Date post: | 02-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | jesus-caos-huerta-rodriguez |
View: | 220 times |
Download: | 0 times |
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 1/18
Classical Quarterly 57.1 166–182 (2007) Printed in Great Britain
doi:10.1017/S0009838807000158 MAREN R. NIEHOFFHOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS
HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE
EXEGESIS IN ANCIENT ALEXANDRIA:EVIDENCE FROM PHILO’S
‘QUARRELSOME’ COLLEAGUES
Philo of Alexandria provides important, yet hitherto overlooked, evidence concern-
ing the relationship between Homeric scholarship and Bible exegesis. While rejecting
critical inquiries into Scripture, he offers crucial glimpses into a now lost world of
Jewish scholarship.1 In this article I wish to draw attention to a group of literal
exegetes whom Philo dismissed as ‘quarrelsome’.2 Despite the highly fragmentary
character of the evidence we can reconstruct the academic profile of these exegetesby comparing their work to the scholia on the Iliad .3 I shall argue that there were
Jewish exegetes who applied text-critical methods from Homeric scholarship to the
Hebrew Bible. Aristarchus was their model. Some ancient Jews regarded their
Scriptures as parallel to Homer’s epics, addressing for the first time in Judaism
serious text-critical issues.4
166
* This research was supported by the ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (grant no.810/03). Margalit Finkelberg made valuable comments on a draft of this article and provided
materials from her private library. This article could not have been written without YehudaLiebes. I joined his study group on the Iliad , profiting immensely from his vast knowledge of theepic. Liebes also read a draft of this article, improving some of the translations and making othervaluable comments. Last, but not least, I would like to thank the anonymousreader of the CQ forconstructive comments.
1 Concerning Philo’s position, see: A. Kamesar, ‘The logos endiathetos and the logos prophorikos in allegorical interpretation: Philo and the D-scholia to the Iliad’, GRBS 44 (2004),163–81, who points to a parallel between a Philonic allegory and material in the D-scholia; id.,‘Philo, Grammatike and the narrative aggada’, in J. C. Reeves and J. Kampen (edd.), Pursuing theText: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, suppl. 184 (Sheffield, 1994), 223, who stresses that ‘Philo doesnot practice an exegesis of the “classical” Alexandrian variety’.
2 Other literal exegetes will be treated in a separate monograph. Thus far, attention has beenpaid to them by E. Stein, Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik in der späthellenistischen Literatur (Lwow,1935), 4–10; A. Kamesar, ‘The literary genres of the Pentateuch as seen from the Greekperspective: the testimony of Philo of Alexandria’,Studia Philonica Annual 9 (1997), 170–1; M. J.Shroyer, ‘Alexandrian Jewish literalists’, JBL 55.4 (1936), 261–84, whose analysis is severelycompromised by his identification of these exegetes with a party of pious and even fundamen-talist Jews.
3 This reconstruction takes seriously into account the fact that only a select amount of ancientsources has survived. Read against the grain, the extant writings throw at least some light on theoriginal variety. See also the fine theoretical discussion by A. K. Petersen, ‘Alexandrian Judaism:rethinking a problematic cultural category’ (forthcoming, 2008), in J. Krasilnikoff and G. Hinge(edd.), Alexandria as a Cultural Melting Pot of Antiquity, ASMA 9 (Aarhus, 2006); A. Kovelman,Between Alexandria and Jerusalem: The Dynamic of Jewish and Hellenistic Culture (Leiden,
2005), 80–1, who uses Eus. PE 12.12.1–3 to reconstruct a literal Jewish reading of Gen. 2.21 inthe light of Plato’s Symposium.
4 The possibility of critical Bible study in the Hellenistic period is often ignored; see e g
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 2/18
Furthermore, the evidence from Philo suggests that Aristarchus enjoyed popularity
in various scholarly circles.5 During the Augustan period Aristonicus and Didymus
recorded and discussed Aristarchus’ work, drawing new attention to him and
producing a student as famous as Philo’s contemporary Apion.6 Jewish participation
in this scholarly discourse may throw new light on the intellectual world of Homer’sGreek readers.
Before analysing Philo’s report about his ‘quarrelsome’ colleagues, we have to
appreciate his own views on the application of Homeric hermeneutics in order to
evaluate the nature and reliability of his testimony. While praising Homer as the
foremost poet, ‘most highly esteemed among the Greeks’, Philo hardly mentioned the
study of his works.7 Important insight, however, may be gained from an investigation
into the classical terms of Homeric scholarship, namely and . Philo
occasionally tolerated or even welcomed an inquiry into Scripture that was based on
these techniques of Homeric scholarship. This was the case when the questions did
not challenge the basic unity, value and authenticity of the canonical text.8
Suffice ithere to discuss two examples, both of which are taken from the context of man’s
creation (LXX Gen. 1.26–7).
