De vita Mosis (Book I): An Introduction with Text, Translation, and Notes (Ancient Christianity and its Contexts) 9781481316736, 9781481316743, 1481316737

Citation preview

De vita Mosis I

α

ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY AND ITS CONTEXTS

Series Editors Angeline Chiu University of Vermont Daniel Hanchey Baylor University Jeffrey M. Hunt Baylor University Michael C. Sloan Wake Forest University The Ancient Christianity and Its Contexts series arose from a desire to engage and support students and scholars alike with an extensive, accessible range of resources for studying early Christian thought and the complex cultural contexts that fostered its development. The volumes in this series present a wide range of ancient authors, some Christian, others not, whose works both within and outside the traditional literary canon were important in shaping—and were also shaped by—the intellectual, cultural, social, and historical milieu of late antiquity and the first centuries of Christianity. Each volume contains the text in its original language with a new facing English translation, a thorough introduction to contextualize work and author, running notes to elucidate the text, a select bibliography, and, where relevant, supplemental materials. It is our hope that these volumes will help bring greater clarity to the development of early Christianity and greater attention to these treasured works of the past.

De vita Mosis I An Introduction with Text, Translation, and Notes

Philo of Alexandria Jeffrey M. Hunt Editor and Translator

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY PRESS

© 2023 by Baylor University Press Waco, Texas 76798 All Rights Reserved. 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, or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of Baylor University Press. Series cover and interior design by Kasey McBeath Series cover art: Simon Julien (French, Toulon 1735–1800 Paris), Moses on Sinai (Le tables de Loi judaique), 1773, etching. Public domain. Image courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, The Elisha Whittelsey Collection, The Elisha Whittelsey Fund, 1967. The Library of Congress has cataloged this book under paperback ISBN 978-­1-­4813-­1673-­6. Library of Congress Control Number: 2022951730 Web PDF ISBN: 978-1-4813-1674-3 Greek Edition: Leopold Cohn, Philonis Alexandrini Opera Quae Supersunt, vol. 4 (Berlin: Berolini, 1902).

Contents

Abbreviations | vii Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 1 De vita Mosis I | 56 Bibliography | 243

v

Abbreviations

Biblical abbreviations follow the SBL Handbook of Style (2nd ed.) Philo of Alexandria Abr. De Abrahamo (On the Life of Abraham) Aet. De aeternitate mundi (On the Eternity of the World) Agr. De agricultura (On Agriculture) Anim. De animalibus (Whether Animals Have Reason) Cher. De cherubim (On the Cherubim) Conf. De confusione linguarum (On the Confusion of Tongues) Congr. De congressu eruditionis gratia (On the Preliminary Studies) Contempl. De vita contemplativa (On the Contemplative Life) Decal. De decalogo (On the Decalogue) Deo De Deo (On God) Det. Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat (That the Worse Attacks the Better) Deus Quod Deus sit immutabilis (That God Is Unchangeable) Ebr. De ebrietate (On Drunkenness) Flacc. In Flaccum (Against Flaccus) Fug. De fuga et inventione (On Flight and Finding) Gig. De gigantibus (On Giants) Her. Quis rerum divinarum heres sit (Who Is the Heir?) Hypoth. Hypothetica (Hypothetica) Ios. De Iosepho (On the Life of Joseph) Leg. 1, 2, 3 Legum allegoriae I, II, III (Allegorical Interpretation 1, 2, 3) Legat. Legatio ad Gaium (On the Embassy to Gaius) vii

Abbreviations | viii

Migr. Mos. 1, 2 Mut. Opif. Plant. Post. Praem. Prob. Prov. 1, 2 QE 1, 2

Virt.

De migratione Abrahami (On the Migration of Abraham) De vita Mosis I, II (On the Life of Moses 1, 2) De mutatione nominum (On the Change of Names) De opificio mundi (On the Creation of the World) De plantatione (On Planting) De posteritate Caini (On the Posterity of Cain) De praemiis et poenis (On Rewards and Punishments) Quod omnis probus liber sit (That Every Good Person Is Free) De providentia I, II (On Providence 1, 2) Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum I, II (Questions and Answers on Exodus 1, 2) Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin I, II, III, IV (Questions and Answers on Genesis 1, 2, 3, 4) De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (On the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel) De sobrietate (On Sobriety) De somniis I, II (On Dreams 1, 2) De specialibus legibus I, II, III, IV (On the Special Laws 1, 2, 3, 4) De virtutibus (On the Virtues)

Eusebius Hist. eccl. Praep. ev.

Historia ecclesiastica (Ecclesiastical History) Praeparatio evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel)

Josephus A.J. B.J. C. Ap.

Antiquitates judaicae (Jewish Antiquities) Bellum judaicum (Jewish War) Contra Apionem (Against Apion)

Plato Resp.

Respublica (The Republic)

QG 1, 2, 3, 4 Sacr. Sobr. Somn. 1, 2 Spec. 1, 2, 3, 4

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

There is relatively little information available about the historical Philo (ca. 20 BC–ca. 50 AD), though what is known about him reveals that he was highly educated and, in at least one season of his life, politically engaged with contemporary events. Philo was a native of the Egyptian city of Alexandria, which had fallen under Roman rule not long before his birth. Egypt’s transformation into a Roman province disrupted the status quo established under the previous Ptolemaic regime, leading to discord, rivalry, and ultimately violence among the inhabitants of Alexandria. So pressing were social issues such as citizenship, civic rights, and Jewish identity that they even at times emerge in Philo’s biography of Moses. In addition, Alexandria’s role as a center of culture and intellectual pursuits played an important role in shaping Philo’s philosophical and theological thought; his writing reveals him to be a staunch defender of Judaism who, perhaps surprisingly, often interprets his faith through the lens of Greek philosophy. It will be useful, then, to consider briefly the history of the Jews in Egypt in the Hellenistic period as well as some events that shaped Alexandria, Egypt, and Judaism in Philo’s time.

The Political and Civic Status of Jews in Alexandria and Egypt No document explicitly enumerates the rights and privileges of Jews in Egypt nor is their civic status entirely clear for any given time in the Hellenistic period. Nevertheless, the issue looms large over the De vita Mosis (Mos.) as Philo contrasts the initial reception of Jewish migrants into Egypt (following Joseph’s elevation by Pharaoh) with their subsequent enslavement many years later. The question of Egypt’s responsibility toward and treatment of Jewish immigrants cannot help but resonate with Philo’s personal experience as an Alexandrian Jew. Some understanding of the major lines of scholarly thought on Jewish communities in Egypt will be enlightening 1

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 2

for readers of the Mos. The evidence, unfortunately, is often either very particular—­that is, documents pertaining to a single individual or small group from which one might extrapolate information about Jewish life generally—­or subject to various interpretations, or both. Therefore, what follows can only be a general guide. Jewish status in Hellenistic Egypt is a complex issue that is further complicated by anemic evidence. Not only does that status change over time, especially in the transition from Ptolemaic to Roman rule, but it could also be influenced by location, that is, whether a Jew lived in a city or the countryside. Completion of a gymnasium education was certainly a factor in obtaining privileges in Roman times, with its role under the Ptolemies being less clear.1 Much of the current scholarly understanding about Jewish civic organization in Egypt centers on the poorly understood concept of the politeuma. The term occurs in reference to Alexandrian Jews only in pseudo-­Aristeas and even there in only one passage, when the gathered Jews respond to a reading of the newly translated Septuagint: “. . . the priests, the elders both among the translators and from the politeuma, and the leaders of the multitude [plethos] stood and said . . .” (310).2 Ps.-­Aristeas provides no particular details about what the politeuma is, only that it is an arrangement somehow distinct from the Jewish community writ large, if this is what is meant by the plethos (crowd, multitude). The existence of ps.-­Aristeas’ politeuma was once doubted for several reasons, including its dependence on ps.-­Aristeas (who makes many implausible claims throughout his Letter) and the absence of a similar use of the term from other, more reliable sources, specifically Philo and Josephus.3 To be clear, the politeuma as a concept has never been considered an invention of Aristeas; epigraphical evidence attests politeumata in Egypt beginning in the mid-­second century, though these seem to be organizations of a military nature.4 Doubts, then, focused on whether Jews, particularly those in Alexandria, were ever so organized. That aspect of the The role of the gymnasium changed significantly over time and varied from city to city. In Roman Alexandria, it would have been a form of education for upperclass young men and was likely a prerequisite for holding public office in the city. 2 The name “Aristeas” appears as the author of a fictional correspondence with a certain Philocrates in a text known variously as the Letter of Aristeas and Aristeas to Philocrates. “Aristeas” is therefore considered a pseudonym, and the author is often referred to as “ps.-­Aristeus.” See below p. 35. 3 Pearce, “Mother City,” 19–­36; Modrzejewski, “How to Be a Jew?” 77–­78; Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 64–­65; Zuckerman, “Hellenistic politeumata,” 171–­85. 4 Gambetti, Alexandrian Riots, 43–­47; Kasher, The Jews, 179–­82. 1

3 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

debate was for all intents and purposes resolved with the publication of Cowey and Maresch’s Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3–­133/2 v. Chr.), which demonstrated the existence of a Jewish politeuma in Heracleopolis. The unquestionable existence of the Heracleopolitan politeuma combined with the evidence of ps.-­Aristeas removed any doubt that a similar organization existed for the Jews of Alexandria. What is still controversial, or rather, subject to speculation, is what connection the Alexandrian politeuma had with Jewish rights and privileges, that is, whether belonging to the politeuma amounted to a sort of citizenship apart from (and officially subordinate to) Alexandrian—­and later, Roman—­citizenship or whether the Jews themselves saw their politeuma as a path to citizen rights equal to those of the Alexandrians. The most ardent proponent for the notion that the Jewish politeuma in Alexandria brought Jews in the city substantial rights was Aryeh Kasher, who goes so far as to conclude that a Jewish congregation with a synagogue “was a legal entity recognized and defined by law,” i.e., the politeuma.5 Among the rights afforded the Jews was the right to live by their ancestral laws, which would have included considerable autonomy and self-­governance. Few scholars go so far as Kasher in attributing rights to the Jews of Alexandria though Tcherikover, too, speaks of similar privileges for the Jews of Alexandria.6 Following the publication of the papyri relating to the Jewish politeuma of Heracleopolis, Sylvie Honigman has more recently proposed a much more nuanced assessment of the situation. She suggests that the Jewish politeuma in Alexandria had the same essential character as other politeumata, namely, that its officers served in the same capacity as Ptolemaic officials to enforce the law (thus explaining the original military background of the organization). The politeuma itself, then, was not a class of citizenship, though the Jews of the politeuma may have extended their authority where they could. Furthermore, not all Jews in Alexandria belonged to the politeuma, though any Jews could lodge complaints with its officers or deposit official documents in its archive. Regarding citizenship, Honigman proposes three categories of Jewish inhabitants of Alexandria: first, those who were originally settled in the city under Ptolemy I Soter and were legally “Alexandrians.” Second, Jews who lived in Alexandria since Ptolemaic times but were not citizens. Honigman identifies the latter group with the Jews of the 5 6

Kasher, The Jews, 107. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 326–­27.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 4

politeuma. Finally, there were Jews who lived outside the city in the Egyptian countryside. This group would have possessed the least desirable status. As to Philo’s and Josephus’ silence on the matter of the politeuma, Honigman suggests that the politeuma’s existence was inconvenient for their claim to Jewish rights. Members of a politeuma were not entitled to full civic rights (isopoliteia, in this case, the civic status of “Alexandrian”) and so Philo and Josephus ignored the organization and focused on the rights afforded the Jews settled under Ptolemy I Soter.7 Honigman’s arguments are intriguing, though it is worth noting that many particulars regarding Jewish rights, privileges, and civic status remain subject to speculation. The issue is nevertheless important, since Claudius’ letter to the Alexandrians rebukes the Jews for seeking additional privileges, which suggests that some hope or desire for an improved status on the part of at least some Jews was a factor in the violence that broke out in 38  AD, though Philo makes no mention of it. While such hopes may not be explicitly articulated in the Mos., Philo’s depiction of the Jews’ suffering and enslavement inevitably evokes Jewish concerns about their civic status in Roman Egypt. The Life of Philo and the Violence of 38 AD The precise dates of Philo’s birth and death are unknown, though scholars tend to place the former sometime between 20 and 10 BC and the latter sometime after the assassination of Gaius Caligula in 41 AD. The date of Philo’s birth is estimated from his description of himself in Legatio ad Gaium 1.1 as being “old” when he participated in the Jewish delegation to Rome after the riots of 38 AD.8 Philo’s open criticisms of Gaius in that same account could only have been written if the emperor were already dead. In the course of his many extant works Philo reveals almost nothing about his personal life. Once again, we must turn to Josephus (A.J. 18.259), whose scant description reveals that Philo was actually the head of the delegation to Gaius and “a man greatly renowned, the brother of Alexander the alabarch, and not inexperienced in philosophy.” The connection Honigman, “Politeumata and Ethnicity,” 76–­93. Some scholars, such as Gruen, Diaspora and Van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom refer to the events of 38 CE, during which Alexandrian Jews came under violent attack by other factions in the city, as a pogrom (see Gambetti, Alexandrian Riots, 11n34 for a fuller list of citations). Gambetti, Alexandrian Riots, 11–­12, however, objects to the term on the grounds that it connotes a similarity to events in late nineteenth-­century Russia that should not be asserted without a comparative study. 7 8

5 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

Josephus makes between Philo and Alexander the alabarch is an important one: Alexander—­whose designation as “alabarch” is believed to mean that he held an office with charge over the Alexandrian customhouse—­was very wealthy, to the point that he could afford to adorn the nine gates of the Temple complex in Jerusalem with gold and silver plating (B.J. 5.205). Philo, too, was presumably quite wealthy; his prominence in the Jewish delegation to Gaius, the erudition displayed in his works, and the leisure that allowed for the composition of such an extensive oeuvre all point to a high degree of affluence. As brother to Alexander the alabarch, Philo was also uncle to Tiberius Julius Alexander, who forsook his people’s faith to ascend the ranks of the Roman military. By Roman standards this Tiberius’ career was spectacular; by Jewish standards, problematic. Under Nero he became governor of Egypt and was responsible for the forceful suppression of a Jewish revolt in 66 AD. He also served as one of Titus’ chief officers during the siege of Jerusalem and the resulting destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Philo makes little mention of his infamous nephew other than to use him as an interlocutor in two of his philosophical works, the De providentia and De animalibus. The dates of the dialogues featuring Tiberius Alexander are unknown, but it is noteworthy that in them Philo presents his nephew as already straying from the tenets of Judaism. Of Philo’s education little can be said with certainty other than that he was well educated, particularly in Greek philosophy. As with most affluent families, much of Philo’s education likely came from private tutors. More controversial is whether Philo had a gymnasium education and what this might have entailed. Public education was available (though not free) to boys from about the age of seven. Around eighteen years of age, eligible students—­in general terms, a freeborn individual of sufficient financial means—­could apply to become an “ephebe,” part of the elite youth whose education in the gymnasium served as a marker of their “hellenization.” Completion of ephebic training may have been (at least de facto) required to hold public offices, and those educated in the gymnasium also likely enjoyed reduced tax rates. In addition, even after completing one’s education, the gymnasium remained an important institution where graduates could exercise and participate in cultural events, such as lectures from itinerant philosophers and scholars. Philo’s Jewishness likely did not pose an obstacle to a gymnasium education, and his extensive knowledge of Greek philosophy could point to such training. It is conceivable, however, that pagan cult activity in the

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 6

gymnasium might have dissuaded some Jews from completing ephebic training. If Philo were born into a wealthy family, he could easily have received an extensive literary and philosophical education from tutors; furthermore, the fact that he is not known to have held any public office at least keeps the source of his education open to question. How active Philo was in the Alexandrian Jewish community is unclear, though Josephus held him in high esteem and, given his wealth, education, and family, he was likely a prominent figure among Alexandrian Jews. At Spec. 3.1–­3, Philo famously describes his unwilling participation in public concerns: “There was once a time when I had leisure for philosophy and for contemplating the universe and the things in it . . . But then the most terrible evil, envy, the reviler of the good, turned its attention to me; it came suddenly upon me and did not cease to drag me down by force until it had cast me into a great sea of cares within the community, and as I am carried along in that sea I cannot so much as raise my head above water.” This passage is often believed to refer to Philo’s participation in the delegation to Gaius Caligula in 39 AD. If so, Philo seems to suggest that he generally avoided political responsibilities in favor of a contemplative life and was moved to engage in politics only by dire necessity. Of the violence of 38 AD and the subsequent embassy to the emperor, a brief overview will suffice. Philo wrote two works pertaining to the tumult of 38 AD, the In Flaccum and the Legatio ad Gaium (which may have been part of a larger work titled De virtutibus). In the former, and presumably earlier, work, Philo pins the blame for the violence on the Roman governor of Egypt, Aulus Avilius Flaccus, and a small coterie of Greek Alexandrians. According to Philo, Flaccus became alarmed when the emperor Tiberius, whose favor he enjoyed, was assassinated and replaced by Gaius Caligula, whom Flaccus feared. The governor then sought to ingratiate himself to the citizenry of Alexandria, who were on good terms with Gaius, by turning against their adversaries, the Jews. Flaccus’ misdeeds against the Jews culminated in a decree denying the Jews the right to residence in Alexandria and authorizing the pillaging of Jewish possessions; devastating violence against the Jews at the hands of the Alexandrians ensued. Ultimately, when Gaius learned of the tumult in Alexandria, he had Flaccus arrested and later executed. In the Legatio, an account of the Jewish and Alexandrian embassies sent to Gaius to account for the violence in the city, Philo turns his attention to Gaius’ hostility to the Jews. Gaius, for example, to the delight of the Alexandrian delegation, mockingly asks the Jewish delegation about

7 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

their laws, such as their abstention from pork, while largely ignoring their explanations. The immediate concerns of the Alexandrian Jews, however, are soon overshadowed by what Philo considers a far graver matter: Gaius, offended by the destruction of a makeshift altar dedicated to him in Jamnia (on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, about 50 km from Jerusalem), decreed that a statue of himself be installed in the Temple in Jerusalem. Through the intervention of Herod Agrippa, king of Judea and friend to Gaius, the emperor rescinded his decree and disaster was averted. Gaius ultimately dismissed the embassy with little accomplished. Though not mentioned in the extant Legatio, following Gaius’ assassination in 41 AD, in the same year the emperor Claudius addressed the Alexandrian situation in a letter to the Alexandrians (P. Lond. 1912=Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum 1.151). In that decree, Claudius ordered an end to all hostilities between the Alexandrians and the Jews, promising that whoever renewed hostilities would face his wrath. Further, Claudius explicitly ordered the Alexandrians to respect the Jews’ rights to worship their God. As for the Jews, Claudius affirmed their rights and privileges as they existed under Augustus while at the same time warning them not to seek additional rights afforded to full citizens, since the Jews lived in “someone else’s city” (ἐν ἀλλοτρίᾳ πόλει). Philo’s accounts of 38 AD are our only sources that treat the event with any depth. Clearly, however, Philo presents a Jewish perspective, and in the case of the In Flaccum he lacked the freedom to speak as openly as he might have liked during Gaius’ lifetime. Perhaps the most apparent indication that more is going on than Philo admits is Claudius’ letter, which suggests that a Jewish desire for new rights and privileges played some role in provoking the hostility of the Alexandrians, and that the Jews had at some point sent a second delegation. The issue of rights surrounds questions of Jewish status and citizenship in Alexandria that are much disputed. Returning to the matter of 38 AD, Gambetti offers a compelling take on what led to the violence of that year. She proposes that at the outset of Roman rule, Jews received civic rights under the Romans for political reasons, which upset the Alexandrians. The Alexandrians had to surrender their authority over the city to the Romans and now had to share rights with the Jews. Roman fiscal policy, however, was at odds with Roman political aims; the rights afforded Jews included exemptions from some taxes whose revenue the Romans wanted to maximize. Thus, Jews would be disenfranchised on individual bases, while the Alexandrians wanted the Romans to act against the Jews as a group. Beginning in 37 AD, Gaius

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 8

Caligula granted the Alexandrians’ wishes and, at his order, Flaccus took action against the Jews as outlined in the In Flaccum.9 Though some caution is due, Gambetti’s reconstruction of events offers an intriguing way to make sense of the available evidence. The Philonic Corpus As an author, Philo was nothing short of prolific. A significant number of his works—­ thirty-six treatises of the over seventy that he is known to have written—are extant in Greek, with some works preserved in Armenian translations.10 Scholars have sought to group Philo’s works into categories, an effort that has not always yielded consistent results. Currently, scholars tend to view Philo’s works as comprising three groups: the three-commentary series (the Allegorical Commentary, the Exposition of the Law, and Quaestiones et solutiones), the philosophical treatises, and the apologetic texts. The bulk of Philo’s extant works belong to the commentary series, which are all generally concerned with exegesis of the Torah, and the book of Genesis in particular. More specifically, The Allegory of the Law (so named by Eusebius) is a verse-­by-­verse commentary on Genesis 2:1–­18:2. This commentary series is generally considered to be intended for advanced students of scripture and presumes proficiency in philosophy. It may have been written rather early in Philo’s career. In contrast to the Allegorical Commentary, The Exposition of the Law covers the whole of the Pentateuch and offers allegorical interpretations alongside retellings of biblical passages. Regarding the structure of the Exposition, James Royse observes: “Indeed, the very structure of the ‘Exposition’ is based on a sophisticated understanding of the genres of the Pentateuch that Philo puts forward in De praemiis et poenis 1–­2. The Pentateuch has three genres or parts. There is a cosmological section . . . There follows a genealogical or historical section . . . Finally, there is the legislative section proper.” For Royse, the Exposition is “the constant endeavor to discover the logic and systematic basis of the Pentateuchal corpus, as it might be considered from a Greek perspective.”11 The division of the Pentateuch into cosmological, historical, and legislative sections belongs to Philo himself, and though the Exposition gets its name from modern scholars, Philo makes clear that the treatises that comprise it belong together as a 9 10 11

Gambetti, Alexandrian Riots, 10–­11. See Sterling, “Handmaid,” 91–­94, for a summary of Philo’s oeuvre. Royse, “The Works of Philo,” 45–­46.

9 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

series (Mos. 2.45–­47; Abr. 2–­5; Praem. 1–­3).12 Based on internal references, it seems likely that the commentaries that comprise the Exposition, including the Mos., were composed late in Philo’s career.13 The final commentary series is Philo’s Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin and Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum (Questions and Answers on Genesis and Questions and Answers on Exodus), which examines the books of Genesis and Exodus in a question-­and-­answer format. This commentary series is primarily preserved in an Armenian translation (there are some fragments in Greek and a partial translation in Latin). Contrary to the advanced nature of the Allegory, the Quaestiones were likely aimed at those who were new to studies of the Pentateuch and perhaps even formed part of the instruction provided in synagogues.14 Of Philo’s philosophical works, two are extant only in an Armenian translation (De providentia and De animalibus) and are presented as dialogues with his nephew, Tiberius Alexander. In Greek the Quod omnis probus liber sit and part of the De aeternitate mundi survive. At least one other philosophical work, a companion piece to the Quod omnis probus liber sit, has been lost. Philo’s apologetic works, the In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium, have already been mentioned. Locating the Mos. within the five-­ division framework of the three-commentary series, philosophical treatises, and apologetic texts has proven challenging. Scholars generally acknowledge a connection between the Mos. and the Exposition, and with good reason: Philo himself mentions the Mos. twice in the context of the Exposition. The two references appear at De praemiis et poenis 53 and De virtutibus 52. Of these, the latter is more explicit: “What he accomplished from his earliest youth until his old age in his care and concern for each and every person has been shown earlier in two treatises that I wrote about the life of Moses.” The two-­ volume text that Philo mentions is reasonably identified as the De vita Mosis. According to a line of thought going back to Goodenough, “there is sufficient connection between [the De vita Mosis and the Exposition] so that Philo could assume that the reader of the Exposition would already have read the other.”15 Whether Philo’s reference to the Mos. amounts to an expectation of a reader’s familiarity with it is certainly debatable. Nevertheless, this is a frequent presumption among scholars. Even Royse, who 12 13 14 15

See Sterling, “School of Moses,” 161. Sterling, “Prolific,” 57–­60. See Sterling, “School of Moses,” 158; Royse, “Original Structure,” 62–­63. Goodenough, “Philo’s Exposition of the Law,” 110.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 10

ultimately classifies the Mos. as an apologetic work because it does not contribute to the explication of the tripartite structure of the Pentateuch, acknowledges the possibility that it was an introduction to the Exposition, perhaps for Gentile readers.16 From another perspective, Cohn’s characterization of the Mos. as “selbständiges” (i.e., not part of the series of works comprising the Exposition) is surely correct.17 This does not deny the possibility that the Mos. was composed as an introduction to the Exposition, but it is possible, too, as Böhm suggests, that the Mos. was written before Philo conceived of the Exposition and was only subsequently associated with it.18 The distinction is perhaps most pertinent to the question of intended audience, inasmuch as an apologetic work might anticipate a different audience than an introduction to a commentary series. On possible intended audiences, see below. The De vita Mosis: Genre and Structure On the basis of Momigliano’s famous definition, “An account of the life of a man from birth to death is what I call a biography,” the Mos. is without question a biography.19 The title in Greek (περὶ τοῦ βίου Μωσέως) also suggests the work is a βίος, the Greek word for “biography.”20 Furthermore, Philo’s purpose as stated in Mos. 1.1 of reporting Moses’ life and accomplishments and Philo’s later notice that he wrote on Moses’ accomplishments from early youth to old age (Virt. 52) further confirm, at least in Philo’s mind,21 the biographical nature of the work. The Mos., however, is not a straightforward report of the facts of Moses’ life; Philo draws extensively, but also selectively, from the biblical account of Moses in order to fashion him into a philosopher-­king. In this regard Philo’s Moses differs considerably from the Moses of the Old Testament. Philo also divides his account into two books that treat different aspects of Moses or offices that he held, with book 1 being devoted to Moses’ role as king, while book 2 explores Moses as lawgiver, prophet, and high priest. Feldman proposes that book 1 follows a “Plutarchian” style of biography with a chronological, factual account of Moses’ life and that book 2 follows a “Suetonian” model, that is, one that is topically arranged and attentive Royse, “The Works of Philo,” 47–­50. Cohn, Einteilung und Chronologie, 417. See also Geljon, Philonic Exegesis, 29. 18 Böhm, Rezeption und Funktion, 25. 19 Momigliano, Greek Biography, 11. 20 Though see Geljon, Philonic Exegesis, 27, for a discussion of the title of the Mos. as it relates to genre. 21 Geljon, Philonic Exegesis, 29. 16 17

11 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

to Moses’ virtues.22 This is a helpful way of characterizing the different structures of the two books, but one should not forget that Moses’ various roles are foremost in Philo’s mind; Moses’ death, for example, is not recorded in book 1 (which ends abruptly with the events of Numbers 32) but is addressed in book 2.288–­91, where Moses, having transcended his physical form, continues to prophesy to the Jews. Book 1 is therefore not the “facts” of Moses’ life, but his acts as king; his death pertains to his role as prophet. While book 1 proceeds chronologically and, for the most part, focuses closely on Moses’ role as king, book 2 centers largely on legislation, the priesthood, and oracles of Moses. These topics, as Philo presents them, often go beyond the scope of a typical biography, especially in their attention to legal and religious details regarding Moses’ ordinances (cf. descriptions of the tabernacle and vestments of the high priest, 2.76–­158; laws punishing blasphemy, 2.192–­208; Passover regulations, 2.221–­32; etc.). Book 2 also contains more allegorizing than book 1, in which only three clear instances of allegory appear (the burning bush at 1.67–­70, the springs at Elim at 1.188–­89, and the weight of Moses’ arms at 1.217–­19). Furthermore, Philo is careful to adapt biblical scenes in such a way as to reflect positively on Moses and to present him as an ideal king, lawgiver, high priest, and prophet. Inasmuch as these aims, presented in a notoriously complicated structure over two books, are beyond the mere reporting of historical facts or anecdotes, the Mos. might better fit a genre other than biography, and in fact a number of such suggestions are to be found in scholarship. Moses Hadas and Morton Smith have proposed that the Mos. is an aretalogy, which they describe as a subspecies of biography.23 Though the ancients themselves did not use the term “aretalogy” to denote a genre, Hadas and Smith identify specific criteria that comprise the form.24 The subject of an aretalogy is consistently and intentionally benevolent and free from the stark passions so often inseparable from the ordinary hero’s virtues; his benefits are conferred by design, not as a by-­product of his own willfulness. These benefits are of a spiritual, not material, order; his is a cure of souls, and his teaching, by example as well as by precept, is continuous. The capacities he brings to his task transcend the ordinary; his doing and his suffering are preternatural  .  .  . The circumstances 22 23 24

Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 22. Hadas and Smith, Heroes and Gods, 58. Hadas and Smith, Heroes and Gods, 60.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 12

surrounding his death are no less remarkable; he is somehow transfigured, or he receives other marks of divine approbation.25

The Moses of the Mos. fits well with the criteria that Hadas and Smith identify. If this is meant to imply, however, that Philo was influenced by an existing but unnamed aretalogical tradition, that implication should be regarded with skepticism. In a similar vein, Geljon has proposed that the Mos. be considered a philosophical biography, for which he provides enumerated criteria, the most pertinent of which are as follows: such works (1) are introductory in nature (i.e., absent of extensive philosophical discussions); (2) assume a nonspecialist audience; (3) discuss subject’s ancestry, birth, and death; (4) discuss subject’s education; (5) are primarily chronological; (6) function as an encomium, recording acts and virtues; (7) demonstrate that the subject lived by his own teachings; and (8) offer the subject as paradigm for imitation.26 Though Geljon admits that the Mos. does not map perfectly onto all of his own criteria (especially in light of the digression on the tabernacle and vestments in book 2), it does so sufficiently for him to conclude, “It can very well be argued that Philo’s Mos. belongs to this genre [i.e., philosophical biography]. It was intended to be an introduction to Philo’s exegesis of Moses’ writings, i.e. Mosaic philosophy. For this reason, it should be placed at the very beginning of the exegetical series, the Allegorical Commentary, the Exposition, and the Questions and Answers.”27 Geljon in this instance goes quite a bit further than other scholars who have argued for the Mos. as an introduction to the Exposition. More recently, Feldman has argued that the Mos. should be considered an encomium. Encomium was a well-­established genre in antiquity and bore a close relation to biography.28 It contained many by-­now familiar features, such as the subject’s genealogy, circumstances of birth, education, virtues, and deeds.29 Feldman prefers this category because the Mos. largely conforms to the generic requirements set out by the ancients themselves, and he may be correct that, as a genre, encomium was foremost in Philo’s mind. Ultimately, some eclecticism on Philo’s part, in particular his reporting of scriptural episodes that do not directly pertain to Moses (such as the Balaam episode), suggests a dual purpose that supersedes the limits of the genre. Philo pursues both the stated aim of creating a true 25 26 27 28 29

Hadas and Smith, Heroes and Gods, 17–­18. Geljon, Philonic Exegesis, 35–­36. Geljon, Philonic Exegesis, 44. See Shuler, “Philo’s Moses,” 88. Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 18.

13 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

record of Moses’ life and the unstated aim of reporting (and justifying) the biblical account of the early history of the Jewish people, which would accord with the notion that the Mos. is an introduction to Philo’s exegetical work, be it the Exposition or all his exegetical writings. In light of Philo’s sometimes competing aims (biographical, apologetic, etc.) and decision to adhere closely to the biblical narrative, it is perhaps misguided to attempt to identify a single genre for the Mos. It is perhaps better to see in the Mos. the redeployment of biblical material under the influence of various species of biographical traditions. The Intended Audience of the De vita Mosis Central to the question of how to read the Mos. is the issue of Philo’s intended audience. Unfortunately, the best evidence for the audience of the Mos. is the content of the work itself. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the text’s date of composition is unknown; it would be especially illuminating to know whether Philo was in Alexandria or Rome when he wrote it. A definitive identification of Philo’s intended audience is impossible, but a brief look at some of the theories that have been proposed will, at least, suggest some approaches to reading the Mos. The difficulty in identifying an audience for the Mos. goes hand-­in-­ hand with the challenge of locating it within the categories of Philonic works. As noted above, the Mos. is often considered to be closely connected with the Exposition without necessarily being part of it. Specifically, the Mos. would seem to function best as an introduction to Judaism and the figure of Moses rather than as a dedicated work of apologetics or exegesis, though it is by no means devoid of either. The introductory nature of the Mos. is quite apparent, but Philo’s own words on the matter are not to be overlooked. As he begins his account of Moses’ life, Philo explains that he wants to make Moses “known to those worthy of not being ignorant of him” (1.1). While this is hardly a detailed description, Philo does suggest that he is writing for those with little or no knowledge of Moses. At Mos. 2.45–­46, Philo describes the structure of the Pentateuch and states his intention to examine its two parts, the historical and the legislative (cosmology is identified as a subcategory of the historical section): “so then [of the books of the Pentateuch] there is a historical part and part about commands and prohibitions, about which I will speak later after I have first examined the part that is first in order.” Goodenough notes that Philo’s intended analyses are beyond the scope of the

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 14

Mos. and suggests that Philo here refers to the Exposition.30 Nevertheless, Philo’s attention in this passage is ultimately on explaining the rationale behind the arrangement of the Pentateuch, which he believed was written by Moses. He is not offering an exhortation to its future study. In other words, Philo could have intended for the Mos. to serve as an introduction to the Exposition, but it functions equally well as a self-­contained account of Moses and his deeds, as the introduction at Mos. 1.1 implies. The debate over the audience of the Mos. is too long to recount in full here. Instead, I offer some views that have been important in shaping the discussion. In the early twentieth century, Erwin Goodenough proposed that the Mos. was composed for a readership of sympathetic Gentiles and that the Exposition in turn was written for those Gentiles who wanted to pursue their study of Judaism following a reading of the Mos.31 In essence, for Goodenough the treatise has a proselytizing character. Goodenough’s own student, Samuel Sandmel, challenged his argument, citing a lack of evidence for the existence of a Gentile readership of any Jewish work. Sandmel instead modified Goodenough’s proselytizing argument to propose that Philo’s target audience for the Mos. was Jews who were lapsed or wavering in their faith, which would explain the tone and introductory nature of the work.32 Sandmel specifically identifies the Jewish audience as Alexandrian, which implies perhaps a limited, local circulation of the work. Gregory Sterling has recently proposed an interesting theory to explain how Philo’s many works found their audience.33 Sterling suggests that Philo ran a school on the model of Hellenistic philosophical schools. Philo’s family wealth would have afforded him the means to fund such a school (not unlike the beginnings of Plato’s academy), with the distinction of being aimed at the study of Judaism rather than philosophy (though philosophical training was necessary to understand fully the biblical texts). As Sterling himself acknowledges, direct evidence for such a school is lacking, nevertheless it is an intriguing suggestion that neatly answers some basic questions about access to and circulation of Philonic texts. Specifically, Philo’s school (like many Hellenistic philosophical schools) would have included a library (presumably Philo’s private library made available to his students), required readings (perhaps Plato and Torah, among other texts), and lectures by the head of the school, i.e., Philo. It is in this educational context, 30 31 32 33

Goodenough, “Philo’s Exposition of the Law,” 112. Goodenough, “Philo’s Exposition of the Law,” 125. Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 47. The following proposals are in Sterling, “School of Moses.”

15 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

Sterling proposes, that Philo wrote his Allegory, Exposition, Quaestiones, and De vita Mosis, with the intention of assisting students at all levels in their studies of biblical texts. The intended audience, then, would have been Philo’s own students, though not necessarily to the exclusion of other interested parties in Alexandria or personal acquaintances of Philo abroad. If we accept Sterling’s idea, then Philo’s statement that he wrote the Mos. for those “worthy of not being ignorant of him” refers primarily to his students. A final perspective in our overview has been argued independently by Manuela Baretta and Maren Niehoff (both Baretta’s article and Niehoff ’s book were published in 2018), who have proposed that the Mos. (and for Niehoff, the entire Exposition) was composed during Philo’s stay in Rome following the tumultuous events of 38 AD.34 Niehoff stresses that the Allegory shows the influence of Alexandrian scholarship while the Exposition was written in the same political context as the historical works and thus has a similar apologetic purpose.35 Part of her argument for composition in a Roman context rests on her identification of Stoic influence in Philo’s biographical works (in addition to the Mos., Philo wrote the De Abrahamo and De  Iosepho, included as part of the Exposition). For Niehoff, Philo’s embassy to Rome brought to light the need to dispel bias and misinformation against the Jewish people, and the Exposition was written for just that purpose. The audience for the Mos., then, would be Gentiles, and, more specifically, Roman Gentiles, though not, as Goodenough thought, with the aim of converting them, but rather of educating them. For her part, Baretta emphasizes the absence of Hebrew names in the Mos. and the omission of religious details, in addition to matters of style and theme.36 Additional arguments for a Gentile audience based on the style and content of the Mos. are posed by Feldman.37 One might wonder, though, how many Romans Philo would have expected to read his Exposition or even merely the Mos. It is difficult to imagine an elite Roman readership for these Jewish works without some existing personal connection. If Philo had any such connections to Roman aristocrats—­as perhaps he did—­we have no information about them. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Exposition, even if written in Rome, must have made its way to Philo’s library in Alexandria in order for Origen, to whom we owe the preservation of most of Philo’s writings, to transport those treatises to Caesarea. 34 35 36 37

The works are Baretta, “Ipotesi sul pubblico” and Niehoff, Intellectual Biography. Niehoff, Intellectual Biography, 110, and Jewish Exegesis, 184–­85. Baretta, “Ipotesi sul pubblico,” 241–­44. Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 11–­16.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 16

Ultimately, the dearth of information pertaining to the length of Philo’s stay in Rome as well as to the date and location of his death leaves the context of the composition and intended audience of the Mos. open questions. Few today would maintain Goodenough’s theory of proselytization, but otherwise, plausible theories abound. Philo and Greek Philosophy Jewish reactions to Greek philosophy in the Second Temple period were not monolithic, but it was in this timeframe that ancient Jewish thinkers (outside Judea, at least) were most receptive to Greek philosophy. For his part, Philo readily embraced Greek philosophical thought as a means of interpreting scripture, using philosophical tools to explicate biblical texts whose mysteries, as Philo saw it, would otherwise have remained inscrutable. A consideration of Philo’s relationship with philosophy might best begin by considering whether Philo himself was a philosopher, though as with many questions about the historical Philo, this one, too, has been subject to debate. If by “philosopher” one means that Philo belonged to a particular philosophical school, then he was most certainly not a philosopher.38 Philo was always loyal first and foremost to the truth of the Scriptures, which he considered superior to any philosophical doctrine. He even echoed, if only rarely, a frequent Jewish claim that the Greeks learned philosophy from Moses, despite the fact that Greeks teach Moses philosophy in Mos. 1.24.39 Philo’s philosophical knowledge was vast. Wolfson provides an extensive list of philosophers and philosophical doctrines known to Philo, including many pre-­Socratics such as the Pythagoreans, Parmenides, Empedocles, and the Sophists, as well as the Cynics, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics (including Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus), Epicurus, and the Peripatetic school, among others.40 Josephus was surely understating the matter when he described Philo as “not inexperienced in philosophy.” Philo was apparently open to the possibility of finding truth among almost any of the philosophical schools, though the preponderance of his agreements were with the views of those Academic philosophers known as Middle Platonists. Middle Platonism refers to the rejection of skepticism and return to the Old Academy’s approach to the Platonic texts as ushered in by Antiochus of Ascalon in about 80 BC. Middle Platonism was not a mere return to the old ways, however, but instead incorporated some Stoic and Peripatetic views. Thus, it can at times 38 39 40

See Runia, Philo of Alexandria, 505–­18. Sterling, “Platonizing Moses,” 101. Wolfson, Philo, 93.

17 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

be difficult to distinguish between Stoic and Middle Platonic influence. Even so, Middle Platonism is Philo’s primary philosophical influence. David Runia, in an article reflecting on the reception of his well-­known Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, summarizes the major positions on the question of Philo as philosopher. Since the first position he identifies is “purely theoretical” and without any proponents,41 I begin the citation with his second major scholarly position:

(2) that Philo is a de facto Middle Platonist, i.e. does not belong to the school, but has a philosophical stance which is fundamentally Platonist and might well make him welcome in such circles;



(3) that Philo is a Platonizing expositor of scripture, showing a marked preference for using Middle Platonist doctrines in his exegesis;



(4) that Philo is an eclectic philosophical expositor of scripture, who appropriates various school doctrines as it suits his exegetical purposes;



(5) that Philo is an independent philosopher who argues with and against the great Greek philosophers from a fundamentally Jewish viewpoint;



(6) that Philo is a Jewish religious thinker, who does not understand philosophy very well, and uses philosophical doctrines of various kinds exclusively for apologetic purposes.42

To these positions can be added Sterling’s, who summarizes his view in this way: “From his perspective [Philo] was a devoted follower of Moses. Yet Philo’s Moses was not a Hebrew Moses; he was a Middle Platonist. It is from this perspective that I think we can speak of Philo as representative of Middle Platonism.” Sterling goes on to emphasize that he does not see Philo as simply a Middle Platonist or simply a Jew, but rather “For Philo, Plato and Moses are intellectually one.”43 One final point should be noted, and that is Niehoff ’s suggestion that Philo’s later works, including the philosophical works and the Exposition, were heavily influenced by the Roman (and specifically Stoic) context in which (perhaps) Philo wrote them.44 To be clear, Niehoff does not assert that Philo becomes a Stoic or abandons Platonic modes of 41 42 43 44

Runia, “Middle Platonist?” 126. Runia, “Middle Platonist?” 125. Sterling, “Platonizing Moses,” 111. Niehoff, Intellectual Biography, 69–­108.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 18

thought, but only points out what she considers the discernible influence that intellectual life in Rome had on Philo’s writing; in part, this includes, for example, Philo’s attempt to write in a manner that would appeal to a Roman audience. Nevertheless, Niehoff ’s argument at least encourages the recognition that Philo’s philosophical inclinations could have developed or shifted over the course of his lifetime. Of the positions noted by Runia, (3) (which is his own view) and (4) are most attractive and share with Sterling’s assessment a reticence to pigeonhole Philo as a Middle Platonist or even more generally as a philosopher. Whether, as Sterling suggests, Philo’s Moses “was a Middle Platonist” is more difficult to say. The particulars of Philo’s exegesis are not always directly in line with Platonic thought, sometimes espousing more explicitly “Jewish” positions, as Runia observes, noting in particular Philo’s conception of God’s personal relationship with His people.45 Furthermore, if we entertain Niehoff ’s position of Philo’s shift toward a Roman audience and, at times, a Stoic perspective, there is perhaps even more reason to avoid pushing too far the identification of Moses as a Middle Platonist. Nevertheless, Sterling’s point regarding Philo’s belief in the unity of philosophical and religious truth is crucial. It may well never have entered Philo’s mind to ponder whether he was a philosophical Jew or a Jewish philosopher; philosophical inquiry and Scripture sought the same truth and thus were inseparable. The question of how Philo relates to philosophy and Middle Platonism has by no means been solved, but enough has been said to contextualize recent scholarly opinions. We can now turn to some examples of how Philo incorporates philosophy into his works. At the outset it is worth reiterating the complexity of Philo’s engagement with philosophy. My aim here is once again to highlight some significant uses and discussions of philosophy in Philo rather than attempt to provide a singular (and inevitably insufficient) declaration of how philosophy “works” in Philo’s texts. In Philo’s mind, Moses was a philosopher: “Moses, having reached the very height of philosophy and being thoroughly instructed by oracles in many and especially the most important aspects of nature” (Opif. 8). To this we might add a passage from the Mos.: “For some say, not mistakenly, that cities would only develop into what is best if kings practice philosophy or philosophers become rulers. But Moses has made 45

Runia, “Middle Platonist?” 130.

19 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

quite evident not only a demonstration that he possesses both of these faculties, the royal and the philosophical, but also three others” (2.2). The significance of Moses’ role as philosopher is considerable, though for our current purposes, two points deserve attention. The first is that, for Philo, Moses was also the author of the Pentateuch (cf. Mos. 1.4). This means that the five books of the Bible that dominated Philo’s attention throughout his extensive oeuvre were written by, in Philo’s view, the philosopher par excellence. Thus, one must read philosophically texts written by the world’s preeminent philosopher and, of course, Philo’s allegorical approach relies heavily on philosophy to reveal the deeper meaning of Scripture (though Philo still believes in the literal [historical] meaning of the Pentateuch and admonishes those who would neglect it [Migr. 89; 93]). He famously identifies philosophy as “the servant of wisdom” (Congr. 79) and defines “wisdom” as “knowledge of things divine and human and their causes” (Congr. 79). Thus, for Philo, philosophy is a means of approaching God and the fundamental truths of the universe that Moses conveys—­often allegorically—­in the Pentateuch. The second point to note is that philosophy is more than theorizing; for those ancients who took it seriously, the various philosophical schools prescribed a virtuous mode of life that adherents should follow. Biblical texts, of course, also prescribe a mode of life, most directly through the laws and customs they establish. When Philo describes Moses as attaining the height of philosophy, it can be (at least from a modern perspective) easy to forget that that implies a life of perfect virtue. Philo would have been much more aware of this facet of philosophy, which he makes clear, for example, at Congr. 80: “Philosophy gives thorough instruction in control of the stomach, control of the parts below the stomach, and control of the tongue.” It is the fact that philosophy encompasses both the pursuit of knowledge and the practice of virtue that enables Philo, among other Jewish authors, to speak of Judaism as “ancestral philosophy” (Somn. 2.127; Mos. 2.216; Contempl. 28; Legat. 156).46 As a sort of introductory text, the Mos. is less philosophical than most of Philo’s other works. Some philosophical references and underpinnings are nevertheless present. The plagues, for instance, are given a sort of rational basis in that they stem from different elements, and Philo offers an allegorical interpretation of the burning bush. Moses’ education at Mos. 1.23–­24, too, certainly has a philosophical quality. We learn at 1.23 46

See Sterling, “Jewish Philosophy,” 129.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 20

that “the erudite among the Egyptians taught him arithmetic, geometry, and rhythmic, harmonic, and metrical theory, and the whole of music, both through the use of instruments and discussion as pertains to both skills and more topical expositions.” Philo follows up by noting that Moses learned both Chaldean and Egyptian astronomy. Though Philo notes that Moses was also taught by Greeks and learned other philosophies, the named subjects are recognizable as what would later be called the quadrivium and which are most famously and most directly discussed in Book 7 of the Republic as subjects that are necessary prerequisites for the study of philosophy. The close correspondence with the educational path outlined in the Republic is all the more striking since, when Philo discusses educational prerequisites to philosophy elsewhere, he includes grammar and rhetoric, both of which were standard subjects of a good Hellenistic education. Moses’ study of these subjects is implied in Philo’s observation that “Greeks taught the rest of his curriculum” (1.23), though he gives special emphasis to his philosophical preparation, which is closely connected to his development into a paragon of virtue. It would be impossible in so short a space to give a reasonable outline of the particulars of Philo’s philosophical beliefs.47 For our current purpose, it will have to suffice to note that Philo was deeply engaged in the Hellenistic philosophical context of his day. He did not belong to any philosophical school, but his thinking was primarily in agreement with the Middle Platonists, who had already incorporated some Stoic and Peripatetic ideas into their philosophy. Philo also shows interest in Neopythagorean arithmology. His use of allegory was likely influenced by the Stoic tradition of allegorical readings of Homer, though Philo was not alone in his allegorical approach to the Bible; he himself takes note of other allegorists without naming them. Ultimately, Philo’s identity as a philosopher, Middle Platonist, eclectic, or dabbler is still open to debate and to some extent depends on one’s perspective, though recent scholarship has favored seeing Philo as knowledgeable and competent in philosophy, if not a creative expounder of new philosophical ideas. His creativity comes rather in his application of a philosophical worldview to the Pentateuch, which approach, as it seems, was not to have an impact in the wider realm of philosophy but would instead loom large in early Christian theology. A good introduction to the particulars of Philo’s philosophical engagement is Sterling, “Jewish Philosophy.” John Dillon’s discussion of Philo in The Middle Platonists also provides an excellent overview of Philonic philosophical thought. 47

21 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

Did Philo Know Hebrew? With relatively few exceptions, most scholars now agree that Philo’s knowledge of Hebrew was slight.48 Whether Philo knew some Hebrew without achieving fluency or lacked any knowledge of the language whatsoever, he was not equal to the task of using scripture written in Hebrew (or presumably the Aramaic translation known as Targum) for his exegetical purposes. We might surmise as much, at least, from the fact that Philo exclusively uses the Septuagint text (see below) when discussing scripture, a practice justified by Philo’s contention that the text of the Septuagint was divinely inspired.49 Without questioning the sincerity of Philo’s belief, one might wonder whether he would have still preferred the divinely inspired Septuagint over the divinely inspired Hebrew text if he were able to read Hebrew. If there are grounds to believe that Philo knew Hebrew, they are related to his etymological interpretations of proper names. The etymologies are a surprising mix that Hanson conveniently categorized as (1) etymologies properly derived from Hebrew; (2) those clearly derived from Hebrew but “only by a very tortuous method”; and (3) etymologies that suggest a poor knowledge of Hebrew.50 To complicate matters, Philo will often offer multiple different etymologies of varying quality for the same name over the course of his works. There is no doubt that the quality of Philo’s etymologies is uneven, to say the least. His ability to provide some properly derived etymologies is typically explained by virtue of etymological aids—­dictionaries or lists of names with etymological interpretations— to which Philo had access. Such works certainly existed and, depending on their quality, could logically explain some of the unevenness in Philo’s etymologizing.51 I would only add the possibility that Philo could also have derived some information from Jews who were more conversant in Hebrew than he himself was. Such a possibility might lead one to wonder about how Jewish intellectuals might have interacted with each other outside the context of formal teachings in the synagogue. It seems reasonable to conclude that Philo did not have a sufficient knowledge of Hebrew to read biblical texts. That Philo had some basic knowledge or vocabulary is certainly plausible, but impossible to verify. 48

235.

49 50 51

Evidence for this view is reviewed in Winston, “Philo and Rabbinic Literature,” Kamesar, “Biblical Interpretation,” 65–­66. Hanson, “Philo’s Etymologies,” 132. Hanson, “Philo’s Etymologies,” 130–­31; Sandmel, “Philo’s Knowledge,” 110.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 22

Assertions one way or the other rest solely on impressions derived from Philo’s works and assumptions about the degree of Hellenization in the Jewish community of first-­century Alexandria. Since Philo unquestionably used the Septuagint as the basis of his exegetical work, the matter of whether or not he knew Hebrew is not of immediate consequence for reading the Mos. but could bear on other questions, such as the extent of Jewish Hellenization in Alexandria, Philo’s connection to Palestinian Judaism, and the spread of Palestinian rabbinic thought in Jewish communities. Some considerations on Philo’s identity as a Hellenized Jew are offered below. Early Traditions of Moses and the Jewish Flight from Egypt Moses may not have attained the widespread fame of other legendary lawgivers of pagan antiquity, but neither does he go unmentioned in both Jewish and Gentile literary sources. On the contrary, the reader familiar only with the Masoretic or Septuagint accounts of the Exodus will find that Moses is the subject of some rather surprising legends, primarily, though not exclusively, among Gentile authors. Moses and the Exodus account draw particular attention from outside Judaism for their connection to Egyptian history, and thus receive a range of treatments from the sympathetic to the polemical. It is clear that the biblical account upon which Philo bases his biography of Moses had to contend with competing accounts and legends, predominantly from Egyptian sources. What follows is a summary and discussion of some of the more prominent Moses and Exodus accounts from antiquity of which Philo might have been aware, divided between Jewish and Gentile sources. Jewish Sources Artapanus What little remains of Artapanus’ On the Jews is preserved in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel) and, to a lesser degree, in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis (Miscellanies). Artapanus’ floruit is unknown, but it is generally agreed that he was working sometime between 250 and 60  BC. This broad range is based on the assumption that Artapanus used the Septuagint, which appeared at the earliest in the middle of the third century, and on the fact that Artapanus was a source for Alexander Polyhistor, who was dead by 35 BC. Based on internal evidence, Artapanus may have written between 118 and 116.52 Though such 52

Zellentin, “End of Jewish Egypt,” 73.

23 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

a narrow range is more precise than most scholars would accept, locating his work in the late second century BC has found some support.53 In any case, Artapanus unequivocally predated Philo. Most scholars believe that Artapanus was Jewish based on his flattering (if fanciful) depiction of Moses. It should be noted, however, that Artapanus’ Jewishness has been questioned, most recently by Feldman, who expresses doubt that a Jew would ascribe to Moses some of the accomplishments that Artapanus assigns to him, especially his role in establishing the worship of Egyptian deities.54 A lengthier and more detailed argument against Artapanus’ Jewishness is provided by Howard Jacobson.55 Artapanus’ ethnicity is significant for the question of what, if any, interest Alexandrian Greeks might have had in Judaism and what audience Jewish writers—­including Philo—­might have expected to reach. Since, however, the consensus remains settled on Artapanus’ Jewishness—­and, I believe, with good reason—­I have included him among the Jewish accounts. Eusebius’ brief summary gives a sense of Artapanus’ rather unique account of Moses’ life. I provide here only the most salient points from Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica 9.27: Merris, the daughter of the pharaoh Palmanothes, accepted a Jewish baby as her own and named him Moses (Μώϋσος), but the Greeks called him Musaeus (Μουσαῖος). Moses (through conflation with the mythical Musaeus) was Orpheus’ teacher. He was also the inventor of ships, machines for laying stones, Egyptian weapons, and devices for drawing water. He also invented philosophy. Moses is further credited with dividing Egypt into thirty-six nomes and determining which god each nome would worship.56 The gods he distributed were cats, dogs, and ibises; he also assigned districts to the priests. For his many benefactions, Moses was beloved of the people and honored like a god by the priests, who gave him the name Hermes because he interpreted sacred texts. Chenephres, pharaoh and adoptive father of Moses, became jealous of Moses and tried to have him killed by sending him to war against the Ethiopians (who had invaded Egypt) with a force consisting of mere farmers. Moses was nevertheless successful and defeated the Ethiopians after ten years. Over the course of the campaign, Moses founded a city, which he named for Hermes, and consecrated the ibis in it. The Ethiopians, in fact, esteemed Moses, despite being his enemy, and learned from him to practice circumcision. 53 54 55 56

Collins, “Artapanus Revisited,” 63. Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 5–­6. Jacobson, “Artapanus Judaeus.” “Nomes” is the technical term for administrative districts in Egypt.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 24

Chenephres made a second attempt to kill Moses. When Merris died, Chenephres sent Moses and Chanethothes to bury the body; he gave Chanethothes the additional task of killing Moses. Moses learned of the plot and, after burying Merris, was advised by his brother, Aaron, to flee to Arabia. Moses fled, killed Chanethothes, who was waiting to ambush Moses as he escaped, and settled in Arabia in the house of its ruler, Raguel, whose daughter he married. Moses prayed to God for an end to his people’s suffering. Fire appeared and burned without fuel, which frightened Moses, but God spoke to him and commanded him to march against Egypt and lead the Jews out. When pharaoh learned of Moses’ arrival in Egypt, he had Moses imprisoned, but the guards miraculously either died or were incapacitated and the doors of the prison were opened. Moses went to the palace and brought about signs and plagues that recall but do not precisely follow the biblical narrative. Finally, pharaoh released the Jews, but he soon repented of this decision and pursued them to the Red Sea, where he and his forces were destroyed by fire and the enclosing sea as they attempted to follow Moses across the exposed land bridge. Finally, Artapanus concludes that the Jews were in the wilderness for forty years and ate a white, millet-­like food sent by God. Artapanus shows a clear awareness of the biblical account of the exodus but freely incorporates a wealth of fanciful extrabiblical material. Some of this material is derived from accounts of Egyptian heroes and deities whose qualities and accomplishments are attributed to Moses.57 Though not Artapanus’ source, many Egyptian corollaries are recorded by Diodorus Siculus. The rather strange nature of Artapanus’ account and our dearth of substantive information about him allow for a wide range of interpretations regarding the author and his work. As noted above, even the fact of his Jewishness has been questioned. To return to the matter of Artapanus’ ethnicity, the primary objection to Jewishness rests on the report that Moses instituted animal worship within the nomes, a claim that, presumably, no Jew would make. As Collins emphasizes, however, the animal worship that Moses institutes is for the Egyptians, not the Jews.58 Furthermore, if Artapanus were familiar with the Septuagint, he may have known of the reading at Exodus 22:28, which commands “Thou shalt not revile the gods” where the plural θεούς is used. Even Philo took this to mean that one should not belittle foreign 57 58

See Zellentin, “End of Jewish Egypt,” 36–­40. Collins, “Artapanus Revisited,” 61.

25 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

deities (Spec. 1.53).59 Ultimately, Artapanus’ account of the plagues and the destruction of the Egyptian forces in the Red Sea affirms the superiority of the God of Israel. As for Artapanus’ wandering outside the bounds of the biblical narrative, such innovations were commonplace among Jewish writers of the Hellenistic period.60 Even in the Mos., Philo claims to supplement the Septuagint account with other authoritative sources. Assuming that Artapanus was a Jew, what might have been his motivation for the construction of such a narrative? Scholars have posited several possible interpretations. Erich Gruen emphasizes the humor in the account: “The humor is mischievous rather than malicious. It sets the author in a superior posture of detachment, disengaged from ideological battle, and thereby augments the authority of his judgement.”61 Gruen’s is a rather unique perspective for proposing such detachment from contemporary social and political concerns. Most scholars see in Artapanus a reflection of quotidian or intellectual life in Hellenistic Egypt. John Barclay suggests that Artapanus presents an “Egyptianized Judaism” that did not value monotheism over polytheism.62 He essentially proposes a syncretism of Judaism and Egyptian belief that Philo surely would have found utterly blasphemous. Even if Barclay’s attribution to Artapanus of polytheism is difficult to accept, the likelihood that familiarity with and commitment to the Scriptures varied among Egyptian Jews—­especially those in the chora—­is an important context for both Artapanus and Philo. Zellentin, who dates the text to 118–­116 BC, during the reign of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, takes a historical approach; for Zellentin, “Artapanus emphasizes the necessity for fertilizing the Egyptian soil and for social reforms in favor of the native Egyptian agricultural working class—­under the auspices of benevolent Greco-­Egyptian Jewish military and political leaders.”63 Finally, John Collins argues that Artapanus’ account of Moses was intended as a refutation of a defamatory Moses account written by the Egyptian priest Manetho (see below).64 Artapanus’ narrative is thus an apologetic work that both corrects Manetho’s slander and makes Egypt culturally and religiously indebted to Moses’ many benefactions. 59 60 61 62 63 64

See also Collins, “Artapanus Revisited,” 66. Jacobson, “Artapanus Judaeus,” 213. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 160. Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 132. Zellentin, “End of Jewish Egypt,” 72. Collins, “Artapanus Revisited,” 63–­64.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 26

If Philo knew of Artapanus’ work, he omits to mention it explicitly. Aside from his reference to written and oral sources, Philo provides no indication of what sources he used or which he might desire to refute in the Mos. The two accounts have little in common apart from details found in the biblical narrative. For Philo, Moses is educated by instructors from all over the world, including Greece and Egypt, while for Artapanus, Moses is the instructor of Orpheus and the inventor of philosophy. Philo’s Moses rescues the Jews from captivity and becomes their general in the wilderness. Artapanus’ Moses conquered the Ethiopians on behalf of pharoah and gave Egyptians their religion. In essence, where Artapanus’ Moses is a benefactor and supporter of Egypt and its culture, Philo’s Moses shows no interest in either. This suggests at least one critical distinction between the two accounts: Artapanus’ narrative indicates both Judean superiority as well as the possibility of harmony among Egyptians and Judeans. After all, Egyptian culture was handed down by Moses, who also refused to conquer Egypt at Raguel’s urging. Philo builds no such bridge between cultures. Philo does not seek hostility with Egyptians (or Greeks living in Egypt), but neither can he approve any way of life apart from that proscribed by the laws of Moses. Ezekiel the Tragedian Ezekiel, known as “the Tragedian,” was a Jewish author who presented the Exodus account in the form of a play entitled the Exagoge. Like Artapanus, Ezekiel’s dates are bounded by the appearance of the Septuagint and the preservation of fragments of his work by Alexander Polyhistor. Thus, Ezekiel can be—­and has been—­placed anywhere between 250 and 60  BC. Jacobson places him in the second century primarily based on the fact that Ezekiel avoids any reference to Judea or Israel, which, he suggests, would have been unwelcome in the second century, a period when these former Ptolemaic possessions had been lost.65 Thanks to the efforts of Polyhistor, however, not only are some fragments of Ezekiel extant (once again preserved second hand, primarily in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica, but with fragments also recorded by Clement of Alexandria and Eustathius), but we can also assert with confidence that he predated Philo. As to the scholarly belief that Ezekiel lived in Alexandria, it is simply the case that the city housed a Jewish population and was a cultural and intellectual center of the world, and that no alternative suggests itself.66 65 66

Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 5–­13. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 13.

27 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

The extant lines of Ezekiel’s play, 269 in total (and, incidentally, the best extant representative of Hellenistic tragedy), comprise several fragments from various points in the narrative, including Moses recounting his adoption by an Egyptian princess and the reason for his escape to Libya (Philo mentions Arabia), his encounter with the burning bush and instructions regarding the plagues and the institution of Passover, a survivor’s report of the destruction of the Egyptian forces in the Red Sea, and a scout’s report of the sighting of a phoenix. In one scene, Moses describes a vision in which he was given a throne atop Mount Sinai, from which he sees the whole earth, and the stars bow to him (Exagoge, 68–­82). Scholarly analyses of the fragments have shown that Ezekiel was well versed in the language and motifs of fifth-­century tragedy and was influenced primarily by Euripides, who was popular in the Hellenistic period. Davies describes Ezekiel’s connection to fifth-century tragedy as follows: “the fragments reflect an intimate, but catholic, relationship with classical tragedy.”67 One significant connection to fifth-century tragedy that could also pertain to the Mos. is the possibility that Ezekiel used Aeschylus’ Persae as a model, associating the Jewish people’s freedom from Egyptian enslavement with the liberation of Greece from the threat of Persian control.68 Niehoff notes that Philo’s description of the Egyptians riding through the Red Sea on scythed chariots (Mos. 1.168) is “the most stereotypical marker of Persian warfare.”69 The Persian-­Egyptian identification present in both Ezekiel and Philo raises a number of interesting questions, though it will have to suffice to observe that in both the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, such a depiction would at least serve to further the divide between native Egyptians and Greek (and Jewish) inhabitants. Whether the play was intended for the stage or meant to be a written work of literature is debated. The intended audience is also unclear. Did the work anticipate an audience of both Jews and Gentiles, or could it have served a liturgical purpose for Jews alone?70 As with the Mos., the question of audience must remain open. Despite some hesitation among scholars,71 there is reason to believe that Philo had read or seen Ezekiel’s Exagoge. Philo does not name Ezekiel—­or any other Jewish source—­anywhere in his writings, but his interest in the 67 68 69 70 71

Davies, “Reading Ezekiel’s Exagoge,” 394. Xanthakis-­Karamanos, “The Exagoge of Ezekiel,” 235–­38. Niehoff, Jewish Identity, 54–­55. Davies, “Reading Ezekiel’s Exagoge,” 399. Runia, “God and Man,” 52–­53.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 28

theater is well attested.72 In what is perhaps the most thorough study of the issue of Philo’s familiarity with Ezekiel, Gregory Sterling examines verbal parallels, thematic parallels, and the use of extrabiblical exegetical traditions in Ezekiel and Philo. He concludes that not only did Philo know Ezekiel’s play, but even that it influenced the Mos.73 For example, in both Ezekiel and Philo, Moses’ sister, Miriam, witnessed the discovery of the infant Moses. Additionally, for both authors baby Moses was left on the riverbank in a thick marsh rather than in a basket or ark. These and many other verbal and thematic points of convergence that fall outside the Septuagint account suggest, but do not guarantee, Philo’s familiarity with the Exagoge. Aristobulus and the Allegorists Although the fragments of Aristobulus do not discuss the Exodus narrative, they provide valuable context for Philo’s approach to scripture. Aristobulus, like the other Jewish sources discussed above, was active in the second century BC, perhaps between 155 and 145 BC, toward the end of Ptolemy VI Philometor’s reign.74 Once again, the five extant fragments of Aristobulus are preserved by Eusebius (with some similar material preserved in Clement of Alexandria) and include, notably for our current purposes, insight into Aristobulus’ allegorical interpretations (Praep. ev. 8.10) and an extensive assertion of pagan philosophy’s dependence on Mosaic law (Praep. ev. 13.12). Aristobulus’ fragments establish an important pre-­Philonic philosophical context for biblical exegesis. At Praep. ev. 13.12.8, Aristobulus tellingly writes, “For all philosophers are agreed that one must hold holy opinions about God, which our school (ἡ  καθ’  ἡμᾶς  αἵρεσις) exhorts especially well.” Aristobulus characterizes Judaism as a philosophical sect, albeit one that surpasses all others. His exegetical approach was similar to Philo’s in its variety: though called a Peripatetic (i.e., associated with a philosophical school founded by Aristotle) by Clement for showing some affinity with their thinking, Aristobulus also adopts some Stoic views. This suggests that he did not limit himself to a single philosophical perspective.75 Aristobulus even goes a bit farther than Philo, however, in appropriating Greek poetry for Judaism. Aristobulus claims, 72 See Sterling, “From the Thick Marshes,” 115, and Lincicum, “Preliminary Index,” 152–­59. 73 Sterling, “From the Thick Marshes,” 132–­33. 74 Collins, “Aristobulus,” 832. 75 Sterling, “Handmaid,” 77–­78.

29 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

for instance, that Aratus, via his Phaenomena, had God in mind, not Zeus, and therefore removed the name “Zeus” from the poem (13.12). Aristobulus was able to come to such a conclusion because he believed that all Greek wisdom and knowledge were ultimately derived from Moses; thus, the truths of the Pentateuch could find expression in pagan literature, though one had to take care to ensure those truths had not been lost over time.76 Of similar interest is Aristobulus’ use of allegory. At Praep. ev. 8.10, he explains at length how anthropomorphic features attributed to God should be interpreted as representations of God’s power. Barclay observes that interpretations such as the equation of God’s hand with God’s power, by Philo’s time, needed no special justification.77 Rather, the cumulative work of allegorical exegesis provided a foundation for Philo’s extensive allegorizing. Though biblical exegesis did not begin with Aristobulus, his methods were to some degree influenced by scholarly methods of interpreting Homer that were current, especially in early Hellenistic Alexandria; Homeric scholars such as Aristobulus had to deal with, for instance, objections to corporeal descriptions of the gods.78 Thus, while the use of allegory may well have been primarily an apologetic maneuver for Aristobulus, by Philo’s time, the special conditions of Alexandrian Judaism—­ influences from Greek intellectual culture, the continuing need for apologetics, and attributing authority to a text rather than an author—­made allegory central to Philo’s theological thinking.79 Aristobulus is thus an early witness to the Alexandrian exegetical tradition that Philo inherited, though that tradition was quite varied. Philo himself refers to other allegorists up to seventy-four times in his extant works (the references are collected by Hay, but some are questionable).80 It is not clear how prevalent allegorical exegesis was within the synagogues or among Jews outside the educated elite. It would hardly be surprising if some allegorizing made its way into the synagogues. According to Sterling, however, most Alexandrian Jews were literalists, and even Philo warns against neglecting the literal meaning of the law despite his interest in allegorical readings (Migr. 89).81 It is certainly possible that Philo was 76 77 78 79 80 81

Mülke, Aristobulos in Alexandria, 63–­71. Barclay, Mediterranean Diaspora, 157–­58. Mülke, Aristobulos in Alexandria, 321–­33. Radice, “L’allegoria di Filone,” 96–­99, 112. Hay, “Philo’s References,” 42–­43. Sterling, “Handmaid,” 85–­86.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 30

acquainted with Aristobulus’ work, but it is not possible to trace a linear line of descent from it to Philo. Sterling proposes, “We should not think of a single set of allegorists who worked within a uniform intellectual tradition, but various groups scattered over time who worked with different philosophical traditions.”82 Philo is surely the exemplar of a philosophically minded Jewish exegete, but by no means was he the first. Non-­Jewish Exodus Accounts Hecataeus of Abdera The earliest known non-­Jewish account of the exodus narrative is that of Hecataeus of Abdera, who wrote his Aegyptiaca under Ptolemy I Soter, who ruled as king of Egypt from 305 to 282 BC. Hecataeus’ work survives only in fragments preserved by later authors. The most extensive fragment of Hecataeus, which happens to describe the exodus of the Jews, was preserved in a fragment of Diodorus Siculus (40.3.1–­8), which in turn was preserved by Photius. According to Hecataeus’ account, a plague arose in Egypt that was found to have been caused by divine displeasure at the neglect of traditional religious practices. This neglect was due to the number of foreigners in Egypt practicing their own rites. The Egyptians expelled the foreigners to quell the gods’ anger. Those who were expelled followed various leaders to new lands. Hecataeus notes that the best among the exiles followed Danaüs and Cadmus, both figures from Greek myth whose origins lie in the Near East. The majority of the exiles, however, followed Moses, a man Hecataeus describes nonetheless as “outstanding for his wisdom and courage” (φρονήσει τε καὶ ἀνδρείᾳ πολὺ διαφέρων, 40.3.3). Moses led the people into Judea, which was uninhabited, and founded several cities, most importantly, Jerusalem. Moses also built the temple in Jerusalem and divided the people into twelve tribes. Hecataeus calls the way of life that Moses established “unsociable” (ἀπάνθρωπος) and “xenophobic” (μισόξενος) and attributes the group’s hostility to their expulsion from Egypt. Moses chose the best leaders of the nation and made them priests, granting them authority as judges and keepers of the law. Thus, the Jews never had a king, but rather a high priest who communicated the will of God. The Jews were a populous people because they raised all of their children (as opposed to those, like the Greeks, who practiced infant exposure). Finally, Moses required that the 82

Sterling, “Handmaid,” 88.

31 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

youth be trained for war and develop courage, constancy, and the ability to endure hardship. In the surviving pieces of Hecataeus, the Jewish departure from Egypt is quite muted; his focus is instead on Moses as lawgiver and founder of Jewish customs. Hecataeus’ approach to the Jews stands out for its relative neutrality; his Aegyptiaca aims to assert Egyptian superiority and primacy over other cultures, but without particular hostility toward Greeks and Jews.83 Moses is recognized as wise and courageous, and the Jewish youth are well trained for war. Given the Jewish dietary regulations, observance of the Sabbath, and, most importantly, their belief in a single God that admits no syncretism with other deities, it is hardly surprising that a pagan such as Hecataeus should find such a people “unsociable.” There is no reason to suspect that Philo engages with Hecataeus directly in his Mos., though Hecataeus is noteworthy as the earliest representative of an existing Egyptian tradition that ran counter to Jewish claims about the exodus, a tradition that often took a polemical form. Manetho Manetho was an Egyptian priest from Sebennytus, seat of the last pharaonic dynasty under Nectanebo II until Egypt was retaken by the Persians in 343/342  BC. After the defeat of the Persians, the Sebennyte dynasty found favor with the new Macedonian rulers.84 Manetho’s position as priest and his knowledge of Greek apparently gave him an important role helping the new Ptolemaic regime interact with the Egyptian temples. According to Plutarch, Mor. 361F–362A, Manetho was involved in establishing the cult of Serapis. Manetho’s dates are unknown, but his life may have spanned the reigns of the first two Ptolemies. He may even have lived on into the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes (who first occupied the throne in 246 BC).85 He wrote an Aegyptiaca, just as Hecataeus did, though Manetho is a unique example of an Egyptian writing in Greek. In his effort to rebut defamatory accounts of the Jews, Josephus preserves several fragments and summaries of hostile exodus accounts. In fact, the remaining non-­Jewish exodus accounts that will occupy our attention are all found in Josephus. Fragments of Manetho preserved by Josephus record Manetho’s account of the Jews in Egypt and their eventual departure. In the first fragment, from C. Ap. 1.75–­90, Manetho reports 83 84 85

Gager, Moses, 28. Moyer, Limits of Hellenism, 87. Moyer, Limits of Hellenism, 87.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 32

that in the reign of Tutimaeus, an insignificant people from the east, known as the Hyksos (shepherd-­kings), invaded and quickly conquered Egypt. Upon their victory, they burned temples and visited cruelty upon the Egyptian people. A Hyksos named Salitis was made king in Memphis, and he exacted tribute from upper and lower Egypt and fortified his territory. Manetho says that the Hyksos, who reigned for 511 years, sought to eradicate the Egyptian people. Finally, the kings of the Thebaid revolted against the Hyksos under the leadership of the king Misphragmouthosis and managed to trap them in a place called Auaris. The siege of Auaris ultimately ended when the Hyksos, comprising 240,000 households, agreed to leave Egypt. The Hyksos departed and built a city in Judea known as Jerusalem. Josephus (C. Ap. 1.103–­5), assuming a connection between the Hyksos and the Jews, uses Manetho’s account to demonstrate that even an Egyptian recognized the antiquity of the Jewish people and that Jews did not originate in Egypt, as some polemical accounts claimed. According to Josephus’ reckoning based on Manetho’s chronology, the exodus took place about a thousand years before the Trojan War. Another fragment of Manetho is recorded in C. Ap. 1.227–­51. Here Josephus cites Manetho to dispute what he considers to be slander against the Jews. According to Josephus’ paraphrase, Manetho wrote that an Egyptian king, Amenophis, desired a vision of the gods and was told his wish would be granted if he cleansed the land of lepers and other unclean elements. The king gathered 80,000 polluted individuals, including some leprous priests, and sent them to the quarries, away from the other Egyptians. The seer who advised the king feared divine retribution for the treatment of the lepers and foresaw that allies would aid them in taking control of Egypt for thirteen years. Eventually, the king allowed the lepers to live in Auaris, from where they launched their revolt. They made a priest of Heliopolis, Osarsiph, their leader; Osarsiph then ordained that the lepers would no longer worship the gods but rather would now consume sacred animals. Osarsiph set down more laws opposed to Egyptian custom and made an alliance with the shepherds of Jerusalem. Amenophis fled to Ethiopia while the people of Jerusalem and the polluted of Egypt committed all kinds of cruelties against the Egyptian people: they burned cities, pillaged temples, damaged images of the gods, and even forced priests to slaughter sacred animals. Osarsiph, a native of Heliopolis and named for Osiris, changed his name to Moses when he went over to the shepherds. Amenophis eventually returned from Ethiopia and expelled the invaders and the unclean from Egypt.

