However, Ambrose is not slavishly devoted to his Alexandrian source; he adapts, censors, reworks, and expands upon Philo in a number of ways. Thus, Ambrose creates something that is uniquely his own, built from the spare parts of his exemplar. It is a true act of literary re-creation. This study will examine the influence that Philo had upon Ambrose, especially in the area of their theologies of creation. Specifically, Ambrose made use of Philo’s great treatise on the creation, De opfiicio mundi, in a series of epistles written to his peers. Each of these three letters are thoroughly Philonic and yet uniquely Ambrosian. By observing these acts of adaptation, a number of questions 1

2

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

will be addressed. Why did Ambrose choose Philo as his primary source in these letters? What advantages did he see in borrowing from the Alexandrian philosopher? And what weaknesses did he perceive in his source? When Ambrose does make changes to the material he borrows, is the motivation primarily theological or philosophical? In seeking answers for these questions, it will be possible to observe how Ambrose understood his relationship to the tradition in which he stood. The sub-corpus of Ambrose’s three letters on the Hexaemeron (the Six Days of Creation) has several things to recommend it for indepth study.1 First of all, there are clear boundaries—these are both the only three letters of Ambrose that address questions on the creation and the only three that make extended use of Philo’s De opificio mundi. Secondly, this group of letters provides a good cross-section of Ambrose’s usages of Philo. That is to say, by focusing on this representative sample within Ambrose’s 16 letters with extensive quotations from Philo, it is possible to achieve a greater depth of study. Third, the contents of Ambrose’s three Hexaemeral letters tie directly into several of the larger questions of Philo’s influence on early Christianity, such as the reception history of De opificio mundi in the Christian tradition and the development of Hexaemeral literature. These letters also provide insight into Ambrose’s relationship with philosophy and mathematics. In the first chapter, Ambrose himself will be under investigation, exploring the historical circumstances in which he lived, his writings about the creation, his epistolary activity, his exegetical methods, and his originality or lack thereof. Chapter two will be devoted to Ambrose’s use of sources, primarily Philo, but also Origen, Basil, and a variety of other Christian, Jewish, and even pagan authors. This will also include more detailed investigations into Ambrose’s relationship to Judaism and Jewish exegesis. Chapter three will explore the Christian tradition of commentary on the Six Days of Creation, beginning with Philo and continuing through Augustine. Particular attention will be given to Ambrose’s place in that 1 Ep. 29, 31, and 34 [PL#43, 44, and 45].

CHAPTER ONE

3

tradition, both in what he inherited and what he transmitted. Finally, chapters four, five, and six will involve in-depth examination of each of Ambrose’s three Hexaemeral letters, trying to understand how Ambrose read Philo’s De opificio mundi in each of them.

LIFE OF AMBROSE OF MILAN Aurelius Ambrosius, better known as Ambrose of Milan (339–397 CE), stands tall in the history of early Christianity.2 In addition to his theological accomplishments, for which he was memorialized as one of the four Doctors of the Catholic Church, Ambrose is renowned for bringing three different emperors to heel, forever changing Church and State relationships. However, the character of Ambrose has proven very elusive. He has been portrayed as a Machiavellian church politician, a devoted pastor, a ruthless defender of Nicene orthodoxy, an unoriginal popularizer of the Eastern Fathers and Philo, a major figure in the Western exegetical tradition, a Neoplatonist, a firm opponent of pagan philosophy, a vicious bigot, a skilled rhetorician, and an insightful ethicist for the common man. Perhaps the myriad portrayals of this 4th-century bishop stem from the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions in his character. For example, Ambrose was both an advocate of the ascetic lifestyle and a statesman who was comfortable in the most worldly of circumstances. The paradoxical nature of Ambrose can also be seen when he both borrows from the Jewish philosopher Philo and engages in antiSemitic rhetoric, and he even does both within a single document. Perhaps these inconsistencies can be attributed to the pressures exerted upon Ambrose, as Ramsey MacMullen asserts, ‘Confronting the need to survive, great political leaders rise above consistency.’3 Or, perhaps likelier still, Ambrose’s complicated portrait may be a symptom of the transitional period that Christianity (and, in fact, the whole Roman world) was experiencing in the late 4th-century CE.

2 Bibliographical information on Ambrose has been compiled by Visonà, Cronologia ambrosiana, Bibliografia ambrosiana (1900–2000). 3 MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100–400), 77.

4

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Most of what is known of Ambrose’s life can be found in his own works, especially his collection of letters which supply a wealth of autobiographical details. Paulinus, deacon of Milan, composed a biography of Ambrose. While it is not a worthless historical source, it must be read with caution, as it tends to be hagiographic and largely concerned with the miraculous. Since the majority of the available information is only available from the perspective of Ambrose and his admirers, Ambrosian scholarship has been deeply divided between those who accept Ambrose’s self-testimony at face value and those who are skeptical of the public persona that the Milanese bishop sculpted. Of the former group, the classic (and still useful) treatment is F. Homes Dudden’s two volume Saint Ambrose: His Life and Times (1935). Dudden generally allows Ambrose to speak for himself, and he is most interested in Ambrose as pastor and theologian. Jean-Rémy Palanque’s Saint Ambroise et l’Empire romain (1933) also takes Ambrose’s words at face value, creating the portrait of a figure who single-mindedly pursued ecclesial autonomy. Perhaps, the greatest contribution of this work is Palanque’s attempt to set the events of Ambrose’s life in a chronological scheme. While this work has been surpassed, it is the starting point for much of subsequent scholarship. Another example of this approach to Ambrose can be found in Angelo Paredi’s Saint Ambrose: His Life and Times (1964). Paredi explains Ambrose’s complex character as an amalgamation of Romanitas and Christian otherworldliness. By contrast, Hans van Campenhausen’s classic work Ambrosius von Mailand als Kirchenpolitiker (1929) seeks to reinterpret the career of the Milanese bishop from a political standpoint. His Ambrose is an unoriginal theologian who is mostly concerned with political affairs. This perspective was taken up again in Neil McLynn’s influential biography, Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital (1994). McLynn asserts that Ambrose carefully curated his public persona, and so his own works must be carefully parsed in order to determine what actually took place. In his estimation, Ambrose was a savvy survivor, who was deeply embedded in the dog-eat-dog world of imperial politics. Another major perspective comes from Daniel Williams, whose Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Arian-Nicene Conflicts (1995) re-examines Ambrose’s role in the decline of Homoian Christianity

CHAPTER ONE

5

in the West. Williams sees Ambrose as less of a ruthless politician and more of a theologian who gradually grew into his office. Another trend in Ambrose studies has been to investigate Ambrose’s use of sources, especially Philo, Origen, and Plotinus.4 Some of these studies have found evidence that Ambrose was more of a popularizer rather than an original thinker. However, a number of recent scholars have begun to rehabilitate Ambrose’s image by defending the originality of his theological and ethical thought. These studies have revealed a writer who cleverly adapts, revises, and recontextualizes his sources in order to express his own theology. The nature of Ambrose’s adaptations will form a major part of this study. Born into a wealthy Christian family, Ambrose received an excellent education in the areas of rhetoric, law, and Greek. He may have also been exposed to Neoplatonic philosophy at an early age.5 Ambrose embarked upon a successful secular career, rising to the position of consular of the province of Aemilia-Liguria in 370. Even though he was only a catechumen in the Christian Church at the time, Ambrose was elected as Bishop of Milan by popular acclaim upon the death of the Homoian Bishop Auxentius in 373. Ambrose was baptized and rushed through all the stages of ecclesial office within a week, and he was consecrated as Bishop of Milan, a position that he would hold until his death a quarter-century later. With Ambrose’s baptism and consecration to the episcopate, his entire life took a radical turn—from worldly politician to otherworldly clergyman. He felt insufficiently prepared for the theological demands of his new office, and so he began a course of study under the priest Simplicianus immediately upon assuming the bishop’s chair. Ambrose’s studies included deep readings in the Greek Fathers (especially Origen and Basil), Philo, and probably some of the pagan

Some of the more significant works include Courcelle, ‘Plotin et saint Ambroise’; Madec, Saint Ambroise et la philosophie; Savon, Saint Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif; Lucchesi, L’usage de Philon dans l’oeuvre exégétique de Saint Ambroise. 5 Lenox-Conyngham, ‘Ambrose and Philsophy’, 116. 4

6

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

philosophers (such as Plotinus and Porphyry).6 Ambrose’s knowledge of the Greek language was exceptional. He could quote the Greek Fathers from memory, and he translated or adapted a number of Greek works. Over time, Ambrose came to be wellrespected as a scholar, and Augustine reports that people would come just to observe the renowned Ambrose in his study, silently reading. 7 Milan at the time of Ambrose’s consecration existed in a complicated socio-political balance. For the previous 13 years, an avowed Homoian had controlled the bishop’s chair, and so Homoian Christianity was deeply entrenched. A strong pro-Nicene presence, however, remained in the city. Moreover, Milan’s position as an Imperial city meant that the population consisted of a large number of transients and foreigners with no roots in the city. There was also a great deal of economic disparity within 4th-century Milan. It is somewhat astounding how effectively Ambrose was able to overcome some of these challenges to forge Milan, and indeed all of northern Italy, into a center of Nicene orthodoxy. He was highly successful in naturalizing foreigners in the city, assuaging some of the social tensions, and creating an identity for the Milanese Church. Some of the factors that allowed Ambrose to unite his congregation include his engaging preaching, the singing of congregational hymns, the centralization of charity efforts, the realignment of the city’s architectural landscape, and the development of a cadre of loyal clergy.8 Moreover, he maintained close connections with his fellow bishops throughout northern Italy. In doing so, Ambrose filled an ecclesiastical power vacuum, and he was instrumental in developing a unique identity for the Church in the region. 9

Ambrose does cite Porphyry, and it is probable that he acquired this knowledge from his studies with Simplicianus. See Courcelle, Recherches sur les Confessions de Saint Augustin, 106–120; Paredi, Saint Ambrose, His Life and Times, 393–394. 7 Augustine, Confessions 6.3.3. 8 McLynn, Ambrose of Milan, 220–51. 9 McLynn, 277–79. 6

CHAPTER ONE

7

As mentioned above, Ambrose was renowned as a preacher, and his weekly sermons were a major point of contact with the people of Milan. Augustine asserts that Ambrose’s preaching was influential in his own conversion to Christianity. In particular, he notes both the excellent style of Ambrose’s sermons and their profound exegetical content, whereby the objections of the Manichaeans were repelled through figurative interpretation of the Old Testament.10 Unfortunately, the original homilies have not been preserved, but Ambrose did rework several of his sermon series into treatises for publication. The modern reader is often impressed by his literary ornamentation and deep knowledge of Greek authors, such as Philo, Origen, and Basil, but the vivacity of the original oral presentation is less accessible. Perhaps, the power of these sermons lies in the fact that Ambrose was able to communicate the world of the Old Testament in a classical idiom. Moreover, his great chains of biblical allusions and quotations made his preaching sound like the Bible.11 In addition to publishing these treatises of reworked sermons, Ambrose also wrote several treatises on exegetical and practical topics, and he also published a collection of his letters.12 While Ambrose did not hold any formal authority outside of his episcopate in Milan, his reputation as a scholar and a churchman gave his opinion weight throughout northern Italy and beyond.13 Even though Ambrose was an advocate of asceticism and Christian otherworldliness, this did not mean that he was disengaged from politics. Ambrose’s earlier secular career meant that he was equally at home in the basilica and the halls of power. In his tussles with emperors and senators, Ambrose asserted the authority of the Church, which is well summarized in the principle that ‘bishops judge Christian emperors, and emperors do not judge bishops’.14 The most ex10 Augustine, Confessions 5.13.23–5.14.25. 11 McLynn, Ambrose

of Milan, 237–43. For a detailed list of Ambrose’s writings, see Mara, ‘Ambrose of Milan’ in Quasten, ed., Patrology IV, 152–179, and Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 1045–80. 13 McLynn, Ambrose of Milan, 282. 14 Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society, 368. 12

8

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

treme example of this principle at work can be seen when Ambrose persuaded emperor Theodosius to do penance before him as a consequence of a massacre perpetrated at Thessalonica. However, this was far from the only time that Ambrose used his political acumen and tenacity to impose his will on those in power. For a long time, Ambrose has been regarded as the preeminent defender of Nicene orthodoxy in the West. However, Williams has been especially influential in re-examining the fall of Homoianism in Italy and Ambrose’s role in it. 15 In his first years in the episcopacy, Ambrose did not yet have the political capital to make a move against the lively Homoian minority in Milan. Ambrose’s first major action against his theological opponents came in 381 CE, when he organized the Council of Aquileia. The Council was a significant victory for the pro-Nicene party, but it did not end the conflict by any means. A few years later (386 CE) Ambrose was even more successful when he organized protests to defy the empress Justina, who wanted to hand over a basilica in Milan for Homoian use. Finally, when Maximus invaded in 387 CE and Theodosius subsequently defeated him, Ambrose’s pro-Nicenes would have their ultimate triumph in Italy. In addition to the Homoians, Ambrose also took to the offense against other groups whom he considered to be enemies of the Nicene faith, including Jews, Gnostics, and pagans. Ambrose’s relationship with Judaism is complicated, and it will be investigated in the next chapter. Most notoriously, he defended the destruction of a synagogue in Callinicum and even convinced Theodosius to drop all charges against the perpetrators. Ambrose was also an irascible opponent of traditional pagan religion. His greatest victory against paganism can be found in the incident concerning the removal of the Altar of Victory from the senate-house. Intriguingly, in the midst of this cultural war between Christian and pagan, Ambrose freely uses and adapts texts of the Classical tradition, such as when he Christianized the ethics of Cicero’s De officiis in a work by the same title. However, his appraisal of pagan philosophy is consistently negative, Williams, Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts, 9–10.

15

CHAPTER ONE

9

even when he bends it to his own purposes.16 Likewise, Ambrose was no friend of the various Gnostic sects that were still active in his time. For example, he denounced the Valentinians as worse than pagans and even condoned the destruction of one of their places of worship. This relationship will receive additional attention in Chapter 5. Ambrose died in 397 CE as a well-respected leader of the Western Church. His writings were popular and widely circulated, and his influence continued to be felt for centuries, especially in the works of Augustine. Overall, Ambrose’s legacy is complicated, and scholars are divided over fundamental questions of how to understand the life and works of the bishop. The student of Ambrose must tolerate a certain degree of ambiguity in approaching this paradoxical figure.

AMBROSE AS LETTER WRITER In antiquity, letter writing served an important role in social life, maintaining distant relationships. It was also considered a form of art, an opportunity to demonstrate one’s erudition and good taste.17 Published compilations of letters by great statesmen were often more interested in providing models of excellent style than serving biographical purposes. Moreover, many formal conventions developed around the writing of letters. Because letters were often carried by friends or subordinates instead of by an impersonal institution, many personal remarks could be transmitted orally. Thus, it was considered good style to confine a letter to a single theme and to write concisely.18 Among early Christians, letter writing had a special significance, since much of the New Testament consisted of epistles. As far-flung Christian communities tried to maintain unity, the letter was a vital instrument, and the epistolary activity of bishops was characterized by different content than secular letter writing.19

16 Savon, Saint Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif, 89–96; Madec, Saint Ambroise et la philosophie, 52–60. 17 Liebeschuetz, Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches, 29. 18 Liebeschuetz, 28. 19 Dassmann, Ambrosius von Mailand, 256.

10

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Ambrose’s letters show the characteristics that one would expect of a well-educated bishop in late antiquity. The style is verbose and learned, sprinkled with ornamentation from classical authors. Many of them read less like personal letters and more like miniature treatises or sermons, which has led to the theory that these letters were actually written specifically for publication.20 However, it is more appropriate to say that Ambrose was writing in the aristocratic fashion of the sentorial elite, adapted for the purposes of the Church.21 The majority of the letters that have been preserved in the collection of Ambrose’s correspondence were addressed to clergymen and Christian laypeople. Among the recipients of Ambrose’s letters were a number of clerics whom Ambrose had mentored and ordained. Some of his most frequent correspondents include the bishop Sabinus (6 letters), the priests Horontianus (9 letters) and Simplicianus (4 letters), his sister Marcellina (3 letters), and the layman Irenaeus (12 letters). Thus, it would seem that the letters were not included in the collection because of the grandiosity of their recipients, but rather for their content. That said, Ambrose did include a small collection (one volume out of ten) of letters written to emperors, including Gratian, Theodosius, and Valentinian. These letters seem to be included because they demonstrate Ambrose’s rhetorical and political skill, and they seem to be an attempt to establish Ambrose’s legacy.22 Ambrose’s letters address a variety of topics such as theological discussions, clerical behavior, and ecclesiastical administration; however, Ambroses’s favorite topic is biblical exegesis.23 Often, the letters are fueled by the bishop’s reading, as he shares fascinating insights (often left without attribution) plucked from Greek authors, particularly Philo and Origen. Since Ambrose’s Greek was considered to be superior to that of most Western clergy, his letters were a venue to 20 Zelzer, CSEL

82.2.37.

21 Liebeschuetz, Ambrose 22 Liebeschuetz, 40. 23 Liebeschuetz, 34.

of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches, 25.

CHAPTER ONE

11

disseminate and popularize ideas from the East. It is not always clear whether these letters were prompted by direct questions from Ambrose’s correspondents or they were sent unbidden at the whim of the bishop. Either way, Ambrose’s letters do not invite response and discussion, but rather they lay down his authoritative opinion on a matter or demonstrate his exegetical virtuosity. 24 It is clear from the preponderance of exegetical letters that Ambrose was intensely interested in biblical interpretation, and these letters provided him with an informal setting to explore the mysteries of the Scriptures.25 Ambrose may have published his letters himself later in his life, as he mentioned in a letter to Sabinus that he intended to do.26 In addition to the published collection of 97 letters, an additional 16 have been transmitted extra collectionem. Ambrose’s published collection of letters is organized into ten books, nine of which contain letters to fellow clergy and friends, and the last of which contains letters to emperors. Michaela Zelzer has noted that the arrangement of Ambrose’s letters parallels those of Pliny the Younger, who collected his own letters in nine volumes of private correspondence and one of public correspondence. She concludes that Ambrose consciously modeled his work after Pliny.27 Liebeschuetz builds upon this theory, arguing that Ambrose was endowing a classical form with new significance in order to create an original literary form: ‘something like a political and theological testament’. 28 These conclusions are somewhat controversial; Savon has pointed out that the similarities between Pliny’s and Ambrose’s epistolary collections may have been overstated.29 For example, Ambrose does not include responses from emperors, he writes for a narrower audience of biblical exegetes, and he uses a different organizational principle in arranging the letters within each book. In light of this evidence, if Ambrose was 24 McLynn, Ambrose

of Milan, xvii. von Mailand, 257.

25 Dassmann, Ambrosius 26 Ep.

32 [PL#48].

27 Zelzer, ‘“Plinius Christianus”: Ambrosius als Epistolograph’, 203–8. 28 Liebeschuetz, Ambrose

of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches, 42. Savon, ‘Saint Ambroise a-t-il imité le recueil de lettres de Pline le Jeune?’, 3–17.

29

12

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

imitating Pliny, it was only at the level of macro-structure and not in the details.

AMBROSE THE EXEGETE Ambrose is not systematic in his treatment of the Scriptures. His commentaries, which are primarily rewritten homilies, are far from exhaustive treatments of the texts under investigation, but rather Ambrose impressionistically leaps around to the most interesting questions and puzzles. He wanders through the Old Testament, exploring passages according to his shifting interests.30 Furthermore, the texts that Ambrose treats are not necessarily the most important ones for establishing Church doctrine or engaging in particular controversies. Instead, he seeks out the passages of the Bible that are most challenging or which contain apparent contradictions or paradoxes.31 These texts are often chosen in conversation with other clerics, which is especially clear in Ambrose’s many exegetical letters. Ambrose’s exegetical writings are often dense with Scriptural citations and allusions. He often allows these to pile up into chains of references. On the one hand, this practice accomplished a sort of biblical mimesis, by which Ambrose came to sound like the Bible.32 On the other hand, this technique was consistent with Ambrose’s hermeneutical principles. He believed that the reader of Scripture could undergo a mystical experience of Christ in the text, and the goal was that Christ would serve as his own self-interpreter. 33 Therefore, the most reliable source of biblical interpretation was the Bible itself. This principle of ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’ can be seen, for example, in De paradiso 3.13, where Ambrose uses Scriptural keywords and themes to determine that the rivers of Eden prefigure Jesus 30 For example, in Ep. 31 [PL#44] Ambrose begins with a discussion of the number 7 in Genesis 1–2, then wanders into a discussion of the number 8 in Christian interpretation. This leads him to interpret a series of texts that contain both numbers, namely Eccl 11:2, Hos 3:2, and Mic 5:5, before returning again to his original discussion of 7. 31 Liebeschuetz, Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches, 34. 32 McLynn, Ambrose of Milan, 244. 33 Dassmann, Ambrosius von Mailand, 199–200.

CHAPTER ONE

13

Christ, the fountain of life. Furthermore, Ambrose’s exegesis hints at something greater—a comprehensive way of reading Scripture that implied that every detail added up to a greater whole. A large portion of Ambrose’s exegetical writings is concerned with the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. The Milanese bishop regarded the two Testaments as a vital unity. While Ambrose consistently defended the continuity of the biblical message, he also was aware of the discontinuities. He often expressed this relationship as the letter and the spirit, or the shadow and the reality. The Old Testament is a pattern that only finds its fulfillment in the work of Christ. Thus, Ambrose’s biblical interpretation is intensely Christological and deeply concerned with salvation-history and soteriology. Moreover, Ambrose could consider these Christological interpretations to be the literal meaning of the text in the sense that they represented the authorial intention of the Holy Spirit.34 The bishop used a variety of tools to accomplish his Christological reading of the Old Testament, and probably the most discussed of these is his penchant for allegory. Ambrose’s allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament had drawn the attention and admiration of a young Augustine, but it often is regarded with suspicion and consternation among modern readers. One impulse toward allegory for Ambrose is that it could be used as an apologetic tool. Savon has observed that the literal sense of the Old Testament was often the subject of mockery by pagans and Gnostics, and so Ambrose could deploy allegory to circumvent these rationalist attacks.35 For example, Ambrose’s De paradiso mentions the 2nd-century Gnostic Appelles by name and uses allegories to counter some of his more pointed objections to the Scriptures. However, polemical concerns do not explain all of Ambrose’s allegories. In particular, a different use of allegory is evident when Ambrose preserves the literal sense but layers an allegorical interpretation upon it. An excellent example comes from Ambrose’s use of the PhiRine, ‘Interpretations of Genesis 1–2 among the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers’, 127. 35 Savon, Saint Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif, 48–54. 34

14

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

lonic allegory of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent.36 Ambrose maintains two parallel interpretations. On the one hand, the characters are seen as historical figures—the Serpent is the devil who sought to destroy humanity by malice, and Adam and Eve are humans with minds and sense-perceptions and passions. On the other hand, the characters stand allegorically for elements in human psychology—Adam is mind, Eve is sense-perception, and the Serpent is desire. However, the allegorical interpretation is not meant to usurp the literal but to explain it. In other words, the allegory sheds light on the psychological processes going on within the historical Eve as she decided to eat the forbidden fruit.37 This process is typical of Ambrose’s allegorizing—the spiritual sense grows out of the literal sense and deepens it. That said, Ambrose is also capable of allegorizing apart from the historical sense. For example, Ambrose allegory of the trees in Paradise as representing the virtues does not presuppose historical trees.38 According to general allegorical practice in the ancient world, Ambrose understood that, when the literal meaning was seen to contradict reason and science, it was a clue that a purely spiritual meaning must exist. For Ambrose, the decision whether to use a purely historical interpretation, a purely allegorical one, or a two-layered approach seems to have been largely based upon the nature of the text itself and also his audience. For example, Ambrose is more cautious in allegorizing in his Homilies on the Hexaemeron, which were sermons preached to a lay audience. However, Ambrose does indulge more in Philonic allegory in discussing the same text in his hexaemeral letters, which were written to fellow clergy. Furthermore, when Ambrose transforms Philonic allegories, he tends to convert moral interpretations into soteriological ones. For example, Ambrose takes Philo’s moral allegory that Cain is ‘pleasure’ and Abel is ‘virtue’, and he adapts it through a salvation-historical lens so that the two brothers represent fallen and redeemed humani-

36 See further discussion in chapter 6. 37 Burns, ‘Creation and Fall according to Ambrose of Milan’, 84–91. 38 Ep. 34.7–8 [PL#45.7–8].

CHAPTER ONE

15

ty, ‘lovers of self’ versus ‘lovers of God’.39 In addition, Ambrose would not have considered his allegories to be examples of uncontrolled eisegesis, but rather he understood that they were controlled by certain criteria. Each interpretation must pass a hermeneutical test to determine whether it is sensitive to the intention of the divine author of Scripture, the Holy Spirit; a theological test to determine whether it is consistent with the Rule of Faith; and an effectual test to determine whether it will bring about the sanctification of the interpreter, the reader, or both.40 These criteria formed the boundaries of acceptable biblical interpretation because the resurrection of Christ was the lens through which all divine revelation must be viewed. In general, Ambrose’s exegetical method is in line with the theory and practice of much Patristic exegesis, especially of the Alexandrian variety.

T HE ORIGINALITY OF AMBROSE A major question in Ambrosian studies concerns the influence that his theological and philosophical sources had on him and how dependent he was upon them. The determination of influence and dependence can be a nebulous task, and so it is helpful at this juncture to discuss methodology and to categorize the kinds of evidence that can be used to establish influence before discussing the texts themselves. The first and clearest kind of evidence is direct citation, where one author gives a word-for-word quotation with an explicit naming of his source. Examples of direct citation are usually sufficient to prove influence conclusively. Beyond direct citation, direct quotation without the naming of the source is a strong indication of influence. Other kinds of evidence for influence are more difficult to establish, such as paraphrase and allusion. Philo’s works were composed in Greek, and most of these are available in their original language, though a few have been preserved only in an Armenian translation. By contrast, the works of Ambrose 39 Ambrose,

Cain 1.1.3–4. Rine, ‘Interpretations of Genesis 1–2 among the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers’, 128. 40

16

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

were written in Latin. This language difference does not represent a major barrier, however. It is well-known that Ambrose had a strong reading knowledge of Greek, and his extensive borrowings from and translations of the Greek Fathers of the East have been thoroughly established. Because Ambrose’s usages of Philonic material represent translations from Greek to Latin, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain whether he is directly quoting his source or paraphrasing. In general, however, this distinction has not proved problematic. 41 It might seem somewhat shocking that Ambrose makes use of Philo more than 600 times, while only mentioning his name once. This observation led Frederick Conybeare to argue that Ambrose was trying to conceal that he was using a Jewish source.42 However, Runia has shown that this has nothing to do with Judaism. Ambrose rarely acknowledges when he is borrowing from another author, whether Christian, Jewish, or pagan. For example, he follows Basil closely in the Hexaemeron without citing him by name.43 This is not unusual for the Church Fathers or even ancient authors in general, since they do not cite their sources by name nearly as often as would be expected by modern standards. Frequent name dropping may have been considered impolite ‘because the educated audience was supposed to know their classics’.44 Along the same lines, the Church Fathers generally do not mention each other by name with any frequency, since they saw themselves as all standing within a common tradition.45 Accordingly, Ambrose’s general practice, it would seem, is to cite sources by name when he disagrees but to leave the citations anonymous when he considers himself to stand within a common tradition, which includes even Jewish sources like Philo. However, the frequency of Ambrose’s borrowings without acknowledgment of 41 For further discussion of the methodological questions concerning Latin translations and/or paraphrases of Greek sources, see Hutchinson, Greek to Latin; Glucker and Burnett, Greek into Latin; McElduff, Roman Theories of Translation. 42 Conybeare, Philo about the Contemplative Life, 329–330. 43 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 295. 44 van den Hoek, ‘Techniques of Quotation in Clement of Alexandria’, 229. 45 Rogers, Didymus the Blind, 49–58.

CHAPTER ONE

17

his sources has led to accusations of plagiarism or at least of producing derivative and unoriginal works. These allegations were first brought forward by Jerome and have resurfaced in modern scholarship. First, the question of plagiarism must be addressed. When Jerome was working on a Latin translation of Didymus’s De spiritu sancto in 384, he recognized that Ambrose’s treatise of the same title was largely derived from this source. Jerome proceeded to attack Ambrose as a plagiarist and a hack theologian in the prologue of his translation, dubbing Ambrose an ‘ugly raven, decked out in the feathers of another’. The same charge was repeated in Jerome’s translation of Origen’s homilies on Luke, from which Ambrose had borrowed elements in his own work Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam. Jerome continued to direct barbs against Ambrose in various other works, although his venom was mostly ignored. Ambrose never deigned to dignify these claims with an answer, and the Milanese bishop remained in high esteem throughout the Empire.46 In Ambrose’s defense, Jerome was already ill-disposed toward him. Both Paredi and Nauroy assert that Jerome’s enmity toward Ambrose stemmed from the circumstances of Jerome’s departure from Rome, when Ambrose had failed to come to his defense.47 Prior to this, Jerome had spoken with admiration of Ambrose for his orthodox theology and staunch defense of the celibate life.48 However, Neil Adkin has brought this position into question, by demonstrating that Jerome’s earlier comments on Ambrose could contain subtextual sniping about the derivative nature of Ambrose’s writings.49 Either way, Jerome was famously pugnacious, and his condemnations of Ambrose should be taken with a grain of salt. After

46 For the one time that Ambrose may have made a veiled response, see Hunter, ‘The Raven Replies’. 47 Paredi, ‘S. Gerolamo e S. Ambrogio’, 183–198; Nauroy, ‘Jérôme, lecteur et censeur de l’exégèse d’Ambroise’, 179–80. 48 Jerome, Ep. 22. 49 Adkin, ‘Ambrose and Jerome: The Opening Shot’, 367–373.

18

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

all, Ambrose’s practices were not unusual by ancient standards, and no other contemporaries took these charges seriously.50 Even if Ambrose was not guilty of blatant plagiarism, the allegation that he was an unoriginal and derivative writer does deserve further exploration. In addition to Jerome, Ambrose’s enemy Palladius had (unsuccessfully) questioned the bishop’s skill as an exegete, and a number of modern scholars have also questioned Ambrose’s value as a theologian.51 For example, von Campenhausen asserted that Ambrose was primarily a politician, and he did not offer anything significant to theology. Similiarly, McLynn has leveled the charge that Ambrose desperately needed to establish his own authority, and so he passed off borrowed material as his own in order to build up his reputation. 52 A more charitable interpretation would be that Ambrose was trying to share the riches of the great Greek writers, like a sort of Christian Cicero. Thus, Ambrose was more of a translator and ‘high popularizer rather than an original thinker’.53 Recently, Ambrose’s image as an original theologian has begun to be rehabilitated. A wide range of scholars such as J. Warren Smith, Marcia Colish, Christoph Markschies, and Andrew LenoxConyngham have made the case that Ambrose was not a slave to his sources.54 Rather, he possessed a coherent and independent theological voice, grounded in Scripture, and he made distinctive contributions in exegesis and ethics. Earlier studies focused on what Ambrose For further discussion about ancient attitudes toward plagiarism, see Konrat Ziegler, ‘Plagiat’, PRE 20.2, 1964–65; Stemplinger, Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur; Kroll, Studien zum verständnis der römischen literatur; and McGill, Plagiarism in Latin Literature. 51 McLynn, Ambrose of Milan, 289. 52 McLynn, 57. 53 Liebeschuetz, Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches, 23. 54 Smith, Christian Grace and Pagan Virtue; Colish, Ambrose’s Patriarchs; Markschies, Ambrosius von Mailand und die Trinitätstheologie; Markschies, ‘War der Bischof Ambrosius von Mailand ein schlechter Theologe?’; Savon, Saint Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif; Madec, Saint Ambroise et la philosophie; Dassmann, Ambrosius von Mailand; Lenox-Conyngham, ‘Ambrose and Philsophy’. 50

CHAPTER ONE

19

received but often overlooked what he omitted or changed (or those cases when he did not use a source at all, such as De Isaac), and these selective usages are very indicative of Ambrose’s thought.55 First of all, Ambrose’s thinking was definitively shaped by the Scriptures. While he may have read and even imitated a wide variety of sources, including Jewish and pagan authors, it would be a false assumption to see this imitation as evidence of theological influence. First of all, a number of Ambrose’s usages are only rhetorical flourishes or literary ornamentations. 56 Secondly, Ambrose is willing to depart from his sources when he finds that they are not consonant with the Scriptures, as will be demonstrated in the latter chapters of this study. Third, Ambrose is consistent in his theology, whether he is adapting a Christian source, a Jewish one, or no source at all. For Ambrose, the New Testament, especially the letters of Paul, were foundational to his thought, and he accepted other materials by using New Testament theology as his selection criteria. 57 In this way, Ambrose has much in common with his favorite source, Philo of Alexandria, whose reading of the Pentateuch was much more significant to his thought than any single philosophical school. This study has found Ambrose to be a creative and highly selective borrower, who recontextualized his sources and infused them with his theological perspective, and this inventive adaptation will be demonstrated in the following chapters. He was sensitive to his audience and the peculiarities of the text that he was interpreting, and he consistently reoriented his sources in order to highlight salvationhistory and soteriology. In particular, this study will show that Ambrose’s use of Philo’s De opificio mundi was an act of literary recreation, whereby a philosophical meditation on the opening chapters of Genesis was transformed into a theological work centered on the New Creation in Christ. 55 Dassmann, Ambrosius

von Mailand, 195–204.

56 Lenox-Conyngham, ‘Ambrose and Philsophy’, 128. 57 Smith, Christian Grace and Pagan Virtue, xviii, writes, ‘Ambrose’s theology is primarily an expression of his reading of Scripture—albeit in conversation with philosopher-exegetes like Philo and Origen—rather than Plato or Plotinus.’

20

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

AMBROSE’S WRITINGS ON THE CREATION The exegesis of the biblical creation narrative is the topic of a number of Ambrose’s literary works. Ambrose’s first published work that touches on the creation is De Paradiso, which is an interpretation of Genesis 2:8–3:19. This text is one of three works from the early portion of Ambrose’s career (c. 377–378 CE) on the early chapters of Genesis, alongside De Cain et Abel (Gen 4) and De Noe (Gen 6–10). Each of these treatises had begun as a series of homilies, which Ambrose later reworked into a literary form, and each of them makes extensive use of Philo’s Quaestiones in Genesim (QG 1.8–47, 1.64–77, and 1.87–2.82 respectively). De paradiso also draws upon Philo’s Legum allegoriae 1.12–2.18. Ambrose follows a question and answer format, much like his Philonic source, and he uses both allegorical and literal interpretations. Ambrose returned to this topic during Holy Week of a year between 386 and 390 CE, when he preached a series of homilies that was subsequently published under the title Hexaemeron (the Six Days of Creation).58 His primary direct source was Basil of Caesarea’s Hexaemeron, which is the oldest extant work of Christian exegesis specifically focused on the Mosaic creation account and also the point of departure for all subsequent works of Hexaemeral literature. Like Basil, Ambrose generally avoids allegory in this work, instead focusing on the literal interpretation of the creation. According to Jerome (Ep. 84.7), Ambrose also made use of commentaries by Origen and Hippolytus of Rome, but these works are now lost, and so it is impossible to determine the extent of Ambrose’s debt to them. Additionally, Philo may have been a direct or indirect source for both Ambrose and his forebears in the Hexaemeral genre.59 Ambrose’s

58 Visonà, Cronologia

ambrosiana, Bibliografia ambrosiana (1900–2000).

59 See de Mendieta, ‘La préparation et la composition des neuf Homélies sur

l’Hexaémeron de Basile de Césarée’, 364–365, who identifies Basil’s four main sources as the Greek Bible, the great Commentary on Genesis of Origen, a comprehensive philosophical manual, and Philo’s De opificio mundi. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 237, doubts the suggestion of a single philosophical manual and calls for further investigation.

CHAPTER ONE

21

Hexaemeron was received with great enthusiasm in Milan, and its popularity is evident in the wealth of extant manuscripts.60 After its publication, Ambrose’s Hexaemeron attracted several questions on the subject from learned readers. In the midst of the collection of Ambrose’s correspondence are three epistles (Ep. 29, 31, and 34 [PL#43, 44, and 45]) which address questions raised by Ambrose’s fellow clergymen Horontianus and Sabinus concerning issues not directly addressed in Ambrose’s Hexaemeron. In answering these questions, Ambrose makes substantial use of Philo’s De opificio mundi in all three cases. In fact, at least 38 occurrences of Philonic borrowings have been noted in these three letters, many comprising as much as a paragraph of Philo’s Greek directly translated into Latin.61 Ambrose leans more on spiritual interpretations in these letters, using techniques such as allegory and arithmology, and this may be related to the fact that the recipients of these letters were welleducated clerics. It is this collection of three letters and their Philonic source that will be the primary focus of this work.

CONCLUSION In the late 4th-century CE, the entire theological landscape of the Roman Empire was in transition. Christianity had risen from persecuted sect to dominant religion of the Empire so quickly that the culture had difficulty keeping pace. Ambrose himself had transitioned from secular politician to revered bishop with similar rapidity, and he was a pioneer in how an individual could live in both of these worlds simultaneously. If there were some growing pains and some paradoxical characteristics in him, that is only to be expected. Ambrose’s relative success in engaging both Church and culture would serve as a model for future generations.

60 Dassmann, Ambrosius von Mailand, 207, notes that this work was so frequently copied that the critical edition makes use of only a selection of the numerous, available manuscripts. 61 This number is based on the extensive footnotes in Banterle, Sant’Ambrogio: Discorsi e Lettere II/I: Lettere (1–35).

22

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

If there is one trait that most defines Ambrose, it is his intense fascination with the Bible and its interpretation. Biblical exegesis pervades his many writings, and exegetical quandaries are central to the conversations in his circle of friends. Ambrose believed that all of the Old Testament and New Testament added up to a coherent whole, which could be understood in Christ and by the spiritual guidance of Christ. He shows a genuine love for unraveling difficult texts and deep admiration for exegetes who could find creative solutions to the greatest challenges in the Scriptures. In particular, Ambrose appreciated the fruits of the Alexandrian school of exegesis, which expounded upon the richness of the spiritual meaning of Scriptures without divorcing it from the literal-historical sense. This is what probably led him to read and absorb the thought of Philo of Alexandria, to whom we must now turn in the next chapter. Ambrose was a creative theologian, though that creativity was not generally expressed in the creation of novelties, but in the recreation of his literary sources. Ambrose drew upon the shining lights of Hellenized Judaism and Greek Christianity, but he was not afraid to recontextualize and dephilosophize these texts. Ambrose was a highly selective borrower, constantly culling, adapting, augmenting, rewriting, and refocusing his sources. The result was more than history, more than morality, more than psychology—it was a highly Christological reading of the Old Testament, which bore the unique stamp of the great Bishop of Milan.

CHAPTER TWO. AMBROSE’S USE OF PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA There is no doubt that Ambrose was an avid reader and transmitter of the works of Philo of Alexandria. The sheer mass of quotations and paraphrases throughout Ambrose’s works bears witness to his appreciation of his Jewish predecessor. However, this raises the important question of why Philo had such an important place in the works of Ambrose. This chapter will introduce the life of Philo and his literary output. It will also examine his place in the Christian tradition and Ambrose’s use of his works, both in general and specifically in his epistles. Furthermore, the fact that Ambrose makes such extensive use of a Jewish source, in spite of the fact that Ambrose usually presents a strong anti-Jewish polemic, will be investigated. Finally, Ambrose’s use of Philo will be compared to some of Ambrose’s other sources, both Christian and Jewish. These will include his major usages of Origen and Basil of Caesarea, as well as minor borrowing from a dozen others.

PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA Philo of Alexandria is the most prolific Jewish author of the Second Temple Period whose works have been preserved. His literary output was significant, and 43 of his treatises have been preserved whole

23

24

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

or in part.1 The most significant portion of these works consists of three separate series of commentaries on the Pentateuch: the Quaestiones, the Allegorical Commentary, and the ‘Exposition of the Law’ (of which the aforementioned De opificio mundi forms the first part). In addition, Philo wrote a couple of historical works of an apologetic character, as well as some treatises on philosophy. The details of Philo’s biography are frustratingly scarce. The Alexandrian philosopher provides scant information about himself and the circumstances of his life. Josephus speaks a little of Philo, but almost everything that he says could be inferred from Philo’s own writings. Eusebius and Jerome are not very helpful in the case at hand—their information is either gleaned second-hand from Philo and Josephus, or it smacks of legendary embellishment. Since Philo describes himself as an old man in 38/39 CE (Legat. 1), his birth is often placed around 20 BCE. Philo was clearly very well-educated in Jewish exegetical traditions, and his urbane prose and classical references indicate a man with a Greek paideia. From Philo’s statements about education, especially in De congressu, it can be inferred that he had completed preliminary studies in the liberal arts, as well as advanced studies in philosophy.2 Furthermore, the evidence indicates that Philo came from a wealthy and aristocratic family with strong political connections. He may have held both Alexandrian citizenship and Roman citizenship, which was fairly exceptional in the Jewish community.3 According to Josephus, Philo’s brother Alexander the Alabarch held a prestigious post and had ties to both the Roman imperial family and the Herodian dynasty. 4 It would seem that his family’s wealth and status afforded Philo the leisure to devote his life to philosophical and bibliFor guides to the works of Philo, see Royse, ‘The Works of Philo’ in Kamesar, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Philo; Morris, ‘The Jewish Philosopher Philo’; and Seland, Reading Philo. 2 Congr. 11, 16–18, 75–76, 148; Somn. 1.205. See Schenck, A Brief Guide to Philo, 11. 3 Schenck, 11–12. 4 Schwartz, ‘Philo, His Family, and His Times’, in Kamesar, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Philo, 12–13. 1

CHAPTER TWO

25

cal research. Daniel Schwartz speculatively characterizes Philo as ‘the retiring, studious and respected resident of an upstairs suite of Alexander’s palatial home in Alexandria or of some nearby residence’.5 It is clear that Philo was a man of some standing in the Alexandrian Jewish community, since he was chosen as an emissary to seek an audience with Caligula in 38/39 CE, the one event of Philo’s life for which much information is available. Even more is known about Philo’s nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, who was a very successful figure in the Roman bureaucracy. Having apostasized from Judaism, Tiberius Julius Alexander went on to become the governor of the Thebaid in Upper Egypt, the governor of Judea, a military advisor in the Parthian war of 63 CE, the governor of Egypt, the chief of staff to Titus in the Judean War, and the praetorian prefect in Rome.6 Philo makes use of his nephew as a foil in two of his philosophical treatises, De animalibus and De providentia, where Alexander asserts anti-Judaic positions vis-à-vis his uncle. Whereas Alexander abandoned Judaism for a Roman political career, Philo represents more of a compromise position as one who embraced Greco-Roman culture and philosophy while maintaining a distinctively Jewish faith and practice. Even though Philo was a Jewish philosopher and exegete, his works were preserved by Christians rather than by Jews. Philo’s exegetical method was generally seen as compatible with Christian exegesis, especially among Alexandrian Christians.7 While earlier Christians may have made limited use of Philo, Clement of Alexandria and Origen are the first Christian thinkers to make extensive and explicit use of his works. Subsequently, heirs of the Alexandrian method of exegesis such as Eusebius, the Cappadocian Fathers, and Didymus the Blind continued to appropriate material from Philo. Ambrose of Milan was the first Western Father to make extensive use of Philo, and he may have been responsible for popularizing the use of Philo 5 Schwartz, ‘Philo, His Family, and His Times’, 14. 6 Schwartz, 12–14. 7 The definitive work on the topic, from which this brief overview is culled, is Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature.

26

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

in the West with Augustine following suit. In the later tradition, Philo’s thought is primarily transmitted indirectly, by means of the works of Ambrose and Augustine. As a result of this Christian use of Philo, he was gradually accepted into the Christian tradition as a Church Father honoris causa. In fact, one Byzantine catena even refers to him as ‘Bishop Philo’. This high regard for Philo even led to a number of legends of his conversion to Christianity, although this assertion stands on very dubious evidence. De opificio mundi is one of the most-quoted Philonic treatises in the Christian tradition.8 Philo most likely came to be foundational to Christian literature on the six days of creation by means of Basil’s Hexaemeron. The development of this literature and the degree to which it was influenced by Philo will be treated at length in the next chapter.

AMBROSE’S RELATIONSHIP TO JUDAISM It may seem paradoxical that a Christian bishop in the 4th-century would use a Jewish source as an exegetical authority. By that time, Christianity and Judaism were legally defined as distinct religions, and Jewish-Christian relations were generally polemical and unfriendly in the West. In his writings, Ambrose shows some knowledge of contemporary Jews, although he does not seem to have much, if any, first-hand experience with the Jewish community.9 In one letter, he mentions the existence of a synagogue in Milan, which he identifies as a Homoian meeting-place.10 In another text, he mentions that the Milanese synagogue had been destroyed, presumably

8 Runia, On

the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 36–38.

9 Doerfler, ‘Ambrose’s Jews’, 751.

Ep. ex. coll. 5.3 [PL#11.3]: ‘[Ursinus] was in union and combination with the Arians, when, in the company of Valens, he tried to throw into confusion the Church at Milan, holding secret assemblies, sometimes before the doors of the synagogue, sometimes in the homes of the Arians, and getting his friends to join them.’ Beyenka, trans., St. Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 214.

10

CHAPTER TWO

27

by natural causes.11 Schlomo Simonsohn has demonstrated that there is archaeological evidence for a Jewish presence in Milan at the turn of the 5th-century, but their numbers and influence were probably minimal.12 Thus, it is somewhat difficult to explain the venom with which Ambrose speaks of the Jews. There is no record of any disruptions in Milan caused by Jews, and they do not appear to have been a socially relevant group. For the most part, Ambrose’s Jews are more of a literary creation than actual people with whom he had contact. In fact, Ambrose’s descriptions of Jews have more to do with the Pharisees of the New Testament narratives than with any contemporary group. Furthermore, Ambrose often uses the Jews as an exegetical foil, with their literalism contrasting with the richness of Christian exegesis.13 The most notorious illustration of Ambrose’s attitude toward Judaism comes from the Callinicum incident. In the town of Callinicum on the Euphrates, a group of Christians had retaliated against the local Jewish community by burning down a synagogue. In a similar case, some monks in the vicinity of Antioch had taken revenge against some Valentinian Gnostics who had disrupted a procession, and they burned down the Valentinian worship site. Callinicum was a fortified military town, and so the synagogue most likely existed to serve the soldiers defending the Roman-Persian border.14 Theodosius’ attitude towards Judaism was generally unfavorable; in fact, his own law of 384 CE had made it a punishable offense for Jews to involve current or former Christians in their religion. 15 However, given the potential repercussions at this strategic location, he put aside any prejudice and ordered the offenders to be punished and the local bishop to rebuild the synagogue. Presumably, his sentence was similar concerning the Valentinian sanctuary. Ambrose vehemently disagreed with the penalty and sent a letter in protest (Ep. ex. coll. 1A), See Ep. 74.8 [PL#40.8]. Dassmann, Ambrosius von Mailand, 184, posits that the synagogue had been struck by lightning. 12 Simonsohn, The Jews in the Duchy of Milan, xiv. 13 McLynn, Ambrose of Milan, 303–4. 14 Dassmann, Ambrosius von Mailand, 183. 15 Codex Theodosianus 3.1.5. 11

28

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

which he later edited and included in his published collection of letters (Ep. 74 [PL#40]).16 Ambrose’s argument in the letter rested on two assertions. First, if the bishop paid the penalty and rebuilt a place of Jewish worship, it would be a betrayal of his faith, since Christians were obliged to abhor false worship. Second, if the bishop refused and was punished, he would become a martyr and create a scandal for the emperor. Ambrose even claimed that he would take personal responsibility for the burning of the synagogue. He seems to imply that, even though Milan’s own synagogue had previously been destroyed by natural causes, he would have condoned its destruction as well.17 In response to these complaints, Theodosius rescinded the penalty that the bishop would have to rebuild the synagogue. However, Ambrose would not be satisfied until the entire case was dropped. When Theodosius visited Milan, Ambrose took the opportunity to confront the emperor directly, as is recounted in a letter from Ambrose to his sister Marcellina.18 The showdown occurred at Ambrose’s basilica, where the bishop began by directly appealing to the emperor during the sermon. Then, Ambrose approached the emperor before the communion and threatened that he would not continue the liturgy until he had received a positive answer from Theodosius. For those who take Ambrose at face value, the emperor was forced to capitulate in order to avoid embarrassment, and this was a mighty victory for Ambrose and for the Church vis-à-vis the State. For those who are more skeptical of Ambrose’s account, it has been suggested that Ambrose’s actual actions were not so brazen, and that it would not have been seen as a humiliation by the spectators. In fact, McLynn argues that Ambrose himself was 16 There were ten changes that Ambrose made to his letter, only two of which were significant. First, Ambrose corrected a mistake where he had used the wrong name. Second, he adds the threat that he will pursue the matter further at a public worship service: ‘for my part have done all I could while showing due respect to get you to hear me in the palace, so that it might not become necessary for you to hear me in church’. Translation by Liebeschuetz, Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches, 95–96. 17 Dassmann, Ambrosius von Mailand, 184. 18 Ep. ex. coll. 1 [PL#41].

CHAPTER TWO

29

the loser of the Callinicum affair, as he failed to win the emperor’s sympathy and was mostly excluded from his counsels thereafter.19 It is not surprising that Ambrose has been judged harshly by modern scholarship for his defense of anti-Semitic acts at Callinicum. McLynn summarizes modern appraisals for this event by observing that Ambrose comes off as ‘both bully and bigot’.20 Dudden, normally an admirer of Ambrose, blames his ‘unbalanced zeal’ and finds the whole affair surprising and regrettable.21 However, it is apparent that Ambrose was not motivated by some flurry of emotion—his stance in the Callinicum affair is consistent with his general opinion of Judaism and other enemies of the Nicene faith. 22 The Callinicum affair was not an isolated incident for Ambrose. For example, he employs a harsh anti-Jewish polemic throughout his commentary on Luke (Exp. Luc.).23 The Jews in this work are often used a foil for Christianity, and he attributes to them the opposite of every Christian vitue. Likewise, in De obitu Valentiniani 30–31, Ambrose contrasts Jewish opulence and Christian poverty. In De Abrahamo, Ambrose sternly warns against intermarriage with Jews or anyone other than Nicene Christians. 24 However, it would not be fair to characterize all of Ambrose’s opinions on Jews and Judaism as negative. First of all, as will be discussed further below, Ambrose makes extensive use of Jewish exegetical sources, particularly Philo but also Josephus, 4 Maccabees, and 19 McLynn, Ambrose

of Milan, 308–9.