Philo approvingly mentions a on man’s place in the creation, which had
been discussed by some of his colleagues:
Someone might inquire into the reason why it is that man was created last with regard to thecreation of the cosmos for, as the holy writings reveal, the Creator and Father made him lastafter all the others. Indeed, those who immerse themselves further in the Laws and investigate
HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 167
5 Aristarchus’ influence in scholarly circles must be distinguished from his influence on thevulgate text of the Iliad . Didymus already distinguished between Aristarchus’ readings and
(schol. Il . 5.797) or (schol. Il . 5.881). See also M. L. West, Studies in the Textand Transmission of the Iliad (Munich–Leipzig, 2001), 50–2, 61–7; id., ‘The textual criticism andediting of Homer’, in G. W. Most, Editing Texts: Texte edieren, Aporemata 2 (Göttingen, 1998),99, where he stresses Aristarchus’ influence on the numerus versuum; M. Finkelberg showed thatAristarchus hardly influenced the readings of the Homeric text, while he did have a crucialimpact on the numerus versuum (M. Finkelberg, ‘ “She turns about in the same spot and watchesfor Orion”: ancient criticism and exegesis of Od. 5.274 = Il . 18.488', GRBS 44 (2004), 231–44;ead., ‘Regional texts and the circulation of books: the case of Homer’,GRBS 46 (2006), 231–48;see also K. McNamee, ‘Aristarchos and “Everyman’s” Homer’, GRBS 22 (1981), 247–55; J. I.Porter, ‘Hermeneutic lines and circles: Aristarchos and Crates on the exegesis of Homer’, inR. Lamberton and J. J. Keaney (edd.), Homer’s Ancient Readers: The Hermeneutics of Greek Epic’s Earliest Exegetes (Princeton, 1992), 68–9.
6 West (n. 5), 46–85; P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), 1.463–5.7 Philo, Mut. 179, see also Abr. 10; Philo refers only in general terms to his ‘reading and study
of the writings of the poets’ (Congr. 74) in the context of his own instruction in grammar; see also
R. Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt(Princeton–Oxford, 2001), 194–7; M. Finkelberg, ‘Homer as a foundation text’, in ead. and G. G.Stroumsa (edd ) Homer the Bible and Beyond (Leiden 2003) 75–96
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 3/18
thoroughly and with all scrutiny, as much as is possible, into the things concerning them, say thatGod after giving man a share in his kinship with regard to the logical faculty, which was the bestof all gifts, did not begrudge him any of the others either, but prepared everything in the cosmosfor him as for the most familiar and beloved creature, wishing that upon being created he shouldnot lack anything needful to live and to live well. (Opif . 77)9
Philo has nothing but praise for these scholars, whose work is in his view informed
by the highest degree of scrutiny and precision. He wholeheartedly embraces their
interpretation, paraphrasing not only their basic solution, but also the parable they
subsequently provided for illustration.10 His description of their activity moreover
suggests that they systematically applied themselves to the interpretation of Scripture,
‘investigating … into the things concerning them [the Laws]’. The expression
indicates that, as far as Philo was concerned, these literal exegetes accepted
certain limits of investigation. They seem to recognize that the Bible contains things
that are beyond human comprehension. On this crucial issue Philo wholeheartedly
sympathized with them. He himself occasionally expressed awe vis-à-vis Scripture,stressing, for example, that ‘necessarily only God knows the really true reason’ for a
particular crux in the Biblical text (Opif . 72). These congenial exegetes of the Hebrew
Bible must have been Jews. Pagans did not begin to take an interest in this text before
the advent of Christianity.11 They moreover seem to have been Alexandrians, because
their parable contains details about banquets as well as theatrical and gymnastic
contests which best fit the environment of that urban centre.
The method of Philo’s favoured exegetes conforms to a standard technique in
Homeric scholarship, namely the , which flourished during the Hellenistic
period especially in Alexandria.12 The particular question discussed here derives from
the context of the verse rather than from a crux in the text itself. It is asked whether
168 MAREN R. NIEHOFF
9 My translations of Philonic texts are based on the critical edition of L. Cohn and P.Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt (Berlin, 1896–1915).
10 I take the parable in Opif . 78, phrased in the usual terms and , tobe part of Philo’s report on the exegetes. The difficulty of identifying the precise boundaries of Philo’s reports has been discussed in the context of allegorical exegetes by D. M. Hay, ‘Philo’sreferences to other allegorists’, Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1979–80), 52.
11 Greco-Egyptian stories about the Jews and their alleged expulsion from Egypt (such asManetho’s and Apion’s), nowhere contain a reference to the Biblical Exodus story and can thushardly be identified as ‘counter-histories’; see esp. E. S. Gruen, ‘The use and abuse of the Exodusstory’, Jewish History 12 (1998), 93–122; P. Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in theAncient World (Cambridge, MA, 1997), 15–33; J. G. Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism,Society of Biblical Literature monograph ser. 16 (Nashville–New York, 1972), 113–33. WhilePlutarch, though sympathetic to the Jews, never quoted their Scriptures, Celsus’ refutation of Christianity significantly contains detailed discussions of the Book of Genesis (esp. Book 6 of Contra Celsum). Longinus quoted Gen. 1.3 and paraphrased Gen. 1.9–10 (On the Sublime 9.9; seealso the valuable comments by W. R. Roberts, Longinus: On the Sublime [Cambridge, 1899],231–7).