33 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

Scholars have questioned the authenticity of some of the polemics against the Jews attributed to Manetho, with the connection between Osarsiph and Moses especially drawing suspicion as an interpolation.86 Nevertheless, there are some scholars who suggest the polemical elements were part of Manetho’s Aegyptiaca.87 As with Hecataeus, Manetho’s account formed part of a larger work on Egyptian history. Unlike Hecataeus’ narrative, which suggests a Greek perspective by fashioning the expulsion of people from Egypt in terms of colonization, Manetho offers an Egyptian take on the history of the Jews in Egypt.88 Many of the polemical elements that Josephus attributes to Manetho find expression again centuries later in Philo’s own lifetime amid the tensions in Alexandria that led up to the violence of 38 AD. Lysimachus The scholia to Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus mention a scholar named Lysimachus who is further identified as “the Alexandrian.” If this is the Lysimachus discussed by Josephus, his floruit may be estimated at 200 BC. Lysimachus was a mythographer and grammarian who, in addition to a history of Egypt, wrote a multivolume work on the homeward journeys of heroes (Νόστοι) and another multivolume work on Theban wonders (Θηβαϊκὰ παράδοξα). According to Josephus (C. Ap. 1.304–­11), Lysimachus placed the exodus in the reign of Bocchoris. The Jews of Egypt became infected with leprosy and sought refuge in the temples, where they lived as beggars. Since so many were afflicted with illness, the land became sterile. A delegation sent to consult the god Ammon revealed that all the impious and unclean had to be driven from the temples before the land would become productive again. On Bocchoris’ order, the unclean were driven into the wilderness and the lepers were drowned. Those abandoned in the wilderness accepted advice from a certain Moses to set forth toward some inhabited country; Moses also told them to show kindness to no one, to offer only bad advice, and to destroy any temples or altars they encountered. The people agreed and set out, laying waste to the inhabited lands they traversed until they arrived in Judaea, where they built a city named Hierosyla (which in Greek means something like “plunder of temples”). 86 87 88

Gager, Moses, 116–­18. Moyer, Limits of Hellenism, 95; Schäfer, “Die Manetho-­Fragmente,” 186–­206. Moyer, Limits of Hellenism, 118–­25.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 34

To hide the shame of this name and their early impiety, they later changed their city’s name to Hierosolyma (Jerusalem). Lysimachus continues a common theme of depicting Jews as beset by maladies and behaving with open hostility toward the gods. Gager observes that atheism is a common charge levied against the Jews and seems to originate in such Egyptian expulsion narratives. It may even have been a general charge against different foreigners in Egypt that was later transferred to the Jews, if the anti-­Jewish sentiments in Manetho are, in fact, interpolations.89 Chaeremon and Apion It is fitting to discuss Chaeremon and Apion together since, based on information from the Suidas, a late tenth-century encyclopedia, and Claudius’ letter (see above), it seems that Chaeremon and Apion had much in common. Both served as heads of the Museum in Alexandria, wrote on Egyptian history, and participated in the Alexandrian delegation to Gaius in 38 AD.90 As contemporaries and opponents of Philo who polemicized against the Jews, Chaeremon and Apion may well represent precisely the sort of people Philo would have deemed unworthy of learning the truth about Moses (Mos. 1.1). Brief fragments of each author are preserved by Josephus. In C. Ap. 1.288–­92, Josephus describes a few salient points from Chaeremon’s account of the exodus: the Egyptian king at the time of the exodus was Amenophis, to whom Isis appeared, angry over the destruction of her temple in a war. Amenophis was advised to cleanse the land of the unclean population, and so he expelled 250,000 people from Egypt. The exiles were led by Egyptian scribes: Moses—­whose Egyptian name was Tisithen—­and Joseph, whose Egyptian name was Peteseph. The exiles met up with a larger body of people who had been refused passage across Egypt. Together, the two groups marched on Egypt. Amenophis fled to Ethiopia, and his wife, who had been pregnant and left behind, bore their son Ramesses in a cave; later Ramesses drove the invaders out of Egypt and into Syria. The general outline of the Egyptian tradition found already in Manetho is present here. The polluted (associated with the Jews) are gathered up, invade Egypt, put Amenophis to flight into Ethiopia, and are eventually expelled. Moses, though with a different name, is once again an Egyptian. 89 90

Gager, Moses, 119. Gager, Moses, 120–­22.

35 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

Josephus’ brief mention of Apion’s account comes from C. Ap. 2.10–­11. Apion learned from elders of Egypt that Moses was from Heliopolis. He then describes how Moses set up prayer houses (προσευχάς, a term used in Philo’s time for synagogues) according to Egyptian customs. The prayer houses were open to the air; faced east, as did Heliopolis; used pillars instead of obelisks; and contained a statue whose shadow traced the course of the sun. Josephus, naturally, finds Apion’s claim preposterous, equating it with the construction of the first tabernacle (C. Ap. 2.12). Presumably Apion followed other elements of the traditional Egyptian account of the expulsion of the Jews, but the fact that he has Moses embrace Egyptian religion instead of attempting to eradicate it is certainly a noteworthy innovation.91 Apion’s claim is interesting in the context of the tensions between Alexandrians and Jews. As proposed above, tensions between the two camps came to a head after the Romans took charge over Egypt and the relative status of Alexandrians and Jews became less distinct. Could Apion be implying that the Jews are essentially Egyptians and should be treated as such? One could note that at Flacc. 80, Philo describes the outrage that the Jewish Gerousia, a council of elders that oversaw Jewish affairs in Alexandria, suffer in being beaten in the manner reserved for Egyptians. Perhaps Apion simply knows of a tradition unique among our extant sources, though given his role in the delegation of 38 AD, it seems reasonable to suspect polemical motives and, perhaps, quick willingness to report an account that both denies the Jews their claim of antiquity and depicts their religion as a mere offshoot of Egyptian practices. One wonders, too, whether Philo knew of Chaeremon’s and Apion’s accounts (it is difficult to imagine that he was unaware of them) and whether the Mos. was, at least in part, either a response to or a provocation for those accounts. Philo and the Septuagint The Authority of the Septuagint Most of Philo’s works entail some degree of scriptural exegesis, and the scripture that he interprets is invariably the Septuagint (often abbreviated LXX and superscripted with biblical citations, e.g., ExodLXX 3:14). The primary account of the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek comes from the Letter of Aristeas, a second-­century BC text that is, unfortunately, riddled with so many implausible claims that it is difficult to know how much fact is buried under the exaggeration. The Letter purports to be written by 91

Gager, Moses, 123.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 36

a certain Aristeas, a Greek courtier under Ptolemy Philadelphus, though the true author was unquestionably a Jew. Furthermore, the letter is generally dated to about the mid-second century BC when Ptolemy Philadelphus was long dead, and so regardless of whether a courtier named Aristeas ever existed, he was certainly not the author of the Letter;92 thus, the actual author is sometimes known as pseudo-­Aristeas. It is perhaps worth noting as well that, despite the epistolary designation that modern scholars use, the genre of the Letter is by no means straightforward; the character Aristeas calls his writing a “narrative” (διήγησις) and Josephus mentions a “book of Aristeas” (τὸ Ἀρισταίου βιβλίον, A.J. 12.100).93 Since the text is rather lengthy, the summary here will be limited to the points pertinent to the creation of the Septuagint. According to the Letter, Ptolemy Philadelphus tasked Demetrius of Phalerum with assembling the Alexandrian Library (in fact, upon his succession Philadelphus banished Demetrius for supporting his rival, Ptolemy Ceraunus). In an exchange witnessed by Aristeas, Demetrius reported that 200,000 volumes had been procured for the library, with the number expected to rise to 500,000 in short order. The Law of the Jews, a worthy text for the library, could not be procured because translators were needed. Philadelphus then had a letter drafted to the high priest in Jerusalem, and Aristeas, being present, took the opportunity to petition the king for the release of Jewish slaves who were brought to Egypt after Ptolemy I Soter’s campaign in Palestine. Philadelphus agreed, considering the release of 100,000 captives a “small matter” (μικρὸν πρᾶγμα, 19). An embassy was sent to the high priest, Eleazar, who agreed to send translators to Alexandria, six elders from each tribe for a total of seventy-two. When the translators arrived in Alexandria with their Hebrew scrolls, they were greeted by the king, who welcomed them profusely and even bowed to the scrolls seven times. Following a lengthy digression in which the king questioned the Jewish elders on a variety of topics and was delighted by all of their answers, the act of translation finally began. The elders were given quarters on the island of Pharos. Aristeas indicates that the elders worked together to formulate their translation. When it was finished, the completed translation was read out to the whole community of Jews, who affirmed its piety and accuracy and forbade any revision. On Aristaeus’ floruit, see Hadas, Aristeas, 54. See Honigman, Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship, 13–­35 for a useful discussion of ps.-­Aristeas’ genre. 92 93

37 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

A few important points emerge from Aristeas’ account. First, the translation of the Septuagint is placed in the first half of the third century BC. That it was intended to be included in the Alexandrian Library cannot be assumed based on Aristeas alone; the impetus for the translation remains a matter of debate. Nevertheless, the third-century origin of the Septuagint is generally accepted. One should also note the emphasis Aristeas places on the authority of the translation: seventy-two elders from Jerusalem, chosen for their linguistic skill and, above all, their piety, bring sacred scrolls to Alexandria. After demonstrating their wisdom by responding to questions posed by the king, they retire to Pharos and produce a translation that the Jewish community hails for its accuracy and piousness, and to which any change was forbidden. Though Aristeas does not attribute the translation to divine inspiration, he does insist that the virtue and piety of the translators were central to the authority of the translation. Already for Aristeas in the second century, as later for Philo in the first century, the authority of the Septuagint was on par with that of Hebrew editions. When the Septuagint became broadly authoritative is unclear, though the need for an authoritative Greek translation of scripture would have been considerable if Hebrew were not widely spoken in the Jewish community of Alexandria. Philo, too, comments on the translation of the Septuagint at Mos. 2.25–­44. Philo’s account bears many similarities to Aristeas’ narrative, despite being much shorter and omitting some Aristean material. A few points in which Philo diverges may suggest his familiarity with an alternate tradition. Philo mentions an annual festival on the island of Pharos, one that honors and gives thanks for the Septuagint. Interestingly, he emphasizes that the festival was attended by Gentiles (Mos. 2.41), a point that might further imply a Gentile audience for the Mos. Philo’s account also deviates from that of Aristeas in his description of the translation process. According to Philo, the translators did not work together but rather worked individually under divine inspiration, with the result that the translators all produced identical texts (Mos. 2.37). Philo makes clear that, by his understanding, the Septuagint was divinely inspired and thus obviates the problem of conducting his exegesis on a nonauthoritative text. The Structure of Philo’s Moses Account and Its Fidelity to the Septuagint The relationship between the Mos. and the Septuagint is a complicated one. As one might expect, Philo is generally faithful in reproducing the narrative events in the Septuagint, yet he is not completely so.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 38

His account occasionally differs from that of the Septuagint or omits altogether episodes from the biblical text. Moreover, Philo frequently interrupts his narrative to offer commentary, be it rationalizations of miraculous phenomena, insight into a character’s thought process, allegorical interpretation of an event, or the motivations for divine actions. Philo also habitually suppresses the names of characters. For example, even as significant a figure as Moses’ brother, Aaron, is never named in the Mos. Furthermore, the very notion of fidelity to the Septuagint is perhaps less straightforward than it seems. The Septuagint itself, as a Hellenistic translation of an older Hebrew text, occasionally introduces some clarifying terms and phrasing in Greek that better suit the sensibilities of a Hellenistic Jewish audience or Jewish apologetics.94 For example, at ExodLXX 4:6, when Moses withdraws his hand from his cloak, it is not leprous as in the Masoretic Text, but simply “white as snow” (καὶ ἐγενήθη ἡ χεὶρ αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ χιών), thus avoiding the association with leprosy that was already used to slander the Jews in Manetho’s account of the exodus. In a sense, Philo works with the same mindset, as he provides his own version of the narrative, not infrequently reinforcing variations first introduced—presumably unbeknownst to Philo—­by the Septuagint translators. Given the complexity of the matter, the current discussion will offer only some broad observations that will help orient Philo’s work relative to the Septuagint. Philo’s professed goal of making Moses known to those who are worthy (1.1) rather understates what he accomplishes, which amounts to a celebration and vindication of Judaism and its law brought about through Moses, the ideal king, lawgiver, and prophet. Given the true scope of Philo’s project, a mere summary of the biblical Moses narrative would not suffice. Philo therefore disrupts the chronology of his narrative, preferring to arrange episodes according to which aspects of Moses (king, lawgiver, high priest, or prophet) they demonstrate. This division is explicitly mentioned for the first time in the final passage of book 1 (1.334 and taken up again at the beginning of book 2), where it is revealed that book 1 treated Moses as a royal figure while book 2 will address his roles as lawgiver, high priest, and prophet. This structural choice is far from self-­evident, since book 1 proceeds chronologically through the narrative of Exodus and Numbers while book 2 instead follows topically Moses’ various roles, none of which is revealed until the end of book 1. McGing, noting especially 94

See Dogniez, “La figure de Moïse,” 36–­38; Schwagmeier, “Exodos,” 97–­102.

39 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

the absence of the Sinai episode from book 1, suggests, “Perhaps it is a mistake to assume that everything is perfectly planned and executed.”95 One might even consider the structure to further support the notion of an intended audience of Gentiles, since a Jewish reader, who would presumably be familiar with the most basic elements of the exodus story, would surely have been baffled, for instance, by the omission in book 1 of all the events at Mt. Sinai. Moses’ interaction with God on the mountain, the imparting of the law, and the fashioning of the golden calf are all treated in book 2 since they pertain to Moses’ roles as lawgiver and high priest. A Gentile reader would not notice Philo’s chronological rearrangement until it became explicit in book 2. Since Philo never specifically claims that he intends to reproduce precisely the biblical narrative but suggests only that the Pentateuch is one source he uses alongside some oral accounts, such omissions and variations as one finds in the Mos. should perhaps come as no surprise. McGing offers an excellent discussion of Philo’s adaptive techniques, though his assertion that “Nor, unfortunately, is there any obvious significance in the scenes [Philo] chooses to omit” is rather surprising.96 He gives the example of Philo’s omission of the Passover instructions from Exodus 12: “It is difficult to see anything that could be construed as offensive in it; perhaps he felt that such detailed description of Jewish religious practice simply interrupted the story.”97 In a note appended to that sentence, he further observes that Philo indulges in details of Jewish law in book 2.98 Yet McGing’s hesitation is unnecessary, since Philo avoids delving into the particulars of Jewish law throughout book 1. Furthermore, it is not a matter of a mere mention of the Passover instructions; Philo would surely have felt the need to interpret those instructions, which would have constituted an allegorical digression of the sort that is rare in book 1. Space does not allow for an exhaustive discussion of variations between Philo’s account and that of the Septuagint, though some attention is due to the more significant changes that Philo makes. In what follows I will offer a brief overview of some differences between Philo’s account and the Septuagint with a proposal for how Philo’s choices fit logically with the apparent aims of the two books. 95 96 97 98

McGing, “Philo’s Adaptation,” 121. McGing, “Philo’s Adaptation,” 120. McGing, “Philo’s Adaptation,” 120. McGing, “Philo’s Adaptation,” 120n19.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 40

Suffering of the Jews in Egypt Exodus 1:8–­14 explains that the king of Egypt feared that the large number of Jews in Egypt might turn against him and sought to reduce their numbers by enslaving them and subjecting them to harsh labors. When this plan fails to diminish the nation of Israel, the king then orders that male Hebrew children be killed as soon as they are born (Exod 1:18–­22). Thus, in the Septuagint the Hebrews were already enslaved at Moses’ birth. Philo shifts the chronology of these events. The king is once again concerned with the growing strength of the Jews, but his first response is to order the death of the Jews’ newly born male offspring (Mos. 1.8). It is only after Moses has been adopted and brought up by an Egyptian princess that the king suddenly and inexplicably reduces the Hebrews to slavery (Mos. 1.37). As McGing notes, “The purpose of this displacement is to build up what [Philo] feels is a more convincing explanation for the rift between Pharaoh and Moses that ultimately leads to Moses killing the Egyptian overseer.”99 Moreover, Cohen has observed that it seems strange that pharaoh would seek to decrease the Hebrew population after it had been enslaved.100 One might also note that Moses no longer finds himself having been raised in luxury while his people suffer in slavery. Moses’ objection to the king’s cruelty is immediate, as is his intervention in the matter (Mos. 1.40). Exposure of the Infant Moses In the Septuagint account, Moses’ mother, unable to keep her baby hidden, decides to expose him in an ark—­a plaited basket (θῖβις) sealed with an asphalt-­pitch compound—­that she places in the marsh of the river (ExodLXX 2:3). Philo makes no mention of the ark and, contrary to the LXX account, includes Moses’ father in the exposure scene (Mos. 1.10–­11). One might be tempted to see the absence of the ark as a bit capricious of Philo, though in this omission he follows Ezekiel the Tragedian, who likewise left the ark out of his account of Moses’ exposure. Both Philo and Ezekiel follow the Septuagint in locating the site of Moses’ exposure in a marshy area. Ultimately, Philo’s reasons for omitting the ark from his account cannot be gleaned with any confidence. It is perhaps telling that Ezekiel, too, preserves some details from the Septuagint account while neglecting the ark. Did they fear their audiences, perhaps including a substantial number of Gentiles, would find the ark implausible? Was an alternate tradition in 99 100

McGing, “Philo’s Adaptation,” 126. Cohen, Origins and Evolution, 10–­11.

41 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

circulation among the oral teachings of the synagogues?101 Cohen considers the detail of the ark “superfluous.”102 At the very least, the fact that both authors part from the Septuagint account in respect of the ark suggests they had reason to do so beyond mere caprice. Philo parts ways with both the Septuagint and Ezekiel by making clear that both of Moses’ parents were present when he was exposed (Mos. 1.10–­12). In the Septuagint, Moses’ mother alone sets the ark upon the river (Exod 2:3). In this regard, however, Philo, probably unawares, is enlarging on the Septuagint’s own augmentation of the paternal role in Moses’ early life. In the Masoretic Text, the father is not mentioned after Moses’ birth; only his mother observes his beauty, hides him, and sets his ark upon the river. The Septuagint uses plural verbs to indicate the participation of both parents, though only his mother is mentioned in connection with the ark.103 Philo (and later Josephus) further expand the father’s role, in the case of the Mos. by continuing to use plural verbs to indicate the presence of both parents at the river. It seems unlikely that Philo intends to “correct” the Septuagint, but rather is making explicit what must have seemed obvious to him, namely, that the father played a role in decisions concerning his son.104 Philo furthermore takes the opportunity to uphold the excellence of both Moses’ parents by describing their anguish at abandoning their son, which they did only out of compulsion.105 Moses before the Burning Bush The Septuagint account of the Hebrews’ wanderings in the wilderness includes several episodes in which Moses appears in an unflattering light. Philo’s Moses, however, was the perfect embodiment of the virtues established in the Law. Thus, it would hardly be fitting to undercut the importance of the Law by bringing to light the imperfections of Judaism’s lawgiver—all the more so if Philo’s audience were primarily Gentile. Furthermore, there were a number of unflattering Moses accounts already in circulation in Philo’s time, and he may well have been concerned not to give them legitimacy by admitting any flaws in Moses’ character.

Sterling, “From the Thick Marshes,” 124–­25. Cohen, Origins and Evolution, 44. 103 Dogniez, “La figure de Moïse,” 39. 104 On the increased importance of the father, including in the midrash, see Cohen, Origins and Evolution, 48–­51. 105 Feldman, “Philo’s View,” 265. 101 102

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 42

One notable scene in which Moses provokes God’s anger occurs at Exod 4:10–­14, where he protests that he is a poor speaker and requests that God choose someone else to confront pharaoh. In verse 14, God becomes angry with Moses (καὶ θυμωθεὶς ὀργῇ κύριος ἐπὶ Μωυσῆν εἶπεν). Philo, too, has Moses repeatedly ask God to send another, but instead of becoming irritated, God approves of Moses’ modesty (Mos. 1.84). In both accounts God provides Aaron as Moses’ interpreter, though the tones of the two passages are vastly different. Circumcision of Gershom Exod 4:24–­26 tells of an incident when an angel of the Lord comes to Moses during his return journey to Egypt and tries to kill him. Moses’ wife, Zipporah, succeeds in appeasing the angel by circumcising her son, Gershom. The Septuagint version of these difficult verses already displays deviations from its Hebrew model.106 Philo omits the scene entirely and would have had good reason to do so, as the passage posed difficulties for interpreters even in antiquity. Clearly, it would have required considerable effort on Philo’s part to render it comprehensible for an audience unfamiliar with the tenets of Judaism. In addition to distracting from the narrative, the verses also pose problems from the perspective of apologetics. A reader might naturally wonder why an angel of the Lord would want to kill Moses. God’s apparent anger toward Moses and Moses’ apparent transgression are both contrary to Philo’s consistent depiction of Moses as an ideal embodiment of the Law. In addition to shielding Moses from any untoward suppositions, Philo may also have been concerned that verses 24–­26 center on Gershom’s circumcision. Jews in antiquity were, of course, well known for this practice, which brought some amount of ridicule upon them. The depiction of circumcision in the scene is far from the ideal way of introducing the concept to Gentiles, or even explaining it to fellow Jews (Philo does this at Spec. 1.1–­12). Finally, the fact that Moses’ wife, Zipporah, seems to be the one who averts the angel’s wrath is contrary to Philo’s consistent suppression of characters who would detract from Moses’ greatness. Like his brother, Moses’ wife and son are never named in the Mos., and to do so in a scene that already would have borne other concerns for Philo makes it unsurprising that Philo chose to omit Exod 4:24–­26 from his account of Moses’ life. 106

Dogniez, “La figure de Moïse,” 42–­44.

43 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

The Plagues Moses’ encounters with pharoah and the enactment of the plagues proceed a bit differently in Philo’s version as compared with Exod 7–­12.107 Philo’s adaptations are too numerous to list here, so only the most salient changes will be noted. Contrary to the Septuagint, Philo explains that the plagues affected only the Egyptians while the Hebrews were left unharmed. Philo also omits any mention of God hardening pharoah’s heart, presumably to avoid imputing to God the apparently morally questionable act of inflicting plagues upon a people whose king God himself has manipulated into refusing to submit to divine authority. As previously noted, Philo also omits much of the content of Exod 12, in which the Hebrews prepare to depart from Egypt in anticipation of the tenth plague and receive instructions for the celebration of Passover. We saw above that McGing found the absence of this material surprising, though it seems perfectly consistent with Philo’s preference to avoid discussion of legislative and priestly regulations and activities in book 1. The plagues that Philo describes are the same as those of the Septuagint, but in a different order. The order of the plagues seems not to have been of particular concern, since ps.-­Philo and Ezekiel the Tragedian also take liberties with it.108 Philo makes his own purpose clear with the extrabiblical explanation that the plagues, though ultimately deriving from God, were set in motion by different agents according to the natural properties of the plague. Thus, Aaron, representing the heavier elements of earth and water, was responsible for the plagues of water becoming blood, swarms of frogs, and fleas. Moses, representing the higher elements of air and fire, brought forth hail, locusts, and darkness. Moses and Aaron together caused the affliction of boils, while God alone inflicted the plagues of flies, the death of livestock, and, of course, the death of firstborn children. Feldman proposes, probably rightly, that Philo’s efforts to make the plagues seem rationally connected to the natural structure of matter is motivated by apologetics;109 Philo expends considerable effort to make miraculous punishments seem somehow logical. Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 89–­108, offers an excellent commentary on the variations Philo introduces to the material in the Septuagint. 108 Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 90. 109 Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 89–­90. 107

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 44

Meeting with Jethro and the Events at Mt. Sinai The material of Exodus 18–Numbers 12, as well as Numbers 15–­18, which comprises a number of scenes that occur after Moses leads his people to Mt. Sinai, is reserved for book 2 of the Mos. In addition to various prescriptions and regulations, this material includes a number of narrative elements, such as Moses’ meeting with his family and implementation of Jethro’s recommendation to appoint judges over the people (Exod 18), the pronouncement of the Law to Moses (Exod 20), the fashioning of the golden calf under Aaron’s direction (Exod 32), and Moses’ vision of God’s back and the creation of a second set of tablets (Exod 33–­34). All of Leviticus is omitted from book 1, such as the sins of Aaron’s sons (Lev 10) and the regulations regarding clean and unclean animals (Lev 11). Since the bulk of Leviticus is comprised of various priestly rules and regulations, it is no surprise that Philo leaves it out of his narrative in book 1. Several chapters from the book of Numbers are also omitted, such as 1–­10, which are primarily concerned with the arrangement of the Hebrew camp and a census that is to be taken. As one might expect, the omissions and alterations that Philo makes are most easily explained either by Philo’s apologetic approach to the narrative or his sustained interest in fashioning Moses into an ideal philosopher-­king. Thus, Exodus 18, in which Moses accepts his father-­in-­ law, Jethro’s, recommendation to appoint judges over the people because the task is too great for Moses alone, is contrary to the image of a man whom Philo describes as a νόμος ἔμψυχος, that is, a living law (cf. Mos. 1.162; 2.4). Also, Philo omits Aaron’s involvement with the golden calf, which would undermine his role in establishing the priesthood. Post-­Sinai Wanderings Numbers 11 concerns God’s anger toward and punishment of the Hebrews who criticized him and the subsequent meeting of Moses and the seventy elders with God. Numbers 12 tells of Aaron and Miriam’s complaints against Moses and Miriam’s affliction with leprosy. Philo leaves both episodes out of his biography of Moses. He includes an account of Numbers 16, the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, in Mos. 2.275–­87 and a version of Numbers 17, the blooming of Aaron’s staff, in Mos. 2.174–­79. These scenes both pertain to the priesthood and, ­in Philo’s view, Moses’ authority as prophet and high priest—as well as the priestly role of the Levites—and so are fittingly placed in

45 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

book 2. Of course, one might suspect that were Philo to include a scene of open rebellion against Moses in book 1 it could have undermined his intended portrait of Moses as the ideal king. Philo presents a single instance of Moses producing water by striking a rock, and in doing so either conflates the events of Exodus 17 and Numbers 20 or else leaves out Numbers 20 altogether. At Exodus 17, the Lord orders Moses to draw water from a rock by striking the rock with his staff. At Numbers 20, however, God instructs Moses to command a rock to bring forth water for the Hebrews to drink; Moses instead strikes the rock to produce water, which leads God to forbid him from entering the promised land. In his account (Mos. 1.210–­13), Philo omits the details of God’s command that Moses speak to the rock rather than strike it (Num 20:8) and Moses’ resulting punishment (Num 20:12). Instead, the scene is primarily another example of God’s supreme power. Another scene omitted by Philo is Numbers 21:5–­9, in which God sends venomous snakes against the people for their complaints against God. Moses prays to God and, as God instructs, fashions a bronze serpent on a pole, the sight of which heals those who have been bitten. Philo may have been reluctant to include such a scene in which God’s wrath is turned against his own people. Philo and Christianity The New Testament Philo was a contemporary of Jesus, though he gives no indication that he was aware of the dramatic events that culminated in Jesus’ crucifixion. He further betrays no knowledge of an incipient Jewish sect that would later come to be known as “Christians.” Some church fathers, beginning with Eusebius, believed that the Therapeutae, a presumably Jewish sect whose communal lifestyle Philo describes in the De vita contemplativa, were in fact early Christians. Eusebius supports this identification with a legend that Philo went to Rome to speak with Peter (Hist. eccl. 2.16.2–­17.2). Legends aside, Philo’s works demonstrate no contact with early Christians and, furthermore, no evidence exists that any New Testament authors depended on Philo directly, though Philonic modes of thinking have been detected. The Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews show the strongest similarities to Philo’s thinking. Of the two texts, only in the Epistle to the Hebrews, whose place of origin, date, and authorship are unknown but

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 46

which “shows the most affinity to Philonic thought,” is the question of direct Philonic influence still perhaps somewhat open.110 The Gospel of John has also been associated with Philo.111 Without going into detail, one may glimpse how the two could be connected from how Philo and the Gospel of John approach the Logos. Philo, at Conf. 146–­47, writes, “If in fact one happens to not yet be worthy to be called a son of God, let him be eager to order himself below God’s first born, the Logos, the eldest of the angels, the archangel, so to speak, having many names. For he is called ‘the beginning,’ ‘the name of God,’ ‘the man in His image,’ and ‘the one seeing, Israel.’” Daniélou detects similarities to the Gospel of John in his description of the Logos as “in the beginning” (John 1:1).112 At Cher. 127, Philo calls the Logos God’s instrument of creation, which bears a resemblance to John’s statement that nothing was made without the Logos (John 1:3). Ultimately, however, while for John the Logos becomes incarnate in the form of Christ, for Philo the Logos is always purely invisible and immaterial.113 This brief example does not do justice to scholarly discussions of Philo’s and John’s conceptions of the Logos, but hopefully it is adequate to demonstrate how, despite being at times strikingly similar in imagery, Philo and the authors of the New Testament have quite different purposes and beliefs, and therefore direct dependence of the latter on the former is rather unlikely. Instead, scholars tend to see Philo as one voice in a much bigger Hellenistic Alexandrian Judaism, which itself was unlikely to be monolithic. From this perspective, as Runia points out, “Philonic” ideas are only so described because Philo is their only surviving representative.114 The Church Fathers Philo’s ideas played an important role in shaping biblical interpretation among some early church fathers despite their Jewish origin. The discussion here will be limited to those church fathers whose connections to Philonic thought are most substantial and demonstrable. By far the best and most 110 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 74. Space does not allow for a discussion of the Philonic elements of Hebrews, but excellent analyses are available in Runia, Early Christian Literature, 74–­78 and Siegert, “Philo and the New Testament,” 177–­83. 111 Useful surveys of the issue can be found once again in Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 78–­82 and Siegert, “Philo and the New Testament,” 195–­204. 112 Daniélou, Philon D’Alexandrie, 205. 113 Daniélou, Philon D’Alexandrie, 205–­6. 114 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 340.

47 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

thorough account of Philo’s influence on and transmission by the church fathers remains David Runia’s Philo in Early Christian Literature. All of the extant Philonic texts owe their survival to early Christians. The initial stage of transmission, discerned largely from Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica (Ecclesiastical History), seems to have progressed as follows: Philo’s texts made their way into the Alexandrian catechetical school by about 150 AD when it was under the leadership of Pantaenus, about whom little more than his name is known. Clement joined the school sometime between 175 and 180 AD and remained there for twenty-five years; there he read the works of Philo and drew upon them as a source for his own writings. During his time at the catechetical school, Clement instructed Origen, who would also find much value in Philo. In 233, Origen accepted a position in Caesarea and took all of the books of Philo with him. These books, now part of the episcopal library of Caesarea, become the source of Eusebius’ catalogue of Philonic texts in the Historia ecclesiastica (2.18.1–­8) and are later recopied into codices at the behest of the bishop Euzoius in the 370s.115 Unfortunately, we know little of what happened to Philo’s texts in the period between his death (sometime after 41 AD) and Pantaenus’ activity in the Alexandrian catechetical school. Adding to this dearth of knowledge is the fact that a Jewish revolt under Trajan in the years 115–­117 AD seems to have decimated the Alexandrian Jewish community, making the path of the Philonic corpus to the catechetical school all the more difficult to trace. Runia supports the theory that “it was the school of Pantaenus that rescued Philo’s works from the debris of Alexandrian Judaism after the revolt in 115–­117 AD.”116 Questions, however, have been raised about the nature of the Alexandrian catechetical school and the likelihood of transmission from the Alexandrian Jewish community in the wake of the Trajanic revolt. Eusebius may have exaggerated the organized structure of the catechetical school, which might rather have been unofficial instruction from an individual with a following rather than an entity under the auspices of the church.117 As for the source from which the school would have acquired copies of Philo’s texts, Jennifer Otto has recently reaffirmed that Alexandrian Jews disappeared from the epigraphical record after the Trajanic revolt and expressed skepticism about the plausibility of For a more thorough outline of the early phase of transmission, see Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 16–­31. 116 Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 22. 117 See van den Hoek, “‘Catechetical’ School,” 59–­61. 115

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 48

any significant contact between Christians and Jews in Alexandria after 117 AD.118 Otto proposes instead that the line of transmission was actually through Alexandrian philosophical schools, while Annewies van den Hoek has suggested that Philo’s texts were preserved in one or more Christian libraries.119 Gregory Sterling has modified van den Hoek’s proposal by suggesting that the library was private (perhaps Philo’s own) rather than ecclesiastical and that a Christian convert from Philo’s school obtained copies or even the original manuscripts from Philo’s library.120 Despite the uncertainty as to how, by the mid-­second century Philo’s works certainly found their way into Clement’s hands, for he is the first of the church fathers to quote Philo and identify him by name. Van den Hoek has identified 205 borrowings from Philo in Clement’s work, 22 of which come from the Mos., with Clement’s primary interest lying in Philo’s method for philosophical interpretation of the Bible.121 As he was for Clement, Philo was an important influence on Origen, who also engaged in allegorical interpretations of scripture. Van den Hoek has tabulated the Philonic references found in the extant works of Origen, finding 116 certain or highly probable instances where Origen borrows from Philo. The number more than doubles when references of less certainty are included.122 Origen’s considerable debt to Philo is all the more striking given that Philo is only explicitly named on three occasions in Origen’s works. As noted above, Origen was instrumental in the preservation of the Philonic corpus since it was he who carried it from Alexandria to Caesarea in Palestine in 233. Origen believed in allegorical exegesis of the Bible, and some of his views were ultimately condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 AD. Even earlier in the fourth century, Philo and Origen came under attack as the preference for literal or historical biblical interpretation was on the rise.123 Eusebius of Caesarea deserves mention since he has been noted numerous times as a source for the early reception of Philo. He was born in the 260s in the same Caesarea to which Origen had come. After Origen’s death, Eusebius’ teacher, Pamphilus, obtained Origen’s collection 118 119

81.

120 121 122 123

Otto, Construction of Jewishness, 33–­37. Otto, Construction of Jewishness, 39–­46; van den Hoek, “‘Catechetical’ School,” Sterling, “School of Moses,” 163. Van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria, 210, 223–­29. Van den Hoek, “Philo and Origen,” 116. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 265–­71.

49 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

of books—­including his copies of Philo—­and incorporated them into a library that he created.124 It is through this library that Eusebius acquired access to Philo’s texts and was able to formulate his catalogue of Philonic works in the Historia ecclesiastica. Eusebius is best known for his historical works, the Chronicon (Chronicle) and the Historia ecclesiastica (Ecclesiastical History), both of which mention Philo. Though Eusebius was clearly familiar with Philo’s texts, his primary significance lies in the information he records about the early reception of Philo beginning with Pantaenus. Among the church fathers writing in Greek, the last to be covered in this brief survey is Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory lived from roughly 338 to 395 and was one of the Cappadocian Fathers, along with his older brother Basil of Caesarea and his friend Gregory of Nazianzus. Like Philo, Gregory of Nyssa wrote a life of Moses (the original title of which is obscured by confusion in the manuscripts, though it is now generally known by the same title as Philo’s work, περὶ τοῦ βίου Μωϋσέως).125 As Runia definitively states, “There can indeed be no doubt that Gregory drew on Philo’s biography in the preparation of his own work.”126 Though Gregory certainly knew and used Philo’s biography of Moses when he was composing his own, Gregory’s purpose and Christian beliefs led his account of Moses’ life to differ significantly from Philo’s. In his study of Philo’s influence on Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses, Geljon observes that while Philo was trying to make Moses’ achievements broadly known, Gregory aims to explore how one can live virtuously; in addition, while Philo generally avoids allegorizing his account of Moses’ life, Gregory spends the second half of his work doing just that.127 The bulk of Philonic references in Gregory’s work, Geljon notes, are found in the historical account of Moses’ life; what allegorizing Philo does, either in the Mos. or in other treatises, is overlooked or reinterpreted.128 The final early church father in whose work Philo looms large is Ambrose of Milan (333 or 339–­397). Though Ambrose comes last in our list, his is the greatest debt to Philo. According to ancient sources, Ambrose was elected bishop rather suddenly in the year 374 when, in his role as provincial governor, he spoke before a raucous crowd that was at 124 125 126 127 128

Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 213. See Geljon, Philonic Exegesis, 63–­64. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 257. Geljon, Philonic Exegesis, 167. Geljon, Philonic Exegesis, 160.

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 50

odds over whom to name as the new bishop. While Ambrose was speaking a voice was heard through the din saying “Bishop Ambrose,” which led to a sudden agreement among the disputants that Ambrose be made bishop. Regarding his education in philosophy, Ambrose had some experience with it through the normal course of his education in Rome, but he later learned from philosophers whom he met through Simplicianus, among others; he seems even to have given some serious consideration to devoting himself to the subject.129 Ambrose’s engagement with Philo was extensive and evident from an early point in his bishopric. He was versed in the works of Origen and Basil, as well as Philo and probably the neoplatonists Porphyry and Plotinus.130 As to what, then, drew Ambrose to Philo, particularly when composing his De paradiso (Paradise), Dassmann proposes, “In that the garden, the rivers, and the leading figures—­snake, Adam, and Eve—­compelled Philo to offer to his educated Alexandrian public a reasonable, allegorical interpretation of the material in which they could recognize their mythological and philosophical knowledge of the cosmos and people, he aligned precisely with Ambrose’s concern to make accessible to a receptive Milanese audience the Old Testament, mistrusted by Marcionites and Manichees, as a document that is not in contradiction to human reason.”131 Dassmann then cites Augustine as the most famous example both of the sort of audience Ambrose was trying to reach and of the success of his approach. While Dassmann proposes that certain commonalities made Philo an attractive source for Ambrose, he recognizes, too, that the bishop had to assert his Christian beliefs over Philo’s Jewish presentation of scripture.132 While Ambrose relied heavily on Philo in a number of treatises, he also criticized and “Christianized” him. Despite borrowing extensively from Philo—­over 600 times—­Ambrose mentions Philo by name only once, yet even then merely to criticize him.133 We are thus reminded once again that, though Philo’s influence over biblical exegesis among some of the church fathers was not inconsiderable, his particular brand of “Jewish philosophy” was ultimately incompatible with Christian doctrine. It remains to be seen how his ideas fared among his fellow Jews. 129 130 131 132 133

Dassmann, Ambrosius von Mailand, 30. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 291. Dassmann, Ambrosius von Mailand, 202 (my translation). Dassmann, Ambrosius von Mailand, 202. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 295.

51 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

Philo and Judaism It is a striking fact of Philo’s Nachleben that, despite his role as a staunch apologist for Judaism and a dedicated exegete of its scripture, his works seem to have found rather limited—­ if any—­ reception among Jewish authors of antiquity. This fact provokes many questions: Did Philo have any connection to Palestinian Judaism? Does the silence of rabbinic literature in regard to Philo indicate hostility? What influence might early midrash and other oral teachings have had on Philo and vice versa? Did his apparently insufficient grasp of Hebrew preclude him from a prominent place among Jewish scholars? These questions, unfortunately, have remained open largely due to a dearth of information about Judaism in the Hellenistic period, including synagogue activity and rabbinic teachings datable to Philo’s time. What can be affirmed, however, is that—­with the notable exception of Josephus—­direct references to Philo are virtually nonexistent among ancient Jewish sources as well as in the Mishnah (compilation of oral traditions, predominantly on matters of law) and midrashic texts (biblical commentary on matters both legal [midrash halakhah] and narrative [midrash haggadah]). In addition, efforts to detect Philonic influence upon those texts have not been universally accepted among scholars. To begin with the question of whether Philo was aware of “rabbinic” teachings, the answer must surely be in the affirmative. At Mos. 1.4, Philo states that his sources for his account of Moses’ life include both the Torah and “the elders of my people” (ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔθνους πρεσβυτέρων). Philo indicates here an oral tradition (perhaps a midrashic tradition transmitted through the synagogues) that can hardly have been a sui generis Alexandrian creation. More difficult and controversial is the matter of what in Philo’s writing can be tied directly to rabbinic literature. In a rather ambitious attempt to discover evidence of Philo’s knowledge of rabbinic haggadic traditions—­which we know only from much later compilations and which cannot be traced back to a particular date—­Bernard Bamberger identified forty-one borrowings from rabbinic haggadah of varying probability based on a set of self-­imposed criteria.134 Lester Grabbe, some years later, published a response to Bamberger’s article, arguing that only six of the forty-one identifications had some reasonable probability of deriving from haggadah.135 The challenge of clearly identifying the extent of Philo’s knowledge of rabbinic traditions and especially the particular traditions 134 135

Bamberger, “Philo and the Aggadah.” Grabbe, “Philo and Aggada.”

Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis | 52

themselves is daunting. Notably, though, despite his criticism of Bamberger’s analysis, even Grabbe recognizes that Philo knew some amount of the rabbinic oral tradition. What, though, of Philo’s influence on Judaism? Perhaps the strongest argument for a Philonic contribution to ancient Judaism pertains specifically to Jewish works written in Greek. In a recent article, Gregory Sterling gathers the available texts of ancient Jewish literature in Greek (as well as some pagan texts) and arranges them by region. He then briefly considers whether evidence of borrowings from Philo appear in the texts. His conclusion is worth citing in full: “There is evidence to suggest that some of Philo’s treatises began circulating in Egypt, Syria, and Rome within Jewish and pagan circles during the first and second centuries AD. All of the Roman evidence is from elite circles (pseudo-­Longinus, Josephus, and Plotinus). This is not true, however, for Syria and Egypt where Christian liturgists who were drawing from Jewish sources (Hellenistic Synagogue Prayers) and a Jewish sect (2 Enoch) used some of his works.”136 Sterling’s conclusions are potentially significant for the manuscript tradition. While the primary line of transmission runs through Caesarea to Byzantium, the transmission of Philo’s work in the West is harder to discern; if Philo were known to a first-­century pagan author like pseudo-­Longinus, it suggests an early circulation of Philo’s treatises in Rome, perhaps even increasing the likelihood that they found their way into Roman libraries. If Philo found some footing among Jewish authors writing in Greek, he was less influential within the Hebrew and Aramaic traditions of rabbinic Judaism. Among current theories as to why Philo was virtually ignored by rabbinic Judaism, David Winston’s are the most convincing. According to Winston, the rabbis were disinterested in the application of philosophy to scripture and were unwilling to accept exegesis based on a translation of scripture, i.e. the Septuagint.137 The most noted example of Philo’s influence on later rabbinic Judaism is a comparison made by R. Hoshaia of Caesarea (third century). Hoshaia likens God looking into the Torah to create the world to a craftsman consulting plans to build a house. This image is strikingly similar to Philo’s likening of the intelligible Forms to plans that an architect holds in his mind while constructing a city (Opif. 17–­20). As was often the case with Christian adoptions of 136 137

Sterling, “Recherché or Representative,” 29–­30. Winston, “Philo’s Nachleben,” 104.

53 | Introduction to Philo of Alexandria’s De vita Mosis

Philonic ideas, in this instance, too, even if the image of the craftsman is drawn from Philo, the significance is completely reconfigured. Specifically, as Ephraim Urbach notes, Hoshaia does away completely with the notion of intelligible Forms and focuses instead on “the concrete Torah with its precepts and statutes . . . Out of these letters . . . are the utterances with which the Almighty created the world constructed.”138 Even if Hoshaia knew and drew upon the De opificio mundi, it is difficult to overlook that Philo’s influence pertains more to the imagery he uses than the substance of his thought. To take a positive view of Philo’s influence, Philo’s works made their way from Egypt to Caesarea, Rome, and Syria and were known to Jews and some pagans. The extent of his fame is difficult to gauge, but he was certainly not unknown. Ultimately, Christians found more of value in Philo than the Jews or the pagans and are to be credited with the preservation of his texts, but, in the end, no successor arose to carry on Philo’s philosophically oriented Judaism. Thus, his impact on Judaism was minimal and his cachet among the church fathers waned even before the end of antiquity. Though Philo’s influence on Judaism and Christianity was not to last, his works, including the De vita Mosis, remain of singular importance for the insight they give into a truly dynamic period of Jewish history.

138

Urbach, The Sages, 200.

Philo of Alexandria

De vita Mosis I

(I) (1) Μωυσέως τοῦ κατὰ μέν τινας νομοθέτου τῶν  Ἰουδαίων, κατὰ δέ τινας ἑρμηνέως νόμων ἱερῶν, τὸν βίον ἀναγράψαι διενοήθην, ἀνδρὸς τὰ πάντα μεγίστου καὶ τελειοτάτου, καὶ γνώριμον τοῖς ἀξίοις μὴ ἀγνοεῖν αὐτὸν ἀποφῆναι. (2) τῶν μὲν γὰρ νόμων τὸ κλέος, οὓς ἀπολέλοιπε, διὰ πάσης τῆς οἰκουμένης πεφοιτηκὸς ἄχρι καὶ τῶν τῆς γῆς τερμάτων ἔφθακεν, αὐτὸν δὲ ὅστις ἦν ἐπ’ ἀληθείας ἴσασιν οὐ πολλοί, διὰ φθόνον ἴσως καὶ ἐν οὐκ ὀλίγοις τῶν διατεταγμένων ὑπὸ τῶν κατὰ πόλεις νομοθετῶν ἐναντίωσιν οὐκ ἐθελησάντων αὐτὸν μνήμης ἀξιῶσαι τῶν παρ ’  Ἕλλησι λογίων·

56

On the Life of Moses I

(I) (1) I intend to expound the life of Moses, who, according to some, was a lawgiver for the Jews1 and, according to others, was an interpreter of holy laws. I intend as well to make him, a man of utter greatness and perfection, known to those who ought not be ignorant of him.2 (2) While the fame of the laws that he left behind has already spread throughout the whole of the inhabited world, even to the ends of the earth, still not many know who Moses actually was. Perhaps it is due to jealousy and the discrepancy between his laws and more than a few of those drawn up by the lawgivers of other cities that the learned among the Greeks were not willing to deem him worthy of remembrance.3 1 Philo uses the terms  Ἰουδαῖος (“Jew”) and, more frequently,  Ἑβραῖος (“Hebrew”) in the De vita Mosis. According to Harvey, Philo’s use of the term  Ἰουδαῖος is neutral and applicable to both Jewish ancestors and the contemporary nation.  Ἑβραῖος, on the other hand, refers to a Jew who speaks Hebrew or Aramaic (rather than Greek) and may convey a notion of tradition and respect. Philo nowhere refers to himself as  Ἑβραῖος but rather considers himself a  Ἰουδαῖος. See Harvey, True Israel, 43–­46, 124. I follow Philo by rendering  Ἰουδαῖος and its related forms as “Jew” or “Jewish” and  Ἑβραῖος and its related forms as “Hebrew” or “Hebraic.” When, as often occurs, Philo’s Greek omits a subject or object that English requires, in keeping with Philo’s general practice I will use the term “Hebrews” to refer to Moses’ people whom he leads out of Egypt. 2 Whom Philo deems “worthy” of knowing about Moses is unclear, though two possible audiences are sympathetic gentiles and lapsed Alexandrian Jews (such as Philo’s own nephew Tiberius Alexander). Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 13, proposes an intended audience of gentiles generally, arguing that those worthy of knowing Moses but who have been denied the opportunity by Greek historians must be gentiles, as Jews would have other means of knowing about him. It seems unnecessary, however, to exclude a Jewish audience; Philo’s refashioning of Moses into a philosopher-­king may have been aimed precisely at his fellow Jews. Maren Niehoff, Intellectual Biography, 109–­10, has recently suggested that Philo wrote the De vita Mosis in Rome and was influenced by the politics and literary conventions of that city. On that basis one might posit a Roman audience of both Jews and gentiles. Ultimately, this important question remains open to scholarly debate. 3 In his account of the translation of the Septuagint, Ps.-­Aristeas (see introduction, p. 35) suggests that Jewish law was not well known among gentiles. In the Letter, the king, Ptolemy Philadelphus (285–­246 BC), asks the head of the Alexandrian Library, Demetrius of Phalerum, why the laws of the Jews were not mentioned previously by historians or poets, to which Demetrius responds by saying, “Because the laws are holy and are from God. Some of those who undertook the task were struck by God and shrank from the attempt” (Ps.-­Ar. 313). It is doubtful that many people outside the Jewish community were familiar with the Septuagint or facets of Jewish law

57

58

De vita Mosis I

I.3

(3) ὧν οἱ πλείους τὰς δυνάμεις ἃς ἔσχον διὰ παιδείας ὕβρισαν ἔν τε ποιήμασι καὶ τοῖς καταλογάδην συγγράμμασι κωμῳδίας καὶ συβαριτικὰς ἀσελγείας συνθέντες, περιβόητον αἰσχύνην, οὓς ἔδει ταῖς φύσεσι καταχρήσασθαι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν τε καὶ βίων ὑφήγησιν, ἵνα μήτε τι καλὸν ἡσυχίᾳ παραδοθὲν ἀρχαῖον ἢ νέον ἀφανισθῇ λάμψαι δυνάμενον μήτ’ αὖ τὰς ἀμείνους ὑποθέσεις παρελθόντες τὰς ἀναξίους ἀκοῆς προκρῖναι δοκῶσι σπουδάζοντες τὰ κακὰ καλῶς ἀπαγγέλλειν εἰς ὀνειδῶν ἐπιφάνειαν. (4) ἀλλ’ ἔγωγε τὴν τούτων βασκανίαν ὑπερβὰς τὰ περὶ τὸν ἄνδρα μηνύσω μαθὼν αὐτὰ κἀκ βίβλων τῶν ἱερῶν, ἃς θαυμάσια μνημεῖα τῆς αὑτοῦ σοφίας ἀπολέλοιπε, καὶ παρά τινων ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔθνους πρεσβυτέρων· τὰ γὰρ λεγόμενα τοῖς ἀναγινωσκομένοις ἀεὶ συνύφαινον καὶ διὰ τοῦτ’ ἔδοξα μᾶλλον ἑτέρων τὰ περὶ τὸν βίον ἀκριβῶσαι.

I.3

On the Life of Moses I

59

(3) Most of them abused the abilities they acquired through education by composing comedies and works of sybaritic licentiousness in both poetry and prose—­a scandalous shame, since they should have used their talents to portray good men and their lives, so that nothing noble, old or new, made reticent though capable of shining forth, would be lost. Moreover, they should have better used their abilities so that in their zeal to narrate wickedness beautifully and bring renown to matters of reproach, they might not seem to pass over better topics in preference for those unworthy to hear. (4) But I, at least, will rise above their jealousy and will recall the facts about the man, things I have learned from the holy books that he left behind as wondrous records of his wisdom,4 and from some of the elders of the Jewish people.5 For, as I continuously incorporated what I was told with what I read, it seemed to me that because of this that I more than others understood accurately about his life.6

in general, though certain Jewish practices, such as circumcision, keeping the Sabbath, and abstaining from pork, were certainly known to the Greeks and Romans. 4 Philo is the first to credit Moses with the composition of the Pentateuch (cf. Aet. 19; Mos. 2.291). See Ubigli, “The Image of Israel.” 5 Philo offers few clues about the nature of his oral sources. His reference to “elders of the Jewish people” suggests that he may be incorporating accounts and biblical interpretations prevalent in the synagogue. The text is quite explicit in noting the oral nature of these sources (τὰ γὰρ λεγόμενα τοῖς ἀναγινωσκομένοις ἀεὶ συνύφαινον). In addition, so far as we know, Philo could not read Hebrew and relied on the Septuagint for his biblical knowledge (though this has been debated; see the introduction), which further points to the Alexandrian synagogue as a prime source for oral traditions accessible to Philo. It is worth noting that written sources other than the Septuagint were likely available to Philo, such as Artapanus’ On the Jews, in which, according to Eusebius (Praep. ev. 9.27.3), Artapanus, like Philo, claims Pharaoh’s daughter was sterile, a detail not found in the Pentateuch. This fact may well have also been part of the oral haggadic tradition (“haggadah” or “midrash haggadah” refers to rabbinic teachings and commentary on narrative [non-­legislative] portions of the biblical text). Another possibility is that Philo knew of written sources but preferred not to dilute the paired authority of written scripture (the Septuagint) and the oral haggadah by invoking any extrabiblical texts. Regarding the oral tradition, Feldman (Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 29) argues that these are rabbinic commentaries on biblical texts (known as midrashim, sg. midrash) that ultimately derive from Palestinian rabbis, citing the frequent pilgrimages of Jews to the temple in Jerusalem as a source of transmission. 6 The stated intention of explaining who Moses was in his role as Jewish legislator will give way to a representation of Moses as king. Cf. below sections 148–­62.

60

❡

De vita Mosis I

II.5

(II) (5) Ἄρξομαι δ’ ἀφ’ οὗπερ ἀναγκαῖον ἄρξασθαι. Μωυσῆς γένος μέν ἐστι Χαλδαῖος, ἐγεννήθη δ’ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐτράφη, τῶν προγόνων αὐτοῦ διὰ πολυχρόνιον λιμόν, ὃς Βαβυλῶνα καὶ τοὺς πλησιοχώρους ἐπίεζε, κατὰ ζήτησιν τροφῆς εἰς Αἴγυπτον πανοικὶ μεταναστάντων, γῆν πεδιάδα καὶ βαθεῖαν καὶ πρὸς πάντα γονιμωτάτην, ὧν ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις δεῖται, καὶ μάλιστα τὸν τοῦ σίτου καρπόν. (6) ὁ γὰρ ταύτης ποταμὸς θέρους ἀκμάζοντος, ἡνίκα τοὺς ἄλλους φασὶ μειοῦσθαι χειμάρρους τε καὶ αὐθιγενεῖς, ἐπιβαίνων τε καὶ ἀναχεόμενος πλημμυρεῖ καὶ λιμνάζει τὰς ἀρούρας, αἳ ὑετοῦ μὴ δεόμεναι φορᾶς ἀφθονίαν παντοίων ἀγαθῶν ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος χορηγοῦσιν, εἰ μή που μεσολαβήσειεν ὀργὴ θεοῦ δι’ ἐπιπολάζουσαν ἀσέβειαν τῶν οἰκητόρων.

[In the left margin of the Greek section, new paragraphs in Cohn’s Greek text are marked with a paragraph symbol (❡).]

II.5

On the Life of Moses I

61

(II) (5) I will begin where one ought. Moses was of Chaldean7 stock but was born and raised in Egypt because, due to a protracted famine that fell hard upon Babylon and the surrounding regions, his ancestors with all their households went in search of a means of survival and migrated to Egypt, a land flat, rich, and highly productive for everything that humans require by nature, especially grain.8 (6) For, as summer reaches its peak, when they say other rivers diminish, both those that swell in winter and those from a natural source, Egypt’s river, as it rises and overflows, reaches full flood and turns the fields into lakes. The fields, without need of rain, furnish an abundance of good produce of every kind year by year, unless, I suppose, God’s anger at the swelling9 impiety of the inhabitants should impede it.

7 Philo uses the term “Chaldean” in three ways: (1) to denote astrological studies or those who practice them; (2) to refer to Mesopotamia and its inhabitants; and (3) in a way synonymous with the term “Hebrew” (Wong, “Philo’s use of Chaldaioi,” 1). Philo apparently uses “Chaldean” here to mean “Hebrew” or “Hebraic.” Below at Mos. 1.15, Philo calls Moses a child “of the Hebrews” (τῶν  Ἑβραίων) and uses  Ἑβραῖος and related forms to the exclusion of “Chaldean” thereafter. He is not wrong in identifying Moses as “Chaldean” in that the patriarch Abraham emigrated from “the land of the Chaldeans” (GenLXX 11:28). In fact, Philo is surely quite deliberate in his use of the term “Chaldean” to, as Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 35–­36, suggests, emphasize the antiquity—­and thus the prestige—­of the Jewish people. 8 Notably absent is any mention of Joseph, his brothers, Jacob, or Joseph’s service to Pharaoh during the famine (cf. ExodLXX 1:1–­8), and one can only speculate as to why. Philo may wish to keep his narrative’s focus on Moses, though he may also be hesitant to evoke any memory of Joseph’s servile status when he first came to Egypt. It is likely significant that Philo instead portrays the Jews as an immigrant population akin to that of contemporary diaspora Jewish communities, a parallel that could have resonated with both a Jewish and a gentile audience given the tensions and eventual violence in Alexandria in Philo’s lifetime. 9 Philo offers a pun with the word ἐπιπολάζω, which means “to be habitual, to spread” but also means “to rise, flood” in reference to the sea. The Nile flood did fail on occasion, resulting in famine throughout Egypt that could only be alleviated through significant imports of grain. Just such an occurrence is recorded, for example, in the Canopus Decree of 238 BC, in which the priests of Egypt offer thanks and honor to the king and queen of Egypt for their benefactions.

62

De vita Mosis I

II.7

(7) πατρὸς δὲ καὶ μητρὸς ἔλαχε τῶν καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἀρίστων, οὓς φυλέτας ὄντας ἡ ὁμοφροσύνη μᾶλλον ᾠκείωσεν ἢ τὸ γένος. ἑβδόμη γενεὰ οὗτός ἐστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, ὃς ἐπηλύτης ὢν τοῦ σύμπαντος  Ἰουδαίων ἔθνους ἀρχηγέτης ἐγένετο.

II.7

On the Life of Moses I

63

(7) Moses had a mother and father who were the best of their contemporaries and, though of the same tribe as he, it was like-­mindedness rather than kinship that fostered affection between child and parents.10 He was of the seventh generation11 after Abraham,12 who, though a foreigner, became the founder of the whole nation of Jews.

10 Philo identifies “like-­mindedness” as the basis for Moses’ connection to his parents, with clear implications for his future adoption by an Egyptian princess. Philo’s wording, especially the verb ᾠκείωσεν, may point to the Stoic theory of oikeiosis (οἰκείωσις). For the Stoics, the notion of οἰκείωσις, which is generally translated as “appropriation,” identified the aim of human life with moral activity guided by reason. This end was deemed the result of a natural process that began from birth, as both infants and animals, despite lacking the ability to reason, are naturally inclined toward self-­preservation—that is, they “appropriate” to themselves and incline toward things that are their own, such as their bodies, and distinguish those things from what is foreign. This inclination toward preservation of both self and the species is imprinted by nature at birth. As a human grows, so too does the scope of what constitutes “one’s own,” expanding to include family and friends and ultimately being guided by reason when the capacity for such develops. In discussing the infant Moses, Philo may hint at something like the Stoic concept of oikeiosis as a way of suggesting that Moses’ God-­given impulse toward “appropriating” his parents to himself was due to his natural ability to recognize their shared excellence and had nothing to do with the accident of their kinship. Presumably, Moses would not have identified his Egyptian family as properly his own on the same basis. Noteworthy, too, is Moses’ implicit use of reason to discern his parents’ excellence at infancy, representing the first of many remarkable intellectual achievements, especially since Philo believed children developed the capacity to reason at a relatively late age (cf. Her. 294). 11 An extrabiblical detail repeated by Josephus and found in rabbinic sources (Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait,” 294). 12 Here occurs the first of many examples of Philo’s suppression of proper names of both people and places. For reasons of clarity and style I have included Abraham in the translation, though the Greek simply says that “he was the seventh generation after the first” (ἑβδόμη  γενεὰ    οὗτός  ἐστιν  ἀπὸ  τοῦ  πρώτου). Similarly, Moses’ wife (Zipporah), father-­in-­law (Jethro), and sister (Miriam) all go unnamed, though the most striking example is Aaron, Moses’ brother, who has a substantial role in the story. Josephus explains a similar habit in his Jewish Antiquities by his desire to avoid difficulty and distraction for his readers (A.J. 2.176; 11.68), which could apply to Philo as well. Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 19, proposes that Philo wished to keep the emphasis on Moses at all times. On the issue of names in Philo, see also McGing, “Philo’s Adaptation,” 131–­34.

64

De vita Mosis I

III.8

(III) (8) τροφῆς δ’ ἠξιώθη βασιλικῆς ἀπ’ αἰτίας τοιᾶσδε· τῆς χώρας ὁ βασιλεύς, εἰς πολυανθρωπίαν ἐπιδιδόντος ἀεὶ τοῦ ἔθνους, δείσας μὴ οἱ ἔποικοι πλείους γενόμενοι δυνατωτέρᾳ χειρὶ τοῖς αὐτόχθοσι περὶ κράτους ἀρχῆς ἁμιλλῶνται, τὴν ἰσχὺν αὐτῶν ἀφαιρεῖν ἐπινοίαις ἀνοσιουργοῖς ἐμηχανᾶτο καὶ κελεύει τῶν γεννωμένων τὰ μὲν θήλεα τρέφειν—­ἐπεὶ νὴ διὰ φύσεως ἀσθένειαν ὀκνηρὸν εἰς πόλεμον—­, τὰ δ’ ἄρρενα διαφθείρειν, ἵνα μὴ αὐξηθῇ κατὰ πόλεις· εὐανδροῦσα γὰρ δύναμις δυσάλωτον καὶ δυσκαθαίρετον ἐπιτείχισμα. (9) γεννηθεὶς οὖν ὁ παῖς εὐθὺς ὄψιν ἐνέφαινεν ἀστειοτέραν ἢ κατ’ ἰδιώτην, ὡς καὶ τῶν τοῦ τυράννου κηρυγμάτων, ἐφ’ ὅσον οἷόν τε ἦν, τοὺς γονεῖς ἀλογῆσαι· τρεῖς γοῦν φασι μῆνας ἐφεξῆς οἴκοι γαλακτοτροφηθῆναι λανθάνοντα τοὺς πολλούς. (10) ἐπεὶ δ’, οἷα ἐν μοναρχίαις φιλεῖ, καὶ τὰ ἐν μυχοῖς ἔνιοι διηρεύνων σπεύδοντες ἀεί τι καινὸν ἄκουσμα προσφέρειν τῷ βασιλεῖ, φοβηθέντες μὴ σωτηρίαν ἑνὶ μνώμενοι πλείους ὄντες αὐτοὶ σὺν ἐκείνῳ παραπόλωνται, δεδακρυμένοι τὸν παῖδα ἐκτιθέασι παρὰ τὰς ὄχθας τοῦ ποταμοῦ καὶ στένοντες ἀπῄεσαν, οἰκτιζόμενοι μὲν αὑτοὺς τῆς ἀνάγκης αὐτόχειράς τε καὶ τεκνοκτόνους ἀποκαλοῦντες, οἰκτιζόμενοι δὲ καὶ τὸν παῖδα τῆς παραλογωτάτης ἀπωλείας.

III.8

On the Life of Moses I

65

(III) (8) Moses was deemed worthy of a royal upbringing for the following reason: as the Jewish nation continually progressed in growing its population, the king of Egypt13 feared that the settlers, who were numerous, might use their great strength to contest the rule of the kingdom with the native Egyptians. The king therefore contrived through impious designs to diminish the strength of the Jews and therefore ordered that female offspring be brought up—­since a woman by the weakness of her nature is a timid thing when it comes to war—­but that the males be destroyed, so that they would not increase throughout the cities of Egypt. For power that comes from large numbers is a fortress14 not easily conquered or assailed. (9) The child Moses, then, when he was born, straightaway displayed a countenance more graceful than that of an average person, and so his parents disregarded even the tyrant’s15 proclamations as much as possible; in fact, they say he was nursed at home for three months in a row unbeknownst to the people. (10) But since, as is typical under monarchies, some individuals keep scrutinizing even the most private matters of a home because they are always eager to bring some new report to the king, Moses’ parents feared that in their desire to preserve the safety of one, they themselves, being several, might all perish with him. In tears they set him down on the riverbank, and in grief they left, both pitying themselves for what they had to do and disparaging themselves as murderers and child-­killers, but they also pitied the child for his most unreasonable death.16 Philo regularly refers to the ruler of Egypt as βασιλεὺς, the Greek word for “king.” The Greek word for “Pharaoh” (Φαραώ) never appears in the De vita Mosis, despite appearing throughout ExodLXX and in quite a few of Philo’s other works. Perhaps Philo wished to draw a contrast between the king of Egypt and Moses as king of the Jews, though this explanation is hardly sufficient. Egypt did in recent memory have kings whom the Greek inhabitants referred to as βασιλεῖς. From the end of the fourth century until 31  BC, the Ptolemaic line (founded by Alexander the Great’s general, Ptolemy) ruled Egypt, but since shortly before Philo’s birth Egypt had been a Roman province. 14 The Greek word for “fortress” is ἐπιτείχισμα, which is technically “a fort or stronghold placed on the enemy’s frontier” (LSJ ad loc.). The image encapsulates the threat of invasion that motivates Pharaoh’s impiety and perhaps as well evokes the military settlements and politeumata (see introduction, p. 2) that were a significant part of the recent history of Jewish settlement in Egypt. 15 On this one occasion in the Mos., Philo refers to Pharaoh as a “tyrant” (τύραννος), presumably to justify Moses’ parents’ decision to disobey his implicitly illegitimate proclamations. Of course, Philo is not suggesting that Pharaoh is an illegitimate ruler, but his decree that both demanded the performance of unjust acts and would have resulted in the premature death of Moses, the divinely chosen king and lawgiver of the Jews, could only be the act of a tyrant, and thus Moses’ parents are freed from any possible accusation of wrongdoing. 16 Not just “unreasonable” but perhaps also contrary to reason and nature. Exposure was forbidden by Jewish law but was still practiced by some Jews. Philo indicates as much in passages such as Virt. 131: “When you read this law, you worthy and prized 13

66

De vita Mosis I

III.11

(11) εἶθ’, ὡς εἰκὸς ἐν ἀλλοκότῳ πράγματι, κατηγόρουν αὑτῶν ὡς μείζονος αἰτίων συμφορᾶς· “τί γὰρ” ἔφασκον “εὐθὺς γεννώμενον οὐκ ἐξεθήκαμεν; τὸν μὴ φθάσαντα τροφῆς ἡμέρου μεταλαχεῖν οὐδ’ ἄνθρωπον οἱ πολλοὶ νομίζουσιν· ἡμεῖς δ’ οἱ περιττοὶ καὶ τρεῖς μῆνας ὅλους ἀνεθρέψαμεν, δαψιλεστέρας μὲν ἑαυτοῖς ἀνίας, τῷ δὲ τιμωρίας ἐκπορίζοντες, ἵν’ ἡδονῶν καὶ ἀλγηδόνων ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι δυνάμενος ἐν αἰσθήσει κακῶν ἀργαλεωτέρων διαφθείρηται.”

III.11

On the Life of Moses I

67

(11) Afterward, as is natural in an odious affair, they kept accusing themselves as if they were responsible for a greater misfortune, saying, “Why didn’t we expose him as soon as he was born? People believe that if someone hasn’t first had a civilized upbringing,17 he’s not even human. But in our lack of restraint, we raised him for three whole months, giving ourselves plentiful grief and him punishment and making him perish in the full awareness of his painful hardships, since he is capable of perceiving pleasures and pains to the fullest degree.”18

parents, you hide your faces, you who are always acting with murderous intent against infants, wickedly lying in wait to expose those newly born, you implacable enemies of the whole race of mankind!” Of course, Philo’s words would apply to all who practiced exposure, which was common in Egypt in Philo’s time and even provided an important source of slave labor (Harris, “Child-Exposure,” 8). For Philo’s full argument against exposure, see Spec. 115–­19. For the practice of exposure in Philo’s time, see Harris, “Child-­Exposure.” Moses’ parents demonstrate proper parental feeling and expose Moses against their will. Their innate virtue causes them to castigate themselves as murderers despite acting under compulsion, which underscores both the parents’ innocence and the sinfulness of exposure (Reinhartz, “Philo on Infanticide,” 51). 17 This notion reflects a contemporary view related to child exposure. An infant may or may not be accepted into the family at birth. If not, the child was exposed, which Greek society considered an acceptable practice that brought no shame upon the parents. By raising Moses for so long, his parents accepted him into the family and under normal circumstances would not have abandoned him. His parents’ delay, then, may underscore both their reluctance to part with Moses and the fact that he is the legitimate son of his Hebrew parents. τροφῆς ἡμέρου (civilized upbringing) would seem to refer to acceptance of the child as part of the family. 18 As Reinhartz, “Philo on Infanticide,” 51n32, observes, the notion that one is not a true human being at the moment of birth seems to contradict Philo’s stance on exposure. He further suggests the issue was one under debate, citing Cicero’s Tuscan Disputations 1.93: “If a small boy dies, the same people think that the death must be endured with equanimity: if it happens in the cradle, there should not even be a lament. And yet, from him nature has more harshly taken back what it gave. ‘The infant had not yet tasted the sweetness of life’ they say, but the other was already expecting great benefits, which he had begun to enjoy.” Moses’ parents are torn between an innate desire to follow natural (divine) law and the possibilities posed by an erroneous opinion about when an infant becomes fully human. Of course, Philo has already undermined this view by indicating that Moses, even as an infant, was attuned to his parents’ virtue (see section 7 above).

68

De vita Mosis I

IV.12

(IV) (12) καὶ οἱ μὲν ἀγνοίᾳ τοῦ μέλλοντος ἀπῄεσαν οἰκτρῷ κατεσχημένοι πένθει, ἀδελφὴ δὲ τοῦ ἐκτεθέντος βρέφους ἔτι παρθένος ὑπὸ φιλοικείου πάθους μικρὸν ἄποθεν ἐκαραδόκει τὸ ἀποβησόμενον· ἅ μοι δοκεῖ πάντα συμβῆναι κατὰ θεὸν προμηθούμενον τοῦ παιδός. (13) θυγάτηρ ἦν τῷ βασιλεῖ τῆς χώρας ἀγαπητὴ καὶ μόνη· ταύτην φασὶ γημαμένην ἐκ πολλοῦ χρόνου μὴ κυΐσκειν τέκνων ὡς εἰκὸς ἐπιθυμοῦσαν καὶ μάλιστα γενεᾶς ἄρρενος, ἣ τὸν εὐδαίμονα κλῆρον τῆς πατρῴας ἡγεμονίας διαδέξεται κινδυνεύοντα ἐρημίᾳ θυγατριδῶν ἀλλοτριωθῆναι. (14) κατηφοῦσαν δὲ ἀεὶ καὶ στένουσαν ὡς μάλιστα ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῷ βάρει τῶν φροντίδων ἀπαγορεῦσαι καὶ δι’ ἔθους ἔχουσαν οἴκοι καταμένειν καὶ μηδὲ τὰς κλισιάδας ὑπερβαίνειν ἐξορμῆσαι μετὰ θεραπαινίδων ἐπὶ τὸν ποταμόν, ἔνθα ὁ παῖς ἐξέκειτο· κἄπειτα λουτροῖς καὶ περιρραντηρίοις χρῆσθαι μέλλουσαν ἐν τῷ δασυτάτῳ τῶν ἑλῶν αὐτὸν θεάσασθαι καὶ κελεῦσαι προσφέρειν. (15) εἶτα ἀπὸ κεφαλῆς ἄχρι ποδῶν καταθεωμένην τήν τε εὐμορφίαν καὶ εὐεξίαν ἀποδέχεσθαι καὶ δεδακρυμένον ὁρῶσαν ἐλεεῖν, ἤδη τῆς ψυχῆς τετραμμένης αὐτῇ πρὸς μητρῷον πάθος ὡς ἐπὶ γνησίῳ παιδί· γνοῦσαν δ’ ὅτι τῶν  Ἑβραίων ἐστὶ καταδεισάντων τοῦ βασιλέως τὸ πρόσταγμα βουλεύεσθαι περὶ τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ· μὴ γὰρ ἀσφαλὲς εὐθὺς εἶναι νομίζειν εἰς τὰ βασίλεια ἄγειν.

IV.12

On the Life of Moses I

69

(IV) (12) And as they left, weighed down by pitiable pain and unaware of what was about to happen, a sister19 of the exposed infant, who was still a maiden, out of affection for her family was waiting a short distance away to see how things would turn out. All these events seem to me to have happened in accordance with God’s providential care for the child. (13) The king of Egypt had a daughter, his dear one and only child.20 They say that though she had long been married, she did not conceive any children, despite probably being eager to do so, especially a male offspring who would receive the blessed inheritance of his ancestral rule, which might fall into the hands of another because of the king’s lack of grandsons. (14) Always downcast and sorrowful, on that day most especially she grew weary from the weight of her cares, and, though being in the habit of remaining at home and not going past the inner doors, she set out briskly with her handmaidens toward the river, where the child lay exposed. And then, as she was about to bathe and cleanse herself in the thickest part of the marsh, she saw him and ordered the handmaidens to bring him to her. (15) Then, examining him from head to toe, she approved his beauty and good health and took pity upon him while she watched him cry, since already her soul had turned toward motherly affection, as if for a legitimate child. But knowing that he was a child of the Hebrews,21 who greatly feared the command of the king, she made plans for his care and sustenance, for she did not consider it safe to bring him to the palace straightaway.