20 McLynn, 300. 21 Dudden, The

Life and Times of St. Ambrose, 2:379.

22 Chilton, ‘Christian Reconstruction of Judaism’, 247. 23 Doerfler, ‘Ambrose’s Jews’, 750, gives a detailed analysis of Ambrose’s anti-Jewish polemic in the Exp. Luc. She notes ‘Scarcely a passage of this voluminous commentary is free of venom; indeed, Ambrose’s interpretation co-opts even passages that appear unrelated to Jewish concerns for this purpose.’ 24 Abr. 9.84: ‘Beware, Christian, of giving the hand of your daughter to a Gentile or a Jew. Also beware of taking as your wife a Gentile or a Jew or one of another nation (that is to say, a heretic) or anyone other than one of your faith.’

30

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

perhaps others. On one occasion, he even has words of praise for individual Jews: ‘Some Jews exhibit purity of life and much diligence and love of study.’25 Ambrose even writes favorably about a certain anonymous Jew who had a deep admiration for Christian teaching. 26 In another place, Ambrose mentions his desire (albeit an unlikely one) that a certain Jew would convert.27 However, Ambrose does not show any signs that he had pastoral interest in the conversion of Jews in general. Overall, Ambrose’s relationship to Judaism cannot be easily reduced to a simple statement. In order to make sense of Ambrose’s attacks against Jews and Judaism, it would be useful to place them in the context of his polemics against Homoians, Gnostics, and pagans. On the one hand, Ambrose’s polemic toward these other groups is even less nuanced than his approach to Judaism; while Ambrose can compliment individual Jews, he has nothing but venom for these others. On the other hand, Ambrose has a strong tendency to conflate all non-Nicenes into a single category.28 First, he insinuates that there is a genealogical link between Jews, pagans, and heretics of all stripes. Second, he allows characteristics of one group of enemies to bleed over into another. For example, he takes the stereotype that Valentinians are intellectually arrogant, and he applies this same trait to Jews and Homoians.29 At times, he portrays one group as a more terrible version of another, such as when he asserts that Jews are merely unfruitful, but Homoians are both unfruitful and destroyers of the fruit of others. Finally, he asserts that all of these hostile groups are united against Christianity. This stance may have been influenced by the recent memory of Emperor Julian and his attempted alliance between Roman paganism and Judaism. Overall, in Ambrose’s view, all of these groups were ‘other’, and the subtle distinctions between

25 Enarrat.

Ps. 1.41. ex. coll. 1 [PL#41]. 27 Enarrat. Ps. 36.80. 28 This section owes much to Maria Doerfler, ‘Ambrose’s Jews’. 29 For example, see Exp. Luc. 11.41. 26 Ep.

CHAPTER TWO

31

them were less significant than the fact that they all stood opposed to the one true faith as he understood it. Ambrose’s conflation of all non-Nicenes actually serves a few rhetorical purposes in his writings. First of all, he is able to delegitimize one group by associating it with another that was already regarded as illegitimate. For example, Ambrose’s polemics against Judaism in Exp. Luc. are often used to set up attacks against the Homoians. By associating the Pharisaical Jews of the New Testament (a group universally despised by Christians) with contemporary Homoians, Ambrose sways the sympathies of his readers away from them.30 Furthermore, by defining themselves in opposition to a single, unified ‘other’, Ambrose and his forebears were carving out a separate and unique Christian identity.31 Finally, in the mind of Ambrose, to allow one of these groups to have an equal say in politics would open the floodgates for other opponents of Nicene Christianity to promote dangerous falsehoods.32 Thus, the rhetorical strategy employed by Ambrose gives some insight into his violent opposition of Judaism, even though he had little direct contact with Jews. The Milanese Bishop is often attacking Homoians or pagans in the literary guise of Jews. Another important aspect for understanding Ambrose’s antiJewish polemic is his view of history. Ambrose, much like Eusebius before, had a tendency toward triumphalism. In the early 4thcentury, Christianity experienced an incredibly sudden—apocalyptically sudden!—shift from being a persecuted minority to the dominant religious group in the Roman Empire. Thus, it was understandable for 4th-century Christians to view the present as the beginning of a glorious new age in which the Christian Gospel would spread unhindered. The fact that many Jews continued to reject this Gospel was a sore spot with Christians. This state of affairs was re-

Doerfler, 764, notes that a similar tactic was employed by Ephrem the Syrian. 31 Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, 14; Buell, Why This New Race, 97. 32 Dassmann, Ambrosius von Mailand, 186. 30

32

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

garded as a historical anomaly—a temporary situation until the victory of Christ was complete.33 In this context, Ambrose frequently writes about the ‘sterility’ of the Jewish religion—it was a theological dead-end.34 This alleged Jewish fruitlessness was further illustrated by the bland literalism of Jewish interpretation, in comparison to the richness of the spiritual sense of Scripture in Christian exegesis. Meanwhile, 4th-century Christians generally believed that the mantle of ‘the true Israel of God’ had passed to the Church, leaving the Jews as a heretical offshoot. However, Ambrose was not a supercessionist—in fact, he associates that position with Manichaeans, Gnostics, and Marcionites.35 The above analysis begins to define what Ambrose found to be objectionable in Judaism, and it is important to note that these objectionable traits are not generally present in Philo. Philo’s exegesis was not literalist but richly spiritual in a way that was consonant with Ambrose’s own spiritual exegesis. Moreover, Philo never explicitly rejected the message of Christ. Of course, Philo most likely had never had any contact with Christians, but Ambrose could assume that Philo would have accepted Christ as Lord if he had had the opportunity. In fact, some of Philo’s teachings could even be seen to anticipate certain elements of Christian theology. Finally, Philo had already been accepted by other orthodox theologians, such as Origen and Basil, and so Ambrose could rely upon the tradition that he so valued. Thus, Philo’s Jewishness would not have necessarily excluded him from Ambrose’s study and use as an authority on exegetical matters. It is worth noting that the other Jewish sources that Ambrose uses to a significant degree, namely Josephus and 4 Maccabees, also bear some of the same traits as Philo. Both of these authors had been accepted by the orthodox tradition already because they were deemed to be compatible with the Christian message. Also, it is 33 Chilton, ‘Christian Reconstruction of Judaism’, 248.

For example, see Abr. 1.7.61; Hex. 2.4.16; Ep. 31.5 [PL#44.5], Ep. 70.10 [PL#16.10]; Exp. Ps. 118 2.10. 35 Colish, Ambrose’s Patriarchs, 22. 34

CHAPTER TWO

33

worth noting that on the rare occasion when Ambrose criticizes one of his preferred Jewish sources by name, the criticism is motivated by Ambrose’s bias against ‘Jewish’ forms of exegesis. Thus, Philo is chided for giving a merely moral interpretation rather than richly spiritual one (Parad. 4.25), and Josephus is disparaged for literalism (Ep. 34.2 [PL#45.2]). In both cases, the suspect interpretations were examples of sterile ‘Jewish’ exegesis and not fruitful ‘Christian’ exegesis.

PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP ON AMBROSE’S USE OF PHILO The volume and length of Ambrose’s usages of the works of Philo of Alexandria are truly astounding. David Runia observes that ‘no Church father makes as extensive and detailed use of Philo’s writings as Ambrose does’.36 Johann Baptist Aucher calls Ambrose ‘Philo Christianus’,37 and Leopold Cohn labels him as ‘Philo Latinus’.38 Enzo Lucchesi estimates that Ambrose borrowed from Philo on approximately 600 occasions, far in excess of anything else that is found in the patristic tradition.39 Among this wealth of borrowings, Ambrose only refers to Philo by name once, and on that occasion he criticizes the Alexandrian allegorist (Parad. 4.25). While Ambrose does not directly cite Philo at any point, the sheer volume of uncited direct quotations of Philo (in translation) is so great in the Ambrosian corpus, that there is little doubt as to influence.40 The most copious usage of Philo in the Ambrosian corpus is found in the five so-called Philonic treatises.41 These works (De par-

36 Runia, Philo

in Early Christian Literature, 292. Judæi Paralipomena Armena, v. 38 Cohn, Wendland, and Reiter, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, I, lxii. 39 Lucchesi, L’usage de Philon dans l’oeuvre exégétique de Saint Ambroise, 7; see tables at 127–128. 40 Runia, On the Creation, 38, classifies Ambrose’s use of Philo as ‘absolutely clear’. 41 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 292–93, gives a useful survey of the Philonic borrowings from both the exegetical treatises and the letters. 37 Aucher, Philonis

34

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

adiso, De Cain et Abel, De Noe, De Abrahamo, and De fuga saeculi) include extended sections of text that are either loose paraphrases of Philo or direct translations into Latin. 42 All of these treatises are concerned with allegorical exegesis of the Pentateuch. The second most prominent set of Philonic borrowings is found in the collection of Ambrose’s letters. Among 91 extant letters, 16 contain substantial material taken from Philo, often translating whole paragraphs directly from Philo’s works.43 The majority of these 16 ‘Philonic’ letters were written in response to an exegetical question, which Ambrose answers by adapting material from a single treatise of Philo.44 In addition to these major examples of Ambrose making use of Philonic material, there are also incidental usages found in several of the other letters and treatises. Lucchesi tabulates that Ambrose’s Hexaemeron has 12 cases of possible Philonic influence, De Isaac has 10, De Iacob has 4, De Ioseph has 9, and De benedictionibus patriarcharum has 14.45 However, some of these minor usages are so subtle that it is sometimes difficult to prove dependence, and others may have been transmitted indirectly.46 Therefore, this study will concern itself with the abundance of clear and direct references to the works of Philo. While Ambrose’s use of Philo received some German scholarly attention in the late 19th century,47 this early work in the field has He follows the division of Savon, Saint Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif, 1.13–15. 42 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 292. 43 Runia, 293–94. 44 It is interesting to note that Ambrose’s letters make use of at least ten different Philonic treatises, but he does not draw material from Philo’s QG or QE, even though these are the most frequntly referenced sources in Ambrose’s five Philonic treatises. See Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 294. 45 Lucchesi, L’usage de Philon dans l’oeuvre exégétique de Saint Ambroise, 127–28. 46 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 294–95. 47 Examples of 19th century research into the influence of Philo on Ambrose include Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alten Testament, 371–91; Förster, Ambrosius, Bischof von Mailand, 101–12; Ihm, Philon und

CHAPTER TWO

35

been mostly overshadowed by two works written in French, both published in 1977. On the one hand, Enzo Lucchesi’s L’usage de Philon dans l’oeuvre exégétique de Saint Ambroise focused on the Philonic side of the equation, examining the works of Ambrose for what they could say about the textual traditions of the works of Philo. On the other hand, Hervé Savon’s Saint Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif investigated the Ambrosian side more, namely the way in which Ambrose transformed and Christianized the material that he borrowed from Philo. Since their approaches to the material were opposite in orientation, it is not surprising that their results were also considerably different. Lucchesi’s primary concern is to determine what text of Philo is represented in the writings of Ambrose. He determines that Ambrose most likely had access to Greek copies of Philo’s De sacrificiis and Quaestiones in Genesim Books I-III, based upon the extensive and sequential use of the treatises in De paradiso, De Cain et Abel, De Noe, and De Abrahamo.48 Moreover, based upon comparisons with the Armenian translation, Lucchesi argues that Ambrose is using an older text-type than the other extant manuscripts of Philo. In other cases, such as the use of Philo’s Prof. in Ambrose’s Fug., Lucchesi hypothesizes that Ambrose received this material through an intermediary, probably the Mystical Homilies of Origen. Lucchesi assumes that the way in which Ambrose transmits Philo’s text into Latin is predictable,49 and therefore the differences in Ambrose’s version of Philo are indicative of textual variations in a supposed Italian text-type of Philo manuscripts, possibly those deposited in Rome as recorded by Eusebius.50 Therefore, Lucchesi believes that it is possible to recover the text of the Italian manuscripts of Philo from those excerpts preserved in Ambrose. While Lucchesi does demonstrate the possibilities for using Ambrose to establish the text of Ambrosius; and Kellner, Der heilige Ambrosius, Bischof von Mailand, als Erklärer des Alten Testamentes. 48 Lucchesi, L’usage de Philon dans l’oeuvre exégétique de Saint Ambroise, 118. 49 Lucchesi, 4, 53. 50 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.18.8.

36

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Philo, this work is unsatisfactory on many levels. In particular, he draws sweeping conclusions from minor pieces of data, and he discounts the possibility that the differences can be explained by intentional decisions on the part of Ambrose. By contrast, Savon’s goal is to understand Ambrose’s methods of appropriation and adaptation of Philo, in order to ‘surprise him at his work’.51 Savon examines both individual passages and also entire trains of thought. Given the vastness and practical difficulties of this undertaking, Savon has time for a full discussion of only a few passages in this lengthy volume, primarily De Cain et Abel 1.4.13–6.23 and its Philonic parallel in De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 20–42. Savon concludes that Ambrose chose to borrow allegorical material from Philo in order to defend the Bible from rationalist attack.52 However, Ambrose did not use his source uncritically. In fact, he censored Philo on account of his own negative evaluation of philosophy, Judaism, and Arianism.53 Furthermore, Savon evaluates the ways in which Ambrose Christianized Philonic material, often shifting Philo’s moral allegory to sacramental realism.54 Through all of this use of Philo, Ambrose did not remain aloof from his source, and many Philonic themes became integrated into his thought.55 Overall, Savon concludes that Ambrose reworked Philonic material from a coherent perspective, and not only because it was convenient or the bishop was in a hurry. 56 51 Savon, Saint

Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif, 9.

52 Savon, 25–54.

A couple of examples can be given. Ambrose’s critique of Judaism can be seen in a few passages in which he undermines the praise of Moses found in Philo, since this could be considered a usurpation of the prerogatives of Christ (Savon, 1.96–118.) Ambrose’s polemical attitude toward Arianism can be seen in the way in which he alters Philo’s language in Sacr. 65 (paraphrased in Ambrose’s Cain 1.8.32) because the bishop had misunderstood Philo’s words as having an Arian bent (Savon, 118–39.). 54 Savon, Saint Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif, 324–325. 55 Savon, 329–76. 56 Savon, 377–85. See also Savon, Saint Ambroise et saint Jérôme, lecteurs de Philon, 743–44. 53

CHAPTER TWO

37

While these scholars have laid much important groundwork for the study of Ambrose’s usage of Philo in general and in the five Philonic treatises in particular, the body of writings that discuss the substantial Philonic borrowings in Ambrose’s letters is very scant. Both Hans Lewy and Lucchesi address the evidence from the letters, but only on a textual level. 57 Wilhelm Wilbrand’s dissertation on the use of Jewish and pagan authors in Ambrose’s letters gives 20 pages of treatment to Philo.58 Mostly, he places the relevant texts from Ambrose and Philo in parallel columns, and he ends with a page of conclusions about the nature of the usages. Wilbrand reaches the conclusion that Ambrose 1) makes use of not only Philo’s content but also his structure, 2) adapts Philo toward Christian doctrine, 3) adds further proof texts drawn from non-Torah Old Testament books and from the New Testament, and 4) uses Philo as a source of rhetorical flourishes.59 Runia accurately judges Wilbrand’s conclusions as ‘sound enough’ but only ‘on a superficial level’.60 Runia himself provides a useful survey of the research into Ambrose’s letters and their usage of Philo, as a couple of pages within his wider treatment of Philo’s influence on Ambrose.61 The only other research that has gone directly into the subject are a few articles that are concerned with Ambrose’s use of Philo in a single letter. For example, Adam Kamesar has studied Letter 55 [PL#8], which answers the accusation that Scripture was not written artfully with material from Philo’s De fuga et inventione.62 Similarly, Savon has studied Letter 7 [PL#1], which deals with the allegorical interpretation of the half-drachma in Exodus 30:12–13. 63 Overall, Runia’s summary of the state of the field 57 Lewy, Neue Philontexte in der Überarbeitung des Ambrosius; Lucchesi, L’usage de Philon dans l’oeuvre exégétique de Saint Ambroise. 58 Wilbrand, ‘S. Ambrosius quos auctores quaeque exemplaria in epistulis componendis secutus sit’, 1–20. 59 Wilbrand, 19–20. 60 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 294. 61 Runia, 293–94. 62 Kamesar, ‘Ambrose, Philo, and the Presence of Art in the Bible’. 63 Savon, ‘Remploi et transformation de thèmes philoniens dans la première lettre d’Ambroise à Just.’

38

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

twenty-six years ago still remains mostly accurate today: ‘The extended usage of Philo in Ambrose’s letters has received virtually no attention, except for textual purposes.’64

AMBROSE’S USE OF PHILO IN H IS LETTERS Before proceeding to an in-depth study of Ambrose’s letters on the Hexaemeron, a brief survey will be made of the 16 letters in which Ambrose makes extensive use of Philo. In each of the letters in which Philonic material is used, Ambrose makes reference to only a single treatise of Philo. The only exception to this rule can be found in a couple of letters in which Ambrose goes beyond that letter’s primary Philonic treatise in order to bring in a Philonic etymology which is found in a different treatise of Philo. However, this does not necessarily mean that Ambrose was using multiple treatises of Philo in any individual letter, since Ambrose may have drawn these etymologies from an onomasticon and not directly from Philo. Based on this evidence, one can form a picture of Ambrose drawing a single volume of Philo from his library as a reference work for addressing the question at hand. If Ambrose were quoting from memory or drawing upon extensive research, one would expect to see multiple treatises quoted within a single letter. In total, 9 different Philonic treatises are quoted at length within the corpus of Ambrose’s letters. Even though Philo is never cited by name in any of Ambrose’s correspondence, it may be possible to discern a few anonymous references to the Alexandrian philosopher. In a letter in which Ambrose adapts the main argument of Philo’s Quod omnis probus liber sit, he seems to be including Philo within the class of ‘the philosophers’ when he states: ‘This passage has been pitched and tossed on a great mass of discussion by philosophers, who say that every wise man is free, every fool is a slave.’65 Similarly, Ambrose concludes his thoroughly Philonic response to Chromatius by saying: ‘I am sending your holy soul this little work in response to your wish that I make

64 Runia, Philo

in Early Christian Literature, 294. Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 287.

65 Ep. 7.4 [PL#37.4], Beyenka, trans., St.

CHAPTER TWO

39

some compilations from the interpretations of earlier writers.’66 Philo may also be under consideration in another letter, when he prefaces some Philonic material with the phrase: ‘Some hold one opinion, others another, yet all agree that…’67 Ambrose’s Philonic letters can be divided into two categories based upon the nature of the letters. In 12 letters, Ambrose is answering a specific exegetical question on a specific passage, and he draws upon a Philonic treatise that deals with the same passage. Meanwhile, in 4 letters, Ambrose is treating a philosophical or hortatory topic, and he draws upon a Philonic treatise for material. These are summarized in the tables below: Table A: Ambrose’s Philonic Letters 12 Exegetical letters Z/F# PL# Recipient

Date

1

7

2

65 Simplicianus Undated

3

67 Simplicianus Undated

4

27 Irenaeus

c. 387

14

33 Irenaeus

c. 387

28

50 Chromatius c. 390

29

43 Horontianus c. 387

31

44 Horontianus c. 387

34

45 Sabinus

c. 387

44

68 Romulus

Undated

48

66 Romulus

Undated

55

8

c. 381

Justus

Justus

b. 381

Philonic Text Her. 141–143, 186–192 Her. 183–185 Fug. 157–160 Fug. 4–24, 44 Sacr. 19–20, 118 Mos. I. 264–304 Opif. 69– 86, 147 Opif. 8–13, 100–126 Opif. 139– 171 Praem. 132 Ebr. 69–71 Fug. 132– 137, 143, 168–171

66 Ep. 28.16 [PL#50.16], Beyenka, trans., St. 67 Ep. 34.3 [PL#45.3], Beyenka, trans., St.

Verse

Primary Question /Topic

Exod 30:12–16

Meaning of the didrachma Exod Meaning of blood 24:5–6 on altar/bowls Lev Why did Moses 10:16–20 listen to Aaron? Exod Sacrificing the 8:26 abominations Deut Meaning of law 21:16 about two wives Num Can God lie? 22–24 Gen Why was man 1–2 created last? Gen Why a six-day 1 creation? Gen Nature of Paradise 2–3 Deut Meaning of earth 28:23 being like iron Exod Meaning of killing 32:2–7 neighbor Gen Scripture is written 22:7 artfully

Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 76. Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 130.

40

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION



4 Philosophical/hortatory letters Z/F# PL# Recipient

Date

6

28 Irenaeus

7

37 Simplicianus c. 386

10

38 Simplicianus c. 386

36

2

c. 387

Constantius 379

Philonic Text Prob. 2–8, 43 Prob. 17–117

Verse

Fug. 16 Jos. 40– 48, 123, 126, 144

None

None 1 Cor 7:23

Gen 37–50

Primary Question/ Topic Christian exhortation Every good man is free Every good man is rich (continuation of Letter 7 [PL#37])

Exhortations for a bishop

A few preliminary conclusions can be reached about Ambrose’s use of Philo specifically in his letters. First of all, Ambrose often uses the organizational scheme of a Philonic work to structure his own epistle.68 The three letters under consideration in this study are excellent examples of Ambrose using Philo’s De opificio mundi not only for exegetical material but also for their structure and order. Furthermore, when Philo digresses into a discussion of secondary texts, Ambrose tends to follow his source to the same texts, such as in Ep. 1, 4, 6, 14, and 55 [PL#7, 27, 28, 33, and 8]. However, Ambrose is not rigid in his use of Philonic structure, freely transposing some of the material to his purposes. Nonetheless, the Milanese bishop hews closely to Philo’s overall argumentation. Secondly, Philo often serves as a source of allegorical interpretation for Ambrose in his letters.69 Borrowing of this sort of material is especially prominent in Ambrose’s letters, perhaps indicating that a thirst for further allegorical insights motivated Ambrose to delve into the Philonic corpus so deeply. Straightforward examples of this sort of borrowing can be found in Ep. 1, 3, 4, 14, 29, 34, and 48 [PL#7, 67, 27, 33, 43, 45, and 66]. In each of these Ambrose presents 68 Wilbrand, ‘S. Ambrosius quos auctores quaeque exemplaria in epistulis componendis secutus sit’, 19. 69 Savon, Saint Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif, 25–54, argues that Ambrose made use of Philonic allegory as ammunition in the battle against rationalist attacks on the Bible.

CHAPTER TWO

41

the Philonic allegory as authoritative exegesis, and at times he expands on the allegory in the direction of Christian doctrine (see below for further discussion). There are two examples of Ambrose appropriating Philonic allegories in his letters that require further discussion. In Ep. 2 [PL#65], Ambrose subtly changes his source. Whereas Philo argued that the blood on the altar represents divine wisdom,70 Ambrose alters the interpretation so that it stands for either mystical wisdom or the forgiveness of sins.71 Likewise, Philo’s interpretation that the blood in the bowls refers to human wisdom is transformed to represent moral wisdom instead.72 This could be related to Ambrose’s critique of Philo, namely that the Jewish philosopher could not see past mere moralia to see the deeper spiritualia of the text (Parad. 4.25). Another curious example is found in Letter 55 [PL#8], where Ambrose adapts a Philonic allegory in a way that is completely divorced from the context of Philo’s De fuga et inventione. Nonetheless, in Kamesar’s study of this text, he finds that Ambrose’s interpretation is still very much in a Philonic vein.73 Overall, Ambrose seems to employ a great deal of freedom in interacting with his source, for which he has great but not slavish respect. Third, even though Ambrose was openly hostile toward pagan philosophy, he often turns to Philo as a source of philosophical material. 74 The philosophical matter is often particularly noticeable, since Philo’s thought is heavily influenced by Stoicism, yet Stoic philosophy had fallen out of favor by the 4th-century. A couple of examples of Stoic material taken over by Ambrose include: 1) ‘Wisdom and foolishness cannot blend’75; 2) ‘The man of vice is poor, not rich’76; and 3) the Stoic notions of being in harmony with nature and

70 Her. 182–185. 71 Ep. 2.4,9 [PL#65.4,9]. 72 Ep. 2.5 [PL#65.5]. 73 Kamesar, ‘Ambrose, Philo, and the Presence of Art in the Bible’, 102–3.

Savon, Saint Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif, 89–96; Madec, Saint Ambroise et la philosophie, 52–60. 75 Ep. 4.3 [PL#27.4]. See Fug. 14. 76 Ep. 4.7 [PL#27.7]. See Fug. 16. 74

42

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

of the imperturbability of the sage. 77 In addition, Ambrose takes over Pythagorean philosophical and mathematical material from his Philonic source. Examples include Ambrose’s interpretation of the Pythagorean dictum ‘Walk not on the highways’ (which he understands in same way as Philo does)78 and a discussion of the Pythagorean Monad.79 The most intriguing example is found in one of the hexaemeral letters, where Ambrose mentions the Pythagoreans by name: ‘We shall treat it, not as do the Pythagoreans or other philosophers, but according to the form and divisions of spiritual grace.’80 This text will be treated in much greater detail in chapter five. Additionally, in a different hexaemeral letter, Ambrose borrows Philo’s statement that Adam was a ‘cosmopolitan’, i.e. a citizen of the whole world.81 In the same letter, Ambrose accepts Philo’s assertion that man ‘would incline more quickly toward cunning than the perfection of wisdom’.82 Furthermore, Ambrose might also make use of at least one philosophical concept which is unique to Philo, namely the Philonic ‘Logos Cutter’.83 Fourth, some of Philo’s theological material finds a home in Ambrose’s letters. For example, Philo is the source for Ambrose’s dictum ‘To do no sin is peculiar to God; to repent, to the wise man.’84 Letter 31 [PL#44] contains Philo’s distinction between God and World as a distinction between worker and works.85 Furthermore, in Letter 34 [PL#45], Ambrose also borrows Philo’s theologi77 Ep. 7.17 [PL#37.17]. See Prob. 17–117. 78 Ep. 6.1 [PL#28.1]. See Prob. 2. 79 Ep. 1.21 [PL#7.21]. See Her. 190. 80 Ep. 31.3 [PL#44.3], Beyenka, trans., St. Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 265. See Opif. 100. 81 Ep. 34.16 [PL#45.16]. See Opif. 142. For further discussion, see chapter 6. 82 Ep. 34.9 [PL#45.9], Beyenka, trans., St. Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 131. The parallel text is found in Opif. 155. 83 Ep. 2.7 [PL#65.7]. For further discussion on the role of the Logos in dividing the universe in Philo’s thought, see Radice, ‘Philo’s Theology and Theory of Creation’, 138–40. 84 Ep. 3.4 [PL#67.4]. See Fug. 157. 85 Ep. 31.1 [PL#44.1], referring to Opif. 8–12.

CHAPTER TWO

43

cal summary of his own De opificio mundi: ‘It is clear, then, that God is the Author of man, and that there is one God, not many Gods—One who made the world, and one world only, not many, as the philosophers maintain.’86 Fifth, Ambrose mines the works of Philo for illustrations and analogies from nature. For example, Ambrose makes use of Philo’s analogy of a magnet87 and the Philonic illustration that the rich are like grasshoppers.88 In Letter 31 [PL#44], Ambrose uses a whole series of explanations on the basis of natural phenomena (all of which are directly borrowed from Philo) in order to explain the significance of the numbers 6 and 7.89 However, he is openly dismissive of one of these Philonic illustrations from nature, preferring a Christological explanation over an astronomical one: ‘What need have I to study the rising and the setting of the stars…? One star means more to me than all the others, “the bright morning star”’.90 In general, Ambrose seems to favor biblical illustrations when they are available, though he prefers analogies from nature to other forms of illustration.91 Sixth, as Wilbrand observes, Ambrose finds in Philo a rich source of rhetorical flourishes and pleasing turns of phrase.92 Examples include the expressions ‘hastened to death as if to deathlessness’93 and ‘sober inebriation’. 94 The latter example is especially notable because there are no other recognized Philonic borrowings in the letter of Ambrose in which it occurs. Furthermore, Ambrose bor86 Ep. 34.15 [PL#45.15], Beyenka, trans., St. Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 133. The same summary can be found in Opif. 170–171. 87 Ep. 34.13 [PL#45.13]. See Opif. 141. 88 Ep. 6.5 [PL#28.5]. See Prob. 8. 89 Ep. 31.2–5 [PL#44.2–3]. See Opif. 100–126. 90 Ep. 31.11 [PL#44.9], Beyenka, trans., St. Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 269. 91 This phenomenon will be discussed in more detail in chapter 5. 92 Wilbrand, ‘S. Ambrosius quos auctores quaeque exemplaria in epistulis componendis secutus sit’, 20. 93 Ep. 7.36 [PL#37.36]. See Prob. 117. 94 Ep. ex. coll. 14 [PL#63]. For further discussion of this phrase, see Hans Lewy, Sobria ebrietas: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der antiken Mystik; Quasten, ‘“Sobria Ebrietas” in Ambrosius “De Sacramentis”’.

44

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

rows the extended imagery of the ‘flight of the mind’ from Philo.95 Even though this is a widespread topos, in the context of the other explicit borrowings from Philo’s De opificio mundi in this same letter, it is likely that Ambrose took this material from the same source. In addition to the aforementioned types of borrowings that Ambrose makes in his letters, there are also several recognizable ways in which Ambrose adds to or alters his Philonic sources. First of all, Ambrose will supplement Philonic assertions with additional Old Testament proof texts. Mostly, these additional quotations from the Old Testament are found in the Prophets and the Writings. Ambrose may have understood himself as filling in a deficiency in Philo, who rarely makes Scriptural quotations from outside of the Pentateuch.96 Among those books which Ambrose quotes to supplement his source are Samuel, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Micah, and the Septuagintal additions to Daniel. On a few occasions, Ambrose also will add an additional citation or example from the Pentateuch. 97 Secondly, Ambrose supplements his references to Philo with supporting texts from the New Testament.98 Obviously, Philo would not have cited the New Testament, but Ambrose has no reservations in adding New Testament proof texts which correlate in some way to a Philonic line of thought. In fact, this should be expected if Ambrose perceived himself not as a mere transmitter of Philo’s works but rather as an interpreter. In this sense, Ambrose enriches the material that he received by showing how new light is thrown on Philo’s exegesis in light of the further revelation of the New Testament. Often, the imagery of Philo’s argument or of a text that he cites suggests a certain New Testament text to Ambrose. Thus, the drachma from Exodus 30:12–16 suggests to Ambrose the

Ep. 29.14–15 [PL#43.14–15]. See Opif. 69 (and occurring elsewhere in Philo as well). 96 Amir, ‘Scripture in the Writings of Philo’, 422. 97 See Ep. 3.13, 7.6–12, and 48.3 [PL#67.13, 37.6–12, and 66.3]. 98 Wilbrand, ‘S. Ambrosius quos auctores quaeque exemplaria in epistulis componendis secutus sit’, 20. 95

CHAPTER TWO

45

lost coin of Luke 15 or the coin in the fish’s mouth of Matthew 17.99 Moreover, Philo’s illustration of a banquet in De opificio mundi 77– 88 suggests to Ambrose the banquet parable of Matthew 22.100 Likewise, when Philo gives examples from the world of athletics in the same text, Ambrose is reminded of the various pericopes in the Pauline epistles with athletic imagery (e.g. 1 Cor 9:26, Eph 6:12, 2 Cor 11:29).101 Third, Ambrose adapts Philo toward Christological and typological interpretation. 102 This too is consistent with Ambrose acting as an interpreter of Philo, one who reveals new depths to the Alexandrian philosopher’s thought in light of the Christ-event, of which Philo himself was not cognizant. For example, Ambrose adapts Philo’s discussion of the Patriarch Joseph in De Josepho by transforming Joseph into a Christ-type.103 Ambrose’s Letter 34 [PL#45] proceeds from Philo’s assertion that Adam was a ‘cosmopolitan’ into an Adam Christology, similar to Romans 5:12–21.104 Likewise, Ambrose builds upon Philo’s etymology of Pesach meaning ‘passage’ in order to elaborate a Christological understanding of the Exodus.105 In another letter Ambrose connects the references to the firstborn in the primary and secondary texts under discussion (Deut 21:16 and Num 3:12–13 respectively) to Christ as the firstborn (see Heb 12:22– 23—quoted by Ambrose—and Rom 8:29).106 Fourth, Ambrose alters his Philonic source in order to make other connections to Christian doctrine.107 For example, Ambrose applies Philo’s line of thought to baptism,108 the ecclesiastic practice 99 Ep. 1.2,13 [PL#7.2,13]. See Her. 186–192. 100 Ep. 29.3 [PL#43.3]. 101 Ep. 29.5–6 [PL#43.5–6]. 102 Savon, Saint

Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif, 324–25.

103 Ep. 36 [PL#2]. 104 Ep.34.16 [PL#45.16]. See Opif.

142.

105 Ep. 1.10 [PL#7.10]. See Her. 192. 106 Ep. 14.4 [PL#33.4]. See Sacr. 118.

Wilbrand, ‘S. Ambrosius quos auctores quaeque exemplaria in epistulis componendis secutus sit’, 20. 108 Ep. 28.10 [PL#50.10]. See Mos. 1.278–279. 107

46

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

of confession,109 and perhaps the Pauline dichotomy of Law and Gospel.110 In Letter 36 [PL#2], Ambrose adapts Philonic material from De Josepho to present the Patriarch as an example of Christian humility. This theme is not a focus for Philo in De Josepho, who instead emphasizes Joseph’s preparations for a life of politics. Elsewhere, Ambrose supplements Philo’s argument with an illustration from Eucharistic practice. 111 In the same letter, he also expands a Philonic allegory so as to refer to the Old and New Covenants.112 Finally, in one of the hexaemeral letters, Ambrose progresses from presenting Philonic arithmologies of the numbers 6 and 7 to discuss also the Christian arithmology of the number 8.113 One can observe a great freedom in the way in which Ambrose grafts Christian ideas onto his source. Some of these additions seem rather gratuitous, with the Milanese bishop making free associations from Philo’s language or imagery to arrive at Christian doctrinal material.

AMBROSE’S USE OF OTHER JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN SOURCES After Philo, the most significant Jewish source for Ambrose’s writings is Flavius Josephus. Ambrose even mentions Josephus by name in Letter 34.2 [PL#45.2], where he criticizes him for being a mere historian, that is to say, a literalist. There is evidence that Ambrose had read from both the Jewish Antiquities and the Jewish War. Also, the Hellenistic Jewish book of 4 Maccabees was an influence on Ambrose’s homiletical style, and he made several quotations of it. 114 There are also some parallels between Ambrose’s writings and Rabbinic literature, but a direct connection is unlikely.115

109 Ep. 3.11 [PL#67.11]. See Fug. 157–160. 110 Ep. 2.3,9 [PL#65.3,9]. See Her. 183–185. 111 Ep. 1.8 [PL#7.8]. See Her. 141–143. 112 Ep. 1.20 [PL#7.20]. See Her.

186–192.

113 Ep. 31.5–10 [PL#31.3–8]. See Opif. 100–126. 114 The relevant examples are placed in parallel columns by Freudenthal, Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift, 32–34. 115 Ginzberg, ‘Ambrose’ in The Jewish Encyclopedia.

CHAPTER TWO

47

Origen is the only other source that Ambrose uses to a degree that is comparable to his use of Philo. Ambrose mentions Origen by name three times in his extant works (Abr. 2.8.54; Exp. Ps. 118 4.16; Ep. 65 [PL# 75]), and he implies that he respects Origen as an exegetical source.116 In his exegetical letters, Ambrose makes use of Origen nearly as often as he makes use of Philo, and these borrowings are normally left uncited according to his usual practice. 117 Aside from the evident compatibility between Origen and Philo as philosophically-minded Alexandrian theologians, these two thinkers also provide similar grist for Ambrose’s mill—allegorical insights into the Scriptures. Indeed, Ambrose does not seem to discriminate between the two. Philo’s exegesis and Origen’s are both considered as valuable parts of the orthodox tradition in the mind of Ambrose. Ambrose shows great familiarity with the writings of Basil of Caesarea, especially his Homilies on the Hexaemeron. It is also evident that Ambrose read a large number of Basil’s other homilies, as well as his treatise De spiritu sancto.118 Basil was relatively cautious in his use of allegory, and so Ambrose borrows different kinds of materials from the great Cappadocian bishop than he does from Philo or Origen. For example, in writing his own Hexaemeron, Ambrose benefited from the extraordinary knowledge of natural science that Basil had acquired from his studies at Athens. However, Ambrose is not as mechanical of a copyist of Basil as was previously thought. The Bishop of Milan expands, shortens, and creatively adapts Basil’s Hexaemeron in many places. In particular, his additions to his source involve allegorical expansions (for moral and spiritual edification) and allusions to Vergil (giving the sermons a Western flavor). Ambrose also tends to be more polemical than Basil, which can be seen in his relentless attacks on Homoians and Gnostics in his Hexaemeron.

116 Zelzer, ‘Origenes in der Briefsammlung des Ambrosius’, 593. 117 Zelzer, 594. 118 For a complete list of Basil’s works referenced by Ambrose, see Dudden, The Life and Times of St. Ambrose, 1:113.

48

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Ambrose draws upon a handful of other Christian sources in his writings.119 He was well-acquainted with some of the writings of Eusebius, especially the Ecclesiastical History. According to Jerome, Ambrose knew the lost Hexaemeron of Hippolytus, and he borrowed extensively from Didymus the Blind’s De Spiritu Sancto. Ambrose also shows familiarity with Athanasius’s Letter to Epictetus and Orations against the Arians. He also knew the epistle of 1 Clement. A pattern emerges as one considers Ambrose’s sources—he had read broadly among the brightest lights of Hellenized Judaism and Greek Christianity. Furthermore, Ambrose thought that there was value in these Eastern sources for the Church in the West.

CONCLUSION Ambrose viewed Philo as a rich source, and in his collection of letters he made use of a number of Philonic texts. When he draws upon Philo, he tends to do so extensively—isolated Philonic usages are the exception to the rule for Ambrose. Moreover, he makes use of Philo for structure as well as for content. The kinds of materials that Ambrose borrows are diverse, including allegorical interpretations, philosophical material, and theological material. He often accepts Philonic exegesis without reservation, much as he would use the Greek Fathers, particularly Origen. Ambrose also appropriates many of Philo’s illustrations and analogies, although he shows a distinct preference for those drawn from the Bible or from nature. Finally, Ambrose, being a consummate rhetorician, cannot resist borrowing some of Philo’s most striking phrases as rhetorical flourishes, in much the same way as he uses many of the Greco-Roman Classics, such as Vergil. Nonetheless, Ambrose does not show any qualms about changing or adapting his source to suit his own purposes. Some of these alterations are minor, such as when he adds additional Old Testament or New Testament quotations or when he adds further evidence to a Philonic argument. At other times, however, he makes For more detail, see Dudden, The Life and Times of St. Ambrose, 1:113– 14.

119

CHAPTER TWO

49

more serious adaptations, which consistently move his source text toward interpretations that are Christological, typological, and in accord with Christian doctrine and practice. Ambrose respects and admires Philo as a biblical interpreter, but he also is willing to reinterpret the Alexandrian thinker when Ambrose’s own values and priorities differ.120 He seems to have seen these re-interpretations as supplementing what was lacking in an otherwise excellent source. Overall, he treats Philo as a member of that line of faithful interpreters of the Scriptures.

120 Zelzer, ‘Origenes in der Briefsammlung des Ambrosius’, 596.

CHAPTER THREE. THE HEXAEMERAL TRADITION Christian discourse on the creation is already present in 1st- and early 2nd-century literature. As with their Jewish forebears, the theme of creation is closely tied up with themes of redemption and election in Christian authors. In the Pauline Epistles, God’s creative activity finds its climax in the re-creation of all things in Jesus Christ, and the universal Gospel is tied into the idea of God as universal Creator. Thus, many New Testament and sub-apostolic references to the creation are confessional or doxological.1 Over time, Christian writers developed their expressions of God as Creator in conversation with various Greco-Roman and Gnostic doctrines about the cosmos. Within the wider world of Christian literature that deals with the creation, there arose a specific exegetical tradition, which uses the six days of creation (Hexaemeron) as described in Genesis 1 and 2 as a framework to discuss the relevant cosmological, theological, and anthropological material.2 The roots of this tradition can be found in Jewish sources, especially Philo of Alexandria’s De opificio mundi. In the first three centuries of the Christian movement, one can catch glimpses of this tradition developing in various fragmentary works or

1 Blowers, ‘Doctrine of Creation’, 907.

For general discussion about the Hexaemeral tradition, see Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature; Brown, The Days of Creation; and Bouteneff, Beginnings. 2

51

52

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

allusions to lost works.3 Theophilus of Antioch (late 2nd-century CE), Hippolytus of Rome (3rd-century CE), and Origen (184–254 CE) provide the extant examples of this early tradition. Ultimately, the lynchpin of the tradition can be found in Basil of Caesarea’s (330– 379 CE) landmark Homilies on the Hexaemeron, which drew heavily upon these predecessors while also setting the agenda for most of the subsequent works on the subject. Basil would directly inspire several works, including those of Ambrose (339–397 CE), Pseudo-Eustathius (late 4th or 5th century CE), and Philoponus (6th century CE). Furthermore, Basil’s brother Gregory of Nyssa (335–394/5 CE) wrote a couple of works that were seen as supplements to Basil’s Hexaemeron. The combined works of Basil and Gregory would inspire their own set of derivative works, such as those of Procopius (6th century CE) and the Byzantine chroniclers. Another Philonic-Origenian strand of hexaemeral literature would continue in the exegetical writings of another Alexandrian, Didymus the Blind (313–398 CE). The second most important figure in the hexaemeral tradition after Basil is Augustine (354–430 CE), who built upon the works of Basil and Gregory and their imitators in an original way. The works of Augustine on creation became the chief authority for later writers in the Latin West, defining a tradition that would continue all the way to Milton’s Paradise Lost.4 In addition to the mainline traditions of exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2, at least two other families of hexaemeral literature are evident. The Antiochene Fathers produced a number of exegetical works that deal with the six days of creation, including those of Diodore of Tarsus (died before 394 CE), Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350–428 CE), For further discussion of fragmentary or lost Hexaemera, see Smets and van Esbroeck, Basile de Césarée, Sur l’origine de l’homme, 94–96. Droge, Homer or Moses?, 102. 4 Members of this tradition include Johannes Scotus Erigena, pseudoEucherius, Angelomus, the venerable Bede, Hrabanus, Remi, Honorius, Bruno of Asti, Hugo of St. Victor, Peter Lombard, Bandinus, William of Conches, Vincent Beauvais, Bernard of Tours, Peter Abelard, Thierry of Chartres, Guillaume DuBartas, Sir Walter Raleigh, Torquato Tasso, and John Milton. See Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature, 73–91. 3

CHAPTER THREE

53

Severian of Gabala (died 425/431 CE), Theodoret of Cyrus (c.393–485 CE), and Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th-century CE). The primary characteristic of this family of Hexaemera is that they eschew the scientific material typical of Basilian exegesis for speculative questions, concerning things such as angelology. Furthermore, John Chrysostom (344/354–407 CE) produced some exegetical material on Genesis 1–2 of an edificatory and devotional character. This approach to the Hexaemeron is largely disconnected from the wider tradition, except for some reuse in late sources such as Anastasius Sinaita (died early 8th-century CE). This chapter will trace the development of this exegetical tradition from Philo through Augustine with a few brief nods to the later tradition. This should be sufficient to shed light upon the intellectual environment in which Ambrose wrote his hexaemeral homilies and letters and also to provide context for the specific ways in which he adapts the hexaemeral tradition.

CREATION IN PHILO ’S DE OPIFICIO MUNDI The tradition of Hexaemeral literature, the body of exegetical literature dedicated to interpreting the six days of creation (Gen 1–2), owes much to Philo of Alexandria’s De opificio mundi. De opificio mundi is the oldest extant work devoted to the topic, and its influence is evident through the subsequent Christian tradition, as will be demonstrated below. De opificio mundi belongs to Philo’s ‘Exposition of the Law’ commentary series. In this twelve-volume series (of which ten volumes survive), Philo divides the Pentateuchal material into three genres—cosmopoieia (which provides the basis for natural law), the lives of the Patriarchs (virtuous men who are the embodiment of the natural law), and the laws proper.5 De opificio mundi treats the cosmopoieia; De Abrahamo, the lost books on Isaac and Jacob, and De Josepho cover the second section; and De decalogo, the four volumes of De specialibus legibus, De virtutis, and De praemiis et poenis cover the legislative section. As such, De opificio mundi plays a crucial role in the ‘Exposition of the Law’, establishing the 5 Royse, ‘The Works of Philo’, 45–50.

54

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

order of creation which will be the foundation for the law in the rest of the series. Philo calls De opificio mundi a syntaxis, an ‘ordered composition’. Runia takes this as a ‘general term for a didactic or systematic prose work—so not a speech or a dialogue—, written for publication in the ancient sense of the term’.6 This treatise, like the rest of the ‘Exposition of the Law’, is not a running commentary on the biblical text: the biblical text is quoted sporadically rather than systematically. Nonetheless, Philo does follow the progression of the biblical narrative, specifically using the six-/seven-day schema as a way to organize the material. Despite this overall organizational principle, the approach of De opificio mundi could be accused of being somewhat atomistic and episodic. The guiding principle of Philo’s treatment of creation in De opificio mundi is that the biblical account is organized into a succession of six or seven days, not because it literally happened in a temporal sequence, but because the nature of reality is orderly. Philo appeals to the symbolism of numbers in order to explain the orderliness of the creation, finding significance in things that are created on each day with regard to the number of the day on which they were created. Unlike Philo’s intense and pervasive use of allegory in the Allegorical Commentary series, De opificio mundi only reaches fullblown moral allegory toward the end of the book, where Philo discusses the Garden of Eden. Philo’s hexaemeral contemplations bear the mark of his twofold environment: he is both an Alexandrian Jew and a member of Hellenized society. From his Jewish background, Philo drew upon anterior Alexandrian traditions. One of these Jewish forebears was Aristobulus (2nd-cent. BCE), who addressed the creation in fragment 5. This fragment of Aristobulus is transmitted by Eusebius, and it is also preserved in Clement of Alexandria (fragments 5a-e).7 Within these fragments is a discussion of the interpretation of the number 6 Runia, On

the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 5. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Vol. III, Aristobulus, is the best edition of the relevant texts.

7

CHAPTER THREE

55

seven in the hexaemeral account. Much like Philo, Aristobulus discerns the orderly nature of the cosmos from the use of the number seven,8 and he supports this assertion with examples from nature9 and from classical quotations. 10 Another possible point of comparison can be found in the apocryphal book the Wisdom of Solomon, although this work is far more concerned with God’s salvific action in history, and so the parallels with Philo are slight.11 Several other texts from the Alexandrian Jewish environment, such as the Letter of Aristeas, Jewish synagogal prayers, and 4 Maccabees have minor references to the creation, which may shed some light on Philo. Furthermore, there are a few other Jewish sources that, even though they are later than Philo, may represent traditions that were contemporary with him. The first is Josephus’s treatment of the creation in the Jewish Antiquities Book I, which demonstrates some parallels with Philo. Franxman finds a number of possible intertextual links, although none of them would require direct influence; it is more likely that these similarities are evidence of a common intellectual environment.12 The other source to consider is the literature of Rabbinic Judaism, especially Genesis Rabbah. These Rabbinic texts may contain some exegetical traditions that are contemporaneous with Philo, and a few similarities do exist. For example, both Philo and Haggadic tradition find significance in the fact that the cardinal number is used instead of the ordinal number on day one of creation (Gen. 1:5).13 However, the interpretation of this number is considera-

8 Trans., Holladay, 185: ‘Our law code has clearly shown us that the seventh day is an inherent law of nature that serves as a symbol of the sevenfold principle established all around us through which we have knowledge of things both human and divine.’ 9 Trans., Holladay, 185–87: ‘And indeed all the world comprising all animal and plant life as well revolves through periods of seven.’ 10 Aristobulus quotes Hesiod, Homer, Linus, Callimachus, and Solon. See Holladay, 187–95. 11 Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 30. 12 Franxman, Genesis and the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus. 13 Genesis Rabbah 3.9, Numbers Rabbah 13.6, and Pesikta Rabbati 7.4.

56

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

bly different in Philo and in Rabbinic literature, demonstrating the need for caution in drawing parallels between these texts.14 Given this wealth of traditional material upon which Philo may have drawn, it raises the question as to whether Philo served primarily as a compiler of existing traditions rather than their creator. Wilhelm Bousset asserted that Philo’s works are a hodge-podge of anterior Alexandrian Jewish traditions, and that the original materials can be sifted out.15 Both Richard Goulet and Thomas Tobin have built further theories upon the work of Bousset.16 It is true that Philo was influenced by existing traditions; for example, David Hay has collected a compendious list of Philo’s own references to his forebears.17 However, even though Philo used existing traditions, there is little reason to believe that he copied them slavishly and without original thought of his own. On the contrary, the testimonia (such as Josephus and Eusebius) present Philo as an exceptional thinker even within the context of Alexandrian Judaism.18 Even though Philo stands in a tradition, there is no reason to believe that he was incapable of further developing or even transcending that tradition. A number of distinctively Jewish themes can be detected in Philo’s De opificio mundi.19 Philo concludes his work with a summary of the ‘five lessons’ taught by Moses in the Hexaemeron account: 1) God exists, 2) God is one, 3) the cosmos is created, 4) there is only one cosmos, and 5) divine providence is at work in the cosmos, as demonstrated by the laws of nature.20 Each of these conclusions is decidedly biblical and contrary to certain currents in Greek

14 Franxman, Genesis and the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus, 39. Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 31. 15 Bousset, Jüdisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom. 16 Goulet, La philosophie de Moïse; Tobin, The Creation of Man. 17 Hay, ‘Philo’s References to Other Allegorists’, 41–75. 18 Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 31. 19 Runia, 21–25, provides a strong list of the themes in De opificio mundi, which provides the basis for the following list. 20 Philo, Opif. 170–172.