12 On the genre, see esp. the excellent overview by A. Gudeman, , RE 13, cols. 2511–29;and the fine philosophical analysis by C. Jacob, ‘Questions sur les questions: archéologie d’unepratique intellectuelle et d’une forme discursive’, in A. Volgers and C. Zamagni (edd.),Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Question-and-Answer Literature in Context (Leuven, 2004),25–54. Porphyry recalls:
(Porph. schol. on Il . 9.682, in H. Schrader,
Porphyrii quaestionum Homericarum ad Iliadem pertinentium reliquiae [Leipzig, 1880], 141). Seealso P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for his Time, suppl. to NT 86 (Leiden, 1997),82–9, who pointed to phenomenological similarities between Homeric, Philonic, and rabbinic
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 4/18
the sequence of creation, with man placed at the end, may indicate his low value. At
stake is the precise message conveyed by Scripture. The provided by the literal
exegetes is much to Philo’s liking, because it confirms man’s centrality as God’s most
beloved creature, a notion on which he himself elaborates (Opif . 79–88).
Both the question and the solution are remarkable for their conservatism. Nodifficulty is identified in the Biblical text and no criticism is expressed. Originally, the
tradition had been far more subversive. Aristotle confronted fundamental
questions concerning the logical consistency, historical truth, and moral propriety of
the Homeric epics.13 The first Jew known to have raised explicit questions concerning
the Biblical text also proceeded in a more critical spirit. Demetrius, an Alexandrian
Jew flourishing probably during the last half of the third century, wrote for example:
‘… but someone may ask how the Israelites had weapons, seeing that they left Egypt
unarmed’.14 He also asked ‘why did Joseph give Benjamin a five-fold portion at the
meal even though he would not be able to consume so much meat?’15 Both questions
indicate that Demetrius addressed issues of apparent inconsistency in Scripture. TheBiblical notice about the Israelites’ war against the Amalekites seemed to contradict
the earlier information about their lack of weapons during the Exodus from Egypt.
Joseph’s measure to Benjamin appeared illogical in view of Benjamin’s physical
capacities. To be sure, Demetrius provided answers justifying the Biblical text. It
remains remarkable, however, that he approached Scripture intellectually open to
consideration of its inconsistencies.
The question raised by Philo’s exegetes instead looks as if it had been invented for
the sake of providing an interesting solution. It serves as a spring-board for an
interpretation which may have been ready beforehand. This feature fits the milieu in
Alexandria that saw an inflation of Homeric questions. Aristarchus complainedabout this phenomenon, accusing its practitioners of ‘wanting to invent ’.16
Philo’s literal exegetes seem to have belonged to an environment where questions were
no longer put to actual text-critical use, but rather served more general hermeneutic
purposes. In certain circles they had become something of a stylistic device. Philo’s
exegetes thus did not participate in the discourse of hard-core Homeric criticism, but
rather belonged to a milieu that was loosely inspired by the scholarly methods without
rigorously applying them.
This observation is further supported by the fact that these exegetes show no
intellectual affinity to the Peripatos, the school most influential in text-critical
Alexandrian scholarship.
17
The above quoted interpretation instead relies on Plato’sTimaeus, where man is presented as a creature endowed with divine reason and
HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 169
13 Arist. Apor. Hom. in V. Rose, Aristotelis Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1886), frs. 142–79; see also N. J.Richardson, ‘Aristotle’s reading of Homer and its background’, in Lamberton and Keaney (n. 5),30–40; M. Carroll, Aristotle’s Poetics, c. XXV, in the Light of the Homeric Scholia (Baltimore,1895), 10–13.
14 Edition and translation (with my emendations) by C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Helle-nistic Jewish Authors (Chico, 1983), 1.76 = Euseb. Praep. evang. 9.29.16 (
). Demetrius’ importance in terms of criticalscholarship has been stressed by Y. Gutman, The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature
(Jerusalem, 1969; Hebrew), 1.138–9; Kamesar (n. 1, 1994), 219–21.15 Holladay (n. 14), 1.70 = Euseb. Praep. evang. 9.21.14 (
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 5/18
therefore inclined to contemplate the heavens as well as to develop ‘the genre of
philosophy’.18 Their insistence on God’s lack of envy is moreover echoed by Plato,
who characterizes the demiurge in precisely these terms (Tim. 29E). Philo’s exegetes
were thus firmly anchored in Plato’s approach, while lacking signs of attachment to
rigorous scholarship under the aegis of the Peripatetic school. Philo approved of theirapproach to Scripture, himself sharing a distinctly Platonic background.19 His own
tractates Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, significantly, contain many
examples of the kind of that were raised with a view to their solution,
rather than actual text-critical problems.20
Another kind of scholarly inquiry into Scripture met with distinct ambivalence on
Philo’s part. The nature of his reservations becomes clear when we consider his
discussion of an that had been raised concerning God’s words ‘Let us make
man in our image and likeness’ (LXX Gen. 1.26). Philo himself tended to avoid the
problem of the plural by adapting this verse to the more monotheistic expression
in Gen. 1.27. Philo thus paraphrased Gen. 1.26 as follows(Opif . 69). While pre-
emptively solving the problem by omitting the crux itself, Philo nevertheless referred
to the obvious difficulty that apparently occupied many readers:
‘ ’.