19 Traditionally identified as Miriam, though she is not named in the corresponding passage of the Septuagint. Miriam is identified as Moses and Aaron’s sister at Num 26:59. 20 The princess is not named in the Bible, though Josephus identifies her as Thermuthis (A.J. 2.224). 21 Here is Philo’s first use of “Hebrew” in the De vita Mosis. It is perhaps worth noting that in Migr. 20, Philo claims that “Hebrew” means “migrant” (περάτης). The same interpretation is evident in GenLXX 14:13, which references a report given “to Abram the migrant” (Αβραμ τῷ περάτῃ). In Migr. 20, Philo connects the notion of migration inherent in “Hebrew” to a transition from the realm of sense perception to that of pure thought. Nevertheless, it is a bit surprising that the etymological significance is nowhere evident in the De vita Mosis. Even in section 7 Philo describes Abraham as a “foreigner” or “stranger” (ἐπηλύτης) rather than a “migrant” (περάτης).

70

De vita Mosis I

IV.16

(16) διαπορούσης δ’ ἔτι, τὴν ἀδελφὴν τοῦ παιδὸς καθάπερ ἀπὸ σκοπῆς τὸν ἐνδοιασμὸν στοχασαμένην πυνθάνεσθαι προσδραμοῦσαν, εἰ βουλήσεται γαλακτοτροφηθῆναι τοῦτον παρὰ γυναίῳ τῶν  Ἑβραϊκῶν οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ κυήσαντι· (17) τῆς δὲ βούλεσθαι φαμένης, τὴν αὑτῆς καὶ τοῦ βρέφους μητέρα παραγαγεῖν ὡς ἀλλοτρίαν, ἣν ἑτοιμότερον ἀσμένην ὑπισχνεῖσθαι πρόφασιν ὡς ἐπὶ μισθῷ τροφεύσειν, ἐπινοίᾳ θεοῦ τοῦ τὰς πρώτας τροφὰς τῷ παιδὶ γνησίας εὐτρεπίζοντος· εἶτα δίδωσιν ὄνομα θεμένη Μωυσῆν ἐτύμως διὰ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος αὐτὸν ἀνελέσθαι· τὸ γὰρ ὕδωρ μῶυ ὀνομάζουσιν Αἰγύπτιοι.

IV.16

On the Life of Moses I

71

(16) While she was still at a loss over what to do, the boy’s sister, as if she were surveying the princess’ uncertainty from a watchtower, ran to her and inquired whether she might want the boy to be nursed by a Hebrew woman who had recently been pregnant. (17) And when she affirmed that she wanted her to do so, the girl brought the woman who was mother both to herself and the child as if she were a stranger who was ready and willing to promise to nurse the baby on the pretext of desiring a wage; all of this happened through the design of God, who made preparations for the child’s earliest way of life to be that of his own people.22 Then the princess took the child and named him Moses, which comes etymologically from his being taken up from the water, for the Egyptians call water Möu.23

I suspect that with τροφὰς . . . γνησίας, Philo has in mind both Moses’ return to his true family and more broadly that his upbringing prior to being returned to the Egyptian princess was Jewish. 23 Josephus (A.J. 2.228) provides a slightly expanded version of this etymology of Moses’ name. Both Philo and Josephus thus clarify the princess’ statement found in both the Hebrew and its Greek translation that the child’s name was Moses because “I took him up from the water.” (cf. Exod 2:10). 22

72

❡

De vita Mosis I

V.18

(V) (18) Ἐπεὶ δ’ ἀθρόας ἐπιδόσεις καὶ παραυξήσεις λαμβάνων οὐ σὺν λόγῳ τῷ κατὰ χρόνον θᾶττον δ’ ἀπότιτθος γίνεται, παρῆν ἡ μήτηρ ἅμα καὶ τροφὸς κομίζουσα τῇ δούσῃ μηκέτι γαλακτοτροφίας δεόμενον, εὐγενῆ καὶ ἀστεῖον ὀφθῆναι. (19) τελειότερον δὲ τῆς ἡλικίας ἰδοῦσα κἀκ τῆς ὄψεως ἔτι μᾶλλον ἢ πρότερον σπάσασα εὐνοίας υἱὸν ποιεῖται τὰ περὶ τὸν ὄγκον τῆς γαστρὸς τεχνάσασα πρότερον, ἵνα γνήσιος ἀλλὰ μὴ ὑποβολιμαῖος νομισθῇ· πάντα δ’ ἐξευμαρίζει θεὸς ἃ ἂν ἐθελήσῃ καὶ τὰ δυσκατόρθωτα. (20) τροφῆς οὖν ἤδη βασιλικῆς καὶ θεραπείας ἀξιούμενος οὐχ οἷα κομιδῇ νήπιος ἥδετο τωθασμοῖς καὶ γέλωσι καὶ παιδιαῖς, καίτοι τῶν τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν αὐτοῦ παρειληφότων ἀνέσεις ἔχειν ἐπιτρεπόντων καὶ μηδὲν ἐπιδεικνυμένων σκυθρωπόν, ἀλλ’ αἰδῶ καὶ σεμνότητα παραφαίνων ἀκούσμασι καὶ θεάμασιν, ἃ τὴν ψυχὴν ἔμελλεν ὠφελήσειν, προσεῖχε. (21) διδάσκαλοι δ’ εὐθὺς ἀλλαχόθεν ἄλλοι παρῆσαν, οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν πλησιοχώρων καὶ τῶν κατ’ Αἴγυπτον νομῶν αὐτοκέλευστοι, οἱ δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς  Ἑλλάδος ἐπὶ μεγάλαις δωρεαῖς μεταπεμφθέντες· ὧν ἐν οὐ μακρῷ χρόνῳ τὰς δυνάμεις ὑπερέβαλεν εὐμοιρίᾳ φύσεως φθάνων τὰς ὑφηγήσεις, ὡς ἀνάμνησιν εἶναι δοκεῖν, οὐ μάθησιν, ἔτι καὶ προσεπινοῶν αὐτὸς τὰ δυσθεώρητα.

V.18

On the Life of Moses I

73

(V) (18) But as he continued to grow and develop, when he was weaned not in the due course of time, but sooner,24 she who was both mother and nurse came and handed the child—­no longer in need of nursing—­over to the princess, and he was noble and graceful in his appearance. (19) The princess, seeing that he had matured more than befit his age and from his appearance deriving still more goodwill than before, made him her son after first having contrived to simulate a pregnancy, so that the boy might be considered legitimate and not suppositious; God makes all that he wills easy, even matters that are difficult. (20) Therefore, now being deemed fit for royal care and upbringing, he did not, as one who is utterly childish, take pleasure in scoffing, laughter, and puerile amusements, even though those in charge of his studies allowed him license and proved to be in no way severe, but, showing respect and reverence, he was attentive to teachings and displays that would benefit his soul.25 (21) Straightaway he had instructors from all over, some coming of their own accord from neighboring countries and the nomes26 throughout Egypt; others were summoned from Greece with great rewards. In a short time, he exceeded their abilities, getting ahead of their teachings through the excellence of his nature, such that he seemed to be recalling, not learning,27 and moreover devising inscrutable things on his own.

24 Philo takes a rather dim view of breastfeeding when he compares the lack of restraint of a wine-­bibber squeezing the juice from grapes to a breastfeeding baby (Somn. 2.204). Moses’ early weaning seems to suggest his self-­control. See Niehoff, Jewish Identity, 179. 25 Niehoff, Jewish Identity, 178, notes that this passage marks Moses as an ideal model of the Jewish virtue of self-­control (ἐγκράτεια) and points, among other examples, to Spec. 2.195, where Philo explains why Moses called a fast a “feast”: “first, on account of self-­control, which he commanded them to show always and everywhere in all aspects of life that concern their speech, their bellies, and the parts below the belly . . .” 26 The term νομός means “satrapy” or “province” and is also the technical Greek term for geographic divisions in Egypt that date back to Pharonic times. The number and size of the nomes varied over time. Artapanus attributed the creation of the nomes to Moses (Praep. ev. 9.27.4). 27 In the Meno, Plato presents the notion of anamnesis, which claims that the soul, being immortal, has learned and knows all things. Learning, then, is a process of recollection in which the embodied soul must recall knowledge it once possessed in its disembodied state (Meno 81b1–­84b2). Moses’ anamnesis is superior to what Socrates demonstrates in the Meno, since Moses seems to recall knowledge on his own as he outpaces his instructors while the slave boy in Plato’s dialogue must follow Socrates’ leading questions every step of the way.

74

De vita Mosis I

V.22

(22) πολλὰ γὰρ αἱ μεγάλαι φύσεις καινοτομοῦσι τῶν εἰς ἐπιστήμην· καὶ καθάπερ τὰ εὐεκτικὰ τῶν σωμάτων καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς μέρεσιν εὐκίνητα φροντίδων ἀπαλλάττει τοὺς ἀλείπτας οὐδὲν ἢ βραχέα παρέχοντας τῶν εἰς ἐπιμέλειαν, ὥσπερ καὶ γεωργοὺς τὰ εὔβλαστα καὶ εὐγενῆ δένδρα βελτιούμενα δι’ ἑαυτῶν, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον εὐφυὴς ψυχὴ προαπαντῶσα τοῖς λεγομένοις ὑφ’ αὑτῆς μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν διδασκόντων ὠφελεῖται καὶ λαβομένη τινὸς ἐπιστημονικῆς ἀρχῆς κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν “ἵππος εἰς πεδίον” ὁρμᾷ.

V.22

On the Life of Moses I

75

(22) For great natures often cut a new path to knowledge and, just as health of the body and easy movement in all the limbs sets the trainer’s mind at ease as he offers nothing but minor suggestions for his pupil’s care, and as good trees that are vigorous in growth and improve on their own ease the concerns of farmers, it is the same way with a soul that is naturally clever, and that, as it takes the initiative in its learning, is aided more by itself than its instructors and, after receiving some starting point for its knowledge, rushes, as the saying goes, like a horse to a field.

76

De vita Mosis I

V.23

(23) ἀριθμοὺς μὲν οὖν καὶ γεωμετρίαν τήν τε ῥυθμικὴν καὶ ἁρμονικὴν καὶ μετρικὴν θεωρίαν καὶ μουσικὴν τὴν σύμπασαν διά τε χρήσεως ὀργάνων καὶ λόγων τῶν ἐν ταῖς τέχναις καὶ διεξόδοις τοπικωτέραις Αἰγυπτίων οἱ λόγιοι παρεδίδοσαν καὶ προσέτι τὴν διὰ συμβόλων φιλοσοφίαν, ἣν ἐν τοῖς λεγομένοις ἱεροῖς γράμμασιν ἐπιδείκνυνται καὶ διὰ τῆς τῶν ζῴων ἀποδοχῆς, ἃ καὶ θεῶν τιμαῖς γεραίρουσι· τὴν δ’ ἄλλην ἐγκύκλιον παιδείαν   Ἕλληνες ἐδίδασκον, οἱ δ’ ἐκ

V.23

On the Life of Moses I

77

(23) And so the erudite among the Egyptians taught him arithmetic, geometry, and rhythmic, harmonic, and metrical theory, and the whole of music, both through the use of instruments and discussion as pertains both to skills and to more topical expositions;28 what is more, they taught him their philosophy29 through symbols they display in so-­called “sacred” inscriptions,30 and through the favor they show to animals, which they celebrate with honors fit even for gods.31 Greeks taught the rest of his curriculum,32 and some from 28 These studies closely recall the training of a philosopher-­king in Plato’s Republic 7.521c–531c. 29 In effect, their religion, though perhaps implying a greater variety of types of knowledge than the term “religion” suggests. Greek vocabulary does not have a term that equates precisely to the modern concept of “religion” but prefers terms like ἱερός (sacred) and θέμις (permissible) for religious practices. The breadth of the ancient conception of “philosophy” makes it a fitting term to describe any system that describes the ordering of the natural or metaphysical realms, even those that we would consider “religious.” Philo himself considers Judaism his “ancestral philosophy” (see introduction, p. 19; and also Josephus, C. Ap. 1.54). It is possible that Philo has in mind here a philosophical exegesis of Egyptian religion. The Stoic Chaeremon, a contemporary of Philo, certainly interpreted Egyptian religion philosophically, leading Sterling, “Platonizing Moses,” 105, to assert “the presence in first century AD Alexandria of Egyptian priests and Jewish exegetes using Stoic and Platonic philosophy to forge a rapprochement between their ancestral traditions and Hellenic thought.” 30 I.e., hieroglyphics. 31 Several strands of thought are converging as Philo takes up Moses’ education among the Egyptians. From a cultural standpoint, the Egyptians were renowned for their antiquity, wisdom, and learning (e.g. Plato, Timaeus 21e–­­24b), and there may even have been a Jewish oral tradition of Moses’ Egyptian education (see Acts 7:22: καὶ  ἐπαιδεύθη Μωϋσῆς  [ἐν]  πάσῃ  σοφίᾳ  Αἰγυπτίων,  ἦν  δὲ  δυνατὸς ἐν λόγοις καὶ ἔργοις αὐτοῦ [and Moses was trained in all the knowledge of the Egyptians, and he was strong in both his words and deeds]). Elsewhere in his writings Philo takes a dim view of Egyptian religion, which he ridiculous for worshiping irrational animals (Decal. 79–­80 and Leg. 163). He finds this practice qualitatively worse than the errors of other pagan religions. On Philo’s views on Egyptians, see Niehoff, Jewish Identity. On Philo’s attitude toward other religions, see Mos. 2.205, and Niehoff, “Philo’s Views on Paganism.” One wonders whether Philo’s point in noting Moses’ instruction in hieroglyphics and animal worship might be to correct Artapanus, who credits Moses with the creation of Egyptian religion (see introduction, p. 22). 32 Philo describes Moses’ studies quite anachronistically as an ἐγκύκλιον παιδείαν, which refers to an early course of study seen as preparatory for more advanced learning. The Greek word ἐγκύκλιος here evokes notions both of a “common” or perhaps “standard” course of study and of one that is “encompassing” or “complete” (Morgan, Literate Education, 33). The specific subjects that Philo elsewhere includes within an ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία are grammar, geometry, astronomy, rhetoric, music, and “every other intellectual subject for which Sarah’s handmaid Hagar is a symbol” (Congr. 11). These subjects are largely echoed by the first-­century AD Roman orator Quintilian in his Institutio Oratoria (1.10.1). Absent from these studies is philosophy, which is the superior study at which a general education aims, a notion that recalls Socrates’ educational outline for a philosopher-­king in the Republic (Plato, Resp. 536d5–­540c2).

78

De vita Mosis I

V.24

τῶν πλησιοχώρων τά τε Ἀσσύρια γράμματα καὶ τὴν τῶν οὐρανίων Χαλδαϊκὴν ἐπιστήμην. (24) ταύτην καὶ παρ’ Αἰγυπτίων ἀνελάμβανε μαθηματικὴν ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα ἐπιτηδευόντων· καὶ τὰ παρ’ ἀμφοτέροις ἀκριβῶς ἐν οἷς τε συμφωνοῦσι καὶ διαφέρονται καταμαθών, ἀφιλονείκως τὰς ἔριδας ὑπερβάς, τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐζήτει, μηδὲν ψεῦδος τῆς διανοίας αὐτοῦ παραδέχεσθαι δυναμένης, ὡς ἔθος τοῖς αἱρεσιομάχοις, οἳ τοῖς προτεθεῖσι δόγμασιν ὁποῖα ἂν τύχῃ βοηθοῦσιν οὐκ ἐξετάζοντες, εἰ δόκιμα, τὸ δ’ αὐτὸ δρῶντες τοῖς ἐπὶ μισθῷ συναγορεύουσι καὶ μηδὲν τοῦ δικαίου πεφροντικόσιν.

V.24

On the Life of Moses I

79

nearby regions taught him to read Assyrian33 and the Chaldean34 understanding of astronomy. (24) He also learned astronomy from Egyptians, who are especially well-­versed in it. He observed keenly in what ways the two agreed and how they differed, and, overlooking their rivalry since he was not one for quarrels, he kept seeking after the truth, since his mind could not accept any falsehood, as is the custom for partisans who support their stated beliefs, whatever they happen to be, without examining whether they are acceptable, and in so doing act like those who advocate something for a price and pay no heed to what is right.

Though anachronistic, this “modern” educations points up an important aspect of Philo’s approach to Moses. As Runia, Philo of Alexandria, 534, puts it: “Moses is not seen as a remote and rather exotic barbarian sage, but as one who understands the modern Lebensgefühl, man’s desire to find orientation in the cosmos and a relation to God.” 33 What Philo means by “Assyrian letters” is unclear, though it could be a reference to Aramaic. 34 I.e., Babylonian (see note 6 above).

80

De vita Mosis I

VI.25

(VI) (25) ἤδη δὲ τοὺς ὅρους τῆς παιδικῆς ἡλικίας ὑπερβαίνων ἐπέτεινε τὴν φρόνησιν, οὐχ ὡς ἔνιοι τὰς μειρακιώδεις ἐπιθυμίας ἀχαλινώτους ἐῶν καίτοι μυρία ἐχούσας ὑπεκκαύματα διὰ παρασκευὰς ἀφθόνους, ἃς αἱ βασιλεῖαι χορηγοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ σωφροσύνῃ καὶ καρτερίᾳ ὥσπερ τισὶν ἡνίαις ἐνδησάμενος αὐτὰς τὴν εἰς τὸ πρόσω φορὰν ἀνεχαίτιζε βίᾳ. (26) καὶ τῶν ἄλλων μέντοι παθῶν ἕκαστον ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ μεμηνὸς καὶ λελυττηκὸς φύσει τιθασεύων κἀξημερῶν ἐπράυνεν· εἰ δέ που διακινηθείη μόνον ἡσυχῇ καὶ πτερύξαιτο, κολάσεις ἐμβριθεστέρας παρείχετο ἢ διὰ λόγων ἐπιπλήξεις· καὶ συνόλως τὰς πρώτας τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπιβολάς τε καὶ ὁρμὰς ὡς ἀφηνιαστὴν ἵππον ἐπετήρει δεδιώς, μὴ προεκδραμοῦσαι τοῦ ἡνιοχεῖν ὀφείλοντος λογισμοῦ πάντα διὰ πάντων συγχέωσιν· αὗται γάρ εἰσιν αἱ ἀγαθῶν αἴτιαι καὶ κακῶν, ἀγαθῶν μέν, ὅταν ἡγεμόνι λόγῳ πειθαρχῶσι, τῶν δ’ ἐναντίων, ὅταν εἰς ἀναρχίαν ἐκδιαιτῶνται. (27) κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς οὖν οἵ τε συνδιατρίβοντες καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πάντες ἐτεθήπεσαν, ὡς ἐπὶ καινῷ θεάματι καταπληττόμενοι καὶ τίς ἄρα ὁ ἐνοικῶν αὐτοῦ τῷ σώματι καὶ ἀγαλματοφορούμενος νοῦς ἐστι, πότερον ἀνθρώπειος ἢ θεῖος ἢ μικτὸς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν, διερευνώμενοι, τῷ μηδὲν ἔχειν τοῖς πολλοῖς ὅμοιον, ἀλλ’ ὑπερκύπτειν καὶ πρὸς τὸ μεγαλειότερον ἐξῆρθαι. (28) γαστρί τε γὰρ ἔξω τῶν ἀναγκαίων δασμῶν, οὓς ἡ φύσις ἔταξεν, οὐδὲν πλέον ἐχορήγει, τῶν τε ὑπογαστρίων ἡδονῶν εἰ μὴ μέχρι σπορᾶς παίδων γνησίων οὐδὲ ἐμέμνητο. (29) γενόμενός τε διαφερόντως ἀσκητὴς ὀλιγοδεείας καὶ τὸν ἁβροδίαιτον βίον ὡς οὐδεὶς ἕτερος χλευάσας—­ψ υχῇ γὰρ ἐπόθει μόνῃ ζῆν, οὐ σώματι—­τὰ φιλοσοφίας δόγματα διὰ τῶν καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἔργων ἐπεδείκνυτο, λέγων μὲν οἷα ἐφρόνει, πράττων δὲ ἀκόλουθα τοῖς λεγομένοις εἰς ἁρμονίαν λόγου καὶ βίου, ἵν’ οἷος ὁ λόγος τοιοῦτος ὁ βίος καὶ οἷος ὁ βίος τοιοῦτος ὁ λόγος ἐξετάζωνται καθάπερ ἐν ὀργάνῳ μουσικῷ συνηχοῦντες.

VI.25

On the Life of Moses I

81

(VI) (25) Immediately transcending the limits of his young age, he fortified his prudence, not, as some, leaving his boyish desires unbridled, though they have myriad enticements through the abundant means that royalty provides. Rather, having restrained those desires with temperance and perseverance, as if with reins, he checked35 their advance by force. (26) And, moreover, he mollified each of the remaining emotions—­on their own raving and mad by nature—­by taming and domesticating them.36 But if perhaps they stirred themselves only slightly and began to flutter, he gave himself more serious punishments than mere verbal rebukes. In general, he kept close watch over the initial inclinations and impulses of his soul, as one would a horse that refused the reins, fearing that, if they ran ahead when reason ought to hold the reins, they would throw everything into confusion; for these impulses are the causes of good and evil: of good when they obey their leader, reason, but of evil when they go astray toward anarchy.37 (27) Therefore, in all likelihood both those who spent time with him and everyone else were amazed, presumably struck with wonder at a new sight and investigating just what mind was inhabiting his body and was impressed on his soul, whether it was human, divine, or a mix of the two,38 since his mind was nothing like that of the masses but transcended theirs and rose to a more splendid height. (28) For he was accustomed to providing his stomach with nothing more than the necessary share that nature required, nor did he give heed to sexual pleasures, except as concerns procreation of legitimate children. (29) Being both exceptionally ascetic in his practices39 and scoffing unlike any other at a life of luxury—­for he desired to live for the soul alone, not the body—­day by day he revealed his philosophical beliefs through his deeds, saying what he thought and acting in accordance with what he said in a harmony of speech and life, so that the correlations of his speech to his life and life to speech were evident, echoing each other like sounds from a musical instrument.

35 The Greek verb ἀναχαιτίζω continues the equestrian imagery through its literal meanings of “to rear” or “pull back by the mane.” 36 Philo similarly advocates a Stoic extirpation of the passions and proper cultivation of good emotions (eupatheiai) elsewhere (see Agr. 6). For Moses specifically as the model of the perfect man who eradicates his passions, see Leg. 3.129–­32, particularly 132: “You see how the perfect man [Moses] always pursues perfect freedom from passion. But the one who ranks after him in moral progress, that is, Aaron, practices, as I said, restraint over his passions, for he is ever unable to excise his passions and temper.” 37 A Platonic image of the ordering of the soul. See Phaedrus 253c5–­256e1. 38 Moses’ outstanding virtue, incredible intellect and, here, quasi-­divine status place him in the mold of Hellenistic divine men. See Scott, “Divine Man,” 101–­3. 39 Literally “a practitioner of little need.”

82

De vita Mosis I

VI.30

(30) οἱ μὲν οὖν πολλοί, κἂν αὐτὸ μόνον αὔρα βραχεῖά τινος εὐτυχίας προσπέσῃ, φυσῶσι καὶ πνέουσι μεγάλα καὶ καταλαζονευόμενοι τῶν ἀφανεστέρων καθάρματα καὶ παρενοχλήματα καὶ γῆς ἄχθη καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα ἀποκαλοῦσιν, ὥσπερ τὸ ἀκλινὲς τῆς εὐπραγίας ἐν βεβαίῳ παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς εὖ μάλα σφραγισάμενοι μηδὲ μέχρι τῆς ὑστεραίας ἴσως διαμενοῦντες ἐν ὁμοίῳ. (31) τύχης γὰρ ἀσταθμητότερον οὐδὲν ἄνω καὶ κάτω τὰ ἀνθρώπεια πεττευούσης, ἣ μιᾷ πολλάκις ἡμέρᾳ τὸν μὲν ὑψηλὸν καθαιρεῖ, τὸν δὲ ταπεινὸν μετέωρον ἐξαίρει· καὶ ταῦτα ὁρῶντες ἀεὶ γινόμενα καὶ σαφῶς εἰδότες ὅμως ὑπερόπται μὲν οἰκείων καὶ φίλων εἰσί, νόμους δὲ παραβαίνουσι, καθ’ οὓς ἐγενήθησαν καὶ ἐτράφησαν, ἔθη δὲ πάτρια, οἷς μέμψις οὐδεμία πρόσεστι δικαία, κινοῦσιν ἐκδεδιῃτημένοι καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν παρόντων ἀποδοχὴν οὐδενὸς ἔτι τῶν ἀρχαίων μνήμην λαμβάνουσιν.

VI.30

On the Life of Moses I

83

(30) Now, if even a mere brief gust of some good fortune should come upon them, most people become arrogant and breathe forth boasts,40 and, in deprecating those of more modest means, they disparage them as refuse, annoyances, pains for the earth, and things of that sort, as if they had confirmed quite well the constancy of success as certainly theirs, though they might not even continue to have the same fortune up to the next day. (31) For nothing is more unstable than fortune as it tosses human affairs high and low and which very often in one day lays low the person riding high and raises the humble aloft.41 Though they see these things happening constantly and know them well, nevertheless they disdain family and friends, transgress laws under which they were born and raised, and, having gone astray, they alter ancestral customs that no one can justly fault and no longer accept any mention of the old ways because they favor the ways of the present day.42

Philo is playing with “wind” imagery that is difficult to fully reflect in translation. The metaphor that begins with an αὔρα (breeze) of good fortune is extended through the verbs φυσάω (to blow, swell with pride) and πνέω (blow, put on airs). 41 Philo here paraphrases a fragment from Euripides’ Ino, which he quotes in full at Somn. 1.154. In his extant works Philo twice mentions that he attended the theater (Ebr. 177 and Prob. 141); he also frequently quotes Euripides and praises poets (Prob. 141). Though Philo views poets and playwrights favorably, he is also at times critical of the theater as an opportunity for the senses to run wild and control the rational mind (Agr. 35). On the complexity of perceptions of the theater in Philonic and Judaic thought, see Jay, “Theater in Early Judaism.” 42 Philo’s tirade against those who trust in fortune unduly and abandon their ancestral ways is almost certainly aimed at a certain element within the Jewish community of his own day. Philo may be thinking of lapsed Jews, perhaps his own nephew Tiberius Alexander in particular (see introduction, p. 5). It is tempting, too, to imagine that Philo’s attention to the vicissitudes of fortune might suggest a date of composition after the violence of 38 BC (Niehoff, Jewish Identity, 70). Philo’s view of fortune owes more to the stage than any philosophy—­he quotes Euripides and harps on the quick reversals of fortune reminiscent of New Comedy. 40

84

De vita Mosis I

VII.32

(VII) (32) ὁ δὲ ἐπ’ αὐτὸν φθάσας τὸν ὅρον τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης εὐτυχίας καὶ θυγατριδοῦς μὲν τοῦ τοσούτου βασιλέως νομισθείς, τῆς δὲ παππῴας ἀρχῆς ὅσον οὐδέπω γεγονὼς ἐλπίσι ταῖς ἁπάντων διάδοχος καὶ τί γὰρ ἄλλ’ ἢ ὁ νέος βασιλεὺς προσαγορευόμενος, τὴν συγγενικὴν καὶ προγονικὴν ἐζήλωσε παιδείαν, τὰ μὲν τῶν εἰσποιησαμένων ἀγαθά, καὶ εἰ λαμπρότερα καιροῖς, νόθα εἶναι ὑπολαβών, τὰ δὲ τῶν φύσει γονέων, εἰ καὶ πρὸς ὀλίγον ἀφανέστερα, οἰκεῖα γοῦν καὶ γνήσια· (33) καθάπερ τε κριτὴς ἀδέκαστος τῶν γεννησάντων καὶ τῶν εἰσποιησαμένων τοὺς μὲν εὐνοίᾳ καὶ τῷ φιλεῖν ἐκθύμως τοὺς δ’ εὐχαριστίαις ἀνθ’ ὧν εὖ ἔπαθεν ἠμείβετο καὶ μέχρι παντὸς ἠμείψατ’ ἄν, εἰ μὴ κατεῖδεν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ μέγα καινουργηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως ἀσέβημα. (34) ξένοι γὰρ ἦσαν, ὡς ἔφην πρότερον, οἱ  Ἰουδαῖοι, τῶν τοῦ ἔθνους ἀρχηγετῶν διὰ λιμὸν ἀπορίᾳ τροφῆς ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος καὶ τῶν ἄνω σατραπειῶν εἰς Αἴγυπτον μεταναστάντων, καὶ τρόπον τινὰ ἱκέται καταπεφευγότες ὡς ἐπ’ ἄσυλον ἱερὸν τήν τε βασιλέως πίστιν καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκητόρων ἔλεον. (35) οἱ γὰρ ξένοι παρ’ ἐμοὶ κριτῇ τῶν ὑποδεξαμένων ἱκέται γραφέσθωσαν, μέτοικοι δὲ πρὸς ἱκέταις καὶ φίλοι, σπεύδοντες εἰς ἀστῶν ἰσοτιμίαν καὶ γειτνιῶντες ἤδη πολίταις, ὀλίγῳ τῶν αὐτοχθόνων διαφέροντες.

VII.32

On the Life of Moses I

85

(VII) (32) Moses reached the very limit of human good fortune, being recognized as the grandson of a great king and almost becoming, as everyone expected, successor to his family empire, so what else would he have been called but “the young king”? Nevertheless, he admired his hereditary, ancestral upbringing, deeming the good fortune of his adopters, even if circumstances made it more lustrous, to be illegitimate, but the ways of his biological parents, although briefly less prominent, he considered legitimate and took as his own.43 (33) Like an impartial judge of those who bore him and those who adopted him, he repaid the former with affection and ardent love, and the latter with gratitude for the benefits he received, and he would have always done so, if he had not observed in the country a great impiety newly implemented by the king. (34) The Jews were guests, as I said before, and because of a shortage of food caused by famine, their founders migrated to Egypt from Babylon and the satrapies44 to the north, and, in a way, they were suppliants who sought refuge in the assurance of the king and the pity of the inhabitants just as they would in an inviolate sanctuary. (35) Surely foreigners, in my judgement, should register as suppliants of those who receive them, but in addition to being suppliants they are metics45 and friends eager for equal privileges with the townsfolk, and, by now resembling citizens, they differed little from those indigenous to the land.46 43 The term ἀγαθά (goods, wealth), which describes the “good fortune” of Moses’ Egyptian family, could suggest wealth and power in contrast to the virtuous way of life that his Jewish family represents. The contrast is highlighted by the term γνήσιος, which can mean “legitimate” or “genuine.” Here, γνήσιος is polyvalent, indicating that Moses’ ancestral ways are both “legitimate” (i.e., his proper inheritance as a Hebrew) and “genuine” (i.e., a wealth of true value in contrast to what his Egyptian family offers). See Abr. 25 for a virtuous life as a “genuine” (γνήσιον) wealth. 44 “Satrapy” is a term of Persian origin that designates a province in the Persian empire. Though Philo does not locate the events of the De vita Mosis within any larger historical chronology, he cannot be referring to a time after the Median conquest of Assyria in the sixth century, especially since it was Cyrus the Great who freed the Jews from exile in 539 BC. On the contrary, Philo surely would have asserted the antiquity of the Jewish people, which was even supported by some Greek sources. Philo’s use of the term is thus anachronistic, perhaps used simply to underscore the foreignness of the Hebrews. 45 These are resident aliens who are permitted to live in a Greek city (polis) but do not enjoy citizenship or citizen rights. 46 Philo’s language seems (somewhat awkwardly) to compare the Hebrews’ biblical migration to Egypt with contemporary concerns over the status of Jews in Alexandria. His suggestion that foreigners should be registered (γραφέσθωσαν) likely reflects the bureaucratic reality of ancient Alexandria while the notion that the Hebrews should have acquired citizenship (or at least citizen rights) through assimilation over time could easily reflect a common perspective among Alexandrian Jews of Philo’s time. Such a perspective is suggested by the Letter to the Alexandrians, in which the Roman emperor Claudius rebukes the Jews for grasping after additional privileges in “a city that belongs to others” (ἐν ἀλλοτρίᾳ πόλει). Philo, however, remains

86

De vita Mosis I

VII.36

(36) τούτους οὖν, οἳ τὴν μὲν οἰκείαν ἀπέλιπον, εἰς δ’ Αἴγυπτον ἧκον ὡς ἐν δευτέρᾳ πατρίδι μετ’ ἀσφαλείας οἰκήσοντες, ὁ τῆς χώρας ἡγεμὼν ἠνδραποδίζετο καὶ ὡς πολέμου νόμῳ λαβὼν αἰχμαλώτους ἢ πριάμενος παρὰ δεσποτῶν, οἷς ἦσαν οἰκότριβες, ὑπήγετο καὶ δούλους ἀπέφαινε τοὺς οὐκ ἐλευθέρους μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ξένους καὶ ἱκέτας καὶ μετοίκους οὔτε αἰδεσθεὶς οὔτε δείσας τὸν ἐλευθέριον καὶ ξένιον καὶ ἱκέσιον καὶ ἐφέστιον θεόν, ὃς τῶν τοιούτων ἐστὶν ἔφορος. (37) εἶτ’ ἐπιτάγματα ἐπέταττε βαρύτερα τῆς δυνάμεως ἄλλους ἐπ’ ἄλλοις πόνους προστιθείς, καὶ τοῖς ἀπαγορεύουσιν ὑπ’ ἀσθενείας ὁ σίδηρος εἵπετο· ἐπιστάτας τῶν ἔργων ἀνηλεεστάτους καὶ ὠμοθύμους οὐδενὶ συγγνώμης μεταδιδόντας ᾑρεῖτο, οὓς “ἐργοδιώκτας” (Exod. 3, 7 al.) ἀπὸ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος ὠνόμαζον. (38) εἰργάζοντο δ’ οἱ μὲν πηλὸν εἰς πλίνθον σχηματίζοντες, οἱ δὲ πανταχόθεν ἄχυρα συγκομίζοντες—­π λίνθου γὰρ ἄχυρα δεσμός—­, οἱ δ’ ἦσαν ἀποτεταγμένοι πρὸς οἰκιῶν καὶ τειχῶν καὶ πόλεων κατασκευὰς καὶ διωρύχων ἀνατομάς, ὑλοφοροῦντες αὐτοὶ μεθ’ ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτωρ ἄνευ διαδοχῆς, οὐδεμίαν ἔχοντες ἀνάπαυλαν, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὅσον καταδαρθεῖν αὐτὸ μόνον ἐώμενοι, πάντα καὶ τὰ τῶν δημιουργῶν καὶ τὰ τῶν ὑπουργῶν δρᾶν ἀναγκαζόμενοι, ὡς ἐν βραχεῖ τὰ σώματα αὐτοῖς ἀπαγορεύειν, ἅτε καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς προαναπιπτούσης. (39) ἄλλοι γοῦν ἐπ’ ἄλλοις ἐξέθνῃσκον ὡς ὑπὸ λοιμώδους φθορᾶς, οὓς ἀτάφους ἔξω τῶν ὁρίων ἀπερρίπτουν οὐδὲ κόνιν ἐπαμήσασθαι τοῖς σώμασιν ἐῶντες ἀλλ’οὐδὲ δακρῦσαι συγγενεῖς ἢ φίλους οὕτως οἰκτρῶς διαφθαρέντας· ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἀδουλώτοις πάθεσι τῆς ψυχῆς, ἃ μόνα σχεδὸν ἐξ ἁπάντων ἐλεύθερα ἡ φύσις ἀνῆκε, δεσποτείαν ἐπηπείλουν οἱ ἀσεβεῖς ἀνάγκης ἀνυποίστῳ βάρει δυνατωτέρας πιέζοντες.

VII.36

On the Life of Moses I

87

(36) And so the ruler of the land enslaved those who left their home and came to Egypt in order to dwell safely in a second fatherland, and, as though he were taking captives as is customary in war or purchasing them as home-­ born slaves from their masters, he made them subject to himself and by declaration made into slaves people who were not only free but also guests, suppliants, and metics. In this he showed no respect for or fear of the God of the free, of guests, of suppliants, and of the household, and is the one who protects such people.47 (37) Next he imposed on them commands heavier than their strength could bear, inflicting task upon task, and those who flagged from weakness were met with the sword. For, as overseers of the work he chose people who were extremely pitiless and savage, and who showed no lenience; based on these qualities they were called “taskmasters.”48 (38) Some worked shaping mud into bricks, while others gathered straw from all over—­since straw binds the bricks together—­and others still had been appointed for the construction of houses, walls, and cities and for digging trenches; the Hebrews themselves brought in wood day and night without relief, having no rest. They were not even permitted as much as mere sleep, being forced to do all the work of the builders and the assistants, so that they naturally exhausted their bodies in a short time, just as their souls, too, previously flagged. (39) So then one after another they died, as if from a plague, and they49 cast them unburied outside the city boundaries and did not allow them to gather dust for the bodies or to weep for their relatives or friends who were so piteously killed. The impious were even threatening to attain mastery over the sovereign emotions of the Hebrews’ souls, which out of everything were almost the only things nature left free, by weighing them down with the unbearable burden of a stronger compulsion.

ostensibly focused on the narrative context when he claims the Hebrews “differed little from those indigenous to the land.” Only Egyptians could be considered “indigenous” (αὐτοχθόνων) in Egypt, but the sentiment is contemporary and surely refers to Alexandrian Greeks, since Egyptians in Roman Egypt had even fewer rights than the Jews. Also, that Philo would closely align Jews with contemporary or biblical Egyptians is unimaginable. As Niehoff puts it: “While being Jewish, Roman, and Greek are for [Philo] complementary identities, one can in his view never be both a Jew and an Egyptian” (Niehoff, Jewish Identity, 46). 47 The four attributes applied to God (ἐλευθέιος, ξένιος, ἱκέσιος, and ἐφέστιος) are all epithets applied to Zeus. Philo’s intention here is difficult to discern, but a Greek or Roman reader might well be inclined conflate the God of the Jews with Zeus. 48 Literally “work-­chasers.” The same term appears in ExodLXX 3:7, though the etymology is Philo’s. 49 Philo does not specify who “they” are. Either Egyptians generally or the overseers specifically.

88

De vita Mosis I

VIII.40

(VIII) (40) ἐπὶ δὴ τούτοις ἀθυμῶν καὶ δυσχεραίνων διετέλει μήτ’ ἀμύνασθαι τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας μήτε βοηθεῖν τοῖς ἀδικουμένοις ἱκανὸς ὤν· ἃ δ’ οἷός τε ἦν, διὰ λόγων ὠφέλει παραινῶν τοῖς μὲν ἐφεστῶσι μετριάζειν καὶ τὸ σφοδρὸν τῶν ἐπιταγμάτων ὑπανιέναι καὶ χαλᾶν, τοῖς δ’ ἐργαζομένοις φέρειν τὰ παρόντα γενναίως ἄνδρας τε εἶναι τὰ φρονήματα καὶ μὴ συγκάμνειν τὰς ψυχὰς τοῖς σώμασιν, ἀλλὰ χρηστὰ προσδοκᾶν ἐκ πονηρῶν· (41) πάντα γὰρ μεταβάλλειν τὰ ἐν κόσμῳ πρὸς τἀναντία, νέφωσιν εἰς αἰθρίαν, πνευμάτων βίας εἰς ἀέρα νήνεμον, κλύδωνα θαλάττης εἰς ἡσυχίαν καὶ γαλήνην, τὰ δ’ ἀνθρώπεια καὶ μᾶλλον, ὅσῳ καὶ ἀσταθμητότερα. (42) τοιούτοις κατεπᾴδων ὥσπερ ἀγαθὸς ἰατρὸς ᾤετο τὰς νόσους καίτοι βαρυτάτας οὔσας ἐπικουφιεῖν· αἱ δ’ ὁπότε λωφήσειαν, αὖθις ἐκ περιτροπῆς ἐπετίθεντο φέρουσαί τι πάντως ἐκ τοῦ διαπνεῦσαι καινὸν κακὸν ἀργαλεώτερον τῶν προτέρων. (43) ἦσαν γάρ τινες τῶν ἐφεστηκότων ἀτίθασοι σφόδρα καὶ λελυττηκότες, μηδὲν εἰς ἀγριότητα τῶν ἰοβόλων καὶ σαρκοβόρων διαφέροντες, ἀνθρωποειδῆ θηρία, τὴν τοῦ σώματος μορφὴν εἰς δόκησιν ἡμερότητος ἐπὶ θήρᾳ καὶ ἀπάτῃ προβεβλημένοι, σιδήρου καὶ ἀδάμαντος ἀπειθέστεροι. (44) τούτων ἕνα τὸν βιαιότατον, ἐπειδὴ πρὸς τῷ μηδὲν ἐνδιδόναι καὶ ταῖς παρακλήσεσιν ἔτι μᾶλλον ἐξετραχύνετο, τοὺς τὸ προσταχθὲν μὴ ἀπνευστὶ καὶ ὀξυχειρίᾳ δρῶντας τύπτων, προπηλακίζων ἄχρι θανάτου, πάσας αἰκιζόμενος αἰκίας, ἀναιρεῖ δικαιώσας εὐαγὲς εἶναι τὸ ἔργον· καὶ ἦν εὐαγὲς τὸν ἐπ’ ὀλέθρῳ ζῶντα ἀνθρώπων ἀπόλλυσθαι.

VIII.40

On the Life of Moses I

89

(VIII) (40) Now, because of all this, Moses continually felt disheartened and disgusted, since he could neither fend off the evildoers nor help those who were suffering injustice. What he could do had to be done with words; on the one hand he advised the overseers to act in moderation and to relax and ease the violence of their commands, and on the other hand he advised those who were laboring to bear their present circumstances nobly, to show mental fortitude, and not to let their souls suffer with their bodies but rather to anticipate that good would come from evil. (41) For everything in the world turns into its opposite, cloudy skies to clear weather, blasts of wind to calm air, billows to a serene and calm sea, and human affairs change even more, to the degree that they are more unstable. (42) Soothing them with such words, Moses like a good doctor intended to ease their illnesses despite their severity; but every time their troubles abated, one after another they attacked again, bringing out of their disappearance some entirely new evil more painful than the previous ones. (43) For some of the overseers were incredibly savage and furious, not at all differing in cruelty from venomous and carnivorous animals; they were beasts in human form,50 projecting a bodily shape to appear civilized with a view to the hunt and deception, more unyielding than iron or adamant. (44) The most violent of them, since in addition to granting them nothing he even became more and more aggressive toward pleas, beating those who did not carry out a command with swift hands and without stopping for a breath, abusing them to the point of death, torturing them with every form of suffering—­Moses killed him and deemed the deed to be holy; and it was holy to destroy one who lived for the destruction of others.51

50 Though this description is limited to the taskmasters, it is in line with Philo’s contempt for all things Egyptian. At Decal. 80 Philo ridicules Egyptian zoolatry and claims that visitors would “consider [the Egyptians] more wretched than the creatures they honor, with souls transformed into those of animals, so that they seem to go about as beasts in human form.” 51 Philo justifies the murder through the extrabiblical detail that the overseer’s abuse was vicious to the point of causing his victims’ death (Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 54, 64). He omits that Moses hid the body in the sand as well as his subsequent encounter with the arguing Hebrews (Exod 2:11–­14). McGing, “Philo’s Adaptation,” 129, may be correct that Philo found the murder embarrassing and so gives it special justification. At Leg. 37–­40, Philo allegorizes the murder of the Egyptian overseers as one overcoming the passions.

90

De vita Mosis I

VIII.45

(45) Ταῦτ’ ἀκούσας ὁ βασιλεὺς ἠγανάκτει δεινὸν ἡγούμενος, οὐκ εἴ τις τέθνηκεν ἢ ἀνῄρηκεν ἀδίκως ἢ δικαίως, ἀλλ’ εἰ ὁ θυγατριδοῦς αὐτῷ μὴ συμφρονεῖ μηδὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ φίλους ὑπείληφεν, ἀλλὰ μισεῖ μὲν οὓς αὐτὸς στέργει, φιλεῖ δὲ οὓς προβέβληται καὶ ἐλεεῖ πρὸς οὓς ἀτρέπτως καὶ ἀπαραιτήτως ἔχει.

VIII.45

On the Life of Moses I

91

(45) When he heard about this, the king was terribly vexed and did not consider whether someone had died or killed unjustly or justly, but whether his grandson might not be of the same mind as he and did not share the same friends and enemies,52 but instead hated those he was fond of and loved those whom he himself had thrown away, and showed pity to those toward whom he himself was indifferent and inexorable.

The language here recalls Moses’ bond of ὁμοφροσύνη with his parents in section 7. While Moses’ concord with his parents was based in virtue, Pharoah is concerned with loyalty and identity, and even draws upon the technical language of alliances between states (to have the same friends and enemies). As Niehoff, Jewish Identity, 71, puts it: “While Moses was said to have killed the Egyptian out of primarily humanitarian considerations, Pharaoh judges him on grounds of personal and ethnic loyalty. It suddenly dawns on Pharaoh that Moses is not ‘one of us.’” 52

92

De vita Mosis I

IX.46

(IX) (46) λαβόμενοι δ’ ἅπαξ ἀφορμῆς οἱ ἐν τέλει καὶ τὸν νεανίαν ὑφορώμενοι—­ᾔδεσαν γὰρ μνησικακήσοντα τῶν ἀνοσιουργημάτων αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ καιρῶν ἀμυνούμενον—­ἀναπεπταμένοις ὠσὶ τοῦ πάππου μυρίας διαβολὰς ἐπήντλουν, οἱ μὲν ἔνθεν, οἱ δ’ ἔνθεν, ὡς καὶ περὶ ἀφαιρέσεως τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐμποιῆσαι δέος, “ἐπιθήσεται” λέγοντες, “οὐδὲν φρονεῖ μικρόν, ἀεί τι προσπεριεργάζεται, πρὸ καιροῦ βασιλείας ἐρᾷ, θωπεύει τινάς, ἑτέροις ἀπειλεῖ, κτείνει χωρὶς δίκης, τοὺς μάλιστ’ εὔνους σοι προβέβληται. τί δὴ μέλλεις, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἃ διανοεῖται δρᾶν ὑποτέμνεις; μέγα τοῖς ἐπιθεμένοις αἱ τῶν ἐπιβουλευομένων ἀναβολαί.” (47) τοιαῦτα διεξιόντων, ὑπανεχώρησεν εἰς τὴν ὅμορον Ἀραβίαν, ἔνθα διατρίβειν ἦν ἀσφαλές, ἅμα καὶ τὸν θεὸν ποτνιώμενος, ἵνα τοὺς μὲν ἐξ ἀμηχάνων ῥύσηται συμφορῶν, τοὺς δὲ μηδὲν παραλιπόντας τῶν εἰς ἐπήρειαν ἀξίως τίσηται, παράσχῃ δ’ αὐτῷ ταῦτ’ ἐπιδεῖν ἀμφότερα διπλασιάσας τὴν χάριν. ὁ δὲ ἐπακούει τῶν εὐχῶν ἀγάμενος αὐτοῦ τὸ φιλόκαλον ἦθος καὶ μισοπόνηρον, οὐκ εἰς μακρὰν τὰ κατὰ τὴν χώραν, ὡς θεῷ πρέπον, δικάσας.

IX.46

On the Life of Moses I

93

(IX) (46) Some magistrates who were suspicious of Moses—­for they knew that he would bear a grudge against them for their impious acts and would punish them at the right moment—­once they had seized the opportunity, kept pouring countless accusations into the open ears of his grandfather, some on either side, so as to engender fear in him even concerning the loss of the kingdom, saying, “He will go for it, he does not think in small terms, he is always busying himself with something, he desires the kingdom prematurely, he flatters some, others he threatens, he kills unjustly, he has cast off those who are especially friendly toward you. So then why do you delay? Won’t you prevent him from doing what he is planning? The delays of those being plotted against are a great boon to their assailants.”53 (47) While they were saying such things to the king, Moses gradually withdrew across the border to Arabia,54 where it was safe to pass the time while imploring God to deliver the Jews from their hopeless misfortune and to punish fittingly those who spared nothing in their abuse, and, as a double grace, to grant him to see both come about. And God, in admiration of his character, which loved the good and hated evil, heard his prayers and soon judged what was happening throughout the land in a way befitting of Him.

The simple account of Exod 2:15, that Pharaoh sought to kill Moses when he heard of the murder, has been transformed by Philo into a conspiracy by the Egyptian elite who slander Moses with accusations of planning a coup. These claims are redolent of the tensions in Alexandria in Philo’s time, when the Jews were similarly thought to be usurping the status of the Alexandrian Greeks and looking for privileges beyond their due. 54 In the Bible, Moses flees to Midian. Philo does reference “Midian” on several occasions in his writings (see Mut. 106, 110; Leg. 3.12, 13; Agr. 43; and Conf. 55). It is in keeping with his normal practice in the De vita Mosis, however, to avoid terms his readers might not be familiar with. 53

94

De vita Mosis I

IX.48

(48) ἐν ᾧ δὲ ἔμελλε δικάζειν, τοὺς ἀρετῆς ἄθλους Μωυσῆς διήθλει τὸν ἀλείπτην ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ λογισμὸν ἀστεῖον, ὑφ’ οὗ γυμναζόμενος πρὸς τοὺς ἀρίστους βίους, τόν τε θεωρητικὸν καὶ πρακτικόν, ἐπονεῖτο φιλοσοφίας ἀνελίττων ἀεὶ δόγματα καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ διαγινώσκων εὐτρόχως καὶ μνήμῃ παρακατατιθέμενος εἰς τὸ ἄληστον αὐτὰ καὶ τὰς οἰκείας αὐτίκα πράξεις ἐφαρμόττων ἐπαινετὰς πάσας, ἐφιέμενος οὐ τοῦ δοκεῖν ἀλλὰ τῆς ἀληθείας, διὰ τὸ προκεῖσθαι σκοπὸν ἕνα τὸν ὀρθὸν τῆς φύσεως λόγον, ὃς μόνος ἐστὶν ἀρετῶν ἀρχή τε καὶ πηγή. (49) ἕτερος μὲν οὖν ὀργὴν ἀμείλικτον βασιλέως ἀποδιδράσκων καὶ ἄρτι πρῶτον εἰς ἀλλοδαπὴν ἀφιγμένος, μήπω τοῖς τῶν ἐπιχωρίων ἔθεσιν ἐνωμιληκὼς μηδὲ ἀκριβῶς ἐπιστάμενος οἷς χαίρουσιν ἢ ἀλλοτριοῦνται, κἂν ἐσπούδασεν ἡσυχίᾳ χρώμενος ἀφανέστερον ζῆν τοὺς πολλοὺς λανθάνων ἢ βουληθεὶς εἰς μέσον παρέρχεσθαι τοὺς γοῦν δυνατοὺς καὶ τοὺς πλεῖστον ἰσχύοντας λιπαρέσι θεραπείαις ἐξευμενίζεσθαι, παρ’ ὧν τις ὠφέλεια προσεδοκᾶτο καὶ βοήθεια, εἴ τινες ἐπελθόντες ἀπάγειν πρὸς βίαν ἐπειρῶντο. (50) ὁ δὲ τὴν ἐναντίαν τοῦ εἰκότος ἀτραπὸν ἤλαυνε ταῖς τῆς ψυχῆς ὑγιαινούσαις ὁρμαῖς ἑπόμενος καὶ μηδεμίαν ἐῶν ὑποσκελίζεσθαι· διὸ καὶ τῆς ὑπούσης δυνάμεως ἔστιν ὅτε πλέον ἐνεανιεύετο δύναμιν ἀκαθαίρετον τὸ δίκαιον ἡγούμενος, ὑφ’ οὗ προτραπεὶς αὐτοκέλευστος ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ἀσθενεστέρων συμμαχίαν ἵετο.

IX.48

On the Life of Moses I

95

(48) While He was planning to pass judgement, Moses was struggling through the contests of virtue, having his instructor within himself, refined reason, under whose training he worked toward the best lives, that of intellectual investigation and that of practical application;55 he was always explicating philosophical doctrines, discerning them fluently with his soul, entrusting them indelibly to his memory and immediately adjusting his own actions, which were all worthy of praise, since he sought after not what seems right, but the truth, by setting forth as his one aim the right reason of nature,56 which alone is the origin and source of virtue.57 (49) Now, anyone else who was fleeing the cruel anger of the king and had just arrived in a foreign land and was not yet acquainted with the local customs nor understood precisely whom they welcome or consider an enemy would have been eager to live peacefully in obscurity and go unnoticed by the people; or if he wished to come forward publicly, at least he would have been eager to propitiate the influential and strongest citizens with indefatigable service, from whom he might expect some profit and aid, in case anyone came and tried to take him away by force. (50) But Moses took a path contrary to what would be expected by following the sound impulses of his soul and not allowing any impulse to trip him up; therefore, he was sometimes more willful than befit his available strength, since he considered justice to be something indestructible, which drove him of his own accord to hurry to the defense of those who were weaker. More literally, the “theoretical life” and the “practical life.” The former involves the contemplation of knowable objects; the latter, various forms of action that range from political activity to craftsmanship. Aristotle (1177a27) found the highest value in the “theoretical” life. The Stoics, by contrast, made “right action” critical to virtue. Whether or not in reaction to the Peripatetics and Stoics, Philo places the theoretical and practical on equal footing. See Leg. 1.57, where Philo distinguishes between theoretical inquiries and practical pursuits and concludes that “virtue is both theoretical and practical; it involves theory since the path to virtue is through the three aspects of philosophy: logic, ethics, and physics; it involves actions because virtue is the art of the whole life, which encompasses all one’s actions.” 56 The word for “reason” here is λόγος, a notoriously difficult concept in Philo that cannot be addressed in full here. Termini, “Philo’s Thought,” 99, provides a summary of some of the major aspects of Philo’s Logos doctrine: “The Logos plays an important role in the upward journey that brings man to the true knowledge of God (Conf. 145–­47; Fug. 100–­105). The human intellect was made in the image of the Logos (Opif. 139, 146; QG 2.62), and is called to contemplate God, like the Logos, which is called Israel as the prototype of the ‘one who sees God.’ . . . The Logos guides men so they do not stumble (Deus 182).” Philo also implicates the Logos in the creation of the universe (Opif. 21–­22) and in this capacity is associated by Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 15, with the Middle Platonist merger of “Plato’s Demiurge with his World Soul into the single concept of a Nous/Logos to designate the world-­immanent activity of the divine.” 57 For Moses’ solitary study, see Her. 19: “Now, the wise make God their guide and instructor, but those less perfect, a wise man.” At Abr. 16, Philo speaks of those who have learned the virtue of hopefulness through an intuitive, unwritten law of nature. 55

96

❡

De vita Mosis I

X.51

(X) (51) Λέξω δὲ καὶ τὸ κατ’ ἐκεῖνον αὐτῷ τὸν χρόνον πραχθέν, εἰ καὶ μικρὸν ὅσα γε τῷ δοκεῖν, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀπὸ φρονήματος μικροῦ. κτηνοτροφοῦσιν Ἄραβες καὶ νέμουσι τὰ θρέμματα οὐκ ἄνδρες μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ γυναῖκες νέοι τε καὶ παρθένοι παρ’ αὐτοῖς, οὐχὶ τῶν ἠμελημένων καὶ ἀδόξων μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄγαν ἐπιφανῶν. (52) ἑπτὰ δὴ κόραι πατρὸς ἱερέως ποίμνην ἄγουσαι παρῆσαν ἐπί τινα πηγὴν καὶ τῶν ἱμονιῶν ἐκδησάμεναι τοὺς καδίσκους ἄλλη διαδεχομένη παρ’ ἄλλης ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐν τῷ πονεῖν ἰσομοιρίας μάλα προθύμως τὰς δεξαμενάς, αἳ πλησίον ἔκειντο, πληροῦσιν. (53) ἐπιφοιτήσαντες δ’ ἕτεροι ποιμένες καὶ τῆς τῶν παρθένων ἀσθενείας ὑπεριδόντες τὰς μὲν ἐπεχείρουν μετὰ τῆς ποίμνης ἐλαύνειν, τὰ δ’ οἰκεῖα θρέμματα προσῆγον ἐπὶ τὸ εὐτρεπισθὲν ποτὸν ἀλλότριον καρπωσόμενοι πόνον. (54) ἰδὼν δὲ Μωυσῆς τὸ γενόμενον—­οὐ γὰρ ἦν πόρρω—­σ υντείνας ἔθει καὶ πλησίον στὰς “οὐ παύσεσθε” εἶπεν “ἀδικοῦντες, τὴν ἐρημίαν νομίζοντες εἶναι πλεονεξίαν; βραχίονας καὶ πήχεις ἀργοὺς τρέφοντες οὐκ ἐρυθριᾶτε; χαῖται βαθεῖαι καὶ σάρκες ὑμεῖς ἐστε, οὐκ ἄνδρες· αἱ μὲν κόραι νεανιεύονται μηδὲν ὀκνοῦσαι τῶν πρακτέων, οἱ δὲ νεανίαι κορικῶς ἤδη τρυφᾶτε. (55) οὐ βαδιεῖσθε; οὐχ ὑπεκστήσεσθε ταῖς πρότερον ἡκούσαις, ὧν καὶ τὸ ποτόν ἐστι; δικαίως ἂν αὐταῖς ἐπαντλήσαντες, ἵν’ ἀφθονώτερον ὕδωρ εἴη, καὶ τὸ εὐτρεπισθὲν ἀφελέσθαι σπεύδετε; ἀλλὰ μὰ τὸν οὐράνιον τῆς δίκης ὀφθαλμὸν οὐκ ἀφελεῖσθε βλέποντα καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς ἐρημοτάτοις. (56) ἐμὲ γοῦν ἐχειροτόνησε βοηθὸν οὐ προσδοκηθέντα· καὶ γάρ εἰμι σύμμαχος ταῖς ἀδικουμέναις μετὰ μεγάλης χειρός, ἣν οὐ θέμις πλεονέκταις ὁρᾶν· αἰσθήσεσθε δὲ αὐτῆς ἐκ τοῦ ἀφανοῦς τιτρωσκούσης, εἰ μὴ μεταβάλοιτε.” (57) ταῦτα διεξιόντος, φοβηθέντες, ἐπεὶ καὶ λέγων ἅμα ἐνεθουσία μεταμορφούμενος εἰς προφήτην, μὴ χρησμοὺς καὶ λόγια θεσπίζει, καταπειθεῖς τε γίνονται καὶ τὴν ποίμνην τῶν παρθένων ἐπὶ τὰς δεξαμενὰς ἄγονται πρότερον μεταστησάμενοι τὰς ἑαυτῶν.

X.51

On the Life of Moses I

97

(X) (51) I will mention what he did during that time; even though it was something small, at least as it seems, nevertheless it was not the product of a small mind. Arabs58 keep cattle and pasture their livestock, not only the men, but also women, young men, and maidens alongside them, a custom not only among ignoble people and those of little repute, but also among the highly distinguished. (52) Therefore seven daughters of a priestly father59 were tending their flock at a certain spring, and once they had tied the buckets to the well-­ropes, each taking her turn, they filled the nearby tanks, working quite eagerly due to the fair division of the task. (53) But other herdsmen arrived after them, who, since they looked down on the weakness of the maidens, tried to drive them off, along with their flock and bring their own livestock to the ready water, intending to enjoy the fruit of another’s labor. (54) But when Moses saw what happened—­for he was not far off—­he ran full tilt and, once he was standing near them, said: “Stop committing injustice, thinking the wilderness will be advantageous cover for your actions! Aren’t you ashamed to pamper your lazy shoulders and arms? You are but a mop of hair and flesh, not men; the girls do not act with the insolence of youth, shrinking from what needs to be done. But right now you young men are dainty like girls. (55) Go! Make way for those who arrived first and to whom this water belongs. Though rightly you should have drawn water for them that it might be more plentiful, are you in fact eager to take what has been drawn? But by the heavenly eye of justice that looks upon events even in the most remote places, you will not take it away. (56) Indeed, he appointed me as an unexpected helper, for to those who suffer injustice I am an ally along with a great hand, which it is not right for the greedy to see; but you will know it when it strikes invisibly, unless you happen to change your ways first.” (57) While Moses said all this, since he became inspired by God as he spoke and was transformed into a prophet, the men grew afraid that he was delivering oracles and prophesies, and so they became obedient and led the maidens’ flock to the water tanks after removing their own.60 I.e. Midianites. Ἄραβες is a broad term that can include both nomadic and sedentary peoples from northern Mesopotamia to the southern edge of what is now known as the Arabian Peninsula. 59 Moses’ future father-­in-­law is named “Jethro” (Ἰοθόρ) at ExodLXX 2:16 and “Raguel” (Ραγουήλ) two verses later at ExodLXX 2:18. Philo never names him, though in English clarity sometimes demands it. In those cases, I have opted to use the name “Jethro.” Jethro was viewed favorably by many Jewish authors. Ezekiel the Tragedian, for example, makes Jethro (Raguel) the sole ruler and general of Libya (Exagoge, 62–­65). Philo himself takes a dimmer view of him, associating his two names with vanity and demagoguery (Jethro) and proper devotion to God (Raguel) (see Mut. 103–­5; Ebr. 36–­37). 60 This expansion upon the biblical narrative demonstrates Moses’ love of justice and fitness to serve as king and prophet for the Hebrews. It also demonstrates how the practical and theoretical lives are closely intertwined as Moses’ love of justice spurs him to action (see above section 55). His inspired speech foreshadows his roles as king and prophet for the Hebrews. 58

98

De vita Mosis I

XI.58

(XI) (58) αἱ δ’ ἐπανῄεσαν οἴκαδε σφόδρα γεγηθυῖαι καὶ τὰ συμβάντα παρ’ ἐλπίδας ἐκδιηγοῦντο, ὡς πολὺν ἵμερον ἐνεργάσασθαι τοῦ ξένου τῷ πατρί. κατεμέμφετο γοῦν αὐτὰς ἐπ’ ἀχαριστίᾳ τοιαῦτα λέγων· “τί παθοῦσαι μεθίετε, δέον ἄγειν εὐθὺς καὶ εἴπερ ἀνεδύετο λιπαρεῖν; ἤ τινα μισανθρωπίαν μου κατέγνωτε; ἢ δεύτερον περιπεσεῖν ἀδίκοις οὐ προσδοκᾶτε; βοηθῶν ἀπορεῖν ἀνάγκη τοὺς ἐπιλήσμονας χαρίτων. ἀλλ’ ὅμως ἀναδραμοῦσαι (τὸ γὰρ ἁμάρτημα μέχρι νῦν ἐστιν ἰάσιμον) ἴτε μετὰ σπουδῆς καὶ καλεῖτε ξενίων μὲν πρότερον αὖθις δὲ καὶ ἀμοιβῆς (ὀφείλεται γὰρ αὐτῷ χάρις) μεθέξοντα.” (59) συντείνασαι δὲ καταλαμβάνουσιν αὐτὸν οὐ πόρρω τῆς πηγῆς καὶ δηλώσασαι τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς οἴκαδε συμπείθουσιν ἥκειν. ὁ δὲ πατὴρ τὴν μὲν ὄψιν εὐθὺς τὸ δὲ βούλημα ὀλίγον ὕστερον καταπλαγεὶς—­ἀρίδηλοι γὰρ αἱ μεγάλαι φύσεις καὶ οὐ μήκει χρόνου γνωριζόμεναι—­δίδωσι τὴν καλλιστεύουσαν αὐτῷ τῶν θυγατέρων γυναῖκα, δι’ ἑνὸς ἔργου πάνθ’ ὅσα τῶν εἰς καλοκἀγαθίαν μαρτυρήσας καὶ ὡς ἀξιέραστον μόνον τὸ καλόν ἐστι τῆς ἀφ’ ἑτέρου συστάσεως οὐ δεόμενον, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιφέρον τὰ γνωρίσματα. (60) μετὰ δὲ τὸν γάμον παραλαβὼν τὰς ἀγέλας ἐποίμαινε προδιδασκόμενος εἰς ἡγεμονίαν· ποιμενικὴ γὰρ μελέτη καὶ προγυμνασία βασιλείας τῷ μέλλοντι τῆς ἡμερωτάτης τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπιστατεῖν ἀγέλης, καθάπερ καὶ τοῖς πολεμικοῖς τὰς φύσεις τὰ κυνηγέσια· θήραις γὰρ ἐμπρομελετῶσιν οἱ πρὸς τὰς στραταρχίας ἀλειφόμενοι, τῶν ἀλόγων οἷά τινος ὕλης ὑποβεβλημένων πρὸς ἄσκησιν τῆς καθ’ ἑκάτερον καιρὸν ἀρχῆς, τόν τε πολέμου καὶ τὸν εἰρήνης.

XI.58

On the Life of Moses I

99

(XI) (58) The maidens went home full of joy and thoroughly recounted the unexpected events, and thus provoked in their father a great desire to meet the stranger. So much is evident in that he blamed them for their ingratitude, saying: “What possessed you to let him go when you ought to have brought him here immediately and even begged him if he continued to hesitate. Or have you observed some misanthropy in me? Or do you expect that you will not encounter unjust men a second time? Those who are oblivious to kindness must necessarily be at a loss for help. But nevertheless, run back—­for at this point the mistake can be fixed—­and make haste and invite him first to receive our hospitality and then in turn, compensation, since he deserves thanks.” (59) With great effort the maidens caught up with Moses not far from the spring, and, explaining what their father said, they persuaded him to come home with them. Their father was immediately astounded by his appearance61 and soon after by his purpose—­for great natures are clear to see and do not become known over time—­and he gave him the most beautiful of his daughters as a wife,62 since in one deed he witnessed everything that pertains to goodness and nobility and because the only thing worthy of love is nobility,63 which needs no external confirmation but carries within itself its own recognizable qualities. (60) After he was married, Moses took charge over the herds and shepherded them, which provided him with early training in leadership; for a shepherd’s training is also preparation for a kingly office for one destined to stand at the head of the most civilized flock that is mankind, just as hunts train human natures for military affairs; therefore, those preparing for generalship train in advance through participation in hunts, with unreasoning creatures appropriated as a material for practice in ruling in the circumstances of both war and peace.

61 Moses’ beauty was also noted in the account of his birth (section 9 above). Beauty was widely valued in antiquity, so Philo’s mention of Moses’ striking appearance is both unsurprising and impossible to connect to a particular source. In the context of the De vita Mosis, however, it is difficult to overlook a comparison with heroes of epic and aretalogy, who are frequently known for their beauty. 62 Identified as Zipporah (Σεπφώρα) at ExodLXX 2:21. She is allegorized as favorably at Cher. 41, where her name is said to mean “bird” and she herself represents the virtue of contemplating heavenly things. A few sections later at Cher. 47, Philo reports that when Moses married her, Zipporah, the soaring virtue, was pregnant “by no mortal.” Philo does not address the fact that Moses’ new wife is not Jewish. Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 70–­71, proposes several solutions to the problem of Philo’s reticence on the issue, though no obvious answer presents itself. 63 I have translated as “nobility” τὸ καλόν, which has clear Platonic overtones. Though Plato is far from clear about a precise definition of τὸ καλόν, he does associate it with moral virtue (as at Philebus 64e), which may well be the notion Philo has in mind here. See Barney, “Notes on Plato,” 363–­77, for a fuller discussion on τὸ καλόν.

100

De vita Mosis I

XI.61

(61) ἡ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἀγρίων θήρα στρατηγικὸν κατ’ ἐχθρῶν ἐστι γύμνασμα, ἡ δὲ τῶν ἡμέρων ἐπιμέλεια καὶ προστασία βασιλικὸν πρὸς ὑπηκόους ἀγώνισμα· διὸ καὶ “ποιμένες λαῶν” οἱ βασιλεῖς, οὐχ ὡς ὄνειδος ἀλλ’ ὡς ὑπερβάλλουσα τιμή, προσαγορεύονται. (62) καί μοι δοκεῖ μὴ πρὸς δόξας τῶν πολλῶν ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἐρευνωμένῳ τὸ πρᾶγμα—­γελάτω δ’ ὁ βουλόμενος—­μόνος ἂν γενέσθαι βασιλεὺς τέλειος ὁ τὴν ποιμενικὴν ἐπιστήμην ἀγαθός, ἐν ἐλάττοσι ζῴοις παιδευθεὶς τὰ τῶν κρειττόνων· ἀμήχανον γὰρ τὰ μεγάλα πρὸ τῶν μικρῶν τελεσθῆναι.

XI.61

On the Life of Moses I

101

(61) For hunting wild animals is practice for a commander against his enemies, but the charge and leadership over tame animals is a royal feat pertaining to subjects; therefore, kings are called “shepherds of the people”64 not as a reproach but as an extraordinary honor. (62). And it seems to me, if I interpret the matter not based on the opinion of the masses but in accordance with the truth—­whoever wants to may laugh—­only one who is skilled in the profession of the shepherd may become a perfect king, since he learns among lesser animal the issues of the better ones; for it is not possible to accomplish great things before small things.65

The expression “shepherd of the people” is used frequently in Homer to describe the Greek kings fighting at Troy, though it is by no means limited to epic. 65 The connection between herding and kingship was at least as old as Homer as it is implicit in the expression “shepherd of the people.” The metaphor remained a commonplace and features prominently at the beginning of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (1.1–­2) as well as later in that same work (8.2.14). It can also be found in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (1161a) and Plato’s Republic (343a–­b), to name only a few instances. Philo gives the metaphor extensive treatment in his De agricultura, especially Agr. 41–­42. In this passage of the De vita Mosis, Philo has transformed a metaphor into a literal form of royal training for Moses prior to his investiture by God through the burning bush (Piccione, “Mosis I 60–­62,” 353). Moses’ philosophical investigations (section 48), love of justice (section 55), and practice as a herdsman (section 60) are all demonstrations of the kingly qualities that legitimate (for the reader, at least) God’s choice of Moses to lead the Hebrew people out of Egypt. See Sacr. 50–­51, where Moses’ role as shepherd is taken allegorically to mean that he managed Jethro’s worldly thoughts. 64

102

❡

De vita Mosis I

XII.63

(XII) (63) Γενόμενος οὖν τῶν καθ’ αὑτὸν ἀγελαρχῶν ἄριστος καὶ ποριστὴς ὅσα πρὸς τὴν τῶν θρεμμάτων συνέτεινεν ὠφέλειαν ἱκανὸς ἐκ τοῦ μηδὲν ἀποκνεῖν ἀλλ’ ἐθελουργῷ καὶ αὐτοκελεύστῳ προθυμίᾳ εἰς δέον τῇ προστασίᾳ χρῆσθαι μετὰ καθαρᾶς καὶ ἀδόλου πίστεως ηὔξησε τὰς ἀγέλας· (64) ὡς ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων νομέων ἤδη καὶ φθονεῖσθαι μηδὲν ὁμοιότροπον ἐν ταῖς ἰδίαις ποίμναις ὁρώντων, αἷς εὐτυχὲς εἶναι ἐδόκει ἡ ἐν ὁμοίῳ μονή, ταῖς δὲ τὸ μὴ βελτιοῦσθαι καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἐλάττωσις διὰ τὸ μεγάλας εἰωθέναι λαμβάνειν ἐπιδόσεις ἐκ μὲν εὐσαρκίας καὶ πιότητος εἰς κάλλος, εἰς δὲ πλῆθος ἐξ εὐτοκίας καὶ τῶν περὶ δίαιταν ὑγιεινῶν. (65) ἄγων δὲ τὴν ποίμνην εἰς τόπον εὔυδρόν τε καὶ εὔχορτον, ἔνθα συνέβαινε καὶ πολλὴν πόαν προβατεύσιμον ἀναδίδοσθαι, γενόμενος πρός τινι νάπει θέαμα ἐκπληκτικώτατον ὁρᾷ. βάτος ἦν, ἀκανθῶδές τι φυτὸν καὶ ἀσθενέστατον· οὗτος, οὐδενὸς πῦρ προσενεγκόντος, ἐξαίφνης ἀνακαίεται καὶ περισχεθεὶς ὅλος ἐκ ῥίζης εἰς ἀκρέμονα πολλῇ φλογὶ καθάπερ ἀπό τινος πηγῆς ἀνομβρούσης διέμενε σῷος, οὐ κατακαιόμενος, οἷά τις ἀπαθὴς οὐσία καὶ οὐχ ὕλη πυρὸς αὐτὸς ὤν, ἀλλὰ τροφῇ χρώμενος τῷ πυρί. (66) κατὰ δὲ μέσην τὴν φλόγα μορφή τις ἦν περικαλλεστάτη, τῶν ὁρατῶν ἐμφερὴς οὐδενί, θεοειδέστατον ἄγαλμα, φῶς αὐγοειδέστερον τοῦ πυρὸς ἀπαστράπτουσα, ἣν ἄν τις ὑπετόπησεν εἰκόνα τοῦ ὄντος εἶναι· καλείσθω δὲ ἄγγελος, ὅτι σχεδὸν τὰ μέλλοντα γενήσεσθαι διήγγελλε τρανοτέρᾳ φωνῆς ἡσυχίᾳ διὰ τῆς μεγαλουργηθείσης ὄψεως.