CHAPTER THREE

57

thought.21 In addition, Philo presents Moses as the lawgiver par excellence, who is superior to Greek lawgivers both in divine inspiration and in philosophical insight. The created order is presented as perfect in its original state, although it has fallen from its original perfection. Philo also maintains a fundamental divide between Creator and creation, contra Stoic pantheism. Moreover, creation is seen as teleological (all things exist for a purpose) and anthropocentric (the created order exists for the benefit of humanity). Philo supports the notion, based on Genesis 1–2, that the climax of the creation is humanity. In addition, for Philo, the world is created with a moral order. In this moral universe, human beings are presented with a choice between life and death, as in Deut 30:15–20. Thus, in the broad contours of De opificio mundi, a worldview emerges which is more consistent with contemporary Jewish beliefs than that of the Greek philosophical schools. Nonetheless, Philo’s thought is also greatly influenced by Hellenism, and he shows himself to be deeply immersed in Greek philosophy. In his approach to philosophy, Philo was an eclectic, drawing liberally from various philosophical schools in support of his biblical worldview. Runia explains it well: ‘Philo could not be a committed member of a Greek hairesis (school of philosophy), because he was already a member of the hairesis of Moses.’22 One can identify a wide range of Greek traditions with which Philo was familiar. Platonism was a major influence in Philo’s cosmology, especially Plato’s Timaeus. Philo even makes an anonymous reference to Plato in De opificio mundi with the phrase ‘what one of the ancients also said’. Since Philo reads the Timaeus according to a very particular interpretative tradition, Willy Theiler suspects that he was dependent on some influential commentary on the Timaeus, and he speculates that Philo was working from a non-extant commentary written by the In this short list, Philo opposes atheism, polytheism, Aristotelian or Platonic notions of the eternity of the cosmos, notions of multiple universes (also rejected by the major schools of Philo’s day), and the Epicurean denial of providence. For further discussion, see Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 391–403. 22 Runia, 32. 21

58

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Alexandrian Neopythagorean Eudorus. 23 Even if this source cannot be determined, there is little doubt that Philo makes use of Middle Platonist doctrines at various points in De opificio mundi. The second largest Greek influence on Philo’s thought in De opificio mundi is Stoicism, especially in matters of epistemology, psychology, and ethics.24 However, it is difficult to say how much Philo had read the Stoic philosophers. He may have received Stoic tenets indirectly, since many of these doctrines had passed into the philosophical koine. Philo, like the early Christians, found a fundamental compatibility between the philosophy of the Stoa and the Bible. For example, Philo’s anthropocentrism in De opificio mundi is generally compatible with Stoic doctrine. In addition to these, Philo shows some familiarity with other schools of philosophy, including Aristotelianism,25 Epicureanism,26 and Skepticism.27 This demonstrates a broad knowledge of Greek philosophical literature. Furthermore, Philo appears to have studied the major philosophical texts firsthand rather than being dependent on handbooks or compendia.28 Within the text of De opificio mundi, several distinctively Greek themes can be found. Philo approves of the Platonic creation myth, in which God first created the noetic cosmos (the Ideas) and then created the physical world based on this model. Furthermore, Philo has thoroughly adopted the Greek system of virtues and vices. As with the philosophical koine of his time, Philo believes that the goal of human life is to achieve well-being (eudaimonia) by the practice of the virtues (aretai), primarily by the practice of love toward God 23 Theiler, ‘Philo von Alexandria und der hellenisierte Timaeus’, 25–35. 24 Runia, On

the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 33. Runia, 34, asserts that Philo’s influence from Aristotle is ‘confined to some basic, theological, psychological, and biological doctrines’. 26 Philo is strongly opposed to the tenets of Epicurean philosophy on religious and moral grounds. 27 Runia, 35, points out that in Opif. Philo shows influence from the Academic School of Carneades and Philo of Larissa, rather than that of the Neophyrrhonist movement of Aenesidemus. Moreover, Philo’s ‘basic temperament is far from skeptical’. 28 Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 140. 25

CHAPTER THREE

59

(eusebia) and humanity (philanthropia). The opposite is to succumb to passion and vice. Moreover, in De opificio mundi, Philo approves of Plato’s assertion that the reason behind the creation of the universe is God’s inexhaustible goodness.29 He also draws freely upon Neopythagorean arithmology in the treatise, using number symbolism to understand the significance of each of the seven days of creation. In a rare instance of Philo showing knowledge of GrecoRoman scientific doctrines, De opificio mundi may contain traces of some proto-evolutionary ideas about the origins of the universe, found in Lucretius, Diodorus Siculus, Pliny the Elder, and Ovid.30 Finally, one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Philo was influenced by the Greeks is apparent from his writing style. Philo writes in educated, Atticizing prose, as one with an intimate knowledge of Greek rhetoric. Overall, even though Philo makes use of Greek themes, he freely adapts them to his biblical worldview. For example, Philo’s cosmology has no room for the Platonic World-soul because it does not easily harmonize with the biblical creation account, and so he omits this important Platonic concept from his discussion of the creation. 31 Elsewhere in De opificio mundi, Philo makes use of Greek arithmological material for distinctively Jewish exegetical ends.32 Runia’s conclusions in his commentary on De opificio mundi are very relevant here: ‘Philo’s Hellenic erudition is thus broad and often genuinely profound. In Opif. it is actively applied to a task which has little to do with Hellenism, but is rather grounded in Philo’s Sitz im Leben as an Alexandrian Jew.’33 It was this very feature of Philo— Greek knowledge in service to a biblical faith—that made his work so appealing to the Christian hexaemeral tradition that followed.

29 Runia, On

the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 23.

30 Runia, 35. 31 Runia, 33. 32 Runia, 29. 33 Runia, 35–36.

60

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

T HE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN HEXAEMERAL LITERATURE Theophilus of Antioch

According to the account in Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4.20), Theophilus was born into a pagan family, and his broad (albeit shallow) knowledge of the classics demonstrates a reasonable education.34 Eusebius narrates that Theophilus converted to Christianity on the basis of his personal study of the Scriptures, and he eventually would reach the office of the Bishop of Antioch in Syria in the late 2ndcentury CE.35 His only extant work is Ad Autolycum (written shortly after 180 CE), a three-book elementary treatise with an apologetic and didactic character. 36 A discussion of the early chapters of Genesis (chapters 1–11) constitutes the bulk of the second volume of this work.37 Theophilus’s discussion on the creation week constitutes the earliest extant Christian text that is considered to be part of the hexaemeral tradition. In fact, it contains the first extant use of the word hexaemeron by a Christian author. Theophilus’s approach is surprisingly sympathetic toward Judaism, and his doctrine of creation bears more than a passing resemblance to that of Philo.38 The question of whether Theophilus borGrant, Ad Autolycum, xi-xii. Grant believes that Theophilus knew his classics from handbooks and anthologies. 35 Starting in 169 CE according to Eusebius’s Chronicon. Grant, ix-x, believes that this date is approximately correct. 36 For more information about his life and works, see Quasten, Patrology, I, 236–42; Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 472–73. 37 The structure of book 2 is as follows: preface (1); attacks on idolatry and mythology (2–3); criticisms of philosophers (4), poets (2–3, 8), and historians (7) vis-à-vis the prophets (9); exegetical treatment of Genesis 1–11 (10– 32); defense of the prophets (33); another attack on idolatry (34); Christian morality is consistent with itself (35), the Sibylline Oracles (36), and with some Greek poets (37–38). Grant, Ad Autolycum, x, argues that this exegetical treatment of the primeval history from Genesis ‘must have existed separately’. 38 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 110–11. 34

CHAPTER THREE

61

rowed directly from Philo is controversial. For example, Johannes Geffcken believes that Ad Autolycum was heavily derivative of Philo (as well as of Justin and the Stoics),39 whereas Paul Heinisch argues that it is not at all dependent on Philo.40 Robert Grant sees Theophilus as a Jewish Christian, and he argues that his teachings about creation are mostly appropriated from Jewish sources, finding similarities in both Genesis Rabbah and Philo’s Quaestiones in Genesim.41 Furthermore, J. P. Martín has written three important articles on the topic, in which he claims that Theophilus has borrowed and developed Philo’s ethical and moral interpretations but has rejected the Platonizing assumption of two levels of reality.42 Runia concludes that the evidence does not prove direct dependence, but there are strong resemblances that would indicate a relationship of some sort between these two authors.43 As regards the hexaemeral tradition, Theophilus allegorizes the number three in the manner of Philo. By contrast, he may be specifically speaking against Philo or other Jewish interpreters in his approach to the words ‘Let us make man’ in Genesis 1:26.44 Theophilus interprets the Six Days as literal days, and he treats the things described in them as physical events.45 However, Theophilus also believes that the material creation can give insight into spiritual realities.46 For example, in his treatment of the fourth day of 39 Geffcken, Zwei

griechische Apologeten, 250. Einfluss Philos auf die älteste christliche Exegese, 39. 41 Grant, Ad Autolycum, xvii–xix. 42 Martín, ‘La Presencia de Filón en el Exámeron de Teófilo de Antioquía’; Martín, ‘La Antropología de Filón y la de Teófilo de Antioquía: Sus Lecturas de Genesis 2–5’; Martín, ‘Filón Hebreo y Teófilo Cristiano: La Continuidad de una Teologia Natural’. 43 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 114–15. For example, in a creedal statement about the Creation, Theophilus expresses all five of Philo’s conclusions in Opif. 170–172. 44 Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature, 38–39. 45 Brown, The Days of Creation, 24. 46 Allert, Early Christian Readings of Genesis One, 94; Presley, ‘Interpretations of Genesis 1–2 among the Ante-Nicene Fathers’, 102. 40 Heinisch, Der

62

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

creation, Theophilus explains that the luminaries were created three days after light itself was created because this points to a deeper truth: the three days before the creation of the heavenly bodies are typical of the triad of God, Logos, and Spirit, whereas the luminaries themselves are a type of humanity, who is in the image of God (Ad Autolycum 2.15). Along the same lines, he develops a moral allegory whereby the different kinds of luminaries point to different kinds of people. The brightest stars are the prophets, the dimmer stars are the righteous, but the planets (‘wanderers’) represent those who depart from God (2.15). Theophilus sees the creation of the sea creatures as a type of baptism (2.16) and seed-bearing plants and the moon as two different types of the resurrection (2.14–15). Another example of moral allegory can be found in Theophilus’s assertion that the land animals stand for the one whose mind is on earthly things, and the birds stand for the one whose mind is on heavenly things (2.17). Moreover, Theophilus allegorizes carnivores as representing greedy, acquisitive men and herbivores as keepers of the law (2.16), even though he asserts in the next section that there were no carnivorous creatures before the first sin (2.17). Theophilus often finds meaning in etymologies. Some of these are based in the Bible, such as Sabbath meaning ‘seventh’ (2.12) and Eden meaning ‘delight’ (2.24). Others are based on popular Greek etymologies, including his exaplanations of theos (1.4), theria (2.17), Eve (2.28), drakon (2.28), Orpheus (2.30), and Deucalion (3.19).47 Overall, Theophilus’s exegetical approach is a blend of the literal and the figurative, not unlike many contemporary examples from Hellenized Judaism and Christianity. 48 Theophilus’s most distinctive contribution to the hexaemeral tradition is that his is the first extant work to make a theoretical statement of creatio ex nihilo in the ontological sense.49 He argues that God is superior to human artisans in that he creates his own materials. Furthermore, he connects creatio ex nihilo with the giving of life, since only a creator without limitation could create a truly 47 Grant, Ad

Autolycum, xiv.

48 Grant, xv. 49 Kannengiesser, Handbook

of Patristic Exegesis, 472.

CHAPTER THREE

63

rational being.50 In particular, Theophilus seems to be targeting Hesiod’s creation account, and this behavior is consistent with his overall opinion that Greco-Roman philosophical ideas are not helpful in interpreting the Bible.51 There may have also been an anti-Gnostic motivation behind his position. The later tradition lends further support and theological development to the concept of creatio ex nihilo, which only exists here in a very basic form. Explanations of the physical phenomena from the six days of creation make up a substantial portion of Theophilus’s work.52 This variety of scientifically-minded exegesis would be further developed by Basil, and it would become one of the hallmarks of the Basilian family of hexaemeral literature. In addition to drawing upon contemporary scientific doctrines, Theophilus may have been influenced by Stoicism. In particular, Theophilus’s thought is characterized by a strong emphasis on providence, an anthropocentric view of the cosmos, the two-stage logos, and a final cosmic conflagration, all of which are major tenets of Stoic cosmogony.53 In summary, Theophilus drew upon a wide variety of influences and created a work that would set the tone for much subsequent exegesis of the creation. Hippolytus

There is considerable scholarly debate concerning the identity and writings of Hippolytus. According to the traditional view, Hippolytus was a Roman presbyter of Greek descent, who was active in the time of Bishop Zephirinus (199–217 CE) or perhaps earlier, and he died in exile in Sardinia c. 235 CE. 54 However, Pierre Nautin has raised a challenge to this traditional view. By calling into question the authorship of the Elenchos (which Nautin attributes to an otherwise unknown writer named Josipe) and the identity of the statue from 50 Allert, Early

Christian Readings of Genesis One, 220. Presley, ‘Interpretations of Genesis 1–2 among the Ante-Nicene Fathers’, 101; Bouteneff, Beginnings, 69. 52 Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature, 36–37. 53 McVey, ‘The Use of Stoic Cosmogony in Theophilus of Antioch’s Hexaemeron’. 54 Quasten, Patrology, II, 163–207. 51

64

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

the Tiburtine Way, Nautin has cast doubt on most of the biographical details relating to Hippolytus.55 A wide range of scholars have contested Nautin’s findings by defending the authorship of the Elenchos, affirming the plausibility that the statue is of Hippolytus, and questioning the argument for the existence of Josipe.56 Recently, John Cerrato has done further work to identify the elusive figure of Hippolytus, concluding that the evidence for a Roman Hippolytus is late and weak. Accordingly, he places the author of the Hippolytan commentaries in an Eastern provenance, possibly Asia Minor.57 Traditionally, at least 30 works have been attributed to Hippolytus, mostly of an exegetical nature.58 Unfortunately, only a few of these treatises are extant in the original Greek in their entirety; many are only available in fragments and/or in translation.59 Relevant to this discussion is Hippolytus’ On the Hexaemeron, of which six fragments have been transmitted by Eusebius and Jerome. Hippolytus’ Hexaemeron served as a major source for subsequent hexaemeral writers. The extant fragments show strong agreement with Basil, making it likely that there was direct influence. 60 Moreover, Jerome asserts that Ambrose’s Hexaemeron followed both Hippolytus and Basil.61 In addition, there is general agreement between the fragments of Hippolytus and Theophilus’ Ad Autolycum, adding one more link to the chain of the development of Christian hexaemeral literature. Much like Theophilus, Hippolytus gives explanations of the physical phenomena of creation, which would develop into the Basil-

55 Nautin, Hippolyte

et Josipe, 97–103. For a summary of the debate up until the early 1980s, see Dunbar, ‘The Problem of Hippolytus of Rome’, 70–73. 57 Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 250–258. 58 For more information about works, see Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 528–535. 59 For a complete list of the works attributed to Hippolytus and the state of their transmission, see Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 528– 32. 60 Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature, 39. 61 Ep. ad Pamm. et Oct. 7. 56

CHAPTER THREE

65

ian type of hexaemeral literature.62 Unfortunately, it is not possible to make any judgments about Hippolytus in relation to Philo, since no explicit Philonic borrowings have been identified in his extant works. Hippolytus favors a historical-typological variety of exegesis. He is firmly committed to the historicity of the biblical narrative, and he understands the history of biblical Israel as being typologically related to the ‘Church of the Gentiles’. Hippolytus does not make use of allegorical interpretation in his Hexaemeron,63 although he does make use of non-literal interpretation in his Commentary on Daniel (whose Hippolytan attribution is admittedly disputed). For example, that work makes use of a world-week interpretation of the Hexaemeron.64 This schema, which is also evident in the Epistle of Barnabas, Irenaeus, and Cyprian of Carthage, asserts that the six days of creation are paradigmatic of human history. The Commentary on Daniel states that each millennium of human history corresponds to one day of the creation week and that Christ’s first coming occurred halfway through the sixth world-week of history (i.e. 5,500 years after the beginning).65 While this interpretation is evident broadly in the first three centuries of the Christian era, it did not gain general acceptance in the subsequent hexaemeral tradition. Origen

Origen was born to a Christian family in Alexandria around 184 CE. His knowledge of the Scriptures was excellent from an early age, and he gained expertise in the Alexandrian school of exegesis.66 He also 62 Robbins, The

Hexaemeral Literature, 36–37. Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 532: ‘Because of his lack of rhetorical culture, he remains alien to the allegorism and the Gnostic disposition of contemporary Alexandrian exegetes’. 64 Jean Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 401. See Commentary on Daniel 2.4. 65 Brown, The Days of Creation, 21–24. 66 Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.6.1) claims that he was a pupil of Clement, but this is somewhat dubious. There is little doubt, however, that he follows in the same tradition as Clement and Pantaenus. 63

66

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

had an outstanding education in Greek literature and philosophy, and he was given responsibility over the catechetical school in Alexandria at a fairly young age. Origen would become one of the most respected biblical interpreters of his era. In fact, Jerome would call him ‘the greatest teacher of the Church after the apostles’ in his Preface to the Homilies of Origen on Ezekiel. Origen’s efforts in opposing both the Gnostics and the pagan intelligentsia had a profound impact on the intellectual presentation of the Christian faith, especially in Alexandria. He was also a controversial figure, clashing with Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, and eventually being forced out to Caesarea. Origen was a pioneer in the scientific study of the biblical text and one of most careful exegetes of the early Church. He was also given to a speculative mind, and his works came under censure after his death in 254 CE for their unorthodoxy. This had the unfortunate consequence that many of his writings have been lost, and others have a very complex transmission history. Origen’s exegetical works were extensive, including commentaries (tomoi), homilies, and notes on individual verses (scholia). He also was the first to systematically do textual critical work on the Bible, which culminated in his epic Hexapla.67 Many of Origen’s views on the creation can be found in De principiis, which has been preserved in the translation of Rufinus, in a few fragments of the translation of Jerome, and partially in the Greek original by means of an anthology, the Philocalia. Of Origen’s other treatments on the creation account the most significant is an extant collection of homilies on Genesis. There are also some relevant passages in the apologetic work Contra Celsum and Origen’s commentary on the Gospel of John. Origen’s thought is much closer to Philo’s than his predecessors’ had been, since he was aided by a nearly complete library of

For more information about his life and works, see Trigg, Origen; Crouzel, Origen—The Life and Thought of the First Great Theologian; Nautin, Origène; Quasten, Patrology, II, 37–101; Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 536–574.

67

CHAPTER THREE

67

Philo’s writings.68 He also took Jewish exegetical traditions seriously. For example, he is one of the few Church Fathers to take into consideration the Hebrew text of the Bible. He was taught by a converted Jew, and he consulted Jewish exegetes, such as Rabbi Hoshaia, with whom he had a friendly relationship.69 Origen portrays Philo as a predecessor, and Origen rarely draws attention (such as, through direct citation) to those whom he considers predecessors, such as Clement. For Origen, the tradition itself is more important than any individual interpreter. 70 Origen, along with Clement, represents ‘a watershed in the absorption of Philonic ideas in the Christian tradition’.71 Thus, it comes as no surprise that Origen’s doctrine of creation is largely Platonic-Philonic.72 He affirms the assertion—found in both Plato and Philo—that the goodness of God is the reason for his acts of creation. Origen agrees with Philo in distinguishing between the creation of spiritual man in Genesis 1 (that is to say, man in God’s image) and physical man in Genesis 2, following the Platonic distinction between the noetic and the sense-perceptible.73 While Origen is famous for being an allegorist, his interpretations are surprisingly nuanced and multi-layered. He held to a threefold method of reading Scripture, in which three kinds of interpretation were employed for three kinds of people.74 The ‘flesh’ of Scripture is the bare literal meaning, and it is intended for the immature reader. The ‘soul’ of Scripture is the moral interpretation, and it can be understood by more mature Christians. Finally, the ‘spirit’ of Scripture is the deeper mystical interpretation, and it is available to those who have been made perfect in Christ. Furthermore, Origen would have considered even the mystical interpretation of Scripture to be ‘historical’ because he was reading the Scriptures in light of sal68 Runia, Philo

in Early Christian Literature, 158.

69 Runia, 180–83. 70 Runia, 182–83. 71 Runia, 183. 72 Robbins, The

Hexaemeral Literature, 39. on Genesis 1.13. 74 Origen outlines his position in De principiis, and it has been transmitted in (and popularized by) the anthology Philocalia 1.11. 73 See Origen, Homily

68

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

vation-history in Christ.75 This three-fold approach to the Bible would continue in the works of Origen’s many admirers. It is important to remember that Origen does not reject the historical-literal sense because it remains valuable to many people. Likewise, he also believes that mature Christians have license to delve into the deeper meanings, citing 1 Cor 10:1–11 and Eph 5:25–33 as Pauline precedent for such non-literal interpretation.76 Origen applied these techniques to the creation account, such as when he writes concerning the creation of the animals: ‘There is certainly no question about the literal meaning… But it is not unprofitable to relate these words to those which we explained about in a spiritual sense.’77 This leads to a moral allegory with the animals representing the impulses and thoughts of the mind. Sometimes Origen remained skeptical about the historicity of individual events in the Bible. In the same vein as Philo, he finds these difficult passages to be clues that the intended meaning was figurative. 78 Origen also maintained a broader understanding of the literal, whether something ‘happened’ or not. In almost postmodern fashion, Origen argues that even though it may be impossible to ascertain that certain events happened physically, he can still assert that they happened in a spiritual sense for the characters involved and for those who have received these stories. 79 Partially, this position can be attributed to Origen’s tendency, even at his most speculative, to temper his words with hermeneutical humility. Thus, Origen leaves some ambiguity about whether Adam and Eve were historical figures or the Garden of Eden was a physical place.80 The subsequent tradition would continue to ponder these mysteries. 75 Allert, Early

Christian Readings of Genesis One, 122. Origen, Contra Celsum 4.49; see also Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 1.1. Other texts that were used to defend non-literal interpretation of the Bible were Gal 4:21–31 and Luke 24:13–35 77 Origen, Homily on Genesis 1.11, trans. by Heine, FaCh 71. 78 Presley, ‘Interpretations of Genesis 1–2 among the Ante-Nicene Fathers’, 104. See Origen, De principiis 4.3.1. 79 Bouteneff, Beginnings, 105–6. 80 Bouteneff, 110. 76

CHAPTER THREE

69

Origen raised the question, which was often voiced in the subsequent hexaemeral tradition, that, if God is simple and unchanging, how can he begin to create? Origen follows the logic to its extreme end, asserting that God has created other worlds and will create other worlds yet. For Origen, God is always Creator, even though he logically precedes all created things. This answer was controversial (in fact, Origen was chided by Methodius for this reason), and later hexaemeral writers found other solutions to the aporia. Furthermore, Origen reads the opening words of Genesis ἐν ἀρχῇ (‘in the beginning’) as ‘in the ruler’ in order to arrive at a Christological meaning. He writes, ‘Scripture is not speaking here of any temporal beginning, but it says that the heaven and the earth and all things which were made were made “in the beginning”, that is, in the Savior.’81 This tendency to read the creation account in a Christological and soteriological fashion would be prevelant in many later writers, and it would also lead to further speculation about the relationship between time and the creation. Another interesting emphasis in Origen’s hexaemeral thought is his polemic against astrology, which is included in his discussion of the creation of the heavenly bodies. This discussion, which was motivated by a rejection of any sort of determinism, was copied by a number of hexaemeral writers, including Basil, Ambrose, and Philoponus.82 In contrast to these other writers, Origen simultaneously believed that the stars are animated, much as Plato and Philo had maintained. 83 Origen was regarded as one of the greatest minds of the Christian exegetical tradition, and his finger-prints appear in many later Hexaemera. While many later authors would pull back from the more speculative elements of Origen’s work, his hermeneutical approach would come to influence a huge swath of Eastern and Western biblical exegesis.

81 Origen, Homily

on Genesis 1.1, trans. by Heine, FaCh 71.

82 Bouteneff, Beginnings, 107. 83 Robbins, The

Hexaemeral Literature, 41.

70

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Basil of Caesarea

Born in 330 CE in Pontus to a wealthy Christian family, Basil received the finest education, studying in Cappadocia, Constantinople, and Athens. He abandoned a promising career in law and teaching to pursue the ascetic life. Basil was ordained in 364 and became the Bishop of Caesarea in 370, a position which he held until his death in 379. Basil was an eager student of Origen’s works, and he even compiled an anthology of Origen, the Philocalia, with the help of his friend Gregory of Nazianzus. Basil is memorialized as one who mastered the three-fold approach to biblical interpretation pioneered by Origen.84 Even though Basil was heavily influenced by Origenism, he was less speculative than his forebear, and he kept his biblical interpretation well within the bounds of the new Nicene orthodoxy.85 In a single week—probably in 378 CE, a year before his death— Basil preached nine Homilies on the Hexaemeron, which he delivered extemporaneously.86 Basil’s exegesis in his Hexaemeron is largely literal-historical. He takes the major elements of the creation story— such as light, darkness, and the deep—to be literally those things. This has led to him being lionized by literalist interpreters of the Bible. They will point especially to two places in the Homilies, in which Basil makes negative remarks about allegorists, as proof of his literalist tendencies.87 Craig Allert has demonstrated that it is a gross mis84 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 43.67 (‘Funeral Oration for Basil’). 85 For more information about his life and works, see Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea; Radde-Gallwitz, Basil of Caesarea; Quasten, Patrology, III, 204– 36; Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 740–47. 86 Way, trans., Saint Basil, Exegetic Homilies, FaCh 46, viii-ix. 87 In Hex. 3.9, Basil rejects allegorical interpretations concerning the division of the waters, derisively calling them ‘dream interpretations and old women’s tales’ and calling for his readers to ‘receive the separation that was made beneath the firmament according to the reason given us’ (trans., Way, FaCh 46, 52). In Hex. 9.1, he comments, ‘I know the laws of allegory, although I did not invent them of myself, but have met them in the works of others. Those who do not admit the common meaning of the Scriptures say that water is not water, but some other nature, and they explain a plant and a fish according to their opinion.’ He continues, ‘This is the thing which they

CHAPTER THREE

71

representation to view Basil as a literalist. 88 First of all, Basil actually argues against literalistic readings of Scripture in De spiritu sancto,89 and he uses allegorical interpretations in several of his other works.90 For that matter, within the Hexaemeron itself, Basil makes use of several forms of non-literal interpretation. He draws moral lessons from a variety of natural phenomena. For example, he says that variations of the moon teach about human vicissitudes (Hex. 6.10), camels teach about those who nurture grudges (Hex. 8.1), predatory fish teach about greed, crabs teach about inventiveness used for evil, and octopuses who change their colors teach about hypocrisy (Hex. 7.3). Basil also calls for Christological readings, such as when he interprets the divine speech in Genesis 1 as a reference to Christ, the Word of God, rather than physical vocalizations (Hex. 3.2). Moreover, Basil uses allegorical techniques in Hex. 5.6, where the fruit-bearing trees represent the vineyard of the soul, and in Hex. 6.2, where the relationship between the light and the luminaries represents the relationship between Christ and the saints. This last allegory was also employed by Theophilus. Like Origen, Basil has a polyvalent understanding of the Scriptures, where historical and theological/mystical meanings are intertwined. Indeed, Gregory of Nazianzus, in his funeral oration for Basil, praises his friend for employing the Origenian three-fold approach to Scripture so well.91 Basil himself speaks of the biblical text as overflowing with meaning: ‘None of the divinely inspired words, even as much as a syllable, is an idle word.’92 Overall, seem to me to have been unaware, who have attempted by false arguments and allegorical interpretations to bestow on Scripture a dignity of their own imagining. But, theirs is the attitude of one who considers himself wiser than the revelation of the Spirit and introduces his own ideas in pretence of an explanation. Therefore, let it be understood as it has been written’ (trans., Way, FaCh 46, 135). 88 For a full discussion, see the chapter ‘Basil the Literalist?’ in Allert, Early Christian Readings of Genesis One, 161–202. 89 For example, see De spiritu sancto 2.4, 7.16, 21.52 90 A few examples include Hom. 13, Hom. 14, and Ep. 8.6–7. 91 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 43.67. 92 Hex. 6.11, trans., Way, FaCh 46.

72

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Basil championed neither an exclusively literal nor an exclusively spiritual view of the Scriptures, but he used the two in concert in order to reveals the depths of the text.93 This raises the questions of why Basil spoke out against allegory in the third and ninth Homilies on the Hexaemeron and why he uses the technique so rarely in this text. First of all, Basil’s negative appraisal of allegory is directed not against all forms of allegory but only those which are divorced from the plain sense of the text and which teach doctrines contrary to the Rule of Faith. Most likely, he has in mind the interpretations of the Marcionites, Valentinians, and Manichaeans, whose allegories he perceived as eisegesis where the literal and spiritual senses have no relationship at all.94 While Basil does advocate for a cautious use of allegory, this is not the same as the rejection of the whole allegorical enterprise. Secondly, the fact that Basil rarely uses allegory in the Hexaemeron can probably be attributed to the audience of this work, which was ‘a mixed, urban audience containing some members of the educated elite but also many ordinary craftsmen, women, and younger people’.95 If he seems harsh concerning allegory, it is probably because he worried that his lay audience would not be discerning enough to distinguish between its proper use and the Manichaean abuse of the technique. Basil himself seems to be aware of the fact that he has focused heavily on the literal sense in these homilies and almost apologizes for it.96 Basil’s Hexaemeron bears some similarities to Plato’s Timaeus, but his Platonism is largely received indirectly by way of Origen and Philo.97 Basil is willing to speak against Plato on occasion, such as on the topic of eternal matter and the topic of the number of the heavens. A stronger influence on Basil was exerted by Origen and Philo,

93 Bouteneff, Beginnings, 127. 94 Bouteneff, 126–29. 95 Sandwell, ‘How to Teach Genesis 1.1–19’, 542; see also Allert, Early Christian Readings of Genesis One, 199; Brown, The Days of Creation, 32; Bouteneff, Beginnings, 138. 96 Allert, Early Christian Readings of Genesis One, 198. 97 Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature, 42–43.

CHAPTER THREE

73

even though he was willing to depart from each of them.98 He probably also made use of material from Hippolytus and other early Hexaemera. The most distinctive feature of Basil’s exegesis is his focus on scientific details. Basil had an excellent education, and he exhibits intimate knowledge of Greek scholarship, especially in the area of natural science.99 However, his interest in science consistently serves to demonstrate the majesty of God and the beauty and order of his creation (see Hexaemeron 1.11). For Basil, the contemplation of the scientific details of natural phenomena is a devotional exercise, a way to peer into the very mind of God. He finds some of the scientificphilosophic explanations of the cosmos to be plausible, such as when he addresses some Aristotelian theories on the nature of the earth (Hex. 1.10). However, he does not find the creation to be any less miraculous just because it can be reasonably explained.100 In his emphasis on the goodness and beauty of nature, Basil strongly opposes the dualism of Marcion or the Manichaeans. This serves the purpose of Basil’s text, which is to instill awe concerning God and his works. As for the days of creation themselves, Basil understands Gen 1:1 to describe an instantaneous creation of the basic heavens and the earth, which receives further elaboration in time over the course of six literal days. 101 Basil takes ‘the beginning’ to refer to the beginning Robbins, 52, notes that Basil is willing to censure the Philonic position when he interprets the expression ‘Let us make man’ in Genesis 1:26. Likewise, Basil and the other Cappadocians are highly selective in their usage of Origen on the topic of the Creation week. For further discussion of the differences between the Cappadocians and Origen, see Procopé, ‘The Christian Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Alexandrian Tradition’, 538–40. 99 Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 742. 100 Hex. 1.10, trans. Way, FaCh 46: ‘And should any of these things which have been said seem to you to be plausible, transfer your admiration to the wisdom of God which has ordered them so. In fact, our amazement at the greatest phenomena is not lessened because we have discovered the manner in which a certain one of the marvels occurred. But, if this is not so, still let the simplicity of faith be stronger than the deductions of reason.’ 101 Brown, The Days of Creation, 32–33. 98

74

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

of time. Accordingly, he asserts that the creation of the angels is not referenced because the angels were created outside of time (Hex. 1.5). He also argues that there is no gap in time between God’s intention to create and the actual act of creating (Hex. 1.6). Another influential insight of Basil’s deals with the use of the cardinal number in Gen 1:5 (‘one day’ instead of ‘the first day’). He understands this word choice to indicate that the first day was the paradigmatic day, the one day repeated for all time, which has ‘kinship with eternity’ (Hex. 2.8). Basil connects this ‘one day’ to ‘the Day of the Lord’ and ‘the day that the Lord has made’ (Ps 118:24) and the eighth day of the Resurrection. Basil’s Hexaemeron is the lynchpin of the hexaemeral tradition; it drew liberally from the works of his predecessors and would become a major influence on the works of almost all of his successors. In particular, Ambrose’s Hexaemeron makes extensive use of Basil, and the Hexaemera of Pseudo-Eustathius, Philoponus (ca. 490 – ca. 570 CE), and Glyca are considered as little more than reworkings of Basilian material. 102 Gregory of Nazianzus gives a typical example of the admiration heaped upon this work: ‘When I take [Basil’s] Hexaemeron in my hand and read it aloud, I am with my Creator, I understand the reasons for creation, and I admire my Creator more than formerly I did when I used sight alone as my teacher.’103 Basil’s Hexaemeron was influential in both the East and the West, having been translated into Latin by Eustathius and Rufinus and also popularized among Latin-speakers by Ambrose. Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory, the younger brother of Basil of Caesarea, was born around 335 CE. After his education, part of which was at his brother’s hand, Gregory chose to marry and to become a teacher of rhetoric. After the untimely death of his wife, he accepted consecration as the Bishop of Nyssa. He played a prominent role in the Council of Constantinople of 381, where he worked to reaffirm the Nicene orthodoxy. 102 Robbins, The

Hexaemeral Literature, 42.

103 Gregory of Nazianzus, Homily 43.

CHAPTER THREE

75

After a long career in the episcopacy, Gregory of Nyssa died in 394 or 395.104 Among his prolific writings is a treatise on the Hexaemeron, which he composed to defend his brother Basil against his critics. 105 He also wrote a treatise (as well as two related homilies) on the creation of man, which was conceived as an addition to Basil’s Hexaemeron, which had concluded with the creation of the land animals. This treatise, De opficio hominis, is significant because it was highly influential in the later tradition, where it was seen as an essential supplement to the landmark Hexaemeron of Basil. Thus, Gregory’s works on the creation are second only to Basil’s in the frequency of the references to them in the later Greek compilations.106 Out of deep admiration for his brother, Gregory is hesitant to reject any of Basil’s insights. However, this does not mean that Gregory’s work is purely derivative; a number of different emphases exist between them. For example, Gregory is far less concerned with natural science than his brother had been, choosing instead to focus on the theological dimensions of the creation, where he delves much deeper than his brother had done.107 An important philosophical dimension of Gregory’s thought is the concept that God created all things potentially in their logoi or natures. Thus, all change and development in the created order is the working out of those processes which God set in motion in the beginning. 108 This distinction supported the Basilian belief in an instantaneous initial creation, which was then differentiated and fulfilled across six literal days.109

104 For more information about his life and works, see Meredith, Gregory of Nyssa, 1–14; Quasten, Patrology, III, 254–296; Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 753–766. 105 For further reading, see Costache, ‘Approaching An Apology for the Hexaemeron’. 106 Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature, 53–54. 107 Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 753. 108 Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature, 54–55. 109 Brown, The Days of Creation, 34–35.

76

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

A brief note may be included about the other renowned Cappadocian, Gregory of Nazianzus.110 Even though Gregory of Nazianzus wrote no Hexaemeron, he is mentioned frequently in the later tradition. He treated the creation in a few scattered passages, such in his Orationes and in one section of the Poemata dogmatica.111 His thought on the creation is expectedly consistent with that of his close friends Basil and Gregory of Nyssa. Ambrose’s Homilies on the Hexaemeron

Ambrose’s Hexaemeron has long been dismissed as a derivative work, a repackaging of Basil’s Hexaemeron. Scholars such as Robbins and Schenkl have asserted that Ambrose’s text has no independent value, aside from transmitting Basil’s landmark work to the Latin West.112 There is no doubt that Ambrose was effective in popularizing the ideas of Basil. Robbins argues that Ambrose’s Hexaemeron was even more influential than Eustathius’s translation of Basil in introducing the ideas of the Great Cappadocian to the Latin West.113 Furthermore, Basil’s influence on Ambrose is unquestionable—Ambrose’s Hexaemeron is saturated with borrowed ideas, reworked passages, and uncredited quotations of Basil. Nonetheless, it would be an overstatement to declare that Ambrose’s work is just a glorified translation of Basil’s. First of all, Ambrose’s prose is also much more vivid and striking than his forebear’s. He also adapts the work toward the tastes of his Western audience, such as peppering his writing with allusions to Vergil. More significantly, Ambrose’s Hexaemeron contains a number of original contributions to the hexaemeral tradition, and the work displays a creative reappropriation of Basil’s thought. For example, whereas Basil is cautious about allegory in his Hexaemeron, Ambrose strikes a balance between literal interpretation and moral allegory, and many of

For more information about his life, see Daley, Gregory of Nazianzus, 3– 25. 111 Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature, 53. 112 Robbins, 58; Schenkl, CSEL 32/1, xiii. 113 Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature, 58–59. 110

CHAPTER THREE

77

his allegories are not taken from previous sources.114 Ambrose also presents more developed polemics against pagan and heretical critiques of the Genesis account. This is especially clear in the first six sermons in the series.115 Ambrose also corrects Basil on occasion, such as in Hex. 4.7.39 where he remedies a meteorological misunderstanding (cf. Basil, Hex. 6.5).116 Ambrose made a number of other minor contributions to the hexaemeral tradition. His Hexaemeron provides further development on the Cappadocian ambivalence between an instantaneous creation and a temporal one. Ambrose identifies day one of Creation, which is denoted with the cardinal number and not the ordinal in the Genesis text, as the primordial day. Thus, creation is not so much a succession of days, as one day repeated indefinitely.117 This idea would not see much development in the writings of Ambrose, but it would bear fruit under the pen of Augustine. The ninth and final homily of Ambrose’s Hexaemeron also provides some original material. This homily, which covers the design of the human body, is not derived from any known works of Basil or Philo, unlike Ambrose’s other hexaemeral works. Finally, Ambrose seems to be the first writer in the tradition to present the idea that the creation took place in the spring.118 Overall, Ambrose’s Hexaemeron deserves attention, not only for its popularizing of Basil for a Western audience, but also for its further development of the exegetical tradition. A similar case of creative recontextualization will be demonstrated in the following chapters, which will explore Ambrose’s use of Philo in each of the hexaemeral letters.

114 Swift, ‘Basil and Ambrose on the Six Days of Creation’, 318.

Swift, 324–28, argues that the original setting of these homilies explains the shift away from polemics in the seventh through ninth homilies. It was Holy Week, and as Ambrose reached the high holy days of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday, his tone became more pastoral. 116 Dassmann, Ambrosius von Mailand, 206–7. 117 Brown, The Days of Creation, 43. 118 Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature, 59. 115

78

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Pseudo-Eustathius of Antioch

Another Commentary on the Hexaemeron is falsely attributed to Eustathius of Antioch.119 It is now widely recognized that this treatise could not have been written by Eustathius, who died in the 330s CE, since this work is derivative of Basil’s Hexaemeron, which was written half a century later. Furthermore, the work refers to Eusebius of Caesarea as ‘holy’ even though he was an enemy of Eustathius. Whoever the author was, the work was composed sometime between 375 and 500 CE. It is essentially a reworking of Basil with minimal original contributions to the tradition. 120 Didymus the Blind

Didymus was born in Alexandria around 313 CE, and he died at the age of 85 according to Palladius, which would place the end of his life around 398 CE. He was blinded at a very young age, though he was able to overcome his disability to become a gifted student and eventually the head of the catechetical school in Alexandria. 121 For his theological contributions, Didymus received strong praise from Jerome, the historian Socrates, and others. Two major and sometimes contradictory ideologies influenced Didymus’s thought—Nicene orthodoxy and the exegesis of Origen. Because of Didymus’s association with the latter, his work came under controversy when Origenism was put on trial. Ultimately, Didymus’s works were formally condemned alongside those of his Alexandrian predecessor at the Council of Constantinople in 553 CE.122 The most relevant work of Didymus for this study is the Commentary on Genesis. This work was only discovered in August 1941 at Tura, Egypt, and so earlier studies do 119 Quasten, Patrology, III, 304.

For a full treatment, see Zoepfl, Der Kommentar des Pseudo-Eustathios zum Hexaëmeron. 121 Didymus earned the ironic epithet ‘the Seer’ from Jerome in his Preface to the Homilies on Ezekiel because of his brilliant exegetical insight. 122 For more information about his life and works, see Rogers, Didymus the Blind, 1–6; Layton, Didymus the Blind and His Circle in Late-Antique Alexandria; Quasten, Patrology, III, 401–23; Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 799–828. 120

CHAPTER THREE

79

not take this data into account. The Commentary on Genesis covers the first 17 chapters of the book, and it stands firmly within the Alexandrian tradition of biblical exegesis. Philo’s influence upon Didymus is extremely clear. Didymus makes a number of explicit references to Philo, including mentioning him by name seven times in four different passages of the Commentary on Genesis. In fact, Philo is cited by name more than any nonbiblical author in this commentary. 123 Moreover, Philo’s etymological method is present in Didymus, including both specific etymologies and interpretations accompanying the etymologies. Didymus also follows Philo’s arithmological approach and even mentions Philo by name in conjunction with arithmology. Furthermore, a number of Philonic themes are found in Didymus. Examples include the HagarSarah allegory concerning education, the understanding of the cherubim, and his teaching on the Genesis creation account. Within the bounds of our limited corpus, it is evident that Didymus owes more to Philo than any other source.124 The other key influence on the hexaemeral thought of Didymus is Origen. While the more speculative elements of Origen’s thought are reined in within the bounds of the later standards of orthodoxy, Didymus is a clear admirer of Origen, and he borrows from Origen liberally in the Commentary on Genesis. For example, Origen’s influence is evident in Didymus’s use of etymologies125 and arithmology.126 The similarities between these two Alexandrian exegetes were not lost upon the Second Council of Constantinople, which censured both of them as being cut from the same cloth. 123 Rogers, Didymus

the Blind, 81.

124 Rogers, 209–11. 125 Rogers,

140–142, determines that, of the 26 etymologies of proper names that Didymus provides in his Genesis commentary, 8 have their source in Origen. By comparison, 13 of Didymus’s etymologies are Philonic in origin, while the remaining 5 do not appear in the earlier extant tradition (although they do appear in later Christian authors). Nautin and Doutreleau, Sur la Genèse, I, 27, believe that Origen was the primary source of etymological material for Didymus, although he may have also used some onomastica. 126 Rogers, Didymus the Blind, 157–64.

80

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

The Antiochenes

A major movement of Christian exegetical thought arose in the vicinity of Antioch in the 4th-century CE. Recent scholarship has shown that this so-called ‘Antiochene School’ was not so much an organized school as a scattered network of like-minded clerics in the Eastern Mediterranean who developed a set of common traditions.127 The classic distinction drawn between the schools of Alexandria and Antioch is that the former advocated allegorical interpretation and the latter promoted historical-literal interpretation. However, Frances Young has convincingly argued that this is not entirely accurate.128 The Alexandrian exegetes were influenced by the symbolic allegory used by the philosophers to interpret Homer. Meanwhile, the Antiochene exegetes were influenced by the rhetorical schools, which were concerned primarily with deriving ethical principles from narratives in a way that could be useful in civic life. The Antiochenes were not focused on determining only the original intention of the author, along the lines of modern historical-grammatical exegesis. They were also not opposed to seeking a deeper, figurative sense of Scripture. It would be more accurate to say that they opposed a specific kind of allegorical interpretation that took the individual words as tokens that could be de-coded apart from the narrative. The first significant figure to champion this exegetical approach is Diodore of Tarsus (died before 394 CE). Diodore taught at the local asketerion in Antioch, where Theodore of Mopsuestia and John Chrysostom were among his students. Diodore also had close ties to Basil of Caesarea, whom he considered a friend. His method was largely historical and literal, and he firmly opposed the allegorism of the Alexandrian interpreters. Unfortunately, few of Diodore’s writ-

127 Schor, ‘Theodoret on the “School of Antioch”’.

Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture, 76–81, 161–85.

128

CHAPTER THREE

81

ings are extant following his condemnation in 499 CE for being a precursor to Nestorius’s heresy.129 Soon thereafter, Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428 CE) became active, and he achieved the apogee of Antiochene devotion to the literal sense. Theodore was also active in the controversies of the late 4th- and early 5th-centuries, opposing the Homoians and the Apollinarians and supporting Julian of Eclanum in direct opposition to Jerome and Augustine.130 At around the same time, Severian of Gabala (died 425/431 CE) was a major proponent of Antiochene exegesis, even though he allowed for more symbolic interpretation.131 The next significant figure from Antioch was Theodoret of Cyrus (c.393–458 CE), who made extensive use of historical-literal exegesis in opposition to Arianism, Marcionism, and Manichaeism. Like his forebears, Theodoret devoted much of his writings to biblical commentaries.132 The Antiochene theology on creation would see continued vitality in the works of a number of later Byzantine writers such as Procopius of Gaza (6th-century CE) and Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th-century CE). The primary theme of Antiochene theology on the creation is that the orderly nature of God’s creative work is indicated by the sequential process of creation over the course of six literal days. They assert that, even though God could have created instantaneously, a step-by-step creative method was chosen as an accommodation to

129 For more information about Diodore’s life and works, see Quasten, Patrology, III, 397–401; Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 780– 783. 130 For more information about Theodore’s life and works, see McLeod, Theodore of Mopsuestia, 3–8; Quasten, Patrology, III, 401–23; Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 799–828. 131 For more information about Severian’s life and works, see Quasten, Patrology, III, 484–486; Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 833– 838. 132 For more information about Theodoret’s life and works, see Kupan, Theodoret of Cyrus, 1–27; Quasten, Patrology, III, 401–23; Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 799–828.

82

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

limited human understanding.133 While this thesis is not substantially different from the Basilian tradition of hexaemeral literature, the Antiochenes do differ from the other Fathers in several key ways. The Antiochene Fathers have very little interest in scientific discussions of the phenomena of creation. Instead, their Hexaemera are filled with speculative questions about issues such as angelic hierarchies. For example, multiple Antiochene sources include extended discussions about when the angels were created and why the Pentateuch does not mention this event. 134 With respect to the former question, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Procopius, and Cosmas assert that the angels were created during the Six Days of Creation, in contrast to Basil, who believed that the angels preexisted the physical universe. As regards the latter question, Theodoret and Severian conclude that Moses did not mention the angels, lest the Israelites would worship them. Another new feature introduced by the Antiochenes is the contention that the earth is flat and not spherical. Diodore and Severian both make clear assertions about the shape of the earth, and Theodore of Mopsuestia might hold a similar view. Robbins asserts that this belief is derived from a Jewish source, which asserted that the shape of the earth is comparable to the shape of the tabernacle.135 Interestingly, Philo makes a similar connection in De vita Mosis, even though he did believe in a spherical earth in agreement with Greek scientific doctrine. The Antiochenes exerted much less impact on the subsequent tradition than Basil or Gregory of Nyssa did. Their ideas do find restatement later in the writings of the Byzantine chroniclers, but these works are well outside of the chronological scope of this study. 136 They offer an interesting foil to the Origenian-Basilian line of Hexaemera, with the ‘dull and pedestrian character’ of the Antiochene

133 Brown, The

Days of Creation, 36–8.

134 A similar discussion can be found in the book of Jubilees. 135 Robbins, The 136 Robbins, 59.

Hexaemeral Literature, 59–60.

CHAPTER THREE

83

writings contrasting with the imaginative heights of their counterparts.137 John Chrysostom

Born sometime between 344 and 354 CE, John Chrysostom was educated by the rhetorician Libanius and the Antiochene theologian Diodore of Tarsus. After pursuing extreme asceticism in his youth, John returned to Antioch and advanced through the clerical ranks. He became renowned for both his eloquence, as evidenced by his epithet chrysostomos (‘Golden Mouth’), and the exegetical nature of his sermons. John Chrysostom was forced to become bishop of Constantinople in 398 CE, where he was overwhelmed by court intrigues. He finally died in exile in 407 CE. 138 Within the voluminous collections of John Chrysostom’s homilies (of which more than 900 are extant), there are two sets of homilies on Genesis that have been preserved. He preached nine sermons on Genesis 1–3 in Antioch during Lent of 386 CE and another 67 sermons in Antioch in 388 CE. The latter collection constitutes a complete commentary on Genesis. His hexaemeral thought has a distinctly different character from the Basilian model. First of all, Chrysostom is not interested in the scientific explanations of Basil. Exegetically, he is closer to the Antiochenes, mixing historical-literal interpretations with moral allegory for homiletical purposes. Moreover, his homilies on Genesis have a distinctively devotionaledificatory character, in reflection of his pastoral duties.139 His contemporary Julian of Eclanum observed that Chrysostom’s use of Scripture is more exhortational than expositional.140 Indeed, Chrysostom will often go on extended tangents away from the exegesis of Genesis and onto such topics as the evils of the race-course and the 137 Young, ‘The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis’, 190. 138 For more information about his life and works, see Kelly, Golden Mouth; Mayer and Allen, John Chrysostom, 1–16. Quasten, Patrology, III, 424–482; Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 783–798. 139 Liebeschuetz, ‘Comment Dieu créa le monde en sept jours’. 140 Cited by Hill, Saint John Chrysostom: Homilies on Genesis 1–17, 11.