Should someone not without justification raise the difficulty why he (Moses) attributed thecreation of man only not to one demiurge as with all the others, but as if to many. For he(Moses) introduces the Father of everything speaking thus: ‘Let us create man according to ourimage and likeness’ (LXX Gen. 1.26). I would [rather] ask whether the One to whom everythingis subordinate is in need of anything whatsoever? He who had no need of any collaborator whenHe created the heaven and the earth and the sea—should He not have been able to make such ahumble and perishable creature as man without helpers, just by Himself ?! (Opif . 72)
The initial question raised here is presented in typically Aristotelian style: the verb
is characteristic of Aristotle’s dialectical enquiries and became especially
famous through his .21 N. J. Richardson stressed the influence
of the latter work on Alexandrian scholarship, identifying Callimachus’ Aitia as a
170 MAREN R. NIEHOFF
18 Cf. Philo, Opif . 77–8 to Pl. Tim. 47A–B, 34A–35B; 41E–42D. Note that the expression… is unique to Plato and Philo until Plutarch also mentions it (Plut.Quaest.
Plat. 999E). See also D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses. Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 1(Leiden, 2001), 201–3, 248–51.
19 See esp. D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Leiden, 1986).20 I hope to provide a full analysis of Philo’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus in
my planned monograph. In the meantime, see G. Bardy, ‘La littérature patristique des
“quaestiones et responsiones” sur l’Ecriture sainte’, RB 41 (1932), 212–17; D. M. Hay (ed.), BothLiteral and Allegorical: Studies in Philo’s of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus (Atlanta 1991)
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 6/18
work based on Aristotle’s model.22 Furthermore, the above relates to the
Torah as a literary work, dwelling on its particular style. It is asked why the author
‘attributed’ a particular expression to one of the characters and ‘introduced’ him by a
speech considered unusual. This approach closely parallels the kind of literary
criticism in the spirit of Aristotle’s Poetics, which has been identified especially in theexegetical scholia and also in Aristarchus’ work.23
Philo clearly was ambivalent about this . Instead of lavishing praise on its
expounders, as he did in the previous case, he admits that their question is raised ‘not
without justification’. He furthermore reports their approach only fragmentarily.
While he reported the full details of the previous question and answer, omitting not
even the parable, in this case he transmits only the question without providing the
answer given by the literal exegetes themselves. Abruptly terminating his report, Philo
instead formulates his own question in a highly pointed, if not sarcastic, tone. It is
thus difficult to reconstruct the exegetes’ own interpretation. We may, however, gain a
clue from Philo’s apologetics. When sharply asking his readers whether one can reallythink of God, the creator of the whole cosmos, as someone in need of collaborators
when it comes to the creation of man, Philo seems to give an ironic twist precisely to
the kind of claim that had been made, namely that God needed a helper for the
creation of man.
Philo’s own solution to the problem raised by the literal exegetes characteristically
reflects a Platonic spirit. Inspired by the Timaeus, he devotes all his exegetical efforts
to proving that the plural in has ethical significance. God relied on ‘others
as if on collaborators’ so as to shun responsibility for man’s evil inclinations (Opif .
75).24 Only man’s spiritual aspects, he insists, were created in the Divine image, while
all his inferior qualities originated from God’s assistants. Philo’s theological inthe image of Plato’s Timaeus thus replaces the original solution of the literal exegetes,
who had been inspired by Aristotle’s approach. This procedure conforms to a more
general tendency in Philo’s work. On other important occasions he distanced himself
from the Aristotelian orientation prevailing in Alexandria, countering Peripatetic
influence among his fellow Jews.25 He advocated Plato rather than Aristotle as a
thinker congenial to Judaism. Philo was committed to upholding proper standards of
speaking about God, rejecting an inquiry into the Hebrew Bible that was not bound
by certain theological considerations. It now remains for us to investigate how he
reacted to a branch of literal exegesis that went, in his view, far beyond what was
proper.
HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 171
22 N. J. Richardson, ‘Aristotle and Hellenistic scholarship’, in F. Montanari (ed.),La philologie grecque à l’époque hellénistique et romaine (Geneva, 1993), 7–28.
23 N. J. Richardson, ‘Literary criticism in the exegetical scholia to the Iliad: a sketch’,CQ 30(1980), 265–87; Richardson (n. 22), 23–5; Porter (n. 5), 74–80; D. Lührs, Untersuchungen zu denAthetesen Aristarchs in der Ilias and zu ihrer Behandlung im Corpus der exegetischen Scholien(Olms, 1992), 13–17.