XII.63

On the Life of Moses I

103

(XII) (63) And so as he became the best leader of flocks in his own time and a provider of whatever contributed to the benefit of the livestock, being up to the task because he shrank from nothing but with untiring and self-­motivated readiness employed his authority for what was needed, he increased the flocks with a pure and undeceiving faith. (64) As a result Moses was soon envied by the other herdsmen, who saw no similarity to their own flocks, for which to stay the same seemed to be good fortune, but for Moses’ flocks not improving day by day seemed a failure since he was used to seeing great improvements in the beauty of the animals because of their good condition and fullness and improvements in the numbers of the flock because of their fertility and healthy way of life. (65) While he was leading the flock to a place with good water and pasturage, where there happened to be plenty of grass suited to pasturage spread about, when he was at a certain grove, he saw a most astounding sight. There was a bush, some thorny, feeble growth; this bush, though no one had set fire to it, suddenly flared up and, though surrounded entirely from the roots to the branches by a great flame, just as from some gushing spring, remained safe and unconsumed, as though it were some unaffected substance and not itself material for a fire but were using the flame for nourishment. (66) Toward the middle of the flame there was a form of outstanding beauty, resembling no visible object, a most god-­like image, a light beaming forth more brilliantly than the fire and which anyone would have suspected was the image of the Existent.66 But let it be called a herald, since it was virtually proclaiming67 future events through a miraculous vision and with a silence clearer than a voice.

Philo frequently uses “The Existent” to identify God. See below note 73. Philo here addresses indirectly a possible source of confusion in the biblical text. At Exod 3:2–­4, an angel appears to Moses in the burning bush, and, as Moses approaches the bush, God calls out to him from it. The biblical account leaves the connection between God and angel unclear. Josephus (A.J. 2.265–­69) only mentions a voice, and Ezekiel the Tragedian (Exagoge 101) perhaps alludes to the issue by having God say that it is impossible for a mortal to see His face. In Philo’s rendering of the scene, Moses sees a brilliant image that he heavily implies is God but claims should be called a herald (ἄγγελος) because it was proclaiming (διήγγελλε) things to come. The biblical angel is therefore present in the ἄγγελος, which means both “herald” and “angel,” but Philo includes it as a concession—­it made a proclamation and therefore is appropriately called a herald/angel—­without committing to a clear indication of whether the image was God or an angel. Philo thus hews as closely to the biblical narrative as possible and then interprets it by calling the herald (or angel) a symbol of God’s providence, which indicates, one might suppose, that God alone is present in the bush. 66 67

104

De vita Mosis I

XII.67

(67) σύμβολον γὰρ ὁ μὲν καιόμενος βάτος τῶν ἀδικουμένων, τὸ δὲ φλέγον πῦρ τῶν ἀδικούντων, τὸ δὲ μὴ κατακαίεσθαι τὸ καιόμενον τοῦ μὴ πρὸς τῶν ἐπιτιθεμένων φθαρήσεσθαι τοὺς ἀδικουμένους, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μὲν ἄπρακτον καὶ ἀνωφελῆ γενέσθαι τὴν ἐπίθεσιν, τοῖς δὲ τὴν ἐπιβουλὴν ἀζήμιον, ὁ δὲ ἄγγελος προνοίας τῆς ἐκ θεοῦ τὰ λίαν φοβερὰ παρὰ τὰς ἁπάντων ἐλπίδας κατὰ πολλὴν ἡσυχίαν ἐξευμαρίζοντος.

XII.67

On the Life of Moses I

105

(67) For the inflamed bramble is a symbol of those suffering injustice, and the burning flame is a symbol of those committing injustice; that the object being burned was not consumed symbolizes that those suffering injustice would not perish at the hands of those who were attacking them, but, for the sufferers, the attack was without success or profit, and, for the offenders, their treachery went unpunished. The herald is a symbol of the providence of God, who, very much at ease, alleviates extremely frightening matters contrary to the expectations of all.

106

De vita Mosis I

XIII.68

(XIII) (68) τὴν δὲ εἰκασίαν ἀκριβῶς ἐπισκεπτέον. ὁ βάτος, ὡς ἐλέχθη, φυτὸν ἀσθενέστατον ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἄκεντρον, ὡς εἰ καὶ μόνον ἐπιψαύσειέ τις τιτρώσκειν, οὔτ’ ἐξαναλώθη τῷ φύσει δαπανηρῷ πυρί, τοὐναντίον δὲ ἐφυλάχθη πρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ διαμένων ὁποῖος ἦν πρὶν ἀνακαίεσθαι μηδὲν ἀποβαλὼν τὸ παράπαν αὐγὴν προσέλαβε. (69) τοῦθ’ ἅπαν ὑπογραφή τίς ἐστι τῆς ἐθνικῆς ὑποθέσεως, ἣ κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον ἐπεῖχε, μόνον οὐ βοῶσα τοῖς ἐν συμφοραῖς· “μὴ ἀναπίπτετε, τὸ ἀσθενὲς ὑμῶν δύναμίς ἐστιν, ἣ καὶ κεντεῖ καὶ κατατρώσει μυρίους. ὑπὸ τῶν ἐξαναλῶσαι γλιχομένων τὸ γένος ἀκόντων διασωθήσεσθε μᾶλλον ἢ ἀπολεῖσθε, τοῖς κακοῖς οὐ κακωθήσεσθε, ἀλλ’ ὅταν μάλιστα πορθεῖν νομίσῃ τις ὑμᾶς, τότε μάλιστα πρὸς εὔκλειαν ἐκλάμψετε.” (70) πάλιν τὸ πῦρ φθοροποιὸς οὐσία διελέγχουσα τοὺς ὠμοθύμους· “μὴ ταῖς ἰδίαις ἀλκαῖς ἐπαίρεσθε, τὰς ἀμάχους ῥώμας ἰδόντες καθαιρουμένας σωφρονίσθητε· ἡ μὲν καυστικὴ δύναμις τῆς φλογὸς ὡς ξύλον καίεται, τὸ δὲ φύσει καυστὸν ξύλον οἷα πῦρ ἐμφανῶς καίει.”

XIII.68

On the Life of Moses I

107

(XIII) (68) But we must examine the image accurately. The bramble, as was mentioned, is a very weak plant, but is not without thorns, so that it causes a wound even if one only lightly touches it. Nor was it destroyed by the fire, which by its nature consumes, but, on the contrary, the bramble was protected by it, and, remaining the same as it was before it was kindled, without losing anything, it took on a gleam. (69) This whole image is a sort of illustration of the condition of the Hebrew nation that predominated at that time, all but shouting to them68 in their misfortune: “Don’t lose heart, your weakness is a power that stings and will wound countless people. Those who long to annihilate your tribe will not destroy you but will rather preserve you, though against their will; you will not be afflicted by evils, but precisely when someone believes that he is destroying you, you will shine forth in glory.” (70) And again, the fire, essence of destruction, refuting the savage of heart, said:69 “Don’t be elated at your own feats, when you see your unconquerable strength laid low, mend your ways; the burning power of the flame is itself burned like wood, but the wood, by nature prone to being kindled, visibly produces flame like a fire.”

68 The passage oddly suggests that the image of the burning bush, which Moses alone saw in Midian, was meant to encourage the Hebrews in Egypt. That same message, however, could be a powerful one if Philo has in mind the plight of Alexandrian Jews of his own time. It is tempting to imagine Philo writing this after the violence of 38 AD and likening the suffering of the Alexandrian Jewish community to that of their biblical ancestors. Philo’s allegorical interpretation of the bush has parallels in the rabbinic tradition (Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 77). 69 Colson (LCL) ad loc. suspects a verb has been lost from this passage and proposes to add “is destroyed” (φθοροποιεῖται, a word he believes Philo might have coined). The sense of the passage would be that fire, the destructive force that is paradoxically suffering destruction, offers not a threat but rather a warning to those who follow a similar path. Whether or not Colson’s neologism is correct, a reading that includes a verbal form of “is destroyed” would improve the passage grammatically and logically.

108

❡

De vita Mosis I

XIV.71

(XIV) (71) Τὸ τεράστιον τοῦτο καὶ τεθαυματουργημένον δείξας ὁ θεὸς τῷ Μωυσεῖ, παραίνεσιν ἐναργεστάτην τῶν μελλόντων ἀποτελεῖσθαι, καὶ διὰ χρησμῶν ἄρχεται προτρέπειν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ ἔθνους σπεύδειν ἐπιμέλειαν, ὡς οὐ μόνον ἐλευθερίας παραίτιον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡγεμόνα τῆς ἐνθένδε ἀποικίας οὐκ εἰς μακρὰν γενησόμενον, ὁμολογῶν ἐν ἅπασι συλλήψεσθαι. (72) “κακουμένων γὰρ ἐκ πολλοῦ καὶ δυσανασχέτους ὕβρεις ὑπομενόντων, οὐδενὸς ἀνθρώπων οὔτ’ ἐπικουφίζοντος οὔτ’ ἐλεοῦντος τὰς συμφοράς, οἶκτον” φησίν “αὐτὸς ἔλαβον· καὶ γὰρ ἰδίᾳ ἕκαστον καὶ πάντας ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐφ’ ἱκετείας καὶ λιτὰς τραπομένους ἐλπίζειν τὴν ἐξ ἐμοῦ βοήθειαν· εἰμὶ δὲ τὴν φύσιν ἤπιος καὶ γνησίοις ἱκέταις ἵλεως. (73) ἴθι δὴ πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα τῆς χώρας μηδὲν εὐλαβηθεὶς τὸ παράπαν—­ὁ μὲν γὰρ πρότερος τέθνηκεν, ὃν ἀπεδίδρασκες διὰ φόβον ἐπιβουλῆς, ἕτερος δὲ τὴν χώραν ἐπιτέτραπται μηδενὸς τῶν πραγμάτων σοι μνησικακῶν—­καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἔθνους γερουσίαν προσπαραλαβὼν εἰπὲ χρησμῷ προσκεκλῆσθαι ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ τὸ ἔθνος, ἵνα κατὰ τὰ πάτρια θύσῃ τριῶν ἡμερῶν ὁδὸν ἔξω τῶν ὅρων τῆς χώρας προελθόν.” (74) ὁ δὲ οὐκ ἀγνοῶν ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις ἀπιστήσοντας τούς τε ὁμοφύλους καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἅπαντας “ἐὰν οὖν” φησί “πυνθάνωνται, τί τὸ ὄνομα τῷ πέμψαντι, μηδ’ αὐτὸς εἰπεῖν ἔχων ἆρ’ οὐ δόξω διαπατᾶν;”

XIV.71

On the Life of Moses I

109

(XIV) (71) When God had shown to Moses this wondrous and miraculous sight, a most vivid counsel of future events, He began to urge him through oracles to give eager attention to the nation, asserting that Moses would not only have a part in bringing them freedom but would even lead the migration70 from there in short order, and promising to assist him in every way.71 (72) “For I Myself took pity,” He said, “on those long afflicted with suffering and patiently enduring intolerable outrages, when no one among men eased their misfortunes or showed them compassion. For I know that all who turn to supplication and prayers, both privately and together of one accord, hope for help from Me, and I am by nature gentle and gracious toward genuine suppliants. (73) Go now to the king of the land without any concern at all—­for the former king, whom you fled for fear of his treachery, is dead, and the land has been entrusted to another who bears no grudge against you for any reason—­and take with you the elders of the nation72 and say that I have summoned the nation through an oracle to go forth beyond the borders of the country and sacrifice according to their ancestral customs for three days.” (74) But Moses, not failing to perceive that both his own people and everyone else would find his words incredible, said, “If, then, they inquire as to the name of the One who sent me, won’t I seem to be deceiving them if I am unable to respond?”

The word ἀποικία literally means “colony,” though migration sometimes better captures the sense. Damgaard, “Rewritten Bible,” 240, notes the significance of the term in the De vita Mosis: “The Hebrews are not on their way home (οἰκία) but on their way to found a colony (ἀποικία). Philo’s choice of words here is rather surprising, as if at the time of Moses the Hebrews had a μητρόπολις in Egypt that produced ἀποικίαι. Perhaps, however, his use of the term ἀποικία in the Life of Moses reflects Philo’s and his Jewish contemporaries’ own strong attachment to Alexandria?” 71 Philo’s expansions and adjustments to the biblical account of Moses’ meeting with God are too numerous to list here. Generally, all instances of hesitation and obstinance on Moses’ part are omitted or reinterpreted to present Moses as the ideal leader. A thorough examination of the differences between the biblical and Philonic accounts are in Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 75–­85. 72 Philo’s term is “Gerousia” (γερουσία), which refers generally to a council of elders that served in certain Greek cities, most notably Sparta. The Alexandrian Jews of Philo’s time had a Gerousia that oversaw Jewish affairs in the city (Flacc. 74, 76, 80). 70

110

De vita Mosis I

XIV.75

(75) ὁ δὲ “τὸ μὲν πρῶτον λέγε” φησίν “αὐτοῖς, ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, ἵνα μαθόντες διαφορὰν ὄντος τε καὶ μὴ ὄντος προσαναδιδαχθῶσιν, ὡς οὐδὲν ὄνομα τὸ παράπαν ἐπ’ ἐμοῦ κυριολογεῖται, ᾧ μόνῳ πρόσεστι τὸ εἶναι. (76) ἐὰν δ’ ἀσθενέστεροι τὰς φύσεις ὄντες ἐπιζητῶσι πρόσρησιν, δήλωσον αὐτοῖς μὴ μόνον τοῦθ’ ὅτι θεός εἰμι, ἀλλ’ ὅτι καὶ τριῶν τῶν ἐπωνύμων ἀνδρῶν ἀρετῆς, θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ θεὸς  Ἰσαὰκ καὶ θεὸς  Ἰακώβ, ὧν ὁ μὲν τῆς διδακτῆς, ὁ δὲ τῆς φυσικῆς, ὁ δὲ τῆς ἀσκητικῆς σοφίας κανών ἐστιν. ἐὰν δὲ ἔτι ἀπιστῶσι, τρισὶ σημείοις ἀναδιδαχθέντες μεταβαλοῦσιν, ἃ πρότερον οὔτε τις εἶδεν οὔτε ἤκουσεν ἀνθρώπων.” (77) ἦν δὲ τὰ σημεῖα τοιάδε· ῥάβδον, ἣν εἶχεν, εἰς τοὔδαφος ῥῖψαι κελεύει· ἡ δ’ αὐτίκα ψυχωθεῖσα εἷρπε καὶ τῶν ἀπόδων τὸ ἡγεμονικώτατον ὑπερμεγέθης δράκων γίνεται τελειότατος· ταχέως δ’ ἀποχωρήσας ἀπὸ τοῦ ζῴου καὶ διὰ δέος ἤδη πρὸς φυγὴν ὁρμῶν μετακαλεῖται καὶ θεοῦ προστάξαντος ἅμα τε θάρσος ἐμποιήσαντος ἐπιδράττεται τῆς οὐρᾶς. (78) ὁ δὲ ἰλυσπώμενος ἔτι κατὰ τὴν ἐπαφὴν ἵσταται καὶ πρὸς μῆκος εὖ μάλα ταθεὶς εὐθὺς εἰς βακτηρίαν μετεστοιχειοῦτο τὴν αὐτήν, ὡς θαυμάζειν μὲν τὰς μεταβολὰς ἀμφοτέρας, ποτέρα δὲ καταπληκτικωτέρα, μὴ δύνασθαι διακρίνειν, τῆς ψυχῆς ἰσορρόπῳ πληχθείσης φαντασίᾳ.

XIV.75

On the Life of Moses I

111

(75) And the Lord said, “First say to them that I am the Existent,73 so that in learning the difference between being and not being they may also be taught that there is no name at all that properly pertains to Me, to whom alone being belongs.74 (76) But if, since they are rather weak by their natures, they require a means of addressing Me, explain to them not only that I am God, but the God of the three eponymous men of virtue, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, who are, respectively, models of instructed wisdom, innate wisdom, and wisdom from practice.75 But if they still disbelieve, they will change their minds when they are instructed by three signs, which no man has seen or heard before.” (77) The signs were as follows: He commanded Moses to cast the staff he was holding to the ground, and, turning to life straightaway, it began crawling around and became a thing of dominance among footless creatures, a most perfect, immensely great snake. As Moses was quickly moving away from the creature and immediately rushing to flee, God called him back, and, when He had simultaneously commanded Moses and instilled him with courage, Moses took hold of the snake’s tail. (78) And the snake, still crawling, stood up at his touch and, stretching to its full length, transformed back into the same staff; so both transformations were a wonder, but which of the two was more astonishing was impossible to determine, since Moses’ soul was struck by well-­matched images. 73 God here identifies himself in the same terms (ὁ ὤν) as in ExodLXX 3:14. Philo discusses the names of God at Abr. 119–­32 and Fug. 94–­105, where he says θεός is the name for God’s creative power and κύριος for his royal power by which He maintains order. Philo frequently uses “the Existent” to describe God in his transcendence, though typically, under Plato’s influence, with the neuter participle (τὸ ὄν) in contrast to the Septuagint’s masculine form. 74 God’s self-­identification as “The Existent” is explained, fittingly, in terms of His transcendence. See Praem. 40 and Opif. 8. 75 Philo here is likely explaining a difficulty from the Septuagint. In the Masoretic Text of Exod 3:14–­15, God’s identification in verse 14 as “I am Who I am” (‫ֶא ְהיֶ ה ֲא ֶֶׁשר‬ ‫)א ְהיֶ ה‬ ֶ is followed by the tetragrammaton ‫ יהוה‬in verse 15 as the personal name of God, with the two perhaps connected by the shared root of the Hebrew verb “to be” (Birnbaum, “What in the Name of God,” 275). The Septuagint cannot perfectly replicate the Hebrew wordplay and renders the identification of God in verse 14 as ὁ ὤν (The Existent) and the name of God in verse 15 as κύριος, though in Philo’s time the name of God was likely still rendered using the tetragrammaton in Hebrew or Aramaic characters (Royse, “Tetragrammaton,” 167–­83). If Philo encountered the tetragrammaton in the Septuagint, it is impossible to discern what he made of it other than to note that it is not part of his discussion of the names of God (Abr. 119–­32). Instead, in the present passage Philo asserts that the transcendent God (ὁ ὤν) is beyond any name or label but grants as a concession that He be known as θεὸς (God). This is a rather striking deviation from the biblical declaration of God’s eternal name. Also striking are the virtues assigned to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Philo discusses the allegorical significance of the patriarchs at Abr. 52–­54.

112

De vita Mosis I

XIV.79

(79) τοῦτο μὲν δὴ πρῶτον, ἕτερον δ’ οὐκ εἰς μακρὰν ἐθαυματουργεῖτο· τῶν χειρῶν τὴν ἑτέραν προστάττει τοῖς κόλποις ἐπικρύψαντα μικρὸν ὕστερον προενεγκεῖν· δράσαντος δὲ τὸ κελευσθέν, ἡ χεὶρ λευκοτέρα χιόνος ἐξαπιναίως ἀναφαίνεται· πάλιν δὲ καθέντος εἰς τοὺς κόλπους καὶ ἀνενεγκόντος, εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν χρόαν τρέπεται τὸ οἰκεῖον ἀπολαβοῦσα εἶδος. (80) ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὑπὸ μόνου μόνος ἐπαιδεύετο, ὡς παρὰ διδασκάλῳ γνώριμος, ἔχων παρ’ ἑαυτῷ τὰ τῶν τεράτων ὄργανα, τήν τε χεῖρα καὶ τὴν βακτηρίαν, οἷς προεφωδιάσθη. (81) τρίτον δ’ ἐπιφέρεσθαι μὲν οὐκ ἦν οὐδὲ προδιδάσκεσθαι, ἔμελλε δ’ ἐκπλήττειν οὐκ ἔλαττον τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ γίνεσθαι λαβὸν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ. ἦν δὲ τοιοῦτο· “τοῦ ποταμίου” φησίν “ὕδατος ὅσον ἂν ἀρυσάμενος ἐπὶ τὴν γῆς ἐκχέῃς, αἷμα ξανθότατον ἔσται πρὸς τῇ χρόᾳ καὶ τὴν δύναμιν ἑτεροιωθὲν εἰς ἀλλαγὴν παντελῆ.” (82) πιστὸν δ’ ὡς ἔοικε καὶ τοῦτ’ ἀνεφαίνετο, οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸ τοῦ λέγοντος ἀψευδές, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὰ ἤδη προεπιδειχθέντα ἐπί τε τῆς χειρὸς καὶ τῆς βακτηρίας θαυματουργήματα. (83) πιστεύων δ’ ὅμως παρῃτεῖτο τὴν χειροτονίαν ἰσχνόφωνον καὶ βραδύγλωσσον, οὐκ εὔλογον, αὑτὸν εἶναι φάσκων καὶ μάλιστ’ ἀφ’ οὗ λέγοντος ἤκουε θεοῦ· νομίσας γὰρ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην λογιότητα κατὰ σύγκρισιν τῆς θείας ἀφωνίαν εἶναι καὶ ἅμα τὴν φύσιν εὐλαβὴς ὢν ὑπεστέλλετο τοῖς ὑπερόγκοις, τὰ λίαν μεγάλα κρίνων οὐ καθ’ αὑτόν, καὶ παρεκάλει ἕτερον ἑλέσθαι τὸν εὐμαρῶς ἕκαστα τῶν ἐπισταλέντων διαπράξασθαι δυνησόμενον.

XIV.79

On the Life of Moses I

113

(79) This, then, was the first sign, but another miracle was performed soon after; God commanded Moses to hide one of his hands in the fold of his robe and draw it forth a moment later; when he did as he was ordered, his hand suddenly appeared whiter than snow;76 and when he lowered it into the fold of his robe again and drew it out, it regained its proper form and turned back to the same color as before. (80) And so therefore he alone was taught by God alone, like a student before his teacher,77 having with him his hand and his staff, the instruments of wonders with which he was provided. (81) The third wonder could not be brought along or learned in advance, but it would be no less shocking when it came into being in Egypt. It was this: God said, “However much water you draw from the river and pour out upon the ground will be ruddy blood, having altered, beyond its color, even its properties in a complete change.”78 (82) As is fitting, this statement was also clearly trustworthy, not only through the truthfulness of the One speaking but also through the miracles already shown regarding his hand and staff. (83) Though trusting God, nevertheless he tried to refuse the appointment, saying that he was weak-­voiced and slow of tongue, not eloquent, especially after he heard God speak;79 for since he believed that human eloquence was speechlessness by comparison with divine eloquence, and at the same time because he was pious by nature, he kept shrinking from the difficult tasks, having decided that exceptionally great matters did not concern him, and he kept urging God to choose another, someone who would be able to easily accomplish each one of His commands.

See introduction, p. 38. See above note 57. 78 By contrast at Migr. 83, Philo says the Egyptian magicians simply changed the color of the water to red. Philo is careful to make clear that God enables Moses to alter the actual substance of the water, not merely its attributes. 79 At Her. 4 Philo makes clear that Moses’ professed difficulties with speech in this scene are caused by God’s overwhelming majesty and not by an innate ineloquence. He further qualifies in this passage that Moses’ speech seems poor only in relation to God. At Det. 38, he claims that Moses’ ineloquence is nothing more than an aversion to sophistry. Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 81, is surely right that an ancient gentile audience would have found it incredible if God had chosen an inherently poor orator to lead His people. 76 77

114

De vita Mosis I

XIV.84

(84) ὁ δ’ ἀποδεξάμενος αὐτὸν τῆς αἰδοῦς “ἆρά γε ἀγνοεῖς” εἶπε “τὸν δόντα ἀνθρώπῳ στόμα καὶ κατασκευάσαντα γλῶτταν καὶ ἀρτηρίαν καὶ τὴν ἅπασαν λογικῆς φωνῆς ὀργανοποιίαν; αὐτός εἰμι ἐγώ. μηδὲν οὖν δείσῃς· ἐμοῦ γὰρ ἐπινεύσαντος ἀρθρωθήσεται πάντα καὶ μεταβαλεῖ πρὸς τὸ μέτριον, ὡς μηδενὸς ἔτι ἐμποδίζοντος ῥεῖν εὔτροχον καὶ λεῖον ἀπὸ καθαρᾶς πηγῆς τὸ τῶν λόγων νᾶμα. χρεία δ’ εἰ γένοιτο ἑρμηνέως, ὑποδιακονικὸν στόμα τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἕξεις, ἵν’ ὁ μὲν τῷ πλήθει ἀπαγγέλλῃ τὰ ἀπὸ σοῦ, σὺ δ’ ἐκείνῳ τὰ θεῖα.”

XIV.84

On the Life of Moses I

115

(84) But God, approving Moses’ modesty,80 said, “Do you not know who gives man a mouth and equips him with a tongue and windpipe and the whole structure for rational speech? I am He. So do not be afraid of anything; for at my assent all your words will be made clear and will change to the right measure so that without impediment the stream of your words will flow fluently and smoothly from a pure source. But if there should be need of an interpreter, you will have your brother as an attendant mouth so that he may report your words to the masses, and you may report the words of the divine to him.”81

80 Her. 5–­6 frames Moses’ objection to God’s command as a courageous act motivated by his desire to work in God’s best interests. Naturally, the obstinance Moses shows in the biblical account would be incompatible with Philo’s characterization of him as a perfect human being. 81 Cf. Det. 39–­40, where Aaron’s role as spokesman for Moses is allegorized as “speech” being brother to “intellect,” which is the source of words that find their outlet in speech. Philo omits God’s statement in Exod 7:1 that He made Moses a god to Pharoah but does allude to the verse in section 155 below.

116

❡

De vita Mosis I

XV.85

(XV) (85) Ταῦτ’ ἀκούσας—­οὐ γὰρ ἦν εἰς ἅπαν ἀντιλέγειν ἀσφαλὲς οὐδ’ ἀκίνδυνον—­ἄρας ἐβάδιζε μετὰ γυναικὸς καὶ τέκνων ὁδὸν τὴν ἐπ’ Αἴγυπτον, καθ’ ἣν ὑπαντήσαντα τὸν ἀδελφὸν πείθει συνακολουθεῖν ὑπειπὼν τὰ θεῖα λόγια· τῷ δ’ ἄρα προϋπείργαστο ἡ ψυχὴ κατ’ ἐπιφροσύνην θεοῦ πρὸς πειθαρχίαν, ὡς ἀνενδοιάστως συναινεῖν καὶ ἑτοίμως ἕπεσθαι. (86) παραγενόμενοι δ’ εἰς Αἴγυπτον γνώμῃ καὶ ψυχῇ μιᾷ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον τοὺς δημογέροντας τοῦ ἔθνους συναγαγόντες ἐν ἀπορρήτῳ μηνύουσι τοὺς χρησμοὺς καὶ ὡς ἔλεον καὶ οἶκτον λαβὼν αὐτῶν ὁ θεὸς ἐλευθερίαν καὶ τὴν ἐνθένδε μετανάστασιν εἰς ἀμείνω χώραν ὁμολογῶν αὐτὸς ἔσεσθαι τῆς ὁδοῦ ἡγεμὼν ὑπισχνεῖται. (87) μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ θαρροῦσιν ἤδη διαλέγεσθαι περὶ τοῦ τὸν λεὼν ἱερουργήσοντα ἐκπέμψαι τῶν ὅρων· δεῖν γὰρ ἔφασκον ἐν ἐρήμῳ τὰς πατρίους θυσίας ἐπιτελεσθῆναι, μὴ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ταῖς τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων γινομένας, ἀλλὰ τρόπῳ καὶ νόμῳ διαφεύγοντι τὴν κοινότητα διὰ τὰς τῶν ἐθῶν ἐξαιρέτους ἰδιότητας. (88) ὁ δ’ ἐξ ἔτι σπαργάνων προγονικῷ τύφῳ τὴν ψυχὴν πεπιεσμένος καὶ μηδένα τὸ παράπαν νοητὸν θεὸν ἔξω τῶν ὁρατῶν νομίζων ἀποκρίνεται πρὸς ὕβριν εἰπών· “τίς ἐστιν οὗ χρή με ὑπακούειν; οὐκ οἶδα τὸν λεγόμενον τοῦτον καινὸν κύριον· οὐκ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸ ἔθνος ἐπὶ προφάσει ἑορτῆς καὶ θυσιῶν ἀφηνιάσον” (cf. Exod 5, 2).

XV.85

On the Life of Moses I

117

(XV) (85) When he heard this—­since it was not entirely safe or without risk to object—­he arose and made the journey with his wife and children to Egypt, in the course of which he met his brother and persuaded him to accompany them by explaining the divine oracles to him. Now his brother’s soul, due to God’s wisdom, was prepared in advance for obedience, so that he consented unhesitatingly and followed readily. (86) When they came to Egypt, being of one opinion and one mind, they first gathered together the elders of their nation in secret82 and revealed the oracles, saying that God had compassion and pity for them, granted them freedom and a migration from Egypt to a better place, and promised that He himself would be the leader of their journey. (87) After this they immediately ventured to speak with the king about sending the people outside the borders so they could perform a sacrifice, for they said that their ancestral rites had to be celebrated in the wilderness since they were not like those of any other people but were performed in a manner and practice that avoids the common quality of rites through the special peculiarities of their customs. (88) But the king, weighed down in his soul from birth by ancestral arrogance and believing no god at all existed intelligibly apart from what was visible,83 replied by saying in his hubris: “Who is it I must obey? I don’t know this new lord you’ve mentioned. I will not send the Hebrew nation out to rebel on the pretext of a festival and sacrifices.”

82 The secrecy is an extrabiblical touch of Philonic realism (Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 85). This is a logical inclusion since, in the De vita Mosis, Moses fled because he was accused of plotting a coup against the king (section 46); a public gathering of Hebrew elders would presumably stir up similar worries among the Egyptians. 83 See Decal. 59–­60; 76–­80, where Philo notes the folly of those who cannot conceive of an imperceptible God, ultimately leading to an attack on zoolatry.

118

De vita Mosis I

XV.89

(89) εἶθ’ ἅτε χαλεπὸς καὶ βαρύμηνις καὶ ἀπαραίτητος τὴν ὀργὴν κελεύει τοὺς τοῖς ἔργοις ἐφεστῶτας προπηλακίζεσθαι ὡς ἀνέσεις καὶ σχολὴν ἐνδιδόντας, ἀνέσεως καὶ σχολῆς εἶναι λέγων τὸ βουλεύεσθαι περὶ θυσιῶν καὶ ἑορτῶν· τοὺς γὰρ ἐν ἀνάγκαις τούτων οὐδὲ μεμνῆσθαι, ἀλλ’ οἷς ὁ βίος ἐν εὐπαθείᾳ πολλῇ καὶ τρυφῇ. (90) βαρυτέρας οὖν ἢ πρότερον συμφορὰς ὑπομενόντων καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀμφὶ Μωυσῆν δυσχεραινόντων ὡς ἀπατεῶσι καὶ τὰ μὲν λάθρα τὰ δὲ φανερῶς κακηγορούντων καὶ ἀσεβείας αἰτιωμένων ἐπὶ τῷ δοκεῖν θεοῦ κατεψεῦσθαι, δεικνύειν ἄρχεται Μωυσῆς ἃ προὐδιδάχθη τέρατα, νομίσας τοὺς θεασομένους ἐκ τῆς ἐπεχούσης ἀπιστίας εἰς πίστιν τῶν λεγομένων μεταβαλεῖν. (91) ἡ δὲ τῶν τεράτων ἐπίδειξις ἐγένετο καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ διὰ σπουδῆς καὶ τοῖς ἐν τέλει τῶν Αἰγυπτίων.

XV.89

On the Life of Moses I

119

(89) And so, since he was cruel, wrathful, and inexorable in his anger,84 the king ordered that those overseeing the work abuse those who allowed license and leisure, saying that the deliberation over sacrifices and festivals had the quality of license and leisure; for those in anguish do not bring such things to mind, but those who live in great comfort and luxuriousness.85 (90) Therefore since they were enduring heavier misfortunes than before and were feeling angry at Moses and his supporters, as if they were deceivers, and were slandering them both privately and openly, accusing them of impiety for seeming to speak falsely of God, Moses began to reveal the wonders he was previously taught, thinking he might convert those who would see them from their prevailing disbelief to trust in his words. (91) The performance of the miracles occurred before both the king and his magistrates with all speed.

Both the current and previous Pharaohs are characterized by their anger. Niehoff, Jewish Identity, 56, sees this as one of several aspects of Philo’s depiction of Pharaoh and the Egyptians that lead her to conclude that Philo is drawing a comparison between Pharaoh and the Xerxes of Aeschylus’ Persians. The comparison more broadly shows a “confrontation between East and West” in which a smaller, politically freer people fights for freedom against the oppressive tyrant of a large empire (Niehoff, Jewish Identity, 55). Such a comparison attests Philo’s love of Greek poetry and helps characterize the Jews’ plight for a learned audience, but one wonders how much of an impact the comparison would carry almost half a millennium after the Persian defeats at Salamis and Plataea. 85 This scene is based on Exod 5:6, where Pharaoh instructs the overseers and supervisors to no longer provide the Hebrews with straw for making bricks. In the De vita Mosis, the burden of gathering straw was already imposed on the Hebrews in section 38. Philo’s goal in this and the following sections is perhaps to shift the focus away from any culpability Moses may have in worsening the Hebrews’ situation. He still notes that they endure additional hardship and has them fault Moses, but the thrust of their rebuke is to accuse Moses of deceiving them about God’s promise of deliverance, a complaint the reader knows is unjust. 84

120

De vita Mosis I

XVI.92

(XVI) πάντων οὖν τῶν δυνατῶν συρρυέντων εἰς τὰ βασίλεια, λαβὼν τὴν βακτηρίαν ὁ Μωυσέως ἀδελφὸς καὶ κατασείσας μάλα ἐπιδεικτικῶς εἰς τοὔδαφος ῥίπτει· καὶ ἡ μὲν δράκων αὐτίκα γίνεται, οἱ δ’ ἐν κύκλῳ κατεθεῶντο καὶ ἅμα θαυμαστικῶς ἔχοντες ὑπὸ δέους ἐξαναχωροῦντες ἀπέφευγον. (92) σοφισταὶ δ’ ὅσοι καὶ μάγοι παρετύγχανον “τί καταπλήττεσθε;” εἶπον· “οὐδ’ ἡμεῖς τῶν τοιούτων ἀμελετήτως ἔχομεν, ἀλλὰ χρώμεθα τέχνῃ δημιουργῷ τῶν ὁμοίων.” εἶθ’ ἑκάστου βακτηρίαν ἣν εἶχε ῥίψαντος, δρακόντων πλῆθος ἦν καὶ περὶ ἕνα τὸν πρῶτον εἱλοῦντο. (93) ὁ δ’ ἐκ πολλοῦ τοῦ περιόντος διαναστὰς πρὸς ὕψος τὰ μὲν στέρνα εὐρύνει, τὸ δὲ στόμα διοίξας ὁλκοῦ πνεύματος ῥύμῃ βιαιοτάτῃ καθάπερ βόλον ἰχθύων πάντας ἐν κύκλῳ σαγηνεύσας ἐπισπᾶται καὶ καταπιὼν εἰς τὴν ἀρχαίαν φύσιν τῆς βακτηρίας μετέβαλεν. (94) ἤδη μὲν οὖν ἐν ἑκάστου τῇ ψυχῇ τῶν ἐθελοκακούντων τὸ ὕποπτον διήλεγξεν ἡ μεγαλουργηθεῖσα ὄψις, ὡς μηκέτι νομίζειν ἀνθρώπων σοφίσματα καὶ τέχνας εἶναι τὰ γινόμενα πεπλασμένας πρὸς ἀπάτην. ἀλλὰ δύναμιν θειοτέραν τὴν τούτων αἰτίαν, ᾗ πάντα δρᾶν εὐμαρές.

XVI.92

On the Life of Moses I

121

(XVI) And so when all those of power and influence had streamed into the palace, Moses’ brother took his staff and, after waving it in a great display, threw it onto the ground; immediately the staff became a snake, and some of those who were gathered around watching all at once became astonished and fled, retreating in fear. (92) But as many among them as were sophists and magicians said, “Why are you astounded? We are not unpracticed in such matters but wield an art that creates the same things.”86 And then with each of them casting away the staff he held there was a crowd of snakes and they swarmed around the first one. (93) That first snake, seeing as it was far superior to the others, rose to its full height, extended its chest, and then, opening its mouth, with the most violent force of a siphoning blast it caught all the snakes in a circle like a net full of fish and drew them into its mouth.87 After swallowing them down, it transformed back into its former nature as a staff. (94) And so straightaway the miraculous sight refuted the suspicion in the souls of everyone of malicious intent so that they could no longer believe that what happened was the contrivances and skills of mankind, devised for deception, but that the cause of these events was a divine power for which anything is easy to do.88

86 For Philo, a “sophist” is any educated person who lacks true wisdom, that is, a quibbler. He is not referring to any particular movement such as the Second Sophistic (for a thorough discussion, see Koskenniemi, “Philo and the Sophists”). The use of the term σοφιστής (sophist) alongside “magicians” recalls an allegorical observation Philo makes at Det. 38: “Don’t you see that Moses tries to avoid the sophists in Egypt, that is, in the body, whom he calls sorcerers—­for by the arts and deceptions of their contrivances good moral character is poisoned and destroyed—­by saying that he is not eloquent, which is like saying that he is not naturally adept at rhetoric that conjectures about what is probable and specious.” The passage continues by associating Moses with the mind or intellect and Aaron with speech, with Egypt already associated with the body (and therefore the passions). See also Migr. 76, where Moses investigates specious arguments to equip himself to refute the sophists in Egypt. Philo again associates the verbal deceptions of sophistry with magic at Somn. 2.40. 87 In Migr. 85 Aaron’s snake/rod swallowing those of the sophists is allegorized as the various arts of nature overcoming sophistic arguments. 88 It is difficult to see how staves transforming into snakes could ever be “contrivances and skills of mankind.” I suspect that Philo’s allegorizing tendency has crept in a bit as the point seems to be that proof of God’s power has dispelled conjecture and falsehood (i.e., sophistry), not that God is simply more powerful than the Egyptian magicians. Sophistry, surely, would be a much greater concern for Philo than magic.

122

De vita Mosis I

XVI.95

(95) ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ὁμολογεῖν ἀναγκασθέντες ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν γινομένων ἐμφανοῦς ἐναργείας οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐθρασύνοντο, τῆς αὐτῆς ἀπανθρωπίας καὶ ἀσεβείας ὥσπερ ἀγαθοῦ τινος ἐπειλημμένοι βεβαιοτάτου, μήτε τοὺς καταδουλωθέντας ἀδίκως ἐλεοῦντες μήτε τὰ διὰ τῶν λόγων προσταττόμενα δρῶντες, ἅτε δὴ τοῦ θεοῦ τρανοτέραις χρησμῶν ἀποδείξεσι ταῖς διὰ σημείων καὶ τεράτων τὸ βούλημα δεδηλωκότος, ἐμβριθεστέρας ἐπανατάσεως ἐδέησε καὶ πληγῶν ἑσμοῦ, αἷς οἱ ἄφρονες νουθετοῦνται, οὓς λόγος οὐκ ἐπαίδευσε. (96) Δέκα δὲ ἐπάγονται τῇ χώρᾳ τιμωρίαι, κατὰ τῶν τέλεια ἡμαρτηκότων τέλειος ἀριθμὸς κολάσεως· ἦν δὲ κόλασις παρηλλαχυῖα τὰς ἐν ἔθει.

XVI.95

On the Life of Moses I

123

(95) And when they were forced to concede because of the obvious clarity of the event, they were no less over-­bold, seizing upon the same moroseness and impiety as if they were firmly established goods, neither pitying those unjustly enslaved nor doing what was commanded by God’s words; since God had already shown his will in the clear displays of his oracles brought about through signs and wonders, there was need of more grievous threatening and a swarm of blows, by which the foolish, those untrained by reason, are chastised. (96) Ten acts of retribution were brought upon the land, a perfect number for corrective punishment against those who had sinned completely.89 But it was a punishment that differed from the norm.

One of many references to Pythagorean numerology in Philo’s works. Ten is one of several numbers that the ancients considered “perfect” for various reasons. At QG 4.111 Philo discusses the importance of the number ten, describing it as holy and associating it with the Logos as overseer of creation. He also associates ten with the number four. At Opif. 49, four represents three dimensions and is the number of potential corporeal existence. Ten, the sum of the first four numbers (1+2+3+4), is complete and represents existence in actuality (see Plant. 123–­25; Mos. 2.84). Philo’s interest in Pythagorean ideas garnered him the title “the Pythagorean” from Clement of Alexandria (see Runia, “Pythagorean”). On Philo’s order of the plagues, see the introduction, p. 43. 89

124

De vita Mosis I

XVII.97

(XVII) τὰ γὰρ στοιχεῖα τοῦ παντός, γῆ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἀὴρ καὶ πῦρ, ἐπιτίθενται, δικαιώσαντος θεοῦ, οἷς ἀπετελέσθη ὁ κόσμος, τὴν ἀσεβῶν χώραν φθαρῆναι, πρὸς ἔνδειξιν κράτους ἀρχῆς ᾗ κέχρηται, τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ σωτηρίως ἐπὶ γενέσει τῶν ὅλων σχηματίζοντος καὶ τρέποντος ὁπότε βουληθείη πρὸς τὴν κατὰ τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἀπώλειαν. (97) διανέμει δὲ τὰς κολάσεις, τρεῖς μὲν τὰς ἐκ τῶν παχυμερεστέρων στοιχείων γῆς καὶ ὕδατος, ἐξ ὧν ἀπετελέσθησαν αἱ σωματικαὶ ποιότητες, ἐφεὶς τῷ Μωυσέως ἀδελφῷ, τὰς δ’ ἴσας ἐξ ἀέρος καὶ πυρὸς τῶν ψυχογονιμωτάτων μόνῳ Μωυσεῖ, μίαν δὲ κοινὴν ἀμφοτέροις ἑβδόμην ἐπιτρέπει, τρεῖς δὲ τὰς ἄλλας εἰς συμπλήρωσιν δεκάδος ἀνατίθησιν αὑτῷ. (98) καὶ πρώτας ἐπιφέρειν ἄρχεται τὰς ἀφ’ ὕδατος· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὸ ὕδωρ Αἰγύπτιοι διαφερόντως ἐκτετιμήκασιν ἀρχὴν τῆς τῶν ὅλων γενέσεως τοῦτ’ εἶναι νομίζοντες, αὐτὸ πρῶτον ἠξίωσε καλέσαι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀποδεχομένων ἐπίπληξίν τε καὶ νουθεσίαν. (99) τί οὖν οὐκ εἰς μακρὰν συνέβη; τοῦ Μωυσέως ἀδελφοῦ προστάξει θείᾳ κατενεγκόντος τὴν βακτηρίαν ἐπὶ τὸν ποταμόν, ὁ μὲν εὐθὺς ἀπ’ Αἰθιοπίας ἄχρι θαλάσσης εἰς αἷμα τρέπεται, συνεξαιματοῦνται δ’ αὐτῷ λίμναι, διώρυχες, κρῆναι, φρέατα, πηγαί, σύμπασα ἡ κατ’ Αἴγυπτον οὐσία ὕδατος, ὡς ἀπορίᾳ ποτοῦ τὰ παρὰ ταῖς ὄχθαις ἀναστέλλειν, τὰς δ’ ἀνατεμνομένας φλέβας καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς αἱμορραγίαις κρουνηδὸν αὐλοὺς ἀκοντίζειν αἵματος, μηδεμιᾶς ἐνορωμένης διαυγοῦς λιβάδος.

XVII.97

On the Life of Moses I

125

(XVII) For the elements of each type of matter—­ earth, water, air, and fire—­were brought to bear, as God deemed it right that the land of the impious be destroyed by the elements through which the universe was created as a demonstration of the power of his authority, since he both fashioned those same elements for prosperity at the creation of everything and turned them whenever he wished against the impious for their destruction.90 (97) God apportioned the punishments: He granted to Moses’ brother the three punishments from the denser elements of earth and water, from which corporeal qualities were created; He bestowed upon Moses alone an equal number consisting of air and fire, the life-­giving elements; one correction, the seventh, He entrusted to both together, and the three remaining to round out the ten He reserved for Himself.91 (98) The first corrections He imposed were those born of water; since the Egyptians held water in especially high regard, believing that it was the foundation for the genesis of everything, He deemed it fitting that it be summoned first for the punishment and admonition of those who regarded it so. (99) And so what happened soon after? When at a divine command Moses’ brother let his staff fall upon the river, it immediately turned to blood from Ethiopia up to the sea, and along with it lakes, canals, springs, wells, streams—­everything throughout Egypt that was made of water became bloody; as a result they opened up the areas beside the riverbanks due to a lack of drinking water, but the veins they dug,92 as if they were hemorrhaging, launched jets of blood like a fountain, with no clear stream to be seen.

Philo prefaces his account of the plagues by giving them a somewhat rational basis: the manipulation of the elements of matter. The four elements that comprise matter—­earth, water, air, and fire—­may have been drawn from Plato’s Timaeus 31b–­32c. 91 The same organization of plagues is found in the midrash (Exod Rabbah 12:4). See Bamberger, “Philo and the Aggadah,” 168–­69. 92 The same wordplay exists in the Greek as the word φλέψ means both “water source” and “blood vessel.” 90

126

De vita Mosis I

XVII.100

(100) ἐναπέθνῃσκε δὲ καὶ τὰ γένη τῶν ἰχθύων ἅπαντα, ἅτε τῆς ζωτικῆς δυνάμεως εἰς φθοροποιὸν μεταβαλούσης, ὡς δυσωδίας πάντα διὰ πάντων ἀναπεπλῆσθαι, τοσούτων σηπομένων ἀθρόον σωμάτων· πολὺς δὲ καὶ ἀνθρώπων ὄχλος ὑπὸ δίψους διαφθαρεὶς ἔκειτο σωρηδὸν ἐπὶ τῶν τριόδων, οὐ σθενόντων ἐπὶ τὰ μνήματα τῶν οἰκείων τοὺς τετελευτηκότας ἐκκομίζειν. (101) ἐπὶ γὰρ ἡμέρας ἑπτὰ τὸ δεινὸν ἐκράτησεν, ἕως οἱ μὲν Αἰγύπτιοι τοὺς ἀμφὶ Μωυσῆν, οὗτοι δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἱκέτευσαν, οἶκτον λαβεῖν τῶν ἀπολλυμένων· ὁ δὲ τὴν φύσιν ἵλεως μεταβάλλει τὸ αἷμα εἰς ὕδωρ πότιμον ἀποδοὺς τῷ ποταμῷ καθαρὰ τὰ ἀρχαῖα ῥεῖθρα καὶ σωτήρια.

XVII.100

On the Life of Moses I

127

(100) Also, every species of fish kept dying since their life-­sustaining faculty transformed into a destructive force, so that foul smells infected absolutely everything, as so many bodies of fish rotted all at once. A great crowd of people as well, ruined by thirst, lay in heaps at the crossroads because their relatives did not have the strength to carry their dead out to the tombs.93 (101) For seven days the suffering persisted in full force, until the Egyptians begged Moses and his retinue, who in turn beseeched God, to take pity on those who were perishing. And God, being gracious by nature, changed the blood into potable water and rendered the former streams clean and safe.

93 Philo’s account is replete with extrabiblical drama and at least one significant omission. Exod 7:20–­25 mentions the death of fish and the bad smell from the river but says nothing about Egyptians dying. On the contrary, verse 24 implies that they were able to drink from wells they dug near the river. Philo, however, depicts jets of blood and heaps of dehydrated corpses. His major omission is the report in verse 22 that the Egyptian magicians were also able to turn water to blood. Philo presumably omits this because he did not want to undermine the authority and power displayed in God’s divine punishments. At Migr. 83 Philo acknowledges that the magicians imitated the plagues of blood and frogs, though only poorly.

128

De vita Mosis I

XVIII.102

(XVIII) (102) μικρὸν δὲ ὅσον ἀνεθέντες ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ὠμότητα καὶ παρανομίαν ἵεντο, ὡς ἢ τοῦ δικαίου παντάπασιν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀφανισθέντος ἢ τῶν ὑπομεινάντων μίαν τιμωρίαν δεύτερον οὐκ εἰωθότων ἐπιπλήττεσθαι· παθόντες δ’ ἀνεδιδάσκοντο νηπίων παίδων τρόπον μὴ καταφρονεῖν· ἡ γὰρ κόλασις ἑπομένη κατ’ ἴχνος μελλόντων μὲν ἐβράδυνε, πρὸς δὲ τὰ ἀδικήματα θέοντας ἐπιδραμοῦσα κατελάμβανε. (103) πάλιν γὰρ ὁ Μωυσέως ἀδελφὸς κελευσθεὶς διώρυξι καὶ λίμναις καὶ ἕλεσι τὴν ῥάβδον ἐκτείνας ἐπιφέρει· πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἔκτασιν βατράχων πληθὺς ἀνέρπει τοσαύτη, ὡς μὴ μόνον ἀγορὰς καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ὕπαιθρον, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τούτοις ἐπαύλεις, οἰκίας, ἱερά, πάντα ἰδιωτικὸν καὶ δημόσιον τόπον πεπληρῶσθαι, καθάπερ εἰς ἀποικίαν ἓν γένος τῶν ἐνύδρων τῆς φύσεως ἐκπέμψαι διανοηθείσης πρὸς τὴν ἐναντίαν χώραν· (104) ἐναντία γὰρ χέρσος ὕδατι. μήτ’ οὖν ἔξω προελθεῖν ἕνεκα τοῦ προκατέχεσθαι τοὺς στενωποὺς μήτ’ ἔνδον δυνάμενοι μένειν—­καὶ γὰρ τὰ ἐν μυχοῖς ἤδη προκατειλήφεσαν ἄχρι καὶ τῶν ὑψηλοτάτων ἀνέρποντες—­ἐν ἐσχάταις ἦσαν συμφοραῖς καὶ σωτηρίας ἀπογνώσει. (105) πάλιν οὖν καταφεύγουσιν ἐπὶ τοὺς αὐτούς, ὑποσχομένου τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπιτρέψαι τὴν ἔξοδον  Ἑβραίοις· οἱ δὲ λιταῖς τὸν θεὸν ἐξευμενίζονται· καὶ ἐπινεύσαντος, τῶν φρύνων οἱ μὲν εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν ἀναχωροῦσι, τῶν δ’ εὐθὺς διαφθαρέντων κατὰ τὰς τριόδους θημῶνες ἦσαν, σωρηδὸν ἐπιφερόντων καὶ τοὺς οἴκοθεν διὰ τὰς ἀνυποίστους ὀσμάς, αἳ ἐκ νεκρῶν σωμάτων καὶ τοιούτων ἀνεφέροντο, ἃ καὶ ἔμψυχα ὄντα πολλὴν ἀηδίαν παρέχεται ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι.

XVIII.102

On the Life of Moses I

129

(XVIII) (102) When they had only just been briefly released from their suffering, they rushed to the same cruelty and transgression as before, either because they thought justice had altogether disappeared among humankind or because, after enduring one punishment, they were not accustomed to being punished a second time; but like young children, they were taught again through suffering not to despise others. For the punishment following in their tracks kept slowing when they were hesitating, but, as they ran toward injustice, it kept speeding toward them and overtaking them. (103) For, again, Moses’ brother when commanded reached out and held his staff over the canals, lakes, and marshes, and at that gesture a multitude of frogs crawled up,94 so many that not only fields and every open space was filled with them, but also farm houses, homes, temples, and every place whether public or private, just as if nature intended to send forth a single nation of watery creatures to make a colony in an opposite land, for dry land is the opposite of water.95 (104) And so being unable to go outside because frogs held the narrow passageways and being unable to remain indoors—­since they had also now occupied the innermost parts of the structures, even crawling up to the highest places—­the Egyptians were in dire straits and in despair of deliverance. (105) And so again they sought help from the same people,96 with the king promising to grant the Hebrews their leave out of the country. They propitiated God with prayers. And when God had assented, some of the frogs went back to the river, but throughout the crossroads there were piles of other frogs that had immediately died, to which they added by heaps the frogs from the houses because of the unbearable stench that came from corpses even such as these, which even when alive are very unpleasant to the senses.

94 At Exod 8:3 the Egyptian magicians likewise cause frogs to appear, a detail Philo again omits. 95 The depiction of frogs as populous colonizers is striking and to a degree mirrors the situation of the Hebrews themselves. The Hebrews were immigrants whose flourishing population Pharaoh deemed a threat to Egypt, and so he enslaved them (see section 8 above). The docile but omnipresent frogs are thus the realization of Pharoah’s fear and a fitting punishment. The connection is perhaps strengthened by the fact that Philo characterizes Jews as populous colonizers in other works: in Legat. 281–­83 he mentions the abundance of colonies (i.e., diaspora communities) that the Jews possess, and in Flacc. 45–­46 he claims their population is more than one nation can contain. 96 I.e., Moses, Aaron, and the elders.

130

De vita Mosis I

XIX.106

(XIX) (106) διαπνεύσαντες δὲ τῆς τιμωρίας ἐπ’ ὀλίγον ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσιν ἀθληταὶ συλλεξάμενοι δύναμιν, ἵν’ ἀπ’ ἐρρωμενεστέρας ἰσχύος ἀδικῶσι, πάλιν εἰς τὴν συνήθη κακίαν ἀνέδραμον ἐκλαθόμενοι ὧν τέως ὑπέμειναν κακῶν. (107) ἐπισχὼν δὲ τὰς ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος τιμωρίας ὁ θεὸς τὰς ἐκ γῆς ἐπέφερε τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπιστήσας κολαστήν, οὗ πάλιν κατὰ τὸ προσταχθὲν τῇ βακτηρίᾳ τοὔδαφος παίσαντος φορὰ σκνιπῶν ἐχύθη καὶ ταθεῖσα καθάπερ νέφος ἅπασαν ἐπέσχεν Αἴγυπτον. (108) τὸ δὲ ζῷον, εἰ καὶ βραχύτατον, ὅμως ἀργαλεώτατον· οὐ γὰρ μόνον λυμαίνεται τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν κνησμοὺς ἐμποιοῦν ἀηδεῖς καὶ βλαβερωτάτους, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς τἀντὸς βιάζεται διὰ μυκτήρων καὶ ὤτων· σίνεται δὲ καὶ κόρας ὀφθαλμῶν εἰσπετόμενον, εἰ μὴ φυλάξαιτό τις· φυλακὴ δὲ τίς ἔμελλε πρὸς τοσαύτην ἔσεσθαι φοράν, καὶ μάλιστα θεοῦ κολάζοντος; (109) ἴσως ἄν τις ἐπιζητήσειε, διὰ τί τοῖς οὕτως ἀφανέσι καὶ ἠμελημένοις ζῴοις ἐτιμωρεῖτο τὴν χώραν παρεὶς ἄρκτους καὶ λέοντας καὶ παρδάλεις καὶ τὰ ἄλλα γένη τῶν ἀτιθάσων θηρίων, ἃ σαρκῶν ἀνθρωπείων ἅπτεται, καὶ εἰ μὴ ταῦτα, τὰς γοῦν Αἰγυπτίας ἀσπίδας, ὧν τὰ δήγματα πέφυκεν ἀνυπερθέτως ἀναιρεῖν. (110) εἰ δ’ ὄντως ἀγνοεῖ, μαθέτω· πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι τοὺς οἰκήτορας τῆς χώρας ὁ θεὸς νουθετῆσαι μᾶλλον ἐβούλετο ἢ διαφθεῖραι· βουληθεὶς γὰρ ἀφανίζειν εἰς ἅπαν οὐκ ἂν ζῴοις ἐχρῆτο πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθέσεις ὥσπερ συνεργοῖς, ἀλλὰ τοῖς θεηλάτοις κακοῖς, λιμῷ τε καὶ λοιμῷ. (111) μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα κἀκεῖνο προσδιδασκέσθω μάθημα πρὸς ἅπαντα τὸν βίον ἀναγκαῖον· τί δὲ τοῦτ’ ἐστίν; ἄνθρωποι μὲν γὰρ ὅταν πολεμῶσι, τὸ δυνατώτατον εἰς συμμαχίαν ἐπικουρικὸν ἐξετάζουσιν, ὃ τὴν αὐτῶν ἀσθένειαν ἐκπλήσει· θεὸς δ’ ἡ ἀνωτάτω καὶ μεγίστη δύναμις ὢν οὐδενός ἐστι χρεῖος· ἐὰν δέ που βουληθῇ καθάπερ ὀργάνοις τισὶ χρήσασθαι πρὸς τὰς τιμωρίας, οὐ τὰ ἐρρωμενέστατα καὶ μέγιστα αἱρεῖται, τῆς τούτων ἀλκῆς ἥκιστα φροντίζων, ἀλλὰ τοῖς εὐτελέσι καὶ μικροῖς ἀμάχους καὶ ἀηττήτους δυνάμεις ἐγκατασκευάσας ἀμύνεται δι’ αὐτῶν τοὺς ἀδικοῦντας, καθὰ καὶ νῦν. (112) τί γὰρ εὐτελέστερον σκνιπός; ἀλλ’ ὅμως τοσοῦτον ἴσχυσεν, ὡς ἀπαγορεῦσαι πᾶσαν Αἴγυπτον καὶ ἐκβοᾶν ἀναγκασθῆναι, ὅτι “δάκτυλος θεοῦ τοῦτ’ ἐστί” (Exod. 8, 19)· χεῖρα γὰρ θεοῦ μηδὲ τὴν σύμπασαν οἰκουμένην ὑποστῆναι ἂν ἀπὸ περάτων ἐπὶ πέρατα, μᾶλλον δ’ οὐδὲ τὸν σύμπαντα κόσμον.

XIX.106

On the Life of Moses I

131

(XIX) (106) Like combatants in competitions, after catching their breath from the punishment for a short while and gathering their strength, so that they might commit injustice with more formidable force, they again ran back to their accustomed wickedness, heedless of the evils they endured up to now. (107) God ended the punishments derived from water and inflicted those derived from earth, appointing the same man97 as punisher, and when again at God’s command he struck the ground with his staff, a mass of gnats poured forth and, expanding like a cloud, covered all of Egypt. (108) This creature, although very small, is nevertheless very troublesome. For not only does it ruin one’s skin by causing unpleasant and very harmful itching, but it also forces its way inside through the nostrils and ears; it even causes harm when it flies into the pupil of the eye, if one does not watch out. But what protection could there be against such a mass, especially when God is bringing punishment? (109) Perhaps one might ask why God took vengeance upon the land through creatures so unnoticeable and overlooked, passing over bears, lions, leopards, and other species of wild animals that seize upon human flesh, and if not these, then at least Egyptian asps, whose bite by nature tends to cause immediate death. (110) But if anyone is truly ignorant, let him learn: first, it was because God wanted to admonish the inhabitants of the land rather than destroy them. For if he wanted to do away with them completely, He would not have used animals as accomplices for the attacks but would have used divinely ordained misfortunes: famine and pestilence. (111) Next, let him learn also that notable lesson one needs for his whole life. What is it? It is that when people go to war, looking to make an alliance they search thoroughly for the most powerful mercenary band that will round out their own weakness; but God, being the highest and greatest power, needs nothing. But if, I suppose, he wishes to use something as an instrument for retribution, he chooses not the most powerful and greatest of things, since he has very little regard for their might, but equipping slight and small things with unconquerable and unassailable powers, through them he punishes the unrighteous, just as in this case. (112) For what is paltrier than a gnat? Nevertheless, it was of such strength that all of Egypt yielded and was forced to cry out that “this is the finger of God!”98 For the whole of the inhabited world from one end to the other could not withstand the hand of God, or rather not even the entire universe.

I.e., Aaron. In Exod 8:14–­15, the Egyptian magicians are unable to replicate the plague. It is they who proclaim: “This is the finger of God.” Philo again omits the magicians and attributes the declaration to all of Egypt. Though not operative here, at Migr. 85 Philo places the exclamation “This is the finger of God” in the context of sophistry, allegorizing the finger as a divine notice of the defeat of sophistry by wisdom, which was written on tablets by the finger of God. 97 98

132

❡

De vita Mosis I

XX.113

(XX) (113) Τοιαῦται μὲν αἱ διὰ τοῦ Μωυσέως ἀδελφοῦ τιμωρίαι· ἃς δὲ αὐτὸς Μωυσῆς ὑπηρέτησε καὶ ἐξ οἵων τῆς φύσεως συνέστησαν μερῶν, κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἐπισκεπτέον. ἀὴρ μὲν οὖν καὶ οὐρανός, αἱ καθαρώταται μοῖραι τῆς τῶν ὅλων οὐσίας, παρ’ ὕδατος καὶ γῆς διαδέχονται τὴν ἐπ’ Αἰγύπτῳ νουθεσίαν, ἧς ἐπίτροπος ἐχειροτονήθη Μωυσῆς. (114) ἤρξατο δὲ πρότερον τὸν ἀέρα διακινεῖν· Αἴγυπτος γὰρ μόνη σχεδόν τι παρὰ τὰς ἐν τῷ νοτίῳ κλίματι χώρας τῶν ἐτησίων ὡρῶν μίαν τὴν χειμερινὴν οὐ παραδέχεται, τάχα μέν, ὡς λόγος, διὰ τὸ μὴ πόρρω ζώνης διακεκαυμένης εἶναι, ῥέοντος τοῦ πυρώδους ἐκεῖθεν ἀφανῶς καὶ τἀν κύκλῳ πάντα ἀλεαίνοντος, τάχα δὲ ἐπεὶ καὶ ταῖς θεριναῖς τροπαῖς πλημμυρῶν ὁ ποταμὸς προαναλίσκει τὰς νεφώσεις—­(115) ἄρχεται μὲν γὰρ ἐπιβαίνειν θέρους ἐνισταμένου, λήγει δὲ λήγοντος, ἐν ᾧ χρόνῳ καὶ οἱ ἐτησίαι καταράττουσιν ἐξ ἐναντίας τῶν τοῦ Νείλου στομάτων, δι’ ὧν ἔτι κωλυόμενος ἐκχεῖσθαι, τῆς θαλάσσης ὑπὸ βίας τῶν ἀνέμων πρὸς ὕψος αἰρομένης καὶ τὰς τρικυμίας ὥσπερ μακρὸν τεῖχος ἀποτεινούσης, ἐντὸς εἱλεῖται, κἄπειτα τῶν ῥείθρων ὑπαντιαζόντων τοῦ τε κατιόντος ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ τῶν πηγῶν καὶ τοῦ θύραζε χωρεῖν ὀφείλοντος ταῖς ἀνακοπαῖς ἀνατρέχοντος εὐρύνεσθαί τε μὴ δυναμένων (αἱ γὰρ παρ’ ἑκάτερα ἐκθλίβουσιν ὄχθαι), μετεωριζόμενος ὡς εἰκὸς ἐπιβαίνει—­, (116) τάχα δ’ ἐπεὶ καὶ περιττὸν ἦν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ χειμῶνα γενέσθαι· πρὸς ὃ γὰρ αἱ τῶν ὄμβρων φοραὶ χρήσιμοι, καὶ ὁ ποταμὸς λιμνάζων τὰς ἀρούρας εἰς καρπῶν ἐτησίων γένεσιν.

XX.113

On the Life of Moses I

133

(XX) (113) Such were the punishments brought about through Moses’ brother, but those that Moses himself administered and from which realms of nature they arose must be examined in what follows. Air and heaven,99 the purest parts of all that is, took over from water and earth the admonition against Egypt, for which Moses was appointed as administrator. (114) He began first to stir up the air, since Egypt, quite possibly alone among lands in the southern latitudes, does not have one of the annual seasons, namely the winter season, perhaps, as they say, because it is not far from the burned zone and the fiery substance flows from there, heating everything invisibly and all around, or perhaps since the river, being in full flood at the summer solstice, consumes the cloud cover—(­115) for it begins to rise when summer is at hand and ceases when summer ends, during which time the Etesian winds100 fall headlong against the mouths of the Nile, because of which the river, still being prevented from emptying into the sea, is hemmed in, since the sea is raised to its full height by the force of the winds and extends its waves like a long wall. And then, when the streams meet as the river flows down from its sources above and flows back due to the obstacles, though it should move out to sea, since the streams cannot widen (because the banks crowd them on each side), as one might expect, the river lifts itself and rises up.101 (116) This could be, perhaps, because winter in Egypt is superfluous; for in fact the river, flooding the fields, brings about the production of annual crops, for which times of rain are useful. 99 Heaven (οὐρανός) has now replaced fire (section 96 above) as one of the primordial elements. Philo at various places makes fire and heaven one of the four elements alongside air, water, and earth (for fire, cf. Opif. 146; for heaven, cf. Spec. 3.111). The inconsistency of the fourth element in the De vita Mosis may simply be an oversight on Philo’s part. 100 Seasonal winds that blow from the northwest during the summer. 101 The curious phenomenon of the Nile flood fascinated Greeks in antiquity and generated a number of theories as to why it occurred. According to the theory that Philo reports, the seasonal Etesian winds, which blow from the northwest, are strong enough to raise up waves of seawater and form a wall that prevents water from the Nile from reaching the sea. The river water is forced to flow backward against its own current and, because it lacks an outlet, is forced to overflow its banks. Though Philo does not name his source, the theory is first attributed to the sixth-­century philosopher Thales. The Etesian wind theory is one of three explanations of the Nile flood that Herodotus, a historian of the fifth century BC, observes and rejects, noting that the river floods even when the winds fail, and that no other river is similarly affected (Herodotus, Histories 2.19–­20). Strabo, a geographer and contemporary of Philo, correctly attributes the flooding to summer rains in mountainous regions of Ethiopia (Geographia 17.1.5). In this he is correct; summer monsoons in the Ethiopian highlands are the source of the Nile floodwaters. Strabo further expresses some surprise that the cause of the flooding is still debated since the summer rains were known even among Greek philosophers (including Aristotle) for centuries.

134

De vita Mosis I

XX.117

(117) ἡ δὲ φύσις οὐ ματαιουργός, ὡς ὑετὸν χορηγεῖν μὴ δεομένῃ γῇ, καὶ ἅμα χαίρει τῷ πολυτρόπῳ καὶ πολυσχιδεῖ τῶν ἐπιστημονικῶν ἔργων τὴν συμφωνίαν τοῦ παντὸς ἐξ ἐναντιοτήτων ἐναρμοσαμένη· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τοῖς μὲν ἄνωθεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ τοῖς δὲ κάτωθεν ἐκ πηγῶν τε καὶ ποταμῶν παρέχει τὴν ἐξ ὕδατος ὠφέλειαν. (118) οὕτως οὖν τῆς χώρας διακειμένης καὶ ταῖς χειμεριναῖς ἐαριζούσης τροπαῖς καὶ τῶν μὲν πρὸς θαλάττῃ μόναις ψεκάσιν ἀραιαῖς λιπαινομένων, τῶν δ’ ὑπὲρ Μέμφιν, τὸ βασίλειον Αἰγύπτου, μηδὲ νιφομένων τὸ παράπαν, ἐξαίφνης οὕτως ἐνεωτέρισεν ὁ ἀήρ, ὥσθ’ ὅσα ἐν τοῖς δυσχειμέροις ἀθρόα κατασκῆψαι, φορὰς ὑετῶν, χάλαζαν πολλὴν καὶ βαρεῖαν, ἀνέμων συμπιπτόντων καὶ ἀντιπαταγούντων βίας, νεφῶν ῥήξεις, ἐπαλλήλους ἀστραπὰς καὶ βροντάς, κεραυνοὺς συνεχεῖς, οἳ τερατωδεστάτην ὄψιν παρείχοντο· θέοντες γὰρ διὰ τῆς χαλάζης, μαχομένης οὐσίας, οὔτε ἔτηκον αὐτὴν οὔτε ἐσβέννυντο, μένοντες δ’ ἐν ὁμοίῳ καὶ δολιχεύοντες ἄνω καὶ κάτω διετήρουν τὴν χάλαζαν. (119) ἀλλ’ οὐ μόνον ἡ ἐξαίσιος φορὰ πάντων τοὺς οἰκήτορας εἰς ὑπερβαλλούσας δυσθυμίας ἤγαγεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τοῦ πράγματος ἄηθες· ὑπέλαβον γάρ, ὅπερ καὶ ἦν, ἐκ μηνιμάτων θείων κεκαινουργῆσθαι τὰ συμβάντα, νεωτερίσαντος ὡς οὔπω πρότερον τοῦ ἀέρος ἐπὶ λύμῃ καὶ φθορᾷ δένδρων τε καὶ καρπῶν, οἷς συνεφθάρη ζῷα οὐκ ὀλίγα, τὰ μὲν περιψύξεσι, τὰ δὲ βάρει τῆς ἐπιπιπτούσης χαλάζης ὥσπερ καταλευσθέντα, τὰ δ’ ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς ἐξαναλωθέντα· ἔνια δ’ ἡμίφλεκτα διέμενε τοὺς τύπους τῶν κεραυνίων τραυμάτων εἰς νουθεσίαν τῶν ὁρώντων ἐπιφερόμενα.

XX.117

On the Life of Moses I

135

(117) But Nature does not labor to no purpose, so as to provide rain to a land that does not need it, and at the same time it takes pleasure in the variability and complexity of scientific functions, composing the harmony of the whole from opposites; therefore, using sources from above, the sky, and sources from below, springs and rivers, nature provides the aid of water. (118) And so with the land arranged in this way, in bloom during the winter solstice, and anointing those who live near the sea with only thin drizzles of rain, and not raining at all upon those who live beyond Memphis,102 the capital of Egypt,103 the air changed so suddenly that as many things as happen in bad weather struck all at once: downpours, hail, thick and heavy, violent blasts of opposing and rattling winds, clouds bursting forth, lightning and thunder following close after each other, and continuous thunderbolts, which furnished a portentous sight; for the lightning, an opposing substance, was neither melting the hail as it ran through it nor was itself extinguished, but unaltered and preserving the hail it ran its course to and fro. (119) Not only did the violent force of everything bring the inhabitants to extreme despair, but the oddness of the matter as well; for they interpreted the events as strange novelties brought about by divine wrath, as in fact they were, with the air changing as never before to the grief and ruin of trees and crops, along with which more than a few animals perished, some by shivering in the cold, others from the weight of the falling hail, as if they had been stoned to death, and still others were completely destroyed by the fire; some partially burned creatures survived the blows of the lightning strikes, offering a warning to those who saw them.104

102 Memphis was situated on the Nile less than 150 miles southeast of Alexandria. Geographically speaking, the area to the south “beyond Memphis” comprised the majority of Egypt. 103 By Philo’s time Alexandria had for centuries served as Egypt’s capital and primary residence of the Ptolemaic kings (and later the Roman governor). Prior to that, however, Memphis had been an important seat of power in Egypt; it was a city from which many pharaohs ruled as well as the administrative center under the Persians. Even Ptolemy I established himself in Memphis before moving to his palace in Alexandria in 311 BC. Memphis retained its connection to pharaonic power even in the Hellenistic period as Ptolemaic kings sought to help legitimize their rule by holding coronations there. 104 In Exod 9:13–­19 God instructs Moses to warn Pharaoh about the coming hail and tell him that his people and livestock throughout the land should take shelter. God has kept them alive so that they might know His power. The hail in Philo’s version comes unexpectedly and causes widespread destruction. Notably, God’s desire in verse 16 to make His power known is brought to fruition by Philo, who has the people recognize divine wrath as the cause of the storm.

136

De vita Mosis I

XXI.120

(XXI) (120) λωφήσαντος δὲ τοῦ κακοῦ καὶ πάλιν τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν θρασυνομένων, εἰς τὸν ἀέρα Μωυσῆς τὴν ῥάβδον ἐκτείνει, κελεύσαντος τοῦ θεοῦ. κἄπειτ’ ἄνεμος καταράττει, νότος βιαιότατος, ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτα προσεπιτεινόμενος καὶ σφοδρυνόμενος, αὐτὸς καθ’ αὑτὸν ὢν μεγάλη ζημία· ξηρός τε γάρ ἐστι καὶ κεφαλαλγὴς καὶ βαρυήκοος, ἄσας τε καὶ ἀδημονίας ἐμποιεῖν ἱκανός, καὶ μάλιστ’ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ κειμένῃ κατὰ τὰ νότια, δι’ ὧν αἱ περιπολήσεις τῶν φωσφόρων ἀστέρων, ὡς ἅμα τῷ διακινηθῆναι τὸν ἀφ’ ἡλίου φλογμὸν συνεπωθεῖσθαι καὶ πάντα καίειν. (121) ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἅμ’ αὐτῷ καὶ πλῆθος ἀμήχανον ζῴων ἐπεφέρετο φθοροποιὸν φυτῶν, ἀκρίδες, αἳ ῥεύματος τρόπον ἀπαύστως ἐκχεόμεναι καὶ πάντα πληρώσασαι τὸν ἀέρα διέφαγον, ὅσα οἱ κεραυνοὶ ὑπελίποντο καὶ ἡ χάλαζα, ὡς μηδὲν ἐν τῇ τοσαύτῃ χώρᾳ βλαστάνον ἔτι θεωρεῖσθαι. (122) τότε μόλις εἰς ἀκριβεστάτην ἔννοιαν τῶν οἰκείων ἐλθόντες οἱ ἐν τέλει κακῶν προσελθόντες ἔλεγον τῷ βασιλεῖ· “μέχρι τίνος οὐκ ἐπιτρέπεις τὴν ἔξοδον τοῖς ἀνδράσιν; ἢ οὔπω μανθάνεις ἐκ τῶν γινομένων, ὅτι ἀπόλωλεν Αἴγυπτος;” ὁ δ’ ὅσα τῷ δοκεῖν ἐφιεὶς ὡμολόγει, χαλάσαντος τοῦ δεινοῦ. πάλιν δ’ εὐξαμένου Μωυσέως, ὑπολαβὼν ἐκ τῆς θαλάττης ἄνεμος ἀποσκίδνησι τὰς ἀκρίδας. (123) ἀνασκεδασθεισῶν δὲ καὶ τοῦ βασιλέως περὶ τὴν τοῦ ἔθνους ἄφεσιν δυσθανατοῦντος, ἐπιγίνεται τῶν πρότερον κακῶν μεῖζον· λαμπρᾶς γὰρ ἡμέρας οὔσης, ἐξαπιναίως ἀναχεῖται σκότος, ἴσως μὲν καὶ ἡλίου γενομένης ἐκλείψεως τῶν ἐν ἔθει τελειοτέρας, ἴσως δὲ καὶ συνεχείαις νεφῶν καὶ πυκνότησιν ἀδιαστάτοις καὶ πιλήσει βιαιοτάτῃ τῆς τῶν ἀκτίνων φορᾶς ἀνακοπείσης, ὡς ἀδιαφορεῖν ἡμέραν νυκτὸς καὶ τί γὰρ ἀλλ’ ἢ μίαν νύκτα νομίζεσθαι μακροτάτην τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἴσην καὶ ταῖς ἰσαρίθμοις νυξί.