84

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

value of fasting during Lent. Overall, John Chrysostom stands on the margins of the wider hexaemeral tradition. Only a few later writers, such as Anastasius Sinaita (died after 700 CE), build upon this separate strand of hexaemeral thought.141 Augustine of Hippo

Augustine was born in 354 CE in Thagaste. He was trained as a teacher of the liberal arts, and his writing style is strongly influenced by Cicero and Vergil. He also shows great familiarity with Sallust, Terence, Juvenal, and Seneca. In his early career in Carthage, he pursued Manichaeism, and he continued to be in contact with Manichaeans during his time as a teacher in Rome. Augustine then received a teaching post in Milan, where he was welcomed by Bishop Ambrose. Augustine joined a Neoplatonist circle in Milan, and he became attracted to the Christianized Neoplatonism of Ambrose’s sermons. In 386 CE, Augustine experienced a dramatic conversion to Christianity, as is famously described in his Confessions. He received baptism by Ambrose a year later, and in 391 CE he was ordained as a presbyter. In 395 or 396 CE, he was compelled to become the Bishop of Hippo. From this episcopal see, Augustine fought against many opponents of orthodox Christianity, especially the Donatists and Pelagius. He was extremely prolific, producing a multitude of writings right up until his death in 430 CE during the Vandal siege of Hippo. Augustine’s thought would shape theological discourse in the West for centuries, making him probably the most influential theologian in the history of Western Christendom.142 Augustine’s thought turned to the creation very frequently, and at least five of his writings are relevant to the hexaemeral tradition. Early in his career, Augustine wrote De Genesi adversus manichaeos, which used allegorical interpretation in order to defuse Mani141 Robbins, The

Hexaemeral Literature, 57. For more information about his life and works, see Chadwick, Augustine of Hippo; O’Donnell, Augustine: A New Biography; Lancel, Saint Augustine; Agostino Trapè, “Saint Augustine,” in Quasten and Di Berardino, Patrology, IV, 342–462; Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, 1149–1218. 142

CHAPTER THREE

85

chaean attempts to ridicule the creation account. Augustine would later admit that he was unsatisfied with this approach because it told him very little about the origin of the world, and so he would rather interpret Genesis ‘according to the letter’. A few years later, he discussed the creation again in the latter books of the Confessions. Augustine began another commentary on Genesis but only completed it as far as Genesis 1:28. Later, he wrote a separate twelve-volume treatment of De Genesi ad litteram, which he believed was superior to the earlier work. Nonetheless, he desired for his ‘imperfect’ earlier treatment to be preserved as well. Finally, Augustine returned to the topic of the creation in Book XI of the City of God. Augustine’s thought on the creation is clearly influenced by Plato’s Timaeus and the works of the Neoplatonists. While other hexaemeral writers had made use of Platonic doctrines, Augustine creates the most philosophically consistent system of Christianized Neoplatonism. Significantly, he shapes his Neoplatonist tendencies to fit his Christian perspective, rethinking everything in light of the biblical revelation.143 Augustine took the Bible very seriously, and he limits his own speculation within the boundaries of the Rule of Faith. He even explicitly employs this principle in De Genesi ad litteram 1.2, where he begins his work by establishing the Apostles’ Creed as his exegetical limitation. However, this orthodox boundary does not prevent Augustine’s curiosity from seeking answers to all manners of philosophical questions. Augustine displays a scientific spirit, as he presents interpretive options, weighs the evidence, and displays humility concerning his conclusions. Especially in his mature work De Genesi ad litteram, Augustine is non-dogmatic and willing to express uncertainty about key points.144 Unlike the Basilian line of hexaemeral thought, Augustine is far less concerned with natural scientific explanations of the created world. Instead, he is interested in the theological and philosophical implications of the creation event. As with Plato and Philo, Augus143 Christian, ‘Augustine on the Creation of the World’, 2.

Brown, The Days of Creation, 48; O’Meara, ‘Saint Augustine’s Understanding of the Creation and Fall’, 52.

144

86

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

tine places God’s reason for creating in his goodness and perfect freedom. He also follows and expands upon the long-standing Christian tradition of creatio ex nihilo.145 Since God is the origin of all matter, then all matter—even formless matter—is good. This affirmation of the goodness of matter and the body stood in opposition to the Valentinians and Manichaeans.146 Over the course of Augustine’s writings on the creation, a struggle emerges concerning how one is to understand the Hexaemeron. In his early work De Genesi adversus manichaeos, Augustine uses allegorical interpretation in order to defend the Scriptural account against rationalist attack. He interprets the seven days as representing redemption history or the spiritual journey of the individual Christian.147 Ultimately, he grew dissatisfied with this approach, since it did not tell him anything about the creation itself. In De Genesi ad litteram he considers a purely literal interpretation of identifying the days as ordinary solar days, but he found this approach to be rationally indefensible.148 Thus, Augustine sought an interpretation that was neither literalistic nor allegorical, and this led him to an idealistic understanding of the word ‘day’ in the Genesis account.149 Augustine drew upon an idea that Basil had explored and Ambrose had refined—that the creation days were not seven chronological days, but one day repeated seven times—and he developed it much further than his predecessors had done. 150 He proposed that the creation was instantaneous (see also Sirach 18:1), and so there was really one ideal day, of which our solar days are but humble manifestations.151 Au145 For a thorough treatment of Augustine’s doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, see Torchia, Creatio Ex Nihilo and the Theology of St. Augustine. 146 Christian, ‘Augustine on the Creation of the World’, 18–20. 147 Brown, The Days of Creation, 45–46. 148 Brown, 46–47. 149 LaVallee, ‘Augustine on the Creation Days’, 459; Brown, The Days of Creation, 47–48. 150 See Ambrose, Hex. 1.10.37; Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 4.26.43, 4.33.52, 5.3.6. 151 Brown, The Days of Creation, 49–53. See Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber 7.28; De Genesi ad litteram 1.15.29 and 4.33.52.

CHAPTER THREE

87

gustine asserts that the seven days of creation are seven simultaneous moments by which God’s creative work is revealed to the angelic intellects. 152 These conclusions opened up a new world of inquiry for Augustine, far beyond what allegory could have provided. The instantaneous nature of creation was influenced by the Platonic notion that God created time alongside the world. God is not eternal because he existed before the world in time, but rather because he is immutable.153 Even though Augustine asserts that creation was instantaneous, he acknowledges that not everything that God created was present in its current form at that point. Rather, Augustine posits that God created all things with seminal reasons (rationes seminales or rationes causales), through which the limit, proportion, and purpose of each thing are present latently or potentially.154 This doctrine had roots in Stoic and Platonic philosophy, and it had previously been introduced into the hexaemeral tradition by Gregory of Nyssa.155 By means of the seminal reasons, Augustine was even able to explain miracles, for God in his foreknowledge had providentially included even the potential for such marvelous things in the original creation act.156 Augustine is unique among the Church Fathers in how deeply his entire thought revolves around creation, leaving its mark on many of his works.157 Along with Basil, Augustine is a great innovator of the hexaemeral tradition. Nonetheless, Augustine’s understanding of the creation is not radically new, but it stands clearly within that foregoing tradition.158 He is especially close to Basil in many places. Augustine’s knowledge of Basil probably came through a Latin translation, such as that of Eustathius, or through Ambrose’s 152 Gousmett, ‘Creation Order and Miracle according to Augustine’, 10. 153 Knuuttila, ‘Time and Creation in Augustine’, 105–7. 154 Oliver, ‘Augustine on Creation, Providence, and Motion’, 394–97. 155 Knuuttila, ‘Time and Creation in Augustine’, 104. 156 Gousmett, ‘Creation Order and Miracle according to Augustine’, 20–21; O’Meara, ‘Saint Augustine’s Understanding of the Creation and Fall’, 59. 157 Brown, The Days of Creation, 45. 158 Knuuttila, ‘Time and Creation in Augustine’, 104; Christian, ‘Augustine on the Creation of the World’, 3–7.

88

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Latin reworking of the great Cappadocian scholar. As Augustine himself admits, he was not proficient in Greek. While this may very well be false modesty, Henri-Irénée Marrou believes that Augustine had an inferior capacity with regard to the Greek language than, for example, Ambrose had. Augustine’s Greek was probably sufficient for grasping the basic meaning of a written text, but he would not have had the facility to quote Greek texts from memory or the like.159 Augustine is probably the last Western Father to have direct knowledge of Philo.160 The Bishop of Hippo makes a single explicit mention of Philo’s name (Contra Faustum 12.39), and his work contains many unacknowledged borrowings. Once again, Augustine’s knowledge of Greek raises the question of whether he read Philo in the original or in a Latin translation.161 On the topic of creation, Augustine seems to borrow from Philo’s De opificio mundi or Quaestiones in Genesim in several places. In Confessions 12.1.1–12.13.16, Augustine interprets Genesis 1:1 by means of the expression ‘the heaven of heaven’ from Psalm 113:16, so as to see Genesis 1:1 as referring to the creation of the intelligible heavens. Pépin finds rich and numerous parallels between Augustine, the Alexandrian tradition (especially Clement and Origen), and Philo in this passage.162 Moreover, Solignac has found a number of other direct linkages between Philo and Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram.163 Furthermore, Augustine con-

159 Marrou, Saint 160 Runia, Philo

Augustin et la fin de la culture antique, 29–30. in Early Christian Literature, 330.

161 Runia, 321. 162 Pépin, ‘Recherches sur les sens et les origines de l’expression “Caelum caeli”. 163 Agaësse and Solignac, La genèse au sens littéral en douze livres. Specific examples include: 4.32.49–50 is virtually a direct translation of Opif. 28 on the sequence of events of creation (see also De civitate Dei 11.30 where the discussion of the number 6 is reminiscent of Opif. 13); 5.4.7–8 discusses the theory of double creation, as in Opif. 16–25 and QG 1.2; 5.10.25 presents the source of the waters in Gen. 2:6, similar to QG 1.3; 6.22.33 argues against the death of the soul, paralleled in Leg. 1.105–107 and QG 1.16; 8.1.4 and 8.4.8 describe paradise, the tree of life, and the four rivers, similar to QG 1.6–12;

CHAPTER THREE

89

nects the seven ages of the world to the seven days of creation and the seven ages of man. Philo had already connected the latter two, and this idea is repeated in Ambrose.164 Thus, elements of Philo’s thought—received both directly and indirectly—would live on in the works of Augustine, who transmitted these ideas to the subsequent ages.

CONCLUSION The fingerprints of Philo are evident not only in the works of Ambrose but in many of the authors of hexaemeral literature. The earliest evidence is found in Theophilus, where a strong resemblance with Philo is noteworthy, even though there is no definitive proof of direct dependence. Origen shows even stronger evidence of influence. In addition to the fact that Origen had access to the nearcomplete works of Philo, he quotes Philo and even treats him as a predecessor in the Alexandrian tradition of exegesis. By means of Origen, Philo came to be an influence on all of the hexaemeral writers who were sympathetic to Origen—most notably Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, Ambrose, and Augustine. The aforementioned Fathers all seem to be influenced by Philo both directly and indirectly. Furthermore, Philonic ideas would continue to have an impact on hexaemeral thought for centuries, but these would mostly be mediated by Basil and Gregory of Nyssa in the East and by Ambrose and Augustine in the West. Thus, the pattern of Philonic influences on the hexaemeral tradition mirrors the pattern of Philonic influences on the Church Fathers in general. As regards Ambrose’s own place in the tradition, the two primary authorities of which he makes use are Philo and Basil. There is no way to overstate the importance of these two predecessors for Ambrose’s hexaemeral thought. He also shows familiarity with Hippolytus of Rome and Origen’s works on the subject. On the other end of the process, Ambrose was himself an influence on Augus11.42.58 discusses the woman’s role in man’s fall, which could have come directly from Opif. 152 or indirectly. 164 Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature, 72.

90

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

tine’s writings on the creation, and he was probably a mediator for Augustine’s knowledge of Philo and Basil. Thus, Ambrose’s hexaemeral writings are significant in the history of hexaemeral thought insofar as they provide a key link between the Alexandrian/Cappadocian Hexaemera and those of the Latin West.

CHAPTER FOUR. AMBROSE’S USE OF PHILO’S DE OPIFICIO MUNDI IN LETTER 29 [PL#43] In Philo’s treatment of the sixth day of creation in De opificio mundi 77–88, he raises the question of why humanity was created last of all among God’s works. In addressing this question he provides the reader with four distinct answers. First, he explains that God created humanity as the centerpiece of his creative work, and therefore, God first created the means of living (well) before he created the honored guest. Second, Philo asserts that man in his original virtue was placed into a world that was already blessed. However, in his subsequent fall into vice, man was stripped of the Edenic blessings. This demonstrates that humanity has been placed within an ethical universe. Third, Philo declares that man, being the last of God’s works, has certain similarities to the heavens, the first of God’s works. Thus, the text demonstrates that man is a microcosm of the heavens. Fourth, Philo shows that humanity was created last, so that his appearance would send the animals into awe, who would become his subjects. Therefore, one may conclude that humanity’s place as God’s ultimate creation establishes him as God’s vice-regent over the entire created order. In Letter 29 [PL#43] Ambrose is responding to a presbyter named Horontianus, who raised this exact same question. Ambrose adapts Philo’s four answers from De opificio mundi 77–88, but he makes several intriguing changes in structure, content, and details. First, it is necessary to place Philo’s answers within their Hellenistic and Jewish contexts. Next, this study will observe the Christian use of De opificio mundi 77–88 which forms the background of Ambrose’s Letter 29 [PL#43]. Then, Ambrose’s adaptational choices will 91

92

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

be studied, in particular how he reorders, highlights, ignores, or otherwise changes his source. This will make it possible to draw some conclusions as to why Ambrose borrowed from Philo in this particular way. These changes demonstrate some of the philosophical and theological motivations of Ambrose as he dialogues with the thought of Philo.

T HE ORIGIN OF THE QUAESTIO All four of Philo’s answers to the question are compatible with elements of Greek philosophy. Philo’s first answer, which assumes that the cosmos is anthropocentric, is fully in tune with the thought of the Stoics, who asserted that the entire sublunar realm was created for the benefit of humanity.1 In arguing for an ethical universe in his second answer, Philo draws upon Stoic ethics, as he consistently does throughout his works.2 Philo’s third answer concerning man as a microcosm draws upon micro/macrocosmic theories, which are broadly attested in ancient philosophy, as will be demonstrated below. Finally, Philo’s last answer treats man’s superiority and rule over the animals, and it has strong parallels in Roman Stoicism, such as in Cicero’s De natura deorum.3 Thus, while Philo’s concern is with biblical interpretation, his line of argument here never veers far from the Stoic and Platonic schools in which he was well-versed. However, it is unlikely that Philo was only drawing upon Greco-Roman antecedents in preparing this list. The same quaestio and several of these same answers find parallels in Jewish sources.4 Philo even acknowledges that he is dependent upon anterior Jewish traditions in Opif. 77, when he states, ‘Those, then, who have studied more deeply than others the Laws of Moses and who examine their 1 Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy, III, 256; Jobling, ‘“And Have Dominion...”: The Interpretation of Gen. 1, 28 in Philo Judaeus’, 52–61. 2 For an introduction to Stoic ethics, see Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy, III, 259–88. For Philo’s use of Stoic ethics, see Carlos Levy, ‘Philo’s Ethics’, in Kamesar, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Philo, 146–71. 3 Cicero, De natura deorum 2.130–33 and 2.151–154. See SVF 2.527, 1041, 1152–1167, 3.369 and 658. 4 Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 258.

CHAPTER FOUR

93

contents with all possible minuteness, maintain that…’ before launching into the discussion of his first answer.5 Tosefta, Sanhedrin 8:7 raises the exact same quaestio as De opificio mundi 77–88: ‘Adam was created last. And why was he created last?’ While most of the responses to this question do not match any of those in Philo, the Tosefta does provide one answer with a number of clear verbal parallels to Philo’s first answer (Opif. 78).6 Tosefta, Sanhedrin 8:9: So that he might enter the banquet at once. They have made a parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a king who built a palace and dedicated it and prepared a meal and [only] afterwards invited the guests. And so Scripture says, ‘The wisest of women has built her a house (Prov. 9:1). This refers to the King of the kings of kings, blessed be he, who built his world in seven days by wisdom. ‘She has hewn out her seven pillars’ (Prov. 9:1)—these are the seven days of creation. ‘She has killed her beasts and mixed her wine’ (Prov. 9:2)—These are the oceans, rivers, wastes, and all the other things which the world needs…7

Philo, De opficio mundi 78: Just as givers of a banquet, then, do not send out the summonses to supper till they have put everything in readiness for the feast; and those who provide gymnastic and scenic contests, before they gather the spectators into the theatre or the stadium, have in readiness a number of combatants and performers to charm both eye and ear; exactly in the same way the Ruler of all things, like some provider of contests or of a banquet, when about to invite man to the enjoyment of a feast and a great spectacle, made ready beforehand the material for both. He desired that on coming into the world man might at once find both a 5 Colson and Whitaker, trans., PLCL, I.63.

Borgen, ‘Man’s Sovereignty over Animals and Nature according to Philo of Alexandria’, 378. Borgen provides eight examples of verbal parallels between these two texts. 7 Neusner, The Tosefta, 224. 6

94

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION banquet and a most sacred display, the one full of all things that earth and rivers and sea and air bring forth for use and for enjoyment, the other of all sorts of spectacles, most impressive in their substance, most impressive in their qualities, and circling with most wondrous movements, in an order fitly determined always in accordance with proportion of numbers and harmony of revolutions. In all these one might rightly say that there was the real music, the original and model of all other, from which the men of subsequent ages, when they had painted the images in their souls, handed down an art most vital and beneficial to human life.8

Since it is unlikely that the Rabbis knew the works of Philo directly, we may draw the conclusion that Philo and the Tosefta have drawn upon a common Jewish tradition. Philo expanded this metaphor of a banquet by adding a second one, namely that of a spectacle, and the Rabbis likewise expanded upon the tradition by providing some exegesis of Proverbs 9:1–2. However, the core is the same, and this same core reoccurs in y. Sanh. 4:9 and b. Sanh. 38a.9 Philo’s first answer is also echoed in Genesis Rabbah, which asserts, ‘He created him with due deliberation: He first created his foodstuffs, and only then did He create him.’10 As in Philo, this argument is then supported by a reference to Psalm 8. Genesis Rabbah also affirms the anthropocentricity of the created order in stating that mankind is the completion and summation of the entire creation.11 Furthermore, there was a tendency in Jewish literature to expand upon the assertion that the world was made for the sake of humanity, in order to say that the world was made for Israel, as the true humanity.12 However, Philo, 8 Colson and Whitaker, trans., PLCL, I.62.

Borgen, ‘Man’s Sovereignty over Animals and Nature according to Philo of Alexandria’, 377–78. 10 Genesis Rabbah 8.6, trans., Maurice, Freedman, and Epstein, Midrash Rabbah. Genesis I, 58–59. 11 Genesis Rabbah 12.5, trans., Maurice, Freedman, and Epstein, Midrash Rabbah. Genesis, I, 90–91. 12 Borgen, ‘Man’s Sovereignty over Animals and Nature according to Philo of Alexandria’, 379. Borgen cites 4 Ezra 6:54–59, 7:10ff., 9:13; 2 Baruch 9

CHAPTER FOUR

95

consistent with Diaspora Judaism, does not seem to show any indication of this sort of particularism. It is not only Philo’s first answer that finds parallels in other strains of Jewish thought. Philo’s micro/macrocosmic thought from his third answer is also reflected in the Talmud and the Midrashim.13 The same idea also appears three times in the Apostolic Constitutions, in prayers which probably have origins in the Hellenistic Synagogue.14 Even more significantly, Philo’s fourth answer, concerning humanity’s role as vice-regent over the animals, is echoed in a number of other Jewish texts. Genesis Rabbah 19:4, 4 Ezra 6:53, and Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 12 all confirm that humanity was meant to rule over that which had been created before. Pesikta Rabbati, Suppl. 21 goes even further, specifying that humanity is king over the lower (sublunary) realm, just as God is king of the upper (supralunary) realm, a distinction that is paralleled in Philo, Opif. 84.15 Finally, Genesis Rabbah 34.12 asserts that the animals feared and subordinated themselves before man before the Fall, but this ceased after the Fall and only came back after the Flood (see Gen. 9:2). This line of thought is matched in Philo in QG 1.56, which establishes Noah as a second Ad14:17–19, 15:7, 21:24; Assumption of Moses 1:12; Tanh. B Bereshit 3ff.; b. Sanh. 98b; b. Ros. Has.10b, 11a; Genesis Rabbah 1.4; Levicitus Rabbah 36.4; Canticles Rabbah 5:11#4; Tanh. B Bereshit 10. 13 Conger, Theories of Macrocosms and Microcosms in the History of Philosophy, 19. 14 See Apostolic Constitutions 7.34.6: ‘And the goal of the creative work—the rational living creature, the world citizen—having given order by your Wisdom, you created, saying, Let us make man according to our image and likeness; having declared him a (micro-)cosm of the cosmos, having formed for him the body out of the four elements; and having prepared for him the soul out of non-being, and having given to him fivefold perception, and having placed over the perceptions a mind, the holder of the reins of the soul.’ This translation is from Darnell in Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, II, 679. See also Apostolic Consitituions 8.9.8 and 8.12.35–40. Concerning the Jewish origin of these prayers, see Charlesworth, 671–673. 15 Cited by Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 255.

96

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

am, who was likewise appointed as king over all of the animals.16 Given the extensive Greco-Roman and Jewish parallels to Philo’s answers, it is entirely possible that Philo derived this list of answers from his Alexandrian Jewish predecessors who were versed in Hellenistic philosophy. Even though Philo may be adapting material, the result is fully Philonic. Elements from all four answers are reflected elsewhere in Philo’s works. In Praem. 9, Philo gives a summary of the first and fourth answers, placing emphasis on the argument that humanity is the center of God’s creation. Elements of Philo’s fourth answer can also be found in QG 2.56, Mos. 2.65, and Agr. 8, all of which draw an analogy between Noah’s position of authority over the animal world and that of Adam.17 Philo’s second answer, i.e. that mankind is placed within an ethical universe, is completely understandable in the general context of Philo’s thought, for Philo’s ethics are primarily Stoic.18 Finally, Philo’s third answer concerning micro/macrocosmic interpretation is also attested in Mos. 2.133–135, Plant. 28, and Post. 55–58, and the related idea of man as an intermediary between the heavenly and earthly realms is found in Leg. 3.161, Det. 84–85, Conf. 176, Her. 283, Decal. 134, Plant. 14, 20–22, and Somn. 1.146.19 Overall, even though Philo is rehearsing an antecedent tradition, he adapts it in such a way that is fully compatible with his theological and philosophical thought.

T HE CHRISTIAN RECEPTION OF THE QUAESTIO This same quaestio and/or Philo’s answers to it make appearances in a number of Christian sources. Theophilus of Antioch might display 16 Borgen, ‘Man’s Sovereignty over Animals and Nature according to Philo of Alexandria’, 376. 17 For further evidence, see Jobling, ‘“And Have Dominion...”: The Interpretation of Gen. 1, 28 in Philo Judaeus’. 18 Carlos Levy, ‘Philo’s Ethics’, in Kamesar, The Cambridge Companion to Philo, 146–71. 19 Similar ideas are found in Rabbinic literature. See the sources cited in Borgen, ‘Man’s Sovereignty over Animals and Nature according to Philo of Alexandria’, 385.

CHAPTER FOUR

97

a small parallel to Philo’s fourth answer (Opif. 85) in Ad Autolycum 2.18. Although the exact phraseology is not identical, both texts refer to the animals as the subjects and slaves of humanity in the context of humanity serving as God’s vice-regent: When he had made him and blessed him so that he would increase and fill the earth, he subordinated all other beings to him as subjects and slaves.20

Philo, De opificio mundi 85: The combined strength and power of so many well-armed creatures… stand in awe of him like slaves before their master and carry out his commands… Like cities they are accustomed to presenting before him their annual tribute to him who is by nature their king.21

Much clearer is the parallel to Philo’s fourth answer (Opif. 84–85) in Didymus the Blind’s Commentary on Genesis 60.2–10. The same example is used, of a lowly human being commanding vast herds of beasts, and both texts make an allusion to Psalm 8:7. However, the rest of Didymus’s treatment owes more to Origen than to Philo.22 Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Genesis 60.2–10: The verse, Let them have control of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the earth, and all the reptiles creeping on the earth, would imply according to the former explanation the human being’s governance over the animals subject to him. One would, in fact, wonder how with nets and snares he could hunt animals that exceeded his powers, were wild, and at the same time disposed to do him harm, and, moreover, huge; it would not have happened like that unless he had command over them from God. In fact, sometimes numerous herds of different animals are driven along by a child or otherwise by a weak person, 20 Grant, trans., Theophilus of Antioch,

Ad Autolycum, 57. opificio mundi 85, trans., Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 69–70. 22 Runia, 258. 21 De

98

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION which clearly shows the divine power instilled in the rational animal, by which they have been subjected to him. Now, governance is nothing other than lawful oversight; none of the others, for instance, governs its fellows, unless on occasion the sheep called “ram” commands a herd by giving a lead, doing so not by reason, as with human shepherds, but by nature. A human being, on the other hand, was made in the image and likeness of God to govern the ones mentioned.23

Philo, De opificio mundi 84–85: Of this sovereignty our experience furnishes the clearest proof. It can happen that vast flocks of animals are led by a single ordinary human being, who does not wear armor or carry a weapon of iron or bear any other kind of defensive instrument, but only has a leather jacket for protection and a staff for pointing the direction and for leaning on if he grows weary during his wanderings. Thus flocks consisting of numerous sheep and cattle are lead by a shepherd, a goatherd, or a cowherd, men who are not so physically robust and energetic that through their bodily condition they instill astonishment in those who look at them. The combined strength and power of so many well-armed creatures—for they are endowed by nature with equipment to defend themselves—stand in awe of him like slaves before their master and carry out his commands.24

Gregory of Nyssa addresses the quaestio of why humanity was created last in his De opficio hominis 2, and he draws upon the first and the last of Philo’s answers from De opificio mundi. He argues that the world is a banquet prepared for the benefit of humanity, and therefore humanity was created last (based on Opif. 77–78). He continues with the statement that the human being was meant to appear

Hill, trans., Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Genesis, FaCh 132, 66– 67. 24 De opificio mundi, 84–85, trans., Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 69. 23

CHAPTER FOUR

99

as a king, and so the ruler should arrive after his subjects (based on Opif. 83). Gregory of Nyssa, De opificio hominis 2: For not as yet had that great and precious thing, man, come into the world of being; it was not to be looked for that the ruler should appear before the subjects of his rule; but when his dominion was prepared, the next step was that the king should be manifested. When, then, the Maker of all had prepared beforehand, as it were, a royal lodging for the future king (and this was the land, and islands, and sea, and the heaven arching like a roof over them), and when all kinds of wealth had been stored in this palace (and by wealth I mean the whole creation, all that is in plants and trees, and all that has sense, and breath, and life; and— if we are to account materials also as wealth— all that for their beauty are reckoned precious in the eyes of men, as gold and silver, and the substances of your jewels which men delight in— having concealed, I say, abundance of all these also in the bosom of the earth as in a royal treasure-house), he thus manifests man in the world, to be the beholder of some of the wonders therein, and the lord of others; that by his enjoyment he might have knowledge of the Giver, and by the beauty and majesty of the things he saw might trace out that power of the Maker which is beyond speech and language.

For this reason man was brought into the world last after the creation, not being rejected to the last as worthless, but as one whom it behooved to be king over his subjects at his very birth. And as a good host does not bring his guest to his house before the preparation of his feast, but, when he has made all due preparation, and decked with their proper adornments his house, his couches, his table, brings his guest home when things suitable for his refreshment are in readiness—in the same manner the rich and munificent Entertainer of our nature, when He had decked the habitation with beauties of every kind, and prepared this great and varied banquet, then introduced man, assigning to him as his task not the acquiring of what was not there, but the enjoyment of the things which were there; and for this reason He gives him as foundations the instincts of a twofold organization, blending the Divine with the earthy, that by

100

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION means of both he may be naturally and properly disposed to each enjoyment, enjoying God by means of his more divine nature, and the good things of earth by the sense that is akin to them.25

The late 4th-century bishop Nemesius also treats this quaestio in his De natura hominis 1. First, Nemesius provides the argument that humanity was created last because everything was made for his use, as in Philo’s first answer (Opif. 77–78). However, Nemesius builds upon this by asserting what he sees as the more important reason, namely that humanity was created last so as to be the binding agent between the visible and intelligible worlds. Nemesius attributes this idea to ‘the Hebrews’, and indeed this same line of thought occurs in Philo’s De opificio mundi in paragraphs 134–135, where he discusses the fact that the man was created out of earth.26 Runia points out that there are no concepts used in Nemesius’s treatment which were not already present in Gregory of Nyssa’s De opificio hominis, which was written earlier. However, since Nemesius does not appear to draw upon Gregory’s treatise at any other point, Runia believes that it is more likely that Nemesius made direct use of Philo.27 Nemesius, De natura hominis 1: So also Moses, in his exposition of the creation, correctly said that man came to be last, not only because, since everything came to be on his account, it followed that things for his use should be prepared first and then he who was to use them should be added, but also because when intelligible reality and also visible reality had come to be, something needed to come to be to bind them both together, so that everything should be one and in sympathy with itself and not foreign itself to itself…. The Hebrews say that man came into existence in the beginning as neither incontestably mortal nor immortal, but at the boundary of each nature, so that, if he should pursue bodily affections, 25 Gregory of Nyssa, De opificio hominis 2, trans., Moore and Wilson in Schaff, Gregory of Nyssa. 26 See Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 2.27. 27 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 262–263.

CHAPTER FOUR

101

he would be subjected also to bodily changes, while, if he should estimate more highly the goods of the soul, he might be thought worthy of immortality.28

Philo, De opificio mundi 135 He says that the sense-perceptible and individual human being has a structure which is composed of earthly substance and divine spirit, for the body came into being when the Craftsman took clay and moulded a human shape out of it, whereas the soul obtained its origin from nothing which has come into existence at all, but from the Father and Director of all things. What he breathed in was nothing else than the divine spirit which has emigrated here from that blessed and flourishing nature for the assistance of our kind, in order that, even if it is mortal with regard to its visible part, at least with regard to its invisible part it would be immortalized. For this reason it would be correct to say that the human being stands on the borderline between mortal and immortal nature. Sharing in both to the extent necessary, he has come into existence as a creature which is mortal and at the same time immortal, mortal in respect to the body, immortal in respect to the mind.29

As can be seen from this evidence, the quaestio of why the human being was the last to be created became an important part of Christian inquiry in the late 4th-century. Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, and Nemesius all treat this topic in roughly the same time period. While it is certainly possible that the later authors used the earlier ones, direct Philonic influence should not be ruled out in any of their cases. Their mutual interest in the quaestio and their corresponding use of Philo could also be explained simply by their shared intellectual environment. Whether it was prompted by reading contemporary works or derived independently, Horontianus’s question

Sharples and van der Eijk, trans., Nemesius, On the Nature of Man, 40– 41. 29 Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 82. 28

102

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

to Ambrose that prompted his 29th epistle was not an unusual one for the 4th-century Christian context.

CONTENT OF LETTER 29 [PL#43] The addressee of this epistle is Horontianus, a presbyter to whom nine of Ambrose’s letters are addressed.30 This is the first of two letters on the Hexaemeron written to this same recipient; the other, Ep. 31 [PL#44], will be treated in the following chapter. The other correspondence between Ambrose and Horontianus discusses topics such as the nature of the soul (Ep. 21, 22, and 23 [PL#34, 35, 36]), the interpretation of Micah 5:2 (Ep. 18 and 19 [PL#70, 71], and the differences between Judaism and Christianity (Ep. 20 and 66 [PL#77, 78]). The terminus a quo for the writing of this letter is 386 CE, which is the earliest possible date for the Ambrose’s Hexaemeron, which is referenced in this letter. 31 Jean-Rémy Palanque placed both Letters 29 and 31 [PL#43 and 44] from Ambrose to Horontianus in the year 387 CE.32 Letter 29 was written in response to a question posed by Horontianus, who knew Ambrose’s Homilies on the Hexaemeron and was curious about something not treated in that work. The question is: why did God create the human being last of all in the Genesis creation account? Ambrose begins his reply with a secondary question: why does the author of Genesis remain silent on this point? Ambrose concludes that Moses did not wish to appear as a judge of God’s plans, and so Moses does not give a rationale.33 Nonetheless, Ambrose is bold enough to ‘gather the seed of reason’ and provide an opinion on the topic.

For what little is known about Horontianus, see W. Enßlin, ‘Orontianus’ in PRE 18.1, 1167; Mazières, ‘Les lettres d’Ambroise de Milan à Orontien’. 31 Mazières, ‘Les lettres d’Ambroise de Milan à Orontien’, 57. 32 Palanque, ‘Deux Correspondants de Saint Ambroise: Orontien et Irénée’. 33 This is a good example of the common Patristic strategy of using the figure of Moses and his literary genius in order to explain certain elements in the text. See Rine, ‘Interpretations of Genesis 1–2 among the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers’, 142–43. 30

CHAPTER FOUR

103

The structure of the letter and the places where it borrows (or does not borrow) from De opificio mundi 77–88 are summarized in the table below: Table B: Ambrose’s Borrowings from De opificio mundi in Letter 29 [PL#43] Ambr. Ambrose’s Philo Philo’s Para. # Letter 29 Para. # De opificio mundi 77–88 Introduction of the primary 1 77a Introduction of the question question; secondary question 2 Answer to secondary question st Answer: Anthropocentric Anthropocentric cosmos; 3 77b-78 1cosmos; Metaphor of banquet Metaphor of banquet 4 Metaphor of athletic event Further elaboration on meta5 phor of athletic event Digression: earth is man’s 6 training ground 3rd Answer: Man as 7 Man as microcosm 82 microcosm Digression: interpretation of 8 Isaiah 66:1 Compare and contrast the 9 heavens and man Man is a partaker of the di10 vine nature Repetition: Anthropocentric 11 77b cosmos nd Answer: Man is placed in an 79a 2ethical universe The virtuous man resists The virtuous man resists 12 79b vice vice has brought about hardship 80 Vice for humanity A restoration of virtue would 81 bring about a return of God’s blessings Man is inferior to Christ, yet 13 redeemed by him Man is God’s vice-regent over 83–84 4th Answer: Man is God’s vice14 the animals regent over the animals Digression: Flight of the 69–71 15 Flight of the mind mind Animals are easily tamed by 16 85–87 Animals are easily tamed by man man Benefits of taming the ani17 mals Digression: Man is the master Man is the master of land, sea, 18 88, 147 and air of land, sea, and air Summary: the earth was made 19 for the benefit of man Examples of biblical wonder 20 workers

104

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

In his response, Ambrose draws upon Philo’s De opificio mundi 77– 88 with its four different answers to this question. Ambrose presents the first of these first: the world was made to be anthropocentric, and so the means of living (well) are supplied before man is brought into the world (Opif. 77–78). He repeats Philo’s first explanatory metaphor—that the feast is prepared before the honored guests are invited—and he supplements it with references to Jesus’ banquet parable (Matt 22:1–14). Then he continues with Philo’s second explanatory metaphor—that an athletic event is prepared before the competitors are invited. Once again, Ambrose supplements his source with New Testament references, drawing upon a patchwork of athletic imagery from the Pauline epistles (1 Cor 9:26, Eph 6:12, 2 Cor 11:29). This leads to a further digression, in which Ambrose discusses how the earth with its many struggles functions as a training ground for humanity. Ambrose continues drawing upon Philo, but now out-ofsequence. He presents Philo’s third answer to the question in the second place, arguing that the last creation, humanity, is a miniature of the first creation, the heavens (Opif. 82). While Philo only wrote one short paragraph on this subject, Ambrose has a number of elaborations on his source. First, he provides a number of examples, drawn from daily life, that illustrate how the first and the last elements are the most important.34 Then, he presents a tangentially-related interpretation of Isaiah 66:1, where he understands the expression ‘heaven is my throne’ to mean that God dwells in the heart of man (see John 14:23). In addition, Ambrose spends some time contrasting the heavens and humanity. 35 Finally, he presents some of the similarities between the two.36 Moreover, Ambrose provides a theological summa34 E.g. the most important parts of a house are the foundation and roof; the most important parts of a field are planting and harvesting. 35 E.g. heaven is part of the world, whereas humanity is above the world; heaven seems incorruptible but will pass away, whereas humanity is mortal but rises to immortality. 36 E.g. both were created by God’s hands, are illuminated (by stars or by good deeds), and are a sort of firmament (for the elements or for the virtues).

CHAPTER FOUR

105

tion of this section: humanity is a microcosm of the heavens because God has made man a partaker of the divine nature. Finally, he brings back elements from the first answer, reiterating the anthropocentric nature of the cosmos. The next short section is loosely based on material from Philo’s second answer. Philo had maintained that humanity was given abundance, but it was taken away because of passion and vice. However, a restoration of virtue would result in a restoration of God’s abundance (Opif. 79–81). Ambrose heavily reworks and abridges this section, leaving behind little of Philo’s original argument. As will be argued below, Ambrose transforms these paragraphs of Philo from an independent answer for the quaestio into mere filler material in support of the other answers. Ambrose concludes his argument with the fourth and final answer from Philo’s treatment: the sudden appearance of man put the animals in a state of awe, and they became subject to him (Opif. 83– 88). At this point, Ambrose chooses to draw first upon an earlier section of De opificio mundi, where Philo makes use of the topos of the flight of the mind.37 This is drawn from Philo’s discussion of the Fifth Day of Creation, where he foreshadows his discussion of why man was created last in order to answer the question of why the birds and fish were created before man (Opif. 69–71). The flight of the mind imagery supports the argument that humanity has a privileged place in the cosmos, bearing the image of God. Having provided this background, Ambrose continues his presentation of Philo’s fourth answer with the assertion that animals of superior strength are subdued by humans because they are impressed by the rationality which they themselves do not possess. Ambrose then draws upon Philo’s list of examples of the benefits that humanity derives from the taming of the beasts. The mention of animal-drawn chariots here causes Ambrose to move into a tangent, where he discusses how human 37 For a detailed treatment of the flight of the mind topos, see Pierre Courcelle, ‘Flügel (Flug) der Seele’ in Dolger et al., eds, Reallexicon fur Antike und Christentum, 29–65; Jones, ‘Posidonius and the Flight of the Mind through the Universe’.

106

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

beings can steer chariots, sailing ships, and even a fiery chariot in the sky in the case of Elijah the prophet. This may be an oblique reference to an argument from a later section of De opificio mundi, where Philo maintains that human beings are excellent insofar as they are creatures of the land, the water, and even the sky (Opif. 147). Ambrose brings this letter to its conclusion with a summary statement: humanity is the summation of the whole of creation. In addition to a number of earthly examples of man’s dominance over the created order, he even provides a number of examples of biblical wonderworkers who subdued the creation supernaturally. Finally, with a standard epistolary closing formula, the letter is concluded.

AMBROSE’S REORDERING OF PHILONIC MATERIAL One of the more curious features of Ambrose’s adaptation of De opificio mundi is the way in which he changes the order of his source.38 In Ep. 29, Ambrose not only transposes the material from Philo’s second and third answers, he also greatly elaborates on the material which he moves forward, transforming one paragraph into four. These expansions include illustrative examples, a tangential interpretation of another text, and a series of comparisons and contrasts. Meanwhile, the material which is moved further back is shortened to the point that it no longer contains the original Philonic argument. Therefore, Ambrose’s arrangement of the material is probably a sign of the relative importance of these answers to his understanding of the text. Ambrose sees Philo’s third answer (i.e. man, the last, is a microcosm of heaven, the first) as being important in supporting Philo’s first answer (i.e. the world was made for the benefit of man), and so he moves the text forward and elaborates further upon it. Meanwhile, Ambrose is not interested in Philo’s second answer, leaving behind only vestigial traces of it. Another example of Ambrose’s rearrangement of his Philonic source is evident in Ep. 29.15, where the imagery of the flight of the This is not the only example of Ambrose rearranging Philonic material. He also transposes whole paragraphs of Philonic material in Letters 1, 31, 34, 36, and 55 [PL#7, 44, 45, 2, and 8]. 38

CHAPTER FOUR

107

mind (Opif. 69–71) is inserted into Philo’s fourth answer (Opif. 83– 88). The flight of the mind topos is employed in multiple places by Philo (for example, Det. 85–90), and it is evident in many other philosophic texts.39 Philo uses this imagery in Opif. 69–71 in order to underscore the exalted position that mankind possesses above all other members of the terrestrial sphere. By placing the material at this point, Ambrose is providing further supporting evidence for the fourth answer to the question, namely how the incredible faculties of the human mind demonstrate humanity’s position as God’s viceroy over the created order.

MACROCOSM AND MICROCOSM Ambrose’s reworking of Philo’s De opificio mundi increases the emphasis placed on the concept of macrocosm and microcosm. Following his source, Ambrose asserts that it is fitting for the heavens to be created first and humanity to be created last because the latter is a microcosm of the former. Macro/microcosmic thinking (especially with regard to anthropology and cosmology) has a long history in Greek philosophy, and this wider context may shed some light on Philo’s original statement and also on Ambrose’s adaptational choices. A number of Pre-Socratic texts show some degree of evidence of macro/microcosmic thought. The earliest and most explicit example from this time period is found in Anaximenes: ‘Just as our soul which is air holds us together, so it is breath and air that encompasses the whole world.’40 The Pythagoreans may have held to some microcosmic teachings, at least in a later period. Their belief in the interrelatedness of all things through numbers would undergird a belief in the interrelatedness of humanity and the cosmos.41 Heraclitus drew a number of analogies between the human body and the For further discussion, see Pierre Courcelle, ‘Flügel (Flug) der Seele’; Jones, ‘Posidonius and the Flight of the Mind through the Universe’. 40 Conger, Theories of Macrocosms and Microcosms in the History of Philosophy, 7. 41 Conger, 2–3. 39

108

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

world, although there is some controversy as to whether his thinking was truly in a microcosmic vein. 42 Further examples may exist in Empedocles and Hippocrates.43 Many of these early examples stand within the realm of the problem of the One and the Many. If all things derive from a single common substance, then the human soul could be considered to be a fragment of the One, thus explaining the analogy between the human being and the universe.44 The study of macro/microcosmic thought rests on firmer ground in the works of Plato. The Timaeus contains several clearer examples of this phenomenon. For instance, Plato speaks of a tripartite world-soul, which recalls the tripartite human soul. Additionally, the four kinds of living creatures correspond to the four elements. Plato also argues that humanity should imitate the harmonies of the universe. Another text where microcosmic imagery occurs is the Philebus 27A-31B. Here Socrates asserts that, when the philosophers claim that the mind is the king of heaven and earth, ‘they really exalt themselves… Perhaps they are right’.45 He also states that elements in the human body are fragments of the elements of the world’s body.46 George Conger believes that these elements in Plato’s thought have a Pythagorean background, but they never developed into a systematic part of Plato’s thought.47 In the works of Aristotle, one finds the first recorded use of the term µικρός κόσµος in Physics 252b, where he asserts that a sympathetic relationship exists between the microcosm and the macrocosm. Even though Aristotle uses the term, there is no evidence that macro/microcosmic arguments made any significant influence on his thought. It is even possible that he may be quoting the term from an opponent.48 42 Conger, 3–4. 43 Conger, 4–6. 44 Levy, ‘Macrocosm and Microcosm’, 639. 45 Phil. 28C, trans., Fowler in Plato, IX, LCL. 46 Levy, ‘Macrocosm and Microcosm’, 640. 47 Conger, Theories of Macrocosms and Microcosms in the History of Philosophy, 8–9. 48 Conger, 10–11; Levy, ‘Macrocosm and Microcosm’, 640–41.

CHAPTER FOUR

109

Various Stoic thinkers expressed some form of macro/microcosmic arguments. The clearest statement on the matter can be found in Seneca (Ep. 65.24): ‘God's place in the universe corresponds to the soul's relation to man. World-matter corresponds to our mortal body; therefore let the lower serve the higher.’49 Donald Levy has argued that this macro/microcosmic thought is related to the Stoic doctrine of sympathies and antipathies.50 L. Stein has argued that the Stoics drew an analogy between man and the universe on the basis of their doctrine of pantheism, although Conger believes that Stein’s methodology is open to criticism.51 In several places, Stoic use of microcosm is directly connected to Stoic ethics. For example, Chrysippus stated that man’s purpose is to contemplate and emulate the world, since man is a particle thereof.52 Philo has significant things to say about macro/microcosm, including the explicit use of the terms βραχὺς οὐρανός (Opif. 82) and βραχὺς κόσµος (Mos. 2.133–135, Plant. 28, and Post. 55–58). One particular way in which Philo made use of microcosmic teachings was to explain away any implied anthropomorphism in man’s creation in the image of God. Philo draws upon the Stoic analogy that God is to the universe what the soul is to man.53 If that is true, then it follows that the image of God of Genesis 1 applies only to the true man, i.e. the soul, and not to the body.54 Another way that Philo avoids anthropomorphism through microcosmic doctrine is by establishing the image of God as an intermediate state between God and man. On this basis, Philo establishes that the image of God occupies an analogous intermediatory space as the sky/heavens do. Thus, it is fitting that the first and last creations were both intermediates—the 49 Gummere, trans., Seneca, Epistles

I.

50 Levy, ‘Macrocosm and Microcosm’, 641. 51 Conger, Theories of Macrocosms and Microcosms in the History of Philosophy, 11–12. 52 Quoted by Cicero, De natura deorum 2.58. See Conger, Theories of Macrocosms and Microcosms, 15–16. 53 Philo, Opif. 69–71; see also Leg. I.91–92; Abr. 74, 272; Migr. 184–186. 54 Conger, Theories of Macrocosms and Microcosms in the History of Philosophy, 16–17.

110

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

heavens and man created in the image of God.55 Philo makes use of the notion of man as microcosm in several other places, such as when he describes the significance of the number 7 in both the heavens (with the seven spheres) and man (with the seven divisions of the soul).56 Probably due to the influence of Philo, micro/macrocosmic thought can also be found in the Alexandrian Christian tradition. Clement of Alexandria expresses the idea that, in a musical fashion, the Logos tunes both the universe and each individual human, who is a miniature universe (Protreptikos 1).57 Likewise, Origen articulates that man is a microcosm of the heavens.58 Given the strong influence that Origen had on the thought of Ambrose, this could partially explain the Milanese bishop’s interest in micro/macrocosmic thought. Neoplatonism made more explicit use of micro/macrocosmic theories than earlier forms of Platonism had.59 In the metaphysical system of Plotinus, the entire cosmos is treated as a single creature, which opened up the possibility of understanding the world on the basis of the individual.60 Plotinus drew an analogy between his tripartite division of the soul (the soul in contact with the Mind, the soul that vivifies the terrestrial body, and the intermediate state of discursive thought) and the three hypostases (the One, the Mind, and the Soul).61 He draws a micro/macrocosmic analogy between the

55 Conger, 17–18. 56 Opif.

104–128.

57 Bostock, ‘Origen and the Pythagoreanism of Alexandria’, 474.

Origen, Hom. Gen. 1.2, trans. by Heine, FaCh 71: ‘For since everything which God was to make would consist of spirit and body,… therefore, that first heaven indeed, which is spiritual, is our mind, which is also itself spirit, that is our spiritual man which sees and perceives God. But that corporeal heaven which is called the firmament, is our outer man which looks at things in a corporeal way.’ See also Origen, Hom. Gen. 1.11; Hom. Lev. 5.2. 59 Conger, Theories of Macrocosms and Microcosms in the History of Philosophy, 23. 60 Plotinus, Enneads 4.4.35. 61 Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy, IV, 376. 58

CHAPTER FOUR

111

world soul and the individual soul.62 Moreover, since the Soul lies on the boundary of the intelligible and sensible worlds, Plotinus can state that the soul is all things and that each person is an intelligible world.63 Plotinus’s belief in the sympathy between all things, just like the parts of a living creature, touched upon some astrological ideas. Souls conform to the order of the cosmos, and their fates are signified in the stars. 64 The micro/macrocosmic thought of Plotinus saw continued life in the works of his successors. Porphyry called man µικρός διάκοσµος.65 Calcidius repeats the idea that man is formed from the same elements that compose the world and that man is a mundus brevis.66 Proclus thought that one must fully discuss the nature of man in describing a theory of the world because all things that are contained in the world are contained partially in man.67 Overall, this doctrine became an integral part of the new Platonism, and it continued to have influence into the Middle Ages. In light of this Neoplatonic background, Ambrose’s special interest in Philo’s comments about man as microcosm becomes even more understandable. While the micro/macrocosm between humanity and the world and/or heavens was in an inchoate form in Philo’s time, it had fully developed by the age of Ambrose. Philo had placed micro/macrocosmic theory within the context of a biblical worldview, and this combination must have been irresistible to Ambrose in his desire to engage his culture. Thus, the Milanese bishop brings to the fore this answer to the quaestio, and he adds further elaboration.

62 Plotinus, Enneads 4.3.10. 63 Plotinus, Enneads 3.4.3. See Conger, Theories of Macrocosms and Microcosms in the History of Philosophy, 22, who notes that this line of thought opens the way for epistemological microcosmic theories. 64 Conger, 23. 65 Conger, 23. 66 Commentarius in Timaeum Platonis, 200, 230. 67 Conger, Theories of Macrocosms and Microcosms in the History of Philosophy, 23–24.

112

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

AMBROSE’S N EAR DELETION OF PHILO ’S SECOND ANSWER While Ambrose had philosophical reasons to fixate upon Philo’s microcosmic thought, he had theological reasons to ignore Philo’s second answer. Philo proposed that God’s rich supply for man in his time of innocence and God’s subsequent withdrawal of some of these blessings after the fall demonstrates that man lives within an ethical universe. The Alexandrian philosopher concludes that God would once again graciously provide Edenic blessings to humanity if they would only moderate their passions and pursue virtue. Ambrose retains only the barest portion of Philo’s text on this subject, namely a short discussion of virtue and vice. This small borrowing is used in support of the argument that Ambrose has been building through his use of Philo’s 1st and 3rd arguments, namely that humanity holds a privileged place in God’s creation. Ambrose uses Philo’s words to argue that God’s special purpose for humanity is on display when the virtuous man resists vice, for humankind is ‘fashioned for righteousness, the judge of right among other living creatures’.68 In this, Ambrose draws an analogy that humanity is to the animal world as Christ is to humanity, thus anticipating Philo’s fourth argument, which follows in the next paragraphs. The most telling omission is that Ambrose does not assert that God’s blessings are connected to humanity’s moderation of the passions. Rather, he focuses on how Christ is the consummation of the Law and the redemption of the perishing. It appears that Ambrose is not comfortable with the anthropological and soteriological implications of Philo’s thought. Ambrose was committed to the doctrine of original sin. Because human beings after the fall were born in corruption, it was not possible for them to moderate the passions apart from the work of Christ. It was Ambrose’s understanding that humanity in the fallen state was incapable of pursuing virtue, and this stance would later influence Augustine in his fight against Pelagius.69 In fact, Ambrose adds a statement on human depravity to his short borrowing of Philo’s second answer: ‘Yet what is the comparison 68 Ep. 29.13, Beyenka, trans., Saint 69 Kelly, Early

Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 260. Christian Doctrines, 353–57; Wiley, Original Sin, 62–76.