24 Cf. Tim. 41B–E, where the lower deities are said to be responsible for the inferior bodily
aspects of man. Being created themselves, they ensure that man will not be immortal. Philo, bycontrast, does not explain the origin and nature of God’s collaborators.
25 See his polemics against Aristotelian views of creation, discussed by M. R. Niehoff, ‘Philo’s
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 7/18
Philo passed the following judgement on certain literal exegetes who applied their
acumen to the change of Abraham’s and Sarah’s names:
‘ ’(Gen. 17.5)
26
< > 27
28
For it is said that ‘your name shall no longer be called Abram, but your name will be Abraam’(LXX Gen. 17.5).Some, however, of those who love quarrel and always wish to attach blame to blameless things,not so much regarding external matters but the very meaning,29 and of those who wage anundeclared war against holy things reproach by calumny, especially the changes of names, afterhaving deprecated by means of a detailed enquiry all the things which seem to them cannot bepreserved as appropriate in the literal sense, although these are in reality symbols of naturewhich ever likes to hide.I have just now heard from a godless and impious fellow who was jesting and railing violently,having the effrontery to say: ‘great and surpassing indeed are the gifts which Moses says theLeader of all provided. For by the addition of a letter, one single alpha, a superfluous letter, andagain by the addition of another letter, a rho, He seems to have given from Himself anextraordinarily great gift naming Sara the wife of Abraham Sarra by doubling the rho’. And atthe same time he continued to go in detail through all similar cases speaking breathlessly andsneering [at them]. Not before long he paid the suitable penalty for his insanity. For a minor andtrivial allegation he rushed to the hanging buttress so that the filthy and impure fellow came noteven to a clean death.Rightly then, in order to prevent anyone else being caught by the same [literal interpretations] we
172 MAREN R. NIEHOFF
26 Cohn/Wendland, ad loc., suggest a substantial emendation of the text adding orreplacing by . Yet the manuscript text is grammatically correct, thus not warranting anychange, and its contents becomes perfectly clear when we consider the continuation of Philo’scriticism: he accuses the ‘quarrelsome’ Bible critics of having studied all the cases of namechanges thus grounding their attack on a broad and detailed analysis (Mut. 61). While Cohn’sconjecture was unfortunately accepted by the English translator Colson, it has rightly beenrejected by the French translator Arnaldez.
27 Cohn/Wendland, ad loc., put the expression in brackets. I followColson and Arnaldez, who accept the form restored by Markland, namely .We shall moreover see below that this expression fits well into the overall exegetical approach of these exegetes.
28 Cohn/Wendland, ad loc., suggest a lacuna, assuming that Philo must initially have pointedto the etymological explanation of Abraham’s name. This is possible, but not at all necessary.
29 The expression is highly unusual. Colson translated ‘not so
much to material things as to actions and ideas’ (Philo in Ten Volumes, Loeb Classical Library[Cambridge, MA, 1981], 5.173). My own translation instead reflects the Stoic distinction between
, the actual word spoken, , the meaning understood by the hearer
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 8/18
wish to eliminate the underlying meanings, explaining from natural principles and showing thatthese things which have been said [in Scripture] are worthy of most serious attention.
(Mut. 60–2)
Philo evidently dislikes the above mentioned exegetes to such a degree that his
rhetoric obscures their actual activities. It is exceedingly difficult for the modernreader to recover the precise features of their work. Initially therefore, we have to
analyse Philo’s own comments, which form the editorial layer and must be
distinguished from the exegetes’ self-image. Only after appreciating the particular
thrust of Philo’s criticism can we begin to analyse the few bits of actual information
that he provides. It will thus be possible to reconstruct a particular scholarly approach
to the Bible that is reflected in Philo’s report, albeit in a highly distorted manner.
Philo provides both a general criticism of these exegetes and a report about one
member. Both of them teem with accusations. Characterizing the whole group, he
says that they ‘love quarrel and always wish to attach blame to blameless things’. They
are also said to ‘reproach by calumny’ and ‘deprecate by means of a detailed enquiry’.All of these terms are highly loaded, suggesting that these exegetes are sinful Jews
who cause internal strife by adopting an outsider’s perspective on the Hebrew Bible.
Initially, the term refers in Philo’s writings predominantly to Jews
who fail to show sufficient loyalty to their fellow-Jews either by rejoicing over their
misfortunes or generally behaving as complete strangers.30 Philo says that joining the
Jewish community implies, among other things, becoming friendly with men, while
those who ‘rebel from the holy laws’ become ‘quarrelsome’ (Virt. 182). He clearly
expects that Jews foster unity among each other. The harmony of the community may
be disturbed, Philo complains, when some ‘lovers of quarrel’ compare the story of
Isaac’s binding to cases of child sacrifice in Greek and barbarian culture (Abr. 178).Philo rejects such a comparison, making considerable efforts to show the unique value
of the Biblical story. Certain literal interpretations were thus identified by Philo as
stemming from ‘quarrelsome’ quarters of the Jewish community. Their exegesis was in
his eyes equal to other activities of disloyalty and deserved to be uprooted.