XXI.120

On the Life of Moses I

137

(XXI) (120) When the disaster had abated and the king and his advisors once again grew bold, Moses raised his staff into the air at God’s command. And then a wind, very fierce and blowing from the south, fell upon them, intensifying and becoming more violent over the whole day and night, a great punishment in and of itself; for it is a dry wind, a source of headaches, and it made hearing difficult, and was enough to cause nausea and distress, especially in Egypt, which lies to the south, the region which the sun and planets105 move across in their orbits, with the result that together with the movement of the wind, the flame of the sun was pushed forward and burned everything. (121) But, along with the wind an unstoppable mob of creatures was inflicted as a source of destruction for plants—­locusts, which, pouring out unendingly like a stream and completely filling the air, consumed whatever the lightning and hail left behind so that nothing could still be seen to sprout in so large a country.106 (122) Then, with difficulty arriving at a very clear sense of their own misfortunes, the magistrates approached the king and asked, “How long will you refuse to grant these men their leave?107 Or have you still not learned from these events that Egypt has been ruined?” The king purported to relent and agree to the leave, if the danger abated. When Moses prayed again, a wind came up suddenly from the sea and dispersed the locusts. (123) When they were scattered and the king was obstinate about the release of the nation, there arose an evil greater than those before; during a bright day, darkness suddenly poured forth, perhaps because there was a more complete eclipse of the sun than usual, or perhaps because the force of the rays was checked by the uninterrupted sequence of dense, strongly compressed cloud cover, so that day was no different from night; what else is there but to think of it as one very long night equal to three days and the same number of nights. Literally the “light-­bringing stars.” The ancients considered planets a type of star and distinguished them from “fixed” stars by their motion and brightness. The climatic explanation Philo gives appears to be based on a theory of the polymath Eratosthenes (276–­194 BC). According to Eratosthenes, the earth is divided into five zones: a zone at both the north and south poles, which are frozen and uninhabitable, one uninhabitable scorched zone across the middle of the earth, and two temperate zones on either side of it between the scorched zone and frozen zones at the poles. The known world was situated in the northern temperate zone with Egypt being at its southernmost point, so that, as Philo describes here, when the south wind blows, it brings the extreme heat from the scorched zone to Egypt. 106 Moses’ warning to Pharaoh is again omitted. According to ExodLXX 10:13 an east wind brings the locusts. Philo has opted for a south wind to make the plague accord with God’s created natural order. 107 The magistrates pressure Pharaoh to allow the men to sacrifice (ἀνδράσιν). Though it goes without explanation here, at Exod 10:10–­11, Pharaoh agrees to allow the Hebrew men to go out and perform their sacrifice, but, since he is suspicious of their intentions, he explicitly refuses to allow the Hebrew women, children, and elderly to participate. 105

138

De vita Mosis I

XXI.124

(124) τότε δή φασι τοὺς μὲν ἐρριμμένους ἐν ταῖς εὐναῖς μὴ τολμᾶν ἐξανίστασθαι, τοὺς δ’ ὁπότε κατεπείγοι τι τῶν τῆς φύσεως ἀναγκαίων ἐπαφωμένους τοίχων ἤ τινος ἑτέρου καθάπερ τυφλοὺς μόλις προέρχεσθαι· καὶ γὰρ τοῦ χρειώδους πυρὸς τὸ φέγγος τὸ μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς κατεχούσης ζάλης ἐσβέννυτο, τὸ δὲ τῷ βάθει τοῦ σκότους ἀμαυρούμενον ἐνηφανίζετο, ὡς τὴν ἀναγκαιοτάτην ὄψιν τῶν αἰσθήσεων ὑγιαίνουσαν πηρὸν εἶναι μηδὲν ὁρᾶν δυναμένην, τετράφθαι δὲ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας οἷα ὑπηκόους πεσούσης τῆς ἡγεμονίδος· (125) οὔτε γὰρ λέγειν τις οὔτ’ ἀκούειν οὔτε προσενέγκασθαι τροφὰς ὑπέμενεν, ἀλλ’ ἡσυχίᾳ καὶ λιμῷ παρέτεινον αὑτοὺς οὐδεμιᾷ τῶν αἰσθήσεων σχολάζοντες, ἀλλ’ ὑπὸ τοῦ πάθους ὅλοι συνηρπασμένοι, μέχρι πάλιν Μωυσῆς λαβὼν οἶκτον ἱκετεύει τὸν θεόν· ὁ δὲ φῶς ἀντὶ σκότους καὶ ἡμέραν ἀντὶ νυκτὸς ἐργάζεται σὺν αἰθρίᾳ πολλῇ.

XXI.124

On the Life of Moses I

139

(124) In fact they say that at the time those who were lying in bed did not dare to get up, but others, whenever some necessity of nature pressed upon them, proceeded only with difficulty, feeling walls or anything else as if they were blind. Even the light from a man-­made fire108 was either extinguished by a prevailing storm or disappeared as it faded into the depth of the darkness; as a result, vision, the most vital of the senses, though healthy, was blind, since it was unable to see anything, and with their leader falling, the other senses, as if they were its subjects, were routed. (125) No one could bear to speak, listen, or eat, but they wore themselves out in hunger and silence, engaging none of their senses but remaining utterly in the grip of their suffering, until Moses again took pity on them and beseeched God, and He brought about light in place of darkness and day in place of night with clear weather all around.

108 Literally a “useful fire.” At Her. 136 Philo distinguishes between valuable but destructive “useful fire,” which is essentially fire as one normally thinks of it, and the preserving fire that comprises the heavens. The notion of the two fires is Stoic (Zeno claimed the “creative” fire comprised stars as well as the souls of living beings). Philo speaks of a “useful” fire in the Se vita Mosis to make clear that without the preserving heavenly fire of the sun, the “useful” fire under human control (i.e., torches and the like) was insufficient to pierce the darkness, thus affirming God’s power and human dependance on it.

140

❡

De vita Mosis I

XXII.126

(XXII) (126) Τοιαύτας φασὶ γενέσθαι καὶ τὰς διὰ μόνου Μωυσέως ἐπιπλήξεις, τὴν διὰ χαλάζης καὶ κεραυνῶν, τὴν διὰ τῆς ἀκρίδος, τὴν διὰ σκότους, ὃ πᾶσαν ἰδέαν φωτὸς οὐ παρεδέχετο· κοινῇ δ’ αὐτός τε καὶ ὁ ἀδελφὸς μίαν ἐπετράπησαν, ἣν αὐτίκα σημανῶ. (127) κελεύσαντος τοῦ θεοῦ, τέφραν ἀπὸ καμίνου λαμβάνουσι ταῖς χερσίν, ἣν Μωυσῆς κατὰ μέρος εἰς τὸν ἀέρα διέπαττεν· ἔπειτα κονιορτὸς αἰφνίδιον ἐπενεχθεὶς ἀνθρώποις τε καὶ ἀλόγοις ζῴοις ἀγρίαν καὶ δυσαλγῆ κατὰ τῆς δορᾶς ἁπάσης ἕλκωσιν εἰργάζετο καὶ τὰ σώματα εὐθὺς συνῴδει ταῖς ἐξανθήσεσιν ὑποπύους ἔχοντα φλυκταίνας, ἃς ἐτόπασεν ἄν τις ἀφανῶς ὑποκαιομένας ἀναζεῖν. (128) ἀλγηδόσι τε καὶ περιωδυνίαις κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἐκ τῆς ἑλκώσεως καὶ φλογώσεως πιεζόμενοι μᾶλλον ἢ οὐχ ἧττον τῶν σωμάτων τὰς ψυχὰς ἔκαμνον ἐκτετρυχωμένοι ταῖς ἀνίαις—­ἓν γὰρ ἄν τις ἀπὸ κεφαλῆς ἄχρι ποδῶν συνεχὲς ἕλκος ἐθεάσατο, τῶν κατὰ μέλος καὶ μέρος διεσπαρμένων εἰς μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἰδέαν ἀποκριθέντων—­, ἕως πάλιν ἱκεσίαις τοῦ νομοθέτου, ἃς ὑπὲρ τῶν πασχόντων ἐποιήσατο, ἡ νόσος ῥᾴων ἐγένετο. (129) κοινῇ μέντοι τὴν νουθεσίαν ταύτην ἐπετράπησαν δεόντως, ὁ μὲν ἀδελφὸς διὰ τὸν ἐπενεχθέντα κονιορτόν, ἐπεὶ τῶν ἀπὸ γῆς συμβαινόντων τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἔλαχε, Μωυσῆς δὲ διὰ τὸν ἀέρα μεταβαλόντα πρὸς κάκωσιν τῶν οἰκητόρων· ταῖς δ’ ἀπ’ ἀέρος καὶ οὐρανοῦ πληγαῖς οὗτος ὑπηρέτει.

XXII.126

On the Life of Moses I

141

(XXII) (126) Such they say were the punishments brought on through Moses alone, the one with hail and lightening, the one with locusts, and the one with darkness that did not admit any form of light. Moses and his brother were also entrusted with one punishment in common, which I will explain next. (127) At God’s command, the two took in their hands ashes from a furnace, which Moses scattered into the air piecemeal; then a sudden dust cloud was inflicted upon both people and dumb animals and brought about harsh and very painful ulcerations over every creature’s skin; straightaway their bodies were swelling with pustules and had festering blisters that one might suppose had broken out when they were inflamed internally. (128) In all likelihood being weighed down with suffering and great pain from the ulcerations and inflammation, they strained their souls more, or not less, than their bodies and became exhausted with grief—­for one would have seen a single continuous wound from head to foot, with the blisters scattered over each limb and body part, taking one and the same form109—­until, again, through the prayers of the lawgiver, which he performed on behalf of those suffering, the sickness became lighter. (129) In fact it was appropriate that they were together entrusted with this admonition, his brother because of the dust cloud that was included, since he held charge over things pertaining to earth, and Moses because the air changed for the inhabitants to suffer, and he was attending to punishments made from air and heaven.

109 Philo’s description of the extent of the wounds is a bit more clinical and certainly more detailed than the biblical account. He also omits a biblical observation that the magicians could not stand before Moses because of their wounds (Exod 9:11), though it may form the basis for his claims about the debilitating effects of the boils.

142

❡

De vita Mosis I

XXIII.130

(XXIII) (130) Λοιπαὶ δὲ τιμωρίαι τρεῖς εἰσιν αὐτουργηθεῖσαι δίχα τῆς ἀνθρώπων ὑπηρεσίας, ὧν κατὰ μίαν ἑκάστην, ὡς ἂν οἷόν τε ᾖ, δηλώσω. πρώτη δ’ ἐστὶν ἡ γενομένη διὰ ζῴου τῶν ἐν τῇ φύσει πάντων θρασυτάτου, κυνομυίας, ἣν ἐτύμως ἐκάλεσαν οἱ θετικοὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων—­σοφοὶ γὰρ ἦσαν—­ἐκ τῶν ἀναιδεστάτων ζῴων συνθέντες τοὔνομα, μυίας καὶ κυνός, τοῦ μὲν τῶν χερσαίων θρασυτάτου, τῆς δὲ τῶν πτηνῶν· ἐπιφοιτῶσι γὰρ καὶ ἐπιτρέχουσιν ἀδεῶς, κἂν ἀνείργῃ τις, εἰς τὸ ἀήττητον ἀντιφιλονεικοῦσιν, ἄχρις ἂν αἵματος καὶ σαρκῶν κορεσθῶσιν. (131) ἡ δὲ κυνόμυια τὴν ἀφ’ ἑκατέρου τόλμαν προσειληφυῖα δηκτικὸν καὶ ἐπίβουλον ζῷόν ἐστι· καὶ γὰρ πόρρωθεν μετὰ ῥοίζου καθάπερ βέλος εἰσακοντίζεται καὶ ἐπεμπίπτουσα βιαίως εὖ μάλα ἐγχρίμπτεται. (132) τότε δὲ καὶ θεήλατος ἦν ἡ προσβολή, ὡς δεδιπλασιάσθαι τὴν ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐπιβουλὴν οὐκέτι μόνον τοῖς φυσικοῖς κεχρημένης πλεονεκτήμασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἐκ θείας ἐπιφροσύνης, ἣ τὸ ζῷον ὥπλιζε καὶ πρὸς ἀλκὴν ἀνήγειρε κατὰ τῶν ἐγχωρίων. (133) μετὰ τὴν κυνόμυιαν εἵπετο τιμωρία πάλιν ἄνευ συμπράξεως ἀνθρωπίνης, βοσκημάτων θάνατος· βουκόλια γὰρ καὶ αἰπόλια καὶ ποίμνια μεγάλα καὶ ὅσαι ὑποζυγίων καὶ ἄλλων θρεμμάτων ἰδέαι πᾶσαι μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ, ὡς ἀφ’ ἑνὸς συνθήματος, ἀγεληδὸν διεφθείροντο, τὴν ἀνθρώπων ἀπώλειαν, ἣ μικρὸν ὕστερον ἔμελλε γίνεσθαι, προμηνύουσαι καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς λοιμώδεσι νόσοις· λέγεται γὰρ προάγων τις εἶναι λοιμικῶν ἀρρωστημάτων ἡ ζῴων ἀλόγων αἰφνίδιος φθορά.

XXIII.130

On the Life of Moses I

143

(XXIII) (130) The three remaining penalties were self-­fulfilled without human assistance, and I will explain each of these one at a time as much as possible. First is the penalty coming about through the most insolent of all creatures in nature, the dog-­fly, which was rightly termed by those apt at providing names—­for they were wise—­devising the name from the most shameful creatures, the fly and the dog, the one the most insolent creature on land, the other, of those that fly; for they keep coming around and fly in close without fear, and if someone drives them back, invincibly they wrangle against him until they glut themselves on blood and flesh. (131) The dog-­fly, which has assumed the recklessness of both dog and fly, is a stinging, treacherous creature; with a buzzing sound it hurls itself from a distance like an arrow and strikes in a very violent assault. (132) But at that time the attack was divinely sent, so that the creature’s treachery was doubled, no longer employing only its natural rapaciousness but also that bestowed by divine wisdom, which armed the creature and roused it mightily against those indigenous to the land. (133) After the dog-­fly, a punishment followed that was again without human assistance: the death of livestock. Large herds of cattle, goats, sheep, and whatever other types of creatures serve as beasts of burden, as if at a single sign, all perished by the herd in one day, foreshadowing the loss of people that would come to pass soon after, just as happens in plagues. For the sudden perishing of unreasoning animals is said to be something that precedes a destructive epidemic.110

110 Philo’s ordering of the plagues allows him not only to group them by their associated elements and agents (Aaron’s plagues of earth and water, Moses’ plagues of air and heaven, their shared plague of boils, and the three wrought by God alone) but also to add to their rationality: epidemics among people are naturally preceded by deaths among animals.

144

De vita Mosis I

XXIV.134

(XXIV) (134) μεθ’ ἣν ἡ δεκάτη καὶ τελευταία δίκη πάσας ὑπερβάλλουσα τὰς προτέρας ἐπεγένετο, θάνατος Αἰγυπτίων οὔτε πάντων—­οὐ γὰρ ἐρημῶσαι τὴν χώραν προῃρεῖτο ὁ θεὸς ἀλλὰ νουθετῆσαι μόνον—­οὔτε τῶν πλείστων ἀνδρῶν ὁμοῦ καὶ γυναικῶν ἐξ ἁπάσης ἡλικίας, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῆν ἐφιεὶς μόνων τῶν πρωτοτόκων καταψηφίζεται θάνατον ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρεσβυτάτου τῶν βασιλέως παίδων καὶ λήξας εἰς τὸν τῆς ἀφανεστάτης ἀλετρίδος. (135) περὶ γὰρ μέσας νύκτας οἱ πρῶτοι πατέρας καὶ μητέρας προσειπόντες καὶ ὑπ’ ἐκείνων υἱοὶ πάλιν πρῶτον ὀνομασθέντες ὑγιαίνοντες καὶ τὰ σώματα ἐρρωμένοι πάντες ἀπ’ οὐδεμιᾶς προφάσεως ἡβηδὸν ἐξαπιναίως ἀνῄρηντο καὶ οὐδεμίαν οἰκίαν ἀμοιρῆσαί φασι τότε τῆς συμφορᾶς. (136) ἅμα δὲ τῇ ἕῳ κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἕκαστοι θεασάμενοι τοὺς φιλτάτους ἀπροσδοκήτως τετελευτηκότας, οἷς ὁμοδίαιτοι καὶ ὁμοτράπεζοι μέχρι τῆς ἑσπέρας ἐγεγένηντο, βαρυτάτῳ πένθει κατασχεθέντες οἰμωγῆς πάντα ἐνέπλησαν, ὥστε συνέβη καὶ διὰ τὴν κοινοπραγίαν τοῦ πάθους ἁπάντων ἀθρόως ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐκβοησάντων ἕνα θρῆνον ἀπὸ περάτων ἐπὶ πέρατα κατὰ πάσης τῆς χώρας συνηχῆσαι. (137) καὶ μέχρι μὲν ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις διέτριβον, ἀγνοῶν ἕκαστος τὸ τοῦ πλησίον κακὸν ἐπὶ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ μόνον ἔστενε, προελθὼν δὲ καὶ γνοὺς τὰ τῶν ἄλλων διπλοῦν πένθος πρὸς τῷ ἰδίῳ καὶ τὸ κοινὸν εὐθὺς ἐλάμβανεν, ἐπ’ ἐλάττονι καὶ κουφοτέρῳ μεῖζον καὶ βαρύτερον, ἅτε καὶ τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς παραμυθίας ἀφῃρημένος· τίς γὰρ ἔμελλε παρηγορεῖν ἕτερον αὐτὸς ὢν τοῦδε χρεῖος; (138) ὅπερ δ’ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις φιλεῖ, τὰ παρόντα νομίσαντες ἀρχὴν εἶναι μειζόνων καὶ περὶ τῆς τῶν ἔτι ζώντων ἀπωλείας καταδείσαντες συνέδραμον εἰς τὰ βασίλεια δεδακρυμένοι καὶ τὰς ἐσθῆτας περιερρηγμένοι κατεβόων τε τοῦ βασιλέως ὡς πάντων αἰτίου τῶν συμβεβηκότων δεινῶν.

XXIV.134

On the Life of Moses I

145

(XXIV) (134) After this, the tenth and final penalty, which exceeded all those before it, befell them: the death of the Egyptians, though not all of them—­for God did not choose to leave the land desolate but only to chastise it—­nor of the majority of men and women from each generation, but while allowing the rest to live, he pronounced death for the firstborn only, beginning with the eldest of the king’s children and going down to the firstborn of the most obscure slave woman.111 (135) At about midnight those who were the first to call their fathers and mothers by those names and who were first called sons by them in turn, though all were healthy and strong-­bodied, they suddenly died, young and old, without cause, and they say that at that time no house was without a share of the misfortune. (136) With the coming of dawn, undoubtedly everyone seeing their loved ones unexpectedly dead, together with whom they had spent time and dined until evening, were seized by a very heavy grief, and everything around them was filled with wailing, so that it came about precisely through the shared grief of all, crying out collectively and with one accord, that a single lament resounded throughout the whole country from one side to the other. (137) As long as they remained in their homes, everyone was ignorant of their neighbor’s misfortune and only lamented their own, but when they went out and recognized how things stood with everyone else, they immediately received double the grief—­a shared one, greater and heavier, in addition to their lighter and easier personal grief—­since they had lost even the hope of consolation.112 Who would console another when he himself had this very need? (138) As usually happens in such situations, believing that present circumstances were the beginning of greater things and terrified over losing those who were still alive, the Egyptians assembled at the palace in tears and with garments torn and kept crying out against the king as the cause of all the terrible occurrences.113 111 In section 145 below Philo makes clear that no Hebrews died. He makes no mention whatsoever of the Passover events in Exod 11–­12:28 that lead up to the death of the Egyptian firstborn. Several possible reasons for the omission present themselves: (1) he may have feared that certain elements of the biblical account (e.g., spreading of blood on the doorposts) would seem like irrational superstition to gentile readers; (2) he may have considered the Passover events outside the scope of the current narrative, which is primarily concerned with Moses’ role as king, not high priest; (3) he may have wanted to keep the final plague focused on displaying God’s power. Philo offers allegorical explanations of Passover events at QE 1.1–­23. See also Migr. 25; Sacr. 63. 112 Philo’s description of the Egyptians’ excessive show of grief has parallels with Aeschylus’ Persians (Niehoff, Jewish Identity, 57). It also accords with Philo’s frequent depiction of Egyptians as symbols of the irrational passions. 113 Philo’s extrabiblical speculation about the grief of the Egyptians heightens their anguish as they turn their anger against Pharoah. At Exod 12:30–­32, it is Pharaoh himself who sends the Hebrews away during the night; there is no crowd that comes to reproach him.

146

De vita Mosis I

XXIV.139

(139) εἰ γάρ, ἔλεγον, εὐθὺς ἐν ἀρχῇ Μωυσέως ἐντυχόντος εἴασεν ἐξελθεῖν τὸ ἔθνος, οὐδενὸς ἂν τῶν γεγονότων πειραθῆναι τὸ παράπαν· εἴξαντος δ’ αὐθαδείᾳ τῇ συνήθει, τὰ ἐπίχειρα τῆς ἀκαίρου φιλονεικίας ἐξ ἑτοίμου λαβεῖν. εἶτ’ ἄλλος ἄλλον παρεκάλει τὸν λεὼν μετὰ πάσης σπουδῆς ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς χώρας ἐξελαύνειν, καὶ τὸ μίαν ἡμέραν μᾶλλον δὲ ὥραν αὐτὸ μόνον κατασχεῖν πρὸς ἀνήκεστον τιμωρίαν τιθέμενοι.

XXIV.139

On the Life of Moses I

147

(139) For they said if he had allowed the Hebrew nation to leave straightaway in the beginning when Moses made his petition, they would not have experienced any of these events at all, but, since he gave way to his usual stubbornness, they promptly paid the price for his intransigent contentiousness. Then they kept demanding of each other that the people be driven out of the land entirely with all haste, believing that keeping them back for a single day, or rather only for an hour, would bring fatal vengeance.114

114 “Philo (Mos. 1.139), apparently aware of the almost unanimous view that the Israelites were expelled, adopts an intermediate position between expulsion by the Egyptians and departure on their own initiative” (Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 109–­10). For ancient traditions that claimed the Jews were expelled from Egypt for being lepers, see the introduction, p. 32.

148

De vita Mosis I

XXV.140

(XXV) (140) οἱ δ’ ἐλαυνόμενοι καὶ διωκόμενοι τῆς αὑτῶν εὐγενείας εἰς ἔννοιαν ἐλθόντες τόλμημα τολμῶσιν, ὁποῖον εἰκὸς ἦν τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ μὴ ἀμνήμονας ὧν ἐπεβουλεύθησαν ἀδίκως. (141) πολλὴν γὰρ λείαν ἐκφορήσαντες τὴν μὲν αὐτοὶ διεκόμιζον ἐπηχθισμένοι, τὴν δὲ τοῖς ὑποζυγίοις ἐπέθεσαν, οὐ διὰ φιλοχρηματίαν ἤ, ὡς ἄν τις κατηγορῶν εἴποι, τὴν τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἐπιθυμίαν—­πόθεν;—­ἀ λλὰ πρῶτον μὲν ὧν παρὰ πάντα τὸν χρόνον ὑπηρέτησαν ἀναγκαῖον μισθὸν κομιζόμενοι, εἶτα δὲ ὑπὲρ ὧν κατεδουλώθησαν ἐν ἐλάττοσι καὶ οὐχὶ τοῖς ἴσοις ἀντιλυποῦντες· ποῦ γάρ ἐσθ’ ὅμοιον ζημία χρημάτων καὶ στέρησις ἐλευθερίας, ὑπὲρ ἧς οὐ μόνον προΐεσθαι τὰς οὐσίας οἱ νοῦν ἔχοντες ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀποθνῄσκειν ἐθέλουσιν; (142) ἐν ἑκατέρῳ δὴ κατώρθουν, εἴθ’ ὡς ἐν εἰρήνῃ μισθὸν λαμβάνοντες, ὃν παρ’ ἀκόντων πολὺν χρόνον οὐκ ἀποδιδόντων ἀπεστεροῦντο, εἴθ’ ὡς ἐν πολέμῳ τὰ τῶν ἐχθρῶν φέρειν ἀξιοῦντες νόμῳ τῶν κεκρατηκότων· οἱ μὲν γὰρ χειρῶν ἦρξαν ἀδίκων, ξένους καὶ ἱκέτας, ὡς ἔφην πρότερον, καταδουλωσάμενοι τρόπον αἰχμαλώτων, οἱ δὲ καιροῦ παραπεσόντος ἠμύναντο δίχα τῆς ἐν ὅπλοις παρασκευῆς, προασπίζοντος καὶ τὴν χεῖρα ὑπερέχοντος τοῦ δικαίου.

XXV.140

On the Life of Moses I

149

(XXV) (140) The Hebrews, being driven out and banished from the land, came to an awareness of their own noble lineage and dared an act of the sort that was reasonable for free people who were not heedless of those who had unjustly targeted them. (141) They made off with much plunder—­some they took up and carried off themselves, and some they put on pack animals—­and this they did not because of a love of money or, as some accuser might say, out of a desire for others’ possessions—­nonsense!—­but in the first place they were carrying off the minimum wage for their work for the entire time that they were rendering service, and then in a lesser, unequal way they were tormenting in return those to whom they were enslaved; for how are they the same, the loss of money and the privation of freedom, for which anyone of sense not only gives up his property but is even willing to die?115 (142) In fact they were successful on both counts, either receiving, as in a time of peace, a wage of which they had been robbed by people long refusing to render it or, as in a time of war, thinking it appropriate to plunder the goods of their enemies according to the custom for victors.116 The Egyptians began from worse injustices, as I mentioned before, when they reduced guests and suppliants to slavery like captives, but, when the opportunity came upon them, the Hebrews avenged themselves without taking up arms, since justice held forth its shield and kept them under its protecting hand.117 115 Exod 12:35–­36 states that the Hebrews asked the Egyptians for gold and silver objects and garments. They received them because God granted them favor before the Egyptians, and thus they plundered the Egyptians. As Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 110–­11, notes, this act of plundering could redound poorly on the Hebrews and be seen as an opportunity for slander by their opponents, such as Lysimachus (see the introduction, p. 33). Already in Ezekiel the Tragedian, the plundering is justified as payment for all the labor performed by the Hebrews (Exagoge 162–­66). Philo adds to Ezekiel’s justification by asserting that it was a punishment far less than the Egyptians deserved and asserting the preciousness of freedom, which continues the comparison of the Hebrews to the Greeks during the Persian War (on which see Niehoff, Jewish Identity, 53–­58). In any case, Philo is clearly at pains to protect the virtue of the Hebrew people. 116 Philo offers two justifications for plundering the Egyptians: (1) as wages for services rendered and (2) as a just act in war. The two seem mutually exclusive and, perhaps, are to be explained by Philo’s accepting the first justification from other sources (it is already present in Ezekiel the Tragedian) and inventing the second based on contemporary events. The desire for some sort of “peaceful vengeance” after suffering defeat in war is a sentiment particularly suited to a period after 40 AD, when Claudius threatened Roman intervention if there were any more disturbances in Alexandria. The notion that the Hebrews were at war with the Egyptians would surely have had less resonance before 38  AD and perhaps could even have recalled Manetho’s unflattering account of Moses and the Exodus. 117 This section returns to the persistent issue of the proper treatment of foreigners. Philo continues to characterize the Hebrews as “suppliants,” which perhaps better describes the sizeable contingent of Jews brought to Egypt as captives in the third century BC than their biblical migration to Egypt in the time of Joseph.

150

❡

De vita Mosis I

XXVI.143

(XXVI) (143) Τοσαύταις μὲν δὴ πληγαῖς καὶ τιμωρίαις Αἴγυπτος ἐνουθετεῖτο, ὧν οὐδεμία τῶν  Ἑβραίων καίτοι γε ἐν ταῖς αὐταῖς πόλεσι καὶ κώμαις καὶ οἰκίαις συνδιατριβόντων ἥψατο, γῆς ὕδατος ἀέρος πυρός, ἃ μέρη τῆς φύσεώς ἐστιν, ἣν ἀμήχανον ἐκφυγεῖν, ἐπιθεμένων· ὃ δὴ καὶ παραδοξότατον ἦν, ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον καὶ χρόνον τοὺς μὲν διαφθείρεσθαι, τοὺς δὲ σῴζεσθαι. (144) ὁ ποταμὸς εἰς αἷμα μετέβαλεν, ἀλλ’ οὐχ  Ἑβραίοις· ἡνίκα γὰρ βουληθεῖεν ἀρύσασθαι, τροπὴν ἐλάμβανεν εἰς πότιμον. βάτραχος ἐκ τῶν ὑδάτων ἐπὶ τὴν χέρσον ἀνερπύσας ἀγορὰς καὶ ἐπαύλεις καὶ οἰκίας ἐπλήρωσεν, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῶν  Ἑβραίων ἐξανεχώρει μόνων καθάπερ διακρίνειν ἐπιστάμενος, οὕς τε χρὴ κολάζεσθαι καὶ τοὐναντίον. (145) οὐ σκνίπες, οὐ κυνόμυια, οὐκ ἀκρίς, ἣ καὶ φυτὰ καὶ καρποὺς καὶ ζῷα καὶ ἀνθρώπους μεγάλα ἔβλαψε, τούτοις προσέπτησαν· οὐχ ὑετῶν, οὐ χαλάζης, οὐ κεραυνῶν αἱ γενόμεναι συνεχεῖς φοραὶ μέχρι τούτων ἔφθασαν· ἑλκώσεως τῆς ἀργαλεωτάτης εἰς τὸ παθεῖν οὐδ’ ὄναρ ἐπῄσθοντο· βαθυτάτου σκότους τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀναχυθέντος, ἐν αὐγῇ καθαρᾷ διήγαγον, τοῦ ἡμερησίου φωτὸς ἐπιλάμποντος· ἀναιρουμένων τῶν παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις πρωτοτόκων, ἐτελεύτησεν  Ἑβραῖος οὐδείς· οὐδὲ γὰρ εἰκὸς ἦν, ὁπότε καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀμυθήτων φθορὰ θρεμμάτων οὐδεμίαν τῶν παρὰ τούτοις ἀγέλην συνεπεσπάσατο πρὸς ἀπώλειαν. (146) καί μοί τις δοκεῖ παρατυχὼν τοῖς γενομένοις κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν μηδὲν ἂν ἄλλο νομίσαι τοὺς  Ἑβραίους ἢ θεατὰς ὧν ἕτεροι κακῶν ὑπέμενον καὶ οὐ μόνον ***, ἀλλὰ καὶ μαθημάτων τὸ κάλλιστον καὶ ὠφελιμώτατον ἀναδιδασκομένους, εὐσέβειαν· οὐ γάρ ποθ’ οὕτως ἡ τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν κρίσις ἐμφανῶς ἦλθε τοῖς μὲν φθορὰν τοῖς δὲ σωτηρίαν παρασχοῦσα.

XXVI.143

On the Life of Moses I

151

(XXVI) (143) Indeed, Egypt was chastised by these great blows and punishments, none of which touched the Hebrews, and yet they lived together with the Egyptians in the same cities, villages, and households,118 when earth, water, air, and fire—­the components of nature, which one may not escape—­attacked. But what in fact was most incredible was that in the same place and at the same time the Egyptians were destroyed, and the Hebrews saved, by the same means. (144) The river changed to blood, but not for the Hebrews, since whenever they wanted to draw water for themselves, it turned into potable water. Frogs that crept up from the waters onto land filled marketplaces, villages, and homes, but they moved aside only for the Hebrews as if they knew how to discern who needed to be punished and who not. (145) Gnats, dog-­flies, and locusts, which caused great harm to plants, crops, animals, and people—­none came upon the Hebrews; the unremitting force of rain, hail, and lightning never reached them; not even in their dreams did they experience an ulceration, an extremely painful thing to bear; when the deepest darkness engulfed everyone else, they continued on in clear light as daylight shone upon them. When the firstborn among the Egyptians perished, no Hebrew died; for that would not have been fitting, when even the loss of untold livestock did not draw any of their herds into destruction. (146) It seems to me that anyone present for the events of that time would not see the Hebrews as anything other than spectators of the misfortunes that others endured and not only 119 but also learned anew the most noble and useful of lessons: piety. For never did the judgement of good and evil come so clearly, bringing destruction to one people and deliverance to another.

118 At GenLXX 45:9–­10, Joseph sends for his father, Jacob, so he and his people can settle in the land of Goshen (Γεσέμ). Exod 8:18 indicates that the plague of flies will not touch the land of Goshen, where God’s people live, and 9:26 confirms that no hail will fall on Goshen. Philo never mentions Goshen and, on the contrary, clearly states here that the Hebrews lived alongside the Egyptians; not only does this reflect the circumstances of Jews in his own day, but it also avoids any similarity to Manetho’s account of the Jews being rounded up as lepers and confined to one area, the city of Auaris, whence under Moses’ leadership they attacked Egypt. 119 The text contains a lacuna at this point. A passage from Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 1.23.157), with an apparent borrowing of this line from the De vita Mosis, provides a possible reading: θεαταὶ δὲ Ἑβραῖοι ἐγίνοντο ὧν ἕτεροι κακῶν ὑπέμενον  ἀκινδύνως ἐκμανθάνοντες τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ θεοῦ (But the Hebrews were spectators of the misfortunes others endured, learning full well the power of God while free from danger).

152

❡

De vita Mosis I

XXVII.147

(XXVII) (147) Τῶν δ’ ἐξιόντων καὶ μετανισταμένων οἱ μὲν ἀνδρὸς ἔχοντες ἡλικίαν ὑπὲρ ἑξήκοντα μυριάδας ἦσαν, ὁ δ’ ἄλλος ὅμιλος πρεσβυτῶν, παίδων, γυναικῶν οὐ ῥᾴδιος ἀριθμηθῆναι· μιγάδων δὲ καὶ συγκλύδων καὶ θεραπείας ὄχλος συνεξῆλθεν ὡσανεὶ νόθον μετὰ γνησίου πλήθους· οὗτοι δ’ ἦσαν οἱ ἐκ γυναικῶν γεννηθέντες Αἰγυπτίων τοῖς  Ἑβραίοις καὶ τῷ πατρῴῳ γένει προσνεμηθέντες καὶ ὅσοι τὸ θεοφιλὲς ἀγάμενοι τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐπηλύται ἐγένοντο καὶ εἰ δή τινες τῷ μεγέθει καὶ πλήθει τῶν ἐπαλλήλων κολάσεων μετεβάλοντο σωφρονισθέντες. (148) τούτων ἁπάντων ἡγεμὼν ἐχειροτονεῖτο Μωυσῆς τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ βασιλείαν λαβὼν οὐχ ὥσπερ ἔνιοι τῶν ἐπὶ τὰς δυναστείας ὠθουμένων ὅπλοις καὶ μηχανήμασιν ἱππικαῖς τε καὶ πεζικαῖς καὶ ναυτικαῖς δυνάμεσιν, ἀλλ’ ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα καὶ καλοκἀγαθίας καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἅπαντας εὐνοίας, ᾗ χρώμενος ἀεὶ διετέλει, καὶ προσέτι καὶ τοῦ φιλαρέτου καὶ φιλοκάλου θεοῦ γέρας ἄξιον αὐτῷ παρασχόντος.

XXVII.147

On the Life of Moses I

153

(XXVII) (147) When the Hebrews left and emigrated, the number of men who had reached full adulthood was over six hundred thousand, but the rest of the population of the elderly, children, and women are not easy to number; a crowd comprising a menial escort and rabble of all kinds accompanied them, a bastard crowd, as it were, with a legitimate one.120 The people in the bastard crowd were those born to Hebrew men from Egyptian women and considered to belong to their father’s race; anyone who became a convert121 out of their wonder at the divine favor shown to the Hebrews;122 and those who actually123 converted after being brought to their senses by the magnitude and quantity of incessant punishments. (148) Moses124 was appointed leader of them all, obtaining the rulership and kingdom not as some do, who push forward against the ruling authorities with strength of arms, siege machines, and troops of cavalry, infantry, and naval forces, but because of his virtue, nobility, and benevolence, which he always persisted in showing to everyone and, what is more, because God, who loves virtue and noble character, bestowed it upon him as a fitting reward.125 120 Exod 12:37–­38 puts the number of men at six hundred thousand. The language of legitimacy and illegitimacy used of the crowds recalls the same issue in Moses’ upbringing: Pharaoh’s daughter feigned pregnancy to make Moses a legitimate Egyptian, Moses naturally deemed his ancestral ways legitimate in contrast to those of his Egyptian family, and now comes the final assertion of the racial and moral legitimacy of the Hebrews in contrast to the lesser, bastard crowd of non-­Hebrews. By contrast, the Septuagint simply calls the non-­Hebrew group “mixed” (ἐπίμικτος). Philo and the later rabbinic tradition both have a decidedly negative view of the group that accompanies the Hebrews (see McKnight, “Lion Proselytes,” 58–­62). 121 The Greek word ἐπιλύτης means “stranger,” though Philo elsewhere clearly uses it to designate a convert (see Spec. 1.52; Virt. 102). 122 Philo leaves “to the Hebrews” implicit. 123 The particle δή adds a touch of scorn that suggests Philo is skeptical about this possibility. Philo nevertheless includes Egyptian converts in the Hebrew ranks. Though Philo certainly does not proselytize, he makes clear at several points in his writings that converts should be welcomed (e.g., Spec. 1.52). At Virt. 105–­8, Philo even encourages Jews to welcome Egyptian converts. 124 In the following sections, Philo describes Moses’ qualifications as a perfect king and ideal ruler. Meeks, Prophet-King, 108, divides the justifications for Moses’ rule into three categories: the haggadic (i.e., based on rabbinic commentary of narrative biblical text), the philosophical, and the mystical. 125 Stobaeus, Anthology 4.7.62 preserves a fragment of the Pythagorean Diotogenes’ treatise On Kingship that contains similar criteria for a good king: “[The king] must be superior to others in virtue and be deemed worthy to rule because of it, but not because of wealth, power, or strength of arms; for the first he has in common with ordinary men, the second with irrational animals, and that third with tyrants, but virtue belongs only to good men.” This passage may reflect a broader notion of kingship in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Meeks, Prophet-King, 109–­10, considers this part of Philo’s philosophical justification for Philo’s kingship.

154

De vita Mosis I

XXVII.149

(149) ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὴν Αἰγύπτου κατέλιπεν ἡγεμονίαν, θυγατριδοῦς τοῦ τότε βασιλεύοντος ὤν, ἕνεκα τῶν κατὰ τὴν χώραν γινομένων ἀδικημάτων πολλὰ χαίρειν φράσας ταῖς ἀπὸ τῶν θεμένων ἐλπίσι διὰ ψυχῆς εὐγένειαν καὶ φρονήματος μέγεθος καὶ τὸ μισοπόνηρον φύσει, τῷ πρυτανεύοντι καὶ ἐπιμελουμένῳ τῶν ὅλων ἔδοξεν αὐτὸν ἀμείψασθαι βασιλείᾳ πολυανθρωποτέρου καὶ κρείττονος ἔθνους, ὅπερ ἔμελλεν ἐξ ἁπάντων τῶν ἄλλων ἱερᾶσθαι τὰς ὑπὲρ τοῦ γένους τῶν ἀνθρώπων αἰεὶ ποιησόμενον εὐχὰς ὑπέρ τε κακῶν ἀποτροπῆς καὶ μετουσίας ἀγαθῶν. (150) παραλαβὼν δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν οὐχ ὥσπερ ἔνιοι τὸν ἴδιον αὔξειν οἶκον καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς—­δύο γὰρ ἦσαν αὐτῷ—­προάγειν ἐπὶ μέγα δυνάμεως ἐσπούδασεν, ὡς ἐν μὲν τῷ παρόντι κοινωνοὺς αὖθις δὲ καὶ διαδόχους ἀποφῆναι· γνώμῃ γὰρ ἀδόλῳ καὶ καθαρᾷ πρὸς πάντα μικρά τε αὖ καὶ μεγάλα χρώμενος τὴν φυσικὴν πρὸς τὰ τέκνα φιλοστοργίαν οἷα κριτὴς ἀγαθὸς ἐνίκα τῷ περὶ τὸν λογισμὸν ἀδεκάστῳ. (151) προὔκειτο γὰρ ἓν αὐτῷ τέλος ἀναγκαιότατον, ὀνῆσαι τοὺς ἀρχομένους καὶ πάνθ’ ὑπὲρ τῆς τούτων ὠφελείας ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ πραγματεύεσθαι, μηδένα παραλιπόντι καιρὸν τῶν συντεινόντων εἰς κοινὴν κατόρθωσιν. (152) μόνος οὗτος τῶν πώποθ’ ἡγεμονευσάντων οὐ χρυσὸν οὐκ ἄργυρον ἐθησαυρίσατο, οὐ δασμοὺς ἐξέλεξεν, οὐκ οἰκίας, οὐ κτήματα, οὐ θρέμματα, οὐ θεραπείαν οἰκετικήν, οὐ προσόδους, οὐκ ἄλλο τῶν εἰς πολυτέλειαν καὶ περιουσίαν οὐδὲν ἐκτήσατο, καίτοι πάντων ἔχειν ἀφθονίαν δυνάμενος· (153) ἀλλ’ ὑπολαβὼν πενίας ψυχικῆς ἔργον εἶναι τὸν ἐν ταῖς ὕλαις ἀποδέχεσθαι πλοῦτον τοῦ μὲν ὡς τυφλοῦ κατεφρόνησε, τὸν δὲ βλέποντα τῆς φύσεως ἐξετίμησε καὶ ζηλωτὴς ὡς οὐκ οἶδ’ εἴ τις ἕτερος αὐτοῦ γενόμενος ἐν μὲν ἐσθῆσι καὶ τροφαῖς καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς περὶ δίαιταν οὐδὲν ἐπιτραγῳδῶν πρὸς σεμνότερον ὄγκον εὐτέλειαν καὶ εὐκολίαν ἐπετήδευεν ἰδιώτου, πολυτέλειαν δὲ τῷ ὄντι βασιλικὴν ἐν οἷς καλὸν ἦν πλεονεκτεῖν τὸν ἄρχοντα· (154) ταῦτα δ’ ἦσαν ἐγκράτειαι, καρτερίαι, σωφροσύναι, ἀγχίνοιαι, συνέσεις, ἐπιστῆμαι, πόνοι, κακοπάθειαι, ἡδονῶν ὑπεροψίαι, δικαιοσύναι, προτροπαὶ πρὸς τὰ βέλτιστα, ψόγοι καὶ κολάσεις ἁμαρτανόντων νόμιμοι, ἔπαινοι καὶ τιμαὶ κατορθούντων πάλιν σὺν νόμῳ.

XXVII.149

On the Life of Moses I

155

(149) Since Moses, who was the grandson of the king reigning at the time, abandoned the rule of Egypt because of the injustices happening throughout the land with no concern at all for the hopes stemming from his supposed succession because of his nobility of soul, great high-­mindedness, and natural aversion to wickedness, it pleased the One who rules over and cares for the universe that Moses exchange that rule for a kingdom of a more populous and more powerful nation, which was fated out of all other nations to serve as a priest who would continually offer prayers on behalf of the human race to avert evils and share in the good.126 (150) Moses in accepting the kingship was not eager, as some are, to glorify his house and to advance his sons—­for he had two127—­to great power, so that he might declare them partners in his present rule and afterward, his successors. For by exercising honest and pure judgement in all things great and small like a good judge, he overcame his natural affection for his children through impartial reasoning. (151) He set for himself one very important goal: to be useful to those he ruled and in every respect to work in word and deed for their benefit, neglecting no opportunity for promoting common virtue. (152) Moses alone of those who ever ruled did not accumulate gold and silver or collect tribute, or own homes, possessions, livestock, retinues of slaves, income, or anything at all that brought about luxury and excess, though he could have had them all in abundance. (153) But since he thought that to receive wealth in material form was an act of spiritual poverty, he scorned it as blind and honored greatly the wealth of nature, which has sight, even becoming an admirer of it as if he did not know of another kind of wealth; making no tragic exaggeration in his clothes, food, or the rest of his lifestyle because of pompous arrogance, he pursued the frugality and contentment of an average man, but in fact he practiced royal extravagance in those things which it was noble for a ruler to desire. (154) These were temperance, constancy, prudence, shrewdness, good sense, knowledge, work, perseverance, disdain for pleasures, justice, exhortations to what is morally best, legal censure and punishment for those in the wrong, praise and honors for those who are just, again within the law.

126 Meeks, Prophet-King, 109, believes the motif of Moses’ kingship over the Hebrews as a reward for rejecting rule over Egypt is a haggadic tradition (see Hebrews 11:24–­26). 127 Gershom and Eliezer, both named at Exod 18:3–­4.

156

De vita Mosis I

XXVIII.155

(XXVIII) (155) τοιγαροῦν πολλὰ χαίρειν φράσαντα πολυχρηματίᾳ καὶ τῷ παρ’ ἀνθρώποις μέγα πνέοντι πλούτῳ γεραίρει θεὸς τὸν μέγιστον καὶ τελεώτατον ἀντιδοὺς πλοῦτον αὐτῷ· οὗτος δ’ ἐστὶν ὁ τῆς συμπάσης γῆς καὶ θαλάττης καὶ ποταμῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὅσα στοιχεῖα καὶ συγκρίματα· κοινωνὸν γὰρ ἀξιώσας ἀναφανῆναι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ λήξεως ἀνῆκε πάντα τὸν κόσμον ὡς κληρονόμῳ κτῆσιν ἁρμόζουσαν. (156) τοιγαροῦν ὑπήκουεν ὡς δεσπότῃ τῶν στοιχείων ἕκαστον ἀλλάττον ἣν εἶχε δύναμιν καὶ ταῖς προστάξεσιν ὑπεῖκον· καὶ θαυμαστὸν ἴσως οὐδέν· εἰ γὰρ κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν “κοινὰ τὰ φίλων,” φίλος δὲ ὁ προφήτης ἀνείρηται θεοῦ (cf. Exod. 33, 11), κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον μετέχοι ἂν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς κτήσεως, καθ’ ὃ χρειῶδες. (157) ὁ μὲν γὰρ θεὸς πάντα κεκτημένος οὐδενὸς δεῖται, ὁ δὲ σπουδαῖος ἄνθρωπος κέκτηται μὲν οὐδὲν κυρίως ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἑαυτόν, τῶν δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ κειμηλίων, καθ’ ὅσον ἂν οἷός τε ᾖ, μεταλαγχάνει. καὶ μήποτ’ εἰκότως· κοσμοπολίτης γάρ ἐστιν, ἧς χάριν αἰτίας οὐδεμιᾷ τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην πόλεων ἐνεγράφη, δεόντως, οὐ μέρος χώρας ἀλλ’ ὅλον τὸν κόσμον κλῆρον λαβών.

XXVIII.155

On the Life of Moses I

157

(XXVIII) (155) In just this way did God reward Moses, who gave no thought to riches and wealth, which puts on airs among men, but gave him instead the greatest and most perfect wealth, that is, the wealth of all the earth, sea, rivers, and the rest of the elements and compound substances. For God, deeming it proper that Moses be declared a partner in His domain, granted him the whole world as a possession fit for an heir. (156) Exactly so did each of the elements obey him as their master, altering their powers and yielding to his commands; and perhaps it is no wonder, for if, in accordance with the proverb, “friends hold all things in common,” and the prophet has been selected as a friend of God, it follows that he would share in God and in His possessions, as there is necessity.128 (157) For God, who possesses everything, lacks nothing, but the virtuous man strictly speaking owns nothing, not even himself, but participates in the wealth of God as much as he can. Perhaps this is rightly so, for he is a citizen of the world,129 for which reason he is registered in none of the cities throughout the inhabited world, properly so, receiving as he does not a part of a land but the whole world as his allotted portion.

128 See Exod 33:11. This description of Moses’ power over nature is somewhat jarring following the description of the plagues, most of which Moses (and Aaron!) performed at God’s command and come to an end through prayer. A comparable attribution of power to Moses occurs at Sacr. 9. Philo’s conception of Moses’ power and “godhood” does not seem entirely consistent. 129 The concept of the “citizen of the world” is Stoic in origin, being first attributed to Diogenes (Dio. Laert. 6.63). Runia, On the Creation, 107, notes that this concept had developed into a “universalist ideology.” The universe itself becomes a sort of city in which gods rule over humans and share a bond in natural law, i.e., reason. As Runia stresses, Philo sees the Mosaic law as superior to these universalist conceptions of natural law.

158

De vita Mosis I

XXVIII.158

(158) τί δ’; οὐχὶ καὶ μείζονος τῆς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα τῶν ὅλων καὶ ποιητὴν κοινωνίας ἀπέλαυσε προσρήσεως τῆς αὐτῆς ἀξιωθείς; ὠνομάσθη γὰρ ὅλου τοῦ ἔθνους θεὸς καὶ βασιλεύς· εἴς τε τὸν γνόφον, ἔνθα ἦν ὁ θεός, εἰσελθεῖν λέγεται (Exod. 20, 21), τουτέστιν εἰς τὴν ἀειδῆ καὶ ἀόρατον καὶ ἀσώματον τῶν ὄντων παραδειγματικὴν οὐσίαν, τὰ ἀθέατα φύσει θνητῇ κατανοῶν· καθάπερ τε γραφὴν εὖ δεδημιουργημένην ἑαυτὸν καὶ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ βίον εἰς μέσον προαγαγὼν πάγκαλον καὶ θεοειδὲς ἔργον ἔστησε παράδειγμα τοῖς ἐθέλουσι μιμεῖσθαι. (159) εὐδαίμονες δ’ ὅσοι τὸν τύπον ταῖς ἑαυτῶν ψυχαῖς ἐναπεμάξαντο ἢ ἐσπούδασαν ἐναπομάξασθαι· φερέτω γὰρ ἡ διάνοια μάλιστα μὲν τὸ εἶδος τέλειον ἀρετῆς, εἰ δὲ μή, τὸν γοῦν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κτήσασθαι τὸ εἶδος ἀνενδοίαστον πόθον. (160) καὶ μὴν οὐδ’ ἐκεῖνό τις ἀγνοεῖ, ὅτι ζηλωταὶ τῶν ἐνδόξων οἱ ἀφανεῖς εἰσι καί, ὧν ἂν ἐκεῖνοι μάλιστ’ ὀρέγεσθαι δοκῶσι, πρὸς ταῦτα τὰς αὑτῶν ἀποτείνουσιν ὁρμάς· ἐπειδὰν γοῦν ἡγεμὼν ἄρξηται καθηδυπαθεῖν καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἁβροδίαιτον ἀποκλίνειν βίον, σύμπαν ὀλίγου δεῖν τὸ ὑπήκοον τὰς γαστρὸς καὶ τῶν μετὰ γαστέρα προσαναρρήγνυσιν ἔξω τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐπιθυμίας, εἰ μή τινες εὐμοιρίᾳ χρήσαιντο φύσεως ψυχὴν οὐκ ἐπίβουλον ἀλλ’ εὐμενῆ καὶ ἵλεω κτησάμενοι·

XXVIII.158

On the Life of Moses I

159

(158) And then? Was not the company he enjoyed with the father and creator of all things greater since he was deemed worthy of the same name? For he was called god and king of the whole nation;130 it is said that he approached the darkness where God was,131 that is, he approached the formless, boundless, and incorporeal paradigmatic essence of being, and understood things hidden from our mortal nature.132 And just like a well-­wrought painting, in putting himself and his life at the center, he created a most noble and godlike work133 as a model for those willing to imitate it.134 (159) Blessed are they who imprinted or were eager to imprint his seal on their souls, for the mind especially should bear the perfect form of virtue, but if not, at least it should bear the unstinting desire to possess this form of virtue. (160) And surely there is no one who does not know that average people are admirers of the illustrious and that they direct their own impulses to the same things those seem to reach for most. Whenever a leader begins to live extravagantly and to veer toward a luxurious lifestyle, almost all his subjects let the desires of the stomach and the area below the stomach flare up more than necessary, except for some who might enjoy nature’s good conditioning and possess a soul that is not insidious but mild and benevolent.

130 The description of Moses as a god stems from Exod 7:1: “And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, ‘Behold, I have made you a god to Pharaoh.’” At Leg. 1.40, Philo allegorizes the statement by saying that Moses, as a representation of the rational mind, is like a god to Pharoah, who represents the irrational. At Det. 161 Philo further says of Exod 7:1 that Moses did not actually become a god, while at Sacr. 9 he seems to take the notion of Moses’ divinity a bit more literally (see also Migr. 84; Mut. 19). Of Mos. 1.158–­59, Meeks, Prophet-King, 111, says: “Moses’ kingship assigns him an intermediary status between God and the rest of men; having perceived the invisible good, he so models his own life after it that he becomes a paradigm for his subjects.” Ultimately, however, Philo seems to have considered Moses a perfect man, but a man nonetheless. If Philo did have a gentile audience, they might have thought in more literal terms about god-­kings: Cult worship of Hellenistic kings was widespread since the third century, and, of course, in Philo’s own time Roman emperors were objects of cult worship. 131 Philo is alluding to Moses’ ascent of Mt. Sinai. See Exod 20:21. 132 Moses’ meeting with God on Mt. Sinai is here transformed into his admission to the Platonic realm of the Forms. 133 I.e., the Torah. 134 This and the following sections provide the mystical justification for Moses’ kingship (Meeks, Prophet-King, 110–­11).

160

De vita Mosis I

XXVIII.161

(161) ἐὰν δ’ αὐστηροτέραν καὶ σεμνοτέραν ἕληται προαίρεσιν, καὶ οἱ λίαν αὐτῶν ἀκράτορες μεταβάλλουσι πρὸς ἐγκράτειαν ἢ φόβῳ ἢ αἰδοῖ σπουδάζοντες ὑπόληψιν ἐμποιεῖν, ὅτι ἄρα ζηλωταὶ τῶν ὁμοίων εἰσί· καὶ οὐκ ἄν ποθ’ οἱ χείρους τὰ τῶν κρειττόνων ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ μανέντες ἀποδοκιμάζοιεν. (162) τάχα δ’, ἐπεὶ καὶ νομοθέτης ἔμελλεν ἔσεσθαι, πολὺ πρότερον αὐτὸς ἐγίνετο νόμος ἔμψυχός τε καὶ λογικὸς θείᾳ προνοίᾳ, ἥτις ἀγνοοῦντα αὐτὸν εἰς νομοθέτην ἐχειροτόνησεν αὖθις.

XXVIII.161

On the Life of Moses I

161

(161) But if the ruler chooses a more severe and pious conduct, even those who are very much powerless over their desires adapt themselves to self-­ control, striving from either fear or shame to give the impression that they are eager for the same things. And never would those who are inferior reject the concerns of their betters, not even if they had gone mad. (162) But perhaps, since he was going to be a lawgiver, he himself much earlier became an ensouled and rational law by divine foresight, which, therefore, appointed him as lawgiver without his knowing.135

135 “Ensouled law” (νόμος ἔμψυχος) also occurs at Mos. 2.4. Philo elsewhere similarly describes the patriarchs, who lived according to God’s law before it was written. Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria, 57, suggests that Moses, as a philosopher-­king, must perceive God’s law through the ascent of his soul to the intelligible realm (which Philo described above in section 158) before he can provide the written law to the people. The concept of the king as a living law, though, is rooted in Hellenistic notions of kingship. According to the fragment of Diotogenes’ On Kingship preserved in Stobaeus 4.7.61: “The one who is most just would be king and the one most observant of the law would be most just; for without justice there would be no king and no justice without law. For justice is in the law and the law is the source of justice, and the king in fact is an ensouled law (νόμος ἔμψυχός) or a lawful ruler.” Plutarch, the great philosopher and biographer (46 AD–119 AD), uses similar language in his To an Uneducated Ruler (Ad principem ineruditem) 780c: “Law, the king of mortals and immortals, as Pindar says, has not been written externally in books nor on any tablets, but is reason ensouled (ἔμψυχος) in [the ruler].” A similar notion appears in Xenophon’s Education of Cyrus (Cyropaedia) 8.1.22, where Cyrus is called a “seeing law” (βλέποντα νόμον). See Farber, “Cyropaedia,” 504.

162

❡

De vita Mosis I

XXIX.163

(XXIX) (163) Ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν παρ’ ἑκόντων ἔλαβε τὴν ἀρχήν, βραβεύοντος καὶ ἐπινεύοντος θεοῦ, τὴν ἀποικίαν ἔστελλεν εἰς Φοινίκην καὶ Συρίαν τὴν κοίλην καὶ Παλαιστίνην, ἣ τότε. προσηγορεύετο Χαναναίων, ἧς οἱ ὅροι τριῶν ἡμερῶν ὁδὸν διειστήκεσαν ἀπ’ Αἰγύπτου. (164) εἶτ’ ἦγεν αὐτοὺς οὐ τὴν ἐπίτομον, ἅμα μὲν εὐλαβηθείς, μή ποθ’, ὑπαντιασάντων τῶν οἰκητόρων διὰ φόβον ἀναστάσεως καὶ ἀνδραποδισμοῦ καὶ γενομένου πολέμου, πάλιν τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδὸν ὑποστρέψωσιν εἰς Αἴγυπτον, ἀπ’ ἐχθρῶν ἐπ’ ἐχθρούς, νέων ἐπ’ ἀρχαίους, γέλως καὶ χλεύη γενησόμενοι καὶ χείρω καὶ ἀργαλεώτερα τῶν προτέρων ὑπομενοῦντες, ἅμα δὲ καὶ βουλόμενος αὐτοὺς δι’ ἐρήμης ἄγων καὶ μακρᾶς δοκιμάσαι, πῶς ἔχουσι πειθαρχίας ἐν οὐκ ἀφθόνοις χορηγίαις ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ κατ’ ὀλίγον ὑποσπανιζούσαις. (165) ἐκτραπόμενος οὖν τὴν ἐπ’ εὐθείας, ἐγκάρσιον ἀτραπὸν εὑρὼν καὶ νομίσας κατατείνειν ἄχρι τῆς ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάττης ὁδοιπορεῖν ἤρχετο. Τεράστιον δέ φασι συμβῆναι κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον μεγαλούργημα τῆς φύσεως, ὃ μηδείς πω μέμνηται πάλαι γεγονός. (166) νεφέλη γὰρ εἰς εὐμεγέθη κίονα σχηματισθεῖσα προῄει τῆς πληθύος, ἡμέρας μὲν ἡλιοειδὲς ἐκλάμπουσα φέγγος, νύκτωρ δὲ φλογοειδές, ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ πλάζεσθαι κατὰ τὴν πορείαν, ἀλλ’ ἀπλανεστάτῳ ἕπεσθαι ἡγεμόνι ὁδοῦ. τάχα μέντοι καὶ τῶν ὑπάρχων τις ἦν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως, ἀφανὴς ἄγγελος, ἐγκατειλημμένος τῇ νεφέλῃ προηγητήρ, ὃν οὐ θέμις σώματος ὀφθαλμοῖς ὁρᾶσθαι.

XXIX.163

On the Life of Moses I

163

(XXIX) (163) And so when, at God’s direction and with His approval, he received his rule from the people, who willingly granted it, he set forth toward Phoenicia and Coele Syria and Palestine,136 which at that time was called the land of the Canaanites, whose borders were separated from Egypt by a threeday journey. (164) And yet, he did not lead them by the short path, partly because he was concerned that if the local inhabitants, fearing destruction, enslavement, and a looming war, came out against them, they might return to Egypt by the same road, going from enemy to enemy, from the new ones to the original ones, only to become objects of laughter and mockery and to endure things worse and more painful than before; partly because he wanted to test them by leading them through a desert, and a long one at that, to see how they remained obedient with supplies that were less than abundant and dwindled little by little from then on.137 (165) And so having turned away from the direct road, he found a path that angled off, and, judging that it stretched down to the Red Sea, he began to march. They say that a portentous act of nature happened at that time, which no one recalls ever having happened again. (166) A cloud fashioned into a tall pillar went forth ahead of the people; during the day it blazed forth with a radiance like the sun, and by night with one like a flame, so that the people would not go astray during the journey but would follow it as an unerring guide for the road. Perhaps in fact it was one of the subordinates of the great King, an invisible angel, a guide ensconced in the cloud, whom it is not right for the eyes of the body to see.138

136 These three regions together roughly correspond to the areas now known as Lebanon, Syria, and Israel. 137 Exod 13:17 attributes to God the concern that war might drive the people back to Egypt. Philo makes the concern Moses’ and adds the additional motivation of a desire to test the Hebrews’ virtue. This second motivation surely anticipates questions as to why the Hebrews endure hardship on their journey. It also works with Philo’s allegorizing: the Hebrews are leaving Egypt, a land Philo associates with the body and the senses, and so their journey is marked by lack of goods associated with the body. For a few examples of the Egyptians as representations of the passions and the body, see Leg. 37–­38; Sacr. 48; Mut. 117–­18; and Post. 96. 138 Philo shows some hesitation in identifying the heavenly being in the pillar. Perhaps he is mediating between Exod 13:21, where the Lord shows the way in the pillar, and Exod 14:19, which mentions an angel of the Lord.

164

❡

De vita Mosis I

XXX.167

(XXX) (167) Θεασάμενος δ’ ὁ τῆς Αἰγύπτου βασιλεὺς ἀνοδίᾳ χρωμένους, ὡς ᾤετο, καὶ διὰ τραχείας καὶ ἀτριβοῦς ἐρήμης βαδίζοντας ἥσθη μὲν ἐπὶ τῷ κατὰ τὴν πορείαν σφάλματι, νομίσας συγκεκλεῖσθαι διέξοδον οὐκ ἔχοντας, ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ μεθέσθαι μετανοῶν ἐπεχείρει διώκειν, ὡς ἢ φόβῳ τὴν πληθὺν ὑποστρέψων καὶ δουλωσόμενος αὖθις ἢ ἀποκτενῶν ἡβηδὸν ἀφηνιάζουσαν. (168) εἶθ’ ἅπασαν τὴν ἱππικὴν δύναμιν παραλαβὼν ἀκοντιστάς τε καὶ σφενδονήτας καὶ ἱπποτοξότας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ὅσοι τῆς κούφης ὁπλίσεως καὶ τὰ κάλλιστα τῶν δρεπανηφόρων ἁρμάτων ἑξακόσια τοῖς ἐν τέλει δούς, ἵνα μετὰ τοῦ πρέποντος ἀξιώματος ἐπακολουθήσωσι καὶ τῆς στρατείας μετάσχωσιν, οὐδὲν τάχους ἀνεὶς ἐπεξέθει καὶ συντείνων ἔσπευδε βουλόμενος ἐξαπιναίως οὐ προϊδομένοις ἐπιστῆναι· τὸ γὰρ ἀνέλπιστον κακὸν ἀργαλεώτερον αἰεὶ τοῦ προσδοκηθέντος, ὅσῳ καὶ τὸ ὀλιγωρηθὲν εὐεπιχειρητότερον τοῦ σὺν φροντίδι. (169) καὶ ὁ μὲν ταῦτα διανοηθεὶς ἐπηκολούθει νομίζων αὐτοβοεὶ περιέσεσθαι, οἱ δ’ ἔτυχον ἤδη παρὰ ταῖς ἠϊόσι τῆς θαλάττης στρατοπεδεύοντες· μελλόντων δ’ ἀριστοποιεῖσθαι, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον πάταγος ἐξηχεῖτο πολύς, ἅτε τοσούτων ἀνθρώπων ὁμοῦ καὶ ὑποζυγίων μετὰ σπουδῆς ἐλαυνόντων, ὡς ἐκχυθέντας τῶν σκηνῶν περιβλέπεσθαι καὶ ὠτακουστεῖν ἀκροβατοῦντας· εἶτ’ ὀλίγῳ ὕστερον ἐπὶ λόφου μετέωρος ἡ ἀντίπαλος καταφαίνεται δύναμις ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις ἐκτεταγμένη πρὸς μάχην.

XXX.167

On the Life of Moses I

165

(XXX) (167) But when the king of Egypt observed them leaving the road and, as he thought, marching through a rough and pathless wilderness, he was pleased at the error of their course, thinking that they had closed themselves off without a way out, and since he regretted letting them go, he set off in pursuit, intending either to frighten the multitude into turning back and then enslave them again or to kill the rebels, young and old alike. (168) Then, taking charge of his entire force of cavalry as well as javelin troops, slingers, mounted archers, and the rest of his light-­armed forces, and giving to his magistrates his six hundred best sickle-­bladed chariots,139 so that they might attend him with the proper dignity and participate in the campaign, he set out in haste, and, pressing hard, he urged them on, desiring to be upon the multitude suddenly, before they saw him coming; since an unexpected misfortune is always more grievous than one that is anticipated, just as much as a neglected misfortune is more insidious than one given attention. (169) The king pursued them with this intent, thinking that he would overcome them without striking a blow. But the Hebrews happened already to be setting up camp along the seashore, and, when they were about to prepare breakfast, first a loud noise resounded because so many men along with their pack animals were traveling in haste, and, as a result, the Hebrews, pouring out of their tents, stood on tiptoe as they looked around and listened. Then, a short while later, the rival force appeared in arms high on a hill, ordered for battle.

139 Niehoff, Jewish Identity, 55, interprets the destruction of the Egyptian forces at the Red Sea through the lens of the defeat of Xerxes in the Persian War, specifically the account given in Aeschylus’ Persians. Observing that Philo is the first to describe Pharoah’s chariots as “scythed,” she notes, “Scythed chariots had in Greek literature become the proverbial weapons of the Persians.”

166

De vita Mosis I

XXXI.170

(XXXI) (170) ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ παραλόγῳ καὶ ἀπροσδοκήτῳ καταπλαγέντες καὶ μήτε πρὸς ἄμυναν εὐτρεπεῖς ὄντες διὰ σπάνιν ἀμυντηρίων—­οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ πόλεμον ἀλλ’ εἰς ἀποικίαν ἐξῄεσαν—­μήτε φυγεῖν δυνάμενοι—­κατόπιν μὲν γὰρ πέλαγος, ἐχθροὶ δ’ ἀντικρύ, τὰ δὲ παρ’ ἑκάτερα βαθεῖα καὶ ἀτριβὴς ἐρήμη—­σφαδᾴζοντες καὶ τῷ μεγέθει τῶν κακῶν ἀπειρηκότες, οἷα παρὰ τὰς τοιαύτας φιλεῖ συμφοράς, τὸν ἄρχοντα ᾐτιῶντο φάσκοντες· (171) “διὰ τὸ μὴ εἶναι μνήματα ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, οἷς ἀποθανόντες ἐνταφησόμεθα, ἐξήγαγες ἡμᾶς, ἵν’ ἐνταῦθα κηδεύσῃς ἀποκτείνας; ἢ οὐ πᾶσα δουλεία κουφότερον κακὸν θανάτου; δελεάσας ἐλευθερίας ἐλπίδι τὸ πλῆθος τὸν χαλεπώτερον περὶ τοῦ ζῆν ἐπεκρέμασας κίνδυνον. (172) ἠγνόεις τὴν ἡμετέραν ἁπλότητα καὶ τὴν Αἰγυπτίων πικρίαν καὶ τὸ βαρύμηνι; τὸ μέγεθος τῶν ἀφύκτων κακῶν οὐχ ὁρᾷς; τί πρακτέον; πολεμῶμεν ἄοπλοι πρὸς ὡπλισμένους; ἀλλὰ φεύγωμεν καθάπερ ἄρκυσι κυκλωθέντες ἀνηλεέσιν ἐχθροῖς, ἐρημίαις ἀβάτοις, ἀπλώτοις πελάγεσιν; (173) εἰ δὲ δὴ καὶ πλωτά, τίς εὐπορία σκαφῶν εἰς περαίωσιν;” ὁ δὲ ταῦτα ἀκούων τοῖς μὲν συνεγίνωσκε, τῶν δὲ χρησμῶν ἐμέμνητο· καὶ διανείμας τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὸν λόγον κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον τῷ μὲν ἐνετύγχανεν ἀφανῶς τῷ θεῷ, ἵν’ ἐξ ἀμηχάνων ῥύσηται συμφορῶν, δι’ οὗ δ’ ἐθάρσυνε καὶ παρηγόρει τοὺς καταβοῶντας “μὴ ἀναπίπτετε” λέγων· “οὐχ ὁμοίως ἄνθρωπος ἀμύνεται καὶ θεός. (174) τί μόνοις τοῖς εὐλόγοις καὶ πιθανοῖς προπιστεύετε; παρασκευῆς οὐδεμιᾶς ἐστι χρεῖος ὁ θεὸς βοηθός· ἐν ἀπόροις πόρον εὑρεῖν ἴδιον θεοῦ· τὰ ἀδύνατα παντὶ γενητῷ μόνῳ δυνατὰ καὶ κατὰ χειρός.” (175) καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἔτι καθεστὼς διεξῄει· μικρὸν δ’ ἐπισχὼν ἔνθους γίνεται καταπνευσθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ εἰωθότος ἐπιφοιτᾶν αὐτῷ πνεύματος καὶ θεσπίζει προφητεύων τάδε· “ἣν ὁρᾶτε στρατιὰν εὐοπλοῦσαν, οὐκέτ’ ἀντιτεταγμένην ὄψεσθε· πεσεῖται γὰρ προτροπάδην πᾶσα καὶ βύθιος ἀφανισθήσεται, ὡς μηδὲ λείψανον αὐτῆς ὑπὲρ γῆς ἔτι φανῆναι, καὶ οὐ μήκει χρόνου, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἐπιούσῃ νυκτί.”

XXXI.170

On the Life of Moses I

167

(XXXI) (170) Stunned at the unexpected and unforeseen event, and being unprepared for defense due to a lack of weapons—­for they did not set out for war but for a migration—­and being unable to flee—­for the sea was behind them, their enemies straight ahead, and on either side a deep and trackless desert—­they became agitated and succumbed to the immensity of the disaster, as generally happens amid such great misfortunes, and blamed their leader, saying: (171) “Was it because there were no tombs in Egypt to bury us in when we died that you led us out, so that you could bury us here after you killed us? Isn’t utter slavery an easier misfortune than death? Having seduced the people with the hope of freedom you threaten them with a more difficult danger with life at stake. (172) Are you unfamiliar with our innocence140 and the harshness and resentment of the Egyptians? Do you not see the severity of our ineluctable evils? What should we do? Should we fight unarmed against armed men? Well, should we flee when, as if caught in a net, we are surrounded by pitiless enemies, impassable desert, and an unnavigable sea? But if in fact it is navigable, what abundance of ships is there for crossing?” (173) When Moses heard all this, he pardoned them and remembered the prophecies; directing his thought and his speech, he met at the same time invisibly with God in his mind so that he might rescue them from hopeless misfortunes, and through his words he gave courage and comfort to his accusers, saying: “Don’t give up! Man and God do not fight in the same way. (174) Why are you quick to believe only what is probable and specious? God the Rescuer needs no preparation; to find a way through impossible situations is a quality of God. Things impossible for any created being are possible and easy for God alone.” (175) He was still calm as he explained all of this, but, when he stopped for a moment, he became divinely inspired by the spirit that customarily visited him and interpreted God’s will as he prophesied:141 “The army you see so well equipped you will see drawn up against you no longer. For it will fall headlong in its entirety and will disappear into the depths, so that not even a remnant of it will yet appear on land; and this will happen not after a long span of time, but during the approaching night.”

140 Colson (LCL) translates ἁπλότης (simplicity, candor, innocence) as “unarmedness,” but the contrast does not seem to be between armed and unarmed opponents. Philo is perhaps instead distinguishing between the brutality of the Egyptians and the gentleness of the Hebrews. I have therefore rendered ἁπλότης as “innocence.” 141 See Her. 259: “It is not right for an evil man to become God’s interpreter”; and Her. 265, where Philo explains that when a prophet is possessed, his mind departs to make way for the divine spirit (τοῦ θείου πνεύματος) and returns when the spirit leaves, since “it is not right that mortal and immortal dwell together.”