CHAPTER FOUR

113

when He redeemed those who were perishing, and we put them to death—He called slaves to liberty and we put the free in captivity? But who is equal to God?’70 Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Ambrose would have been uncomfortable with Philo’s second answer and thereby largely ignored it in the present epistle. Ambrose makes this adaptation of his source on the basis of theology, not philosophy.

FOUR ANSWERS OR ONE ANSWER ? In approaching the question of why the human being was created last during the creation week, Philo provides four distinct answers. At a textual level, Philo’s second, third, and fourth answers are each preceded by a sentence of transitional material, which explicitly numbers them (see table C below). Philo’s organizational principle follows traditional Jewish exegesis, where an exhaustive collection of possible explanations or scholarly opinions are provided in the form of a lively debate. The same approach can also be found in pagan and Christian commentary, so it is hardly an exclusively Jewish practice. In presenting the quaestio concerning the reason that humanity was created last, Philo draws upon multiple interpretations, which he places side-by-side for the reader to consider individually.71

70 Ep. 29.13, Beyenka, trans., St.

Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 260. Jobling, ‘“And Have Dominion...”: The Interpretation of Gen. 1, 28 in Philo Judaeus’, 81, puts it as follows: ‘Whenever there are alternatives, [Philo] chooses both… But it is precisely in these ambiguities that Philo’s importance lies for the history of exegesis. He drew together all the lines of interpretation of Gen. 1, 28 current in his time, and greatly enriched them.’ 71

114

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Table C: Transitional words used in Philo, De opificio mundi 77– 88 to introduce each of the four answers, compared to the transitional words used in Ambrose, Letter 29 to introduce the same answers Philo Topic Covered Para. # in Philo, Opif. 77–88 77b First Answer : Anthropocentric cosmos 79 Second Answer: Man is placed in an ethical universe; the virtuous man resists vice

82

Third Answer: Man as microcosm

83

Fourth Answer: Human beings are God’s viceregents over the animals

Transitional Ambr. Topic Covered Transitional Words Para. # in Ambrose, Words Ep. 29 First Answer : Etenim 3 οὖν Anthropocentric cosmos 12 The virtuous N/A ἥδε µὲν man resists vice [Not a new αἰτία πρώτη paragraph in … Faller] δευτέραν δ᾽… Third Answer: Specta aliud 7 δευτέρα µὲν Man as microαἰτία ἥδε cosm λελέχθω, τρίτη δ᾽ ἐστὶ τοιάδε Fourth Answer: Tamen 14 ἐπὶ πᾶσι Human beings µέντοι are God’s viceκἀκεῖνο regents over the animals λέγεται πρὸς ἀπόδοσιν αἰτίας ἀναγκαίας

Runia believes that the four answers given by Philo are ‘mutually complementary’, although ‘the last is probably regarded as the most important’.72 First of all, the very context of the passage would suggest that the last in a sequence is given the place of honor because Philo is arguing that man is exalted by being created last. Furthermore, the expression used to introduce the last answer, ἐπὶ πᾶσι, could indicate that this fourth answer is the climax of Philo’s exegesis.73 Finally, by giving the fourth answer the ‘last word’ on the subject, it is implied rhetorically to be the most important. 72 Runia, On 73 Runia, 255.

the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 245.

CHAPTER FOUR

115

Ambrose, by contrast, presents the multiple answers of Philo as a single argument. This is evident even on a textual level. Ambrose never explicitly numbers the Philonic answers, and he makes minimal use of transitional words (see Table C above). In fact, there is not a distinctive difference between the kind of transitional words that he uses to introduce each of the four Philonic answers and those that he uses within each of those answers (see Table D below). Thus, there are no indicators in Ambrose’s structure that he views these answers independently of one another. Moreover, Ambrose has nearly eliminated Philo’s second answer, and yet he preserves some of its wording, now bereft of its original function. The result is that Ambrose presents a harmonization of Philo’s first, third, and fourth answers. Humanity as center, humanity as microcosm, and humanity as vice-regent are amalgamated into a single explanation with three aspects. Thus, the diversity of opinion preserved in Philo is transformed into a single, authoritative exegetical statement in Ambrose. Table D: Transitional words used by Ambrose in Letter 29, distinguishing between those that introduce one of Philo’s four answers (grey background) and those that do not (white background) Para. #

Topic Addressed by Ambrose

Transitional Words

1

Introduction of the primary question; secondary question

2

Answer to secondary question

Et

3

Philo’s First Answer: Anthropocentric cosmos; Metaphor of Banquet

Etenim

4

Metaphor of atheletic event

Accipe aliud

5

Further elaboration on metaphor of athletic event

Igitur

6

Digression: earth is man’s training ground

Sed

7

Philo’s Third Answer: Man as microcosm

Specta aliud

8

Digression: interpretation of Isaiah 66:1

9

Compare and contrast the heavens and man

Ergo [No paragraph break in Faller] N/A [No paragraph break in Faller]

10

Man is a partaker of the divine nature

N/A

11

Repetition: Anthropocentric cosmos (taken from Philo’s 1st answer)

Itaque

116

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

15

Philo’s Second Answer (incomplete): The virtuous man resists vice Man is inferior to Christ, yet redeemed by him Philo’s Fourth Answer: Human beings are God’s vice-regents over the animals Flight of the mind (taken from another section of Opif.)

16

Animals are easily tamed by man

17

Benefits of taming the animals

12 13 14

18 19 20

Digression: man is the master of land, see and air (taken from another section of Opif.) Summary: the earth was made for the benefit of man Examples of biblical wonder workers

N/A [No paragraph break in Faller] Ergo Tamen Namque [No paragraph break in Faller] Igitur; ut revertar, unde digressus sum N/A [No paragraph break in Faller] Sed Ergo Etiam

CONCLUSION As Ambrose borrows from Philo in Letter 29 [PL#43], he does not merely regurgitate his source, but he carefully curates the material according to his own theological and philosophical biases. Some parts of Philo’s thought find greater emphasis in Ambrose’s treatment, in particular the concepts of man as a microcosm and of the flight of the mind. Philo’s micro/macrocosmic thought appealed to Ambrose on both theological and philosophical grounds. The strong emphasis on man as microcosm in contemporary Neoplatonic discourse would have made this topos especially relevant to Ambrose. Moreover, the Bishop of Milan would have been interested in Philo’s particular approach to this topic, in that he connected it to the biblical creation account and grounded it in Judeo-Christian theology. Origen’s usage would have further cemented the possibility for an orthodox Christian reception of this idea. As for the flight of the mind imagery, Ambrose was most likely interested in it for its use in contemporary philosophy. However, Ambrose deliberately chose not to borrow other elements of Philo’s discussion. In particular, he ignored Philo’s arguments concerning the ethical universe into which God placed humanity because this material would have been objectionable to Ambrose on a theological level. Philo’s treatment of the material was not compatible with Ambrose’s anthropology, which was committed to a deep corruption caused by original sin. It also raised concerns for

CHAPTER FOUR

117

Ambrose in the area of soteriology, for Philo’s approach allowed for man to moderate his passions and pursue virtue apart from the work of Christ. Finally, Ambrose altered Philo’s overall structure in addressing this quaestio. Whereas Philo preserved diversity of opinion and provided exegetical options, Ambrose was interested in providing one definitive interpretation of the text, albeit with multiple complementary aspects. Overall, this letter provides a great deal of insight into Ambrose’s adaptational choices in dealing with a source that he admired but with which he was not in full agreement.

CHAPTER FIVE. AMBROSE’S USE OF PHILO’S DE OPIFICIO MUNDI IN LETTER 31 [PL#44] In De opificio mundi 89–128, Philo is commenting on Genesis 2:1–3, which concerns the seventh day of the creation of the world. Here the Alexandrian philosopher provides a particularly extended discourse on the significance of the number seven and why God would choose to bless and hallow it. Philo’s extended encomium of the sacred hebdomad displays a detailed knowledge of mathematical lore, and parallels to this material can be found in a wide range of Jewish, Christian, and pagan literature. This text could be classified as a particularly in-depth collection of number symbolism of the Neopythagorean variety. In Letter 31 [PL#44], Ambrose is again addressing a question from the presbyter Horontianus concerning the creation. While the exact question is not clear, Ambrose’s answer concerns the symbolic significance of the numbers seven and eight. The arithmological material concerning the number seven is almost entirely drawn from Philo’s discussion of the topic, focusing on the latter half of that text (Opif. 104–105, 113–124). Ambrose specifies that he considers Neopythagorean material to be deficient, which explains his lack of borrowings from the first half of Philo’s treatment. As for the number eight, Ambrose provides original material, based on the long-standing Christian tradition of eight as the number of the New Covenant. First, the nature of Philo’s use of numbers and where he fits within the wider tradition of ancient arithmology will be discussed. Then, this study will observe the role of number symbolism in early Christianity, in order to understand the background for Ambrose’s adaptational choices. Next, Ambrose’s Letter 31 [PL#44] will be 119

120

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

studied in greater detail with an eye toward understanding what forms of arithmology were acceptable or unacceptable in the mind of Ambrose. The Milanese bishop’s use of the number eight will also be examined. Finally, some conclusions will be reached concerning Ambrose’s use of his Philonic source in this epistle.

CONTENTS OF OPIF. 89–128 Philo’s discussion of the number seven in De opificio mundi 89–128 is an excursus in every sense of the word. He diverges from his main line of argument in order to indulge in providing one of the most complete catalogs of arithmological lore on the hebdomad in all of ancient literature. This excursus disproportionately occupies 23% of the total treatise by chapters and 24% of it by lines.1 Several features make it clear that this material was taken over from Greek Neopythagorean sources, such as the frequent references to Greek mythology, the quotations from classical authors, and the strong parallels with other extant works.2 It is also possible that there may have been some Jewish antecedents to Philo’s arithmology. For example, the fragments of Aristobulus indicate some similarities in method.3 According to Horst Moehring, it is Philo’s habit to begin a section with a statement of its richness, depth, and complexity (as he does here) when he intends to make use of a diverse array of sources. 4 Whether this is always true or not, Philo certainly stands within a tradition of Greco-Roman and Hellenized Jewish thought, and he most likely makes use of a range of Greek and Jewish sources for this list. A shorter inventory of arithmological lore on the number seven also occurs in Philo’s Legum Allegoriae 1.8–15, and this list is almost certainly dependent upon the longer one in De opificio mundi.5 It is also likely that parallel material existed in a lost treatise by Philo. On

1 Moehring, ‘Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool’, 154. 2 Moehring, 159. 3 Preserved in

Eusebius, Praep. ev. 13.12.11–13. Moehring, 'Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool', 154; David T. Runia, 'Philo’s Longest Arithmological Passage', 155. 5 Moehring, ‘Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool’, 159. 4

CHAPTER FIVE

121

a handful of occasions, Philo refers to a non-extant work that he wrote, On Numbers.6 Most likely, this was an early work of Philo’s, and it seems to have been lost not long after his own time. There is a slight chance that the Byzantine antiquarian John Lydus knew this work, but it is not probable. On Numbers dealt with, at a minimum, arithmological interpretations of the numbers 1 through 10, as well as 40 and 100.7 Presumably, Philo’s treatment of the number seven in this lost work would have been similar to that found in De opificio mundi, given the depth of the numerical lore in the latter work. The exact structure of Philo’s excursus in De opificio mundi 89–128 has been the matter of some scholarly debate. Robbins identified three major transitions that Philo himself introduces into the text at Opif. 95, 101, and 111, though he believes that these had been adapted from Philo’s sources.8 Karl Staehle divided the excursus into two parts based on the distinction between the noetic world (Opif. 91–100, 106–111) and the sensible world (Opif. 101–105, 112–127).9 However, there are several sections of Philo’s excursus that are anomalous according to this scheme.10 Roberto Radice suggested some useful amendments to Staehle’s outline, once again identifying the main transition of the text standing at Opif, 101, as Philo moves from the supersensible to the sensible realms.11 Runia has attempted to be more sensitive to the signposts that Philo himself provides, and that has led him to adopt a structure based on a major transition at Opif. 110, as Philo moves from mathematical features to physical fea-

6 Opif. 16, 43, Mos. 2.11, QG 2.14, 4.110, 3.49, and 4.151. See Robbins, ‘Arithmetic in Philo Judaeus’, 359–60. 7 Robbins, 360. 8 Robbins, ‘The Tradition of Greek Arithmology’, 109. 9 Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik bei Philon von Alexandreia. 10 Runia, ‘Philo’s Longest Arithmological Passage’, 157–58: ‘There are diverse anomalies, the most striking of which are the following: (I) the relation between arithmetic and music; (II) the double transition from the intellible to the sensible realm; (III) the location of the theme of the moon’s phases; (IV) the location of the theme of the ages of humankind.’ 11 Radice, ‘Commentario a la Creazione del Mondo’, 281.

122

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

tures of the hebdomad.12 Runia asserts that Philo would have allowed for mathematical features to be present in the physical world, and so the discussion of the moon phases falls in the first half of the excursus. Within the second half, Runia subdivides it into three main areas of interest: the heavens (Opif. 111–116), the human being (Opif. 117–125), and human sciences (Opif. 126–127). As Philo moves through the excursus, his presentation becomes more rushed, indicating that he was aware that this section was becoming ungainly in its length. Table E: Contents of Philo’s De opificio mundi 89–12813 Paragraph #

89 90

91 92–94

95–96 97 98 99–100

101 102

12 Runia, On

Topics under Discussion I. Introductory section 1. God honored the seventh day as the birthday of the cosmos 2. Not possible to adequately celebrate the number seven II. Mathematical features of the number seven 1. Seven within the decad and outside the decad 2. The seventh number by multiplication of the unit yields both a square and a cube—symbolizes incorporeal and corporeal being 3a. Seven produces the harmonic ratios 3b. Seven produces the right angle 3c. Seven is the basis for two- and threedimensional bodies 4a. Seven is the only number of the decad that is neither product nor factor; likened to Athena and the Director of the universe 4b. Seven days in each of the four phases of the moon 5a. Seven is the ‘completion-bringer’— illustrated by stereometry: every body has three dimensions and four limits

Paragraph # of Ambrose’s Borrowings in Letter 31

3

the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 260–64. This table is adapted from Runia, ‘Philo’s Longest Arithmological Passage’, 158. The paragraph numbers of Ambrose’s borrowings have been added.

13

CHAPTER FIVE 103–105 106 107–110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124a 124b 124c 125 126a 126b 127 128

5b. Solon—ten stages of life of seven years each Hippocrates—seven stages of life 5c. Seven has the qualities of both a surface (square) and a solid (cube) 6. Seven is the source of arithmetical, geometric, and harmonic proportions III. Features of seven in the physical realm 1. The nature of seven is found in visible reality 2. Seven occurs in the heavens—seven heavenly circles seven planets seven stars in Ursa Major seven stars in the Pleiades equinoxes occur in the seventh months 3. Seven occurs in humans—seven parts of the irrational soul seven external and internal parts of the body seven orifices of the head seven visible qualities seven modulations of the voice seven basic movements seven secretions Hippocrates: in seven days the seed is fixed & flesh is formed menstrual flow lasts up to seven days seven-month old fetuses are viable illnesses reach their crisis at seven days 4. Seven influences the sciences—music: seven-stringed lyre grammar: seven vowels 5. Seven is etymologically linked to venerability and dignity IV. Conclusion: Moses honors the number seven as the holy day

123 12–13

3 3 11

15 4

4

ARITHMOLOGY IN GREEK PHILOSOPHY At this point, it would be helpful to define a few terms: arithmetic, mathematics, arithmology, numerology, and number symbolism.14 Arithmetic is ‘the study of the properties and operations of discrete numbers’.15 Properly speaking, mathematics was used in antiquity as 14 For a detailed discussion of the challenges associated with terminology, see Kalvesmaki, The Theology of Arithmetic, 3–5. 15 Kalvesmaki, 4.

124

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

a more general term than arithmetic. Mathematics comprised all of the numerical sciences—arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy—which were known as the tesseres methodoi by the Greeks or the quadrivium in the Middle Ages. A wide range of ancient authors employed numbers in ways that go beyond the mere mathematical, practices which are often referred as arithmology or numerology. This study will distinguish between the two terms, with arithmology being a more neutral term and numerology referring specifically to uses of number that were intended to reveal occult knowledge or prognosticate. Number symbolism will be used as a synonym of arithmology. Number symbolism may date as far back as the invention of numerical systems, since the symbolic use of number can result from the human impulse to find order in the cosmos.16 For example, the ancient Babylonians had their own catalogs of arithmological lore. However, for the purposes of this study, the story will begin with Pythagoras. Very little is known for certain about Pythagoras other than the bare details of his biography.17 Walter Burkert argued that, while Pythagoras is best known as a mathematician in the later sources, a different picture emerges when one focuses on the earliest and least corrupt sources, which are primarily Plato and Aristotle. There Pythagoras is revealed as a religious leader whose chief concerns are for ritual and the fate of the soul after death.18 Regardless of what Pythagoras himself taught, his followers divided into factions Yarbro Collins, ‘Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature’, 1224. 17 See Gregory, ‘The Pythagoreans: Number and Numerology’, 22–23: ‘Pythagoras was born on the Greek island of Samos c. 570 BCE and died c. 490 BCE. Around 530 BCE he relocated to Croton in southern Italy, which became a center for the Pythagoreans. It is said that Pythagoras travelled widely in his youth, to Egypt and other parts of Africa, to Babylonia and possibly even to India.’ 18 Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. In an earlier study, Plato und die sogenannte Pythagoreer, Erich Frank had taken an even more negative position on Pythagoras. For a more positive reevalution of the evidence, see Kahn, Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans. 16

CHAPTER FIVE

125

(known in the sources as the akousmatikoi and mathematikoi) and took Pythagoreanism in various directions. For example, the early Pythagoreans Philolaus and Archytas seem to be more concerned with mathematical music theory than religious ritual. 19 There is great difficulty in distinguishing between individual Pythagoreans, but certain things can be said about the school as a whole.20 According to Aristotle, the Pythagoreans identified the principle of all things as number.21 They posited that the entire cosmos is ordered and dominated by number in its whole and in its individual parts, which brings about the rule of rationality and truth.22 In the Pythagorean unfolding of the numerical nature of the universe, they took part in both proper mathematics and number symbolism with no strong distinction between the two. While the school was popular for a time and even had a noticeable influence on Plato,23 it dwindled after the early 4th-century BCE.24

19 Gregory, ‘The Pythagoreans: Number and Numerology’, 47–48. 20 Reale, A

History of Ancient Philosophy, I, 59–60. Aristotle, Metaphysics A5.985b23–986a3: ‘The so-called Pythagoreans, who were the first to take up mathematics, not only advanced this study, but also having been brought up in it they thought that its principles were the principles of all things. And since of these principles numbers are by nature the first, and in numbers they seemed to see many resemblances to the things that exist and come into being—more than in fire and earth and water… since again, they saw that the modifications and ratios of the musical scales were expressible in numbers—since, then, all other things seemed in their whole nature modeled on numbers, and numbers seemed to be the first things in the whole of nature, they supposed the elements of numbers to be the element of all things, and the whole heaven to be a musical scale and a number.’ This is translated by John R. Catan in Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy, I, 61. 22 Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy, I, 65–66. 23 Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 3: “To begin with first principles, it seems clear that Plato, in his later years at least, had become more and more attracted by the philosophical possibilities of Pythagoreanism, that is to say, the postulation of a mathematical model for the universe… He arrived at a system which involved a pair of opposed first principles, and a triple divi21

126

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

A wide variety of pseudepigraphs attributed to Pythagorean thinkers appeared in the Hellenistic period, which reveals some interest in reestablishing Pythagoreanism. This so-called Middle Pythagoreanism had no or only an inchoate doctrine of the highest principles, the Monad and the Dyad, and it was influenced by the materialism and immanentism of the Stoics.25 It was not until the 1stcentury BCE that we find Pythagoreans in the Roman world writing under their own names, and the movement flourished in the first two centuries of the Christian Era. Prominent Neopythagorean figures include Publius Nigidius Figulus, Quintus Sextius and his circle, Apollonius of Tyana, Moderatus of Gades, Nicomachus of Gerasa, Numenius of Apamea, and his disciple Cronius.26 Furthermore, Pythagoreanism strongly influenced Middle Platonism, to the point at which it is often difficult to distinguish the two.27 Neopythagoreanism recovered the incorporeal and the immaterial, which had been lost in the systems of the Hellenistic age, on the basis of the doctrine of the Monad and the Dyad and numbers. They treated the numbers as supersensible entities with an independent reality.28 Moreover, many Neopythagoreans began to work towards a monistic system, distinguishing between the first and second Monad and placing the highest Monad into a place of prominence. The Neopythagoreans were also extremely interested in arithmological lore, and this would become a hallmark of the school.29

sion of levels of Being, which latter doctrine gave a vital central and mediating role to the Soul, both World Soul and individual soul.” 24 Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy, IV, 237–39. 25 Reale, 239–45. 26 Reale, 245–46. 27 Bostock, ‘Origen and the Pythagoreanism of Alexandria’, 465. 28 Berchman, ‘Arithmos and Kosmos’, 167–68: ‘In the context of a general philosophy of mathematics, Neopythagoreans claim numbers are not generalizations from our experience (mathematical psychologism), nor are they signs or a game played with signs (mathematical formalism). Rather, numbers are ideas or conceptually independent objects (mathematical realism).’ 29 Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy, IV, 246–49.

CHAPTER FIVE

127

Philo of Alexandria is one of the earliest and most complete witnesses to the arithmological traditions of Neopythagoreanism and Middle Platonism, even though he is not generally classified as a member of either of these schools.30 Philo himself was not a mathematician in any proper sense, and none of the mathematical or arithmological lore contained in his works can be said to be original to him.31 However, he displays extensive knowledge of the concepts and terminology of contemporary Greek arithmetic, especially the Pythagorean sort of arithmetic that Nicomachus of Gerasa recorded later.32 In the later tradition, Philo gained the epithet ‘The Pythagorean’. Clement is the first Christian author to mention Philo by name, and he saddles him with this title twice.33 The historian Sozomen gives the same epithet to Philo (Hist. eccl. 1.12.9), and Eusebius records that Philo was superlative in his zeal for Plato and Pythagoras (Hist. eccl. 2.4.3).34 These other references may depend on Clement. Clement seems to use this sort of terminology to mean not ‘member of a philosophical school’ but rather to indicate ‘affinity of thought with a philosophical school’ (for example, Clement’s use of the epi30 Berchman, ‘Arithmos and Kosmos’, 169: ‘Although Philo’s writings constitute one of the earliest and perhaps most comprehensive extant sources for Middle Platonism and Neopythagoreanism, no attempt is made to classify Philo as solely a Platonist or a Pythagorean. Not only are these elements but two of several constituent parts of Philo’s philosophical arsenal, but apart from the philosophical and arithmological passages proper, it is not even certain whether one can identify exactly what is Platonic or Pythagorean in his corpus.’ 31 Robbins, ‘Arithmetic in Philo Judaeus’, 346. 32 Robbins, 361. 33 Philo is called ‘the Pythagorean’ in Stromateis 1.72.4 and 2.100.3. The other times in which Philo’s name is dropped include Stromateis 1.31.1 and 1.152.2. Clement had access to the works of Philo, and he made large excerpts of these in at least eight places in the Stromateis. See van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis, 211–16. 34 Runia, ‘Why Does Clement of Alexandria Call Philo “the Pythagorean”?’, 2.

128

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

thet ‘Aristobulus the Peripatetic’).35 Clement’s association of Philo with Pythagoreanism may come from his extensive use of arithmological exegesis, or it may have been Clement’s way of denoting Philo’s Platonist tendency. 36 Runia favors the latter explanation, and he sees the title as a positive statement that would have boosted Philo’s status as a witness.37 However, Philo stood not only within the Greek mathematical tradition, but he was also part of the Alexandrian Jewish community, which had produced its own reflections on arithmology, as exemplified in Aristobulus.38 Much of Philo’s motivation for pursuing the mathematical sciences came from his Jewish understanding of the creation. Philo’s rationale can be summarized in his statement that ‘at all events [Moses] desires to show that the races of mortal, and also of all the immortal beings, exist according to their appropriate numbers’.39 Philo believed that the created world was orderly and rational and that this order and rationality was inherently arithmetical. Therefore, by focusing on Genesis from the perspective of number symbolism, Philo believed that he could grasp the nature of reali-

35 Runia, 8–10.

Runia, 12–13. For whatever reason, Clement never uses the term ‘Platonist’. 37 Runia, 6. 38 Aristobulus finds cosmic order by means of the hedomad, calling the Sabbath ‘a sign of the seven-fold principle, which is established around us, in which we have knowledge of human and divine matters. And indeed all the cosmos of all living beings and growing things revolves in series of sevens’ (Aristobulus, fragment 5, quoted in Yarbro Collins, ‘Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature’, 1254). Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos, 151–71, argues that Aristobulus probably based his use of number on a Jewish edition of Pythagorean texts. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, 163–69, argues that Aristobulus’s specific arguments derive from a Jewish tradition, but he has also borrowed the concept of the hebdomad as a principle of cosmic order from Pythagorean speculation. 39 Leg. 1.4, trans., Colson and Whitaker, PLCL I. 36

CHAPTER FIVE

129

ty, ‘namely that, cosmos, micro-cosmos (Israel), and Pentateuch are all related and reflect one another’. 40 Philo tried to demonstrate that the Bible and the best of Greek philosophical science were in full agreement. Therefore, he makes full use of Plato’s cosmology as found in the Timaeus, the arithmology of Neopythagoreanism, and Middle Platonist physics in order to explain the Mosaic creation account and to prove that it was in full agreement with the cosmic order.41 Furthermore, Philo asserts, ‘For as [Moses] always adhered to the principles of numerical science, which he knew by close observance to be a paramount factor in all that exists, he never enacted any law great or small without calling to his aid and as it were accommodating to his enactment its appropriate number.’42 Thus, Philo intends to show that Israel’s Law is in full conformity with nature and reason and is, therefore, superior to every other tradition in the Greco-Roman world.43 Even with the loss of Philo’s On Numbers, it would be possible to compile a very complete collection of Neopythagorean arithmology from Philo’s extant works alone.44 His exegetical methods are nearly indistinguishable from those of the arithmological interpreters

40 Berchman, ‘Arithmos and Kosmos’, 168. 41 Berchman, 196–97, reaches the following conclusions: ‘(1) The premises of the Timaeus are frequently used by Philo to explain the Mosaic account of creation. (2) The premises of Middle Platonic physics and later Pythagorean arithmology are an integral part of his exegetical approach. He employs this interpretation to demonstrate that the Genesis creation account is a philosophia naturalis. (3) The Timaeus and Neopythagorean physics and arithmology allow Philo to stress two points: (i) the nomos presented by Moses is a physis; (ii) the cosmic order described by Moses is of universal validity. (4) Philo assumes that the superiority of the Mosaic account of creation can be shown through Platonic physics and Pythagorean arithmology because Plato and Pythagoras learned their nomos and physis from Moses.’ 42 Spec.4.105. trans., Colson, PLCL, VII, 71–73. 43 Berchman, ‘Arithmos and Kosmos’, 191–195. 44 Robbins, ‘Arithmetic in Philo Judaeus’, 538.

130

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

of Homer (even though his results may vary).45 There is, however, one major difference between Philo and the arithmological tradition of the Pythagoreans. Whereas the Greek arithmologists are almost exclusively concerned with the numbers of the decad, Philo provides arithmological interpretations of any number he finds in the Old Testament, remarking also upon 13, 14, 15, 20, 24, 25, 28, 30, 35, 36, 40, 45, 49, 50, 55, 60, 70, 75, 80, 90, 99, 100, 120, 127, 165, 175, 200, 280, and 300. 46 Of chief interest for this study is the arithmological lore that came to surround the number seven, the hebdomad. Annemarie Schimmel suggests that seven gained such great significance in the minds of the ancients because of the cycles of the moon (4 x 7 days) or the seven planets.47 Runia speculates that it is because seven is the largest prime number in the decad. 48 Whether the source of the honor given to the heptad was astronomical or mathematical, it is worth noting the special place that seven has occupied across cultures— from Babylon to Meso-America, from China to Greece, from India to Rome, from Judaism to Christianity to Islam.49 Beginning in the 4th-century CE, the number seven came into greater prominence in Greek texts, possibly under the influence of Babylonian astrology 45 Förster, ‘The Exegesis of Homer and Numerology as a Method for Interpreting the Bible in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria’ in Brooke, ed., Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible. 46 13 in QG 3.61; 14 in QG 3.61, QE 1.9, and De sept. 18; 15 in QG 1.91; 20 in QG 4.27; 24 in QG 2.5; 25 in QG 1.91; 28 in QE 2.87; 30 in QG 2.5 and 4.27; 35 in QG 1.91; 36 in QG 3.49; 40 in QG 1.25, 2.14, 3.56, and 4.154; 45 in QG 4.27; 49 in QG 3.39; 50 in QG 2.5, 3.39, 4.27, Det. 19, Mos. 3.4, Spec. 2.21, and Contempl. 8; 55 in QG 1.83 and Mos. 3.4; 60 in QG 4.164; 70 in QG 1.77; 75 in QE 1.9 and Migr. 36; 80 in QG 3.38; 90 in QG 3.36; 99 in QG 3.39, 61 and Mut.1; 100 in QG3.39, 56, 4.151, and Mut. 1; 120 in QG 1.91; 127 in QG 4.71; 165 in QG 1.83; 175 in QG 4.151; 200 in QG 1.83; 280 in QE 2.87; 300 in QG 2.5. For further reading, see Robbins, ‘Arithmetic in Philo Judaeus’, 359. 47 Schimmel, The Mystery of Numbers, 129. 48 Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 265. 49 For a very detailed list of the significance of seven across world culture, see Schimmel, The Mystery of Numbers, 127–55.

CHAPTER FIVE

131

and ideas about the seven planets.50 Greek speculation about the hebdomad was especially appealing to Jewish interpreters, since the creation account in Genesis 1:1–2:4 had already given cosmic significance to the Sabbath.51 A wide range of Greco-Roman and Patristic authors present strong parallels to Philo’s arithmological excursus on the number seven. The most significant texts for the present discussion can be found in Table F below. The relationship of the various ancient arithmological writings is frustratingly complicated, akin to the problems of the Synoptic Gospels. Frank Robbins posits a dense web of connections, all stemming from a 2nd-century BCE Urtext. Within this web, Robbins places Philo most closely to Sextus Empiricus, Hermippus of Berytus, Clement of Alexandria, Anatolius, Proclus, and John Lydus (in roughly chronological order).52 Runia criticizes Robbins’s work, since his methodology of Quellenforschung is based on the questionable assumption that the ancient authors were only mechanically copying material and not re-working it for their own purposes.53

50 Roscher, ‘Planeten und Planetengötter,’ in Roscher, ed., Ausführliches Lexicon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie; Roscher, Die Hebdomadenlehren der griechischen Philosophen und Ärzte, 24–43. 51 Yarbro Collins, ‘Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature’, 1255. See also Weiss, ‘Philo on the Sabbath’. 52 Robbins, ‘The Tradition of Greek Arithmology’, 3, provides an excellent diagram of his theory. 53 Runia, ‘Philo’s Longest Arithmological Passage’, 159.

132

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

92 95 97 98 99 100 100

7 both square and cube 7 and musical harmony 7 and right-angled triangle 7 and geometry/ stereometry 7 neither factor nor product 7 maidenly, like Athena 7 image of Director of universe

John Lydus, On the Months

Ambrose, Letter 31

Macrobius, Commentary on the Dream of Scipio Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis

Anatolius, On the First Ten Numbers

Theon, Exposition

Nicomachus, Theolgoy of Arithmetic

Varro, Attic Nights

Philo, Legum allegoriae

Topic under discussion

Philo, De opificio mundi

Table F: The topics discussed in Philo, De opificio mundi 89–128 concerning the number seven in comparison with the following texts: Philo, Legum allegoriae 1.8–15; Varro in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 3.10 (or Censorinus, On the Birthday, 7, 11–14 or Favonius Eclogius, Disputation on the Dream of Scipio, 7–10); Nicomachus of Gerasa in Ps.-Iamblichus, Theology of Arithmetic 56–71; Theon of Smyrna, Exposition 103–104; Anatolius, On the first ten numbers 35–38; Macrobius, Commentary on the Dream of Scipio 1.6.5–83; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 6.139–145; Ambrose of Milan, Letter 31; John Lydus, On the Months 2.1254

x (x)

(x)

x

x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

(x) x x

x

x (x)

54 This table has been adapted from Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 301–2. The column for Ambrose, Letter 31, has been added. Key: x = strong parallel, (x) = weak parallel, o = parallel under another number.

CHAPTER FIVE

111

7 in phases of the moon 7 bodily dimensions and limits 7 in the ages of human life ages of man: Solon’s poem ages of man: Hippocrates’ quote 7 and the three proportions all things philhebdomadic

112

7 heavenly circles

113

7 planets

x

x

114

7 stars in Ursa Major

x

x

115

7 stars in Pleiades

x

116

118

equinoxes in the 7th month 7 non-rational parts of the soul 7 external parts of the body 7 internal parts of the body

119

7 parts of the head

120

7 objects of sight

101 102 103 104 105 107

117 118

121 122 123 124 124 124 125 126

7 modulations of the voice 7 motions of the body 7 secretions of the body Hippocrates on conception 7 days of menstrual flow fetuses viable at 7 months crisis in illnesses on the 7th day 7 strings of the lyre in music

126

7 vowels in grammar

127

etymology of 7

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

133 x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x 0

0

(x)

x

x x

x x

0 x

(x)

0

0 x

(x)

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

(x)

x

(x)

x

x

(x)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

(x)

x

x

(x) x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x x x

x

x x

x x

x

134

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

A few things are evident from this data.55 First of all, Philo proves to be thoroughly unoriginal. In fact, every item in Philo’s treatment is paralleled in other extant sources, except for the discussion of the seven secretions of the human body.56 Secondly, the parallels for the second section of Philo’s excursus (Opif. 111–127) are superior to those of the first section (Opif. 92–110). Third, the closest parallel to Philo’s excursus on the hebdomad can be found in Anatolius’s On the First Ten Numbers, although Philo’s version is much more expanded and detailed. Fourth, John Lydus’s On the Months includes strong parallels to Philo, including nine examples of extensive wordfor-word matches. Thus, Runia concludes that John Lydus drew directly upon De opificio mundi.57 Philo’s treatment of the number seven includes only three examples of distinctively Jewish content.58 In Opif. 89, he connects the six-day creation from Genesis 1 with the status of the number six as a perfect number; in Opif. 116, he discusses the national feasts of Israel in relation to the equinoxes in the seventh month; and in Opif. 128, he praises Moses for incorporating the number seven into the observation of the Sabbath. By contrast, Philo makes much more extensive use of Greek authors and Greek institutions in this particular excursus: Opif. 100 discusses Nike/Athena and Zeus and also quotes the Pythagorean Philolaus; Opif. 104 quotes Solon; Opif. 105 quotes pseudo-Hippocrates; Opif. 119 references Plato’s Timaeus 75D; Opif. 124 references Hippocrates; Opif. 126 references the seven vowels of Greek; Opif. 127 uses Greek and Latin etymologies; and Opif. 128 refers to the Greek mathematicians and astronomers.59 Furthermore, while Philo collected a large amount of material concerning the hebdomad, he actually made fairly minimal use of it in his exegetical work. Only six items of arithmological lore from the catalogs in Opif. 55 For a complete discussion, see Runia, 301–4.

If John Lydus is dependent on Philo (see below), then there is a second example that is unique to Philo: the identification of the hebdomad with the Director of the universe. Runia, 302. 57 Runia, 298–300, 304. 58 Moehring, ‘Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool’, 154–55. 59 Moehring, 155. 56

CHAPTER FIVE

135

89–128 and Leg. 1.8–15 are used in other Philonic treatises, and these all concern the gods and the planets/moon.60 In spite of this evidence, Runia points out that Philo’s Jewishness is decisive for the overall agenda of Philo’s excursus on the number seven. In particular, he notes that Philo brackets the entire section with distinctively Jewish material (Opif. 89 and 128). Thus, the pretext for the excursus is motivated by exegesis of the Old Testament, and its climax depends on Jewish interests. Moreover, Philo asserts that while the hebdomad was honored (timatai) by the Greek mathematicians, it was especially honored (ektetimetai) by Moses (Opif. 128). The point is that Moses recognized the special character of the number seven first, and his superior genius is vindicated by the mass of Greek thought that supports the same conclusion.61

ARITHMOLOGY IN THE CHURCH FATHERS Number symbolism was a part of Christianity from the 1st-century CE, which is entirely unsurprising, since the Old Testament makes extensive use of significant numbers (such as 3, 7, 10, 12, 40). Early Christians were also familiar with exegetical traditions born out of Second Temple Judaism, many of which used arithmology as a tool. The New Testament makes use of many of the same significant numbers as the Old Testament. For example, Jesus took 12 disciples (Mark 3:13–19) to match the 12 tribes of Israel, and Jesus was tempted in the wilderness for 40 days (Mark 1:12–13) to match the 40 years that Israel spent there. Nowhere is this use of significant numbers more evident than in the Revelation of John and other Apocalyptic literature. It seems 60 The complete list given by Moehring, 159, includes: Op. 99–100/Leg.1.15 & Mos. 2.210, QG 2.12, Spec. 2.56, Heres 170, Contempl. 65, Praem. 153, and Decal. 102 (the hebdomad is likened to Athena), Op. 100 & QG 2.12 (the hebdomad is likened to Zeus), Leg. 1.15 and Deus 11, 13 (the relationship between the hebdomad and the monad), Opif. 113/Leg. 1.8 & Spec. 2.57, Decal. 102, and QE 2.78 (seven planets), Opif. 101/Leg. 1.8 & Spec. 1.178 (seven days in each phase of the moon), and Opif. 117/Leg. 1.11 and QG 2.12 (the soul has seven parts). 61 Runia, ‘Philo’s Longest Arithmological Passage’, 172–73.

136

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

that the Book of Daniel set the agenda concerning the use of number for much of later apocalyptic literature. 62 Specifically concerning the number seven, Daniel contains the very confusing prophecy of the seventy sevens (Dan 9:24–27). Subsequently, seven becomes an important unit of time in 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and Revelation.63 In each of these texts, there is no attempt to precisely calculate the time of the end. Rather, symbolic numbers are used in a rhetorical fashion in order to speak about the end in terms of its fixed character (Rev 6:11), its nearness (Rev 17:10–12), and the time of tribulation that precedes it (Rev 11:2–3, 12:6, 14, 13:5).64 The number seven was also used in Apocalyptic literature to express cosmic order. For example, there are the seven mountains of 1 Enoch,65 and seven high angels appear in the Enochic literature and Revelation. 66 Seven was used as an organizing principle in a number of Jewish and Christian texts, although this is only made explicit in the Book of Revelation, with its 7 churches (Rev 1:4), 7 letters (Rev 2–3), 7 seals (Rev 5–8), 7 trumpets (Rev 8–11), 7 cups and 7 angels (Rev 15–17).67 Moreover, Christ is

62 Bovon, ‘Names and Numbers in Early Christianity’, 275. 63 See 4 Ezra 7:30–43, 5:13, 6:35, 9:23, 12:51; 2 Baruch 9:2, 12:5, 21:1, 47:2; Rev 5–17. 64 Yarbro Collins, ‘Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature’, 1268–69. 65 1 Enoch 18:6–9, 25:3, and 32:1. See Yarbro Collins, 1258–61. 66 Yarbro Collins, 1268.: ‘The motif of a company of seven high angels appears in the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36), the Book of the Heavenly Luminaries (1 Enoch 72–82), the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (2 Enoch), and Revelation. In those cases where there is any indication of the background for these seven beings, it seems to be the Hellenistic idea of the seven planets.’ 67 Yarbro Collins, 1272–73: ‘Two major Jewish apocalypses consist of seven sections, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. The Lord’s Prayer contains seven petitions; the gospel of Matthew records seven beatitudes and contains a group of seven parables in chapter 13. Seven functions as a formal principle in the messianic seventeenth psalm of the Psalms of Solomon and in certain midrashic works whose sayings go back to the Tannaitic period.’

CHAPTER FIVE

137

portrayed in Revelation 1:16 as holding seven stars.68 Overall, Revelation focuses on the cosmic significance of the number seven more so that its connection to the Sabbath.69 Gematria is an arithmological technique that is present not only in the apocalypses but also in other early Christian literature. Gematria has a long tradition in Jewish literature, and it is especially common in rabbinical literature, with numerous examples in the Talmud and Midrash.70 The principle behind gematria is that in many ancient languages, the signs for letters are also used as the signs for numbers. Thus, the numerical values of the letters in a word can be manipulated to provide exegetical insights. Perhaps the most infamous example of gematria is the mysterious number 666 in Revelation 13:18: ‘This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.’ While possible solutions to this riddle are legion,71 the general consensus seems to be that the number refers to 68 Boll, Aus der Offenbarung Johannis, 21, argues that the seven stars are those of Ursa minor, indicating that Christ controls the movement of the heavens, which are focused around this constellation. Jeremias, Babylonisches im Neuen Testament, 24, prefers to identify these stars as those of the Pleiades, since this constellation disappears and reappears in analogy to the death and resurrection of Christ. Rengstorf, ‘ Ἑπτά,’ in Kittel et al., eds, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, alternatively interpreted the seven stars as the seven planets, representing the Christ’s dominance of the cosmos, and he also wondered whether Christ’s superiority to the Roman emperors (who were sometimes linked with such an image in their coinage) may have been under consideration. 69 Yarbro Collins, ‘Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature’, 1275–76. 70 Ifrah, From One to Zero, 294. 71 Lupieri, A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John, 212–18, provides a number of interesting historical interpretations that add up to 666, including Τειταν (in Irenaeus), Ευανθας (in Irenaeus), Λατεινος (in Irenaeus), Βενεδικτος (referring to Pope Benedict XI, Ubertino da Casale), εκκλησια ιταλικα (Osiander), η αλαζονεια βιου (from 1 John 2:16, Luis de Alcazar), and ‫“( רומייות‬Roman-ness,” Martin Luther). Ifrah, From One to Zero, 306– 7, writes that some opponents of the Lutherans noted that LVTHERNVC

138

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Nero, for the Hebrew characters ‫ קסר נרון‬add up to 666.72 The same technique appears in the Epistle of Barnabas 9:8. There the number 318 from Genesis 14:14 and 17:23 is converted into its Greek equivalent (τιη), and these letters are interpreted as pointing to the cross (the shape of the tau) and Jesus (whose name begins with ιη).73 Clement of Alexandria knew of this gematria, but he rejects it and sees in this text the holy numbers 3, 8, and 10 (see below). The Sibylline Oracles 1.324–331 preserves some arithmological lore about the name of Jesus, based on the gematria of Ἰησοῦς equaling 888. Elsewhere in the Sibylline Oracles, gematria is used to obscure the names of the Roman Emperors.74 Cyprian also makes use of this arithmological technique to explain the significance of the sacred number 365.75 As significant as gematria was in certain strains of Judaism and

adds up to 666, to which the followers of Luther retorted that the values of the letters which are also Roman numerals in the Pope’s title Vicarivs Filii Dei also add up to 666. Lupieri, A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John, 217–18, shows that techniques not related to gematria have also been applied to this mysterious number. For example, 666 is a triangular number from 36, which is itself a triangular number from 8. 72 This could also explain the textual variant of 616, which is derived from the alternate spelling ‫קסר נרו‬. See Yarbro Collins, ‘Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature’, 1271. 73 Bovon, ‘Names and Numbers in Early Christianity’, 282: ‘The author of the Epistle of Barnabas believes in the divine origin of this teaching as well as in its implantation in us. The true meaning of Scripture can be known by the human mind, because there is a harmony between the external (the visible signs for 318) and the internal reality (the divine gift in us). But such a doctrine is not for everyone. Only the people of God, those who are worthy, can receive it and understand it and enjoy it.’ 74 Potter, ‘Sacred Numbers’ in Hornblower and Spawforth, eds, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 1053. 75 365 became a popular symbolic number after the establishment of the Julian calendar. See Ifrah, From One to Zero, 302: ‘In his De Pascha Computus, Cyprian writes that 365 is a sacred number because it is the sum of 300 (T, symbol of the cross), 18 (IH, first two letters of the Greek name of Jesus), 31 (the number of years that Jesus lived, according to Cyprian) and 16

CHAPTER FIVE

139

Christianity, this is not a technique favored by Philo, and its use was much less common in Christian circles by the time of Ambrose. The Christian conversation concerning the use of arithmology shifted considerably with the rise of the Valentinians. The Gnostic Valentinus (fl. 130s-150s CE) and the members of his school, which include Ptolemy and Marcus Magus, created a theology that was largely shaped by number symbolism and Pythagorean metaphysics.76 While several different versions of Valentinian protology exist, all of them have certain characteristics in common: an original unity (or duality) that is broken by events within the godhead, a salvation that transforms multiplicity into unity, and a heavy use of symbolic numbers. One of the more extended systems that has been preserved involved a Pleroma of 30 aeons or emanations of God (the Triacontad), consisting of the Ogdoad, the Decad, and the Dodecad. The lowest emanation of the Dodecad, Sophia, sought to contemplate the highest, the Forefather, and fell from the Pleroma. In her fallen state, Sophia experienced pain, fear, and distress, and so she called out to the Forefather and was restored. However, she left behind her Resolution and Passion, which are the sources of the extraPleromic cosmos. With the restoration of the Pleroma, two more aeons were projected, Christ and the Holy Spirit. Christ then entered the world as a means of salvation for the broken material world to which Sophia gave birth. The extra-Pleromic world, human beings in general, and each individual human being are tripartioned into material, soulish, and spiritual parts, based on the passion, repentance, and pregnancy of Sophia respectively. While this mythologizing may seem strange to modern eyes, it served a purpose. Joel Kalvesmaki observes that the Valentinian system ‘drew from the mathematics, philosophy, and mythology of their culture, and it was deployed to shape that same cultural terrain… the Valentinians used subtle terms (the year of Tiberius’s reign in which Jesus was crucified). This may explain why some heretics believed that the world would end in A.D. 365.’ 76 For a detailed survey of Valentinian theology, see Kalvesmaki, The Theology of Arithmetic, 27–60; Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, 174–205.

140

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

and concepts to signal to the cultural elite that they wanted to engage with them in science and philosophy.”77 This mythology encapsulates a meditation upon the source of diversity from unity. In addition to the numerically-inflected and Pythagoreanizing cosmology of the Valentinians, Gnostic writers also used elaborate systems of gematria, where one word is compared to another on the basis of numerical values of their letters. 78 This form of Gnostic speculation reached its apex with Marcus Magus (fl. 160–180 CE).79 He created an elaborate system based on the 27 characters of the Greek numeral system, which consisted of the 24 letters of the Greek alphabet plus 3 extra-alphabetic characters, in order to describe the Godhead. Among his many conclusions, Marcus Magus connected the name of Jesus with the number 888, which he related to the Ogdoad and the Decad.80 This is but a small taste of the speculative ends to which 2nd-century Valentinian Gnostics employed arithmological techniques and Pythagorean metaphysics. Orthodox Christianity pushed back against this extreme use of number symbolism, and this is most clear is the heresiological work of Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130 – c. 202 CE). Irenaeus asserted that God is the master of names and numbers (Adv. haer. 2.25.1) and that Marcus Magus imprisoned God in human names and numbers (Adv. haer. 1.15.1).81 He attacked the Valentinian speculations on four fronts: 1) they were capricious about applying numbers to the Godhead, 2) their theology depended on linguistic and mathematical habits that were culturally determined and not universal, 3) they applied patterns in the natural world inconsistently, and 4) they failed to follow the entire context of Scripture, as encapsulated in the Rule of Faith.82 77 Kalvesmaki, The

Theology of Arithmetic, 48. One to Zero, 302–6. 79 For a detailed survey of the theology of Marcus Magus, see Kalvesmaki, The Theology of Arithmetic, 61–83. 80 See the fragments preserved in Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.15.1–3. 81 Bovon, ‘Names and Numbers in Early Christianity’, 268. 82 Kalvesmaki, The Theology of Arithmetic, 121. See Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.14–16; 2.20–8 78 Many examples are available in Ifrah, From

CHAPTER FIVE

141

However, this did not mean that Irenaeus rejected arithmology altogether. In fact, he indulged in number symbolism of his own on many occasions. For example, he interpreted the ten men who helped Gideon in Judges 6:27 as pointing to iota, the Greek numeral for ten and also the first letter of Jesus’ name. Therefore, the text confirms that Jesus was helping Gideon.83 This particular example breaks Irenaeus’s own rule (#2 above) that one should not base biblical interpretation on culturally-defined habits. Even though Irenaeus was often inconsistent in his own use of arithmology, there are two lines that he did not cross. Irenaeus did not apply mathematics to the Godhead, and he did not use arithmology to produce results that are contrary to the Rule of Faith.84 He was firm that arithmology stands in a ministerial role vis-à-vis the apostolic tradition that he had received, and it should not be allowed to create a theology contrary to the wider context of Scripture. In doing so, Irenaeus was trying to define the orthodox limits of what sort of arithmological techniques were acceptable and what were not. Another early orthodox response to Valentianism can be found in Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 CE). The Alexandrian Christian tradition had taken a more positive stance toward Pythagorean philosophy and arithmology. Clement was deeply influenced by Pythagoreanism, and even refers to Pythagoras as ‘the Great’ in Stromateis 1.21. In general, Clement is more adventurous in his use of arithmology than Irenaeus. Even though Clement eagerly used the same techniques as the Valentinians did, his conclusions were recognized as orthodox and consistent with the Rule of Faith. In particular, he avoided mathematical explanations of the Godhead, and his use of the numbers that occur in nature was perfectly consistent with the generally accepted science of his day.85 Rather than viciously condemning his theological opponents as Irenaeus had done, Clement co-opted their exegesis toward orthodox ends. With Clement, we see an orthodox theologian who tried to reclaim both the name ‘Gnos83 Kalvesmaki, 118. 84 Kalvesmaki, 122–24. 85 Kalvesmaki, 150.