Philo moreover describes the exegetes as ‘attaching blame to blameless things’. The
terms and regularly occur in Philo’s writings in the context of
sacrifice, identifying priests and animals as either ritually fit or unfit.31 In some
contexts, however, Philo extends his discussion to the metaphorical realm, speaking
of spiritual blamelessness. Besides some general statements,32 he repeats one specific
theme: blameless is the soul that acknowledges God as the cause of everything,preserving His gifts undamaged and perfect.33 The arts and sciences, Philo insists,
must also be recognized as having their cause and ultimate purpose in God (Her. 116).
They are gifts which must not be harmed by putting them to irreverent use. When
Philo thus accuses some Jewish exegetes of ‘attaching blame to blameless things’, he
implies that they profane Scripture which had been donated as a gift by God. The
canonical text, naturally pointing to God’s sovereignty, has in his view been damaged
by a kind of exegesis that gives too much consideration to human judgement.
HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 173
30 See esp. Mos. 1.248; Spec. 1.241; Jos. 226; Fuga 5. Two of the ten occurrences refer to
hostility shown by non-Jews to Jews (Virt. 34; In Flacc. 52). For the analysis of Philonic key-termsI rely on P. Borgen, K. Fluglseth and R. Skarsten,The Philo Index: A Complete Word Index to theWritings of Philo of Alexandria (Leiden, 2000).
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 9/18
Calumny, , is another characteristic attributed to the group of exegetes.
This term is especially significant, because in half of its nineteen occurrences in
Philo’s writings it refers to slanders attached to Jews by Gentiles, especially by the
infamous Egyptians.34 The topical context is, of course, the ethnic conflict in Alex-
andria which led to a pogrom of the Jews (C.E. 38–41). Applying the term to aparticular kind of literal exegesis, Philo hints at their adoption of a vicious external
perspective. In respect to their scholarly approach, they are similar to the most hostile
and unpleasant of contemporary Egyptians. Did Philo consider these fellow Jews to
be too close to Apion, who was both a leading Homer scholar in Alexandria and the
head of the hostile Egyptian embassy to Gaius? Did these Jewish scholars in fact
belong to Apion’s circle? Even if such a connection was not implied by Philo, it is clear
that calumny was a grave sin in his eyes. Some Israelites were guilty of it when
accusing Moses of having made up oracles in order to justify his choice of Aaron,
which was in their view nothing but nepotism (Mos. 2.176). Philo thus suggests that
the literal exegetes, whose interpretation of Scripture he identifies as calumny, weresimilarly rebelling against their own tradition.
The last charge mentioned in this context is deprecation ‘by means of a detailed
enquiry’. The verb is unique in all Philo’s extant writings, reflecting an
exceptional degree of irritation. The expression is also very rare,
occurring only on two other occasions in the context of literal hermeneutics.35 Once it
refers to the exegetes discussed above, namely those who investigated why man was
created last (Opif . 66). As we saw, Philo meant the characterization there as a
compliment. Furthermore, the expression is used to describe ‘the
education embraced by school-learning’ (Agr. 18). After acquiring the basic skills of
reading and writing, Philo explains, the student is expected to apply himself to ‘thedetailed investigation of the things [written] by the wise poets’. The foremost poet,
‘most highly esteemed among the Greeks’ is, of course, Homer, as Philo readily
admits.36 His description seems to reflect the general hermeneutic activity applied to
the study of Homer and other poets. Philo acknowledges the serious nature of this
scholarship, describing the Jewish exegetes by precisely the same term. Homeric
scholarship and Biblical exegesis thus share the same semantic field. The label
‘detailed inquiry’ may also hint at the exegetes’ self-image. Did they see themselves as
scholars applying the methods of Greek literary criticism to the Hebrew Scriptures?
Philo’s report about one particular literal exegete provides some further clues that
enable us to locate this group more precisely. Initially, it is conspicuous that theexegete in question relies on the LXX, referring to the Greek rather than the Hebrew
names of Abraham and Sarah. He evidently was a native Greek speaker like Philo
himself. Moreover, this exegete seems to have been Philo’s contemporary in
Alexandria, because he ‘just now heard from’ his mouth ( ). Philo
174 MAREN R. NIEHOFF
34 Philo, Jos. 66; Mos. 1.46; In Flacc. 33, 89; Leg . 160, 170–1, 199, 241. On Philo’s image of theEgyptians as ultimate Other, see Niehoff (n. 8), 45–74; S. Pearce, ‘Belonging and not belonging:local perspectives in Philo of Alexandria’, in S. Jones and S. Pearce (edd.), Jewish Local Patri-otism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period , JSPS suppl. ser. 31 (Sheffield, 1998),79–105.