168

De vita Mosis I

XXXII.176

(XXXII) (176) καὶ ὁ μὲν ταῦτ’ ἀπεφθέγγετο. καταδύντος δ’ ἡλίου, νότος εὐθὺς ἤρξατο κατασκήπτειν βιαιότατος, ὑφ’ οὗ τὸ πέλαγος ἐξανεχώρησεν, εἰωθὸς μὲν ἀμπωτίζειν, τότε δὲ καὶ μᾶλλον ὠθούμενον τὸ πρὸς αἰγιαλοῖς ὑπεσύρη καθάπερ εἰς χαράδραν ἢ χάρυβδιν· ἀστήρ τε προὐφαίνετ’ οὐδείς, ἀλλὰ πυκνὸν καὶ μέλαν νέφος ἅπαντα τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐπεῖχε, γνοφώδους τῆς νυκτὸς οὔσης εἰς κατάπληξιν τῶν διωκόντων. (177) προσταχθεὶς δὲ Μωυσῆς τῇ βακτηρίᾳ παίει τὴν θάλασσαν· ἡ δὲ ῥαγεῖσα διίσταται καὶ τῶν τμημάτων τὰ μὲν πρὸς τῷ ῥαγέντι μέρει μετέωρα πρὸς ὕψος ἐξαίρεται καὶ παγέντα τρόπον τείχους κραταιῶς ἠρέμει καὶ ἡσύχαζε, τὰ δ’ ὀπίσω σταλέντα καὶ χαλινωθέντα τὴν εἰς τὸ πρόσω φορὰν καθάπερ ἡνίαις ἀφανέσιν ἀνεχαίτιζε, τὸ δὲ μεσαίτατον, καθ’ ὃ ἐγένετο ἡ ῥῆξις, ἀναξηρανθὲν ὁδὸς εὐρεῖα καὶ λεωφόρος γίνεται. τοῦτο ἰδὼν Μωυσῆς καὶ θαυμάσας ἐγεγήθει καὶ πληρωθεὶς χαρᾶς ἐθάρσυνε τοὺς ἰδίους καὶ ᾗ τάχιστα προὔτρεπεν ἀναζευγνύναι. (178) περαιοῦσθαι δὲ μελλόντων, σημεῖον ἐπιγίνεται τερατωδέστατον· ἡ γὰρ ὁδηγὸς νεφέλη πρωτοστατοῦσα τὸν ἄλλον χρόνον ἀνακάμπτει πρὸς τὰ οὐραῖα τοῦ πλήθους, ὅπως ὀπισθοφυλακῇ, καὶ ταχθεῖσα μεθόριος τῶν διωκόντων καὶ τῶν διωκομένων τοὺς μὲν ἡνιοχοῦσα σωτηρίως καὶ ἀσφαλῶς ἐπήλαυνε, τοὺς δὲ ἀνεῖργε καὶ ἀνέκρουεν ἐφορμᾶν ἐπειγομένους· ἅπερ ὁρῶντες οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι θορύβου καὶ ταραχῆς πάντ’ ἐπλήρουν τάς τε τάξεις ὑπὸ δέους συνέχεον ἐπεμπίπτοντες ἀλλήλοις καὶ ζητοῦντες ἤδη φυγεῖν, ὅτ’ οὐδὲν ἦν ὄφελος. (179) οἱ μὲν γὰρ  Ἑβραῖοι διὰ ξηρᾶς ἀτραποῦ περὶ βαθὺν ὄρθρον μετὰ γυναικῶν καὶ παίδων ἔτι κομιδῇ νηπίων περαιοῦνται· τοὺς δὲ τὰ τμήματα τοῦ πελάγους ἑκατέρωθεν ἐπικυλισθέντα καὶ ἑνωθέντα αὐτοῖς ἅρμασι καὶ ἵπποις καταποντοῖ, βορείοις πνεύμασι τῆς παλιρροίας ἀναχυθείσης καὶ μετεώροις τρικυμίαις ἐπιδραμούσης, ὡς μηδὲ πυρφόρον ὑπολειφθῆναι τὸν ἀπαγγελοῦντα τοῖς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ τὰς αἰφνιδίους συμφοράς. (180) τὸ μέγα τοῦτο καὶ θαυμαστὸν ἔργον  Ἑβραῖοι καταπλαγέντες ἀναιμωτὶ νίκην οὐκ ἐλπισθεῖσαν ἤραντο καὶ κατιδόντες ἐν ἀκαρεῖ φθορὰν ἀθρόαν πολεμίων δύο χορούς, τὸν μὲν ἀνδρῶν, τὸν δὲ γυναικῶν, ἐπὶ τῆς ἠϊόνος στήσαντες εὐχαριστικοὺς ὕμνους εἰς τὸν θεὸν ᾖδον, ἐξάρχοντος Μωυσέως μὲν τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, ἀδελφῆς δὲ τούτου ταῖς γυναιξίν· ἡγεμόνες γὰρ οὗτοι τῶν χορῶν ἐγεγένηντο.

XXXII.176

On the Life of Moses I

169

(XXXII) (176) Moses made this prophecy. When the sun sank, the south wind began to fall upon the sea with great force, which caused it to recede; certainly it was normal for the sea to ebb and flow, but at that time, being pushed even more, the sea near the shore drew back as if into a gorge or whirlpool,142 and no star shone, but a thick, dark fog was blocking the whole sky, and the night was pitch black to the consternation of the pursuers. (177) As he was ordered,143 Moses struck the sea with his staff; then the sea split apart and separated, and those sections of the sea near the part that split rose high aloft and, fixed firmly like a wall, were stable and still, but the waters behind the wall, being held back and restrained, checked their forward motion as if by invisible reins, and the middle most part, where the break occurred, dried out and became a wide thoroughfare. When Moses, amazed, saw this, he became glad, and, filled with joy, he encouraged his people and directed them to break camp as quickly as possible. (178) When they were about to cross over, a most extraordinary portent occurred: the guiding cloud that earlier had always preceded them moved back behind the crowd in order to guard the rear, and when it had taken up its station between the pursuers and the pursued, guiding the latter, it drove them forward safely and in good condition; the former it repelled and drove back, though they were impatient for the attack. Seeing all this, the Egyptians were utterly beset by confusion and disorder, and out of fear they broke ranks as they assailed each other, now wanting to escape, when there was no use. (179) For the Hebrews crossed over a dry path at about first light with their women and children, who were still quite young. But the segments of the sea, which rolled in from either side and joined together, plunged the Egyptians into the deep with their chariots and horses, since the tide, gushing back because of the blowing of the north wind, was rushing against them with its giant, lofty wave, so that not even a torchbearer144 was left alive who might report to the people in Egypt the sudden misfortunes.145 (180) The Hebrews, stunned by this great and wondrous event, obtained a bloodless victory against their expectations and, after witnessing the complete, instantaneous destruction of their enemies, set up two choruses on the shore, one of men, the other of women, and sang hymns of thanksgiving to God, with Moses beginning the songs for the men, and his sister146 those for the women, for they were the leaders of the choruses. 142 The actions of the winds bear some similarity to Philo’s explanation for the Nile floods in section 115. One wonders whether the biblical account of the winds pushing back the sea at Exod 14:21 might have influenced Philo’s preference for a similar explanation of the Nile’s flooding, despite the availability of better theories. See note 101 above. 143 Presumably when he met invisibly with God in section 173, which seems to incorporate God’s commands to Moses at Exod 14:15–­18. 144 I.e., a survivor. Herodotus (Histories 8.6) seems to suggest that it is a Persian expression. By Philo’s time, it is probably simply an idiom. 145 Philo at Conf. 70 allegorizes the Egyptian defeat at the Red Sea as being subsumed in the sea of the passions. (See also Somn. 2.279–­80.) 146 I.e., Miriam.

170

❡

De vita Mosis I

XXXIII.181

(XXXIII) (181) Ἄραντες δ’ ἀπὸ θαλάττης μέχρι μέν τινος ὡδοιπόρουν μηκέτι τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὀρρωδοῦντες φόβον. ἐπιλιπόντος δὲ τοῦ ποτοῦ τρισὶν ἡμέραις, αὖθις ἐν ἀθυμίαις ἦσαν ὑπὸ δίψους καὶ πάλιν ἤρξαντο μεμψιμοιρεῖν ὡς μηδὲν εὖ προπεπονθότες· ἀεὶ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ παρόντος προσβολὴ δεινοῦ τὰς ἐπὶ τοῖς προτέροις ἀγαθοῖς ἡδονὰς ἀφαιρεῖται. (182) θεασάμενοι δὲ πηγὰς ἐπιτρέχουσιν ὡς ἀρυσόμενοι χαρᾶς ὑπόπλεῳ, δι’ ἄγνοιαν τἀληθοῦς ἀπατηθέντες· πικραὶ γὰρ ἦσαν· εἶτα γευσάμενοι γναμφθέντες τῷ παρ’ ἐλπίδα τά τε σώματα παρεῖντο καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἀναπεπτώκεσαν, οὐχ οὕτως ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῖς ὡς ἐπὶ τοῖς νηπίοις παισὶ στένοντες, οὓς ἀδακρυτὶ ποτὸν αἰτοῦντας ὁρᾶν οὐχ ὑπέμενον. (183) ἔνιοι δὲ τῶν ὀλιγωροτέρων καὶ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν ἀβεβαίων καὶ τὰ προγεγονότα ᾐτιῶντο ὡς οὐκ ἐπ’ εὐεργεσίᾳ συμβάντα μᾶλλον ἢ διὰ μετουσίαν ἀργαλεωτέρων συμφορῶν, ἄμεινον εἶναι λέγοντες τρίς, οὐχ ἅπαξ, ὑπ’ ἐχθρῶν ἀποθανεῖν ἢ δίψει παραπολέσθαι· τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἄπονον καὶ ταχεῖαν τοῦ βίου μετάστασιν οὐδὲν ἀθανασίας διαφέρειν τοῖς εὖ φρονοῦσι, θάνατον δ’ ὡς ἀληθῶς εἶναι τὸν βραδὺν καὶ μετ’ ἀλγηδόνων, οὐκ ἐν τῷ τεθνάναι τὸ φοβερὸν ἀλλ’ ἐν μόνῳ τῷ ἀποθνῄσκειν ἐπιδεικνύμενον. (184) Τοιαύταις χρωμένων ὀλοφύρσεσι, πάλιν ἱκετεύει τὸν θεὸν Μωυσῆς ἐπιστάμενον τὴν ζῴων καὶ μάλιστα τὴν ἀνθρώπων ἀσθένειαν καὶ τὰς τοῦ σώματος ἀνάγκας ἐκ τροφῆς ἠρτημένου καὶ δεσποίναις χαλεπαῖς συνεζευγμένου, βρώσει καὶ πόσει, συγγνῶναι μὲν τοῖς ἀθυμοῦσι, τὴν δὲ πάντων ἔνδειαν ἐκπλῆσαι, μὴ χρόνου μήκει, δωρεᾷ δ’ ἀνυπερθέτῳ καὶ ταχείᾳ, διὰ τὴν τοῦ θνητοῦ φυσικὴν ὀλιγωρίαν ὀξὺν καιρὸν τῆς βοηθείας ἐπιποθοῦντος.

XXXIII.181

On the Life of Moses I

171

(XXXIII) (181) Setting out from the sea, for a while they traveled no longer dreading their enemies. But when their drinking water ran out after three days, they were once more dispirited because of thirst and again began to complain, as though they had experienced no good fortune previously, for the assault of an immediate disaster always wipes out the pleasures of previous good experiences. (182) When they noticed some springs,147 filled with joy they ran up to draw water from them but were deceived because of their ignorance of the truth; for the springs were bitter. Afterward, when they tasted the water and were tormented by their dashed expectations, they were bodily exhausted and had lost heart, lamenting not so much for themselves but for the young children, whom they could not stand to see asking for a drink without shedding a tear. (183) Some of those who were rather indifferent and unsteady in their piety even blamed previous events, as if things had not turned out to their benefit, but rather that they might take part in graver misfortunes, saying that it would have been better to die not once but three times at the hands of their enemies rather than to die from thirst. For a painless and quick departure from life is no different from immortality for those who are sensible, but true death is slow and accompanied by suffering, and what is fearful shows itself not in being dead but alone in the act of dying. (184) As they were making such laments, Moses again beseeched God—­He who knows the weakness of creatures, especially human weakness, and knows, too, the needs of the body, which is dependent on nourishment and is bound to the hard mistresses of food and drink—­to pardon those who were discouraged and to drive away everyone’s need, not after some length of time, but through a swift and immediate gift, on account of the natural contempt mortals feel when they desire a quick opportunity for assistance.

At Marah (See ExodLXX 15:23). Though unmentioned here, Philo provides a correct etymology of the name Marah (Μέρρα) as meaning “bitterness” at Congr. 163. 147

172

De vita Mosis I

XXXIII.185

(185) ὁ δὲ τὴν ἵλεων αὑτοῦ δύναμιν φθάνει προεκπέμψας καὶ διοίξας τὸ τοῦ ἱκέτου τῆς ψυχῆς ἀκοίμητον ὄμμα ξύλον δείκνυσιν, ὃ προσέταξεν ἀράμενον εἰς τὰς πηγὰς καθεῖναι, τάχα μὲν κατεσκευασμένον ἐκ φύσεως ποιοῦν δύναμιν, ἣ τάχα ἠγνόητο, τάχα δὲ καὶ τότε πρῶτον ποιηθὲν εἰς ἣν ἔμελλεν ὑπηρετεῖν χρείαν. (186) γενομένου δὲ τοῦ κελευσθέντος, αἱ μὲν πηγαὶ γλυκαίνονται μεταβαλοῦσαι πρὸς τὸ πότιμον, ὡς μηδ’ εἰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐγένοντό ποτε πικραὶ δύνασθαι διαγνῶναι, διὰ τὸ μηδὲ ἴχνος ἢ ζώπυρον τῆς ἀρχαίας κακίας εἰς μνήμην ὑπολελεῖφθαι.

XXXIII.185

On the Life of Moses I

173

(185) But God had already sent ahead his propitious power, and, having opened the unsleeping eye of the suppliant’s soul, He showed him a piece of wood,148 which he commanded Moses to take up and drop into the springs, wood that was perhaps equipped by nature to produce an ability that might149 have been unknown, or perhaps it was first fashioned at that time in response to the need that it was to serve.150 (186) When the order was carried out, the springs became sweet and turned into potable water, so that it was not even possible to tell whether the springs were once brackish because not even a trace or ember was left as a reminder of their former deficiency.151

Often rendered as “tree.” The Hebrew ‫ ֵעץ‬can denote a tree or a piece of wood. The Septuagint and, accordingly, Philo render the ‫ ֵעץ‬of ExodLXX 15:25 as ξύλον, for which “piece of wood” or “stick” seems the best translation. To indicate a tree in Greek, one might expect to find the word δένδρον. 149 Colson (LCL) is right to suspect a textual issue here as it is hard to imagine Philo using a third τάχα within his τάχα μέν . . . τάχα δέ construction. I have, nevertheless, retained the sense of the transmitted text. 150 As often, Philo seeks to rationalize a miracle in the De vita Mosis that needs no such justifications in his allegorical works. 151 The scene is allegorized at Congr. 163 as representing the difficulty in passing from the pleasure of injustice, represented by Egypt, to justice. In the present version, Philo omits the ordinances that God establishes (Exod 15:25–­26), though in Congr. 163–­68 they are intimately connected with the allegory of testing the soul and transforming the bitterness of justice into sweetness. A similar notion appears at Post. 155–­57. 148

174

De vita Mosis I

XXXIV.187

(XXXIV) (187) τὸ δὲ δίψος ἀκεσάμενοι μεθ’ ἡδονῆς διπλασίας, ἐπειδὴ τῆς ἀπολαύσεως τὸ παρ’ ἐλπίδα συμβεβηκὸς ἀγαθὸν εὐφραίνει μᾶλλον, ἔτι καὶ τὰς ὑδρίας πληρώσαντες ἀνεζεύγνυσαν, ὥσπερ ἀπὸ θοίνης καὶ ἱλαρᾶς εὐωχίας ἑστιαθέντες καὶ μεθύοντες οὐ τὴν ἐν οἴνῳ μέθην ἀλλὰ τὴν νηφάλιον, ἣν ἠκρατίσαντο τὰς προπόσεις λαβόντες παρὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας τοῦ προεστῶτος ἄρχοντος. (188) ἀφικνοῦνται δ’ εἰς σταθμὸν δεύτερον, εὔυδρόν τε καὶ εὔδενδρον—­Αἰλεὶμ ὠνομάζετο (Exod. 15, 27)—­, πηγαῖς καταρρεόμενον δώδεκα, παρ’ αἷς στελέχη νέα φοινίκων εὐερνέστατα ἦν τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἑβδομήκοντα, τοῖς ὀξὺ τῇ διανοίᾳ βλέπειν δυναμένοις ἀγαθῶν τῶν ἐθνικῶν ἐναργῆ σημεῖα καὶ δείγματα· (189) φυλαί τε γάρ εἰσι τοῦ ἔθνους δώδεκα, ὧν ἑκάστη πηγῆς ἕξει λόγον εὐσεβοῦσα, χορηγούσης εὐσεβείας ἀενάους καὶ ἀνελλιπεῖς καλὰς πράξεις, γενάρχαι δὲ τοῦ σύμπαντος ἔθνους ἑβδομήκοντα γεγόνασι φοίνικι τῷ τῶν δένδρων ἀρίστῳ προσηκόντως παρεικασθέντες, ὃ καὶ ὀφθῆναι καὶ καρπὸν ἐνεγκεῖν ἐστι κάλλιστον, ὅπερ καὶ τὴν ζωτικὴν ἔχει δύναμιν οὐκ ἐν ῥίζαις ὥσπερ τὰ ἄλλα κατορωρυγμένην ἀλλ’ ἀνώφοιτον, καρδίας τρόπον ἐν τῷ μεσαιτάτῳ τῶν ἀκρεμόνων ἱδρυμένην, ὑφ’ ὧν οἷα ἡγεμονὶς ὄντως ἐν κύκλῳ δορυφορεῖται. (190) τοιαύτην δ’ ἔχει φύσιν καὶ ἡ διάνοια τῶν γευσαμένων ὁσιότητος· ἄνω γὰρ μεμάθηκε βλέπειν τε καὶ φοιτᾶν καὶ μετεωροπολοῦσα ἀεὶ καὶ τὰ θεῖα διερευνωμένη κάλλη χλεύην τίθεται τὰ ἐπίγεια, ταῦτα μὲν παιδιάν, ἐκεῖνα δὲ σπουδὴν ὡς ἀληθῶς νομίζουσα.

XXXIV.187

On the Life of Moses I

175

(XXXIV) (187) When they had slaked their thirst with a double pleasure, since a good outcome contrary to expectation gladdens one more than its enjoyment, and having filled their water jars besides, they broke camp, as if they were going from a feast and cheerful banquet where they were hosted and became drunk not with the intoxication from wine, but a sober intoxication, of which they drank deep, receiving toasts from the piety of the leader at their head.152 (188) They reached a second stopping point, one with abundant water and trees—­it was called Elim—­flowing with twelve springs, beside which there were young trunks of date palms, flourishing well, seventy in number; for those able to see keenly with their mind the signs and demonstrations of the blessings of the nation are clear; (189) for they are the twelve tribes of the nation, each of which, in its piety, will be like a spring, with piety supplying perpetual and continuous noble deeds, and the seventy leaders of the entire nation were compared fittingly to a date palm, the best of trees, which is most beautiful both to look at and in the fruit it bears. This tree in fact has a vital force not buried in the roots like other trees, but one that climbs and is stationed like a heart in the very middle of the branches, by which it is protected like an encircled ruler. (190) The mind of those feeding on piety, too, has such a nature; for it has learned to look and travel upward, always rising up, and, as it investigates divine splendors, it makes secular splendors into a joke, as it deems the latter to be a childish game and the former a truly serious pursuit.153

See Ebr. 148: “And yet in a certain way the sober are intoxicated, as they have drunk in good things all together and received toasts from perfect virtue.” 153 See Fug. 183–­87, where “Elim” is said to mean “gateways” and represent the entrance to virtue. The springs of Elim are waters of education, and the palms represent prizes of virtue. Philo also discusses the significance of the numbers twelve and seventy. The current passage is interesting because it is a rare moment of open allegorizing in the De vita Mosis, though with an interpretation that differs from his allegory in De  fuga et inventione. This is one of only a few explicit moments of allegory in book 1 of the De vita Mosis (along with the burning bush as a symbol of the Jewish nation at Mos. 1.67–­70 and the weight of Moses’ arms during battle at Mos. 1.217–­19). 152

176

❡

De vita Mosis I

XXXV.191

(XXXV) (191) Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτ’ οὐ πολὺς διῆλθε χρόνος καὶ ἀπορίᾳ σιτίων ἐλίμωττον, ὥσπερ ἐκ διαδοχῆς ἀντεπιτιθεμένων τῶν ἀναγκαίων· δέσποιναι γὰρ χαλεπαὶ καὶ βαρεῖαι, πεῖνα καὶ δίψα, διακληρωσάμεναι τὰς κακώσεις ἐν μέρει προσέκειντο καὶ συνέβαινε κατὰ τὴν τῆς ἑτέρας ἄνεσιν ἐπιγίνεσθαι τὴν ἑτέραν, ὅπερ ἦν τοῖς πάσχουσιν ἀφορητότατον, εἴ γε πρὸ μικροῦ δόξαντες ἀπαλλαγῆναι δίψους ἐφεδρεῦον κακὸν πεῖναν εὕρισκον. (192) ἦν δ’ οὐ μόνον ἡ παροῦσα σπάνις χαλεπόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὸν μέλλοντα χρόνον τῶν ἐπιτηδείων ἀπόγνωσις· ὁρῶντες γὰρ βαθεῖαν καὶ πολλὴν ἔρημον καὶ καρπῶν ἀγονωτάτην σφόδρα ἠθύμουν· πάντα γὰρ ἦσαν ἢ τραχεῖαι καὶ ἀπορρῶγες πέτραι ἢ ἁλμυρόγεως πεδιὰς ἢ ὄρη λιθωδέστατα ἢ ψάμμοι βαθεῖαι πρὸς ἠλίβατον ὕψος ἀνατείνουσαι, καὶ προσέτι ποταμὸς οὐδείς, οὐκ αὐθιγενής, οὐ χειμάρρους, οὐδεμία πηγή, σπαρτὸν οὐδὲν οὐδὲ δένδρον, οὐχ ἥμερον, οὐ τῆς ἀγρίας ὕλης, οὐ ζῷον πτηνὸν ἢ χερσαῖον, ὅτι μὴ τῶν ἑρπετῶν τὰ ἰοβόλα πρὸς ὄλεθρον ἀνθρώπων, ὄφεις καὶ σκορπίοι. (193) εἶθ’ ὑπομιμνῃσκόμενοι τῆς κατ’ Αἴγυπτον εὐθηνίας καὶ εὐετηρίας καὶ τὴν τῶν ἐκεῖ πάντων ἀφθονίαν ἀντιτιθέντες τῇ πάντων ἐνταῦθα ἐνδείᾳ χαλεπῶς ἔφερον καὶ πρὸς ἑτέρους ἕτεροι τοιαῦτ’ ἐλογοποίουν· “ἐπ’ ἐλευθερίας ἐλπίδι μεταναστάντες οὐδὲ τοῦ ζῆν ἄδειαν ἔχομεν οἱ ταῖς μὲν ὑποσχέσεσι τοῦ ἡγεμόνος εὐδαίμονες, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἔργοις ἀνθρώπων ἁπάντων κακοδαιμονέστατοι. (194) τί τέλος ἔσται τῆς ἀνηνύτου καὶ μακρᾶς οὕτως ὁδοῦ; πᾶσι καὶ τοῖς πλέουσι καὶ τοῖς πεζεύουσιν ὅρος εἰς ὃν ἀφίξονται πρόκειται, τοῖς μὲν ἐμπόρια καὶ λιμένες, τοῖς δὲ πόλις τις ἢ χώρα, μόνοις δ’ ἡμῖν ἄβατος ἐρημία καὶ δυσοδία καὶ χαλεπαὶ δυσελπιστίαι· προϊόντων γάρ, ὥσπερ ἀχανὲς καὶ βαθὺ πέλαγος ἀπόρευτον ἀναφαίνεται καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν εὐρυνόμενον. (195) μετεωρίσας καὶ φυσήσας ἡμᾶς τῷ λόγῳ καὶ κενῶν ἐλπίδων τὰ ὦτα πληρώσας παρατείνει λιμῷ τὰς γαστέρας οὐδὲ τὰς ἀναγκαίας ἐκπορίζων τροφάς· ἀποικίας ὀνόματι τοσαύτην πληθὺν ἠπάτησεν ἐξ οἰκουμένης τὸ πρῶτον εἰς ἀοίκητον ἀγαγών, εἶτα καὶ εἰς ᾅδου προπέμπων, τὴν τοῦ βίου τελευταίαν ὁδόν.”

XXXV.191

On the Life of Moses I

177

(XXXV) (191) After this it was not long before they were starving from want of food, as if they were exchanging needs in succession. Hard and troublesome mistresses, hunger and thirst, who obtained sufferings as their portion, pursued the Hebrews in turn, and it happened that when they found relief from one, the other was upon them, which was most unbearable for those who were suffering, since shortly before, when they thought they were done with thirst, they found an evil, hunger, lying in wait. (192) Not only was the present scarcity a difficult issue, but also the despair over supplies for the future; for as they looked upon a vast, great wilderness that was infertile for crops, they became deeply discouraged. Everything was either rough, craggy rocks, plains with salty soil, stony mountains, or vast sandy desert stretching up to a great height. Moreover there was no river—­neither one from a natural source nor one that runs in winter—­nor was there a spring or anything cultivated, not even a tree—­neither a well-­tended one nor one that grows wild in a forest; there were no creatures, none in the air nor on land, except snakes and scorpions, creatures with venom to bring about a man’s death. (193) And so recalling the prosperity throughout Egypt and comparing the supplies and abundance of all that was there to the shortage of everything in their current position, they took it hard and kept spreading among themselves such thoughts as: “After emigrating in the hope of freedom we are not even secure in our survival, we who, according to our leader’s promises, are blessed, but in fact are the most unfortunate of all. (194) What end will there be for this journey, so long and interminable? For all who travel, both those who sail and who go by land, a goal at which they will arrive has been set, for the former it is business and harbors, for the latter, some city or region, but for us alone there is an impassable wilderness, a tough march, and hard desperation; for as we move forward, it is as if an immense, vast, and impassible sea expands before us day after day. (195) After rousing us and cheating us with his words and filling our ears with empty hopes, he wears out our stomachs with hunger, not even providing the minimum for nourishment. He deceived so great a multitude under the pretense of migration, first leading us from an inhabited region to an uninhabitable place and then sending us ahead on life’s final journey to the house of Hades.”154

154

Philo expands considerably upon the complaints of the Hebrews at Exod 16:1–­3.

178

De vita Mosis I

XXXVI.196

(XXXVI) (196) τοιαῦτ’ ὀνειδιζόμενος οὐχ οὕτως ἐπὶ ταῖς εἰς αὑτὸν κακηγορίαις ἐδυσχέραινεν, ὡς ἐπὶ τῷ τῆς γνώμης αὐτῶν ἀνιδρύτῳ· πεπειραμένοι γὰρ μυρίων ὅσων ἐκ τοῦ παραλόγου συμβεβηκότων πραγμάτων παρὰ τὸ καθεστὸς ἔθος ὤφειλον ὑπὸ μηδενὸς ἔτι τῶν εὐλόγων καὶ πιθανῶν ἄγεσθαι, πεπιστευκέναι δ’ αὐτῷ λαβόντες ἀποδείξεις ἐναργεστάτας τοῦ περὶ ἁπάντων ἀψευδεῖν. (197) πάλιν δ’ ὅτε εἰς ἔννοιαν ἦλθε τῆς ἐνδείας, ἧς μεῖζον οὐδὲν κακὸν ἀνθρώποις ἐστί, συνεγίνωσκεν ὄχλον εἰδὼς ἀβέβαιον φύσει πρᾶγμα καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν χερσὶ διακινούμενον, ἃ λήθην μὲν τῶν προγεγονότων ἐργάζεται, δυσελπιστίαν δ’ εἰς τὰ μέλλοντα. (198) πάντων οὖν ἐν ἀσχέτοις ὄντων ἀνίαις καὶ τὰς ἀνωτάτω προσδοκώντων συμφοράς, ἃς ἐνόμιζον ἐφεδρεύειν καὶ ἐγγυτάτω παρεῖναι, τοῦτο μὲν διὰ τὴν σύμφυτον ἐπιείκειαν καὶ φιλανθρωπίαν, τοῦτο δὲ βουλόμενος ὃν ἐχειροτόνησεν ἡγεμόνα τιμῆσαι καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον ὡς εὐσεβείας ἔχει καὶ ὁσιότητος ἔν τε τοῖς φανεροῖς κἀν τοῖς ἀδήλοις ἅπασι διασυστῆσαι ὁ θεὸς ἐλεήσας τὸ πάθος ἰᾶται. (199) ξένας οὖν εὐεργεσίας ἐκαινοτόμει, τρανοτέραις ὅπως ἐμφάσεσι παιδευθῶσιν ἤδη μὴ δυσανασχετεῖν, εἴ τι μὴ κατὰ γνώμην εὐθὺς ἀποβαίη, τλητικῶς δ’ ὑπομένειν χρηστὰ περὶ τῶν μελλόντων προσδοκῶντες. (200) τί οὖν συνέβη; τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ περὶ τὴν ἕω δρόσος βαθεῖα καὶ πολλὴ περὶ σύμπαν ἦν ἐν κύκλῳ τὸ στρατόπεδον, ἣν ἐπένιφεν ἡσυχῇ, ἀήθη ὑετὸν καὶ παρηλλαγμένον, οὐχ ὕδωρ, οὐ χάλαζαν, οὐ χιόνα, οὐ κρύσταλλον—­ταῦτα γὰρ αἱ τῶν νεφῶν ἀπεργάζονται μεταβολαὶ ταῖς χειμεριναῖς τροπαῖς—­, ἀλλὰ κέγχρον βραχυτάτην καὶ λευκοτάτην, ἣ διὰ τὴν ἐπάλληλον φορὰν σωρηδὸν προὐκέχυτο τῶν σκηνῶν, ἄπιστος ὄψις· ἣν καταπλαγέντες ἐπυνθάνοντο τοῦ ἡγεμόνος, τίς τε ὁ ὑετὸς οὗτός ἐστιν, ὃν οὐδείς πω πρότερον εἶδεν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ πρὸς τί γέγονεν.

XXXVI.196

On the Life of Moses I

179

(XXXVI) (196) Moses, receiving such reproaches, was disgusted not so much at the slander against himself as at the inconstancy of their disposition; for after experiencing so very many events that happened unexpectedly and contrary to the established norm, they should not still be carried away by anything plausible or specious but should trust him since they had received the clearest proofs of his truthfulness in every regard. (197) And again, when he came to reflect on their need, which is greater than any other of mankind’s misfortunes, he forgave them, since he knew that a crowd is something unstable by nature and disturbed by matters at hand, which engender forgetfulness of previous events and despair of the future. (198) And so as they all fell into uncontrolled grief and were anticipating the greatest misfortunes, which they thought awaited them and were very close at hand, God, because of His natural goodness, and also because He wished to honor the leader whom He had ordained, and still more wanted to make known to all how pious and holy he is in matters both visible and invisible, pitied and healed their suffering. (199) And so He instituted strange blessings, so that they might be taught by clearer demonstrations that by now they should not be discontent if something did not happen immediately according to their will, but they should endure patiently, expecting prosperity for the future. (200) And then what happened? On the next day at about dawn, in a ring around the whole camp was a thick, plentiful dew that fell quietly like snow, an unusually altered precipitation, not water, hail, snow, or ice—­for alterations in clouds during the winter solstice produce these things—­but grains, very short and bright, which because of the incessant flow were poured out in heaps before the tents, an incredible sight.155 Stunned by what they saw, they inquired of Moses both what this rain was, which no man had ever seen before, and why it happened.156

Philo does not name the substance here, but he does mention manna (μάννα) in other works. At Leg. 2.86, manna is allegorized as a depiction of God as a “most generic” substance. See also Leg. 3.174–­75. 156 The manna from heaven is allegorized at Mut. 258–­60, Leg. 3.162, and Congr. 173–­74 and is generally represented as heavenly wisdom that rains down on souls from above. Borgen, Bread from Heaven, 13, has argued that these passages were influenced by haggadic tradition. 155

180

De vita Mosis I

XXXVI.201

(201) ὁ δὲ καταπνευσθεὶς ἔνθους γίνεται καὶ θεσπίζει τάδε· “θνητοῖς μὲν ἀνεῖται πεδιὰς ἡ βαθύγειος, ἣν ἀνατεμόντες εἰς αὔλακας ἀροῦσι καὶ σπείρουσι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα τὰ κατὰ γεωργίαν δρῶσι καρποὺς ἐτησίους ἐκπορίζοντες εἰς ἀφθονίαν τῶν ἀναγκαίων· θεῷ δ’ οὐ μία μοῖρα τοῦ παντὸς ἀλλ’ ὁ σύμπας κόσμος ὑποβέβληται καὶ τὰ τούτου μέρη πρὸς ἅπασαν χρείαν ὧν ἂν θέλῃ ὡς δεσπότῃ δοῦλα ὑπηρετήσοντα. (202) νῦν οὖν ἔδοξεν αὐτῷ, τὸν ἀέρα τροφὴν ἐνεγκεῖν ἀνθ’ ὕδατος, ἐπεὶ καὶ γῆ πολλάκις ὑετὸν ἤνεγκεν· ὁ γὰρ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ποταμὸς καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς ἐπιβάσεσι πλημμυρῶν ὅταν ἄρδῃ τὰς ἀρούρας, τί ἕτερον ἢ ὑετός ἐστι κάτωθεν ἐπινίφων;” (203) παράδοξον μὲν δὴ τὸ ἔργον, εἰ καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἔστη· νυνὶ δὲ καὶ παραδοξοτέροις ἄλλοις ἐθαυματουργεῖτο. ἐπενεγκάμενοι γὰρ ἄλλος ἀλλαχόθεν ἀγγεῖα συνεκόμιζον, οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ τῶν ὑποζυγίων, οἱ δὲ κατὰ τῶν ὤμων ἐπηχθισμένοι, προνοίᾳ τοῦ πρὸς πλείω χρόνον ταμιεύεσθαι τὰ ἐπιτήδεια. (204) ἦν δ’ ἄρα ἀταμίευτα καὶ ἀθησαύριστα, δωρεὰς ἀεὶ νέας ἐγνωκότος τοῦ θεοῦ χαρίζεσθαι· τὰ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς τὴν τότε χρῆσιν αὐτάρκη σκευάσαντες μεθ’ ἡδονῆς προσηνέγκαντο, τῶν δ’ ἀπολειφθέντων εἰς τὴν ὑστεραίαν οὐδὲν ἔτι σῷον εὕρισκον, ἀλλὰ μεταβεβληκότα καὶ δυσώδη καὶ μεστὰ τοιουτοτρόπων ζῴων, ἃ κατὰ σῆψιν εἴωθε γεννᾶσθαι· ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἀπερρίπτουν κατὰ τὸ εἰκός, ἑτέρας δ’ εὐτρεπεῖς τροφὰς ἀνεύρισκον, ἃς ἅμα τῇ δρόσῳ καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν συνέβαινε νίφεσθαι. (205) γέρας δ’ ἐξαίρετον ἡ ἱερὰ ἑβδομὰς εἶχεν· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐφεῖται δρᾶν ἐν αὐτῇ, πάντων δὲ μικρῶν καὶ μεγάλων ἔργων ἀνέχειν διείρηται, συγκομίζειν οὐ δυναμένοις τότε τὰ ἐπιτήδεια πρὸ μιᾶς ὁ θεὸς ὕει διπλᾶ καὶ κελεύει φέρειν εἰς δύο ἡμέρας αὐτάρκη τροφὴν ἐσομένην· τὰ δὲ συγκομισθέντα σῷα διέμενεν, οὐδενὸς ᾗ πρότερον φθαρέντος τὸ παράπαν.

XXXVI.201

On the Life of Moses I

181

(201) And Moses became divinely inspired and prophesied as follows: “To mortals has been granted the fertile plain, which they cut open, plow into furrows, and sow, and they do the rest of what pertains to farming, providing crops in season in an abundance of provisions. But it is not a single portion of existence that is subject to God but the whole universe and its parts that they might serve every use that he wills, as slaves serve a master. (202) Now, then, it seemed good to Him that the air bring food instead of water, since land, also, very often brought rain; for every year, the river in Egypt overflowing in its courses when it irrigates the fields—­what else is this except water raining from below?”157 (203) The event would indeed have been miraculous even if it had stopped there; but now God was performing miracles in other, more marvelous ways. Bringing vessels from everywhere, they carried off the food, some placing it on pack animals, others loaded on their own shoulders, with the intention of storing the provisions for some time. (204) But in fact the provisions could not be kept or stored, since God knows how to give renewed gifts in abundance; for when they procured what was sufficient for their use at the moment, they carried it off with joy, yet they found that nothing that was left over for the next day was still salutary but was changed, foul-­smelling, and full of such creatures as are accustomed to arise in the course of putrefaction. Therefore, in all likelihood they discarded it and discovered other available sustenance, which, as it happened, fell like snow each day with the dew. (205) But the holy sabbath had an exceptional honor. Since no one was permitted to do anything on that day, and it had been established that the people cease all activities both small and great, on the previous day God rained down double provisions for them, as they were unable to gather food on the sabbath. He ordered them to take food sufficient for two days, for what was gathered remained preserved, with none of it spoiling at all as before.158

157 The notion that the Nile flood is a type of rain originating from the earth is also found at Fug. 180 and Mos. 2.194–­95. In both passages Philo makes the further claim that the peculiar fact of the country’s water being supplied by flooding rather than rain led the Egyptians to reverence things of the earth rather than those of heaven. Philo shows considerable contempt for what he deems a base orientation toward the lower realm. The miracle of the manna, by contrast, brought grain, a product of the earth, from the higher element of air in a stunning display of God’s power. Philo’s focus here, however, seems to be on rationalizing the miracle of manna. The justification is twofold: (1) God has power over the universe and its elements, so it is within his power to manipulate those elements at will. This is demonstrated by his second point, that (2) the flooding of the Nile is a similar contradiction of the natural order, just a more familiar one. 158 At Mos. 2.266–­67, the appearance of manna over six days with an absence on the seventh is said to represent the creation of the universe.

182

De vita Mosis I

XXXVII.206

(XXXVII) (206) λέξω δὲ καὶ τὸ ἔτι τούτου θαυμασιώτερον· ἐπὶ γὰρ ἔτη τεσσαράκοντα, τοσοῦτον μῆκος αἰῶνος, ὁδοιποροῦσιν αὐτοῖς αἱ χορηγίαι τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐν τάξεσι ταῖς εἰρημέναις ἐγίνοντο καθάπερ ἐν σιταρχίαις μεμετρημέναις πρὸς τὰς ἐπιβαλλούσας ἑκάστοις διανομάς. (207) ἅμα μέντοι καὶ τὴν τριπόθητον ἡμέραν ἀνεδιδάσκοντο—­ζητοῦντες γὰρ ἐκ πολλοῦ, τίς ἄρ’ ἐστὶν ἡ τοῦ κόσμου γενέθλιος, ἐν ᾗ τόδε τὸ πᾶν ἀπετελέσθη, καὶ παρὰ πατέρων καὶ προγόνων τὴν ζήτησιν ἄλυτον διαδεξάμενοι μόλις ἐδυνήθησαν εὑρεῖν—­οὐ μόνον χρησμοῖς ἀναδιδαχθέντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τεκμηρίῳ πάνυ σαφεῖ· τοῦ γὰρ πλεονάζοντος ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ἡμέραις, ὡς ἐλέχθη, φθειρομένου, τὸ πρὸ τῆς ἑβδόμης ὑόμενον οὐ μόνον οὐ μετέβαλεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μέτρον εἶχε διπλάσιον. (208) ἡ δὲ χρῆσις ἦν τοιάδε· συλλέγοντες ἅμα τῇ ἕῳ τὸ νιφόμενον ἤλουν ἢ ἔτριβον, εἶθ’ ἕψοντες ἡδεῖαν πάνυ τροφὴν οἷα μελίπηκτον προσεφέροντο μὴ δεόμενοι σιτοπόνων περιεργίας. (209) ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τῶν εἰς ἁβροδίαιτον βίον οὐκ εἰς μακρὰν εὐπόρουν, ὅσαπερ ἐν οἰκουμένῃ χώρᾳ καὶ εὐδαίμονι βουληθέντος τοῦ θεοῦ κατὰ πολλὴν περιουσίαν ἄφθονα χορηγεῖν ἐν ἐρημίᾳ· ταῖς γὰρ ἑσπέραις ὀρτυγομητρῶν νέφος συνεχὲς ἐκ θαλάττης ἐπιφερόμενον ἅπαν τὸ στρατόπεδον ἐπεσκίαζε τὰς πτήσεις προσγειοτάτας ποιουμένων εἰς τὸ εὔθηρον· συλλαμβάνοντες οὖν καὶ σκευάζοντες ὡς φίλον ἑκάστοις κρεῶν ἀπέλαυον ἡδίστων ἅμα καὶ τὴν τροφὴν παρηγοροῦντες ἀναγκαίῳ προσοψήματι.

XXXVII.206

On the Life of Moses I

183

(XXXVII) (206) I will also mention something still more miraculous than this; for forty years, so long was the amount of time they travelled, their supply of provisions happened in the stated arrangements, as if they were rations measured for distribution due to each person. (207) Furthermore, at the same time they learned anew the day long sought after, for they had long investigated when in fact was the birthday of the universe, the day on which the whole of everything was created, and, receiving from their fathers and ancestors the unsolvable inquiry, they were scarcely able to find the answer. This they learned not only from divine oracles but also from an absolutely clear proof: for while the excess food spoiled on the other days, as was mentioned, not only did that which rained on the day before the sabbath not change, but it even contained a double measure.159 (208) The practice was as follows: having gathered what had snowed at dawn, they ground or crushed it, and then after boiling it, they received sweet food indeed, like a honey cake, without needing the extra work of bakers. (209) But as a matter of fact soon they were abounding in the advantages of a refined life, such things as exist in an inhabited and happy land, since God wished to provide in great excess an abundance in the wilderness. For in the evenings a dense flock of quail coming in from the sea overshadowed the whole camp, making their flight very close to the ground for easy hunting; and so, gathering them and preparing them as each liked, they enjoyed the sweetest meat even as they assuaged their meals with minimal relish.160

159 The prophesying that Philo mentions may refer to Moses’ inspired speech regarding the connection between manna and the sabbath at Mos. 2.263–­69, where the sequence of six days of manna followed by one without is deemed a copy of creation. For the sabbath as the birthday of the world, see Mos. 2.210; Opif. 89; and Spec. 1.170; 2.59; 2.70. In a note on Mos. 1.207, Colson (LCL) notes that the issue is not that the Hebrews did not know that the sabbath was the birthday of the world but that they had lost track of which day was the sabbath, which the absence of manna on the seventh day confirmed. This is quite reasonable since the widespread introduction of the seven-­day week belongs to the Christianized Roman Empire (Runia, On the Creation, 267). 160 Philo is a bit more explicit on the notion of relish at Decal. 16. The point seems to be that the quail was a pleasant supplement to the manna, which was sufficient sustenance on its own. Relishes, that is, side dishes and seasonings, might be simple fare but could easily be a mark of luxuriousness, as in Socrates’ exchange with Glaucon in Plato, Resp. 372c–­e. Philo is careful to note that the quail, while delicious, only modestly enhanced their dietary staple, manna.

184

❡

De vita Mosis I

XXXVIII.210

(XXXVIII) (210) Τούτων μὲν οὖν πολλὴν ἦγον ἀφθονίαν οὐκ ἐπιλειπόντων, ὕδατος δὲ καὶ πάλιν πιέσασα δεινὴ σπάνις ἐπιγίνεται· καὶ πρὸς ἀπόγνωσιν ἤδη τραπομένων σωτηρίας, λαβὼν Μωυσῆς τὴν ἱερὰν βακτηρίαν ἐκείνην, δι’ ἧς τὰ κατ’ Αἴγυπτον ἀπετέλεσε σημεῖα, θεοφορηθεὶς τὴν ἀκρότομον πέτραν παίει. (211) ἡ δ’, εἴτε προϋποκειμένης πηγῆς φλέβα καίριον διακοπεῖσα εἴτε καὶ τότε πρῶτον ὕδατος ἀφανέσιν ὑπονόμοις εἰς αὐτὴν ἀθρόου συρρυέντος καὶ σφόδρα ἐκθλιβέντος, ἀναστομωθεῖσα τῇ βίᾳ τῆς φορᾶς κρουνηδὸν ἐκχεῖται, ὡς μὴ τότε μόνον παρασχεῖν ἄκος δίψους ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς πλείω χρόνον τοσαύταις μυριάσιν ἀφθονίαν ποτοῦ· τὰ γὰρ ὑδρία πάντ’ ἐπλήρωσαν, ὡς καὶ πρότερον ἐκ τῶν πηγῶν, αἳ πικραὶ μὲν ἦσαν φύσει, μετέβαλον δ’ ἐπιφροσύνῃ θείᾳ πρὸς τὸ γλύκιον. (212) εἰ δέ τις τούτοις ἀπιστεῖ, θεὸν οὔτ’ οἶδεν οὔτ’ ἐζήτησέ ποτε· ἔγνω γὰρ ἂν εὐθέως, ἔγνω παγίως καταλαβών, ὅτι τὰ παράδοξα δὴ ταῦτα καὶ παράλογα θεοῦ παίγνιά ἐστιν, ἀπιδὼν εἰς τὰ τῷ ὄντι μεγάλα καὶ σπουδῆς ἄξια, γένεσιν οὐρανοῦ καὶ πλανήτων καὶ ἀπλανῶν ἀστέρων χορείας καὶ φωτὸς ἀνάλαμψιν, ἡμέρας μὲν ἡλιακοῦ, νύκτωρ δὲ τοῦ διὰ σελήνης, καὶ γῆς ἵδρυσιν ἐν τῷ μεσαιτάτῳ τοῦ παντός, ἠπείρων τε καὶ νήσων ὑπερβάλλοντα μεγέθη καὶ ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν ἀμυθήτους ἰδέας, ἔτι δὲ πελαγῶν ἀναχύσεις, ποταμῶν αὐθιγενῶν καὶ χειμάρρων φοράς, ἀενάων ῥεῖθρα πηγῶν, ὧν αἱ μὲν ψυχρὸν αἱ δὲ θερμὸν ὕδωρ ἀνομβροῦσιν, ἀέρος παντοίας τροπάς, ἐτησίων ὡρῶν διακρίσεις, ἄλλα κάλλη μυρία. (213) ἐπιλίποι ἂν ὁ βίος τοῦ βουλομένου διηγεῖσθαι τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστα, μᾶλλον δ’ ἕν τι τῶν ὁλοσχερεστέρων τοῦ κόσμου μερῶν, κἂν εἰ μέλλοι πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἔσεσθαι μακροβιώτατος. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ὄντα θαυμάσια καταπεφρόνηται τῷ συνήθει· τὰ δὲ μὴ ἐν ἔθει, κἂν μικρὰ ᾖ, ξέναις φαντασίαις ἐνδιδόντες καταπληττόμεθα τῷ φιλοκαίνῳ.

XXXVIII.210

On the Life of Moses I

185

(XXXVIII) (210) Now, although they maintained a great abundance amid these unfailing blessings, a terrible shortage of water came upon them and tormented them again; and by now in despair of rescue, Moses took his holy staff, the very one by which he accomplished the signs throughout Egypt, and, inspired by God, struck a steep rock. (211) Either the rock was cut through into a vital artery of an existing spring or, with an abundance of water flowing to it through hidden channels and creating tremendous pressure, it then opened for the first time. Either way, water gushed forth from the force of the flow;161 as a result, not only was a cure for thirst offered for the moment but also an abundance of drinking water for many thousands of people for quite a long time. They filled all their water jars, as they did previously at the springs that were naturally brackish but turned into sweet water through divine wisdom. (212) And if anyone disbelieves this, he neither knows God nor has ever sought Him; for he would have recognized straightaway and firmly grasped that these “miraculous” and incredible events are in fact trifles for God, if he were contemplating things that are truly great and worthy of study: the creation of the heaven and the movements of the fixed and wandering stars, the splendor of light—­the light of the sun by day and by night the light of the moon—­and the seat of the earth in the very midst of all creation, and the extraordinary sizes of continents and islands and the innumerable shapes of animals and plants, and what is more the expansion of the seas, the courses of natural and storm-­swollen rivers, the streams of inexhaustible springs, some of which pour forth cold water, others warm, the varied directions of the air, divisions of the annual seasons, and other myriad beautiful things. (213) Life would be insufficient for anyone wishing to expound upon the details for each of these things, or rather upon any one of the more significant parts of the universe, even if he were to be the longest lived of all mankind. But these things, though being in truth miracles, have been scorned because they are familiar, but, because of the novelty, we give in to strange appearances and are amazed by things that are not customary, even if they are small.

161 Philo may be conflating two scenes of procuring water from rocks; see introduction, p. 45. This miracle is mentioned by Philo at Leg. 2.84 and Somn. 2.222, but only here does Philo provide a “scientific” explanation for the water’s emergence from the rock.

186

❡

De vita Mosis I

XXXIX.214

(XXXIX) (214) Ἤδη δὲ πολλὴν καὶ ἀπόρευτον διεξεληλυθότων, ὅροι τινὲς ἀνεφαίνοντο γῆς οἰκουμένης καὶ προάστεια χώρας, εἰς ἣν μεθωρμίζοντο· νέμονται δ’ αὐτὴν Φοίνικες. ἐλπίσαντες δὲ βίον εὔδιον καὶ γαληνὸν αὑτοῖς ἀπαντήσεσθαι γνώμης ἐσφάλησαν. (215) ὁ γὰρ προκαθήμενος βασιλεὺς πόρθησιν εὐλαβηθείς, ἀναστήσας τὴν ἐκ τῶν πόλεων νεότητα, μάλιστα μὲν ἀνείρξων ὑπηντίαζεν, εἰ δὲ βιάζοιντο, διὰ χειρῶν ἀμυνούμενος ἀκμῆσι καὶ ἄρτι πρῶτον καθισταμένοις εἰς ἀγῶνα κεκμηκότας ὁδοιπορίαις καὶ ἐνδείαις σιτίων καὶ ποτῶν, ἃ κατὰ μέρος ἀντεπετίθετο. (216) Μωυσῆς δὲ παρὰ τῶν σκοπῶν γνοὺς οὐ μακρὰν διεστηκότα τὸν ἐχθρὸν στρατόν, καταλέξας τοὺς ἡβῶντας καὶ στρατηγὸν ἑλόμενος ἕνα τῶν ὑπάρχων  Ἰησοῦν, πρὸς τὴν μείζονα συμμαχίαν αὐτὸς ἠπείγετο· περιρρανάμενος γὰρ τοῖς εἰωθόσι καθαρμοῖς ἐπὶ κολωνὸν τὸν πλησίον μετὰ σπουδῆς ἀναδραμὼν ἱκέτευε τὸν θεὸν ὑπερασπίσαι καὶ νίκην καὶ κράτος περιποιῆσαι τοῖς  Ἑβραίοις, οὓς ἐκ χαλεπωτέρων πολέμων καὶ κακῶν ἄλλων ἐρρύσατο μὴ μόνον τὰς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἐπικρεμασθείσας συμφορὰς ἀποσκεδάσας, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅσας ὅ τε τῶν στοιχείων νεωτερισμὸς ἐκαινούργησε κατ’ Αἴγυπτον καὶ ὁ ἐν ταῖς ὁδοιπορίαις ἀνήνυτος λιμός.

XXXIX.214

On the Life of Moses I

187

(XXXIX) (214) When they had now undertaken a long, impassable road, the borders of some inhabited land and rural estates of a country came into view,162 the place where they were headed. The land was inhabited by Phoenicians.163 The Hebrews expected that they would meet with a blessed and calm life and were mistaken in their opinion. (215) For the reigning king, fearing the sack of the country, recruited the city’s young men and marched out primarily to repel the Hebrews, but if they should come to blows, intending to take up arms and fight using fresh troops who were just now first levied for battle against people exhausted by their marches and lack of food and water, which alternated periodically. (216) But Moses, having learned from his scouts that the hostile force was not far off, conscripted the youth and chose a general, one of his subordinates, Joshua,164 and then hurried toward a greater alliance; for after cleansing himself with the accustomed purification rites, he ran up to the nearby hill and begged God to defend them and grant victory and strength to the Hebrews, whom He had defended from worse wars and other troubles, not only driving off the dangers that other men threatened them with, but even those strange new ones that the change of elements brought about in Egypt and those caused by endless hunger in their journeying.

Identified as the nation of Amalek at Exod 17:8, which was named for their ancestor Amalek, a grandson of Esau (see Gen 36:12; and Congr. 54–­55). 163 As Philo noted above in section 163, Phoenicia is one of the regions that the Bible calls Canaan. Phoenicia was a collection of city-­states (most notably Sidon, Tyre, and Byblos) along the coast of the Levant. The land occupied by the Phoenicians extended roughly from what is now Syria to southern Lebanon. 164 It is striking that Philo identifies Joshua when Jethro, Aaron, and Miriam are all left unnamed. Phineas will also be named explicitly in section 301 below. The exceptional naming of Joshua and Phineas is perhaps best explained by their virtuous natures. Joshua’s outstanding virtue is lauded by Philo at Virt. 55–­67, where he is said to have followed Moses’ example and was chosen by God as Moses’ successor. Philo frequently praises Phineas’ zealous virtue and interprets him allegorically as reason that slays unbridled passions (see Leg. 3.242; Post. 182; Conf. 57; and Mut. 108). Philo does not mention anywhere in the De vita Mosis that Joshua’s name was originally Hoshea and changed to Joshua by Moses (Num 13:16). Feldman, “Spies,” 37–­38, citing Mut. 60–­62, proposes that biblical changes of names provoked mockery among the Greeks and so were omitted from the De vita Mosis, which had a gentile audience. Joshua’s name is discussed at Mut. 121. 162

188

De vita Mosis I

XXXIX.217

(217) ἤδη δὲ μελλόντων εἰς μάχην καθίστασθαι, τερατωδέστατόν τι συμβαίνει πάθος περὶ τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ· κουφόταται γὰρ ἐγίνοντο ἐν μέρει καὶ βαρύταται· εἶθ’ ὁπότε μὲν ἐπελαφρίζοιντο πρὸς ὕψος αἰρόμεναι, τὸ συμμαχικὸν ἐρρώννυτο καὶ ἀνδραγαθιζόμενον ἐπικυδέστερον ἐγίνετο, ὁπότε δὲ κάτω βρίσειαν, ἴσχυον οἱ ἀντίπαλοι, μηνύοντος διὰ συμβόλων τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι τῶν μέν ἐστι γῆ καὶ αἱ τοῦ παντὸς ἐσχατιαὶ κλῆρος οἰκεῖος, τῶν δ’αἰθὴρ ὁ ἱερώτατος, καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ παντὶ βασιλεύει καὶ κρατεῖ γῆς οὐρανός, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἔθνος περιέσται τῶν ἀντιπολεμούντων. (218) ἄχρι μὲν οὖν τινος αἱ χεῖρες οἷα πλάστιγγες ἐν μέρει μὲν ἐπεκουφίζοντο, ἐν μέρει δ’ ἐπέρρεπον, τηνικαῦτα καὶ ὁ ἀγὼν ἀμφήριστος ἦν· ἐξαπιναίως δ’ ἀβαρεῖς γενόμεναι, δακτύλοις ἀντὶ ταρσῶν χρώμεναι, μετέωροι πρὸς ὕψος ἤρθησαν, καθάπερ αἱ πτηναὶ φύσεις ἀεροποροῦσαι, καὶ διέμενον ἀνώφοιτοι μέχρι τοῦ τὴν νίκην  Ἑβραίους ἀνανταγώνιστον ἄρασθαι, τῶν ἐχθρῶν ἡβηδὸν ἀναιρεθέντων ἅπερ τε διαθεῖναι παρὰ τὸ προσῆκον ἐσπούδαζον παθόντων μετὰ δίκης. (219) τότε καὶ Μωυσῆς ἱδρύεται βωμόν, ὃν ἀπὸ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος ὠνόμασε “θεοῦ καταφυγήν” (Exod. 17, 15), ἐφ’ οὗ τὰ ἐπινίκια ἔθυε χαριστηρίους εὐχὰς ἀποδιδούς.

XXXIX.217

On the Life of Moses I

189

(217) And now when they were about to position themselves for battle, a quite extraordinary event happened concerning his hands, namely they became very light and very heavy in turn. And so whenever they became light and were raised aloft, the Hebrew forces fared well and became more glorious in their heroic actions, but whenever they were weighed down, their adversaries dominated, as God revealed through symbols that the earth and the limits of the universe were the proper allotment of their adversaries, but the most holy air was theirs, and as in creation the sky rules and has power over the earth, so too would the nation of the Hebrews surpass those they warred against.165 (218) And so for a while, his hands like scales became light and fell in turn, and so too the battle was in doubt. But suddenly they became weightless; using fingers like wings, his hands were lifted high aloft, passing through the air like birds, and remained high up until the Hebrews indisputably won the victory,166 with the enemy from young to old being annihilated, suffering justly what they were eager to commit contrary to propriety. (219) And then Moses built an altar, which he named “God’s refuge” because of the event, upon which he made the victory sacrifices after offering prayers of thanksgiving.

Philo allegorizes this passage differently at Leg. 3.186–­87, where Moses’ hands represent the mind, which when lowered grants power to Amalek, the passions, and allows them to consume the soul. 166 No mention is made of Exod 17:11–­13, where Aaron and Hor keep Moses’ hands from dropping. Philo does note their assistance at Leg. 3.45, where Aaron is allegorized as “word” and Hor as “truth”, which indicate that “the actions of the wise are supported by the most vital things, the word and truth.” 165

190

❡

De vita Mosis I

XL.220

(XL) (220) Μετὰ τὴν μάχην ταύτην ἔγνω δεῖν τὴν χώραν, εἰς ἣν ἀπῳκίζετο τὸ ἔθνος, κατασκέψασθαι—­δεύτερον δ’ ὁδοιποροῦσιν ἔτος ἐνειστήκει—­βουλόμενος μή, οἷα φιλεῖ, γνωσιμαχεῖν οὐκ εἰδότας, ἀλλ’ ἀκοῇ προμαθόντας αὐτήν, ἐπιστήμῃ τῶν ἐκεῖ βεβαίᾳ χρωμένους, τὸ πρακτέον ἐκλογίζεσθαι. (221) δώδεκα δ’ ἰσαρίθμους ταῖς φυλαῖς ἄνδρας, ἐξ ἑκάστης ἕνα φύλαρχον, αἱρεῖται τοὺς δοκιμωτάτους ἀριστίνδην προκρίνας, ἵνα μηδεμία μοῖρα πλέον ἢ ἔλαττον ἐνεγκαμένη διαφέρηται, πᾶσαι δ’ ἐξ ἴσου διὰ τῶν ἐν τέλει τὰ παρὰ τοῖς κατοίκοις, εἰ βουληθεῖεν οἱ πεμφθέντες ἀψευδεῖν, ἐπιγνῶσιν. (222) ἑλόμενος δ’ αὐτούς φησι τάδε· “τῶν ἀγώνων καὶ κινδύνων, οὓς ὑπέστημεν καὶ μέχρι νῦν ὑπομένομεν, ἆθλόν εἰσιν αἱ κληρουχίαι, ὧν τῆς ἐλπίδος μὴ διαμάρτοιμεν ἔθνος πολυανθρωπότατον εἰς ἀποικίαν παραπέμποντες. ἔστι δ’ ὠφελιμώτατον ἡ τόπων καὶ ἀνθρώπων καὶ πραγμάτων ἐπιστήμη, ὥσπερ ἡ ἄγνοια βλαβερόν. (223) ὑμᾶς οὖν ἐχειροτονήσαμεν, ἵνα ταῖς ὑμετέραις ὄψεσί τε καὶ διανοίαις τἀκεῖ θεασώμεθα· γίνεσθε δὴ τῶν τοσούτων μυριάδων ὦτα καὶ ὀφθαλμοὶ πρὸς τὴν ὧν ἀναγκαῖον εἰδέναι σαφῆ κατάληψιν.”

XL.220

On the Life of Moses I

191

(XL) (220) After this battle Moses saw that it was necessary to reconnoiter the land to which the Hebrew people were immigrating167—­a second year of travelling had begun for them—­since he did not want the people to dispute about it in ignorance, as usually happens, but to plan what should be done after learning about the country in advance from a report and gaining firm understanding of how things stood there. (221) He chose twelve men, equal to the tribes in number, one leader from each tribe, selecting the men most distinguished for their merit so that no part of the nation would quarrel because they obtained more or less information, but all would learn equally from their leaders the affairs of the inhabitants, if those who were sent might be willing to speak the truth. (222) When he chose them, Moses spoke as follows: “Allotments of land are the reward for the trials and dangers that we have confronted and endured up until now, and may we not fail in our hope of obtaining them since we are sending so populous a nation as a colony.168 But knowledge of places, people, and affairs is extremely profitable, just as ignorance is harmful. (223) Therefore we have appointed you, so that we might observe matters there through your vision and perceptions; so, become the eyes and ears for so many myriads to grasp what must be clearly known!”

167 Philo’s narrative jumps from the battle with Amalek in Exod 17 to the spies’ mission in Canaan in Num 13. The many intervening laws and ordinances have been understandably omitted, and vignettes more indicative of Moses’ role as legislator or priest, most notably events as Sinai, are reserved for the second book of the De vita Mosis. Philo has thus condensed the account of the Hebrews’ wanderings by shifting the battle with Amalek to the outskirts of Canaan from where the spies will be sent on their mission. For a discussion of the many differences between Philo’s and the biblical account of the spies, see Feldman, “Spies.” 168 Cleruchies (κληρουχίαι) are best known as parcels of land granted to soldiers or mercenaries as payment for their service. Philo strikingly pairs the term with the image of colonization (ἀποικία). The notion of a military settlement that a cleruchy implies is appropriate in light of the upcoming battles that Hebrews will face. It could also recall the Jewish military settlements established in the third century BC.

192

De vita Mosis I

XL.224

(224) “ἃ δὲ γνῶναι ποθοῦμεν, τρία ταῦτ’ ἐστίν· οἰκητόρων πλῆθός τε καὶ δύναμιν, πόλεων τὴν ἐν εὐκαιρίᾳ θέσιν καὶ ἐν οἰκοδομίαις ἐχυρότητα ἢ τοὐναντίον, χώραν εἰ βαθύγειός ἐστι καὶ πίων, ἀγαθὴ παντοίους καρποὺς ἐνεγκεῖν σπαρτῶν τε καὶ δένδρων, ἢ λεπτόγεως ἔμπαλιν, ἵνα πρὸς μὲν ἰσχὺν καὶ πλῆθος οἰκητόρων ἰσορρόποις δυνάμεσι φραξώμεθα, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἐν τοῖς τόποις ἐρυμνότητα μηχανήμασι καὶ ταῖς ἑλεπόλεσιν· ἀναγκαῖον δὲ καὶ τὴν χώραν εἰδέναι, εἰ ἀρετῶσα ἢ μή· περὶ γὰρ λυπρᾶς ἑκουσίους κινδύνους ὑπομένειν ἠλιθιότητος. (225) τὰ δ’ ὅπλα καὶ μηχανήματα ἡμῶν καὶ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις ἐν μόνῳ τῷ πιστεύειν θεῷ κεῖται· ταύτην ἔχοντες τὴν παρασκευὴν οὐδενὶ τῶν φοβερῶν εἴξομεν· ἱκανὴ γὰρ ἀμάχους ῥώμας εὐεξίαις, τόλμαις, ἐμπειρίαις, πλήθεσιν ἐκ πολλοῦ τοῦ περιόντος κατακρατεῖν, δι’ ἣν καὶ ἐν ἐρήμῃ βαθείᾳ χορηγίαι πάντων εἰσὶν ὅσα ἐν εὐετηρίᾳ πόλεων. (226) ὁ δὲ καιρός, ἐν ᾧ μάλιστα χώρας ἀρετὴν δοκιμάζεσθαι συμβέβηκεν, ἔαρ ἐστίν, ὃ νῦν ἐφέστηκεν· ὥρᾳ γὰρ ἔαρος τὰ μὲν σπαρέντα τελεσφορεῖται γένη, αἱ δὲ τῶν δένδρων φύσεις ἀρχὴν λαμβάνουσιν. ἄμεινον δ’ ἂν εἴη καὶ ἐπιμεῖναι μέχρι θέρους ἀκμάζοντος καὶ καρποὺς οἱονεὶ δείγματα χώρας εὐδαίμονος.”

XL.224

On the Life of Moses I

193

(224) “There are three things that we want to know—­the number and strength of the inhabitants, whether the cities are favorably located and secure in their construction or the opposite, and the countryside, whether it is fertile and rich, good for producing all sort of produce from farms and orchards,169 or, on the contrary, is of poor soil—­so that we might fortify ourselves against the strength and number of the inhabitants with equivalent forces and against their defensive strength with machines of war and siege towers. And it is necessary to know whether the land is prosperous or not; for to undergo danger deliberately over thin soil would be foolishness.170 (225) Our arms and war machines and all our strength lie solely in our faith in God; with this preparation we will yield to no terror. For faith is capable of prevailing—­and much more than prevailing—­over forces that are invincible owing to their vigor, boldness, experience, and numbers; through faith even in the depths of the wilderness there was an abundance of everything found in prosperous cities.171 (226) But the time that is most fit for examining the virtue of a land is spring, which is now upon us. For in the season of spring, the varieties of sown plants ripen, and the trees begin to show their natures. But it would be better to remain until the fullness of summer and to bring back fruits as signs of a blessed land.”

Philo omits Moses’ instruction to bring back a sample of the land’s produce (Num 13:20), perhaps owing to his desire to avoid any charge of theft (Feldman, “Spies,” 39). The decision to return with a bunch of grapes rests with the spies. Cf. note 116 above. 170 At Somn. 2.170, the strength of the inhabitants and fertility of the land are allegorized as virtue, which one arrives at after wandering through philosophy, a place barren of the passions. 171 Philo greatly expands Moses’ speech at Num 13:17–­20. The information the spies are to gather—­the size and defensive measures of the enemy and the fertility of their land—is unchanged from the biblical account, but Philo includes an explanation of why that information is necessary. Most notably, the enemies’ military capabilities must be known so the Hebrews know how to attack, not whether to attack, as Moses explains that no one can oppose them while they keep their faith in God. The addition to Moses’ speech both clarifies the purpose of the mission and establishes his unwavering faith, and Philo anticipates the contentious report from the spies. 169

194

De vita Mosis I

XLI.227

(XLI) (227) ταῦτ’ ἀκούσαντες ἐπὶ τὴν κατασκοπὴν ἐξῄεσαν ὑπὸ παντὸς τοῦ πλήθους προπεμπόμενοι δεδιότος, μὴ συλληφθέντες ἀπόλωνται καὶ συμβῇ δύο τὰ χαλεπώτατα, ἀνδρῶν τε, οἳ φυλῆς ἑκάστης ὄψις ἦσαν, σφαγαὶ καὶ ἄγνοια τῶν παρὰ τοῖς ἐφεδρεύουσιν ἐχθροῖς ὧν ὠφέλιμος ἡ ἐπιστήμη. (228) Παραλαβόντες δ’ ὀπτῆρας καὶ ἡγεμόνας τῆς ὁδοῦ προερχομένοις ἐφείποντο· καὶ γενόμενοι πλησίον, ἐφ’ ὑψηλότατον ὄρος τῶν περὶ τὸν τόπον ἀναδραμόντες, κατεθεῶντο τὴν χώραν, ἧς πεδιὰς μὲν ἦν πολλὴ κριθοφόρος, πυροφόρος, εὔχορτος, ὀρεινὴ δ’ οὐκ ἔλαττον ἀμπέλων καὶ στελεχῶν ἄλλων κατάπλεως, εὔδενδρος ἅπασα, λάσιος, ποταμοῖς καὶ πηγαῖς διεζωσμένη πρὸς ἄφθονον ὑδρείαν, ὡς ἐκ τῶν προπόδων ἄχρι τῶν κορυφῶν ὅλα τῶν ὀρῶν τὰ κλίματα δένδρεσι κατασκίοις συνυφάνθαι, διαφερόντως δὲ τοὺς αὐχένας καὶ ὅσαι βαθεῖαι διαφύσεις. (229) κατεθεῶντο δὲ καὶ τὰς πόλεις ἐρυμνοτάτας διχόθεν, ἔκ τε τοπικῆς περὶ τὴν θέσιν εὐκαιρίας καὶ περιβόλων ἐχυρότητος. ἐξετάζοντες δὲ καὶ τοὺς οἰκήτορας ἑώρων ἀπείρους τὸ πλῆθος, περιμηκεστάτους γίγαντας ἢ γιγαντώδεις τὰς τῶν σωμάτων ὑπερβολὰς ἔν τε μεγέθεσι καὶ ῥώμαις. (230) ταῦτα κατιδόντες εἰς ἀκριβεστέραν κατάληψιν ἐπέμενον—­ὀλισθηρὸν γὰρ αἱ πρῶται φαντασίαι χρόνῳ μόλις ἐνσφραγιζόμεναι—­καὶ ἅμα σπουδὴν ἐποιοῦντο δρεψάμενοι τῶν ἀκροδρύων, μὴ ἄρτι πρῶτον στεριφουμένων ἀλλ’ ἤδη ὑποπερκαζόντων, ἐπιδείξασθαι παντὶ τῷ πλήθει τὰ μὴ ῥᾳδίως φθαρησόμενα. (231) μάλιστα δ’ αὐτοὺς κατέπληττεν ὁ τῆς ἀμπέλου καρπός· οἱ γὰρ βότρυες ὑπερμεγέθεις ἦσαν, ἀντιπαρεκτεινόμενοι ταῖς κληματίσι καὶ μοσχεύμασιν, ἄπιστος θέα· ἕνα γοῦν ἐκτεμόντες καὶ δοκίδος ἐκ μέσων ἀπαιωρήσαντες, ἧς τὰς ἀρχὰς δυσὶ νέοις, τῷ μὲν ἔνθεν τῷ δ’ ἔνθεν, ἐπετίθεσαν, ἐκ διαδοχῆς, πιεζομένων αἰεὶ τῶν προτέρων—­βαρύτατον γὰρ ἦν ἄχθος—­, ἐκόμιζον, περὶ τῶν ἀναγκαίων οὐχ ὁμοφρονοῦντες.

XLI.227

On the Life of Moses I

195

(XLI) (227) After hearing this, they left on reconnaissance, escorted by the whole multitude, who feared that, if caught, they might be destroyed and the two most unbearable things might happen: the slaughter of the men, who were the eyes of each tribe, and ignorance of matters among their waiting enemies, knowledge of which would be advantageous.172 (228) They employed spies and leaders for the journey and followed them as they went ahead; when they were close by their goal, they ran up the highest of the hills in the vicinity and looked down upon the land, whose plain was rich in barley, grain, and pasturage, and the mountains were no less full of vineyards and other trees, entirely well and densely wooded, bounded by rivers and springs for abundant irrigation, so that the whole slopes of the mountains were interwoven from the foothills to the summits with shading trees, especially the mountain passes and any deep ravines. (229) They also surveyed the cities, which were heavily fortified in two ways, through a favorable location for their placement and through strength of their walls. They also investigated the inhabitants and saw that they were boundless in number, being either very tall giants or of a physical superiority that made them like giants in size and strength. (230) When they observed this, they waited for a more accurate conception—­for the first images that make their impression in scarcely any time are uncertain173—­ and at the same time they gathered some fruit, not from those just beginning to harden, but from the ones already ripening, eager to show the whole multitude fruit that would not easily spoil. (231) The fruit of the vine especially amazed them; the bunches of grapes were huge, extending out with their branches and shoots, an incredible sight.174 Indeed, after cutting one of the bunches off and hanging it from the middle of a beam whose tips they set upon two young men, one on each end, they carried it in succession, since the ones who carried it previously were always being crushed—­for it was very heavy—­though they were not in agreement about important matters.

172 According to Feldman, “Spies,” 39–40, this insertion by Philo not only demonstrates the Hebrew people’s concern for the mission; it also closely associates them with it and justifies them sharing in the punishment of the cowardly spies below at Mos. 1.236. 173 The unfavorable report of the spies at Num 13:32–­33 claims the land is inhabited by people of great size who made the spies seem like grasshoppers in comparison. Philo softens the biblical account by relegating the immense size of the inhabitants to a mistaken first impression. The claim in the biblical report that giants inhabit the land may be foremost in Philo’s mind when he references exaggerations in the pessimistic report at section 233. 174 See Mut. 224, where the vine the spies carry off represents a branch of virtue with a similar interpretation at Somn. 2.171.