142

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

tic’ and the practice of speculative arithmology, wresting these away from the Valentinians, so that they could serve orthodoxy again. Whereas Irenaeus set limits, Clement pushed those limits to show the radical possibilities for speculative exegesis under the aegis of the apostolic tradition. 86 Clement of Alexandria displayed a great interest in and affinity to Philo’s arithmological approach, and he makes extensive use of Philo as a source of Pythagorean material.87 As mentioned above, Clement titles Philo ‘the Pythagorean’ in two different places. In Stromateis 2.46–52, Clement interposes extracts from Philo on the symbolism of the numbers 3, 9, and 10. 88 He is so consumed with his source that his train of thought only makes sense if one knows the Philonic background. Most significantly for this study, in Stromateis 6.139–145, Clement interprets the number seven in accord with the Neopythagorean tradition in a way that parallels Philo’s De opificio mundi in a number of points (see Table F above). Much like his fellow Alexandrian Clement, Origen had a more positive appraisal of Pythagoreanism. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.19.8) reports that he knew the writings of the Pythagoreans, and his treatises contain respectful references to them.89 In particular, Origen demonstrates ‘the essential Pythagorean belief that by contemplating the order and the beauty of heaven the soul could begin to absorb its wondrous harmonies which reflected the nature of God himself’.90 Origen’s Homilies on Numbers are particularly rich in arithmological speculations.91 Nonetheless, Origen showed considerably more re86 Kalvesmaki, 125. 87 Bostock, ‘Origen and the Pythagoreanism of Alexandria’, 475. See also van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis. 88 The extracts are from Congr. 83–106, Post. 22–29. 89 E.g. Contra Celsum 1.15 states, ‘How much better than Celsus is Numenius the Pythagorean.’ See Bostock, ‘Origen and the Pythagoreanism of Alexandria’, 466. 90 Bostock, 466. 91 Origen, Homilies on Numbers 1.1, states, ‘Not everyone is worthy of the divine numbering, but those who ought to be comprised within the num-

CHAPTER FIVE

143

straint than Clement in his approach to number symbolism. Origen generally avoided Pythagorean mathematics in his arithmology and instead focused on biblical associations. For example, Philo explained the significance of the number 50 by observing that it is the holy number seven squared plus one (the Monad) and also that it is the sum of the squares of the sides of the simplest right triangle (32 + 42 + 52).92 By contrast, Origen interpreted the same number as being the number of forgiveness, based on its use in the Jubilee year and the day of Pentecost.93 Thus, Origen reveals an increasing caution with regard to Pythagorean arithmology in early Christianity in light of the Valentinian heresy. On the other side of the coin, the Alexandrian Didymus the Blind is much closer to Clement in his use of number symbolism, perhaps because the threat of Valentianism had receded. Didymus fully endorsed Philo’s arithmology, as is clear from his reference to Philo in his Commentary on Genesis 147.15–18, where he refers the reader to Philo to discover the mystical explanation of numbers. Overall, his use of number is very consistent with Philo and Clement. 94 Among the Western Fathers, one finds several texts with a positive appraisal of Philonic arithmology. Jerome used Philo as a source of arithmological lore in two places, in both cases borrowing material about the seven ages of human life and crediting Philo by name.95 Ambrose made use of Philo as a source of arithmology, although his borrowings are complicated and will be discussed in more detail below. Augustine is often willing to indulge in number symbolism of a Philonic bent. For example, his reflections on the number six in the creation are reminiscent of Philo’s De opificio mundi 13.96 In contrast ber of God are designated by certain privileges.’ Trans. by Scheck in Hall, ed., Origen: Homilies on Numbers, 2. 92 Spec. 2.176–177. 93 Comm. Matt. 11.3. See Bostock, ‘Origen and the Pythagoreanism of Alexandria’, 475. 94 For a full discussion of Didymus’s use of Philo’s arithmology, see Rogers, Didymus the Blind, 143–64. 95 Commentarius in Amos 3.5 and Dialogus adversus Pelagianos 3.6. 96 De Genesi ad litteram 4.3.7–4.6.12; 4.32.49–50; and De civitate Dei 11.30.

144

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

to Ambrose, Augustine did not have reservations about including Neopythagorean mathematical lore. Moreover, Augustine flirted with a sort of mathematical realism.97 However, Augustine stays firmly within the Rule of Faith, while confidently making use of a wide range of mathematical knowledge and being very much in line with the Alexandrian tradition in this regard. Philo’s use of arithmology continued to have an influence on Christianity even to the end of antiquity. The Byzantine scholar John Lydus included a great deal of arithmological lore in his work On the Months, and it is likely that he directly borrowed from Philo in his treatment of the number seven. 98 Isidore of Seville represents another late example of this sort of arithmology in his Book of Scriptural Numbers.99 Overall, a wide range of Patristic sources have a favorable opinion of Philo’s number symbolism and/or use numbers in ways that are similar to what is seen in De opificio mundi. However, not all Patristic sources display a positive evaluation of Philo’s arithmology. The most significant of Philo’s critics was Theodore of Mopsuestia. In a text appended to the Syriac version of his Commentary on the Psalms, Theodore asserted that Origen had been led astray by Philo, who is maligned for using human arithmetic to interpret the Genesis creation account.100 In this, Theodore was the polar opposite of Didymus the Blind, who praised Philo for his use of number. However, this is unsurprising, since Theodore and Didymus represent the Antiochene and Alexandrian approaches 97 Augustine, Lib. 2.8.21: ‘I do not know how long any of the things will exist which I perceive through my physical sense organs, such as, e.g., this heaven and this earth and whatever other bodies I may observe. But 7+3 = 10, and not only now, but always; and there never was a time when 7 plus 3 was not 10, nor will there ever be a time when 7 plus 3 will not be ten. For this reason I have stated that this inviolable truth of number is universal in character, for me and for anybody who thinks at all.’ Translation by Berchman, ‘Arithmos and Kosmos’, 195. 98 Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 298–300. 99 He treats the number seven in chapters 34–37. 100 Theodore, Treatise against the Allegorists 15.10–17. See Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 1993, 265–69.

CHAPTER FIVE

145

respectively, and these two had many fundamental disagreements about biblical interpretation.

CONTENTS OF LETTER 31 [PL#44] For a second time, Ambrose is addressing a question about the Genesis creation account that was raised by the presbyter Horontianus.101 Unlike Letter 29 [PL#43], Ambrose does not explicitly mention what the question was in this case. From the content of the epistle, a few possibilities can be inferred. Ambrose’s discussion centers on the interpretation of the number 7 in the creation account and on the Christian tradition of the number 8 as the number of resurrection. Horontianus could have inquired about either of these numbers or about the use of number in the creation account in general. Ambrose begins the epistle with a secondary discussion before he arrives at the main topic in paragraph 3. The first two paragraphs draw upon a different section of De opificio mundi than the rest of the text does. First, Ambrose notes something that Horontianus mentioned in his letter, namely the distinction between God and the world as being the difference between the worker and his works. In order to support this assertion, he draws upon some of the wording of Opif. 8–12. Then, he transitions in the direction of the upcoming arithmological reflections by discussing the significance of number in general in the creation account. He pulls out the Philonic argument (Opif. 13) that the numbers in the Genesis account do not indicate that God needed time in order to create the world, but rather that God created the world in an orderly manner. From here, Ambrose launches directly into the primary text under consideration, Genesis 2:2, which leads him into an extended section about the arithmological significance of the number seven. However, he prefaces this section by disparaging the Pythagoreans: ‘The number seven is good; we shall treat it, not as do the Pythagoreans or other philosophers, but according to the form and divisions of spiritual grace.’102 With this caveat, he begins by providing five pieces 101 See discussion in chapter 4. 102 Ep. 31.3 [PL#44.3], Beyenka, trans., St.

Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 265.

146

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

of arithmological lore concerning the hebdomad, one of which comes from Scripture (Isa 11:2). The remaining four items are drawn from the natural sciences and borrowed from Philo (Opif. 113–114, 119, 124). The letter then abruptly pivots from the number seven to the number eight, using the topic of birth to bring up the topic of circumcision on the eighth day. From here, he provides interpretations of three Old Testament texts that use the number eight: Ecclesiastes 11:2, Hosea 3:2, and Micah 5:5. He also supports these interpretations with an argument drawn from Hebrews 3:7–4:10 and 13:7–8. Then, Ambrose seems to have remembered that he had been talking about seven, and so he returns to the hebdomad for a second time. He provides four additional pieces of arithmological lore. The first one, concerning the seven stars of the Pleiades, he dismisses by saying that he favors Christological interpretation. The other three receive more positive interest, especially the longer discussion of the seven periods (or seven-year periods) of human life, complete with quotations from (pseudo-) Hippocrates and Solon. Once again, all of this material is borrowed from Philo, although the order is switched around (Opif. 115, 105, 104, 118). Ambrose quotes Hippocrates before Solon, whereas Philo quotes Solon first. Finally, Ambrose returns to the number eight for a second time but this time with no arithmological lore. His argument has echoes of the Letter to the Hebrews, as he states that eight surpasses seven just as Christ surpasses the Old Testament priesthood. This leads him into a Christological doxology. At the end, there is a very brief epistolary closure formula. See Table G for more detail about the structure of the letter. Table G: Contents of Ambrose’s Letter 31 [PL#44] Paragraph #

1 2 3a 3b

Topics under Discussion

I. God the Creator and His Orderly Creation Distinction between God and World as Worker and Works The number of days of creation indicates order II. Significance of the Number Seven The Number Seven Rejection of the Pythagoreans

Paragraph # of Borrowings from De opificio mundi

8–12 13 100; Implicitly 91–110

CHAPTER FIVE 3c 3d 3e 4a 4b 5 6a 6b 7–8a 8b-9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Seven spiritual virtues Seven planets Seven stars of Ursa Major Example of the seven orifices of the head Example of a fetus that is viable at seven months III. Significance of the Number Eight Transition from Seven to Eight Exegesis of Ecc. 11:2 Example of circumicision on the eighth day Exegesis of Hosea 3:2 Exegesis of Micah 5:5 Support from Hebrews 3:7–4:10; 13:7–8 IV. Further Discussion of Seven Dismissal of the example of the seven stars of the Pleiades Christological significance of the stars Hippocrates—Seven periods of life Solon—Ten periods of seven years Applying the number eight to Hippocrates and Solon Examples of seven internal organs and seven external body parts V. Further Discussion of Eight Eight is superior to seven Eight supersedes seven Christ is superior to the Old Testament priesthood Doxological conclusion and closure formula

147

113 114 119 124

115 105 104

118

UNACCEPTABLE AND ACCEPTABLE FORMS OF ARITHMOLOGY IN THE T HOUGHT OF AMBROSE In this letter Ambrose rejects Neopythagorean arithmology by name and in no uncertain terms: ‘The number seven is good; we shall treat it, not as do the Pythagoreans or other philosophers, but according to the form and divisions of spiritual grace.’103 First of all, it is Ambrose’s general practice to drop names more frequently when he disagrees with the source, and this text is consistent with that habit. It is also worth noting that he identifies the problem as ‘the Pythagoreans or other philosophers’ and does not criticize Philo by name. Ambrose’s problem is specifically with Pythagorean arithmology, not with Philo himself. So, that raises an important question: did Ambrose reject Pythagorean arithmology on the basis of theological or philosophical differences? 103 Ep. 31.3 [PL#44.3], Beyenka, trans., St.

Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 265.

148

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

By the age of Ambrose in the late 4th-century CE, Neopythagoreanism had become passé. The New Platonism, whether in its pagan or Christian milieu, had become the dominant philosophy of the time. It is true that Neoplatonism has many parallels to its Neopythagorean forebears, yet Ambrose would not have been unusual for finding the older school to be obsolete. However, this alone does not explain the dismissive tone that Ambrose takes toward the Pythagoreans in Letter 31. Indeed, arithmology of a Neopythagorean bent continued to be collected and transmitted by Neoplatonists throughout this period and beyond. By examining the theological evidence, perhaps a better explanation can be found for Ambrose’s negative response. Ambrose’s negative appraisal of Pythagoreanism may have some relationship to the orthodox Christian rejection of Valentinian Gnosticism. Ambrose was familiar with the tenets of various Gnostic sects. For example, he quotes from the Syllogisms of the Gnostic Apelles by name in De paradiso, and he subsequently refutes his arguments.104 Likewise, Ambrose explicitly condemns the Manichaeans, Valentinians, and Marcionites for their rejection of the humanity of Christ (De fide, II.5.44). Ambrose also reveals his hostility toward the Valentinians specifically, when he argues in the defense of some monks who had destroyed a Valentinian shrine in retaliation for the disruption of a procession (Ep. 74 [PL#40]). In the course of presenting his case, Ambrose condemns the Valentinians as worse than pagans, since the pagans worship 12 deities, whereas the Valentinians worship 32 emanations of God.105 He further associates these two groups with one another by describing the Valentinian shrine as a fanum, a word that is normally only used of pagan temples. Ambrose’s hostility toward the almost extinct Valentinian sect may seem 104 Apelles is named in Parad. 5.28. His teachings are also referenced anonymously in Parad. 6.32; 7.35; 8.38; and 8.41. 105 Ep. 74.16 [PL#40.16]: ‘Shall the burning of the temple of the Valentianians also be avenged? What is it but a temple where the heathens gather? Although the heathens worship twelve gods, the Valentinians worship thirty-two Aeons, whom they call gods.’ Beyenka, trans., St. Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 13.

CHAPTER FIVE

149

odd, but it must be seen in the light of the contemporary debates about the religious value of the Old Testament. Manichaean and pagan attacks on the Old Testament and its interpretation were very relevant to Ambrose, and so he continues to fight battles against the Valentinians long after their expiration date. 106 As is his tendency, Ambrose conflates the opponents of Nicene Christianity, and so he sees Neo-Pythagorean arithmology as being tainted by Gnostic heresy. A number of parallels can be drawn between Ambrose’s rejection of Neo-Pythagorean number symbolism and the 2nd-century polemics against Valentianism. In many ways, Ambrose’s use of number mirrors that of his Western predecessor Irenaeus. Like Irenaeus, Ambrose is willing to utilize arithmology when it suits him. For example, in De Noe 15.52, Ambrose borrows Philo’s symbolic interpretation of the 15 cubits in Genesis 7:20. He also borrows some arithmetical lore from Philo in Letter 1 [PL#7]. He even uses a Pythagorean dictum (of a non-arithmetic variety) in Letter 6 [PL#28]. Nonetheless, like Irenaeus, Ambrose chooses not to apply arithmetic to the Godhead, and he does not stray from the Rule of Faith in his usage of number. Ambrose displays some reluctance about arithmological speculation, not only in Letter 31 but also in the Philo-influenced treatises De Cain et Abel and De Noe.107 For example, in Cain 2.9.34 Ambrose borrows from Philo’s Quaestiones in Genesim 1.75, where the sevenfold curse on Cain is related to the seven parts of the irrational soul. However, Ambrose dismisses this exegesis by saying, ‘The number seven of which we speak has better uses. It conveys ideas of rest and remission.’108 In Cain 2.3.12 Ambrose makes use of a Philonic arithmology from Sacr. 122 but in a vague manner that is barely comprehensible without knowledge of the original source.109 Thus, it is evident that Ambrose has a consistent approach to how he adapts Philonic arithmologies.

106 Burns, ‘Creation and Fall according to Ambrose of Milan’, 76. 107 Savon, Saint

Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif, 89. Cain 2.9.34. John Savage, trans., Saint Ambrose, Hexameron, Paradise, and Cain and Abel, FaCh 42, 433. 109 Savon, Saint Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif, 90. 108

150

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Furthermore, Ambrose shows himself to be a true inheritor of the Origenian tradition in how similar their approaches to arithmology are. This is not surprising, since Ambrose borrows from Origen almost as frequently as he does from Philo. Origen, unlike Clement, had shown caution in using Pythagorean mathematics in his arithmology, preferring biblical associations. This is echoed exactly in Ambrose’s rejection of Pythagoreanism in favor of ‘the forms and divisions of spiritual grace’. After the struggle with Valentinianism, Christian thinkers began to recognize the potential pitfalls of applying Neopythagorean metaphysics to Christian theology, and both Origen and Ambrose had taken their stand in the same way in order to avoid such spiritual dangers. However, Ambrose only mildly and anonymously rebukes Philo for his use of such arithmological schemes, and he is willing to use Philonic arithmological material that had been properly purged of problematic notions. So, what forms of number symbolism did Ambrose find acceptable? In Letter 31, Ambrose chooses to include two varieties: arithmology based on Scriptural examples and arithmology based on examples from the natural world. In this particular text, all of his examples from the natural world are directly borrowed from Philo’s De opificio mundi, whereas the Scriptural examples are Ambrose’s own original contribution. As mentioned before, Ambrose follows Origen in his preference for Scriptural illustrations of symbolic numbers. In his use of examples from nature, Ambrose shows a close affinity to Basil, whose Hexaemeron is rife with examples from contemporary natural science. Based on this Basilian background, the two categories are not actually so different. Basil had taught that contemplation of God’s creation was a form of devotional contemplation of God himself. Therefore, Ambrose is seen to study God’s two forms of revelation—the written revelation of Scripture and the natural revelation of God’s created order. Both of them give insight into the truth, and so they are placed on the same level in Ambrose’s discussion of the numbers seven and eight.

EXEGESIS OF EIGHT The other major element of Ambrose’s Letter 31 is his interpretation of the number eight. This arithmology of eight was not borrowed from Philo, but it represents an Ambrosian expansion upon his

CHAPTER FIVE

151

source. Indeed, Ambrose’s explanation of the number seven exists to drive the conversation to his real interest—the number eight as the number of the New Covenant. In doing so, Ambrose drew upon a long history of Christian interpretation about the number eight. The ogdoad had received attention in the Greco-Roman philosophers. The most commonly recited piece of lore about the number eight is that it is the first cube (23). Moreover, Philo praises the number eight as the crown of the number seven.110 The ogdoad also held a major role in the theology of the Valentinians, whose Godhead was often eight-fold. However, in orthodox Christianity all of this speculation about the number eight was overshadowed by the association of the number eight with the Resurrection. Jean Daniélou writes, ‘It was Christianity that gave the eighth day its importance; Christ rose on the day after the Sabbath, and thenceforward the eighth day is the day of the Resurrection, the Sunday, which distinguishes Christians from Jews.’111 Moreover, the New Testament recognizes a kinship between circumcision on the eighth day and baptism (Col 2:11–12; Rom 2:29 and 4:11) and also between baptism and the resurrection (Rom 6:3–4). For that matter, the connection between circumcision and the resurrection was articulated as early as Justin Martyr. 112 Thus, this trio—circumcision, baptism, and resurrection—are tied together and symbolized by the number eight in many places in the Christian tradition. For example, this is probably the reason that baptismal fonts are traditionally eight-sided.113 Baptism was already associated with the number eight in 1 Peter 3:18–22, which draws a typological connection to the eight human beings saved in Noah’s Ark. The first explicit reference to the eighth day can be found in the Epistle of Barnabas: “Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot tolerate” (Isaiah 1:13). You see how he speaks. Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but that is what I have made, namely that when 110 Spec.

2.211–212. Theology of Jewish Christianity, 397. 112 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 41. 113 Schimmel, The Mystery of Numbers, 158–59. 111 Daniélou, The

152

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION giving rest to all things (καταπαύσας τὰ πάντα), I will make a beginning on the eighth day; that is, a beginning of another world. Hence also we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead.114

Justin Martyr hints at a similar interpretation, but he is frustratingly not forthcoming: ‘It is possible for us to declare how the eighth day possessed a certain mystery (µυστήριον τι εἶχε), which the seventh day did not possess.’115 The Sibylline Oracles 1.324–331 also alludes to the significance of the number eight by revealing the Greek gematria of the name Jesus to be 888.116 An octave structure (first day/six days/eighth day) became a major feature of Christian liturgy and life. For example, Christians in the 4th-century celebrated the Easter Octave on the Sunday after Easter as a festival of renewal.117 Gregory of Nazianzus explains the symbolism of the Easter Octave in a sermon delivered on that day: ‘Last Sunday was the day of salvation, but today is salvation’s anniversary. Last Sunday revealed the boundary between the grave and the resurrection, but today reveals, in all its clarity, our second becoming.’118 Against this background, both Gregory of Nyssa and Basil write about the connection between the creation, the resurrection,

Barn. 15.8. Quoted by Itter, Esoteric Teaching in the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, 48. See also 2 Enoch 33.1; Paid. 3.12.90.3. See Ferguson, ‘Was Barnabas a Chiliast?’, 157–167; and Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 396. 115 Dial. 24.1. Quoted by Itter, Esoteric Teaching in the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, 48. See also Dial. 41.4; 138.1. 116 Bovon, ‘Names and Numbers in Early Christianity’, 283: ‘The text does not explain the value of this 888, but it was probably well understood by the initiated readers. It certainly meant a plenitude, since the number 8 has been accepted by Christians as the number of Resurrection (the first day of the week being the eighth day).’ 117 Blowers, Drama of the Divine Economy, 343. 118 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 44, cited in Blowers, Drama of the Divine Economy, 341–42. 114

CHAPTER FIVE

153

and the new creation.119 Thus, ‘the whole theology of the Sunday is now seen clearly; it is the cosmic day of creation, the biblical day of circumcision, the evangelical day of the Resurrection, the Church’s day of the Eucharistic celebration, and, finally, the eschatological day of the age to come’.120 An especially rich interpretation of the number eight can be found in Clement of Alexandria, who actually creates a rich web of connections between the numbers six, seven, and eight. In the background of Clement’s interpretation of these three numbers may lie Philo’s interpretation of the numbers six and seven. For Philo, the number six is the number of the created order, whereas the seven is the number of the divine. They relate to one another as earthly birth relates to divine birth or war relates to peace or practical arts relate to theoretical contemplation.121 The last comparison corresponds to Philo’s interpretation of the Sabbath day, as six days should be devoted to practical work, but the seventh day is meant for the contemplation of philosophy. Clement also sees a progression from six to seven, but he continues to what he regards as the even greater number eight in Stromateis 6.137.2–148.4.122 Clement uses the numbers from the Transfiguration account in order to demonstrate the symbolic significance of the hexad, hebdomad, and ogdoad.123 Clement borrows heavily from Marcus Magus in this case, but he ‘transfigures’ the interpretation in the direction of orthodoxy.124 Clement writes: So on this [eighth day] the Lord, as the fourth, after ascending the mountain becomes a sixth and is radiated by a spiritual light,

See Gregory of Nyssa, Homily on Psalm 6; and Basil, De spiritu sancto 27.66; and Hex. 2.8. 120 Daniélou, The Bible and the Liturgy, 266. 121 Weiss, ‘Philo on the Sabbath’, 94–100. 122 Kalvesmaki, The Theology of Arithmetic, 137–51. 123 Four figures (Jesus, Peter, James, and John) are joined by two more (Moses and Elijah) to make six, hear the divine voice (seven), and see Jesus revealed (eight). 124 Kalvesmaki, The Theology of Arithmetic, 148–51. 119

154

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION laying bare his power—as far as it is possible for those chosen to see to perceive—and heralded by the seventh, the voice, to be the Son of God, so that those who are persuaded about him might rest, while he, being an episemos ogdoad, might be manifest through his generation (which the hexad makes clear) as God, demonstrating his power in a bit of flesh: numbered as man, but keeping hidden who he was.125

Clement is arguing that this text reveals Jesus as both human (created on the sixth day) and divine (eight, representing perfection). It also shows that the goal of humanity is to move from creation (six) through the true rest (seven) into perfection (eight).126 Clement would also make the same argument using the nature of the Greek alphabetic system of numeration.127 According to Clement, ‘the eighth day is a cyclic return to the Primal Day, the first day of the sacred week of creation’.128 He describes the Christian life as a progression through seven stages, culminating in the perfection of the eighth. He also connects this system to the decad, by asserting that there is a sequence of three changes (unbelief to belief, belief to knowledge, knowledge to perfection), and the last of these three changes is sevenfold leading to the goal of the eighth (hence 1 + 1 + 7 + 1 = 10).129 He essayed to prove the validity of this enumeration through references to the rituals of Judaism130 125 Clement, Stromateis 6.140.3.10, trans., Kalvesmaki, 140–41. 126 Kalvesmaki, 142. 127 Clement, Stromateis 6.140.4–6.141.1, trans., Kalvesmaki, 143–44: ‘For the [number] six is included in the order of the numbers, but the sequence of the oral letters makes known that the ἐπίσηµοv is unwritten. Thus, according to the numbers themselves, each monad is preserved in sequence, up to the hebdomad and the ogdoad. But according to the number of oral letters, the zeta becomes sixth, and the eta seventh. But when the ἐπίσηµοv –I don’t know how—slips into writing (should we pursue it in this manner) the hebdomad becomes the sixth [letter], and the ogdoad the seventh.’ 128 Itter, Esoteric Teaching in the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, 49. 129 Itter, 38–39. 130 E.g., there are ten days of penitence in Jewish practice: two days for Rosh Hashannah, seven days of purification, and then the Day of Atonement,

CHAPTER FIVE

155

and the testimony of Plato’s Timaeus.131 Itter has even argued that the entirety of the Stromateis with its eight books is meant to demonstrate the sevenfold path leading to the holy ogdoad.132 Clement represents the most sophisticated interpretation of the number eight among the Church Fathers, building on the foundation of Philo to weave a rich tapestry of arithmological interpretations. Ambrose develops the interpretation of the numbers six and seven in a different direction. He identifies the number seven as the number of the Law and the Old Covenant and the number eight as the number of the Gospel and the New Covenant. He finds Old Testament texts in which these two numbers are juxtaposed (Eccl 11:2, Hos 3:2, and Mic 5:5), in order to demonstrate the essential harmony of these two numbers.133 He writes, ‘By the price of the two Testaments, that is, of the fullness of faith, the prophecy received the consummation of faith, the Church received the fullness. By the first Testament the people of Israel were gained; by the second, the heathens and the Gentiles.’134 Ambrose here demonstrates an essential continuity between the Testaments. However, Ambrose also argues that the New Covenant surpasses the Old. In this way, he is essentially making the same argument as the Letter to the Hebrews, to which he makes frequent quowhen the high priest gazes upon the Ark of the Covenant. There are also seven circuits around the Temple, seven branches of the Menorah, seven stones on the high priest’s robe, and many other uses of the number seven (as well as three, eight, and ten) in the Scriptures. See Itter, 39–43. 131 Itter, 48–49: ‘In the tenth book of the Republic Plato speaks of souls of the dead spending seven days on the meadows of asphodel and setting out to be reborn on the eighth. Clement suggests that the meadow refers to the fixed sphere, while the seven days refers to the motion of the seven planets. This concludes when the soul reaches the ogdoad on the eighth. Once again the sequence we have been highlighting can be observed.’ 132 Itter, 38–59. 133 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 44, had previously used Eccl 11:2 as a proof-text in a similar context, and this usage may have been an influence upon Ambrose. 134 Ep. 31.7 [PL#44.7], Beyenka, trans., St. Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 267.

156

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

tations and allusions. He draws upon the idea of the Christian era as the eighth age of the world when he writes, ‘Now that the seventh age of the word has been concluded, the grace of the eighth has dawned, and made man no longer of this world but above it… The day of the Old Testament is gone; the new day has come wherein the New Testament is made perfect.’135 This is the main argument in Ambrose’s Letter 31, and once he has made it, the epistle climaxes in a doxology and a farewell. He has adapted the Christian argument of the day of Resurrection as being the first day in a new creation, in order to demonstrate the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Intriguingly, he does this by drawing upon the writings of Jewish exegete, as well as numerous Old Testament texts.

CONCLUSION Ambrose represents a nuanced middle-ground in the use of Christian arithmology. He neither fully embraces all of Philo’s Neopyathogorean tendencies, in the vein of Didymus or Clement, nor rejects the entirety of the arithmological enterprise, in the vein of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Much like Irenaeus had done centuries prior, Ambrose is trying to define the limitations of number as an exegetical tool, and he determines that arithmology must always be used ministerially in service to Christian doctrine. In Ambrose’s understanding, if Neopythagorean number theory is allowed to redefine the Christian faith magisterially, then it is no longer unacceptable for Christian use. In this, he shows much more sensitivity to the possible abuses of number than his contemporaries such as Augustine did. In contrast to Ambrose, Philo seems to be interested in arithmology for its own sake and not only as an exegetical tool.136 This basic difference can be traced back to the goals of both writers. Philo’s goal in De opificio mundi is to show a fundamental compatibility between the biblical revelation, the best of Greco-Roman philosophy, and the natural order. Demonstrating that Neopythagorean Ep. 31.16–17 [PL#44.16–17], Beyenka, trans., St. Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 270–71. 136 Moehring, ‘Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool’, 159. 135

CHAPTER FIVE

157

arithmology is found in the Mosaic creation account contributes to this goal. By contrast, Ambrose’s goal in Letter 31 is to make a theological argument about the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old. He does not need arithmology to make this point, especially since the same case had already been made in the Book of Hebrews, but he is willing to make use of arithmology as a tool when it supports his argument. Ambrose’s use of number symbolism is consistently subservient to his theology, whereas Philo regards arithmology and theology as inherently compatible. Furthermore, Philo’s collection of lore concerning the number seven is exhaustive. It is one of the longest and most detailed lists of its kind that has been received from antiquity. For Philo, the greater the mass of data, the better. He is trying to prove how great the hebdomad is (and by extension, how great the Law of Moses is), and so he assembles as much data as he can from as many different fields of knowledge as possible. By contrast, Ambrose is selective in his collection. He only selects one kind of data from Philo’s collection (arguments from the natural sciences), and he does not even use every example from that category. First of all, Ambrose is not primarily interested in the hebdomad, but rather he is using it as a stepping stone to the discussion of the ogdoad. Second, the Bishop of Milan is not primarily making a point about mathematics, and so he cherry-picks a few choice examples from his source and is satisfied.



CHAPTER SIX. AMBROSE’S USE OF PHILO’S DE OPIFICIO MUNDI IN LETTER 34 [PL#45] Ambrose’s Letter 34 [PL#45] was written as an answer to Sabinus, who had inquired about the nature of paradise. Ambrose draws upon two sources for his response. On the one hand, he cites Josephus by name and makes a brief summary of the Garden of Eden narrative from the Jewish Antiquities. On the other hand, Ambrose makes extensive (and uncited) usage of Philo’s De opificio mundi 139–142, 153–159, and 165, where the Alexandrian thinker interprets the account of Genesis 2. Ambrose takes over several major themes from Philo, each of which will receive detailed attention. First, he borrows the notion that the first human was a superior being and that subsequent humanity has been experiencing a process of gradual decline. Both authors emphasize the original splendor of humanity in terms of the Stoic ideal of the ‘cosmopolitan’, or world citizen. Also, the tale of the subsequent degradation of humanity in Philo and Ambrose echoes the Greco-Roman myth of the Golden Age. Second, Ambrose borrows Philo’s allegory of the trees of paradise, in which the tree of life represents piety, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents cunning, and the other trees represent the other virtues. Third, Ambrose makes use of an allegory of Adam as mind, Eve as sense-perception, and the serpent as pleasure. In each of these cases, Ambrose is very faithful to his source, and yet small differences remain. Ambrose employs each of these themes for slightly different purposes than Philo had done, and these small details reveal something about Ambrose’s theological perspective.

159

160

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

ADDRESSEE The Sabinus addressed in this letter is most likely identified as Bishop Sabinus of Placentia. It is probable that this is the same Sabinus who had been a young deacon in Milan in 372 CE and who had carried letters on behalf of Pope Damasus and Basil of Caesarea.1 Ambrose refers to him as ‘bishop’ (Ep. 27 [PL#58]) and ‘brother’ (Ep. 32 [PL#48]), demonstrating that he viewed Sabinus as an equal. Indeed, Ambrose speaks fraternally and candidly to Sabinus in their correspondence. Ambrose asks him for frank criticism of some of his works for publication (Ep. 37 and 32 [PL#47 and 48]), confesses his weaknesses to him (e.g., Ep. 39 [PL#49]), and shares joyful news with him (e.g., Ep. 27 [PL#58]).2 They also shared a love of Nicene orthodoxy and a hunger for exegetical insights, and these two topics dominate their correspondence. Ambrose wrote six or seven letters to Sabinus (Ep. 27, 32, 33, 34, 37, 39, and possibly 40 [PL#58, 48, 49, 45, 47, 46, and 32]), which Jean-Rémy Palanque dates from approximately 385 to 395 CE.3 The most interesting letter in the collection for the purposes of this study is Letter 33 [PL#49]. Both Letter 34 and 33 [PL#45 and 49] deal with the topic of paradise, but that is where the similarities end. While Letter 34 is primarily a paraphrase of Philo’s De opificio mundi, Letter 33 contains no direct borrowings of Philo, except for maybe a short discussion of the garments of skin from Genesis 3:23 that bears some resemblance to Quaestiones in Genesim 1.53. Also, the tone of Letter 34 is academic and exegetical, whereas Letter 33 is more devotional. Furthermore, Ambrose treats the solitude of Adam more positively in Letter 33 than he does in the parallel exegesis in De paradiso 10.46–48.

Waghorn, ‘Saint Ambrose Letters to Sabinus’, 1. This Sabinus is also mentioned in Basil’s Letters 89–92. 2 Waghorn, 1–3. 3 Palanque, Saint Ambroise et l’Empire romain, 471; Waghorn, ‘Saint Ambrose Letters to Sabinus’, 7–11, disputes Palanque’s correction that would make Sabinus the addressee of Letter 40 [PL#32]. 1

CHAPTER SIX

161

Most of the material in Letter 34 is a summary of Ambrose’s earlier Philonic treatise De paradiso. Ambrose acknowledges this earlier work at the beginning of his letter, although he dismisses it as being from a time ‘when I was not yet an experienced bishop’.4 Unfortunately, Ambrose does not specify what he found lacking in his earlier work. Both Letter 34 and De paradiso are largely reliant on Philo’s De opificio mundi and are faithful to their source.

CONTENTS OF LETTER 34 [PL#45] Ambrose’s Letter 34 begins with a brief statement on the occasion for the letter. Sabinus, having read Ambrose’s Homilies on the Hexaemeron, has an inquiry about paradise. Ambrose acknowledges that he had written on the topic before, and then he proceeds to answer his fellow bishop’s question (Ep. 34.1 [PL#45.1]). Ambrose first provides a short summary of Josephus’s account from the Jewish Antiquities, citing his source by name (Ep. 34.2 [PL#45.2]). Next, Ambrose turns to his primary source, Philo’s De opificio mundi, even though he provides no direct citation of the Alexandrian. Ambrose begins his borrowing by making consecutive use of De opificio mundi 153 to 159 (Ep. 34.3–10 [PL#45.3–10]). To his source, Ambrose adds a proof text (Song 4:12), a lexical digression on the meaning of the word paradise, and a supporting simile. Then, Ambrose backs up to an earlier section of Philo’s treatise, borrowing consecutively from De opificio mundi 139 to 142 (Ep. 34.11–16 [PL#45.11–16]). Here he includes an additional digression, as well as various elaborations on Philo’s text and Christian expansions thereof. Finally, Ambrose concludes with a brief presentation of Philo’s allegory from De opficio mundi 165 and a short farewell (Letter 34.17 [PL#45.17]). See Table H below for further details.

4 Ep. 34.1 [PL#45.1], Beyenka, trans., St.

Ambrose, Letters, FaCh 26, 129.

162

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION Table H: Contents of Ambrose’s Letter 34 [PL#45]

Paragraph #

1 2 3 4 5 6 7–8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16a 16b 17

Topics under Discussion

Introduction: More information about paradise Josephus provides the relevant historical details about paradise (Josephus, AJ 1.37–38) Trees in Paradise Paradise is not an earthly location, but the ruling part of the soul Proof text: Song of Songs 4:12 Digression: Greek ‘paradise’ = Latin ‘garden’ Proof texts: Greek Daniel 13:7 and Genesis 2:8 Simile: a virgin and a garden Allegory: paradise = the ruling part of the soul; tree of life = piety; tree of the knowledge of good and evil = cunning; other trees = the virtues Man is inclined toward cunning more than wisdom Therefore, God ordered man to eat from every tree but the one Allegory: serpent = sensual lust 1. Moves along the ground 2. Eats dust 3. Has venom in its fangs God breathed into the face of man (the place of the senses) to strengthen him against sensual lust Digression: Man should protect his head as the serpent does Proof texts: 1 Cor 11:3 and Eccl 7:12 The first man fell easily, even though he had every advantage How much more easily can we fall Analogy: a magnet becomes weaker at a distance Elaboration: If nature can weaken, how much more can sin Expansion: Christ came to restore grace to nature God created the first man as a cosmopolitan Elaboration: God placed the man over all of creation Expansion: God guarded man and redeemed him Exhortation against sensuality Allegory: woman = senses; man = mind

Paragraph # of Borrowings from Opif.

153–154

154 155 157–159

139

1405 141

142

165

5 Banterle, ed., Sant’Ambrogio: Discorsi e Lettere II/I: Lettere (1–35), OOSA 19, 325, mislabels this parallel as paragraph 149.

CHAPTER SIX

163

AMBROSE’S BORROWING FROM JOSEPHUS Ambrose borrows from Flavius Josephus explicitly by name in Letter 34.2. W. R. Waghorn disputes that this borrowing comes from the Jewish historian Josephus, claiming that Ambrose knew Philo under the name Josephus.6 However, no support is given for such an audacious claim, and the paragraph in question corresponds fairly well with Jewish Antiquities 1.37–38. In addition to this citation, there are two anonymous borrowings from Josephus elsewhere in Ambrose’s letters—Ep. 62.12 & 15 [PL#19.12 & 15] uses Jewish Antiquities 5.276– 278 & 5.288–294 and Ep. 57.3 & 16 [PL#6.3 & 16] uses Jewish Antiquities 5.136–174.7 In the former case, Ambrose only refers to Josephus as ‘a certain author’, and in the latter case, he does not draw attention to the borrowing at all. Josephus is also mentioned by name in two texts that were attributed to Ambrose—De XLII mansionibus filiorum Israel and Expositio in Apocalypsin—but these works were almost certainly not written by the Bishop of Milan. A more detailed account of Ambrose’s use of Josephus can be found in Heinz Schreckenberg.8 By the late fourth century when Ambrose wrote, there was already a long and broad tradition of Christian usage of Flavius Josephus.9 Origen made use of Josephus in order to support his own exegesis, even making very precise references to the Jewish Antiquities.10 Likewise, a number of Latin Fathers, including Jerome, Augustine, Orosius, and Theodoret, found Josephus to be a useful exegetical source for the Old Testament.11 Josephus was also a major source for a historical apologetic against pagan critics of Christianity, in which 6 Waghorn, ‘Saint Ambrose Letters to Sabinus’, 32. 7 Wilbrand, ‘S. Ambrosius quos auctores quaeque exemplaria in epistulis componendis secutus sit’, 21–29. 8 Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter, 88–89. 9 Schreckenberg and Schubert, Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity, 51–74. 10 E.g., Selected Fragments on Jeremiah 3, cited by Inowlocki, ‘Josephus and Patristic Literature’, 359. 11 Inowlocki, 359–60.

164

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Christians attempted to prove that their faith dated back to the creation of the universe.12 Josephus was never accepted into the Christian tradition as wholeheartedly as Philo was, however, and Ambrose matches this general usage.13 In the first place, the volume of Ambrose’s borrowings of Josephus is considerably smaller compared to that of Philo, as demonstrated above. Moreover, when Ambrose does use Josephus, he does not fully integrate him into his thought.14 For example, in Letter 34, Ambrose equates Josephus’s interpretation with the historical sense of Scripture, to which he pays lip service before transitioning to Philo and the spiritual sense. Ambrose uses Josephus so loosely that it is sometimes hard to establish the extent of the borrowings.15 Schreckenberg claims that the language barrier can explain Ambrose’s imprecise usage of Josephus.16 However, Ambrose was highly fluent in Greek, and the language barrier did not hinder him in borrowing from Philo and the Greek Fathers. Intriguingly, both Josephus and Ambrose change the sequence of events in their retelling of the story of Genesis 2, but not in the same way. The original Genesis account places the events in this order: 1) God creates the garden. 2) Man is placed in the garden. 3) The plants and trees are described. 4) The four rivers of paradise are described. 5) Man becomes the caretaker of the garden. By contrast, Josephus leaves out the statement of man’s placement and moves the section about man as caretaker ahead of that of the rivers, which itself receives additional attention, as so: 1) garden, 3) plants/trees, 5) 12 Authors such as Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Origen, and especially Eusebius used Josephus for anti-pagan apologetics. See Inowlocki, 360–61, who notes that Philo and Josephus ‘become, in Late Antiquity, the two Jewish pillars of Christian apologetics’. 13 Inowlocki, 357. 14 Inowlocki, 358. 15 Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter, 88. 16 Schreckenberg and Schubert, Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity, 75.

CHAPTER SIX

165

man as caretaker, 4) rivers. The result is that Josephus saves the element that most interests him for last. In De paradiso, Ambrose follows the order of Genesis, but he returns to the topic of the trees a second time at the end, as so: 1) garden, 2) man placed, 3) trees, 4) rivers, 5) man as caretaker, 3) trees. Finally, Ambrose’s Letter 34 is greatly abridged, leaving out the second and fifth unit entirely. He also returns to the topic of trees at the end (as in his earlier work), and he moves the discussion of the garden to last, as so: 3) trees/plants, 4) rivers, 3) trees, 1) garden. Thus, in Ambrose’s case, he also saves the elements that interest him the most for last or secondto-last, in this case the trees of the garden. This willingness to rearrange material to highlight certain interests matches what has been typical of Ambrose in the other letters. Ambrose’s usage of Josephus in this letter contributes toward an understanding of his usage of Philo by way of contrast. Josephus is quoted by name, but the Philonic borrowings are anonymous. Ambrose makes brief and vague use of the Josephan material, whereas the Philonic material is lavishly presented and elaborated upon. Even in De paradiso with its stronger parallels to Josephus’s work, Ambrose does not rely on his source for structure, as he often does with Philo’s treatises. Josephus is regarded by Ambrose as a moderately useful historian, in contrast to Philo, whom Ambrose treats as a member of the great tradition and as one of the most valuable exegetical sources.

T HE SUPERIORITY OF THE FIRST MAN AND THE DECLINE OF HUMANITY Both Ambrose and Philo describe the first man in terms of his complete superiority over subsequent humanity, a portrayal that finds support in various Hellenistic Jewish writings.17 The first aspect in 17 Levison,

Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism, 142–162, notes that there is great diversity in early Jewish interpretations of Adam, and that the individual interpretations owe more to the unique purposes and tendencies of their authors than to some sort of shared Adam mythology. He notes that Hellenized Jewish thinkers are more likely to present a positive portrayal of Adam, since they are working within the categories of Greco-Roman an-

166

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

which Adam displayed his superiority was in his excellent body. Philo provides three reasons for man’s excellence in body. On a cosmological level, the raw materials available to God were perfect (Opif. 136). On an anthropological level, God chose the purest of these materials to form Adam’s body, since the body is a temple for the rational soul (Opif. 137). On a theological level, God created Adam with unsurpassable, divine skill (Opif. 138). That Adam was made from the best materials finds expression in a variety of Jewish literature.18 Josephus distinctively mentions the red, true virgin soil from whence Adam was made (AJ 1.34). Likewise, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 12 emphasizes the pure, holy materials used to create man, stating, ‘With love abounding did the Holy One, blessed be He, love the first man, inasmuch as He created him in a pure locality, in the place of the Temple.’19 Along the same lines, Ambrose also acknowledges the fact that the first man was created from superior material (i.e. virgin earth) by the word of God without any adulteration (Ep. 34.13 [PL#45.13]). Another way in which both Philo and Ambrose praise the superiority of the first man is to present him as a world citizen or ‘cosmopolitan’. This term grew out of the political and social ferment of the Hellenistic age. The philosophy of Plato and Aristotle had been born in the Greek city-states and tended to identify ‘man’ with ‘citizen’. Once Alexander the Great brought about the marginalization of the polis, the ideal of this new Hellenistic era was no longer man as citizen but man as cosmopolitan.20 The entire cosmos could be seen as a Great City, and thus the sage is a citizen of the whole world. Diogenes the Cynic was the first to give clear expression to this idea. According to Diogenes Laertius, when Diogenes the Cynic was asked

thropology. By contrast, the wisdom tradition, represented by Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, and the apocalyptic tradition, represented by 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, are more likely to focus on the negative aspects of Adam’s character, albeit for different reasons. 18 Franxman, Genesis and the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus, 47–49. 19 Cited by Franxman, 48. 20 Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy, III, 1–3.

CHAPTER SIX

167

about where he came from, he answered, ‘I am a cosmopolitan.’21 The Stoics adopted the cosmopolitan ideal, claiming that they, by living in accord with nature, served all human beings and not just parochial interests. This notion was also expressed by Cicero in De natura deorum 154: ‘For the world is as it were the common dwelling-place for gods and men, or the city that belongs to both; for they alone have the use of reason and live by justice and by law.’22 One figure that was often associated with the cosmopolitan ideal was Homer, as in, for example, Heraclitus, Homeric Problems 76.8–9. Philo displays his Stoic tendencies by making use of the rhetoric of the world citizen in order to speak about the ideal human. For example, in De opificio mundi 3, Philo writes that ‘the cosmos is in harmony with the law and the law with the cosmos, and the man who observes the law is at once a citizen of the cosmos, directing his actions in relation to the rational purpose of nature, in accordance with which the entire cosmos also is administered’.23 Philo speaks of the citizens of the Great City, which include heavenly beings, visible stars, and noetic (possibly angelic) beings. Philo asserts that, in paradise, man lived in harmony with this heavenly politeuma.24 He also portrays the Jewish festivals as cosmopolitan, since they are in conDiogenes Laertius, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, 6.63, translated by Hicks in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers II, LCL. Kleingeld and Brown, ‘Cosmopolitanism’ in Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encylcopedia of Philosophy, state, ‘By identifying himself not as a citizen of Sinope but as a citizen of the world, Diogenes apparently refused to agree that he owed special service to Sinope and the Sinopeans. So understood, “I am a citizen of the cosmos” is a negative claim… The best we can do to find positive cosmopolitanism in Diogenes is to insist that the whole Cynic way of life is supposed to be cosmopolitan: by living in accordance with nature and rejecting what is conventional, the Cynic sets an example of high-minded virtue for all other human beings.’ 22 Rackham, trans., Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods. Academics., LCL, 273. 23 Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 47. 24 Philo, Spec. 1.13–14; Opif. 142–144. See also Borgen, ‘Man’s Sovereignty over Animals and Nature according to Philo of Alexandria’, 384–85. 21

168

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

formity with natural law and thus transcend the interests of a particular state (Spec. 2.42–45). Philo claims that Moses attained the cosmopolitan ideal (Conf. 106). In the same vein, Philo illustrates Adam’s perfect virtue and complete conformity to natural law by describing him as the ideal Stoic cosmopolitan (Opif. 142–144).25 This last point is borrowed by Ambrose in Ep. 34.16 [PL#45.16], to which he adds the Christian elaboration that redeemed man is restored to the status of a world citizen. The last way in which Philo demonstrates the superiority of the first man is the fact that he was able to give good names to the animals (Opif. 148–150). Ambrose provides an additional reason of his own, namely that Adam was able to talk with God (Letter 34.13 [PL#45.13]). Yet despite the clear pre-eminence of the original man, he fell into sin, and both Philo (Opif. 136–137) and Ambrose (Letter 34.13 [PL#45.13] and De paradiso 11.52) emphasize how surprising it was than mankind fell so easily. This leads both of these authors to note how much easier still it is for the subsequent, inferior generations of humanity to follow in the same path of sin and vice. However, Ambrose and Philo approach this decline of humanity differently. Philo sees the subsequent generations as inferior copies, comparing them to iron rings that are attached further and further from a magnet (Opif. 141).26 No appeal is made here to the Genesis 3 account of the fall of humanity—the fall is not a sudden and cataclysmic event but rather a gradual and inevitable process of entropy. Intriguingly, Philo argues against the theory of cosmic degeneration in De aeternitate mundi, but here in De opificio mundi the notion of anthropological degeneration suits his purposes of glorifying the original creation. 27 In contrast to Philo’s treatment, Ambrose connects the decline of humanity to the catastrophic fall event, even

25 Levison, Portraits

of Adam in Early Judaism, 72. This analogy of a magnet had been used by Plato to describe the decline in poetic inspiration (Ion 536a) and by Pseudo-Aristotle to speak of God’s dynamis (Mund. 6, 397b28–30). 27 Jobling, ‘“And Have Dominion...”: The Interpretation of Gen. 1, 28 in Philo Judaeus’, 69–71; Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism, 71. 26

CHAPTER SIX

169

though he borrows Philo’s analogy of a magnet to describe the consequences of the fall (Ep. 34.14 [PL#45.14]). This description of the gradual decline of humanity shares a number of elements with the Greco-Roman myth of a lost Golden Age. The idea is that mankind once lived in a world of simplicity and plenty, but moral degradation has slowly brought society to its current state. 28 The oldest extant text to explicitly describe a Golden Age is Hesiod’s Works and Days 109–126, and the notion receives extensive development in the ancient world.29 Hesiod and his successors made moral decline the defining principle of human history, which is divided into a sequence of metals of declining value. Evidence of progress, such as technological advancement, is denigrated and connected to the development of wealth and luxury, which are deleterious to the pursuit of virtue.30 A stark pessimism about contemporary human society is present throughout the Golden Age tradition.31 The biblical narrative of the fall of humanity and the theme of humanity’s decline comported well with the Greco-Roman notion of a lost Golden Age, and so a number of Jewish and Christian authors appropriated classical materials in support of their theology. Moreover, the Book of Daniel seemed to stand in agreement with its four-part succession of epochs, each associated with a metal of declin-

A competing theory from classical literature is that of gradual improvement in the conditions of life and institutions from primitive beginnings. See Guthrie, In the Beginning, 69; Sallaberger, Felber, and Heckel, ‘Kulturentstehungstheorien’ in DNP. 29 E.g. Plato, Cratylus 397e; Aratus, Phaen. 100–114; Ovid, Met.1.89–112; Lucretius 2.1150–1152, 1164–1174; Tacitus, Ann. 3.26; Theophrastus, fragment 584A Fortenbaugh; Dicaearchus, fragment 49 Wehrli. Other texts with some parallels include Plato, Laws 713c; Politicus 271c; Republic 415a. Some Romans adapted the tradition in order to praise Caesar Augustus as the restorer of the golden age, such as Horace, Odes 4.2, 33–40; Vergil, Aeneid 6.791–4; Vergil, Eclogue 4. 30 Sallaberger, Felber, and Heckel, “Kulturentstehungstheorien” in DNP. 31 Guthrie, In the Beginning, 71. 28

170

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

ing value.32 The most developed treatment of Genesis in terms of the Golden Age tradition can be found in Flavius Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities Book I.33 Josephus’ goal in the Antiquities was to present Jewish history in terms familiar to Greek readers, and the Golden Age provided a useful vehicle to accomplish this.34 Significant Golden Age features that are present in Josephus include the following. 1) The deity and humanity originally shared an intimate relationship.35 2) The earth spontaneously produced food without need for human agriculture.36 3) The decline of humanity was caused by greed and selfishness.37 4) The inventions of boundary-markers, metallurgy, and warfare came after the Golden Age.38 Furthermore, Josephus associates Noah with the character of Deucalion (AJ 1.61–62), and he asserts a partial, temporary return to the Golden Age after the Flood (AJ 1.98; 1.113–114), much like Hesiod’s Age of Heroes (Works and Days 156–169b).39 In utilizing the Golden Age tradition, Josephus risked the accusation that the Jews had failed to contribute to civilization (Ap. 2.135–136; 2.148), but he defends against this very charge in Daniel 2 describes Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-vision of a statue made of four metals—head of gold, chest and arms of silver, middle and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet of iron mixed with clay—which is crushed by a rock that becomes a mountain. The sage Daniel interprets this dream in this way: the statue refers to a succession of four kingdoms, beginning with Babylon, and the rock/mountain refers to the kingdom of God, which shall surpass them. 33 Droge, Homer or Moses?, 35. 34 Droge, 41. 35 Hesiod, Op. 120; Dicaearchus, Fragment 49 Wehrli; Posidonius apud Seneca, Ep. 90.44; Josephus, AJ 1.45. 36 Compare the superiority of Abel’s ‘natural’ sacrifice, which was more in line with the spirit of the Golden Age, in Josephus, AJ 1.54 and Philo, Sacr. 88–89. 37 Compare Cain’s greed in Josephus, AJ 1.60–62; iron age of ‘might makes right’ in Hesiod, Op. 188–192; Posidonius apud Seneca, Ep. 90.5–6; Ovid, Met. 1.127–131. 38 Josephus, AJ 1.61–62; Ovid, Met. 1.135–136; AJ 1.64; Hesiod, Op. 145–154; Ovid, Met. 1.139–150. 39 Droge, Homer or Moses?, 37–41. 32

CHAPTER SIX

171

Contra Apionem by asserting that Moses introduced innovations in legislation and theology.40 Philo echoes this same tradition of the Golden Age in his writings. For example, his description of the original paradisiacal setting as being an eternal springtime is probably a reference to Golden Age literature.41 Likewise, in Philo’s account of the Essenes (Prob. 75–87), their community is portrayed in terms that echo the concept of the Golden Age.42 Also in De opificio mundi, Philo’s thought bears some resemblance to that of his fellow Hellenized Jew, Josephus. The Christian apologetic tradition, including Justin Martyr, Tatian, Theophilus, Clement, Origen, and Eusebius, generally did not make use of the narrative of decline from a Hesiodic Golden Age, as seen in Philo and in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. Instead, they made use of Josephus’ alternate argument from Contra Apionem, which claimed that pagan culture was dependent on Moses.43 Thus, Ambrose goes against the grain of many of his forebears by engaging in some of the same Golden Age imagery from Philo and Josephus. Ambrose’s purpose here is not to defend the Christian faith from claims of lateness and innovation, since this is a letter to a fellow bishop and not an apologetic context. Rather, the purpose of this text is provide exegetical insight into the reason for humanity’s fall from their original perfection, and the myth of the Golden Age was congenial for expressing this theme.