35 The expression ‘detailed inquiry’ significantly occurs also in the context of Egyptian–Jewishtension in Alexandria, referring to Egyptians searching for Jews and investigating them (In Flacc.90 96) There is thus once more a semantic connection between the practices of the Jewish literal
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 10/18
moreover indicates that he has been executed not too long ago.37 His readers are
expected to recognize the case and to be familiar with the circumstances. Philo
himself does not specify the cause, instead suggesting a general connection between
blasphemous hermeneutics and execution. The latter was in his view a well-deserved
punishment. The fact that only ‘a minor and trivial allegation’ was put forward at theofficial trial implies that Divine providence was at play. Philo’s biased report
resembles to a striking degree his presentation of Flaccus, the Roman prefect in
Alexandria under Tiberius. In his case, too, he said nothing about the trial itself, but
instead used it to teach a lesson in Divine providence. He suggested that Flaccus was
tried and executed by the Romans, because he had maltreated the Jews.38 God merely
used the Roman court as an instrument of retribution. The historical reality, however,
must have been rather different, the Romans having their own reasons for prosecuting
Flaccus. Philo clearly wished to set up this figure as a sign of assurance to his readers
that no enemy of the Jews will go unpunished for long. The same holds true for
‘quarrelsome’ contemporaries from within the Jewish community. Philo saw them asenemies of the Jewish nation who bring similar punishment on themselves as Flaccus.
Having appreciated Philo’s general attitude and rhetoric, we are now in a position
to analyse his report about the methods of the literal exegetes. The first bit of
information we receive about their work is their refusal to read the Bible allegorically.
Philo complains that they attach blame ‘not so much regarding external matters but
to the very meaning’ (Mut. 60). They miss the real intention of Scripture, because they
do not recognize the ‘symbols of nature which ever likes to hide’ (ibid.). Philo hopes
to mend the damage they have caused by pointing to ‘the underlying meanings,
explaining from natural principles and showing that these things which have been
said [in Scripture] are worthy of most serious attention’ (Mut. 62). Interpretationaccording to nature is in Philo’s writings a regular term for an allegorical reading of
Scripture. He sometimes approvingly mentions allegories by .39 The
literal exegetes criticized by Philo obviously belong to the opposite camp. Their
neglect of allegory is not accidental, but represents a conscious approach. Philo says
about them in another context that they ‘are unwilling to apply themselves to the
inward facts of things and follow after truth’.40
Philo provides also some positive clues into their method. His accusation that they
‘reproach by calumny, especially the change of names’ conveys some crucial
information (Mut. 60). It implies that these exegetes focused on a particular topic,
such as the change of names. They studied references to a particular theme through-out Scripture. This is precisely what the exegete, who was executed, is said to have
HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 175
37 Scholars generally understood Philo to refer to suicide (Colson, ad loc.; Shroyer [n. 2], 279;Hay [n. 10], 92). A parallel case in Spec. 3.161 may support this view. Another passage, however,proves far more relevant, because hanging appears here in precisely the same context of dying an‘unclean death’ (Aet. 20). In this passage Philo explicitly enumerates hanging among the ways of dying that come to men not ‘from within themselves’ ( ), but ‘from outside’ (
). Execution rather than suicide is also meant in Mut. 62, where Philo mentions a ‘minorand trivial allegation’.
38 See esp. In Flacc. 147–52, discussed by P. van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom.Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 2 (Leiden,
2003), 219–29; Niehoff (n. 8), 40–1, 133–6.39 See e.g. Abr. 99, discussed by M. R. Niehoff, ‘Mother and maiden, sister and spouse: Sarah
in Philonic Midrash’, HThR 97 (2004), 431–3.
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 11/18
done: ‘he continued to go in detail through all similar cases’ (Mut. 61). This literal
approach was based on a broad and comparative study of Biblical phenomena. The
Hebrew Bible was studied in its entirety and investigated with a view to recurring
expressions or similar cases. Philo’s report is our first testimony to such a method
being used among Jews. Its initial occurrence in the Alexandrian Jewish community ishighly significant. It suggests that the application of this method was the result of a
deep acculturation to the Hellenistic environment. These Jewish exegetes had adopted
a method of Homeric scholarship that came to be known as
.41 Aristarchus was the foremost scholar associated with this maxim.42 As
James I. Porter has shown, he rejected allegory and instead looked for a solution
within the corpus of the Homeric text (see n. 5). Aristarchus investigated particular
Homeric expressions and their parallels with a view to the poet’s characteristic usage
( ).43 He also studied names by comparing them to their parallel
occurrences in other passages of the Iliad .44 Aristonicus said of Aristarchus that he
‘studied homonyms’ (schol. Il . 2.837–8).A further piece of evidence emerges when Philo says that these exegetes ‘deprecated
… all the things which, it seems to them, cannot be preserved as appropriate in the
literal sense’ (Mut. 60). The crucial expression is: |
. It is only here that Philo uses the verb in a hermeneutic
context.45 It is not a technical term of Homeric scholarship.46 Yet Philo thus seems to
have referred to an exegetical technique that was not only used by his Jewish
colleagues, but also by Homeric scholars. The technique I have in mind is athetesis.