196

De vita Mosis I

XLII.232

(XLII) (232) ἐγένοντο μὲν οὖν αὐτοῖς ἅμιλλαι μυρίαι καὶ πρὶν ἐπανήκειν κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν, ἀλλὰ κουφότεραι, ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ γνωσιμαχούντων μηδ’ ἄλλα ἄλλων ἀπαγγελλόντων στάσιν ἐν τῷ πλήθει γενέσθαι, χαλεπώτεραι δὲ μετὰ τὴν ἐπάνοδον. (233) οἱ μὲν γὰρ περὶ τῆς τῶν πόλεων ἐχυρότητος καὶ ὡς ἑκάστη πολυάνθρωπός ἐστι διεξιόντες καὶ πάντα αἴροντες τῷ λόγῳ πρὸς τὸ μεγαλεῖον φόβον ἐνειργάζοντο τοῖς ἀκούουσιν, οἱ δὲ τὸν ἁπάντων ὧν εἶδον ὑφαιροῦντες ὄγκον παρεκάλουν μὴ ἀναπίπτειν, ἀλλ’ ἔχεσθαι τῆς ἀποικίας ὡς αὐτοβοεὶ περιεσομένους· οὐδεμίαν γὰρ ἀνθέξειν πόλιν πρὸς τοσαύτης δυνάμεως ἔφοδον ἀθρόως ἐπιστάσης, ἀλλὰ τῷ βάρει πιεσθεῖσαν πίπτειν· προσετίθεσαν δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων παθῶν ἑκάτεροι ταῖς ψυχαῖς τῶν ἀκουόντων, οἱ μὲν ἄνανδροι δειλίαν, οἱ δ’ ἀκατάπληκτοι θάρσος μετ’ εὐελπιστίας. (234) ἀλλ’ οὗτοι μὲν πέμπτη μοῖρα τῶν ἀποδεδειλιακότων ἦσαν, οἱ δ’ ἔμπαλιν τῶν γενναίων πενταπλάσιοι· τὸ δ’ ὀλίγον θάρσος ἀτολμίας ἐναφανίζεται περιουσίᾳ, ὃ δὴ καὶ τότε φασὶ συμβῆναι· τῶν γὰρ τὰ βέλτιστα διεξιόντων δυοῖν οἱ τἀναντία φάσκοντες δέκα περιῆσαν οὕτως, ὥστε καὶ σύμπασαν ὑπηγάγοντο τὴν πληθὺν ἐκείνων μὲν ἀλλοτριώσαντες, ἑαυτοῖς δ’ οἰκειωσάμενοι. (235) περὶ δὲ τῆς χώρας ταὐτὰ πάντες ἀπεφαίνοντο γνώμῃ μιᾷ τὸ κάλλος καὶ τῆς πεδιάδος καὶ τῆς ὀρεινῆς ἐκδιηγούμενοι· “τί δ’ ὄφελος” εὐθὺς ἀνεβόησαν “ἡμῖν ἀλλοτρίων ἀγαθῶν καὶ ταῦτα πεφρουρημένων κραταιᾷ χειρὶ πρὸς τὸ ἀναφαίρετον;” καὶ τοῖς δυσὶν ἐπιδραμόντες μικροῦ καταλεύουσιν αὐτοὺς ἡδονὴν ἀκοῆς τοῦ συμφέροντος καὶ ἀπάτην ἀληθείας προκρίναντες. (236) ἐφ’ οἷς ὁ ἡγεμὼν ἠγανάκτει καὶ ἅμα ηὐλαβεῖτο, μή τι θεήλατον κατασκήψῃ κακὸν οὕτως ἐκθύμως ἀπιστοῦσι τοῖς χρησμοῖς· ὅπερ καὶ ἐγένετο· τῶν γὰρ κατασκόπων οἱ μὲν δειλοὶ δέκα λοιμώδει νόσῳ διαφθείρονται μετὰ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ πλήθους συναπονοηθέντων, μόνοι δ’ οἱ συμβουλεύσαντες δύο μὴ ὀρρωδεῖν ἀλλ’ ἐφίεσθαι τῆς ἀποικίας ἐσώθησαν, ὅτι καταπειθεῖς ἐγένοντο τοῖς λογίοις, γέρας ἐξαίρετον λαβόντες τὸ μὴ παραπολέσθαι.

XLII.232

On the Life of Moses I

197

(XLII) (232) Now, during their journey there were myriad conflicts among them even before they returned, but they were rather minor so that there would be no division in the multitude due to their obstinance or delivery of differing reports, but their disagreements became more serious after their return. (233) Some of them, explaining about the security of the cities and how each is full of people and exaggerating everything greatly in their speech, engendered fear in their audience, but others downplayed the importance of everything they saw and encouraged them not to yield but to hold fast to their colony since they would succeed without striking a blow. For, they said, no city would hold out against an attack from this force arrayed en masse but would fall and be crushed by its weight; and each also imposed upon the souls of the audience the outcome from his personal experience—some, being cowardly, inflicted baseness upon them; others, unperturbed, brought courage by their optimism. (234) But these latter men were a fifth the number of the cowards, and, on the other side, the cowards were five times the number of the courageous;175 but a little courage disappears in an abundance of timidity, which in fact they say happened then. For though the two of courage explained things most nobly, the ten saying the opposite were so successful that they enticed the whole multitude, alienating the people from the two noble scouts and earning their friendship for themselves. (235) But all gave the same account concerning the land, recounting with a single opinion the beauty of the plain and the hill country; and straightaway the people cried out, “What good to us are the possessions of others, and possessions guarded with a strong hand to the point of being unattainable at that?” And they went after the two and almost stoned them, preferring the pleasure of an account over profit and deception over truth. (236) But Moses became angry at the multitude and at the same time took care lest some divine harm spread among those so ardent in their disbelief of his prophecies, which in fact happened. For some of the spies, the ten cowardly ones, died from a plague along with those of the people who shared in their folly, but only the two spies who advised them not to fear but to pursue the colony were saved, because they were obedient to the prophecies, receiving their survival as a special reward.176 The two dissenters are Caleb and Joshua. Philo has made some considerable alterations to this scene. In the biblical account, the whole multitude is persuaded by the negative report of the ten spies and even seeks to replace Moses with a leader who will take them back to Egypt (Num 14:1–­4). God becomes angry and threatens to destroy the Hebrews, who are saved through Moses’ intervention but are not permitted to enter the promised land—­that privilege is postponed until the next generation. The ten spies, however, die immediately from disease (Num 14:5–­38). Philo omits any threat of a coup, presumably to avoid undermining Moses’ authority, as well as God’s plan to destroy the Hebrews, which is an awkward detail to present to a gentile audience. Instead—­and at odds with the claim in section 234 that the “the whole multitude” (σύμπασαν . . . τὴν πληθύν) 175 176

198

❡

De vita Mosis I

XLIII.237

(XLIII) (237) Τοῦτ’ αἴτιον ἐγένετο τοῦ μὴ θᾶττον ἥκειν εἰς ἣν ἀπῳκίζοντο γῆν. δυνάμενοι γὰρ ἔτει δευτέρῳ μετὰ τὴν ἀπ’ Αἰγύπτου μετανάστασιν τὰς ἐν Συρίᾳ πόλεις καὶ τὰς κληρουχίας ἐννέμεσθαι, τὴν ἄγουσαν καὶ ἐπίτομον ἐκτραπόμενοι ὁδὸν ἐπλάζοντο, δυσαναπορεύτους καὶ μακρὰς ἀνοδίας ἄλλας ἐπ’ ἄλλαις ἀνευρίσκοντες εἰς ἀνήνυτον ψυχῆς τε καὶ σώματος κάματον, δίκας ἀναγκαίας τῆς ἄγαν ἀσεβείας ὑπομένοντες. (238) ὀκτὼ γοῦν ἐνιαυτοὺς πρὸς τοῖς τριάκοντα δίχα τοῦ παρεληλυθότος χρόνου, γενεᾶς βίον ἀνθρωπίνης, ἄνω κάτω τριβόμενοι καὶ τὰς ἀβάτους ἐρημίας ἀναμετροῦντες ἔτει τεσσαρακοστῷ μόλις ἐπὶ τοὺς τῆς χώρας ὅρους παρεγένοντο, ἐφ’ οὓς καὶ πρότερον ἦλθον. (239) πρὸς δὲ ταῖς εἰσβολαῖς ᾤκουν ἕτεροί τε καὶ δὴ καὶ συγγενεῖς αὐτῶν, οὓς ᾤοντο μάλιστα μὲν συνεκπολεμήσειν τὸν πρὸς τοὺς ἀστυγείτονας πόλεμον καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀποικίαν ἅπαντα συμπράξειν, εἰ δ’ ἀποκνοῖεν, μετὰ μηδετέρων γοῦν τετάξεσθαι χεῖρας ἀνέχοντας. (240) οἱ γὰρ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν ἐθνῶν πρόγονοι, τοῦ τε  Ἑβραϊκοῦ καὶ τοῦ τὰ προάστεια κατοικοῦντος, ἀδελφοὶ δύο ἦσαν ὁμοπάτριοι καὶ ὁμομήτριοι, πρὸς δὲ καὶ δίδυμοι, ἀφ’ ὧν εἰς πολυπαιδίαν ἐπιδιδόντων καὶ τῶν ἀπογόνων εὐφορίᾳ τινὶ χρωμένων εἰς μέγα καὶ πολυάνθρωπον ἔθνος ἑκατέρα τῶν οἰκιῶν ἀνεχύθη· ἀλλ’ ἡ μὲν ἐφιλοχώρησεν, ἡ δ’, ὡς ἐλέχθη πρότερον, εἰς Αἴγυπτον μεταναστᾶσα διὰ λιμὸν χρόνοις ὕστερον ἐπανῄει. (241) τὴν δ’ οἰκειότητα ἡ μὲν διεφύλαττε, καίτοι πολὺν χρόνον διαζευχθεῖσα, πρὸς τοὺς μηδὲν ἔτι τῶν πατρίων φυλάττοντας, ἀλλὰ πάντα τὰ τῆς ἀρχαίας πολιτείας ἐκδεδιῃτημένους, ὑπολαβοῦσα τοῖς ἡμέροις τὰς φύσεις ἁρμόττον εἶναι διδόναι τι καὶ χαρίζεσθαι συγγενείας ὀνόματι·

XLIII.237

On the Life of Moses I

199

(XLIII) (237) This was the reason that they did not more quickly come into the land to which they were immigrating. Though they could have inhabited the cities and allotments of land in Syria in the second year after their migration from Egypt, having turned from the short, direct path, they wandered, finding long, difficult, and pathless roads, one after another, to the point of interminable exhaustion of both mind and body, enduring penalties required by excessive impiety. (238) Indeed, for eight years plus thirty more, not counting their previous time travelling, the lifespan of a generation, they wandered up and down, and, retracing the impassable wilderness, in the fortieth year with difficulty they arrived at the borders of the country to which they had come previously.177 (239) Near the passageway into the country dwelled other peoples, relatives of theirs,178 in fact, whom they thought surely would fight together with them against their neighbors and would work together with them in every way to establish their home,179 but if they should hesitate, they thought that at least they would stay their hand and join ranks with neither side. (240) For the ancestors of both nations, the Hebrew nation and that which inhabited the suburbs, were two full brothers, and furthermore twins,180 from whose abundance of children, and from their descendants, who enjoyed a certain productivity, each of the two households overflowed into great and populous nations; but one remained happily in place, while the other, as mentioned previously, migrated to Egypt due to famine and returned years later. (241) Though long separated, the Hebrew family remembered their kinship with those who no longer kept any of their ancestral customs but rather had departed from the ancient ways in all aspects of life and they considered it fitting for people of a civilized nature to show some indulgence to the name of kinship.

followed the negative report—­Moses becomes angry and worries over divine retribution, and the ten spies die from pestilence along with those whom they persuaded (not, of course, the whole multitude). In essence, Moses’ reaction aligns with God’s, and the taint of faithlessness is purged from the Hebrew ranks. 177 The connection between the spies’ report and the thirty-­eight additional years of wandering is muddled by Philo’s reinterpretation of biblical events. At Num 14:20–­26, an entire generation is forbidden from entering the promised land due to their faithlessness. The deaths of the ten spies and those who fell into despair with them (section 236 above) suggest no further punishment is warranted. Philo seems rather unsuccessful in forging a logical connection between these events in his modified representation of the biblical account. 178 These are the Edomites. See Num 20:14–­21. 179 The Greek once again speaks in terms of a colony. 180 I.e. Jacob and Esau.

200

De vita Mosis I

XLIII.242

(242) ἡ δ’ ἔμπαλιν τὰ φιλικὰ πάντα ἔτρεψεν ἤθεσι καὶ λόγοις βουλαῖς τε καὶ πράξεσιν ἀσπόνδοις καὶ ἀσυμβάτοις χρωμένη, πατρικὴν ἔχθραν ζωπυροῦσα—­ὁ γὰρ τοῦ ἔθνους ἀρχηγέτης αὐτὸς ἀποδόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ τὰ πρεσβεῖα μικρὸν ὕστερον ὧν ἐξέστη μετεποιεῖτο παραβαίνων τὰς ὁμολογίας καὶ ἐφόνα θάνατον ἀπειλῶν, εἰ μὴ ἀποδοίη—­· ταύτην τὴν παλαιὰν ἀνδρὸς ἑνὸς πρὸς ἕνα ἔχθραν ἔθνος τοσαύταις ὕστερον γενεαῖς ἐκαίνωσεν. (243) ὁ μὲν οὖν ἡγεμὼν τῶν  Ἑβραίων Μωυσῆς, καίτοι γ’ αὐτοβοεὶ δυνάμενος ἑλεῖν ἐξ ἐπιδρομῆς, οὐκ ἐδικαίωσε διὰ τὴν εἰρημένην συγγένειαν, ἀλλ’ ὁδῷ χρήσασθαι μόνον ἠξίου τῇ διὰ τῆς χώρας πάνθ’ ὑπισχνούμενος πράξειν τὰ ἔνσπονδα, μὴ τεμεῖν χωρίον, μὴ θρέμματα, μὴ λείαν ἀπάξειν, ὕδατος, εἰ ποτοῦ γένοιτο σπάνις, τιμὴν παρέξειν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τοῖς ἀχορηγήτοις ὠνίων· οἱ δ’ εἰρηνικαῖς οὕτω προκλήσεσιν ἀνὰ κράτος ἠναντιοῦντο πόλεμον ἀπειλοῦντες, εἰ τῶν ὅρων ἐπιβάντας ἢ ψαύσαντας αὐτὸ μόνον αἴσθοιντο.

XLIII.242

On the Life of Moses I

201

(242) The other family, on the contrary, turned away from all its friendliness and was implacable and discordant in their manners and speech as well as in their deliberations and deeds, reviving an ancestral enmity—­for the founder of the nation himself, having sold his hereditary rights to his brother, soon after reclaimed what he had abandoned in violation of their agreements and became bloodthirsty as he threatened death if his brother would not return it—­after so many generations their nation renewed this ancient enmity of one man against another.181 (243) And so Moses, the leader of the Hebrews, though in fact capable of conquering them quickly and without danger to his own people, did not think it just to do so on account of the kinship previously mentioned, but he asked only to use the road through their lands, promising that all they did would be within the bounds of a pact: they would not destroy the land, they would not carry off livestock or plunder, they would pay a price for water, if there should be a shortage of drink, and for any other goods of which they had need. But the other nation vigorously opposed these proposals that were so peaceful and threatened war if they observed them crossing or merely touching their borders.182

181 According to the biblical account, Esau, the firstborn of the twins, sold his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of lentil stew (Gen 25:29–­34). Jacob then tricks his father, Isaac, into giving him a blessing intended for Esau, who then plots to kill Jacob (Gen 27:5–­45). Jacob escapes, and the two brothers eventually reconcile, though Jacob remains wary of Esau (Gen 32:1–­33:18). 182 Philo allegorizes this scene at Deus 144–­48, 166, and 180, in which he says that Edom represents worldliness and pleasure, which bar the path of Jews who seek to travel the path of knowledge. See also QG 4:171.

202

De vita Mosis I

XLIV.244

(XLIV) (244) χαλεπῶς δὲ τὰς ἀποκρίσεις ἐνηνοχότων καὶ ἤδη πρὸς ἄμυναν ὁρμώντων, ἐν ἐπηκόῳ στὰς “ἄνδρες” εἶπεν, “ἡ μὲν ἀγανάκτησις ὑμῶν εὔλογος καὶ δικαία· χρηστὰ γὰρ ἀφ’ ἡμέρου γνώμης προτειναμένων, πονηρὰ ἀπὸ διανοίας ἀπεκρίναντο κακοήθους. (245) ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὅτι τῆς ὠμότητος ἐκεῖνοι δίκας ἐπάξιοι τίνειν εἰσί, διὰ τοῦθ’ ἡμῖν ἐπὶ τὰς κατ’ αὐτῶν τιμωρίας ἁρμόττον ἵεσθαι, ἕνεκα τῆς πρὸς τὸ ἔθνος τιμῆς, ἵνα καὶ ταύτῃ μοχθηρῶν ἀγαθοὶ διαφέρωμεν, ἐξετάζοντες οὐ μόνον, εἰ κολαστέοι τινές εἰσιν, ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν ἐπιτήδειοι τοῦτο πάσχειν.” (246) εἶτ’ ἐκτραπόμενος ἦγε δι’ ἑτέρας τὴν πληθύν, ἐπειδὴ τὰς κατὰ τὴν χώραν ὁδοὺς ἁπάσας φρουραῖς διεζωσμένας εἶδεν ὑπὸ τῶν βλάβην μὲν οὐδεμίαν ἐνδεξομένων, φθόνῳ δὲ καὶ βασκανίᾳ τὴν ἐπίτομον οὐκ ἐώντων προέρχεσθαι. (247) ταῦτα δὲ σαφεστάτη πίστις ἦν ἀνίας, ἣν ἐπὶ τῷ τὸ ἔθνος ἐλευθερίας τυχεῖν ἠνιῶντο, δηλονότι χαίροντες, ἡνίκα τὴν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ πικρὰν δουλείαν ὑπέμενον· ἀνάγκη γὰρ οἷς φέρει λύπην τἀγαθὰ τῶν πλησίον ἐπὶ τοῖς τούτων εὐφραίνεσθαι κακοῖς, κἂν μὴ ὁμολογῶσιν. (248) ἔτυχον γὰρ ὡς πρὸς ὁμογνώμονας καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ βουλομένους ἀνενεγκόντες τὰ συμβάντα λυπηρά τε αὖ καὶ ὅσα καθ’ ἡδονήν, οὐκ εἰδότες ὅτι πόρρω προεληλύθασι μοχθηρίας καὶ ἐθελέχθρως καὶ φιλαπεχθημόνως ἔχοντες στένειν μὲν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς, ἥδεσθαι δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐναντίοις ἔμελλον. (249) τῆς δὲ κακονοίας ἀνακαλυφθείσης ἐκείνων, ἐκωλύθησαν εἰς χεῖρας ἐλθεῖν ὑπὸ τοῦ προεστῶτος ἐπιδειξαμένου δύο τὰ κάλλιστα, φρόνησιν ἐν ταὐτῷ καὶ χρηστότητα· τὸ μὲν γὰρ μηδὲν παθεῖν φυλάξασθαι συνέσεως, τὸ δὲ μηδ’ ἀμύνασθαι συγγενεῖς ὄντας ἐθελῆσαι φιλανθρωπίας ἔργον.

XLIV.244

On the Life of Moses I

203

(XLIV) (244) Since the Hebrews took these replies hard and were already getting ready to take vengeance, Moses stood and made himself heard: “Men, your indignation is reasonable and just; for when you offered kindness with a polite inclination, they gave in response wickedness with malicious intent. (245) But as to the fact that they deserve to pay penalties for their cruelty, we should not for this reason rush to vengeance against them for the sake of the nation’s honor, so that we, being good, may differ from the wicked also in this way, that we not only consider whether anyone should be punished, but we also consider whether they deserve to suffer punishment at our hands.”183 (246) And then, changing course, he led the multitude by another way, since he saw that all the roads throughout the land were surrounded by garrisons placed by those who, though they would be caused no harm, did not allow them to proceed by the direct route due to their envy and jealousy. (247) This obstruction was the clearest proof of the irritation these distant relations felt at the Hebrew’s attainment of freedom, since they were evidently happy when the Hebrews were enduring bitter slavery in Egypt; for it must be that those who find the good of their neighbors painful be gladdened at their neighbor’s misfortunes, even if they do not admit it.184 (248) For the Hebrews reported their circumstances, both baleful and also whatever was pleasant, to their audience as though they were of the same mind and sought the same goals, not knowing that they had proceeded far into wickedness and, being spiteful and quarrelsome, were sure to grieve at their good fortune and rejoice in the opposite. (249) But when their hostility was discovered, the Hebrews were prevented from coming to blows with them by their leader, who displayed the two most beautiful qualities, prudence along with good character; for it is an act of good sense to guard against suffering, but it is an act of benevolence to be willing not to fight against those who are kin.

183 The biblical account at Num 20:14–­21 does not make explicit why the Hebrews chose to divert around Edom. In this extrabiblical speech by Moses, Philo frames the act as a deliberate rejection of retaliatory violence, which Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 184, has suggested may have been directed at Philo’s contemporaries in Alexandria. 184 The attitudes Philo attributes to the nations that refused the Hebrews entry perhaps betrays some insight into his perception of the circumstances of Jews in his own time, particularly the Jewish community in Egypt.

204

❡

De vita Mosis I

XLV.250

(XLV) (250) Τὰς μὲν οὖν τούτων πόλεις παρημείψατο. βασιλεὺς δέ τις τῆς ὁμόρου Χανάνης ὄνομα, τῶν σκοπῶν ἀπαγγειλάντων τὸν ὁδοιποροῦντα στρατὸν οὐ πάνυ μακρὰν ἀφεστηκότα, νομίσας ἀσύντακτόν τε εἶναι καὶ ῥᾳδίως εἰ προεπίθοιτο νικήσειν, ἄρας μετὰ τῆς οἰκείας νεότητος εὐοπλούσης ἐπεξέθει καὶ τοὺς πρώτους ὑπαντιάσαντας ἅτε μὴ παρεσκευασμένους εἰς μάχην τρέπεται· καὶ λαβὼν αἰχμαλώτους ἐπὶ τῷ παρ’ ἐλπίδα εὐημερήματι φυσηθεὶς προῄει, καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἅπαντας χειρώσεσθαι νομίζων. (251) οἱ δὲ—­οὐ γὰρ ἐγνάμφθησαν ἥττῃ τῆς προερχομένης τάξεως—­ἀ λλ’ ἔτι μᾶλλον ἢ πρότερον σπάσαντες εὐτολμίας καὶ τὴν ἔνδειαν τῶν ἑαλωκότων ἐκπλῆσαι ταῖς προθυμίαις ἐπειγόμενοι συνεκρότουν ἄλλος ἄλλον μὴ ἀποκάμνειν “ἀνεγειρώμεθα” λέγοντες, “ἄρτι τῆς χώρας ἐπιβαίνομεν· ἀκατάπληκτοι μετὰ τῆς ἐν τῷ θαρρεῖν ἐχυρότητος γινώμεθα· τὰ τέλη ταῖς ἀρχαῖς πολλάκις κρίνεται· ἐπὶ τῶν εἰσβολῶν ὄντες καταπληξώμεθα τοὺς οἰκήτορας, ὡς ἔχοντες μὲν τὴν ἐκ τῶν πόλεων εὐετηρίαν, ἀντιδεδωκότες δ’ ἣν ἐκ τῆς ἐρημίας ἐπαγόμεθα σπάνιν τῶν ἀναγκαίων.” (252) καὶ ἅμα διὰ τούτων προτρέποντες αὑτοὺς ηὔξαντο τῆς χώρας ἀπαρχὰς ἀναθήσειν τῷ θεῷ τὰς πόλεις τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τοὺς ἐν ἑκάστῃ πολίτας· ὁ δ’ ἐπινεύει ταῖς εὐχαῖς καὶ θάρσος ἐμπνεύσας τοῖς  Ἑβραίοις τὴν ἀντίπαλον στρατιὰν ἁλῶναι παρεσκεύασεν. (253) οἱ δ’ ἀνὰ κράτος ἑλόντες τὰς χαριστηρίους ὁμολογίας ἐπετέλουν, οὐδὲν ἐκ τῆς λείας νοσφισάμενοι, τὰς δὲ πόλεις αὐτοῖς ἀνδράσι καὶ κειμηλίοις ἀνιερώσαντες, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ συμβεβηκότος ὅλην τὴν βασιλείαν ὠνόμασαν “ἀνάθεμα.” (254) καθάπερ γὰρ εἷς ἕκαστος τῶν εὐσεβούντων ἀπὸ τῶν ἐτησίων ἀπάρχεται καρπῶν, οὓς ἂν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων συγκομίζῃ κτημάτων, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ὅλον τὸ ἔθνος μεγάλης χώρας, εἰς ἣν μετανίστατο, μέγα τμῆμα, τὴν εὐθὺς αἱρεθεῖσαν βασιλείαν, ἀνέθηκεν ἀπαρχήν τινα τῆς ἀποικίας· οὐ γὰρ ἐνόμιζεν ὅσιον εἶναι διανείμασθαι γῆν ἢ πόλεις κατοικῆσαι, πρὶν καὶ τῆς χώρας καὶ τῶν πόλεων ἀπάρξασθαι.

XLV.250

On the Life of Moses I

205

(XLV) (250) Therefore, Moses diverted around their cities. But a certain king of the neighboring land, Chananes185 by name, whose scouts reported that the traveling army was not at all far away, believed the army was disorganized and that he would easily defeat them if he should attack first. He set out with a well-­armed group of youths who were loyal to him, made his assault, and routed the force that first encountered him since they were not ready for battle. After taking prisoners following the unexpected victory, in his arrogance he advanced, believing that he would subdue all the rest of them, too.186 (251) But the Hebrews—­unbroken at the defeat of their advance squad—­drawing even more than before upon their courage and hastening to make up for the shortage caused by the captives with their zealousness, were helping each other not to be discouraged, saying, “Let us take heart now that we are entering their land; let us be undaunted as we place our security in courageous action; outcomes are often determined by their beginnings; since we are close to the entrance to their land let us terrify the inhabitants, as though we were the ones with the abundance of cities and had exchanged the scarcity we received from the wilderness for their resources.” (252) At the same time as they were exhorting each other with such words, they vowed that they would dedicate to God the first fruits of the land, namely, the cities of the king with their citizens. God assented to their prayers, and, inspiring courage in the Hebrews, He set the enemy army up for defeat. (253) The Hebrews, after conquering with great strength, fulfilled the prophetic pact, and, setting none of the booty aside for themselves but consecrating the cities with their very people and treasure, they named the whole kingdom “Anathema” (pledge) from the event. (254) For just as every pious person offers first fruits from the seasonal harvests that he gathers from his private possessions, in the same way too, of the great land to which they had migrated the whole nation dedicated a large portion, the kingdom that they had straightaway conquered, as a sort of first fruit of the colony; for they did not think it pious to divide the land or inhabit the cities before offering first fruits of both the land and cities.187 185 NumLXX 21:1 identifies the king as the Canaanite king of Arad (ὁ Χανανις βασιλεὺς Αραδ). It is unclear where Philo found the name “Chananes” (Χανάνης), but this is its only appearance in Philo’s extant works. That Philo chooses to name him in the De vita Mosis is puzzling since his is a relatively minor vignette and he plays no role in Philo’s allegorizing. 186 The victory over the king of Arad is treated briefly in Num 21:1–­3. 187 In the biblical account, the Hebrews pray to God for deliverance and promise, if given the power, that they will destroy the enemy cities, which they in fact do. The place is then named “Hormah” (desolation) from the destruction the Hebrews wrought. The Septuagint renders the Hebrew verb ‫ח ַרם‬,ָ which can mean both “to consecrate” and “to destroy utterly,” with the Greek ἀναθεματίζω, which means “to put under a curse.” The Greek verb ἀναθεματίζω does not convey the same notion of destruction as its Hebrew counterpart does, which may have influenced Philo’s

206

❡

De vita Mosis I

XLVI.255

(XLVI) (255) Μικρὸν δ’ ὕστερον καὶ πηγὴν εὔυδρον ἀνευρόντες, ἣ παντὶ τῷ πλήθει ποτὸν ἐχορήγησεν—­ἐν φρέατι δ’ ἦν ἡ πηγὴ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς χώρας ὅρων—­, ὥσπερ οὐχ ὕδατος ἀλλ’ ἀκράτου σπάσαντες τὰς ψυχὰς ἀνεχύθησαν· ὑπό τε εὐφροσύνης καὶ χαρᾶς ᾆσμα καινὸν οἱ θεοφιλεῖς χοροὺς περὶ τὸ φρέαρ ἐν κύκλῳ στήσαντες ᾖδον εἰς τὸν κληροῦχονθεὸν καὶ τὸν ἀληθῶς ἡγεμόνα τῆς ἀποικίας, ὅτι πρῶτον ἐπιβάντες ἐξ ἐρημίας μακρᾶς τῆς οἰκουμένης καὶ ἣν ἔμελλον καθέξειν ποτὸν ἄφθονον ἀνεῦρον, ἁρμόττον ἡγησάμενοι μὴ ἀσημείωτον τὴν πηγὴν παρελθεῖν. (256) καὶ γὰρ ἔτυχεν οὐ χερσὶν ἰδιωτῶν ἀλλὰ βασιλέων ἀνατετμῆσθαι φιλοτιμηθέντων, ὡς λόγος, οὐ μόνον περὶ τὴν εὕρεσιν τοῦ ὕδατος ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τὴν τοῦ φρέατος κατασκευήν, ἵν’ ἐκ τῆς πολυτελείας βασιλικὸν φαίνηται τὸ ἔργον καὶ ἡ τῶν κατασκευασάντων ἀρχὴ καὶ μεγαλόνοια. (257) γεγηθὼς δ’ ἐπὶ τοῖς αἰεὶ συμβαίνουσιν ἀπροσδοκήτοις ἀγαθοῖς ὁ Μωυσῆς ἐχώρει προσωτέρω, τὴν μὲν νεότητα διανείμας εἴς τε πρωτοστάτας καὶ ὀπισθοφύλακας, γηραιοὺς δὲ καὶ γύναια καὶ παῖδας ἐν μέσοις τάξας, ἵνα διὰ τῶν παρ’ ἑκάτερα φρουρὰν ἔχωσιν, ἐάν τε ἀντικρὺ ἐάν τε κατόπιν ἐχθρὸς ὅμιλος ἐπίῃ.

XLVI.255

On the Life of Moses I

207

(XLVI) (255) Not long after, they found an abundant spring that provided drinking water for the whole multitude—­the spring was in a well close to the country’s borders—­and they relaxed their souls as if they drew not water but pure wine.188 Out of both cheerfulness and joy, those dear to God set up choruses in a circle around the well and sang a new song to God the Cleruch189 (who distributes land) and true leader of the colony, because for the first time since they entered the settled land, which they were also going to occupy, from the long wilderness, they discovered an abundance of drinking water, considering it fitting not to leave the spring unmarked. (256) For the spring happened to have been opened by the hands not of average people but of ambitious kings, as the story goes, not only in the discovery of water but also the building of the well, so that the royal quality of the work and the authority and generosity of the builders might be evident from its opulence.190 (257) Moses, joyful at the unexpected blessings that were constantly happening, moved onward, after first dividing the youth into front ranks and rearguard, and then stationing the elderly, women, and children in between them, so that the young men would provide a body of guards on either side, in case an enemy army came upon them from the front or behind.

interpretation of NumLXX 21:1–­3. Similarly, the name given to the place in Hebrew (“Hormah,” desolation) is not precisely replicated by the Septuagint name Ἀνάθεμα, which usually means “curse.” Philo has retained the Septuagint name Ἀνάθεμα but interpreted it as “dedication” or “pledge,” a meaning more often represented by the near homonym ἀνάθημα. Philo thereby shifts the focus of the scene from the destruction of the cities and people to the offering of first fruits to God. Thus, what in the Masoretic Text is a demonstration of God’s power over His enemies becomes in Philo a demonstration of the piety of Moses and the Hebrews, who make a proper offering before distributing rewards among themselves, and a diminution of the violence they inflicted. Though Philo emphasizes the notion of dedication, the destruction of the Hebrews’ enemies remains implicit in Philo’s account. 188 See Num 21:16–­18 for the episode of the well. 189 This is the sole instance in which God is given the title “Cleruch.” One perhaps gets the impression of God as a great conqueror distributing land to His soldiers. See above note 168. 190 Philo allegorizes the well at Ebr. 112–­13, where he compares it to knowledge and claims that it is only fitting for great leaders of virtue to dig such a well.

208

❡

De vita Mosis I

XLVII.258

(XLVII) (258) Ὀλίγαις δ’ ὕστερον ἡμέραις εἰς τὴν τῶν Ἀμορραίων χώραν ἐμβαλὼν πρέσβεις ἐξέπεμπε πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα—­Σηὼν δ’ ὠνομάζετο—­προτρέπων ἐφ’ ἃ καὶ τὸν συγγενῆ πρότερον· ὁ δ’ οὐ μόνον πρὸς ὕβριν ἀπεκρίνατο τοῖς ἥκουσι μικροῦ καὶ ἀνελὼν αὐτούς, εἰ μὴ νόμος ὁ πρεσβευτικὸς ἐμποδὼν ἐγένετο, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντα τὸν στρατὸν συναγαγὼν ἐφώρμα νομίζων αὐτίκα τῷ πολέμῳ περιέσεσθαι. (259) συμπλακεὶς δὲ οὐ πρὸς ἀμελετήτους καὶ ἀνασκήτους ἔγνω τὴν μάχην οὖσαν ἀλλ’ ἀθλητὰς τῷ ὄντι πολέμων ἀηττήτους, οἳ πρὸ μικροῦ πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα ἠνδραγαθίσαντο σωμάτων ἀλκὴν καὶ φρόνημα διανοίας καὶ ἀρετῆς ὕψος ἐπιδειξάμενοι, δι’ ὧν τοὺς μὲν ἐναντιωθέντας ἐκ πολλοῦ τοῦ περιόντος εἷλον, ἔψαυσαν δὲ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς λείας οὐδενὸς τὰ πρῶτα τῶν ἄθλων ἀναθεῖναι τῷ θεῷ σπουδάσαντες· (260) οἳ καὶ τότε φραξάμενοι καρτερῶς ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν βουλευμάτων καὶ παρασκευῶν ἀντεφώρμησαν ἅμα καὶ τῇ ἀκαθαιρέτῳ τοῦ δικαίου χρώμενοι συμμαχίᾳ, δι’ ἣν εὐτολμότεροί τε ἦσαν καὶ ἀγωνισταὶ πρόθυμοι. (261) σαφὴς δὲ πίστις· δευτέρας οὐκ ἐδέησε μάχης, ἀλλ’ ἡ πρώτη καὶ μόνη ἐγένετο, καθ’ ἣν πᾶσα ἡ ἀντίπαλος ἐκλίθη δύναμις καὶ ἀνατραπεῖσα ἡβηδὸν αὐτίκα ἠφανίσθη. (262) αἱ δὲ πόλεις ὑπὸ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον κεναί τε καὶ πλήρεις ἐγεγένηντο, κεναὶ μὲν τῶν ἀρχαίων οἰκητόρων, πλήρεις δὲ τῶν κεκρατηκότων· τὸν αὐτὸν μέντοι τρόπον καὶ αἱ κατ’ ἀγροὺς ἐπαύλεις ἐρημωθεῖσαι τῶν ἐν αὐταῖς ἀντέλαβον ἄνδρας βελτίους τὰ πάντα.

XLVII.258

On the Life of Moses I

209

(XLVII) (258) A few days later, when he invaded the land of the Amorites, he sent ambassadors to the king—­his name was Sihon191—­stipulating to him the same terms as he did his kinsman earlier; but the king not only responded to the embassy arrogantly, even coming close to killing them, if the law protecting ambassadors had not been in his way, but gathering his entire army, he attacked them, since he believed that he would soon overcome them in the war. (259) But when they came to blows, he realized that the battle was not against people who were untrained and unprepared but against an unconquered people, true experts in war; shortly before, they had performed many great acts of bravery, displaying physical might, nobility of mind, and the height of virtue, through which they were more than able to defeat those who opposed them, and they had touched none of the plunder, since they were eager to dedicate the first of the rewards to God. (260) And at that time, too, fortifying themselves with the same counsels and preparations, they rushed against the enemy, simultaneously bringing to bear their alliance with unbeatable justice, because of which they were more courageous and eager combatants. (261) The proof is clear; there was no need of a second battle, the first and only one took place, during which the entire rival force was routed and then completely annihilated. (262) The cities had become empty and full at about the same time; though empty of their former inhabitants, they were filled with the victors; in the same way too, in fact, the farmhouses throughout the fields, deserted by their previous occupants, received in exchange men who were worthier in every way.

191 The identification of Sihon by name is surprising. It is not clear why Philo names relatively minor figures like Chananes and Sihon while declining to name more prominent figures. Since both are named in the biblical account, it may be that Philo is simply hewing more closely to the Septuagint in these scenes than he does elsewhere. At Leg. 3.232–­33, Philo interprets “Amorites” as meaning “chatterboxes” (esp. referring to sophists) and “Sihon” as being a corruptor of truth.

210

❡

De vita Mosis I

XLVIII.263

(XLVIII) (263) Οὗτος ὁ πόλεμος ἅπασι μὲν τοῖς Ἀσιανοῖς ἔθνεσι φοβερὸν δέος ἐνειργάσατο, διαφερόντως δὲ τοῖς ὁμόροις, ὅσῳ καὶ τὰ δεινὰ ἐγγυτέρω προσεδοκᾶτο. εἷς δὲ δὴ ἐκ τῶν ἀστυγειτόνων βασιλέων ὄνομα Βαλάκης, μεγάλην καὶ πολυάνθρωπον τῆς ἑῴας μοῖραν ὑπηγμένος, πρὶν εἰς χεῖρας ἐλθεῖν ἀπειπών, ἄντικρυς μὲν ὑπαντᾶν οὐκ ἐδοκίμαζε τὸν ἐκπορθήσεως δι’ ὅπλων ἐλεύθερον πόλεμον διαδιδράσκων, ἐπ’ οἰωνοὺς δὲ καὶ μαντείας ἐτράπετο νομίζων ἀραῖς τισι δυνήσεσθαι τὴν ἄμαχον ῥώμην τῶν  Ἑβραίων καθελεῖν. (264) ἀνὴρ δ’ ἦν κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον ἐπὶ μαντείᾳ περιβόητος Μεσοποταμίαν οἰκῶν, ὃς ἅπαντα μὲν ἐμεμύητο τὰ μαντικῆς εἴδη, οἰωνοσκοπίαν δ’ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα συγκεκροτηκὼς ἐθαυμάζετο, πολλοῖς καὶ πολλάκις ἐπιδειξάμενος ἄπιστα καὶ μεγάλα. (265) προεῖπε γὰρ τοῖς μὲν ἐπομβρίας θέρους ἀκμάζοντος, τοῖς δ’ αὐχμόν τε καὶ φλογμὸν ἐν μέσῳ χειμῶνι, τοῖς δ’ ἐξ εὐετηρίας ἀφορίαν καὶ ἔμπαλιν ἐκ λιμοῦ φοράν, ἐνίοις δὲ πλημμύρας ποταμῶν καὶ κενώσεις καὶ θεραπείας λοιμικῶν νοσημάτων καὶ ἄλλων μυρίων, ὧν ἕκαστον ὁ προθεσπίζειν δοκῶν ὀνομαστότατος ἦν ἐπὶ μέγα εὐκλείας προερχόμενος διὰ τὴν ἐπιβαίνουσιν ἀεὶ καὶ φθάνουσαν πανταχόσε φήμην. (266) ἐπὶ τοῦτον ἐξέπεμπε τῶν ἑταίρων τινὰς παρακαλῶν ἥκειν καὶ δωρεὰς τὰς μὲν ἤδη παρεῖχε, τὰς δὲ δώσειν ὡμολόγει τὴν χρείαν ἧς ἕνεκα μεταπέμποιτο δηλῶν· ὁ δ’ οὐκ ἀπὸ φρονήματος εὐγενοῦς καὶ βεβαίου, ἀλλὰ τὸ πλέον ἀστεϊζόμενος ὡς δὴ τῶν ἐλλογίμων προφητῶν γεγονὼς καὶ μηδὲν ἄνευ χρησμῶν εἰωθὼς πράττειν τὸ παράπαν, ὑπανεδύετο λέγων οὐκ ἐπιτρέπειν αὐτῷ βαδίζειν τὸ θεῖον. (267) καὶ οἱ μὲν ἥκοντες ἐπανῄεσαν ἄπρακτοι πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα, ἕτεροι δ’ εὐθὺς ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτὴν χρείαν ἐχειροτονοῦντο τῶν δοκιμωτέρων, πλείω μὲν ἐπιφερόμενοι χρήματα, περιττοτέρας δὲ δωρεὰς ὑπισχνούμενος. (268) δελεασθεὶς δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἤδη προτεινομένοις καὶ ταῖς μελλούσαις ἐλπίσι καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα τῶν παρακαλούντων καταιδεσθεὶς ἐνεδίδου, πάλιν προφασιζόμενος τὸ θεῖον οὐκ ἐφ’ ὑγιεῖ· τῇ γοῦν ὑστεραίᾳ παρεσκευάζετο τὴν ἔξοδον ὀνείρατα διηγούμενος, ὑφ’ ὧν ἔλεγε πληχθεὶς ἐναργέσι φαντασίαις ἀναγκάζεσθαι μηκέτι μένειν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς πρέσβεσιν ἀκολουθεῖν.

XLVIII.263

On the Life of Moses I

211

(XLVIII) (263) This war caused terrible fear among all the nations of Asia, especially the adjacent peoples, since the danger was expected sooner. And in fact one of the neighboring kings, named Balak, who had brought a large and populous portion of the east under his control, became disheartened before it came to blows; he refused to meet the Hebrews head on, shunning open warfare with its devastation through arms, and turned to auguries and oracles, supposing that through some prayers he might be able to overcome the invincible strength of the Hebrews. (264) Dwelling in Mesopotamia at that time was a man renowned for divination, who had been instructed in all forms of soothsaying, but he was admired for his special expertise in augury, as he had quite often revealed great and incredible things to many people.192 (265) For to some he predicted large amounts of rainfall during the peak of summer; to others, drought and heat in the middle of winter; and to others still he predicted a shortfall after an abundant harvest and vice-­versa, abundance after a famine; to some he predicted the flooding and emptying of rivers and treatments for pestilential diseases and countless other things, and as he seemed to foresee each of them, he was very renowned and obtained great fame as his reputation kept spreading and made its way everywhere. (266) Balak dispatched some of his courtiers to this man, inviting him to come and promising him gifts, some of which he offered immediately and others he would give when he revealed the reason for summoning him. The seer, not because of a noble and resolute mind but for the most part acting as though he actually were a distinguished prophet and not at all accustomed to doing anything without oracles, refused, saying the divine did not permit him to go. (267) When courtiers arrived, they returned to the king without success, and others of his more distinguished courtiers were appointed immediately for the same task, bringing with them more money and promising more lavish gifts. (268) Lured both by what was already offered and by the expectation of more to come, and out of respect for the dignity of those who were making the invitation, he gave in, again using the divine as a pretext to no good end; therefore on the next day he made preparations for the journey by examining his dreams, from which he said he was met with clear images and that he was no longer compelled to remain behind, but instead to accompany the ambassadors.193 192 I.e., Balaam. The biblical account of Balak and Balaam occupies Num 22–­24. Philo treats the Balaam episode allegorically in several works: Cher. 32–­33, where Balaam represents foolish people and the donkey an irrational way of life; Det. 71, where Balaam is a sophist; Deus 181, where Balaam is of the earth because he followed omens rather than divine insight; Conf. 159, where “Balaam” means “vain”; Migr. 113–­15, where he is a flatterer; and Mut. 202, where he is said to have derived no benefit from hearing God. 193 At Num 22:7–­21, Balaam receives and obeys messages from God, telling him first to refuse Balak’s invitation and then to accept it. Philo omits God’s interactions with Balaam and shows hostility toward him throughout his version of the narrative. The presentation of Balaam in the Masoretic Text is not consistently antagonistic (see Seland, “Expository Use,” 322–­24).

212

De vita Mosis I

XLIX.269

(XLIX) (269) ἤδη δὲ αὐτῷ προερχομένῳ γίνεται κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν σημεῖον ἀρίδηλον περὶ τοῦ τὴν χρείαν ἐφ’ ἣν συνέτεινεν εἶναι παλίμφημον· τὸ γὰρ ὑποζύγιον, ᾧ συνέβαινεν αὐτὸν ἐποχεῖσθαι, προερχόμενον ἐπ’ εὐθείας ἐξαπιναίως ἵσταται τὸ πρῶτον· (270) εἶθ’, ὥσπερ ἐξ ἐναντίας βίᾳ τινὸς ἀνωθοῦντος ἢ ἀναχαιτίζοντος, ὑπὸ πόδας ἐχώρει καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ δεξιὰ καὶ εὐώνυμα ἐπιφερόμενον καὶ ὧδε κἀκεῖσε πλαζόμενον οὐκ ἠρέμει, καθάπερ ἐν οἴνῳ καὶ μέθῃ καρηβαροῦν, καὶ πολλάκις τυπτόμενον ἠλόγει τῶν πληγῶν, ὥστε καὶ τὸν ἐποχούμενον μικροῦ καταβαλεῖν καὶ καθεζόμενον ὅμως ἀντιλυπῆσαι. (271) τῶν παρ’ ἑκάτερα χωρίων ἦσαν αἱμασιαὶ καὶ φραγμοὶ πλησίον· ὁπότ’ οὖν τούτοις προσηράχθη φερόμενον, γόνυ καὶ κνήμας καὶ πόδας ὁ δεσπότης θλιβόμενος καὶ πιεζόμενος ἀπεδρύπτετο. (272) ἦν δ’, ὡς ἔοικε, θεία τις ὄψις, ἣν τὸ μὲν ζῷον ἐπιφοιτῶσαν ἐκ πολλοῦ θεασάμενον ὑπέπτηξεν, ὁ δ’ ἄνθρωπος οὐκ εἶδεν, εἰς ἔλεγχον ἀναισθησίας· ὑπὸ γὰρ ἀλόγου ζῴου παρευημερεῖτο τὰς ὄψεις ὁ μὴ μόνον τὸν κόσμον ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν κοσμοποιὸν αὐχῶν ὁρᾶν. (273) μόλις γοῦν τὸν ἀνθεστηκότα ἰδὼν ἄγγελον, οὐκ ἐπειδὴ τοιαύτης θέας ἦν ἄξιος, ἀλλ’ ἵνα τὴν ἀτιμίαν καὶ οὐδένειαν ἑαυτοῦ καταλάβῃ, πρὸς ἱκεσίας καὶ λιτὰς ἐτράπετο συγγνῶναι δεόμενος ὑπ’ ἀγνοίας ἀλλ’ οὐ καθ’ ἑκούσιον γνώμην ἁμαρτόντι.

XLIX.269

On the Life of Moses I

213

(XLIX) (269) And then, as he was on his way, a clear sign appeared to him along the road regarding the misfortune of the task to which he was heading; first, the donkey on which he happened to be riding, as it was going forward in a straight line, suddenly stopped. (270) And then, as if it were being driven back or checked by some opposing force, the donkey kept turning back and carried him left and right in turn and wandered anxiously here and there, as though it were staggering from wine and drunkenness, and though it was struck quite often it was unconcerned with the blows and as a result almost bucked his rider off and, in any case, caused him grief in return while he sat upon it. (271) For rock walls and hedges of estates were close by on either side, and so whenever the animal, darting about, struck against them, his master was lacerated as his knees, shins, and feet were crushed and pressed. (272) There was, as it seemed, some divine vision before which the animal cowered, perceiving its presence from afar, but the man did not see it, putting his lack of perception to the proof; for the man who boasted that he could see not only the universe but also its creator was surpassed in recognizing visions by an irrational animal.194 (273) Indeed, barely able to see the angel opposing him, not because he was worthy of such a sight, but in order that he might comprehend his own disgrace and insignificance, he turned to supplications and prayers, begging to be forgiven since he had sinned out of ignorance, not with willful intent.

Despite his renown as a seer, Balaam has no true knowledge or wisdom. Though Moses is nowhere mentioned in Philo’s account of Balak and Balaam, it has been proposed that Philo presents Balaam as a contrast to Moses to disassociate the Jewish lawgiver from dubious sorcerers (Philo will call Balaam a μάγος [magician] in section 276) and hucksters (see Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 188–­96, and Remus, “Moses and the Thaumaturges,” 679–­80). This has been refuted by Seland, “Expository Use,” 338, who sees in Philo’s Balaam account a warning against practicing magic and a rebuke of sophists, i.e., “people who knew much but rejected good ethics.” The association of magic with sophistry recalls Moses’ meeting of the sophists and magicians at Pharaoh’s court in section 92 above. 194

214

De vita Mosis I

XLIX.274

(274) τότε μὲν οὖν ὑποστρέφειν δέον, ἐπυνθάνετο τῆς φανείσης ὄψεως, εἰ ἀνακάμπτοι πάλιν τὴν ἐπ’ οἴκου· ἡ δὲ συνιδοῦσα τὴν εἰρωνείαν καὶ σχετλιάσασα—­τί γὰρ ἔδει πυνθάνεσθαι περὶ πράγματος οὕτως ἐμφανοῦς, ὃ τὰς ἀποδείξεις εἶχεν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ μὴ δεόμενον τῆς ἐκ λόγων πίστεως, εἰ μὴ ἄρα ὀφθαλμῶν ὦτα ἀληθέστερα καὶ πραγμάτων ῥήματα;—­ “βάδιζε” εἶπεν “ἐφ’ ἣν σπεύδεις ὁδόν· ὀνήσεις γὰρ οὐδέν, ἐμοῦ τὰ λεκτέα ὑπηχοῦντος ἄνευ τῆς σῆς διανοίας καὶ τὰ φωνῆς ὄργανα τρέποντος, ᾗ δίκαιον καὶ συμφέρον· ἡνιοχήσω γὰρ ἐγὼ τὸν λόγον θεσπίζων ἕκαστα διὰ τῆς σῆς γλώττης οὐ συνιέντος.”

XLIX.274

On the Life of Moses I

215

(274) And then, when he should have turned back, he enquired of the manifest apparition whether he should make the journey back toward his home; but, recognizing his false modesty and becoming indignant—­for why should he ask about a matter so evident, which contained inherent proof without need of verbal confirmation, unless in fact ears and words are more truthful than eyes and deeds?195—­the apparition said, “Go on the road you are hastening along; you will not be welcome, since I will prompt what must be said and, independent of your thought, will move the organs of your speech in a way that is just and fitting. For I myself will guide your speech, prophesying each thing through your tongue though without your understanding.”196

195 The biblical narrative does not imply any insincerity on Balaam’s part as he repents before the angel. Philo is in line with the rabbinic tradition, and perhaps therefore his oral sources, in his insistence on ascribing villainous motives to Balaam. See Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 139. 196 Philo omits Num 22:28–­30, in which God makes Balaam’s donkey speak. Presumably Philo felt this scene strained credulity too much, especially for a gentile audience.

216

De vita Mosis I

L.275

(L) (275) ἀκούσας δ’ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐγγὺς ἤδη γεγονότα μετὰ τῶν δορυφόρων ὑπαντησόμενος ἐξῄει, καὶ ἐντυχόντων, οἷα εἰκός, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἦσαν φιλοφροσύναι καὶ δεξιώσεις, εἶτα βραχεῖα κατάμεμψις περὶ τῆς βραδυτῆτος καὶ τοῦ μὴ ἑτοιμότερον ἥκειν· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτ’ εὐωχίαι ἦσαν καὶ πολυτελεῖς ἑστιάσεις καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα πρὸς ὑποδοχὴν ξένων ἔθος εὐτρεπίζεσθαι, φιλοτιμίαις βασιλικαῖς πάντα πρὸς τὸ μεγαλειότερον ἐπιδιδόντα καὶ σεμνότερον ὄγκον. (276) τῇ δ’ ὑστεραίᾳ ἅμα τῇ ἕῳ τὸν μάντιν ὁ Βαλάκης παραλαβὼν ἐπὶ γεώλοφον ἀνήγαγεν, ἔνθα καὶ στήλην συνέβαινεν ἱδρῦσθαι δαιμονίου τινός, ἣν οἱ ἐγχώριοι προσεκύνουν· μέρος δ’ ἐνθένδε καθεωρᾶτο τῆς τῶν  Ἑβραίων στρατοπεδείας, ὃ καθάπερ ἀπὸ σκοπιᾶς ἐπεδείκνυτο τῷ μάγῳ. (277) ὁ δὲ θεασάμενός φησι· “σὺ μέν, ὦ βασιλεῦ, βωμοὺς ἑπτὰ δειμάμενος μόσχον ἐφ’ ἑκάστου καὶ κριὸν ἱέρευσον· ἐγὼ δ’ ἐκτραπόμενος πεύσομαι τοῦ θεοῦ, τί λεκτέον.” ἔξω δὲ προελθὼν ἔνθους αὐτίκα γίνεται, προφητικοῦ πνεύματος ἐπιφοιτήσαντος, ὃ πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἔντεχνον μαντικὴν ὑπερόριον τῆς ψυχῆς ἤλασε· θέμις γὰρ οὐκ ἦν ἱερωτάτῃ κατοκωχῇ συνδιαιτᾶσθαι μαγικὴν σοφιστείαν. εἶθ’ ὑποστρέψας καὶ τάς τε θυσίας ἰδὼν καὶ τοὺς βωμοὺς φλέγοντας ὥσπερ ἑρμηνεὺς ὑποβάλλοντος ἑτέρου θεσπίζει τάδε· (278) “ἐκ Μεσοποταμίας μετεπέμψατό με Βαλάκης μακρὰν τὴν ἀπ’ ἀνατολῶν στειλάμενον ἀποδημίαν, ἵνα τίσηται τοὺς  Ἑβραίους ἀραῖς. ἐγὼ δὲ τίνα τρόπον ἀράσομαι τοῖς μὴ καταράτοις ὑπὸ θεοῦ; θεάσομαι μὲν αὐτοὺς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀφ’ ὑψηλοτάτων ὀρῶν καὶ τῇ διανοίᾳ καταλήψομαι, βλάψαι δ’ οὐκ ἂν δυναίμην λαόν, ὃς μόνος κατοικήσει, μὴ συναριθμούμενος ἑτέροις ἔθνεσιν, οὐ κατὰ τόπων ἀποκλήρωσιν καὶ χώρας ἀποτομήν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἐξαιρέτων ἐθῶν ἰδιότητα, μὴ συναναμιγνύμενος ἄλλοις εἰς τὴν τῶν πατρίων ἐκδιαίτησιν. (279) τίς ἐπ’ ἀκριβείας εὗρε τὴν πρώτην καταβολὴν τῆς τούτων γενέσεως; τὰ μὲν σώματ’ αὐτοῖς ἐξ ἀνθρωπίνων διεπλάσθη σπερμάτων, ἐκ δὲ θείων ἔφυσαν αἱ ψυχαί· διὸ καὶ γεγόνασιν ἀγχίσποροι θεοῦ. ἀποθάνοι μου ἡ ψυχὴ τὸν σωματικὸν βίον, ἵν’ ἐν ψυχαῖς δικαίων καταριθμηθῇ, οἵας εἶναι συμβέβηκε τὰς τούτων.”

L.275

On the Life of Moses I

217

(L) (275) When the king heard that the prophet was already nearby, he went out with his bodyguard to meet him, and when they met at first he likely offered a warm welcome and hospitality and then a slight reproach for his tardiness and failure to be more eager in coming. After this there were banquets and sumptuous feasts, and whatever else is customarily prepared for receiving guests, all contributing to the royal ambition for more splendid and dignified magnificence. (276) The next day at dawn Balak took the prophet and led him atop a hill, where it happened that there was erected for some divinity a stele,197 which the local people worshiped. From there he looked down on part of the Hebrew camp, which he pointed out to the sorcerer as if from a watchtower. (277) And the sorcerer looked at the encampment and said: “O king, have seven altars built and sacrifice a calf and a ram on each; I will go in private and ask of God what should be said.” And when he went out away from the king he immediately became inspired as a prophetic spirit came over him, which drove all his technical skill in divining from his soul; for it was not right that magical sophistry198 dwell together with a most holy inspiration. Then, when he returned and saw the sacrifices and altars were alight, like an interpreter of another’s prompting him he prophesied as follows: (278) “Balak summoned me from Mesopotamia, and I set out on the long journey from the East so that he might punish the Hebrews with curses. But how will I curse those not cursed by God? I will look upon them with my eyes from the highest mountains and I will hold them in my mind, but I would not be able to harm a people who will dwell alone and will not to be included among other nations, not in their allotment of space and the division of land, but in the uniqueness of their exceptional customs, as they do not associate with others to the point of changing their ancestral ways.199 (279) Who discovered precisely the first origin of the Hebrews’ creation? Though their bodies were shaped from human seeds, their souls were born from divine seeds; and therefore, they are close kin to God. May my soul die to its bodily life so that it may be numbered among the souls of the just, such as their souls are.” 197 A stele is a stone slab or column, often bearing an inscription, that served as a monument of various types. A stele could honor gods or individuals, preserve decrees, or commemorate events. The stele here is identified as dedicated to Baal at NumLXX 22:41. 198 Philo’s words are μαγικὴν σοφιστείαν. I have opted for a literal translation because Philo sees deceptions with words as closely connected to deceptive magical practices. See above note 86 and note 194. 199 Philo offers a clarification of Num 23:9, in which the Hebrews are a people who will live alone. This is significant since in addition to Philo’s general diaspora context contradicting the notion that Jews are to dwell in a single, isolated community, the suggestion that such is prescribed by Jewish law would contradict the claims to rights and citizenship being put forward by Philo and other Alexandrian Jews.

218

❡

De vita Mosis I

LI.280

(LI) (280) Ταῦτ’ ἀκούων ὁ Βαλάκης ὤδινεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ. Παυσαμένου δέ, τὸ πάθος οὐ χωρήσας “ἐπὶ κατάραις” εἶπεν “ἐχθρῶν μετακληθεὶς εὐχὰς τιθέμενος ἐκείνοις οὐκ ἐρυθριᾷς; ἐλελήθειν ἄρ’ ἐμαυτὸν ἀπατῶν ὡς ἐπὶ φίλῳ σοι τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν πολεμίων ἀφανῶς τεταγμένῳ τάξιν, ἣ νῦν γέγονε δήλη. μήποτε καὶ τὰς ὑπερθέσεις τῆς ἐνθάδε ἀφίξεως ἐποιοῦ διὰ τὴν ὑποικουροῦσαν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ πρὸς μὲν ἐκείνους οἰκειότητα πρὸς δ’ ἐμὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐμοὺς ἀλλοτρίωσιν· πίστις γάρ, ὡς ὁ παλαιὸς λόγος, τῶν ἀδήλων τὰ ἐμφανῆ.” (281) ὁ δὲ τῆς κατοκωχῆς ἀνεθεὶς “ἀδικωτάτην” εἶπεν “αἰτίαν ὑπομένω συκοφαντούμενος· λέγω γὰρ ἴδιον οὐδέν, ἀλλ’ ἅττ’ ἂν ὑπηχήσῃ τὸ θεῖον, ὅπερ οὐχὶ νῦν πρῶτον ἐγὼ μὲν εἶπον, σὺ δ’ ἤκουσας, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρόσθεν, ἡνίκα τοὺς πρέσβεις ἔπεμψας, οἷς ἀπεκρινάμην ταὐτά.” (282) νομίσας δ’ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἢ τὸν μάντιν ἀπατᾶν ἢ τὸ θεῖον τρέπεσθαι καὶ ταῖς τῶν τόπων μεταβολαῖς τὸ τῆς γνώμης ἐχυρὸν ἀλλάττειν, εἰς ἕτερον ἀπαγαγὼν χωρίον ἐκ λόφου πάνυ περιμήκους ἐπεδείκνυτο μέρος τι τῆς ἀντιπάλου στρατιᾶς· εἶτα πάλιν ἑπτὰ βωμοὺς ἱδρυσάμενος καὶ τὰ ἴσα τοῖς πρόσθεν ἱερεῖα καταθύσας ἐξέπεμπε τὸν μάντιν ἐπ’ οἰωνοὺς καὶ φήμας αἰσίους. (283) ὁ δὲ μονωθεὶς ἐξαίφνης θεοφορεῖται καὶ μηδὲν συνιείς, ὥσπερ μετανισταμένου τοῦ λογισμοῦ, τὰ ὑποβαλλόμενα ἐξελάλει προφητεύων τάδε· “ἀναστὰς ἄκουε, βασιλεῦ, τὰ ὦτα ἐπουρίσας. οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ θεὸς διαψευσθῆναι δύναται οὐδ’ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου μετανοεῖ καὶ ἅπαξ εἰπὼν οὐκ ἐμμένει. φθέγξεται τὸ παράπαν οὐδέν, ὃ μὴ τελειωθήσεται βεβαίως, ἐπεὶ ὁ λόγος ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτῷ. παρελήφθην δ’ ἐπ’ εὐλογίαις, οὐ κατάραις, ἐγώ. (284) οὐκ ἔσται πόνος ἢ μόχθος ἐν  Ἑβραίοις. ὁ θεὸς αὐτῶν προασπίζει περιφανῶς, ὃς καὶ τὴν τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν ῥύμην κακῶν ἀπεσκέδασεν ὡς ἕνα ἄνδρα τὰς τοσαύτας μυριάδας ἀναγαγών. τοιγαροῦν οἰωνῶν ἀλογοῦσι καὶ πάντων τῶν κατὰ μαντικὴν ἑνὶ τῷ τοῦ κόσμου ἡγεμόνι πιστεύοντες. ὁρῶ λαὸν ὡς σκύμνον ἀνιστάμενον καὶ ὡς λέοντα γαυρούμενον. εὐωχηθήσεται θήρας καὶ ποτῷ χρήσεται τραυματιῶν αἵματι καὶ κορεσθεὶς οὐ τρέψεται πρὸς ὕπνον, ἀλλ’ ἐγρηγορὼς τὸν ἐπινίκιον ᾄσεται ὕμνον.”

LI.280

On the Life of Moses I

219

(LI) (280) When he heard this, Balak felt internal anguish. When the sorcerer stopped speaking, the king, not holding back his emotions, said, “Aren’t you embarrassed to offer prayers for my enemies when you were summoned to curse them? Without realizing it, I deceived myself into thinking that you were a friend, you who had secretly joined the enemy’s ranks, as has now become clear. Perhaps, too, you were making delays for your coming because an affinity for them and a hostility toward me and my people lies hidden in your soul. For, as the old saying goes, what is apparent is proof of the unknown.” (281) And the prophet, released from the inspiration, said, “I am being slandered and suffering a most unjust accusation; for I say nothing that is my own, but whatever the divine inspires; this is not the first time I’ve said so, nor the first time you’ve heard it, but I said as much previously in reply to your ambassadors when you sent them to me.” (282) Believing that he would either deceive the seer or change the disposition of the divine and thinking that by an exchange of locales he would alter the resolve of the divine judgement, the king led the seer away to another location, and from a very high hill he showed him part of the opposing army. And then, again after having seven altars set up and offering the same victims as before, he dispatched the prophet to perform auguries and auspicious oracles. (283) The seer, when he was left alone, became suddenly inspired, and, though he understood nothing, as if rationality had left him, he blurted out what was provided to him, prophesying as follows: “Stand up, prick up your ears, and listen, king. Unlike a man, God cannot be deceived, and unlike a son of man He does not change His mind and fail to keep his word once he has spoken. He will not utter anything at all that will not surely be fulfilled, since for Him His word is action; and I was brought along to offer blessings, not curses. There will be no toil or strain among the Hebrews. (284) God clearly holds his shield before them, He who also dispelled the power of Egyptian hardships and lead forth so many tens of thousands as if they were a single man. And therefore they look down upon auguries and everything pertaining to the mantic art, trusting in the governor of the universe. I see a people rising like a cub and exulting like a lion. It will feed on wild animals and will use the blood of the slain for its drink, and, when it is full, it will not turn to sleep but will stay awake and sing the victory hymn.”

220

❡

De vita Mosis I

LII.285

(LII) (285) Χαλεπῶς δ’ ἐνεγκὼν ἐπὶ τῷ παρ’ ἐλπίδας αὐτῷ τὰ τῆς μαντικῆς ἀπαντᾶσθαι “ἄνθρωπε” εἶπε, “μήτε ἀρὰς τίθεσο μήτ’ εὐχὰς ποιοῦ· βελτίων γὰρ τῶν μὴ καθ’ ἡδονὴν λόγων ἡ ἀκίνδυνος ἡσυχία.” καὶ ταῦτ’ εἰπὼν ὥσπερ ἐκλαθόμενος ὧν εἶπε διὰ τὸ τῆς γνώμης ἀβέβαιον εἰς ἄλλον τόπον ἀπῆγε τὸν μάντιν, ἀφ’ οὗ δείξας μέρος τι τῆς  Ἑβραϊκῆς στρατιᾶς καταρᾶσθαι παρεκάλει. (286) ὁ δ’ ἅτε χείρων ἐκείνου, καίτοι πρὸς τὰς ἐπιφερομένας κατηγορίας ἀπολογίᾳ μιᾷ χρώμενος ἀληθεῖ, ὡς οὐδὲν ἴδιον λέγοι, κατεχόμενος δὲ καὶ ἐνθουσιῶν διερμηνεύοι τὰ ἑτέρου, δέον μηκέτ’ ἐπακολουθεῖν ἀλλ’ οἴκαδε ἀπαίρειν, ἑτοιμότερον τοῦ παραπέμποντος προεξέτρεχεν, ἅμα μὲν οἰήσει, κακῷ μεγάλῳ, πεπιεσμένος, ἅμα δὲ καὶ τῇ διανοίᾳ καταρᾶσθαι γλιχόμενος, εἰ καὶ τῇ φωνῇ διεκωλύετο. (287) παραγενόμενος δ’ εἰς ὄρος μεῖζον τῶν προτέρων ἄχρι πολλοῦ κατατεῖνον κελεύει μὲν τὴν αὐτὴν ἐπιτελεῖν θυσίαν βωμοὺς πάλιν ἑπτὰ κατασκευάσαντας καὶ ἱερεῖα τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα προσαγαγόντας ἑκάστῳ βωμῷ δύο, μόσχον τε καὶ κριόν. αὐτὸς δὲ οὐκέτι κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἐπὶ κληδόνας καὶ οἰωνοὺς ἵετο πολλὰ τὴν αὑτοῦ τέχνην κακίσας ὡς χρόνῳ καθάπερ γραφὴν ἐξίτηλον γενομένην καὶ τοὺς εὐθυβόλους στοχασμοὺς ἐξαμαυρωθεῖσαν· ἄλλως δὲ καὶ μόλις ἐνενόησεν, ὅτι οὐ συνᾴδει τῷ τοῦ θεοῦ βουλήματι ἡ τοῦ μισθωσαμένου προαίρεσις αὐτὸν βασιλέως. (288) τραπόμενος οὖν κατὰ τὴν ἐρήμην ὁρᾷ κατὰ φυλὰς ἐστρατοπεδευκότας  Ἑβραίους καὶ τό τε πλῆθος καὶ τὴν τάξιν ὡς πόλεως ἀλλ’ οὐ στρατοπέδου καταπλαγεὶς ἔνθους γενόμενος ἀναφθέγγεται τάδε· (289) “φησὶν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἀληθινῶς ὁρῶν, ὅστις καθ’ ὕπνον ἐναργῆ φαντασίαν εἶδε θεοῦ τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς ἀκοιμήτοις ὄμμασιν. ὡς καλοί σου οἱ οἶκοι, στρατιὰ  Ἑβραίων, αἱ σκηναί σου ὡς νάπαι σκιάζουσαι, ὡς παράδεισος ἐπὶ ποταμοῦ, ὡς κέδρος παρ’ ὕδατα. (290) ἐξελεύσεταί ποτε ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ὑμῶν καὶ ἐπικρατήσει πολλῶν ἐθνῶν καὶ ἐπιβαίνουσα ἡ τοῦδε βασιλεία καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν πρὸς ὕψος ἀρθήσεται. ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἡγεμόνι τῆς ἀπ’ Αἰγύπτου πάσης ὁδοῦ κέχρηται θεῷ καθ’ ἓν κέρας ἄγοντι τὴν πληθύν. (291) τοιγαροῦν ἔδεται ἔθνη πολλὰ ἐχθρῶν καὶ ὅσον ἐν αὐτοῖς πῖον ἄχρι μυελοῦ λήψεται καὶ ταῖς ἑκηβολίαις ἀπολεῖ τοὺς δυσμενεῖς. ἀναπαύσεται κατακλινεὶς ὡς λέων ἢ σκύμνος λέοντος, μάλα καταφρονητικῶς δεδιὼς οὐδένα, φόβον τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐνειργασμένος· ἄθλιος ὃς ἂν αὐτὸν παρακινήσας ἐγείρῃ. οἱ μὲν εὐλογοῦντές σε εὐφημίας ἄξιοι, κατάρας δ’ οἱ καταρώμενοι.”

LII.285

On the Life of Moses I

221

(LII) (285) The king, vexed that the divination turned out contrary to his expectation, said, “You! Don’t lay down any curses or make any prayers; for the harmless silence is better than your displeasing words.” And though he said this, as if he had forgotten it due to the instability of his mind, he led the prophet away to a different place from which he showed him another part of the Hebrew army and urged him to curse them. (286) And the seer, since he was worse in character than the king, though he employed his one true defense against the accusations lodged against him, that nothing he says is his own, but when possessed and inspired he interprets the words of another, when he should have stopped attending the king and departed for home, quite eagerly ran ahead of his escort, partly tormented by arrogance, a great evil, and partly yearning to offer a curse with his mind, although he was prevented from doing so with his voice. (287) Arriving at a mountain larger than those before that stretched continuously down, he ordered that they again build the seven altars and bring forth fourteen victims, two for each altar, a calf and a ram, and complete the same sacrifice. The seer himself, naturally, no longer chased after omens and auguries, since he felt much reproach for the skill as if it were fading with time like a painting and were losing the precision in its predictions; in vain and with difficulty he realized that the plan of the king, who was paying for his services, did not accord with the will of God. (288) And so turning to face the wilderness, he looked over the encamped Hebrew tribes, and, amazed that their size and arrangement was that of a city, not a military camp, he became inspired and uttered these words: (289) “The man who sees truly is speaking, the man who saw a vision of God in a clear dream with the unwearied eyes of the soul. How lovely are your dwellings, army of Hebrews; your tents sheltering you are like wooded valleys, like a garden beside a river, like a cedar beside waters. (290) One day a man will come forth from your people; he will prevail over many nations, and his kingdom, advancing, will be exulted on high day by day. This people took God as their guide for the entire journey from Egypt, leading the multitude in one column. (291) Therefore, it will devour many nations of enemies and will take their fat down to the marrow and will destroy their enemies with arrows. Like a lion or a lion’s cub, it will stop and lie down in great contempt, fearing nothing, producing fear in all others; he is a pitiful wretch, whoever disturbs and rouses him. Those who celebrate you are worthy of praise, but those who curse you deserve a curse.”

222

❡

De vita Mosis I

LIII.292

(LIII) (292) Σφόδρα δ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις ἀγανακτήσας ὁ βασιλεὺς “ἐπ’ ἀραῖς” εἶπεν “ἐχθρῶν μετακληθεὶς εὐχὰς ἤδη τρεῖς τὰς ὑπὲρ ἐκείνων πεποίησαι· φεῦγε δὴ θᾶττον—­ὀξὺ πάθος ἐστὶ θυμός—­, μή τι καὶ νεώτερον ἐργάσασθαι βιασθῶ. (293) πόσον πλῆθος χρημάτων, ἀνοητότατε, καὶ δωρεῶν, πόσην δ’ εὐφημίαν καὶ δόξαν ἀφῄρησαι σεαυτὸν φρενοβλαβὴς ὤν· ἐπανελεύσῃ φέρων ἀπὸ τῆς ξένης εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν ἀγαθὸν μὲν οὐδέν, ὀνείδη δὲ καὶ πολλὴν ὡς ἔοικεν αἰσχύνην, οὕτως σοι τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἐπιστήμην, ἐφ’ οἷς πρότερον ἐσεμνύνου, γελασθέντων.” (294) ὁ δὲ “τὰ μὲν πρότερα” εἶπε “πάντ’ ἐστὶ λόγια καὶ χρησμοί, τὰ δὲ μέλλοντα λέγεσθαι γνώμης τῆς ἐμῆς εἰκασίαι.” καὶ τῆς δεξιᾶς λαβόμενος μόνος μόνῳ συνεβούλευε, δι’ ὧν, ὡς ἂν οἷόν τε ᾖ, φυλάξεται τὸν ἀντίπαλον στρατόν, ἀσέβημα κατηγορῶν αὑτοῦ μέγιστον· τί γάρ, εἴποι τις ἄν, ἰδιάζεις καὶ συμβουλεύεις τὰ ἐναντία τοῖς χρησμοῖς ὑποτιθέμενος, εἰ μὴ ἄρα τῶν λογίων αἱ σαὶ βουλαὶ δυνατώτεραι;

LIII.292

On the Life of Moses I

223

(LIII) (292) And the king, exceedingly irritated by this, said, “You were summoned to curse my enemies and have already pronounced three blessings on their behalf. You’d best flee quickly—­anger is a grave emotion—­before I am forced to do something even more extreme. (293) Fool! What a sum of money and of gifts, how much fame and glory you deprived yourself of in your madness. You will return home from a foreign land with nothing good, but rather reproach and much shame, as is fitting, so much have your skills, for which you were once honored, become an object of mockery.” (294) And the seer said, “Everything I said before was oracles and prophecies, but what I am about to say represents my own thinking.”200 And taking him by the right hand, the seer alone, proving his own great impiety, counselled the king alone regarding how, to the degree it was possible, he might guard against the enemy army. For why, someone might ask, are you on your own giving counsels and suggesting things opposed to the oracles if your advice is not more powerful than the prophecies?