ALLEGORY OF PARADISE AND ITS TREES The first Philonic allegory that Ambrose borrows in Letter 34 is that of paradise and its trees. In De opificio mundi 154, Philo establishes the allegory that paradise is the ruling part of the soul. Planted within paradise/the ruling part of the soul are trees/virtues of the soul. The tree of life stands for piety, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil stands for cunning, and the other trees of the garden stand 40 Droge, 42. 41 Lovejoy and Boas, Primitivism

and Related Ideas in Antiquity, 99.

42 Lovejoy and Boas, 351–55. 43 Droge, Homer

or Moses?, 194–200.

172

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

for the other virtues. Philo contrasts εὐσέβεια (piety), the chief of the virtues, with πανουργία (cunning), which is a lesser form of practical insight. In Deus 162–165, Philo presents φρόνησις (prudence) as the middle way between the extremes of πανουργία (cunning) and µωρία (foolishness). This parallels Aristotle in the Eudemian Ethics 1221a, where he places φρόνησις as the middle way between the extremes of πανουργία and εὐήθεια (guilelessness).44 In Opif. 155, Philo associates man’s inclination toward the lesser cunning over the superior piety as the root cause of humanity being expelled from the garden of delights. Philo presents the two trees of paradise as a choice between mutually-exclusive ‘virtues’. The tree of life is religious piety or contemplative wisdom, which can be termed divine. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the purely human ‘virtue’ of shrewdness and autonomy. The choice is between God and humanity, between the universal νοῦς and the particular νοῦς.45 The one who chooses the first tree turns his will entirely toward God in childlike simplicity, and in leaving everything to God, he becomes a pure, stable, and unified man. By contrast, the one who chooses the second tree asserts his ability to define the rules of action for himself, and thus he enters into the realm of duality and the division of the soul.46 These choices are mutually exclusive, and so Philo places humanity in a middle space, a composite being oscillating between the two possibilities. Man can only cease to be in between good and evil when he uses his liberty to reject this fallacious use of autonomy and surrender himself to God.47 Ambrose appropriates this allegory twice in his works—in Letter 34.7–8 and in his earlier treatise De paradiso 3.14–22. On the one hand, Letter 34 is far less expansive than De paradiso, closely following Philo’s discussion of the trees in paradise from De opificio mundi

In Eudemian Ethics 1227b, Aristotle explained that the virtues were the middle quality between two extremes, i.e. the vices. 45 Harl, ‘Adam et les deux arbres du Paradis’, 380. 46 Harl, 381. 47 Harl, 382–83. 44

CHAPTER SIX

173

154–155. His primary interest in Philo here is to underline the choice between the true virtues and the false virtue of cunning, a choice where humanity is inclined toward failure. On the other hand, in De paradiso Ambrose not only connects the tree of life to piety, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to cunning, and the other trees to the four cardinal virtues, but he expands the allegory by associating the four rivers of Eden with the same four cardinal virtues, which finds parallel exegesis in Philo’s QG 1.12–13. In this interpretation, Ambrose follows Philo not only in content (identifying the four rivers with the four virtues) but also in technique (employing etymology and symbolism drawn from nature).48 However, Ambrose has a slightly different emphasis, which is distinguishable especially in his introduction and conclusion.49 Unlike Philo, Ambrose begins his discussion of the four rivers by describing their common source, and this influences all of his subsequent interpretation.50 Savon asserts that Ambrose had an apologetic preoccupation with defending God’s goodness, and so divine aid is symbolized by the common source of the four rivers.51 Ambrose’s interpretative key can be found in Psalm 35:9–10 [English: 36:8–9], where God is the source of the river of delights and the fountain of life (see also Ps 45:5 [English: 46:4] and John 7:38).52 Furthermore, Ambrose drew a connection between Wisdom, being the source of the other virtues, and Christ, whom he perceived as Wisdom incarnate (see John 7:37 and Prov 9:5).53 Parallel exegesis can be found in Ambrose’s Explanation of the 35th Psalm and Jerome’s Commentary on Isaiah.54 Savon speculates

48 Savon, Saint

Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif, 215.

49 Savon, 216.

Savon, 219, notes that, in the Hebrew text of Genesis 2:10 and in the Septuagint translation thereof, a river (‫ ; ָנָהר‬ποταµὸς) waters Eden, not a source. Ambrose may have been following certain Latin translations, which had fons instead of the more common flumen or fluvius. 51 Savon, 219. 52 Savon, 220–21. 53 Savon, 223–24. 54 Savon, 220. 50

174

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

that there may be a common source for these two, possibly Origen’s lost Commentary on Isaiah or some common catechetical tradition.55 Furthermore, in De paradiso Ambrose associates the four trees/rivers/cardinal virtues with the four epochs of human history. Wisdom guided the Antediluvian age, Temperance the Patriarchal, Fortitude the Mosaic, and Justice the Evangelical. Ambrose does not identify the epoch of the Gospel as one of four, but as one that is preceded by three lesser ones. Thus, he identifies Justice as the ‘prolific mother of the other virtues’ (Parad. 3.22).56 Ambrose makes one distinct addition. At the conclusion of his discussion of the four ages of man, he returns to discuss the Philonic triad of Enosh, Enoch, and Noah, whom Philo had associated with hope, repentence, and righteousness respectively (Abr. 7–48). Ambrose connects these three figures to the gold and the two kinds of precious stones from Genesis 2:11–12 (Parad. 3.23). Thus, Ambrose ends with Noah, who is not a symbol of righteousness as in Philo, but rather stands for the restoration of the creation. 57 Overall, Ambrose finds many things in Philo’s allegory that were resonant with his own thought. The Milanese bishop is very interested in the virtues and their relationship to the human will, and he finds a rich source for this sort of material in Philo. However, Ambrose’s Christian theology pushes his interpretations in different directions. He takes special care to emphasize Christ’s role as Wisdom incarnate. Also, he makes additional efforts to defend the goodness of God and of his original creation, in accord with the antiGnostic emphases in the Christian hexaemeral literature. Finally, Ambrose has a heavier emphasis on the inclination of humanity toward the second tree, i.e. toward cunning, which comports with Western Christian doctrine concerning original sin. 58 In this text, Ambrose only deals with the trees and the garden as allegories. His concern here is for the ‘real paradise’ which is ‘situated 55 Savon, 221. 56 Savon, 230–35. See Philo, Spec.

4.230.

57 Savon, 235. 58 Beatrice, The

Transmission of Sin, 142–57.

CHAPTER SIX

175

in the principal part of our nature’ (Ep. 34.3 [PL#45.3]). In other words, he is concerned here with the ideal or spiritual paradise, rather than a physical one. This does not necessarily mean that Ambrose denied a physical Garden of Eden; after all, he does seem to affirm a historical Adam and Eve. Many of Ambrose’s contemporaries, such as John Chrysostom, explicitly understood the garden as a physical location.59 Augustine goes into great depth about how the tree of life is both a literal and a figurative reality, much as Sarah and Hagar were both historical figures and signs of the two covenants.60 It is possible that Ambrose would have had a similar understanding.

ALLEGORY OF MAN AND WOMAN The second Philonic allegory that Ambrose borrows in Letter 34 concerns the three primary characters of the fall narrative of Genesis 3—Adam, Eve, and the serpent. In De opificio mundi 157–159 and 165–166, Philo asserts that the man stands for the mind, the woman stands for sense-perception, and the serpent stands for pleasure. The mind (Adam) would be immune to any direct interference from pleasure (the serpent), except that the senses (Eve) provide a conduit through which the mind (Adam) can become ensnared. Thus, it is by obeying the senses rather than reason that one becomes a slave to pleasure. The identification of Eve with sense-perception has some basis in the text of the narrative itself, as Genesis 3:6 uses sense language (‘good for food’, which implies taste; ‘delight to the eyes’, which denotes sight; ‘to be desired’) to describe Eve’s decision to eat the fruit. Likewise, the interpretation that Adam’s fall came about because the man obeyed the woman has basis in the text. Adam receives the fruit from his wife and eats it with no dialogue and no description of his thoughts, almost like an automaton.61 Philo allegorizes the events of the Garden of Eden while avoiding calling them mythical.62 He views Adam and Eve as ‘types direct59 Chrysostom, Hom.

Gen. 13, 174–176. Genesi ad litteram 8.4. 61 Baudry, ‘La Responsabilité d’Eve dans la chute’, 294. 62 Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 374–75. 60 Augustine, De

176

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

ing us to allegorical interpretation’ (Opif. 157). This takes place in two different ways. The allegory of man as mind and woman as sense-perception recurs in Philo’s corpus as his primary way to apply the fall narrative to the present human condition (e.g. Leg. 3.49; Agr. 97; Post. 177; Migr. 100; Fug. 188; Somn.1.246; QG 1.25, 37, 45–49, 52; 2.49; 3.3).63 In addition, Philo also presents a second approach with Adam as the prototypical husband and Eve as the prototypical wife. Thus, for Philo Eve is both the lower, sensory part of the Everyman, and she is the Everywoman.64 However, Philo has a tendency to blur his two uses of the figure of Eve, portraying her as irrational not only when she represents the irrational parts of the soul but even when she portrays the prototypical wife.65 Philo’s anthropology owes itself to both Jewish and Hellenistic thought. Its underpinning is biblical, built on the foundation of Genesis 1:27 and 2:7.66 However, he interprets these passages in accord with contemporary Greek science. Judith Wegner concludes that Philo’s depictions of females are indebted to Hellenistic thought much more than to the Bible.67 Philo’s definition of male and female as the two species of the genus ‘human’ is based not in Scripture but in Greek biology.68 Philo’s association of ‘male’ with ‘reason’ (and likewise ‘female’ with ‘irrationality’) is based on Aristotelian science and Pythagorean dichotomies.69 Philo is dependent on the Greek scientific belief that the father is the formative cause, whereas the mother only provides the matter and nourishment for the child (e.g., QG 4.160).70 Philo’s reference to the naturalists in QE 1.7 implies that his source of his anthropological statement there is the Greek scien63 Baer, Philo’s

Use of the Categories Male and Female, 39. Sly, ‘The Perception of Women in the Writing of Philo of Alexandria’, 132. 65 Sly, 115. See Opif. 156; Leg. 3.50; QG 1.25, 27, 33, 43, 46; Legat. 319; Leg. 2.38 66 Baer, Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female, 22. 67 Wegner, ‘Philo’s Portrayal of Women–Hebraic or Hellenic?’, 65. 68 Wegner, 46. See Plato, Timaeus 91a; Aristotle, De generatione animalium 775a. 69 Wegner, 48. 70 Wegner, 53. See Plato, Timaeus 50d; Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1.6.998a. 64

CHAPTER SIX

177

tific tradition.71 This negative view of femininity is also found in Philo’s adaptation of the Pythagorean table of opposites, as seen in QG 2.14. Plato, in his mature thought, developed a model of a soul divided between reason and irrational qualities. Thus, there are positive and negative forms of attraction to beauty—the vicious frenzy that is destructive and the noble frenzy that drives one to the pursuit of higher things. The former was termed female, and the latter male. 72 In a similar manner, Aristotle theorized that the body has its origin from the female, whereas the soul’s origin is from the male.73 The Pythagoreans also divided the soul into its male and female, and this notion is echoed by Philo in Spec. 3.178 and Abr. 99.74 Philo draws the Platonic distinction between the divine, undivided, upper-part of the soul and the mortal, divided, lower-part.75 The creation of the woman is done by a division of the original a-sexual or pre-sexual anthropos.76 For Philo, the introduction of woman is the beginning of humanity’s misfortune, and so she is associated with the lower part of the soul, the senses, which are more easily ensnared by pleasure, according to Philo’s allegory.77 Males also have the capacity to become ‘glued to the senses’ according to Philo, but Philo goes further with females by actually identifying them with the senses.78 Philo makes use of the most negative aspects of femaleness in De opificio mundi. The woman is portrayed as sensual, hedonistic, changeable, irrational, corruptible, passive, and generally inferior.79 Womankind is close71 Wegner, 53. 72 Lloyd, Man

of Reason, 18–22. Sly, ‘The Perception of Women in the Writing of Philo of Alexandria’, 120. 74 Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 175. 75 van den Hoek, ‘Endowed with Reason or Glued to the Senses’, 65–66. 76 van den Hoek, 70–71. 77 van den Hoek, 72–74. 78 van den Hoek, 74. 79 Sly, ‘The Perception of Women in the Writing of Philo of Alexandria’, 216; Lloyd, Man of Reason, 25. 73

178

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

ly associated with the material world in Philo’s works, and he exploits feminine imagery in order to express the inferiority of the world of matter.80 On those occasions when Philo is presented with examples of virtuous women in the Bible, he feels the need to explain away this Scriptural anomaly. 81 Indeed, the women in Genesis are rarely passive and lacking rationality, and in general the Hebrew Bible does not make a moral judgment against women, with the exception of the ‘strange woman’ who is an outsider and source of sexual temptation (e.g., Prov 6:20–7:27).82 When Philo praises a particular woman in Scripture, he goes to lengths to establish that her positive traits are masculine and the exception to the rule.83 Philo asserted that spiritual progress requires overcoming passivity/femininity to become active/masculine, as in QE 1.8, Det. 28, Cher. 50, and Spec. 1.200–201.84 Philo on rare occasions does discuss femininity and senseperception in a more positive light. In fact, he argues that the higher parts of the soul are incomplete without the lower parts, since it is not possible for the soul to interact with the material world apart from the senses.85 The key is balance—when the sense-perception is properly subordinated to the mind, the result is that the mind receives an accurate representation of the sense-perceptibles (Cher. 59– 60).86 When that hierarchy is reversed, then mind is corrupted by pleasure. Philo ties this order of mind over sense-perception to the Greek theme of male as active and female as passive.87 When the man was placed in the position of headship, the relationship between man

80 Baer, Philo’s

Use of the Categories Male and Female, 44.

81 Wegner, ‘Philo’s Portrayal of Women--Hebraic or Hellenic?’, 54–57. 82 Wegner, 63–64. 83 Wegner, 52. 84 Lloyd, Man

of Reason, 27. Calabi, ‘“It Would Not Be Good That the Man Should Be Alone”: Philo’s Interpretation of Genesis 2:18 in Legum Allegoriae’, 244; Harl, ‘Adam et les deux arbres du Paradis’, 364. 86 Baer, Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female, 36. 87 Lloyd, Man of Reason, 22–28. 85

CHAPTER SIX

179

and woman flourished as a single, harmonic unit (Leg. 3.222–245).88 However, when Adam was tempted to obey his wife, the relationship deteriorated. 89 The female must not be allowed to dominate the male. Philo illustrates this point in Virt. 38, where he portrays the seduction of Israelite men by Midianite women as a perversion of the natural order. Philo writes that the creation of the woman interrupted the one-ness of the original man and introduced the channel through which he could know desire and bodily pleasure (Opif. 151– 152). Woman became the means by which man is drawn into sin, just as the senses are the means by which the mind is overcome by pleasure. Man/mind cannot be deceived directly, but he fell through the indirect deception of his wife/senses.90 While Philo has a primarily negative view of the first woman with regard to her role in the first sin, the picture is much more complicated in wider Second Temple Judaism. Sirach (25:24) and the Life of Adam and Eve (L.A.E. Apocalypse 7:1, 9:2, and 32:2) both place the blame for the fall particularly on the woman. While the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch 48:42) spreads the blame around to both Adam and Eve, it does display some additional negativity toward the woman by emphasizing that Eve was obedient to the serpent, as opposed to being seduced by him. The Apocalypse of Abraham describes the scene of the fall of Adam and Eve in sexualized terminology that implies that the original sin was sexual.91 More balanced accounts of the fall are found in Jubilees 3 and 1 Enoch 32:4–6, both of which acknowledge the roles of both Adam and Eve in the first sin. By contrast, the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch 9:6) and 4 Ezra both place the blame exclusively upon Adam and are silent concerning Eve.92 Calabi, ‘“It Would Not Be Good That the Man Should Be Alone”: Philo’s Interpretation of Genesis 2:18 in Legum Allegoriae’, 253. See Harl, ‘Adam et les deux arbres du Paradis’, 381. 89 Sly, ‘The Perception of Women in the Writing of Philo of Alexandria’, 114. 90 Baer, Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female, 36–38. 91 Baudry, ‘La Responsabilité d’Eve dans la chute’, 301. 92 Baudry, 299–300. 88

180

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

The early Christian attitude toward Eve is complicated, as is the early Christian attitude toward women in general. For example, Leonard Swidler has argued that first-century Judaism was misogynistic and that Christianity improved the status of women.93 Wegner disagrees, demonstrating that Swidler’s evidence is mostly drawn from the Talmud (which is late and from a different cultural milieu), and he ignores more positive statements about women in rabbinic literature.94 Generally, the New Testament tends toward a more negative perspective on Eve. She is held culpable for the first sin in 1 Tim 2:13–15 and 2 Cor 11:3. In 1 Cor 11:8–9, Paul emphasizes the first man’s priority over the first woman. However, Paul also places blame on Adam, as in Rom 5:12–14 (see also 1 Cor 15:45–49), where Eve goes unmentioned. Also, in the Synoptic Gospels, women are almost universally portrayed in a positive light, although Eve is never mentioned by name in them. In many ways, the New Testament writers show continuity with their Jewish forebears and contemporaries in their ambivalent views toward Eve in particular and women in general. The Christian tradition in the subsequent centuries tended to take a more negative view of Eve. For example, Irenaeus holds the woman responsible for the fall.95 In his treatise On the Apparel of Women, Tertullian identified Eve as the Everywoman and referred to all women as the gateway of the devil. Indeed, Tertullian, who tended toward misogyny, labeled Eve as the one who lost the human race and the one who birthed a fratricidal demon.96 Likewise, John Chrysostom in one of his Homilies on Genesis (16.5–13) includes a lengthy diatribe against Eve.97 Didymus the Blind, in his Commentary on Genesis, follows Philo’s interpretation closely, including the placement of the primary blame for the fall into sin upon Eve.98 93 Swidler, Women

in Judaism.

94 Wegner, ‘Philo’s Portrayal of Women--Hebraic or Hellenic?’, 43. 95 Irenaeus, Adv.Haer.

3.22.4. the Apparel of Women, 1.1–2; On the Flesh of Christ 17.6. 97 Hill, trans., John Chrysostom and Hill, Homilies on Genesis, 1–17, 210– 26. 98 Baudry, ‘La Responsabilité d’Eve dans la chute’, 310–12. 96 Tertullian, On

CHAPTER SIX

181

Nonetheless, another strand of Christian interpretation is more positive toward Eve in particular and women in general. Clement of Alexandria accepts Philo’s allegory of Adam as mind and Eve as senses, but he is much more charitable toward women, asserting that they are equally capable of attaining virtue.99 This view may have been influenced by the Roman Stoic tradition of C. Musonius Rufus.100 Augustine strongly dissented from previous interpretations of Genesis that denigrated the rationality of women, since he believed that these teachings compromised the equality that men and women share under the Gospel. Augustine tried to reconcile sexual equality in the realm of reason and salvation with the traditional idea of the subordination of women to men.101 He writes that the woman had ‘a nature equal in mental capacity of rational intelligence, but made subject, by virtue of the sex of her body, to the male sex in the same way that the appetite for action is made subject in order to conceive by the rational mind the skill of acting rightly’.102 Augustine avoids Philo’s tendency to blur the line between the allegorical use of woman and actual women.103 Moreover, Augustine rejects Philo’s interpretation that reason succumbed to external sense perception. Rather, Augustine argues that reason suffered an internal malfunction, which resulted in sin.104 Ambrose, like Philo, uses allegory in his treatment of Adam, Eve, and the serpent. He follows Philo’s exegesis very closely in both Letter 34.10 & 17 [PL#45.10 & 17] and in De paradiso 2.11, 3.12, & 11.51. In De paradiso 2.11, Ambrose even makes an anonymous refer99 See Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 4.58. van den Hoek, ‘Endowed with Reason or Glued to the Senses’, 75. 100 See C. Musionus Rufus’s lectures That Women Too Should Study Philosophy and Should Daughters Receive the Same Education as Sons? (preserved in Stobaeus, Anthologium). These are available in translation in Lutz, trans., Musonius Rufus: ‘The Roman Socrates’, 38–49. 101 Lloyd, Man of Reason, 28–29. 102 Augustine, Confessions 13.32, Bourke, trans., Augustine of Hippo, Writings of Saint Augustine, V, 452. 103 Lloyd, Man of Reason, 31–32. 104 Lloyd, 32–33.

182

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

ence to Philo as the source of this allegory (‘the author to whom I refer…’). Ambrose is not alone in adapting this Philonic allegory— the same interpretation appears in Didymus the Blind (Commentary on Genesis 95.19–21; see also 82.23–83.1; 83.20; 95.13–14) and Origen (Cels. 4.39). A similar approach can also be found in Clement of Alexandria (Protr. 111.1; see Philo, Opif. 152), albeit with a different purpose. The allegory had the potential to avert a critique of the Genesis account. In the traditional reading of this text the serpent of Genesis 3 is identified as Satan. Savon observes that some contemporary readers had been scandalized by the possibility that Satan could exist in paradise. Philo’s exegesis of the Serpent being ‘desire’ offered Ambrose a more congenial interpretation.105 However, Ambrose is doing more than simply avoiding an uncomfortable topic. He does not discount the literal meaning of Genesis 3, but he affirms Adam, Eve, and the Serpent as historical figures. Ambrose very creatively builds upon Philo by layering Philonic allegory over the historical-literal interpretation of the text. In this way, the allegorical reading is used in order to explain the psychology of Eve as she chose to eat the forbidden fruit. Thus, each of the figures has interrelated double-meanings. Eve is both the first sinner and the means through which the mind was captivated by sin. Adam is both the mate of Eve who partook in her sin and the mind which is corrupted by sensuality (see Ep. 34.17 [PL#45.17]). And the Serpent is both the literal devil and the desire that took hold of the first woman. Thus, the Philonic allegory allows for a deeper meditation on the motivations and dynamics of the literal narrative. 106 Among the details that Ambrose borrows from Philo is the rationale for why the serpent is a fitting allegory for pleasure and lust (Ep. 34.10 [PL#45.10]). Philo provided three reasons: the serpent crawls on its stomach, it consumes the dust of the earth, and it carries poison in its teeth (Opif. 157). These traits demonstrate that the pleasure-focused man is burdened by his lack of self control, he does not receive the heavenly food of wisdom, and his appetites are dan105 Savon, Saint

Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif, 50.

106 Burns, ‘Creation and Fall according to Ambrose of Milan’, 90.

CHAPTER SIX

183

gerous (Opif. 158–159). Another specific detail that Ambrose takes over from his source is the statement that the senses are located in the face (Ep. 34.11 [PL#45.11]). This is taken from Philo’s Opif. 139, and the Alexandrian expresses similar sentiments in Leg. 1.39–41 and QG 1.5. Philo sides here with the Platonists, who set the location of the directive part of the soul in the head, as opposed to the Stoics, who placed it in the heart.107 Both Philo and Ambrose make use of this detail in connection with God breathing in the nostrils of Adam. They conclude that this action fortified his senses against lust.

CONCLUSION A number of patterns that have been observed in previous chapters are confirmed again in Ambrose’s use of Philo in Letter 34. First of all, Ambrose is consistent in his use of citations. Philo, with whom Ambrose agrees in most exegetical matters, is left anonymous. By contrast, Josephus, who is of marginal interest to Ambrose, is cited by name. This supports Ambrose’s established usage that he only provides the names of those sources of whom he is critical. Meanwhile, he tends to make anonymous usage of sources that he deeply respects, seeing them as part of a great tradition of truth that needs no individual citations. When Ambrose does make slight deviations from his Philonic source, he generally does so in the direction of the dominant Christian doctrinal tradition. The strongest distinction between Ambrose’s Letter 34 and Philo’s De opificio mundi concerns the fall into sin. While Philo describes a gradual and naturally-occurring degradation from one generation to the next, Ambrose holds to the dominant Western view of a catastophic fall event. Another key difference between Ambrose and Philo is found in the area of Christology. In particular, Ambrose supplements Philonic material in this letter in two places. First, Ambrose identifies Christ with the virtue of Wisdom. Second, he uses the topic of the ideal man as cosmopolitan to discuss the redemption of humanity by Christ which allows for the Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, 336. See also Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 267.

107

184

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

cosmopolitan ideal to be restored. Ambrose also demonstrates his particular interest in the Western Christian doctrine of original sin in the way in which he emphasizes material from his source. He also layers the spiritual sense, which he had derived from Philo, over the historical-literal sense. This is consistent with the belief, found in many of the Church Fathers, that the spiritual sense grows out of the historical-literal sense and gives deeper insight into it. None of these differences brings about any explicit critique of Philo. Rather, Ambrose once again shows himself to be a supplementer of what he regarded as solid biblical interpretation. Ambrose treats Philo as one of the finest exegetes that the world has ever known—even better than many Christian scholars—and the Milanese bishop does not malign his source for being ignorant of Christian doctrine that he could not be expected to know.

CONCLUSIONS This study has tried to account for two facts. First, Ambrose of Milan chose Philo of Alexandria and not some other Jewish or Christian author as his primary source in answering questions on the six days of creation. Second, Ambrose carefully selected and arranged the material that he borrowed from Philo and even altered his source as needed. To understand the choice of Philo and also the way in which Ambrose handled this source provides insight into the thought process of the Milanese bishop. More than that, it provides a valuable datapoint that may contribute to the wider understanding of how early Christianity viewed the Jewish exegetical traditions which it had inherited. This study has hopefully filled a lacuna in the current scholarship by observing Ambrose’s use of Philo in his letters, particularly the Hexaemeral letters. These results can be compared to those found in previous studies of Ambrose’s use of Philo in his other works. Overall, this study largely corroborates the findings of previous scholarship, particularly those of Savon and Runia, concerning the reason that Ambrose chose to use Philo. The greater contribution, however, may come in its observations about the second question—how Ambrose reworked his source for his own purposes. As far as why Ambrose chooses Philo—both in general and in these particular letters—a few factors rise to the fore. The most important is that Philo’s overarching programme was inherently similar to Ambrose’s; both thinkers desired to use Greco-Roman knowledge in the service of the biblical faith. Both Philo and Ambrose had received excellent Greco-Roman educations, and they both believed that there was value to be derived from such knowledge in their pursuits of biblical interpretation. The most noticeable place in which 185

186

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Ambrose draws upon Philo in this way is in his appropriation of Philonic allegories. Ambrose shared the assumption that allegorical interpretations in the Greco-Roman mold were valuable to the interpretation of the biblical text, and so he favors the allegory of Philo to the literalism of, for example, Josephus. Moreover, Ambrose finds Philo useful as a transmitter of other Greco-Roman philosophical lore, including macro/microcosmic theories, number symbolism, the flight of the mind, and theories of the origin of society. These findings are generally consistent with those of Savon and Runia. It is worth noting that Ambrose had a complicated relationship with the classical tradition. On the one hand, his writing is replete with classical allusions and Greco-Roman lore, which were part of his education and deeply ingrained in his thought. He also was willing to ‘plunder the Egyptians’ so to speak, by stealing the best that pagan knowledge had to offer and throwing out the chaff.1 On the other hand, Ambrose was participating in a cultural war with contemporary paganism, and this often leads him to speak polemically about the classical tradition. So, even though Ambrose finds Philo to be a useful transmitter of Greco-Roman knowledge, it is also in this area where he is most likely to redact his source. The second most significant factor behind Ambrose’s choice of Philo is that Ambrose understood himself and Philo to stand within a common tradition. Ambrose owes a great debt to the Greek Fathers, whose work he so often borrowed from verbatim and emulated. Especially on the topic of the Hexaemeron, Ambrose closely follows his Greek sources. First of all, the Greek Fathers were themselves influenced by Philo. Writers whom Ambrose respected, such as Origen and Basil, made use of Philonic material, and so Ambrose imitates them in such usage. Secondly, Ambrose treats Philo in the manner of a Greek Father honoris causa. While Ambrose does not

This biblical image (derived from Gen 15:14; Exod 3:21–22, 11:2–3, and 12:35–36) was employed by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 4.30), Origen (Ep. ad Gregorium Thaumaturgum 2), Gregory of Nazianzus (Oratio 45.20), and Augustine (De doctrina Christiana 2.40) in order to justify the use of pagan culture for Christian ends. 1

CONCLUSIONS

187

anywhere show that he accepted the spurious tradition of Philo Christianus, his techniques of borrowing from Philo align closely with how he utilizes the Greek Fathers, particularly Origen. In both of these cases, he does not cite his sources by name except for where he disagrees with them, which he does rarely. Moreover, in both of these cases, Ambrose feels free to update his sources and make use of them selectively in order to avoid any heretical ideas, as Ambrose would have understood them. Overall, Ambrose was greatly aware of his place within a theological tradition, and he recognized Philo as a member of that same fraternity. It is worth noting that Ambrose does not necessarily prefer Philo to the Greek Fathers. For example, when Ambrose wrote his own Homilies on the Hexaemeron, he used Basil, not Philo, as his guide. However, where Philo addressed the quaestiones that interested Ambrose, he did not hesitate to use him with similar reverence to the great Cappadocian Father. Even though Ambrose chooses to use Philo extensively, especially in the Hexaemeral letters, he does not do so slavishly. Ambrose is willing to omit and alter portions of his source according to his own biases. In fact, when Ambrose departs from Philo, Ambrose’s unique perspective becomes most clear. These departures from his source fall into three general categories—theological, philosophical, and neutral. A neutral departure from Philo is one that exhibits a difference in style or context with no distinct theological or philosophical motivation. For example, Ambrose tends to be more selective in his use of material than Philo is. Philo has a tendency to provide as much data as possible, as in his lengthy excursus on the hebdomad. By contrast, Ambrose provides the most pertinent examples for his rhetorical purpose and then moves on. Along the same lines, Ambrose generally prefers to give one definitive answer to a quaestio, whereas Philo is more likely to provide a diversity of opinions on the topic. Previous scholarship on Ambrose’s use of Philo has been silent on these matters for the most part. This diffidence probably is due to the fact that, while these differences are interesting, they do not necessarily help to explain the philosophical or theological issues involved. Much more frequent in the writings of Ambrose are theological departures from his Philonic source. This is hardly unexpected, since Philo was a 1st-century Jew and Ambrose was a 4th-century Christian,

188

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

and a wide gulf exists between their theological contexts. Ambrose is aware of Philo’s Jewishness, and he views it as a real deficiency, albeit one that can be overcome. He attributes Philo’s obsession with moral allegory to his Jewishness, and accordingly Ambrose prefers Christological and sacramental allegory when he can find it. Likewise, Ambrose is conscious that Philo would not be familiar with orthodox Christian doctrine of the 4th-century, and so he alters or adds to his source in order to be consistent in his expression of anthropology (especially concerning original sin), soteriology, and Christology. He also finds that Philo’s use of number crossed lines which Ambrose regarded as heretical, and so he alters his source to prevent any of the attendant pitfalls. This comports with the findings of Savon, who previously noted Ambrose’s aversion to pagan philosophy, Judaism, and Arianism. However, Ambrose does not treat his source like a heretical text or like a contemporary Jewish text. Ambrose does seem to view Philo as part of the old covenant, which has been fulfilled, and yet he also acknowledges an inherent continuity between the old and the new. This nuanced view is most clear in Ambrose’s discussion of the numbers seven and eight. While eight (the new covenant) is indeed greater than seven (the old covenant), Ambrose observes that the faith in all of its fullness is comprised of the sum of the two covenants (Ep. 31.7 [PL#44.7]). The new is built upon the old, the one is in continuity with the other, and so knowledge of the old retains its value. Therefore, Philo, a master interpreter from the old order, remains a valued member of the line of tradition. However, for Ambrose, Philo must be treated as one who did not possess the full revelation, and thus it may be necessary for some alterations to be made in order to account for the progressive revelation of God. At other times, Ambrose departs from his Philonic source on the basis of the philosophical distance between them. For example, by the 4th-century CE, Neopythagoreanism was out-of-vogue. Even though Ambrose objects to number symbolism primarily on theological grounds, there may have been some philosophical motivation for excising material from the defunct school. Furthermore, the difference between Philo’s Middle Platonism and Ambrose’s Christianized Neoplatonism may account for some minor distinctions in their thought. For example, micro/macrocosmic theories may have been

CONCLUSIONS

189

more prevalent in Ambrose’s time, which would account for the heavier emphasis that Ambrose places upon this particular argument. Nonetheless, Ambrose seems to have found fewer philosophical reasons to alter his source than theological ones. Previous studies, such as that of Savon, focused on Ambrose’s hostility toward philosophy but have not fully accounted for the Milanese bishop’s own philosophical biases. One crucial difference between Ambrose and Philo is how they view arithmology. Philo is interested in arithmology as an end in itself, and he does not hesitate to spend about a quarter of his treatise on the creation on the arithmology of the number seven alone. For Ambrose, arithmology is merely a tool in service to the Gospel. If arithmology fails to serve the message of Christ, then Ambrose sees it as vain at best and heretical at worst.2 Likewise, Ambrose holds the view that allegorical interpretation and other exegetical approaches are valuable insofar as they are used ministerially, subordinated to the teachings of the Christian faith. For this reason, Ambrose is less interested in psychological allegory, preferring allegories that point to Christ and Christian doctrines. For Ambrose, the control that he places on every allegory, arithmology, and the like is the Rule of Faith. Philo does not have a comparable self-imposed limitation. This distinction deserves more attention in Philo-Ambrose studies. Ambrose was a faithful transmitter of the tradition which he had received, but he also left a personal imprint upon it. He was instrumental in conveying the ideas of Philo and the Greek Fathers to the Latin West, but he filtered those ideas through his understanding of Christian orthodoxy. He was quick to borrow from pagan and Jewish sources when it would serve the Gospel, but he was totally committed to the Rule of Faith. In Philo, he found a source of exegetical insights that was a very amenable to him, and his ability to adapt what he most admired in Philo for a new audience is an excellent example of early Christianity’s reappropriation and re-creation of prior scholarship. 2 See Theodore of Mopsuestia, Treatise against the Allegorists 14–16, quoted in Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 267.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adkin, Neil. ‘Ambrose and Jerome: The Opening Shot’. Mnemosyne 46 (1993): 364–76. Ackermann, Hans-Wolfgang, and Robin A. H. Waterfield. The Theology of Arithmetic: On the Mystical, Mathematical and Cosmological Symbolism of the First Ten Numbers. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Phanes, 1988. Agaësse, Paul, and A. Solignac, La genèse au sens littéral en douze livres. Paris: Declée de Brouwer, 1972. Allert, Craig D. Early Christian Readings of Genesis One: Patristic Exegesis and Literal Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2018. Amir, Yehoshua. Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1983. ―. ‘Scripture in the Writings of Philo’. In Martin J. Mulder and Harry Sysling, eds, Mikra, 421–53. Annas, Julia. Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Arnaldez, Roger, ed., Philo, De Opificio mundi: Traduction avec introduction et commentaire analytique. Paris: Cerf, 1961. Arndt, Otfried. ‘Zahlenmystik bei Philo—Spielerei oder Schriftauslegung?’ Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 19 (1967): 167–71. Aucher, Johann Baptist. Philonis Judæi Paralipomena Armena: Libri Videlicet Quatuor in Genesin; Libri Duo in Exodum; Sermo Unus de Sampsone, Alter de Jona, Tertius de Tribus Angelis Abraamo Apparentibus. Venice: Typis Coenobii, 1826. 191

192

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Baer, Richard Arthur. Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Banterle, Gabriele, ed. Sant’Ambrogio: Discorsi e Lettere II/I: Lettere (1–35). Volume 19. Opera Omnia di Sant’Ambrogio. Rome: Città Nuova, 1988. Baudry, Gérard-Henry. ‘La Responsabilité d’Eve dans la chute: Analyse d’une tradition’. Mélanges de Science Religieuse 53 (1996): 293–320. Beatrice, Pier Franco. Cento anni di bibliografia ambrosiana (1874– 1974). Milan: Vita e pensiero, 1981. ―. The Transmission of Sin: Augustine and the Pre-Augustinian Sources. Translated by Adam Kamesar. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Becker, Adam H., and Annette Yoshiko Reed, eds. The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Belletti, Bruno. ‘Idea e creazionismo in Filone di Alessandria’. Sapienza 40 (1987): 277–304. ―. ‘La creazione delle idee e dell’uomo nel trattato De opificio mundi di Filone Alessandrino’. Humanitas 42 (1987): 273–79. Berchman, Robert M. ‘Arithmos and Kosmos: Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool in the De Opificio Mundi of Philo of Alexandria’. In Kevin Corrigan and Tuomas Rasimus, eds, Gnosticism, Platonism, and the Late Ancient World: Essays in Honour of John D. Turner, 167–98. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Beyenka, Mary Melchior, trans., Saint Ambrose, Letters. Fathers of the Church 26. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1954. Blönnigen, Christoph. Der griechische Ursprung der jüdischhellenistischen Allegorese und ihre Rezeption in der alexandrinischen Patristik. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1992. Blowers, Paul M. ‘Doctrine of Creation’. In Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, 906–931. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. ―. Drama of the Divine Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

193

Bockmuehl, Markus, and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds. Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Boll, Franz. Aus der Offenbarung Johannis: hellenistische Studien zum Weltbild der Apokalypse. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1967. Bona, Isabella. ‘Appunti sulle fonti naturalistiche dell’ “Esamerone” ambrosiano’. In Marco Rizzi, ed., Nec timeo mori: Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Studi Ambrosiani nel XVI centenario della morte di Sant’Ambrogio: Milano, 4–11 Aprile 1997, 549–59. Milan: Vita e pensiero, 1998. Borgen, Peder. ‘Heavenly Ascent in Philo: An Examination of Selected Passages’. In John H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans, eds, The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, 246–68. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. ―. ‘Man’s Sovereignty over Animals and Nature according to Philo of Alexandria’. In Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm, eds, Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman, 369– 89. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995. ―. ‘Philo of Alexandria’. In Michael E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, 233–82. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. ―. Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ―. ‘Philo of Alexandria as Exegete’. In Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson, eds, A History of Biblical Interpretation I, 114–43. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. ―. ‘Philo of Alexandria: Reviewing and Rewriting Biblical Material’. Studia Philonica Annual 9 (1997): 37–53. Bostock, Gerald. ‘Origen and the Pythagoreanism of Alexandria’. In L. Perrone, ed., Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition = Origene e la tradizione Alessandrina: Papers of the 8th International Origen Congress, Pisa, 27–31 August 2001, 465–78. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003.

194

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Bourke, Vernon J., trans., Augustine. Writings of Saint Augustine, V. Fathers of the Church 21. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2008. Bousset, Wilhelm. Jüdisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom: literarische untersuchungen zu Philo und Clemens von Alexandria, Justin und Irenäus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915. Bouteneff, Peter. Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2010. Bovon, François. ‘Names and Numbers in Early Christianity’. New Testament Studies 47, (2001): 267–88. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Brown, Andrew J. The Days of Creation: A History of Christian Interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3. Dorset: Deo Publishing, 2014. Buell, Denise K. Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Burkert, Walter. Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. Burns, J. Patout. ‘Creation and Fall according to Ambrose of Milan’. In Frederick Van Fleteren and Joseph C. Schnaubelt, eds, Augustine: Biblical Exegete, 71–97. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Calabi, Francesca. ‘“It Would Not Be Good That the Man Should Be Alone”: Philo’s Interpretation of Genesis 2:18 in Legum Allegoriae’. Studia Philonica Annual 28 (2016): 239–56. Carleton Paget, James N. B. ‘The Christian Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Alexandrian Tradition’. In Magne Sæbø, ed., Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, I.1, 478–542. Carter, Craig A. Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2018. Cavadini, John C. ‘Exegetical Transformations: The Sacrifice of Isaac in Philo, Origen, and Ambrose’. In Paul M. Blowers, A. Russell Christman, David G. Hunter, and R. D. Young, eds, In

BIBLIOGRAPHY

195

Dominico Eloqui: In Lordly Eloquence: Essays on Patristic Exegesis in Honor of Robert Louis Wilken, 35–49. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. Cerrato, John A. Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Chadwick, Henry. Augustine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. ―. Augustine of Hippo: A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. ―. The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Chappell, T. D. J. ‘Explaining the Inexplicable: Augustine on the Fall’. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 62 (1994): 869–84. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2: Expansions of the Old Testament and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. Doubleday and Company, 1985. Chilton, Bruce D. ‘Christian Reconstruction of Judaism: The Church Fathers from Nicaea to Chalcedon’. In Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, and Alan J. Avery-Peck, eds, Judaism from Moses to Muhammad: An Interpretation, 241–56. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Christian, William A. ‘Augustine on the Creation of the World’. Harvard Theological Review 46 (1953): 1–25. Clark, Elisabeth A. ‘Heresy, Asceticism, Adam, and Eve: Interpretations of Genesis 1–3 in the Later Latin Fathers’. In Gregory A. Robbins, ed., Genesis 1–3 in the History of Exegesis: Intrigue in the Garden, 99–133. Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1988. Cohn, Leopold, Paul Wendland, and Siegfried Reiter, eds, Philo, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt. Berlin: Reimerii, 1896.

196

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Colish, Marcia L. Ambrose’s Patriarchs: Ethics for the Common Man. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005. Colson, Francis Henry, and George Herbert Whitaker, trans., Philo, with an English translation, I-X. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962. Conger, George P. Theories of Macrocosms and Microcosms in the History of Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1922. Conybeare, Frederick C. Philo about the Contemplative Life or the Fourth Book of the Treatise Concerning Virtues: Critically Edited with a Defence of its Genuineness. Oxford: Clarendon, 1895. Costache, Doru. ‘Approaching An Apology for the Hexaemeron: Its Aims, Method, and Discourse’. Phronema 27 (2012): 53–81. Courcelle, Pierre. ‘Flügel (Flug) der Seele’. In Dolger et al., Reallexicon fur Antike und Christentum. 29–65. ―. Late Latin Writers and Their Greek Sources. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969. ―. ‘Plotin et saint Ambroise’. Revue de philologie, de littérature, et d’histoire anciennes 76 (1950): 29–56. ―. Recherches sur saint Ambroise: ‘Vies’ anciennes, culture, iconographie. Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1973. Crouzel, Henri. Origen—The Life and Thought of the First Great Theologian. Translated by A. S. Worrall. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1989. Daley, Brian. Gregory of Nazianzus. London: Routledge, 2006. Daniélou, Jean. The Bible and the Liturgy. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966. ―. Philon d’alexandrie. Paris: Librairie Artheme Fayard, 1958. ―. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Translated by John Austin Baker. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977. Daniélou, Jean, and Walter Mitchell. Origen. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

197

Dassmann, Ernst. Ambrosius von Mailand: Leben und Werk. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004. ―. Die Frömmigkeit des Kirchenvaters Ambrosius von Mailand: Quellen und Entfaltung. Münster: Aschendorff, 1965. de Lange, N. R. M. Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Dembski, William A., Wayne J. Downs, and Justin B. A. Frederick, eds. The Patristic Understanding of Creation: An Anthology of Writings from the Church Fathers on Creation and Design. Riesel, Tex.: Erasmus, 2008. de Mendieta, Armand. ‘La préparation et la composition des neuf Homélies sur l’Hexaémeron de Basile de Césarée: Le problème des sources littéraires immédiates’. Studia Patristica 16 (1985): 349–67. ―. Ancienne version latine des neuf homélies sur l’Hexaéméron de Basile de Césarée. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1958. de Vogel, C. J. ‘Platonism and Christianity: A Mere Antagonism or a Profound Common Ground?’ Vigiliae Christianae 39 (1985): 1–62. Diederich, Mary Dorothea. ‘Vergil in the Works of St. Ambrose’. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1931. Diels, Hermann, and Walther Kranz, eds. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Hildesheim: Weidmann, 2004. Dillon, John M. The Middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977. ―. ‘Reclaiming the Heritage of Moses: Philo’s Confrontation with Greek Philosophy’. Studia Philonica Annual 7 (1995): 108–23. Doerfler, Maria. ‘Ambrose’s Jews: The Creation of Judaism and Heterodox Christianity in Ambrose of Milan’s “Expositio Evangelii Secundum Lucam”’. Church History 80 (2011): 749–72. Dolger, Franz Joseph, Hans Lietzmann, Jan Hendrik Waszink, Theodor Klauser, and Leopold Wenger, eds. Reallexicon fur Antike und Christentum: Sachsworterbuch zur Auseinander-

198

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

setzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt. Hiersemann: Stuttgart, 1950. Doutreleau, Louis, trans. Didymus. Sur Zacharie: texte inédit d’après un papyrus de Toura. Paris: Cerf, 1962. Droge, Arthur J. Homer or Moses?: Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture. Tübingen: Mohr, 1989. Dudden, F. Homes. The Life and Times of St. Ambrose. I-II. Oxford: Clarendon, 1935. Dudley, Underwood. Numerology or, What Pythagoras Wrought. Washington: Mathematical Association of America, 2006. Dunbar, David. ‘The Problem of Hippolytus of Rome: A Study in Historical-Critical Reconstruction’. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982): 63–74. Feldman, Louis H. Flavius Josephus: Judean antiquities 1–4. Boston: Brill Academic, 2004. Fialon, Eugène. Étude historique et littéraire sur Saint Basile suivie de l’hexaméron. Paris: Ernest Thorin, 1869. Förster, Niclas. ‘The Exegesis of Homer and Numerology as a Method for Interpreting the Bible in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria’. In G. J. Brooke, ed., Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Förster, Theodor. Ambrosius, Bischof von Mailand: eine Darstellung seines Lebens und Wirkens. Halle: Strien, 1884. Fossum, Jarl. ‘Gen. 1,26 and 2,7 in Judaism, Samaritanism, and Gnosticism’. Journal for the Study of Judaism 16 (1985): 202–39. Fowler, Harold N., trans. Plato, IX. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1925. Frank, Erich. Plato und die sogenannten Pythagoreer: Ein Kapitel aus der Geschichte des griechischen Geistes. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962. Franxman, Thomas W. Genesis and the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979. Freudenthal, Jakob. Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift: Über die Herrschafft der Vernunft (IV. Makkabäerbuch). Breslau: Grass, 1869.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

199

Ferguson, Everett. ‘Was Barnabas a Chiliast?: An Example of Hellenistic Symbolism in Barnabas and Clement of Alexandria’. In D. L. Balch, E. Ferguson & W. A. Meeks, eds, Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, 157–167. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Gebara, Joseph Camille. Le Dieu créateur: histoire de la doctrine de la création, de Philon d’Alexandrie à Théophile d’Antioche. Lille: Atelier national de reproduction des thèses, 2003. Geffcken, Johannes. Zwei griechische Apologeten. Leipzig: Teubner, 1907. Ginzberg, Louis. ‘Ambrose’. In The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1:488–90. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1907. Glucker, John, and Charles Burnett, eds. Greek into Latin from Antiquity until the Nineteenth Century. London: Warburg Institute, 2012. Goodenough, Erwin R. An Introduction to Philo Judaeus. Oxford: Blackwell, 1962. Goulet, Richard. ‘Allégorisme et anti-allégorisme chez Philon d’Alexandrie’. In Gilbert Dahan and Richard Goulet, eds, Allégorie des poètes, allégorie des philosophes: Études sur la poétique et l’herméneutique de l’allégorie de l’antiquité à la réforme, 59–87. Paris: Vrin, 2005. ―. La philosophie de Moïse: Essai de reconstitution d’un commentaire philosophique préphilonien du Pentateuque. Paris: Vrin, 1987. Gousmett, Chris. ‘Creation Order and Miracle according to Augustine’. Evangelical Quarterly 60 (1988): 217–40. Grabbe, Lester L. Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988. Grant, Robert M. Greek Apologists of the Second Century. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. ―. trans., Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970. Greenwood, Kyle R., ed., Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages, 97–120. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2018.

200

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Gregory, Andrew. ‘The Pythagoreans: Number and Numerology’. In Snezana Lawrence and Mark MacCartney, eds, Mathematicians and Their Gods: Interactions between Mathematics and Religious Beliefs, 21–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Gummere, Richard M., trans., Lucius Annaeus Seneca. Epistles I. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1917. Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library: An Anthology of Ancient Writings Which Relate to Pythagoras and Pythagorean Philosophy. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Phanes, 1987. Guthrie, W. K. C. A History of Greek Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962. ―. In the Beginning: Some Greek Views on the Origins of Life and the Early State of Man. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1957. Hahn, Viktor. Das wahre Gesetz: eine Untersuchung der Auffassung des Ambrosius von Mailand vom Verhältnis der beiden Testamente. Münster: Aschendorff, 1969. Hall, Christopher A, ed. Origen: Homilies on Numbers. Translated by Thomas P Scheck. Ancient Christian Texts. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2013. Harl, Marguerite. ‘Adam et les deux arbres du Paradis, Gen. II-III, ou L’homme milieu entre deux termes, Μεσος-Μεθοριος, chez Philon D’Alexandrie: Pour une histoire de la doctrine du librearbitre’. Recherches de Science Religieuse 50 (1962): 321–388. ―. La Bible d’Alexandrie. I. Paris: Cerf, 2010. Hay, David M. ‘Philo’s References to Other Allegorists’. Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1979–1980): 41–75. Heine, Ronald, trans., Origen. Homlies on Genesis and Exodus. Fathers of the Church 71. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1982. Heinisch, Paul. Der Einfluss Philos auf die älteste christliche Exegese. Münster: Aschendorff, 1908.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

201

Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by John Bowden. Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock, 2003. Henke, Rainer. ‘Ambrosius als Übersetzer von Basilius, Hexaëmeron 9, 3f.: Die stoische Oikeiosislehre im Sechstagewerk’. In Gert Partoens, Geert Roskam, and T. van Houdt, eds, Virtutis Imago: Studies on the Conceptualisation and Transformation of an Ancient Ideal, 285–97. Louvain: Peeters, 2004. ―. Basilius und Ambrosius über das Sechstagewerk: Eine vergleichende Studie. Basel: Schwabe, 2000. Hicks, R. D., trans., Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers II, Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1925. Hill, Robert C., trans., Didymus. Commentary on Genesis. Fathers of the Church 132. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2016. ―. trans., Saint John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 1–17. Fathers of the Church 74. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1985. Holladay, Carl R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, III, Aristobulus. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995. Hornblower, Simon, and Antony Spawforth. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Hunter, David G. ‘The Raven Replies: Ambrose, Letter to the Church at Vercelli (Ep. Ex. Coll. 14) and the Criticisms of Jerome’. In Andrew Cain and Josef Loessl, eds, Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings and Legacy, 175–89. London: Ashgate, 2009. Hutchinson, Gregory O. Greek to Latin: Frameworks and Contexts for Intertextuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Ifrah, Georges. From One to Zero: A Universal History of Numbers. New York: Viking, 1985. Ihm, Max. Philon und Ambrosius. Leipzig: Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, 1890. Inowlocki, Sabrina. ‘Josephus and Patristic Literature’. In Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers, eds, A Companion to

202

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Josephus in His World, 356–67. Hoboken, N.J.: WileyBlackwell, 2016. Itter, Andrew C. Esoteric Teaching in the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria. Boston: Brill, 2009. Jacob, Christoph. ‘The Reception of the Origenist Tradition in Latin Exegesis’. In Magne Sæbø, ed., Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, I.1, 682–700. Jeremias, Alfred. Babylonisches im Neuen Testament. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905. Jobling, David. ‘“And Have Dominion...”: The Interpretation of Gen. 1, 28 in Philo Judaeus’. Journal for the Study of Judaism 8 (1977): 50–82. Jonas, Hans. The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity. Boston: Beacon Press, 1963. Jones, Arnold, John R. Martindale, and John Morris. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. I-II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Jones, Roger Miller. ‘Posidonius and the Flight of the Mind through the Universe’. Classical Philology 21 (1926): 97–113. Kahn, Charles H. Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: A Brief History. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett, 2001. Kalvesmaki, Joel. The Theology of Arithmetic: Number Symbolism in Platonism and Early Christianity. Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013. Kamesar, Adam. ‘Ambrose, Philo, and the Presence of Art in the Bible’. Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001): 73–103. ―, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ―. ‘The Evaluation of the Narrative Aggadah in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature’. Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1994): 37–75. Kannengiesser, Charles. Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

203

Kellner, Johann Baptist. Der heilige Ambrosius, Bischof von Mailand, als Erklärer des Alten Testamentes: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese. Regensburg: Manz, 1893. Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. San Francisco: Prince, 2003. ―. Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1995. Kittel, Gerhard, Geoffrey William Bromiley, Gerhard Friedrich, and K. H. Rengstorf, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. I-X. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. Klein, Martin. Meletemata Ambrosiana: Mythologica de Hippolyto doxographica de exameri fontibus. Regensburg: Lankeit, 1927. Kleingeld, Pauline, and Eric Brown. ‘Cosmopolitanism’. In Edward N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2014. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/cosmopol itanism/. Knuuttila, Simo. ‘Time and Creation in Augustine’. In David Vincent Meconi and Eleonore Stump, eds, The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, 103–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Kroll, Wilhelm. Studien zum verständnis der römischen literatur. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1924. Kupan, Istvan Pasztori. Theodoret of Cyrus. London: Routledge, 2006. Lancel, Serge. Saint Augustine. London: SCM Press, 2002. LaVallee, Louis. ‘Augustine on the Creation Days’. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32 (1989): 457–64. Layton, Richard A. Didymus the Blind and His Circle in LateAntique Alexandria: Virtue and Narrative in Biblical Scholarship. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004. ―. ‘Plagiarism and Lay Patronage of Ascetic Scholarship: Jerome, Ambrose and Rufinus’. Journal of Early Christian Studies 10 (2002): 489–522.

204

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Lenox-Conyngham, Andrew. ‘Ambrose and Philosophy’. In Lionel R. Wickham and Caroline P. Bammel, eds, Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy in Late Antiquity: Essays in Tribute to George Christopher Stead, Ely Professor of Divinity, University of Cambridge (1971–1980), in Celebration of His Eightieth Birthday, 9th April 1993, 112–28. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Levison, John R. Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism From Sirach to 2 Baruch. London: Bloomsbury, 1988. Lévy, Carlos, ed., Philon d’Alexandrie et le langage de la philosophie: Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre d’études sur la philosophie hellénistique et romaine de l’Université de Paris XII-Val de Marne, Créteil, Fontenay, Paris, 26–28 Octobre 1995. Turnhout: Brepols, 1998. Levy, Donald. ‘Macrocosm and Microcosm’. In Donald M. Borchert, ed., Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd ed., 5:639–43. Detroit: Macmillan, 2006. Lewy, Hans. Neue Philontexte in der Überarbeitung des Ambrosius. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1932. ―. Sobria ebrietas: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der antiken Mystik. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1929. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2010. Liebeschuetz, Wolf. ‘Comment Dieu créa le monde en sept jours: Les commentaires de la Genèse de Jean Chrysostome (Homélies 1– 12) et d’Eusèbe d’Émèse (1–10), deux représentants distincts de l’École d’Antioche’. Antiquité Tardive 22 (2014): 243–53. Lilla, Salvatore Romano Clemente. Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism. Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock, 2005. Lloyd, Genevieve. Man of Reason: Male and Female in Western Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 2016. Lovejoy, Arthur Oncken, and George Boas. Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1935.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

205

Lucchesi, Enzo. L’usage de Philon dans l’oeuvre exégétique de Saint Ambroise: Une “Quellenforschung” relative aux commentaires d’Ambroise sur la Genèse. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Ludlow, Morwenna. Gregory of Nyssa, Ancient and (Post)modern. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Lupieri, Edmondo F. A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John. Translated by Maria Poggi Johnson and Adam Kamesar. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. Lutz, Cora E., trans., Musonius Rufus, ‘The Roman Socrates’. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947. MacMullen, Ramsey. Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100– 400). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. Madec, Goulven. Saint Ambroise et la philosophie. Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1974. Mansfeld, Jaap. The Pseudo-Hippocratic Tract Περὶ Ἑβδομάδων Ch. 1–11 and Greek Philosophy. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1971. Markschies, Christoph. ‘Altkirchliche Christologie und Neues Testament. Beobachtungen zur Bibelhermeneutik des Ambrosius von Mailand’. In Christoph Landmesser, Hans-Joachim Eckstein, and Hermann Lichtenberger, eds, Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Hermeneutik des Evangeliums, 875–905. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. ―. ‘Ambrosius und Origenes: Bemerkungen zur Exegetischen Hermeneutik zweier Kirchenväter’. In Wolfgang Bienert and Uwe Kühneweg, eds, Origeniana Septima: Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, 545–570. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. ―. Ambrosius von Mailand und die Trinitätstheologie: Kirchenund theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu Antiarianimus und Neunizänismus bei Ambrosius und im lateinischen Westen (364–381 n. Chr.). Tübingen: Mohr, 1995. ―. ‘War der Bischof Ambrosius von Mailand ein schlechter Theologe?’ In Jahrbuch der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 1994, 63–66. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995.

206

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Marmodoro, Anna, and Brian D. Prince, eds. Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Marrou, Henri-Irénée, Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique. Paris: Boccard, 1958. Martín, J. P. ‘Filón Hebreo y Teófilo Cristiano: La Continuidad de una Teologia Natural’. Salmaticensis (1990): 302–17. ―. ‘La Antropología de Filón y la de Teófilo de Antioquía: Sus Lecturas de Genesis 2–5’. Salmaticensis (1989): 23–71. ―. ‘La Presencia de Filón en el Exámeron de Teófilo de Antioquía’. Salmaticensis (1986): 147–77. Maurice, Simon, H. Freedman, and I. Epstein, eds. Midrash Rabbah. I-X. London: Soncino, 1983. Mayer, Wendy, and Pauline Allen. John Chrysostom. London: Routledge, 2000. Mazières, Jean Pierre. ‘Les lettres d’Ambroise de Milan à Orontien: Remarques sur leur chronologie et leur destinataire’. Pallas 20 (1973): 49–57. McElduff, Siobhán. Roman Theories of Translation: Surpassing the Source. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. McGill, Scott. Plagiarism in Latin Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. McIver, Robert K. ‘“Cosmology” as a Key to the Thought of Philo of Alexandria’. Andrews University Seminary Studies 25 (1988): 267–79. McLeod, Frederick. Theodore of Mopsuestia. London: Routledge, 2008. McLynn, Neil B. Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. McVey, Kathleen E. ‘The Use of Stoic Cosmogony in Theophilus of Antioch’s Hexaemeron’. In M. S. Burrows and P. Rorem, eds, Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective: Studies in Honor of Karlfried Froehlich on His Sixtieth Birthday, 32–58. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991. Meredith, Anthony. Gregory of Nyssa. London: Routledge, 1999.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

207

Moehring, Horst. ‘Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria’. In J. P. Kenney, ed., The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion in Honor of Horst R. Moehring, 141–76. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995. ―. ‘Moses and Pythagoras: Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool in Philo’. In E. A. Livingstone, ed., Studia Biblica 1978: Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, Oxford 3–7 April 1978. 1: Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes, 205–8. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979. Moorhead, John. Ambrose: Church and Society in the Late Roman World. London: Addison-Wesley Longman, 1999. Morris, Jenny. ‘The Jewish Philosopher Philo’. In Emil Schürer, Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Martin Goodman, Matthew Black, and Pamela Vermes, eds, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III.2:809–90. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987. Mulder, Martin J, and Harry Sysling, eds. Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Nauroy, Gérard. ‘Jérôme, lecteur et censeur de l’exégèse d’Ambroise’. In Yves-Marie Duval, ed., Jérôme entre l’Occident et l’Orient: XVIe centenaire du départ de saint Jérôme de Rome et de son installation à Bethléem, 173–203. Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1988. Nautin, Pierre. Genèse 1, 1–2, de Justin à Origène. Paris: Centre d’Études des Religions du Livre, 1973. ―. Hippolyte et Josipe: Contribution à l’histoire de la littérature chrétienne du troisième siècle. Paris: Cerf, 1947. ―. Origène. Paris: Beauchesne, 1977. Nautin, Pierre, and Louis Doutreleau, trans., Didymus. Sur la Genèse. Paris: Cerf, 1976. Neusner, Jacob, trans. The Tosefta: Fourth Division, Neziqin. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1999. Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. ‘Saint Ambroise et Philon’. Revue des Études Grecques 94 (1981): 193–99.

208

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Nikiprowetzky, Valentin, and A. Solignac. ‘Philon d’Alexandrie’. In Marcel Viller, Charles Baumgartner, and André Rayez, eds, Dictionnaire de spiritualité: Ascétique et mystique, doctrine et histoire. Paris: Beauchesne, 1984. O’Donnell, James J. Augustine: A New Biography. New York: Harper Perennial, 2006. Oliver, Simon. ‘Augustine on Creation, Providence, and Motion’. International Journal of Systematic Theology 18 (2016): 379–98. O’Meara, John. ‘Saint Augustine’s Understanding of the Creation and Fall’. The Maynooth Review / Revieú Mhá Nuad 10 (1984): 52–62. Palanque, Jean-Rémy. ‘Deux Correspondants de Saint Ambroise: Orontien et Irénée’. Revue des Études Latines 11 (1933): 153–63. ―. Saint Ambroise et l’Empire romain: Contribution à l’histoire des rapports de l’église et de l’état à la fin du quatrième siècle. Paris: Boccard, 1933. Paredi, Angelo. Saint Ambrose, His Life and Times. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1964. ―. ‘S. Gerolamo e S. Ambrogio’. In Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, 183–98. Vatican City: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1964. Pauly, August Friedrich, and Georg Wissowa, eds. Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1939. Pépin, Jean. ‘Cosmic Piety’. In A. H. Armstrong, ed., Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman, 408–35. New York: Crossroad, 1986. ―. ‘Exegese de in principio et theorie des principes dans l’ exameron. I, 4, 12–16’. In Giuseppe Lazzati, ed., Ambrosius episcopus: Atti del Congresso internazionale di studi ambrosiani nel 16. centenario della elevazione di sant’ Ambrogio alla cattedra episcopale, Milano 2–7 Dicembre 1974. Milan: Vita e pensiero, 1976. ―. ‘Recherches sur les sens et les origines de l’expression “Caelum caeli” dans le livre XII des Confessions de S. Augustin’. In ‘Ex Platonicorum persona’: études sur les lectures philosophiques de Saint Augustin. Amsterdam: A.M. Hakkert, 1977.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

―. Théologie cosmique et théologie chrétienne (Ambroise, Exam. I 1, 1–4). Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1964. Petit, Alain. ‘Philon et le pythagorisme: Un usage problématique’. In Carlos Lévy, ed., Philon d’Alexandrie et le langage de la philosophie, 471–82. Pohlenz, Max. Philon von Alexandreia. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1942. Potter, David S. Prophets and Emperors: Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995. Presley, Stephen O. ‘Interpretations of Genesis 1–2 among the AnteNicene Fathers’. In Kyle R. Greenwood, ed., Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages, 97–120. Procopé, J.F. ‘The Christian Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Alexandrian Tradition’. In Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, I. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Quasten, Johannes and Angelo di Berardino, eds. Patrology, IV, trans. Placid Solari, Westminster: Christian Classics, 1986. Quasten, Johannes, ed., Patrology, I-III, trans. Placid Solari, Westminster: Christian Classics, 1950–1958. ―. ‘“Sobria ebrietas” in Ambrosius “De sacramentis”’. In Miscellanea liturgica in honorem L. C. Mohlberg, 1:117–25. Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 1948. Rackham, Harris, trans., Cicero. On the Nature of the Gods. Academics. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1933. Radde-Gallwitz, Andrew. Basil of Caesarea: A Guide to His Life and Doctrine. Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock, 2012. Radice, Roberto. ‘Commentario a la creazione del mondo’. In C. Kraus Reggiani, ed., La Filosofia Mosaica, 231–313. Milan: Rusconi, 1987. ―. ‘Philo’s Theology and Theory of Creation’. In Adam Kamesar, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Philo, 124–45. Ramsey, Boniface. Ambrose. London: Routledge, 1997.

210

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Reale, Giovanni. A History of Ancient Philosophy. I-IV, trans., John R. Catan, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985– 1990. Rine, C. Rebecca. ‘Interpretations of Genesis 1–2 among the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers’. In Kyle R. Greenwood, ed., Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages, 121– 45. Robbins, Frank Egleston. ‘Arithmetic in Philo Judaeus’. Classical Philology 26 (1931): 345–61. ―. ‘Posidonius and the Sources of Pythagorean Arithmology’. Classical Philology 15 (1920): 309–22. ―. The Hexaemeral Literature: A Study of the Greek and Latin Commentaries on Genesis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912. ―. ‘The Tradition of Greek Arithmology’. Classical Philology 16 (1921): 97–123. Rogers, Justin M. Didymus the Blind and the Alexandrian Christian Reception of Philo. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2017. Roscher, Wilhelm Heinrich. Die Hebdomadenlehren der griechischen Philosophen und Ärzte: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie und Medizin. Leipzig: Teubner, 1906. ―. ‘Planeten und Planetengötter’. In Wilhelm Heinrich Roscher, ed., Ausführliches Lexicon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie. Leipzig: Teubner, 1884. Rousseau, Philip. Basil of Caesarea. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Royse, James R. ‘The Works of Philo’. In Adam Kamesar, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Philo, 32–64. Runia, David T. ‘A Note on Philo and Christian Heresy’. Studia Philonica Annual 4 (1992): 65–74. ―. ‘Etymology as an Exegetical Technique in Philo of Alexandria’. Studia Philonica Annual 16 (2004): 101–21. ―, ed. Philo, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

211

―. Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ―. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Leiden: Brill, 1986. ―. ‘Philo’s Longest Arithmological Passage: De Opificio Mundi 89–128’. In Lucien-Jean Bord and David Hamidovic, eds, De Jérusalem à Rome: Mélanges offerts à Jean Riaud par ses amis, ses collègues et ses anciens élèves: Textes, 155–74. Paris: Geuthner, 2000. ―. ‘Plato’s Timaeus, First Principle(s) and Creation in Philo and Early Christian Thought’. In Gretchen J. Reydams-Schils, ed., Plato’s Timaeus as Cultural Icon, 133–51. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003. ―. ‘Why Does Clement of Alexandria Call Philo “the Pythagorean”?’ Vigiliae Christianae 49 (1995): 1–22. Sæbø, Magne, ed., Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, I.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Sallaberger, Walther, Heinz Felber, and Hartwig Heckel. ‘Kulturentstehungstheorien’. Der Neue Pauly, 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574–9347_dnp_e624540. Sandmel, Samuel. Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Sandwell, Isabella. ‘How to Teach Genesis 1.1–19: John Chrysostom and Basil of Caesarea on the Creation of the World’. Journal of Early Christian Studies 19 (2011): 539–64. Savage, John J., trans., Saint Ambrose. Hexameron, Paradise, and Cain and Abel. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Savon, Hervé. Ambroise de Milan. Paris: Desclée, 1997. ―. ‘Ambroise lecteur d’Origène’. In Luigi Franco Pizzolato and Marco Rizzi, eds., Nec timeo mori: atti del Congresso internazionale di studi ambrosiani nel 16. centenario della morte di sant’Ambrogio, Milano, 4–11 Aprile 1997, 221–34. Milan: Vita e pensiero, 1998. ―. ‘Maniérisme et allégorie dans l’oeuvre d’Ambroise de Milan’. Revue des Études Latines 55 (1977): 203–21.

212

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

―. ‘Remploi et transformation de thèmes philoniens dans la première lettre d’Ambroise à Just’. In Benoît Gain, Pierre Jay et Gérard Nauroy, eds., Chartae caritatis: Études de patristique et d’antiquité tardive en hommage à Yves-Marie Duval, 83–95. Paris: Études augustiniennes, 2004. ―. ‘Saint Ambroise a-t-il imité le recueil de lettres de Pline le Jeune?’ Revue d’ Etudes Augustiniennes et Patristiques 41 (1995): 3– 18. ―. Saint Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif. Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1977. ―. ‘Saint Ambroise et la Philosophie: À propos d’une étude récente’. Revue de L’histoire des Religions 191 (1977): 173–96. ―. Saint Ambroise et saint Jérôme, lecteurs de Philon. ANRW 21.1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984. Schaff, Philip, ed. Gregory of Nyssa. Trans. by William Moore and Henry A. Wilson. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, V, Second Series. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1896. Scheck, Thomas P., trans., Origen: Homilies on Numbers. Edited by Christopher A. Hall. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2013. Schenck, Kenneth. A Brief Guide to Philo. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Schimmel, Annemarie. The Mystery of Numbers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Schor, Adam M. ‘Theodoret on the “School of Antioch”: A Network Approach’. Journal of Early Christian Studies 15 (2007): 517–62. Schreckenberg, Heinz. Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Schreckenberg, Heinz, and Kurt Schubert. Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Schwartz, Daniel. ‘Philo, His Family, and His Times’. In Adam Kamesar, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Philo, 9–31.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

Seland, Torrey. Reading Philo: A Handbook to Philo of Alexandria. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014. Sharples, Robert W. and Philip J. van der Eijk, trans., Nemesius, On the Nature of Man. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2008. Siegfried, Carl. Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alten Testament: An sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss betrachtet. Nebst Untersuchungen über die Gräcität Philos. Jena: Hermann Dufft, 1875. Simonsohn, Schlomo. The Jews in the Duchy of Milan, I. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1982. Sly, Dorothy. Philo’s Perception of Women. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholar’s Press, 1990. Smets, Alexis, and Michel van Esbroeck, trans., Basile de Césarée, Sur l’origine de l’homme. Paris: Cerf, 1970. Smith, J. Warren. Christian Grace and Pagan Virtue: The Theological Foundation of Ambrose’s Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Staehle, Karl. Die Zahlenmystik bei Philon von Alexandreia. Leipzig: Teubner, 1931. Stemplinger, Eduard. Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur. Leipzig: Teubner, 1912. Sullivan, C. G. ‘The Classical Latin Quotations in the Letters of St. Ambrose’. Greece and Rome 15 (1968): 186–97. Swidler, Leonard J. Women in Judaism: The Status of Women in Formative Judaism. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1976. Swift, Louis J. ‘Basil and Ambrose on the Six Days of Creation’. Augustinianum 21 (1981): 317–28. Szabó, François. Le Christ créateur chez saint Ambroise. Roma: Studium theologicum Augustinianum, 1968. Telesca, L. ‘Filone e Ambrogio: Due testi a confronto’. Notizario Centro di Studi sul Giudaismo Ellenistico 2 (1991): 1–13. Terian, Abraham. ‘Back to Creation: The Beginning of Philo’s Third Grand Commentary’. Studia Philonica Annual 9 (1997): 19– 36.

214

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Theiler, Willy. ‘Philo von Alexandria und der Beginn des kaiserzeitlichen Platonismus’. In K. Flasch, ed., Parusia: Studien zur Philosophie Platons und zur Problemgeschichte des Platonismus: Festgabe für J. Hirschberger, 199–218. Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1965. ―. ‘Philo von Alexandria und der hellenisierte Timaeus’. In Robert B. Palmer and Robert Hamerton-Kelly, eds, Philomathes: Studies and Essays in the Humanities in Memory of Philip Merlan, 25–35. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1971. Tobin, Thomas H. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983. Torchia, N. Joseph. Creatio Ex Nihilo and the Theology of St. Augustine: The Anti-Manichaean Polemic and Beyond. New York: Peter Lang, 2012. Trigg, Joseph W. Origen. London: Routledge, 1998. van den Hoek, Annewies. ‘Philo in the Alexandrian Tradition’. Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1994): 96–99. ―. Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis: An Early Christian Reshaping of a Jewish Model. Leiden: Brill, 1988. ―. ‘Endowed with Reason or Glued to the Senses: Philo’s Thoughts on Adam and Eve’. In Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, ed., The Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions, 63–75. Boston: Brill, 2000. ―. ‘Techniques of Quotation in Clement of Alexandria’. Vigiliae Christianae 50 (1996): 223–43. Van Winden, J. C. M. ‘In the Beginning: Some Observations on the Patristic Interpretation of Genesis 1:1’. Vigiliae Christianae 17 (1963): 105–21. Visonà, Giuseppe. Cronologia ambrosiana, Bibliografia ambrosiana (1900–2000). Milan: Città nuova, 2004. von Arnim, Hans Friedrich August. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

215

Waghorn, W. R. ‘Saint Ambrose Letters to Sabinus: A Translation with Introduction and Commentary’. Catholic University of America, 1952. Walter, Nikolaus. Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos: Untersuchungen zu seinen Fragmenten und zu pseudepigraphischen Resten der jüdisch-hellenistischen Literatur. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964. Way, Agnes Clare, trans., Saint Basil, Exegetic Homilies. Fathers of the Church 46. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1963. Wegner, Judith Romney. ‘Philo’s Portrayal of Women--Hebraic or Hellenic?’ In Amy-Jill Levine, ed., ‘Women like This’: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World, 41– 66. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1999. Weiss, Herold. ‘Philo on the Sabbath’. In David T. Runia, David M. Hay, and David Winston, eds, Heirs of the Septuagint: Philo, Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity: Festschrift for Earle Hilgert, 83–105. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Wilbrand, Wilhelm. S. Ambrosius quos auctores quaeque exemplaria in epistulis componendis secutus sit: commentatio philologica. Münster: Aschendorff, 1909. Wiley, Tatha. Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings. New York: Paulist, 2002. Williams, Daniel H. Ambrose of Milan and the End of the NiceneArian Conflicts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. Williamson, Ronald. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Winston, David. ‘Philo’s Nachleben in Judaism’. Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1994): 103–110. Yarbro Collins, Adela. ‘Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature’. In ANRW 21.2, 1222–87. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984. Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

216

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

―. ‘The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis’. In Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honor of Henry Chadwick, 182–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Zelzer, Michaela. ‘Die Brieftheorie der Griechen und das Briefcorpus des Ambrosius’. In Cristianesimo Latino e cultura Greca sino al sec. IV, 235–44. Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1993. ―. ‘Origenes in der Briefsammlung des Ambrosius’. In Uwe Kühneweg, ed., Origeniana Septima: Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. ―. ‘“Plinius Christianus”. Ambrosius als Epistolograph’. Studia Patristica 23 (1989): 203–8. Ziegler, Konrat. ‘Plagiat’. In PRE 20.2, 1964–65. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1894. Zoepfl, Friedrich. Der Kommentar des Pseudo-Eustathios zum Hexaëmeron. Münster: Aschendorff, 1927.

INDICES Topical Index originality of, 15-19 relationship to philosophy, 8-9, 41-42, 107, 111, 166-168 relationship to the State, 7-8 sermons of, 7, 14, 47, 77 use of Philo, 33-48, 102-106, 106-107, 112-116, 145147, 149, 150, 161-162, 165, 171-175, 175-183, 185-189 use of sources, 5, 15-19, 3338, 46-48, 189 anthropocentricity of the cosmos, 57, 58, 63, 92, 94, 103, 104, 105, 110 anthropology, 51, 107-111, 112, 116, 165-171, 176, 188 Antiochene exegesis, 52, 80-83, 144-145, 165n apocalypse, apocalypticism, 135137 Apollinarianism, 81 Arianism, See Homoianism arithmology, 21, 46, 59, 79, 119, 120, 121, 123-157, 189 in the New Testament, 135137

Adam and Eve, historicity of, 68, 182 allegory, 13-15, 20-21, 34, 36, 4041, 47, 48, 54, 70, 71, 72, 7677, 79, 80, 84-85, 86, 161, 186, 188, 189 moral, 54, 62, 68, 76, 80, 83, 188 of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, 159, 162, 175-183 of the animals, 62, 68, 71 of the luminaries, 62, 71 of the trees of Paradise, 71, 159, 162, 171-175 three-fold interpretation, 67-68, 71-72 Alexander, Tiberius Julius, 25 Alexandrian exegesis, 15, 22, 25, 47, 52, 54, 55, 56, 59, 65, 79, 80, 89, 96, 110, 128, 141, 142, 144-145 Ambrose biography of, 3-9 exegetical approach of, 1011, 12-15, 115-116, 147150, 163-165 knowledge of Greek, 6, 1011, 15-16

217

218

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

of 6, 153 of 666, 137-138 of 7, 120-123, 130-135, 145147, 153 of 8, 145-147, 150-156 of 888, 138, 140, 152 Callinicum incident, 8, 27-29 Christological interpretation, 13, 22, 43, 45, 49, 69, 71, 146, 183, 188 classical tradition, 7, 8, 10, 11, 24, 55, 120, 169, 186 cosmopolitan, 42, 45, 159, 166168, 183-184 creatio ex nihilo, 62-63, 86 creation beginning of, 69, 73-74, 75 of angels, 74, 82, 87 of the luminaries, 62, 71 of time, 69, 73-74, 87, 145 day one of creation, 55, 74, 75, 77, 86 determinism, 69 Easter Octave, 152 Eden, Garden of, 54, 159, 162, 164165, 171-172 historicity of the Garden of, 68, 174-175, 176 eighth day, 74, 146, 150-156 etymology, 38, 45, 62, 79, 123, 133, 134, 173 flat earth, 82 flight of the mind, 44, 105, 106107, 116, 186 gematria, 137-139, 140, 152 golden age, 169-171 Gnosticism, 8, 9, 13, 27, 30, 32, 47, 51, 63, 66, 139, 140, 148, 149, 174 Homoianism, 4, 5, 6, 8, 26, 30-31, 36, 47, 81, 188

Jewish-Christian relations, 8, 16, 26-33, 67, 188 letter writing, 9-12 literal interpretation, 20, 32-33, 61-62, 65, 67-68, 70-72, 73, 80-81, 83, 85, 86, 164, 182, 186 macrocosm and microcosm, 92, 95, 104-105, 106, 107-111, 129 Manichaeanism, 7, 32, 72, 73, 81, 84, 86, 148, 149 Marcionites, 32, 72, 73, 81, 148 Middle Platonism, See Platonism Neoplatonism, See Platonism Neopythagoreanism, See Pythagoreanism original sin, 112, 116, 174, 179, 184 pagan authors, 5, 16, 19, 37, 113, 119, 189 pagan-Christian relations, 8, 9, 13, 30, 31, 41, 66, 77, 148, 149, 163, 171, 186, 188 Philo biography of, 24-25 Christian reception of, 2526, 32, 60-61, 66-67, 72-73, 79, 88-89, 164, 180, 186, 187 Greco-Roman influences, 24, 25, 57-59, 92, 97110, 120, 127-128, 129130, 131-135, 166-168, 169-171, 172, 176, 177, 178 Jewish influences, 24, 25, 54-57, 59, 92-96, 113, 120, 128-129, 135, 176, 179 works of, 23-24, 53-54 plagiarism, 16-18 Platonism, 5, 6, 57, 58, 59, 61, 67, 69, 72, 84, 85, 87, 92, 108,

INDICES 110, 111, 116, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 148, 166, 177, 183, 188 Pre-Socratics, 107 Pythagoreanism, 42, 107, 124-132, 139, 142, 145, 147, 149, 150, 176, 177, 188 Quellenforschung, 35, 131 Rule of Faith, 15, 72, 85, 140, 141, 144, 149, 189 scientific exegesis, 47, 63, 73, 83, 146, 176

219 Stoicism, 41, 57, 58, 61, 63, 87, 92, 96, 109, 126, 167, 168, 181, 183 typological exegesis, 45, 49, 65, 151 Valentinianism, 9, 27, 30, 72, 86, 139-143, 148-150, 151, 153 virtues, 14, 58, 105, 112, 117, 147, 159, 162, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 181, 183 world-week schema, 65

Scripture Index: Old Testament Genesis 1-2

1-3 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:26 1:27 2 2:1-3 2:7 3 3:23 4:15 7:20 9:2 14:14 15:14 17:23 22:7 37-50

2, 26, 39, 51-89, 131, 9396, 97-101, 128-129, 145-147, 153, 185 20-21, 39, 161, 162, 175, 176 69, 73, 88 71 55, 74 61 176 164, 165-166, 168-169, 171-175 119, 145 176 175-176, 177, 179, 180183 160 149 149 95 138 186n 138 39 40

Exodus 3:21-22 8:26 11:2-3 12:35-36 24:5-6 30:12-16 32:2-7

186n 39 186n 186n 39 37, 39, 44 39

Leviticus 10:16-20 39 Numbers 3:12-13 45 22-24 39 Deuteronomy 21:16 39, 45 28:23 39 30:15-20 57 Judges 6:27

141

1-2 Samuel in toto 44

220 Job in toto Psalms in toto 8 8:7 3:9-10 45:5 113:16 118:24 Proverbs in toto 6:20-7:27 9:1-2 9:5

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION 4:12

161, 162

Isaiah in toto 1:3 11:2 66:1

44 151 146 103, 104

44

44 94 97 173 173 88 74

Jeremiah in toto 44 Daniel in toto 44 2 169-170 9:24-27 136 13:7 [Apocrypha]

44 178 93, 94 173

Ecclesiastes in toto 44 7:12 162 11:2 146, 147, 155 Song of Songs in toto 44

Hosea in toto 3:2

44 146, 147, 155

Micah in toto 5:2 5:5

44 102 146, 147, 155

Scripture Index: New Testament Matthew 5:3-12 13 17 22:1-14

136n67 136n67 45 45, 104

Mark 1:12-13 3:13-19

135 135

Luke 15

45

162

24:13-35

68n76

John in toto

104, 173

Romans 2:29 4:11 5:12-14 5:12-21 6:3-4 8:29

151 151 180 45 151 45

INDICES

221 Colossians 2:11-12 151

1 Corinthians 7:23 40 9:26 45, 104 10:1-11 68 11:3 162 11:8-9 180 15:45-49 180

1 Timothy 2:13-15 180

2 Corinthians 11:3 180 11:8-9 180 11:29 45, 104 Galatians 4:21-31 68n76

Hebrews in toto 3:7-4:10 12:22-23 13:7-8

155-156, 157 146, 147 45 146, 147

1 Peter 3:18-22

151

Revelation in toto 135, 136, 137 13:8 137

Ephesians 5:25-33 68 6:12 45, 104

Index of Ancient Sources 1 Clement, 48 1 Enoch, 136, 179 2 Baruch, 94n12, 136, 166n17, 179 3 Baruch, 179 4 Ezra, 94n12, 95, 136, 166n17, 179 4 Maccabees, 29, 32, 46, 55 Ambrose De Abrahamo, 29, 32n34, 47 De Cain et Abel, 15n39, 20, 34, 35, 36, 149 De fide, 148 De fuga saeculi, 35, 39, 40 De Isaac, 19, 34 De Noe, 20, 34, 35, 149 De obitu Valentiniani, 29 De officiis, 8

De paradiso, 12, 13, 20, 33, 41, 148, 149, 160, 161, 165, 168, 172, 173, 174, 181 De spiritu sancto, 17 Enarrationes in XII Psalmos davidicos, 30 Ep. 1 [PL#7], 39, 40, 42, 45, 46, 106n, 149 Ep. 2 [PL#65], 39, 41, 42, 46 Ep. 3 [PL#67], 39, 40, 42, 46, 44n97 Ep. 4 [PL#27], 39, 40, 41 Ep. 6 [PL#28], 40, 42, 43 149 Ep. 7 [PL#37], 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44n97

222

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION Ep. 10 [PL#38], 40 Ep. 14 [PL#33], 39, 40, 45 Ep. 18 [PL#70], 102 Ep. 19 [PL#71], 102 Ep. 20 [PL#77], 102 Ep. 21 [PL#34], 102 Ep. 22 [PL#35], 102 Ep. 23 [PL#36], 102 Ep. 27 [PL#58], 160 Ep. 28 [PL#50], 39, 45 Ep. 29 [PL#43], 2, 21, 40, 44, 45, 91, 102, 103, 106, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 Ep. 31 [PL#44], 2, 12n30, 21, 32n34, 39, 42, 43, 46, 102, 106n, 119, 122123, 132-133, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 155, 156, 157, 188 Ep. 32 [PL#48], 11, 160 Ep. 33 [PL#49], 160 Ep. 34 [PL#45], 2, 14, 21, 33, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 106n, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 171, 172, 175, 181, 182, 183 Ep. 36 [PL#2], 40, 45, 46, 106n Ep. 37 [PL#47], 160 Ep. 39 [PL#49], 160 Ep. 40 [PL#32], 160 Ep. 44 [PL#68], 39 Ep. 48 [PL#66], 39, 40, 44n97 Ep. 55 [PL#8], 37, 39, 40, 41, 106n Ep. 57 [PL#6], 163 Ep. 62 [PL#19], 163 Ep. 65 [PL#75], 47 Ep. 66 [PL#78], 102

Ep. 70 [PL#16], 32n34 Ep. 74 [PL#40], 27, 28, 148 Ep. ex. coll. 1 [PL#41], 28, 30 Ep. ex. coll. 1A, 27 Ep. ex. coll. 5 [PL#11], 26 Ep. ex. coll. 14 [PL#63], 43 Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 17, 29, 30n29, 31 Expositio Psalmi CXVIII, 32n34, 47 Hexaemeron, 14, 16, 20-21, 32n34, 34, 64, 76-77, 86n150, 102, 161, 187 Anastasius Sinaita, 53, 84 Anatolius, On the First Ten Numbers, 131, 132-133, 134 Anaximenes, 107 Apelles, Syllogisms, 148 Apocalypse of Abraham, 179 Apostolic Constitutions, 95 Aristeas, Letter of, 55 Aristobulus, 54-55, 120, 128 Aristotle, 58, 73, 124, 166, 177 Eudemian Ethics, 172 Metaphysics, 125n21, 176n68, 176n70 Physics, 108 Assumption of Moses, 95n12 Augustine, 9, 13, 26, 52, 77, 81, 84-89, 90, 112, 143-144, 156, 163, 175, 181 Commentary on Amos, 143n95 City of God, 85, 143n96 Confessions, 6, 7, 85, 181 Dialogus adversus Pelagianos, 143n95 De doctrina Christiana, 186n De Genesi ad litteram, 68n76, 85, 86, 88, 143n96, 175

INDICES De Genesi adversus manichaeos, 84-85, 86 De libero arbitrio, 144n Basil, 5, 7, 16, 32, 47, 52, 63, 64, 69, 70-74, 75, 76, 80, 82, 86, 87, 89, 150, 152, 160, 186, 187 De spiritu sancto, 47, 71, 153n119 Hexaemeron, 20, 26, 47, 52, 70-71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 150, 153n119 Canticles Rabbah, 95n12 Cicero, 8, 18, 84, 92, 167 Clement of Alexandria, 25, 65n66, 67, 88, 131, 138, 141143, 150, 154, 155, 156, 164n12, 171 Protreptikos, 110, 119, 182 Stromateis, 127-128, 132-133, 141, 142, 153-154, 181 Cosmas Indicopleustes, 81, 82 Cyprian of Carthage, 65, 138 Didymus the Blind, 25, 48, 7879, 89, 97-98, 143, 144, 156 Commentary on Genesis, 78, 79, 97-98, 143, 180, 182 De spiritu sancto, 17, 48 Diodore of Tarsus, 80-81, 82, 83 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 166167 Diogenes the Cynic, 166 Epistle of Barnabas, 65, 138, 151152 Eusebius, 24, 25, 31, 35, 48, 56, 64, 164n12, 171 Chronicon, 60n35 Historia ecclesiastica, 35, 60, 65n66, 127, 142 Praeparatio evangelica, 120n3

223 Eustathius, 74, 76, 78, 87 Genesis Rabbah, 55, 61, 94, 95, 95n12 Glyca, 74 Gregory of Nazianzus, 70, 76 Homily 43, 74 Oration 43, 70, 71 Oration 44, 152, 155 Oration 45, 186n Gregory of Nyssa, 74-76, 82, 87, 89 De opificio hominis, 75, 98100 Hexaemeron, 75 Homily on Psalm 6, 152-153 Heraclitus, 107, 167 Hesiod, 55n10, 63, 169, 170n35 Hippocrates, 108, 134 Hippolytus, 20, 48, 63-65, 73, 89 Homer, 55n10, 80, 130, 167 Horontianus, 10, 21, 39, 91, 101, 102, 145 Irenaeus of Lyons, 65, 137n71, 140-142, 149, 156 Adversus haereses, 140, 180, 186n Isidore of Seville, Book of Scriptural Numbers, 144 Jerome, 17, 18, 24, 48, 64, 66, 78, 81, 143-144, 163 Commentary on Isaiah, 173 Ep. 22, 17 Ep. 84, 20 John Chrysostom, 80, 83-84, 175, 180 John Lydus, On the Months, 121, 132-133, 134, 144 Josephus, Flavius, 24, 29, 32, 33, 46, 55, 56, 163-165, 186 Jewish Antiquities, 161, 163, 166, 170 Contra Apionem, 170-171

224

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION

Josipe, 64 Jubilees, 82n134, 179 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 151, 152, 171 Leviticus Rabbah, 95n12 Life of Adam and Eve, 179 Macrobius, Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, 132-133 Nemesius, De natura hominis, 100-101 Nicomachus of Gerasa, Theology of Arithmetic, 127, 132-133 Origen, 5, 7, 10, 20, 25, 32, 35, 47, 48, 65-69, 70, 71, 72-73, 78, 79, 88, 89, 97, 116, 142-143, 144, 150, 163, 164n12, 171, 174, 186, 187 Commentary on Matthew, 143n Contra Celsum, 66, 68n76, 142n89, 182 De principiis, 66 Ep. ad Gregorium Thaumaturgum, 186n Homilies on Genesis, 67n73, 68, 69, 110 Homilies on Luke, 17 Homilies on Numbers, 142143 Philocalia, 66, 67n74, 70 Ovid, Metamorphoses, 59, 169n29, 170n37 Paulinus, Life of Ambrose, 4 Pesikta Rabbati, 55n13, 95 Philo De Abrahamo, 109n53, 174, 177 De aeternitate mundi, 168 De agricultura, 96, 176 De cherubim, 178 De confusione linguarum, 96, 168

De congressu eruditionis gratia, 24n2, 142n88 De decalogo, 96, 135n60 De ebrietate, 39 De fuga et invention, 39, 40, 41n75, 41n76, 42n84, 46n109, 176 De Josepho, 40 De migratione Abrahami, 109n53, 130n46, 176 De mutatione nominum, 130n46 De opificio mundi, 2, 21, 26, 39, 40, 42n81, 42n82, 42n85, 43, 44, 45, 46, 51, 53-59, 61n43, 88, 91, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 114, 116, 119, 120-135, 143, 145, 146, 150, 156, 159, 161, 162, 166, 167, 168, 171, 172, 175, 176, 177, 179, 182, 183 De plantatione,96, 109 De posteritate Caini, 96, 109, 142n88, 176 De praemiis et poenis, 39, 96, 135n60 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, 36n53, 39, 45n106, 149, 170n36 De somniis, 24n2, 96, 176 De specialibus legibus, 129, 130n46, 135n60, 143, 151, 167n24, 168, 174n56, 177, 178 De virtutibus, 179 De vita contemplativa, 130n46, 135n60 De vita Mosis, 39, 45n108, 96, 109, 121n6, 130n46, 135n60

INDICES Legatio ad Gaium, 24, 176n65 Legum allegoriae, 88n163, 96, 109n53, 120, 128, 132-133, 135, 176, 179, 183 Quaestiones in Exodum, 34n44, 130n46, 135n60, 176, 178 Quaestiones in Genesim, 20, 34n44, 35, 61, 88, 95, 96, 121n6, 130n46, 135n60, 149, 160, 173, 176, 177, 183 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit, 39, 41n70, 42n79, 45n99, 45n105, 46n110, 46n111, 46n112, 96, 135n60 Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat, 96, 107, 130n46, 178 Quod Deus sit immutabilis, 135n60, 172 Quod omnis probus liber sit, 40, 42n77, 42n78, 43n88, 43n93, 171 Plato Ion, 168n26 Laws, 169n29 Philebus, 108 Politicus, 169n29 Republic, 169n29 Timaeus, 57, 72, 85, 108, 129, 134, 155, 176n68, 176n70 Philolaus, 125, 134 Philoponus, 69, 74

225 Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, 95, 166 Plotinus, Enneads, 5, 6, 19n57, 110, 111 Pliny the Elder, 59 Pliny the Younger, 11-12 Porphyry, 6n6, 111 Procopius of Gaza, 81, 82 Pseudo-Aristotle , De mundo, 168n26 Pseudo-Eustathius, Commentary on the Hexaemeron, 74, 78 Pseudo-Hippocrates, 134, 146-147 Rufinus, 66, 74 Rufus, C. Musonius, 181 Sabinus, 10, 11, 21, 39, 159, 160, 161 Seneca, Ep. 65, 109 Severian of Gabala, 81, 82 Sibylline Oracles, 60n37, 138, 152 Simplicianus, 5, 6n6, 10, 39, 40 Sirach, 86, 166n17, 179 Solon, 55n10, 134, 146, 147 Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica, 127 Talmud, 95, 95n12, 137, 180 Tertullian, 164n12, 180 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 80, 81, 82, 144, 145,156, 189n Theodoret of Cyrus, 81, 82, 163 Theodosius, 8, 10, 27-29 Theon, Exposition, 132-133 Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum, 52, 60-63, 64, 71, 89, 96-97, 164, 171 Tosefta, 93-94 Varro, Attic Nights, 132-133 Vergil, 47, 48, 76, 84, 169n29 Wisdom of Solomon, 55, 166n17

226

CREATION AND LITERARY RE-CREATION Index of Modern Authors

Adkin, Neil, 17 Allert, Craig, 70-71 Aucher, Johann Baptist, 33 Berchman, Robert, 126n28, 127n30, 129n Borgen, Peder, 93n6, 96n19 Bousset, Wilhelm, 56 Bovon, François, 138n73, 152n116 Burkett, Walter, 124 Cerrato, John, 64 Cohn, Leopold, 33 Colish, Marcia, 18-19 Conger, George, 111n63 Conybeare, Frederick, 16 Courcelle, Pierre, 105n, 107n39 Daniélou, Jean, 151 Dillon, John, 125n23 Doerfler, Maria, 29, 30 Dudden, F. Homes, 4, 29 Freudenthal, Jakob, 46n114 Geffcken, Johannes, 61 Goulet, Richard, 56 Grant, Robert, 60n34, 60n37, 61 Hay, David, 56 Heinisch, Paul, 61 Inowlocki, Sabrina, 164n12 Itter, Andrew, 155n Jobling, David, 113n71 Kalvesmaki, Joel, 139 Kamesar, Adam, 37, 41 Kannengiesser, Charles, 64n59, 65n63 Lenox-Conyngham, Andrew, 1819 Levison, John, 165n17 Levy, Donald, 109 Levy, Carlos, 92n2 Lewy, Hans, 37

Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G., 11, 28n16 Lucchesi, Enzo, 35 MacMullen, Ramsey, 3 Markschies, Christoph , 18-19 Martín, J. P., 61 McLynn, Neil, 4, 18, 29 Moehring, Horst, 120, 135n60 Nauroy, Gérard, 17 Nautin, Pierre, 63-64 Palanque, Jean-Rémy, 4, 102, 160 Paredi, Angelo, 4, 17 Radice, Roberto, 121 Reale, Giovanni, 92n2 Robbins, Frank, 76, 82, 121, 130n46, 131 Rogers, Justin, 79n125, 143n94 Runia, David, 16, 25, 33, 37-38, 54, 56n19, 57, 59, 61, 100, 114, 121, 122-123, 128, 131, 134, 185 Savon, Hervé, 11, 35, 36, 37, 40n69, 173, 182, 185, 188, 189 Schenkl, Karl, 76 Schreckenberg, Heinz, 163 Simonsohn, Shlomo, 27 Smith, J. Warren, 18-19 Staehle, Karl, 121 Swidler, Leonard, 180 Theiler, Willy, 57 Tobin, Thomas, 56 van Campenhausen, Hans, 4, 18 Waghorn, W. R., 163 Wegner, Judith, 176, 180 Wilbrand, Wilhelm, 37, 43 Williams, Daniel, 4-5, 8 Yarbro Collins, Adela, 136n66 Young, Frances, 80 Zelzer, Michaela, 11