In biblical account, Balaam’s role in the matter of the Midianite women is not mentioned until Num 31:16. 200

224

De vita Mosis I

LIV.295

(LIV) (295) φέρε δ’ οὖν καὶ τὰς καλὰς αὐτοῦ παραινέσεις ἐξετάσωμεν, ὡς τετεχνιτευμέναι πρὸς ὁμολογουμένην ἧτταν τῶν ἀεὶ νικᾶν δυναμένων. εἰδὼς γὰρ  Ἑβραίοις μίαν ὁδὸν ἁλώσεως παρανομίαν, διὰ λαγνείας καὶ ἀκολασίας, μεγάλου κακοῦ, πρὸς μεῖζον κακόν, ἀσέβειαν, ἄγειν αὐτοὺς ἐσπούδασεν ἡδονὴν δέλεαρ προθείς. (296) “εἰσὶ” γὰρ εἶπεν “αἱ ἐγχώριοι γυναῖκες, ὦ βασιλεῦ, διαφέρουσαι τὴν ὄψιν ἑτέρων· ἀνὴρ δ’ οὐδενὶ μᾶλλον εὐάλωτος ἢ γυναικὸς εὐμορφίᾳ. ταῖς οὖν περικαλλεστάταις ἐὰν ἐπιτρέψῃς μισθαρνεῖν καὶ δημοσιεύειν, ἀγκιστρεύσονται τὴν νεότητα τῶν ἀντιπάλων. (297) ὑφηγητέον δὲ αὐταῖς, μὴ εὐθὺς ἐμπαρέχεσθαι τοῖς ἐθέλουσι τὴν ὥραν· ὁ γὰρ ἀκκισμὸς ὑποκνίζων τὰς ὁρμὰς ἐπεγείρει μᾶλλον καὶ τοὺς ἔρωτας ἀναφλέγει· τραχηλιζόμενοι δὲ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις πάνθ’ ὑπομενοῦσι δρᾶν τε καὶ πάσχειν. (298) πρὸς δὲ τὸν οὕτω διακείμενον ἐραστὴν λεγέτω φρυαττομένη τις τῶν ἐπὶ τὴν θήραν ἀλειφομένων· ‘οὐ θέμις ὁμιλίας σοι τῆς ἐμῆς ἀπολαῦσαι, πρὶν ἂν ἐκδιαιτηθῇς μὲν τὰ πάτρια, μεταβαλὼν δὲ τιμήσῃς ἅπερ ἐγώ. Πίστις δέ μοι τῆς βεβαίου μεταβολῆς γένοιτ’ ἂν ἀρίδηλος, ἢν ἐθελήσῃς μετασχεῖν τῶν αὐτῶν σπονδῶν τε καὶ θυσιῶν, ἃς ἀγάλμασι καὶ ξοάνοις καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἀφιδρύμασιν ἐπιτελοῦμεν.’ (299) ὁ δ’ ἅτε σαγηνευθεὶς πάγαις πολυειδέσι, κάλλει καὶ στωμυλίας χειραγωγίαις, οὐδὲν ἀντειπών, ἐξηγκωνισμένος τὸν λογισμόν, ἄθλιος ὑπηρετήσει τοῖς προσταττομένοις, ἀναγραφεὶς τοῦ πάθους δοῦλος.”

LIV.295

On the Life of Moses I

225

(LIV) (295) So come and let us examine his noble counsel, to see how it had been crafted for an uncontested defeat of those always able to conquer. For knowing that a single road of conquest against the Hebrews, transgression, would lead them from debauchery and license, a great evil, to a greater evil, impiety, he was eager to provide them with pleasure as an enticement. (296) He said, “The local women are superior to others in beauty. Nothing catches a man more easily than the beauty of a woman. And so, if you permit the most beautiful women to prostitute themselves for a wage, they will ensnare the enemy youth. (297) They must be instructed not to acquiesce immediately to those desiring their beauty; for prudishness, providing stimulation, further rouses the impulses and inflames the passions; those overcome by desire will undertake any act or suffering. (298) And to her lover being so disposed toward her, let one of those proud women trained for the hunt say, ‘It is not right for you to enjoy my company unless you change your ancestral customs and honor the practices that I do. The proof of the sure change would be clear to me, if you are willing to participate in the same libations and sacrifices, which we fulfill for statues, wooden images, and to the rest of the effigies.’ (299) And the lover, since he is caught by various snares, beauty and the enticements of small talk, and is constrained in his ability to reason, will offer no rebuttal, and the wretch will obey her commands, officially becoming a slave of his passion.”

226

❡

De vita Mosis I

LV.300

(LV) (300) Ὁ μὲν δὴ τοιαῦτα συνεβούλευεν. ὁ δ’ οὐκ ἀπὸ σκοποῦ νομίσας εἶναι τὰ λεχθέντα, τὸν κατὰ μοιχῶν νόμον παρακαλυψάμενος καὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ φθορᾷ καὶ πορνείᾳ κειμένους ἀνελών, ὡς εἰ μηδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐγράφησαν, ἀνέδην ἐπιτρέπει ταῖς γυναιξὶ τὰς ὁμιλίας πρὸς οὓς ἂν ἐθέλωσι ποιεῖσθαι. (301) δοθείσης δὲ ἀδείας, τὴν πληθὺν τῶν μειρακίων ἐπήγοντο πολὺ πρότερον τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἀπατῶσαι καὶ τρέπουσαι ταῖς γοητείαις πρὸς ἀσέβειαν, ἕως υἱὸς τοῦ ἀρχιερέως Φινεὲς ἐπὶ τοῖς γινομένοις σφόδρα χαλεπήνας—­δεινότατον γὰρ αὐτῷ κατεφαίνετο, εἰ ὑφ’ ἕνα καιρὸν ἄμφω τά τε σώματα καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἐπιδεδώκασι, τὰ μὲν ἡδοναῖς, τὰς δὲ τῷ παρανομεῖν καὶ ἀνοσιουργεῖν—­ἐνεανιεύσατο νεανείαν ἀνδρὶ καλῷ καὶ ἀγαθῷ προσήκουσαν. (302) ἰδὼν γάρ τινα τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους θύοντα καὶ εἰσιόντα πρὸς πόρνην, μήτε κεκυφότα εἰς τοὔδαφος μήτε λανθάνειν τοὺς πολλοὺς πειρώμενον μήθ’ οἷα φιλεῖ κλέπτοντα τὴν εἴσοδον, ἀλλὰ μετ’ ἀναισχύντου θράσους τὴν ἀκοσμίαν ἐπιδεικνύμενον καὶ φρυαττόμενον ὡς ἐπὶ σεμνῷ πράγματι τῷ καταγελάστῳ, πάνυ πικρανθεὶς καὶ πληρωθεὶς ὀργῆς δικαίας ἐπεισδραμὼν ἔτι κατ’ εὐνὴν κειμένους ἀμφοτέρους τόν τ’ ἐραστὴν καὶ τὴν ἑταίραν ἀναιρεῖ προσανατεμὼν καὶ τὰ γεννητικά, διότι σποραῖς ὑπηρέτησαν ἐκθέσμοις. (303) τοῦτο θεασάμενοί τινες τὸ παράδειγμα τῶν τὴν ἐγκράτειαν καὶ θεοσέβειαν ἐζηλωκότων προστάξαντος Μωυσέως ἐμιμήσαντο καὶ πάντας τοὺς τελεσθέντας τοῖς χειροποιήτοις συγγενεῖς καὶ φίλους ἡβηδὸν ἀνελόντες τὸ μὲν μίασμα τοῦ ἔθνους ἐκκαθαίρουσι διὰ τῆς τῶν προηδικηκότων ἀπαραιτήτου τιμωρίας, τοὺς δ’ ἄλλους παρασχόντας ἀπολογίαν ἐναργεστάτην ὑπὲρ τῆς αὑτῶν εὐσεβείας περιεποιήσαντο, μηδένα τῶν ἀφ’ αἵματος κατακρίτων οἰκτισάμενοι μηδ’ ἐλέῳ τἀδικήματα αὐτῶν παρελθόντες, ἀλλὰ καθαροὺς νομίσαντες τοὺς αὐτόχειρας· ὅθεν οὐδενὶ παρεχώρησαν τὴν ἐπέξοδον φέρουσαν τοῖς δρῶσιν ἀψευδέστατον ἔπαινον.

LV.300

On the Life of Moses I

227

(LV) (300) Such were his counsels. And the king, who thought his words did not miss the mark, ignored the law against adulterers and annulled existing laws against seduction and prostitution as if they had not been written at all, and permitted the women to keep company freely with whomever they wished. (301) When amnesty had been granted, the women won over the multitude of young men, for a long time deceiving their minds and turning them to impiety by their charms, until a son of the high priest, Phinehas,201 became extremely angry at what was happening—­for it was clear to him that it was a most terrible thing, if they handed over both their bodies and souls at one time, the former to pleasures and the latter to transgression and impiety—­and showed the youthful spirit befitting a nobleman. (302) When he saw one of his countrymen sacrifice and visit a prostitute, neither with head bowed toward the ground nor trying to avoid the crowd’s notice nor, as is usual, concealing his visit, but with shameless arrogance displaying his lack of temperance and acting proud of an absurd affair as if it were something solemn, he became quite exasperated, and, full of righteous anger, he ran in upon them when they were still both lying in bed and killed the lover and prostitute and cut off their genitals, because they gave in to lawless procreation.202 (303) When they saw this, some of those who were eager for self-­ control and piety imitated this example at Moses’ command, and, killing to a man all those friends and relatives who were initiated into the cults of idols, they cleared the stain away from the nation through the inexorable punishment of those first to sin. The rest, who provided a very clear defense of their piety, they saved; they lamented no condemned blood relation, nor out of pity did they overlook their wrongdoings, but considered those who killed them clean. Therefore, they conceded to no one the vengeance that brings the purest praise to its actors.

201 Phinehas was the son of Eleazar and grandson to Moses’ brother Aaron (see Exod 6:25). Philo speaks allegorically of Phinehas as one who uses reason to destroy that which hates virtue and loves pleasure (Post. 182) and as using reason to stab passion through the womb, so that it not beget any divinely sent harm (Mut. 108). 202 NumLXX 25:8 has Phinehas’ spear pierce the Hebrew man (Zimri or, in the Septuagint, Ζαμβρι, identified at NumLXX 25:14) and the Midianite woman, Cozbi (Χασβι), through the μήτρα, which means “womb.” Philo follows the Septuagint account elsewhere in his works (see Post. 182; and Mut. 108) and only here has Phinehas cut off the transgressors’ genitalia. This escalation of events is not incompatible with Philo’s allegorical interpretations of Phinehas as one who prevents the passions from generating wickedness, but the stark image may speak more to Philo’s fear over the loss of the Jews’ ancestral customs through intermarriage with non-­Jews. He speaks of precisely this fear elsewhere when he repudiates marriages with gentiles (Spec. 3.29).

228

De vita Mosis I

LV.304

(304) τετρακισχιλίους δέ φασι πρὸς τοῖς δισμυρίοις ἀναιρεθῆναι μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ, συναναιρεθέντος εὐθὺς τοῦ κοινοῦ μιάσματος, ὃ πᾶσαν τὴν στρατιὰν ἐκηλίδου. τῶν δὲ καθαρσίων ἐπιτελεσθέντων, ὡς ἀριστεῖ γέρας ἐπάξιον τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, ὃς πρῶτος ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμυναν ὥρμησεν, ἐζήτει παρασχεῖν Μωυσῆς· φθάνει δὲ χρησμοῖς δωρησάμενος ὁ θεὸς Φινεεῖ τὸ μέγιστον ἀγαθόν, εἰρήνην, ὃ μηδεὶς ἱκανὸς ἀνθρώπων παρασχεῖν, πρὸς δὲ τῇ εἰρήνῃ καὶ παγκρατησίαν ἱερωσύνης, αὐτῷ καὶ γένει κλῆρον ἀναφαίρετον.

LV.304

On the Life of Moses I

229

(304) They say that in one day twenty-four thousand men were killed and the common stain, which was defiling the whole army, was immediately purged with them.203 When the rites of purification had been performed, Moses wanted to offer a worthy reward to the son of the high priest for excelling in valor, since he was the first to rush to vengeance. But God through oracles first gifted to Phinehas the greatest good, peace, which no man is capable of providing, and in addition to peace also possession of the priesthood,204 an inalienable inheritance for him and his family.

203 According to Num 25:9, twenty-four thousand is the number of Hebrews who died in a plague that God sent as punishment for their impiety with the Midianite women. Phinehas’ murder of Zimri was an act of zealous piety that brought an end to the plague. Philo’s transformation of the plague into a sort of “civil war” in which the pious seek to root out those who defy the law could be aimed at those (perhaps lapsed) Jews of his own day who have married non-­Jews. If so, Philo’s intentional promotion of pious internecine violence is striking. 204 Philo explains Phinehas’ rewards at Post. 183, where peace comes about by banishing pleasure, and the priesthood is closely related to peace (similarly at Conf. 57). For Philo, Phinehas’ actions are entirely praiseworthy. The rabbinic tradition is a bit more ambivalent about Phinehas’ vigilantism (see DelCogliano, “Phinehas the Zealot,” 108, and Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 201–­3).

230

❡

De vita Mosis I

LVI.305

(LVI) (305) Ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν ἐμφυλίων οὐδὲν ἔτ’ ἦν ὑπόλοιπον κακῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅσοι πρὸς αὐτομολίαν ἢ προδοσίαν ὑπωπτεύοντο πάντες ἀπωλώλεσαν, ἔδοξεν εἶναι καιρὸς ἐπιτηδειότατος τῆς ἐπὶ τὸν Βαλάκην στρατείας, ἄνδρα μυρία καὶ βεβουλευμένον ἐργάσασθαι κακὰ καὶ δεδρακότα, βεβουλευμένον μὲν διὰ τοῦ μάντεως, ὃν ἤλπισεν ἀραῖς τισι δυνήσεσθαι καθελεῖν τὴν δύναμιν τῶν  Ἑβραίων, δεδρακότα δὲ διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν ἀσελγείας καὶ ἀκολασίας, αἳ τὰ μὲν σώματα λαγνείαις τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀσεβείᾳ τῶν χρωμένων διέφθειραν. (306) παντὶ μὲν οὖν τῷ στρατῷ πολεμεῖν οὐκ ἐδοκίμαζεν, εἰδὼς τὰ ὑπέρογκα πλήθη πταίοντα περὶ αὑτοῖς καὶ ἅμα λυσιτελὲς ἡγούμενος ἐφεδρείας εἶναι συμμάχων τοῖς προκαμοῦσι βοηθούς, ἀριστίνδην δὲ τοὺς ἡβῶντας ἐπιλέξας, χιλίους ἐκ φυλῆς ἑκάστης, δώδεκα χιλιάδας—­τοσαῦται γὰρ ἦσαν αἱ φυλαί—­καὶ στρατηγὸν ἑλόμενος τοῦ πολέμου Φινεὲς πεῖραν ἤδη δεδωκότα στρατηγικῆς εὐτολμίας ἐπὶ καλοῖς ἱερείοις ἐξέπεμπε τοὺς ὁπλίτας καὶ θαρσύνων τοιάδε διεξῄει· (307) “οὐχ ὑπὲρ κράτους ἀρχῆς ὁ παρὼν ἀγών ἐστιν οὐδ’ ὑπὲρ τοῦ κτήσασθαι τὰ ἑτέρων, περὶ ὧν ἢ μόνων ἢ μάλιστα οἱ πόλεμοι, ἀλλ’ ὑπὲρ εὐσεβείας καὶ ὁσιότητος, ὧν τοὺς ἡμετέρους συγγενεῖς καὶ φίλους ἠλλοτρίωσαν οἱ ἐχθροὶ παραίτιοι γενόμενοι τοῖς ὑπαχθεῖσι χαλεπῆς ἀπωλείας. (308) ἔστιν οὖν ἄτοπον οἰκείων μὲν αὐτόχειρας γεγενῆσθαι παρανομησάντων, ἐχθρῶν δὲ χαλεπώτερα ἠδικηκότων ἀποσχέσθαι, καὶ τοὺς μὲν μαθόντας ἀδικεῖν ἀνῃρηκέναι, τοὺς δὲ βιασαμένους καὶ διδάξαντας ἀτιμωρήτους καταλιπεῖν, οὓς ἁπάντων αἰτίους εἶναι συμβέβηκεν, ὧν ἢ δεδράκασιν ἢ πεπόνθασιν ἐκεῖνοι.”

LVI.305

On the Life of Moses I

231

(LVI) (305) But when nothing still remained of the wicked members of the Hebrew tribe, but all those who were suspected of desertion or betrayal had perished, the time seemed most suitable for the campaign against Balak, a man who had contrived and carried out myriad evils; he contrived them through the seer, whom he expected to be able to destroy the Hebrew army with some curses, and he carried them out through the licentiousness and intemperance of the women, who through sex destroyed the bodies and through impiety the souls of those who slept with them. (306) He did not think it suitable to fight using his whole army, knowing that immense crowds stumble over themselves and at the same time considering it useful that there be reserves of allies as support for those who grow weary fighting, but he selected according to merit those in the prime of their youth, a thousand from each tribe, in all twelve thousand—­for there were twelve tribes—­and he chose Phinehas as the general for the war, since he had already proved that he was possessed of a general’s courage, and after favorable sacrifices205 he sent forth his soldiers and addressed them with encouraging words: (307) “The present contest is not for the mastery of a realm or the acquisition of others’ goods, which wars exclusively or especially are about, but for reverence and piety, from which the enemy made your friends and relatives estranged and made themselves culpable for the painful destruction of those who were seduced. (308) Therefore, it is unnatural that we have become killers of kin who have transgressed but hold back from enemies who have committed more serious injustices, and it is unnatural to have killed those who learned to commit injustice, but to leave unpunished those who compelled and taught such acts, who as it happens are responsible for everything that those others did or suffered.”

205 Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 213: “There is no mention in the Bible of such sacrifices. . . . Rather, apparently Philo had been influenced to do so because his primary audience consisted of non-­Jews, who would have expected this, since this was the practice of the Greeks and Romans before battle.”

232

De vita Mosis I

LVII.309

(LVII) (309) νευρωθέντες οὖν ταῖς παραινέσεσιν ἐκεῖνοι καὶ ὅσον ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς προϋπῆρχε γενναιότητος ζωπυρήσαντες ὡς ἐφ’ ὁμολογουμένῃ νίκῃ πρὸς τὸν ἀγῶνα ἵεντο φρονήμασιν ἀηττήτοις· καὶ συμπλακέντες τοσαύτῃ περιουσίᾳ ῥώμης καὶ τόλμης ἐχρήσαντο, ὡς ἱερεῦσαι μὲν τοὺς ἀντιπάλους, αὐτοὶ δὲ πάντες σῷοι ἐπανελθεῖν, οὐδενὸς ἀποθανόντος ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ τρωθέντος. (310) ὑπέλαβεν ἄν τις τῶν ἀγνοούντων τὸ συμβεβηκὸς ἰδὼν αὐτοὺς ἐπανιόντας οὐκ ἀπὸ πολέμου καὶ παρατάξεως ἀφικνεῖσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ τῶν ἐν ταῖς ὁπλοσκοπίαις ἐπιδείξεων, ἃς ἔθος ἐν εἰρήνῃ ποιεῖσθαι, γυμνάσματα δ’ εἰσὶ καὶ μελέται συγκροτουμένων τὰ κατ’ ἐχθρῶν ἐν φίλοις. (311) τὰς μὲν οὖν πόλεις ἢ κατασκάπτοντες ἢ ἐμπιπράντες ἠφάνισαν, ὡς μηδ’ εἰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ᾠκίσθησαν εἰπεῖν ἔχειν· αἰχμαλώτων δὲ σωμάτων ἀπερίληπτον ἀριθμὸν ἀπαγαγόντες ἄνδρας μὲν καὶ γυναῖκας κτείνειν ἐδικαίωσαν, τοὺς μὲν ὅτι βουλευμάτων καὶ χειρῶν ἦρξαν ἀδίκων, τὰς δ’ ἐπεὶ κατεγοήτευσαν τὴν  Ἑβραίων νεότητα, παραιτίας γενομένας αὐτοῖς ἀκολασίας καὶ ἀσεβείας καὶ τὰ τελευταῖα θανάτου· νέοις δὲ κομιδῇ παισὶ καὶ παρθένοις συνέγνωσαν, ἀμνηστίαν τῆς ἡλικίας ἐφελκομένης. (312) λείας δὲ πολλῆς ἄγαν εὐπορήσαντες ἔκ τε τῶν βασιλείων κἀκ τῶν ἰδιωτικῶν οἰκιῶν, ἔτι δὲ τῶν κατ’ ἀγροὺς ἐπαύλεων—­ἦν γὰρ ἐν τοῖς χωρίοις οὐκ ἐλάττων τῆς ἐν τοῖς ἄστεσιν—­, ἧκον εἰς τὸ στρατόπεδον ἐπηχθισμένοι τὸν παρὰ τῶν ἐχθρῶν πάντα πλοῦτον. (313) ἐπαινέσας δὲ Μωυσῆς τόν τε στρατηγὸν Φινεὲς καὶ τοὺς παραταξαμένους ἐπί τε τοῖς κατορθώμασι καὶ ὅτι ταῖς ὠφελείαις οὐκ ἐπέδραμον τὴν λείαν μόνοι σφετερίσασθαι διανοηθέντες, ἀλλ’ εἰς μέσον προὔθεσαν, ἵνα καὶ οἱ καταμείναντες ἐν ταῖς σκηναῖς μετάσχωσι, προστάττει τοὺς μὲν ἔξω τοῦ στρατοπέδου καταμένειν τινὰς ἡμέρας, τῷ δὲ μεγάλῳ ἱερεῖ καθᾶραι τοῦ φόνου τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς παρατάξεως ἥκοντας τῶν συμμάχων. (314) καὶ γὰρ εἰ νόμιμοι αἱ κατ’ ἐχθρῶν σφαγαί, ἀλλ’ ὅ γε κτείνων ἄνθρωπον, εἰ καὶ δικαίως καὶ ἀμυνόμενος καὶ βιασθείς, ὑπαίτιος εἶναι δοκεῖ διὰ τὴν ἀνωτάτω καὶ κοινὴν συγγένειαν· οὗ χάριν καθαρσίων ἐδέησε τοῖς κτείνασι πρὸς ἀπαλλαγὴν τοῦ νομισθέντος ἄγους γεγενῆσθαι.

LVII.309

On the Life of Moses I

233

(LVII) (309) And so being energized by his exhortations and having what nobility already existed in their souls enflamed, they with invincible spirits were eager for battle as if it were an uncontested victory; and when it came to blows, they showed such an abundance of strength and courage that they slaughtered their opponents while they themselves all returned safely, not one of them being killed or injured. (310) Anyone seeing the event who did not know better would have suspected that, when they returned, they had not come from war and battle, but rather from exhibitions in reviews of arms, which are exercises and practice for those being trained among friends in how to handle enemies, which it is customary to perform in a time of peace. (311) And so they destroyed the cities, either razing them or burning them, so that one could not even tell whether they were inhabited to begin with; after taking an immense number of prisoners, they thought it just to kill both the men and women, the former because they instigated the unjust plans and acts, and the latter because they charmed the Hebrew youth, becoming accomplices with them in intemperance, impiety, and, ultimately, death. The young boys and girls they pardoned completely since their age claims amnesty for itself.206 (312) Flush with a great abundance of plunder from the royal and private houses, and still more from the rural estates throughout the countryside—­for in the countryside there was no less plunder than in the cities—­they came to the camp loaded with all the wealth of their enemies. (313) Moses praised the general, Phinehas, and his troops for their virtuous actions and because they were not greedy for the plunder, intending to usurp the booty for themselves alone, but they made it common to all so that those residing in the tents might have a share as well; Moses ordered them to remain outside the camp for some days and commanded the high priest to cleanse their allies of the stain of murder as they returned from battle. (314) For even if the slaughter of enemies is lawful, one who kills a man, even if he does so justly, in self-­defense, and under compulsion, is rightly deemed guilty due to their fundamental common kinship; therefore, purifying sacrifices had to be performed for the killers for the removal of the declared pollution.

206 A departure from Num 31:17, where Moses orders that all male children of the Midianites and any Midianite woman who has had sexual relations be executed. Philo perhaps has Moses spare the male children because he felt that “to kill every male child was reminiscent of Pharaoh’s cruel orders” (Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, 214).

234

De vita Mosis I

LVIII.315

(LVIII) (315) μετ’ οὐ πολὺν μέντοι χρόνον καὶ τὴν λείαν διένειμε, τοῖς μὲν στρατευσαμένοις—­ὀλίγος δ’ ἀριθμὸς ἦσαν παρὰ τοὺς ἡσυχάσαντας—­διδοὺς ἥμισυ μέρος, θάτερον δὲ τοῖς καταμείνασιν ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ· δίκαιον γὰρ ὑπέλαβεν εἶναι καὶ τούτοις μεταδοῦναι τῆς ὠφελείας, εἰ καὶ μὴ τοῖς σώμασι, ταῖς γοῦν ψυχαῖς διαγωνισαμένοις· οἱ γὰρ ἔφεδροι τῶν ἀγωνιστῶν οὐκ ἐλαττούμενοι ταῖς προθυμίαις χρόνῳ καὶ τῷ φθασθῆναι μόνον ὑστερίζουσι. (316) λαβόντων δὲ τῶν μὲν ὀλίγων πλείω διὰ τὸ προκινδυνεῦσαι, τῶν δὲ πλειόνων ἐλάττω διὰ τὴν ἔνδον μονήν, ἔδοξεν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι πάσης τῆς λείας τὰς ἀπαρχὰς καθιερῶσαι· τὸ μὲν οὖν πεντηκοστὸν οἱ ἐφεδρεύσαντες, πεντακοσιοστὴν δὲ μοῖραν οἱ προπολεμήσαντες εἰσήνεγκαν· τῶν δ’ ἀπαρχῶν τὰς μὲν παρὰ τῶν στρατευσαμένων τῷ μεγάλῳ ἱερεῖ προστάττει δοθῆναι, τὰς δὲ παρὰ τῶν καταμεινάντων ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ τοῖς νεωκόροις, οἷς ὄνομα Λευῖται. (317) χιλίαρχοι δὲ καὶ ἑκατόνταρχοι καὶ ὁ ἄλλος ὅμιλος λοχαγῶν καὶ ταξιαρχῶν ὑπέρ τε τῆς αὑτῶν σωτηρίας καὶ τῶν συστρατευσαμένων καὶ τῆς παντὸς λόγου κρείττονος νίκης ἐθελονταὶ κομίζουσιν ἐξαιρέτους ἀπαρχάς, κόσμον τε χρυσοῦν ὅσον ἕκαστος ἐκ τῆς λείας ἀνεῦρε καὶ σκεύη πολυτελέστατα, ὧν πάλιν ὕλη χρυσὸς ἦν· ἃ Μωυσῆς λαβὼν καὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν τῶν φερόντων ἀγάμενος ἀνατίθησιν ἐν τῇ καθιερωμένῃ σκηνῇ τῆς εὐχαριστίας τῶν ἀνδρῶν ὑπόμνημα. (318) παγκάλη δὲ ἡ διανομὴ τῶν ἀπαρχῶν· τὰς μὲν τῶν μὴ πεπολεμηκότων, ἡμίσειαν ἀρετῆς τὴν χωρὶς ἔργου προθυμίαν αὐτὸ μόνον ἐπιδειξαμένων, τοῖς νεωκόροις ἀπένειμε, τὰς δὲ τῶν ἀγωνισαμένων, οἳ σώμασι καὶ ψυχαῖς ἐκινδύνευσαν ὁλόκληρον ἀνδραγαθίαν παρασχόμενοι, τῷ προεστηκότι τῶν νεωκόρων ἱερεῖ τῷ μεγάλῳ, τὰς δὲ τῶν ταξιαρχῶν ἅτε ἡγεμονικὰς τῷ συμπάντων ἡγεμόνι θεῷ.

LVIII.315

On the Life of Moses I

235

(LVIII) (315) So after a short time he distributed the plunder to those who participated in the campaign—­a small number in contrast to those who sat out the war—­giving them a half share, and to those residing in the tents at camp he gave the other half; for he thought it just to have them share in the plunder also since with their souls at least, if not their bodies, they were part of the struggle; for those who waited in reserve were not inferior to the fighters in determination and lagged behind only in time and in not being ahead of the others. (316) After the few received more because they fought in the battle and the majority received less because they stayed in the tents, it seemed necessary to consecrate the first fruits of all the plunder. And so the reserves brought a fiftieth share and the fighters a five hundredth share; Moses ordered that the first fruit offering from the fighters be given to the high priest, and that from those who remained in the camp to the keepers of the temple, known as the Levites. (317) Chiliarchs, centurions,207 and the remaining crowd of captains and commanders, as a thank offering for their safety, that of those they fought with, and for the victory beyond description, voluntarily brought selected first fruits, as much golden ornamentation as each found in his plunder and very expensive vessels whose material, again, was gold. Moses, accepting these things and amazed at the piety of those who brought them, dedicated them in the consecrated tent208 as a memorial of the men’s gratitude. (318) The allocation of the first fruits was most proper; the first fruits of those who did not fight, who showed only half the virtue, that is, desire without action, he portioned out to the keepers of the temple, but the first fruits of the fighters, who risked their bodies and souls while exhibiting perfect courage, he distributed to the overseer of the temple keepers, the high priest, and the first fruits of the taxiarchs, since they were the offerings of leaders, he gave to God, the Leader of all.

207 A χιλιάρχης commanded about one thousand soldiers. A ἑκατόνταρχος, which I have rendered with the more familiar “centurion,” commanded about one hundred. 208 A reference to the tabernacle, a portable temple described in detail at Exod 25–­28. Philo discusses the tabernacle at length at Mos. 2.71–­108.

236

❡

De vita Mosis I

LIX.319

(LIX) (319) Πάντες οὗτοι διεπολεμήθησαν οἱ πόλεμοι, μήπω διαβεβηκότων  Ἰορδάνην τὸν ἐγχώριον ποταμόν, πρὸς τοὺς τῆς ἀντιπέρας γῆς οἰκήτορας εὐδαίμονος καὶ βαθείας, ἐν ᾗ πολλὴ πεδιὰς σιτοφόρος καὶ χιλὸν κτήνεσιν ἐνεγκεῖν ἀγαθή. (320) ταύτην ὡς ἐθεάσαντο τὴν χώραν αἱ κτηνοτρόφοι δύο φυλαί, μοῖρα τοῦ σύμπαντος ἕκτη στρατοῦ, Μωυσῆν ἱκέτευον ἐπιτρέψαι τὰς κληρουχίας ἐνταυθοῖ λαβεῖν αὐτὰς ἤδη ποτὲ ἱδρυθείσας· ἐπιτηδειότατον γὰρ ἔφασκον εἶναι τὸν τόπον ἐννέμεσθαί τε καὶ ἐμβόσκεσθαι θρέμμασιν εὔυδρον ὄντα καὶ εὔχορτον καὶ προβατευσίμην ἄφθονον πόαν ἀπαυτοματίζοντα. (321) ὁ δὲ νομίσας αὐτοὺς ἢ προεδρίᾳ τὴν διανομὴν τά τε γέρα πρὸ καιροῦ λαμβάνειν ἀξιοῦν ἢ πρὸς τοὺς μέλλοντας πολέμους ἀποκνεῖν, ἐφεδρευόντων ἔτι πλειόνων βασιλέων, οἳ τὴν εἴσω τοῦ ποταμοῦ χώραν διεκεκλήρωντο, πάνυ δυσχεράνας πρὸς ὀργὴν ἀποκρίνεται καί φησιν· (322) “ὑμεῖς μὲν οὖν ἐνταυθοῖ καθεδεῖσθε σχολὴν ἐν οὐ δέοντι καὶ ἀργίαν ἕξοντες, τοὺς δ’ ὑμετέρους συγγενεῖς καὶ φίλους οἱ λειπόμενοι τραχηλιοῦσι πόλεμοι, καὶ τὰ μὲν ἆθλα μόνοις ὑμῖν ὡς ἐπὶ κατωρθωμένοις πᾶσι δοθήσεται, μάχαι δὲ καὶ πόνοι καὶ ταλαιπωρίαι καὶ οἱ ἀνωτάτω κίνδυνοι ἑτέρους ἀναμενοῦσιν; (323) ἀλλ’ οὐ δίκαιον ὑμᾶς μὲν εἰρήνην καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῆς εἰρήνης ἀγαθὰ καρποῦσθαι, τοὺς δ’ ἄλλους πολέμοις καὶ κακοῖς ἀμυθήτοις ἐναθλεῖν, οὐδὲ προσθήκην τὸ ὅλον μέρους εἶναι· τοὐναντίον γὰρ ἕνεκα τῶν ὅλων τὰ μέρη κληρονομίας ἀξιοῦται. (324) πάντες ἐστὲ ἰσότιμοι, γένος ἕν, οἱ αὐτοὶ πατέρες, οἰκία μία, ἔθη τὰ αὐτά, κοινωνία νόμων, ἄλλα μυρία, ὧν ἕκαστον τὴν οἰκειότητα συνδεῖ καὶ πρὸς εὔνοιαν ἁρμόζεται. διὰ τί δὴ τῶν ἴσων ἐν τοῖς μεγίστοις καὶ ἀναγκαιοτάτοις ἀξιωθέντες ἐν ταῖς διανομαῖς πλεονεκτήσετε, ὡς ἢ ἄρχοντες ὑπηκόων ἢ δεσπόται δούλων καταφρονήσαντες;”

LIX.319

On the Life of Moses I

237

(LIX) (319) Before the Hebrews crossed the local river, the Jordan, these wars were all concluded against the inhabitants of the land that lay before it, which was prosperous and fertile and in which there were many grain-­ bearing plains that were good for producing fodder for livestock. (320) When the two cattle-raising tribes,209 a sixth of the whole army, saw this land, they begged Moses to allow them to receive their allotments and settle there immediately; for they said that it was the place most fitting for herds to graze and feed, since it was well-­watered, rich in pasturage, and on its own produced an abundance of grass for grazing. (321) Moses, believing either that they were claiming the privilege to receive their allotment and rewards before the proper moment or that they were withdrawing in the face of impending wars, with still more kings, who had been allotted the land on the far side of the river, lying in wait, became indignant and responding angrily said: (322) “So, will you settle here to be idle and at your leisure before the time is right while the wars you leave behind will exhaust your kin and friends, and will rewards be given to you alone as if everything had concluded successfully, while battles, toils, pains, and the greatest dangers will await others? (323) It is not right that you enjoy peace and the blessings it brings while everyone else bravely bears wars and countless evils, nor that the whole be subordinate to a part; for conversely it is on account of the whole that the parts are deserving of a share. (324) You are all equal in honor, one nation, your fathers are the same, you are one house, your customs are the same, you are a society of laws, and myriad other things, each of which binds our kinship together and befits benevolence. Why then when you are honored with an equal share in the greatest and most urgent matters would you receive more in the allotments, as if you were disdainful rulers of subjects or masters of slaves?”

I.e., the tribes of Reuben and Gad. The following scene depicts the events of Num 32. 209

238

De vita Mosis I

LIX.325

(325) “ἔδει μὲν ὑμᾶς ταῖς ἑτέρων πληγαῖς πεπαιδεῦσθαι· φρονίμων γὰρ ἀνδρῶν μὴ ἀναμένειν, ἄχρις ἂν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἔλθῃ τὰ δεινά· νυνὶ δὲ παραδείγματ’ ἔχοντες οἰκεῖα τοὺς πατέρας, οἳ κατεσκέψαντο τήνδε τὴν χώραν, καὶ τὰς ἐκείνων συμφορὰς καὶ τῶν συναπονοηθέντων—­ἅπαντες γὰρ ἔξω δυοῖν ἀπώλοντο—­, δέον μηδενὶ τῶν ὁμοίων συνεπιγράφεσθαι, δειλίαν, ὦ κενοὶ φρενῶν, ζηλοῦτε ὡς οὐκ εὐαλωτότεροι γενησόμενοι καὶ τὰς προθυμίας ὑποσκελίζετε τῶν ἀνδραγαθίζεσθαι προαιρουμένων ἐκλύοντες καὶ παριέντες αὐτῶν τὰ φρονήματα. (326) τοιγάρτοι σπεύδοντες ἁμαρτάνειν σπεύσετε καὶ πρὸς τιμωρίας· ἡ γὰρ δίκη μόλις μὲν εἴωθε κινεῖσθαι, κινηθεῖσα δ’ ἅπαξ φθάνει προκαταλαμβάνουσα τοὺς ἀποδιδράσκοντας. (327) ὅταν οὖν ἅπαντες μὲν οἱ ἐχθροὶ καθαιρεθῶσιν, ἔφεδρος δὲ μηδεὶς ἔτι προσδοκᾶται πόλεμος, ἐν δὲ ταῖς εὐθύναις ἀνεπίληπτοι δοκιμασθῶσιν οἱ σύμμαχοι, μὴ λιποτάξιον, μὴ λιποστράτιον, μηδὲν ἄλλο τῶν ἐφ’ ἥττῃ διαπεπραγμένοι, παραμεμενηκότες δ’ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄχρι τέλους φαίνωνται καὶ τοῖς σώμασι καὶ ταῖς προθυμίαις, ἐρημωθῇ δὲ πᾶσα ἡ χώρα τῶν προενῳκηκότων, τηνικαῦτα δοθήσεται τὰ γέρα καὶ τὰ ἀριστεῖα ταῖς φυλαῖς ἐξ ἴσου.”

LIX.325

On the Life of Moses I

239

(325) “You should have learned from the blows of others; for sensible men do not wait until terrible things come upon them, but now having as personal examples your fathers, who scouted this very land, and their misfortunes and the misfortunes of those who acted foolishly along with them—­all perished except two—­though you ought not be associated with anyone like them, you—­mindless!—­emulate their baseness, as if you will not be more easily ensnared and you cause the eagerness of those preferring to act courageously to faulter, dispelling and ending their noble aspirations. (326) Well certainly then in your eagerness to sin you will be eager also for punishment; for justice is hardly accustomed to stir itself, but once it has stirred, it first conquers those who are fleeing. (327) And so when all our enemies are destroyed, and war is no longer expected to lie in wait, but when our allies, upon examination, are blameless in the final accounts of service210 and have engaged in no desertion of ranks, no desertion of the army, and have done nothing else that happens upon defeat but have surely persisted from the beginning until the end with both their bodies and their wills, and the whole land is deserted of those who first dwelled there, then the prizes and rewards will be given to the tribes equally.”

210 The term εὔθυναι can be any account one might give of his or her activities, though the context may be intended to recall the Athenian εὔθυναι, which were cases of misconduct against public officials that were brought before the Areopagus, a council comprised of former archons.

240

De vita Mosis I

LX.328

(LX) (328) τὴν δὲ νουθεσίαν πρᾴως ἐνεγκόντες ὡς υἱοὶ γνήσιοι σφόδρα εὔνου πατρὸς—­ᾔδεσαν γὰρ αὐτὸν οὐ καταλαζονευόμενον ἀρχῆς ἐξουσίᾳ, προκηδόμενον δὲ πάντων καὶ δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἰσότητα τιμῶντα καὶ τὸ μισοπόνηρον οὐκ ἐπ’ ὀνείδει σωφρονισμῷ δὲ τῶν βελτιοῦσθαι δυναμένων αἰεὶ ποιούμενον—­“εἰκότως μὲν” ἔφασαν “ἀγανακτεῖς, εἰ τοῦθ’ ὑπείληφας, ὅτι τὴν συμμαχίαν ἀπολιπόντες πρὸ καιροῦ τὰς λήξεις λαβεῖν ἐπειγόμεθα. (329) χρὴ δὲ σαφῶς εἰδέναι, ὅτι οὐδὲν ἡμᾶς φοβεῖ τῶν σὺν ἀρετῇ, κἂν ἐπιπονώτατον τυγχάνῃ. κρίνομεν δ’ ἀρετῆς ἔργα, πειθαρχεῖν τέ σοι τοιῷδε ἡγεμόνι καὶ τῶν δεινῶν μὴ ὑστερίζειν καὶ ἐν ἁπάσαις ἐξετάζεσθαι ταῖς μελλούσαις στρατείαις, ἄχρις ἂν τὰ πράγματα λάβῃ τέλος αἴσιον. (330) ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν καθὰ καὶ πρότερον συνταξάμενοι διαβησόμεθα τὸν  Ἰορδάνην ἐν ταῖς παντευχίαις, οὐδενὶ τῶν ὁπλιτῶν πρόφασιν παρασχόντες μονῆς· υἱοὶ δὲ κομιδῇ νήπιοι καὶ θυγατέρες καὶ γυναῖκες καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν βοσκημάτων, ἐὰν ἐπιτρέπῃς, ὑπολελείψονται, παισὶ μὲν καὶ γυναιξὶν οἰκίας ἐπαύλεις δὲ θρέμμασι κατασκευασάντων ἡμῶν, ἵνα μηδὲν ἐξ ἐπιδρομῆς δεινὸν πάθωσιν ἐν ἀτειχίστοις καὶ ἀφρουρήτοις προκαταληφθέντες.” (331) ὁ δ’ ἵλεῳ τῷ βλέμματι καὶ πρᾳοτέρᾳ τῇ φωνῇ “ἀψευδοῦσιν ὑμῖν” ἔφη “βέβαιοι μενοῦσιν ἃς ᾐτήσασθε λήξεις. ὑπολείπεσθε μὲν ὡς ἀξιοῦτε γυναῖκας καὶ παῖδας καὶ βοσκήματα, κατὰ λόχους δ’ αὐτοὶ διαβαίνετε μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ὡπλισμένοι καὶ ἐκτεταγμένοι πρὸς μάχην ὡς αὐτίκα, ἢν δέῃ, πολεμήσοντες. (332) αὖθις δ’ ὅταν ἅπαντες οἱ ἐχθροὶ καθαιρεθῶσι καὶ γενομένης εἰρήνης τὴν χώραν οἱ κεκρατηκότες διανείμωνται, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐπανελεύσεσθε πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῶν ἐπιβαλλόντων ἀπολαύσοντες ἀγαθῶν καὶ καρπωσόμενοι ἣν εἵλεσθε μοῖραν.” (333) ταῦτ’ εἰπόντος καὶ ὑποσχομένου, πληρωθέντες εὐθυμίας καὶ χαρᾶς τοὺς μὲν οἰκείους μετὰ τῶν θρεμμάτων ἀσφαλῶς ἐν ἐρύμασι δυσαλώτοις, ὧν τὰ πλεῖστα χειροποίητα ἦν, ἱδρύονται, τὰ δ’ ὅπλα ἀναλαβόντες ἐξέθεον τῶν ἄλλων συμμάχων προθυμότερον ὡς ἢ μόνοι πολεμήσοντες ἢ προαγωνιούμενοι πάντων· ὁ γὰρ προλαβών τινα δωρεὰν προθυμότερος εἰς συμμαχίαν, ἀποτίνειν ἀναγκαῖον ὄφλημα νομίζων, οὐ χαρίζεσθαι. (334) τὰ μὲν δὴ κατὰ τὴν βασιλείαν πεπραγμένα αὐτῷ μεμήνυται· λεκτέον δ’ ἑξῆς καὶ ὅσα διὰ τῆς ἀρχιερωσύνης καὶ νομοθετικῆς κατώρθωσε· καὶ γὰρ ταύτας περιεποιήσατο τὰς δυνάμεις ὡς ἁρμοττούσας μάλιστα βασιλείᾳ.

LX.328

On the Life of Moses I

241

(LX) (328) They endured the admonition mildly as the legitimate sons of a very kindly father—­for they knew that he was not boasting in the power of his office but that in honoring righteousness and equality he was thinking of everyone, and they knew that he always felt a hatred of wickedness that was meant not to insult but to be a moral teaching for those who can improve themselves—­and they said, “It is natural that you are angry with us if you suspect that we left the allied forces and are hurrying to receive our share before the proper time. (329) But it is right that you know clearly that no matters to do with virtue frighten us, even if a very onerous one befalls us. We choose acts of virtue—­to obey such a leader as yourself, not to fall short in the midst of terrible misfortunes, and to be numbered in all future campaigns until matters reach a favorable end. (330) And so we will form ranks together as we did before, and we will cross the Jordan river in full armament, offering no pretext for delay to any of the soldiers; young sons, daughters, women, and the multitude of livestock will be entirely left behind, if you allow it, after we have built homes for the children and women, and stalls for the livestock, so that they suffer no terrible misfortune because of an attack because they were caught in unwalled and unguarded places.” (331) And Moses with a kindly look and gentler voice said, “The share that you ask for is secured for you if you keep your word. As you request, leave your wives, children, and livestock behind, and you yourselves in companies cross with everyone else, armed and arranged for battle so that you could fight immediately, if necessary. (332) But then, when all our enemies have been conquered and when, with the coming of peace, the conquerors divide the land amongst themselves, you too will return to your families to enjoy the blessings that follow and take joy in the share you chose.” (333) When Moses spoke and made this promise, filled with happiness and joy, they settled their families along with the livestock safely within unassailable bulwarks, the majority of which were made by hand, and then taking up arms they set forth in better spirits than the rest of the allies, as though they either intended to fight alone or to fight ahead of everyone; for he who receives a gift in advance is more eager for an alliance, since he thinks it necessary to repay a favor, not that he is doing one. (334) The achievements of Moses’ kingship have been revealed; but what he accomplished through his high priesthood and as lawgiver must be told next, for he obtained authority as these also since they are especially suited to kingship.

Bibliography

Allen, R.  E. “Anamnesis in Plato’s Meno and Phaedo.” Review of Metaphysics 13 (1959): 165–­74. Amir, Yehoshua. Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien. Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983. ———. “Philo and the Bible.” Studia Philonica 2 (1973): 1–­8. Bamberger, Bernard J. “Philo and the Aggadah.” Hebrew Union College Annual 48 (1977): 153–­85. Barclay, John M. G. “Apologetics in the Jewish Diaspora.” In Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities, edited by John R. Bartlett, 129–­48. London: Routledge, 2002. ———. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE– 117 CE). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Baretta, Manuela. “Filone, il De vita Mosis e le sue fonti.” Studi Classici e Orientali 60 (2014): 73–­97. ———. “Ipotesi sul pubblico del De vita Mosis di Filone alessandrino.” Adamantius 24 (2018): 238–­44. Barney, Rachel. “Notes on Plato on the kalon and the Good.” Classical Philology 105 (2010): 363–­80. Bendinelli, Guido. “Filone e Origene interpreti di  Mosè.” Adamantius 24 (2018): 293–­305. Berchman, Robert M. “The Categories of Being in Middle Platonism: Philo, Clement, and Origen of Alexandria.” In The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion, edited by John Peter Kenney, 98–­139. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Bieler, Ludwig. Theios aner: Das Bild des “göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und Frühchristentum. 2 vols. Vienna: Buchhandlung Oskar Höfels, 1967. Bilde, Per. “Ohilo as a Polemist and a Political Apologist: An Investigation of His Two Historical Treatises Against Flaccus and The Embassy to Gaius.” In Alexandria: A Cultural and Religious Melting Pot, edited by George Hinge and Jens A. Krasilnikoff, 97–­114. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2009. Birnbaum, Ellen. “Philo’s Relevance for the Study of Jews and Judaism in Antiquity.” In Seland, Reading Philo, 200–­225. 243

Bibliography | 244

———. The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. ———. “What in the Name of God Led Philo to Interpret Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as Learning, Nature, and Practice?” Studia Philonica Annual 28 (2016): 257–­72. Böhm, Martina. Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen bei Philo von Alexandria: Zum Zusammenhang von Kontext, Hermeneutik und Exegese im frühen Judentum. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Borgen, Peder. Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. Leiden: Brill, 2014. ———. “Philo—­An Interpreter of the Laws of Moses.” In Seland, Reading Philo, 75–­101. Bos, Abraham P. “Philo of Alexandria: A Platonist in the Image and Likeness of Aristotle.” Studia Philonica Annual 10 (1998): 66–­86. Burridge, Richard. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-­Roman Biography. 3rd ed. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2018. Calabi, Francesca. “Regalità, profezia, secerdozio di Mosè secondo Filone alessandrino.” Adamantius 24 (2018): 213–­26. Cohen, Jonathan. The Origins and Evolution of the Moses Nativity Story. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Cohn, Leopold. Einteilung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos. Leipzig: Dieterich, 1899. Collins, A. Yarbro. “Aristobulus (Second Century B.C.).” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 2:831–­42. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985. Collins, John J. “Artapanus Revisited.” In From Judaism to Christianity: Tradition and Transition; A Festschrift for Thomas H. Tobin, S.J., on the Occasion of His Sixty-­fifth Birthday, edited by Patricia Walters, 59–­68. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Cook, John Granger. “Moses and Paganism.” In Mosebilder, edited by Michael Sommer, Erik Eynikel, Veronika Niederhofer, and Elisabeth Hernitscheck, 431–­56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Cowey, James M.  S., and Klaus Maresch, eds. Urkunden des  Politeuma der Juden von  Herakleopolis (144/3–­133/2 v. Chr.) (P. Polit. Iud.). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001. Damgaard, Finn. “Philo’s Life of Moses as ‘Rewritten Bible.’” In Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes, edited by József Zsengellér, 233–­48. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Daniélou, Jean. Philon D’Alexandrie. Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 1958. Dassmann, Ernst. Ambrosius von Mailand: Leben und Werk. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004. Davies, Rachel Bryant. “Reading Ezekiel’s Exagoge: Tragedy, Sacrificial Ritual, and the Midrashic Tradition.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 48 (2008): 393–­415. DelCogliano, Mark. “Phinehas the Zealot and the Cappadocians: Philo, Origen, and a Family Legacy of Anti-­Eunomian Rhetoric.” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 34 (2017): 107–­13. Denis, Albert-­Marie. “Le portrait de  Moïse par  l’antisémite Manéthon (IIIe s. av. J.-­C.) et la refutation juive de l’historien Artapan.” Le muséon: Revue d’études orientales 100 (1987): 49–­65.

245 | Bibliography

Dillon, John. The Middle Platonists: 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1996. ———. “Philo and Hellenistic Platonism.” In Philo of Alexandria and Post-­Aristotelian Philosophy, edited by Francesca Alesse, 223–­32. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ———. “The Pleasures and Perils of Soul-­Gardening.” Studia Philonica Annual 9 (1997): 190–­97. ———. “Reclaiming the Heritage of Moses: Philo’s Confrontation with Greek Philosophy.” Studia Philonica Annual 7 (1995): 108–­23. Dogniez, Cécile. “La figure de Moïse dans la Bible grecque des Septante.” In Mosebilder, edited by Michael Sommer, Erik Eynikel, Veronika Niederhofer, and Elisabeth Hernitscheck, 35–­62. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. El-­Abbadi, M. A. H. “The Alexandrian Citizenship.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 48 (1962): 106–­23. Farber, Joel J. “The Cyropaedia and Hellenistic Kingship.” American Journal of Philology 100 (1979): 497–­514. Feldman, Louis H. “Josephus’ Portrait of Moses.” Jewish Quarterly Review 82 (1992): 285–­328. ———. Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007. ———. “Philo’s Version of the Biblical Episode of the Spies.” Hebrew Union College Annual 73 (2002): 29–­48. ———. “Philo’s View of Moses’ Birth and Upbringing.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002): 258–­81. ———. “The Portrayal of Phinehas by Philo, Pseudo-­Philo, and Josephus.” Jewish Quarterly Review 92 (2002): 315–­45. Fonterotta, Francesco. “ΔΙΑΝΟΙΑΝ . . . ΑΛΛ’ΟΥ ΝΟΥΝ. Su Resp. VI 511 D 3–­5.” Elenchos 27 (2006): 441–­58. Forschner, Maximilian. “Oikeiosis. Die stoische Theorie der Selbstaneignung.” In Stoizismus in der europäischen Philosophie, Literatur, Kunst, und Politik: Eine Kulturgeschichte von der Antike bis zur Moderne, vol. 1, edited by Barbara Neymeyr, Jochen Schmidt, and Bernhard Zimmermann, 169–­91. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Gager, John G. Moses in Greco-­Roman Paganism. Atlanta: SBL Press, 1989. ———. “Moses the Magician: Hero of an Ancient Counter-­culture?” Helios 21 (1994): 179–­88. Gambetti, Sandra. The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews: A Historical Reconstruction. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Geljon, Albert C. Philonic Exegesis in Gregory of Nyssa’s De vita Moysis. Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2002. Goodenough, Erwin R. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935. ———. “Philo’s Exposition of the Law and His De vita Mosis.” Harvard Theological Review 26 (1933): 109–­25. ———. “The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship.” Yale Classical Studies 1 (1928): 55–­102. Grabbe, Lester L. “Philo and Aggada: A Response to B. J. Bamberger.” Studia Philonica Annual 3 (1991): 153–­66.

Bibliography | 246

Gruen, Erich S. Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002. ———. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Hadas, Moses, ed. and trans. Aristeas to Philocrates. Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 1951. Hadas, Moses, and Morton Smith. Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Hadas-­Lebel, Mireille. “Juif ou grec? Le cas Philon et le cas Paul.” Revue des études juives 176 (2017): 175–­87. ———. Philo of Alexandria: A Thinker in the Jewish Diaspora. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Hanson, Anthony. “Philo’s Etymologies.” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1967): 128–­39. Harris, W. V. “Child-­Exposure in the Roman Empire.” Journal of Roman Studies 84 (1994): 1–­22. Harvey, Graham. The True Israel: Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew, and Israel in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Hay, David M. “Philo’s References to Other Allegorists.” Studia Philonica 6 (1979–­ 1980): 41–­75. Heinemann, I. “Die Allegoristik der hellenistischen Juden ausser Philon.” Mnemosyne 5 (1952): 130–­38. Hertog, Cornelis den. The Other Face of God: “I am that I am” Reconsidered. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012. Hilgert, Earle. “Philo Judaeus et Alexandrinus: The State of the Problem.” In The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion, edited by John Peter Kenney, 1–­15. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Hilhorst, A. “Was Philo Read by Pagans? The Statement on Heliodorus in Socrates Hist. Eccl. 5.22.” Studia Philonica Annual 4 (1992): 75–­77. Holladay, Carl R. “Jewish Responses to Hellenistic Culture in Early Ptolemaic Egypt.” In Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt, edited by Per Bilde, Troels Engberg-­Pedersen, Lise Hannestad, and Jan Zahle, 139–­63. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992. ———. “The Portrait of Moses in Ezekiel the Tragedian.” SBL 1976 Seminar Papers. ———. Theios Aner in Hellenistic-­Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. Honigman, Sylvie. “Politeumata and Ethnicity in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt.” Ancient Society 33 (2003): 61–­102. ———. The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas. London: Routledge, 2004. Inowlocki, Sabrina. Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context. Leiden: Brill, 2006. ———. “Moïse en Égypte: Religion et politique dans les fragments d’Artapan.” Revue de philosopie ancienne 22 (2004): 5–­16. Jacobson, Howard. “Artapanus Judaeus.” Journal of Jewish Studies 57 (2006): 210–­21. ———, ed. The Exagoge of Ezekiel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Jay, Jeff. “The Problem of the Theater in Early Judaism.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 44 (2013): 218–­53.

247 | Bibliography

Jellicoe, Sidney. “Aristeas, Philo, and the Septuagint Vorlage.” Journal of Theological Studies 12 (1961): 261–­71. Jenkins, Michelle. “Early Education in Plato’s Republic.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 23 (2015): 843–­63. Kaiser, Otto. Philo von Alexandrien. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. 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. ———. “Biblical Interpretation in Philo.” In Kamesar, Cambridge Companion, 65–­94. ———, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ———. “Philo, Grammatike and the Narrative Aggada.” In Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, edited by John C. Reeves and John Kampen, 216–­42. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Kasher, Aryeh. “The Jewish Politeuma in Alexandria: A Pattern of Jewish Communal Life in the Greco-­Roman Diaspora.” In Homelands and Diasporas: Greeks, Jews and Their Migrations, edited by Minna Rozen, 109–­25. London: IB Taurus, 2008. ———. The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Katz, Peter. Philo’s Bible: The Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in Some Philonic Writings and Its Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950. Kepper, Martina. “Genesis.” In Introduction to the LXX, edited by Siegfried Kreuzer, 75–­88. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2019. Kohn, Thomas D. “The Tragedies of Ezekiel.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 43 (2002–­2003): 5–­12. Koskenniemi, Erkki. “Greeks, Egyptians, and Jews in the Fragments of Artapanus.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (2002): 17–­31. ———. “Philo and Classical Education.” In Seland, Reading Philo, 102–­28. ———. “Philo and the Sophists.” In Greeks, Jews, and Christians: Historical, Religious and Philological Studies in Honor of Jesús Peláez del Rosal, edited by Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta and Israel Muñoz Gallarte, 253–­79. Cordoba: El Almendro, 2013. Kreuzer, Siegfried. The Bible in Greek: Translation, Transmission, and Theology of the Septuagint. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Kugler, Rob. “Hearing the Story of Moses in Ptolemaic Egypt: Artapanus Accommodates the Tradition.” In The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, edited by Anthony Hilhorst and George H. van Kooten, 67–­80. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Lee, John A.  L. The Greek of the Pentateuch: Grinfield Lectures on the Septuagint 2011–­2012. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Leonhardt-­Balzer, Jutta. “Mose als Mittler bei Philo von  Alexandrien.” In Mosebilder, edited by Michael Sommer, Erik Eynikel, Veronika Niederhofer, and Elisabeth Hernitscheck, 123–­42. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.

Bibliography | 248

———. “Synagogen als Schulen der Tugenden: Der Ort der Philosophie in der frühjüdischen Tradition.” In Philosophia in der Konkurrenz von  Schulen, Wissenschaften und Religionen: Zur Pluralisierung des Philosophiebegriffs in Kaiserzeit und Spätantike, edited by Christoph Riedweg, 127–­45. Berlin: De  Gruyter, 2017. Lévy, Carlos. “Philo’s Ethics.” In Kamesar, Cambridge Companion, 146–­74. Lincicum, David. “Philo’s Library.” Studia Philonica Annual 26 (2014): 99–­114. ———. “A Preliminary Index to Philo’s Non-­biblical Citations and Allusions.” Studia Philonica Annual 25 (2013): 139–­68. Litwa, M. David. “The Deification of Moses in Philo of Alexandria.” Studia Philonica Annual 26 (2014): 1–­28. Long, Anthony. “Philo on Stoic Physics.” In Philo of Alexandria and Post-­Aristotelian Philosophy, edited by Francesca Alesse, 121–­40. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Mack, Burton. “Moses on the Mountaintop: A Philonic View.” In The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion, edited by John Peter Kenney, 16–­28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Mackie, Scott D. “Seeing God in Philo of Alexandria: The Logos, the Powers, or the Existent One?” Studia Philonica Annual 21 (2009): 25–­48. McGing, Brian. “Philo’s Adaptation of the Bible in His Life of Moses.” In The Limits of Ancient Biography, edited by Brian McGing and Judith Mossman, 117–­40. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2006. McKnight, Scot. “De vita Mosis 1.147: Lion Proselytes in Philo?” Studia Philonica Annual 1 (1989): 58–­62. Meeks, Wayne. “Moses as God and King.” In Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, edited by Jacob Neusner, 354–­71. Leiden: Brill, 1968. ———. The Prophet-­King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Mendelson, Alan. Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1982. Menn, Stephen. “Aristotle and Plato on God as Nous and as the Good.” Review of Metaphysics 45 (1992): 543–­73. Modrzejewski, Joseph Mélèze. “How to Be a Jew in Hellenistic Egypt?” In Diasporas in Antiquity, edited by J. D. Cohen and Ernest S. Frerichs, 65–­92. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2020. Moehring, Horst R. “Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria.” In The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion, edited by John Peter Kenney, 141–­76. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Momigliano, Arnaldo. The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993. Morgan, Teresa. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Moyer, Ian S. Egypt and the Limits of Hellenism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Mülke, Markus. Aristobulos in Alexandria: Jüdisches Bibelexegese zwischen Griechen und Ägyptern unter Ptolemaios VI. Philometor. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020. Muraoka, T. A Syntax of Septuagint Greek. Leuven: Peeters, 2016.

249 | Bibliography

Niehoff, Maren R. Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. ———. Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018. ———. Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. ———. “Philo’s Views on Paganism.” In Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, edited by Graham N. Stanton and Guy G. Stroumsa, 135–­58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Nikiprowetzky, V. Le commentaire de l’ Écriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Osborn, Eric. Clement of Alexandria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Ostwald, Martin. “Popular Sovereignty and the Problem of Equality.” Scripta Classica Israelica 19 (2000): 1–­13. Otto, Eckart. “Auf dem Wege zu einer Religions-­und Kulturgeschichte der Mosebilder im frühen Judentum und Christentum.” Journal for Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Law 25 (2019): 277–­90. Otto, Jennifer. Philo of Alexandria and the Construction of Jewishness in Early Christian Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. ———. “Philo, Judaeus? A Re-­evaluation of Why Clement Calls Philo ‘the Pythagorean.’” Studia Philonica Annual 25 (2013): 115–­38. Parker, Emily. “Philo of Alexandria’s Logos and Life of Moses.” Dionysius 28 (2010): 27–­44. Pearce, Sarah. “Jerusalem as ‘Mother-­City’ in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria.” In Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire, edited by John M. G. Barclay, 19–­36. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. ———. “King Moses: Notes on Philo’s Portrait of Moses as an Ideal Leader in the Life of Moses.” Mélanges de l’Université Saint-­Joseph 57 (2004): 38–­74. ———. “Notes on Philo’s Use of the Terms ἔθνος and λαός.” Studia Philonica Annual 28 (2016): 205–­28. Petersen, Anders Klostergaard. “Alexandrian Judaism: Rethinking a Problematic Cultural Category.” In Alexandria: A Cultural and Religious Melting Pot, edited by George Hinge and Jens A. Krasilnikoff, 115–­43. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2009. Piccione, Rosa Maria. “De vita Mosis I 60–­62: Philon und die griechische παιδεία.” In Philo und das Neue Testament, edited by Roland Deines and Karl-­Wilhelm Niebuhr, 345–­57. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Radice, Roberto. “L’allegoria di  Filone di  Alessandria.” Études platoniciennes 7 (2010): 93–­112. ———. “La figura del legislatore in Filone e i suoi precedenti filosofici.” Richerche storico bibliche 15 (2003): 153–­62. ———. “Philo and Stoic Ethics: Reflections on the Idea of Freedom.” In Philo of Alexandria and Post-­Aristotelian Philosophy, edited by Francesca Alesse, 141–­68. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Ranocchia, Graziano. “Moses against the Egyptian: The Anti-­Epicurean Polemic in Philo.” In Philo of Alexandria and Post-­Aristotelian Philosophy, edited by Francesca Alesse, 75–­102. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Reinhartz, A. “Philo on Infanticide.” Studia Philonica Annual 4 (1992): 42–­58.

Bibliography | 250

Remus, Harold E. “Moses and the Thaumaturges: Philo’s De vita Mosis as a Rescue Operation.” Laval théologique et philosophique 52 (1996): 665–­80. Roth, Norman. “The ‘Theft’ of Philosophy by the Greeks from the Jews.” Classical Folia 32 (1978): 52–­67. Royse, James R. “Did Philo Publish His Works?” Studia Philonica Annual 25 (2013): 75–­100. ———. “The Original Structure of Philo’s Quaestiones.” Studia Philonica 4 (1976–­1977): 41–­78. ———. “Philo, kyrios, and the Tetragrammaton.” Studia Philonica Annual 3 (1991): 167–­83. ———. “Philo’s Division of His Works into Books.” Studia Philonica Annual 13 (2001): 59–­85. ———. “The Works of Philo.” In Kamesar, Cambridge Companion, 32–­64. Rubenson, Samuel. “From School to Patriarchate: Aspects on the Christianisation of Alexandria.” In Alexandria: A Cultural and Religious Melting Pot, edited by George Hinge and Jens A. Krasilnikoff, 144–­57. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2009. Runia, David. “The Beginnings of the End: Philo of Alexandria and Hellenistic Theology.” In Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology; Its Background and Aftermath, edited by Dorothea Frede and André Laks, 281–­316. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ———. “Early Alexandrian Theology and Plato’s Parmenides.” In Plato’s Parmenides and Its Heritage, vol. 2, edited by John Douglas Turner and Kevin Corrigan, 175–­87. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2010. ———. “God and Man in Philo of Alexandria.” Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988): 48–­75. ———. “God of the Philosophers, God of the Patriarchs: Exegetical Backgrounds in Philo of Alexandria.” In Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers, by David Runia, 206–­18. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ———. “The King, the Architect, the Craftsman: A Philosophical Image in Philo of Alexandria.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 78 (2003): 89–­106. ———, ed. and trans. On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2001. ———. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Leiden: Brill, 1986. ———. “Philo, Alexandrian and Jew.” In Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on Philo of Alexandria, by David Runia, 1–­18. Aldershot: Variorum, 1990. ———. “Philo and the Early Christian Fathers.” In Kamesar, Cambridge Companion, 210–­30. ———. Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ———. “Philo and Hellenistic Doxography.” In Philo of Alexandria and Post-­ Aristotelian Philosophy, edited by Francesca Alesse, 13–­54. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ———. “Philo and Origen: A Preliminary Survey.” In Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers, by David Runia, 117–­25. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ———. “Philo in the Patristic Tradition: A List of Direct References.” In Seland, Reading Philo, 268–­86. ———. “References to Philo from Josephus up to 1000 AD.” In Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers, by David Runia, 228–­39. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

251 | Bibliography

———. “Was Philo a Middle Platonist? A Difficult Question Revisited.” Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 112–­40. ———. “Why Does Clement of Alexandria Call Philo ‘The Pythagorean?’” Vigiliae Christianae 49 (1995): 1–­22. ———. “Witness or Participant? Philo and the Neoplatonist Tradition.” In Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers, by David Runia, 182–­205. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Sandelin, Karl-­Gustav. “Philo as a Jew.” In Seland, Reading Philo, 19–­46. Sandmel, Samuel. Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. ———. “Philo’s Knowledge of Hebrew.” Studia Philonica 5 (1978): 107–­12. Savon, Hervé. Saint Ambroise devant l’exégèse de Philon le Juif. 2 vols. Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1977. Schäfer, Peter. “Die Manetho-­Fragmente bei Josephus und die Anfänge des antiken ‘Antisemitismus.’” In Collecting Fragments. Fragmente sammeln. Aporemata: Kritische Studien zur Philologiegeschichte  1, edited by Glenn W. Most, 186–­206. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1997. Schimmel, Annemarie. The Mystery of Numbers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Schwagmeier, Peter. “Exodos/Exodus.” In Introduction to the LXX, edited by Siegfried Kreuzer, 89–­106. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2019. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Philo, His Family, and His Times.” In Kamesar, Cambridge Companion, 9–­31. Scott, Ian W. “Is Philo’s Moses a Divine Man?” Studia Philonica Annual 14 (2002): 87–­111. Seland, Torrey. “‘Colony’ and ‘Metropolis’ in Philo: Examples of Mimicry and Hybridity in Philo’s Writing Back from the Empire?” Études platoniciennes 7 (2010): 11–­36. ———. “The Expository Use of the Balaam Figure in Philo’s De vita Moysis.” Studia Philonica Annual 28 (2016): 321–­50. ———. “Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction.” In Seland, Reading Philo, 3–­18. ———. “Philo as a Citizen: Homo politicus.” In Seland, Reading Philo, 47–­74. ———, ed. Reading Philo: A Handbook to Philo of Alexandria. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Shroyer, Montgomery J. “Alexandrian Jewish Literalists.” Journal of Biblical Literature 55 (1936): 261–­84. Shuler, Philip L. “Philo’s Moses and Mathew’s Jesus: A Comparative Study in Ancient Literature.” Studia Philonica Annual 2 (1990): 86–­103. Siegert, Folker. “Philo and the New Testament.” In Kamesar, Cambridge Companion, 175–­209. Sills, Deborah. “Vicious Rumors: Mosaic Narratives in First Century Alexandria.” SBL 1992 Seminar Papers 31 (1992): 684–­94. Simeoni, Francesca. “Assimilazione e immutabilità: Modelli platonici della relazione tra Mosè e Dio in Filone di Alessandria.” Adamantius 24 (2018): 227–­37. Sterling, Gregory E. “From the Thick Marshes of the Nile to the Throne of God: Moses in Ezekiel the Tragedian and Philo of Alexandria.” Studia Philonica Annual 26 (2014): 115–­35.

Bibliography | 252

———. “The Interpreter of Moses: Philo of Alexandria and the Biblical Text.” In A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, edited by Matthias Henze, 415–­35. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. ———. “‘The Jewish Philosophy’: Reading Moses via Hellenistic Philosophy according to Philo.” In Seland, Reading Philo, 129–­56. ———. “Philosophy as the Handmaid of Wisdom: Philosophy in the Exegetical Traditions of Alexandrian Jews.” In Religiöse Philosophie und philosophische Religion der frühen Kaiserzeit: Literaturgeschichtliche Perspektiven, edited by Rainer Hirsch-­ Luipold, Herwig Görgemanns, and Michael von  Albrecht, 67–­ 98. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ———. “Platonizing Moses: Philo and Middle Platonism.” Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 96–­111. ———. “‘Prolific in Expression and Broad in Thought’: Internal References to Philo’s Allegorical Commentary and Exposition of the Law.” Euphrosyne 40 (2012): 55–­76. ———. “Recherché or Representative? What Is the Relationship between Philo’s Treatises and Greek-­Speaking Judaism?” Studia Philonica Annual 11 (1999): 1–­30. ———. “The School of Moses in Alexandria: An Attempt to Reconstruct the School of Philo.” In Second Temple Jewish Paideia in Context, edited by Jason M. Zurawski and Gabriele Boccaccini, 141–­66. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017. ———. “‘The School of Sacred Laws’: The Social Setting of Philo’s Treatises.” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 148–­64. ———. “Universalizing the Particular: Natural Law in Second Temple Jewish Ethics.” Studia Philonica Annual 15 (2003): 64–­80. Stewart, Edmund James. “Ezekiel’s Exagoge: A Typical Hellenistic Tragedy?” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018): 223–­52. Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Translated by S. Applebaum. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961. Termini, Cristina. “Philo’s Thought within the Context of Middle Judaism.” In Kamesar, Cambridge Companion, 95–­123. Thompson, Dorothy J. “Hellenistic Hellenes.” In Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, edited by Irad Malkin, 301–­22. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2001. Ubigli, Liliana Rosso. “The Image of Israel in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria.” In Italian Studies on Philo of Alexandria, edited by Francesca Calabi, 53–­73. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Urbach, Ephraim. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. 2 vols. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975. van den Hoek, Annewies. “The ‘Catechetical’ School of Early Christian Alexandria and Its Philonic Heritage.” Harvard Theological Review 90 (1997): 59–­87. ———. Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis. Leiden: Brill, 1988. ———. “Philo and Origen: A Descriptive Catalogue of Their Relationship.” Studia Philonica Annual 12 (2000): 44–­121. Van der Horst, Pieter Willem. Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. Leiden: Brill, 1961.

253 | Bibliography

Walters, Peter, and D. W. Gooding, ed. The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and Their Emendations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Wasserstein, Abraham, and David J. Wasserstein. The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Williamson, Ronald. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Winston, David. Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985. ———. “Philo and Rabbinic Literature.” In Kamesar, Cambridge Companion, 231–­54. ———. “Philo’s Nachleben in Judaism.” Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1994): 103–­10. Winter, Bruce. Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-­Claudian Movement. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948. Wong, Chank-­Kok. “Philo’s Use of Chaldaioi.” Studia Philonica Annual 4 (1992): 1–­14. Xanthakis-­Karamanos, Georgia. “The Exagoge of Ezekiel and Fifth-­Century Tragedy: Similarities of Theme and Concept.” In Rezeption des antiken Dramas auf der Bühne und in der Literatur, edited by Bernhard Zimmermann, 223–­39. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 2001. Zamagni, Claudio. “Filone nella Cristiana antica: La sintesi eusebiana di Hist. eccl. II 4,2–­3 e la testimonianza sui ‘terapeuti’ (II 16,2–­17,24).” Adamantius 24 (2018): 306–­11. Zellentin, Holger M. “The End of Jewish Egypt: Artapanus and the Second Exodus.” In Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-­Roman World, edited by Gregg Gardner and Kevin L. Osterloh, 27–­73. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Zuckerman, Constantine. “Hellenistic politeumata and the Jews: A Reconsideration.” Review of The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights, by Aryeh Kasher. Scripta Classica Israelica 8–­9 (1985–­1988): 171–­85. Zurawski, Jason M. “Mosaic Paideia: The Law of Moses within Philo of Alexandria’s Model of Jewish Education.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 48 (2017): 480–­505.