Philo’s reference to supports this conjecture. He explains that consider-
ations of fittingness or appropriateness were crucial in the exegetes’ decision whether
a particular item in Scripture could be ‘preserved’. Evidently there were Jewish Biblescholars in Alexandria who studied Scripture by examining whether a passage or
word in question conformed to certain standards of propriety. They treated the
canonical text as a piece of literature to which the regular scholarly methods of
analysis can be applied. Sometimes, as in the case of the Biblical name changes, these
exegetes were highly critical, suggesting that a certain Biblical item cannot be
maintained.
The precise meaning of their method can best be appreciated by looking at parallel
cases in the scholia. The term is characteristic of the bT scholia, where it is
often used to justify the text as poetically and morally appropriate, especially in such
cases where serious exegetical problems had arisen.
47
The true cause of the TrojanWar was discussed in such terms. Several scholiasts were acutely aware of the fact that
the Cypria provided an alternative approach, suggesting that Zeus planned the war
176 MAREN R. NIEHOFF
41 Porph. Quaest. Hom. Il . 297, quoted and discussed by Porter (n. 5), 70–7. C. Schäublin,‘Homerum ex Homero’, MH 34 (1977), 221–7, suggested that this exegetical maxim was ratherwidespread in the imperial period and not confined to the grammatikoi .
42 Porter (n. 5), 70–4, argued against R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from theBeginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford, 1968), 231, for the probability of theAristarchan origin of the maxim.
43 Schol. Il . 1.499; see also in schol. Il . 5.734–6; similarly in schol. Il . 5.299,5.684.
44 E.g. schol. Il . 5.708.45 The verb occurs thirty-three times throughout Philo’s work, otherwise referring to salvation
in a historical or ethical sense (see e g Abr 98 177; Leg 328)
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 12/18
against Troy and incited the Trojans by setting up a beauty contest between Hera,
Athena and Aphrodite in which Paris, the judge, preferred the latter.48 On this view,
the war emerged as Hera’s revenge for her insult. Homer, by contrast, suggested that
tension between Zeus and Hera prompted the war. Troy was actually Zeus’s preferred
city, which he, however, surrendered to Hera, who insisted that her dislike of that cityand its inhabitants must at least have some visible effect (Il . 4.25–9). While several
scholiasts, including Aristarchus, stressed Homer’s ignorance of the version found in
the Cypria,49 a scholiast in the bT tradition tackles what was in his eyes a serious
difficulty in the Homeric text:
why did Zeus say that he has one [beloved city], while Hera says she has three beloved cities, sheeven having Greek [cities], while he has a barbarian one, for necessarily the king of gods musthave the best ones as his beloved [cities]. (schol.Il . 4.51–2)
This derives from the assumption of a strict hierarchy among the gods.
The highest god must therefore be associated with the greater number and better
quality of cities. Given the philhellenic spirit of the scholiasts in the bT tradition, this
also implies Greek cities for Zeus.50 The Homeric text, however, violates these
sensitivities, associating Troy with Zeus. For the scholiast it was inconceivable that
Zeus should have been on the side of the barbarians. Homer’s sympathy for the
opponents of the Greeks and his lack of an overt nationalism were simply passé,
clashing with the exegete’s own world view. On the other hand, the scholiast wished to
preserve the Homeric text rather than accept the version of the Cypria. The problemis solved by reference to propriety:
one must say that the poet, wishing to bestow upon her a becoming reason for her wrath and notthe one which myth had fabricated, namely that she was angry at the Trojans because she hadnot been preferred to Aphrodite in the beauty contest, purposefully said that she likes these citieson account of which the wrong concerning Helen was done. (schol.Il . 4.51–2)
The scholiast suggests that Homer chose his version wisely, thus dismissing the one
found in the Cypria. This explanation is subsequently expanded, either by the same
scholiast or some colleague in the same tradition. It is argued that the Cypric version
cannot be reconciled with the story about Hera’s borrowing of Aphrodite’s belt in
HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 177
48 Cypria 1, apud Proclus, Chrestomacy 1 (ed. H. G. Evelyn-White).49 Schol. Il . 4.32, 4.51, 4.52; see also the fine discussion by A. Severyns, Le cycle épique dans
l’école d’Aristarque (Liège–Paris, 1928), 261–4, showing that Homer in fact knew the alternativeversion, which was, however, vehemently rejected by Aristarchus, who wished to preserve theHomeric epic from any contamination by such mythic material.
50 The philhellenic orientation of the bT scholia is conspicuous right from the beginning, seeschol. Il . 1.1, 2; see also schol. Il . 11.197, 15.618, 16.814–15, 17.220–32; for broader discussionand other references, see M. Schmidt, Die Erklärungen zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kultur der
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 13/18
order to seduce her husband, because, if indeed she had been insulted by a defeat in
the beauty contest, she would not be on such friendly relations with her rival.
Moreover, the Homeric version is praised for showing Zeus’s exceptional generosity:
he was willing to surrender the only beloved city he had.
The notion of poetic propriety also played a crucial role in decisions of athetesis.51
This is the case, for example, when Poseidon’s speech to Iris is discussed (schol. Il .
15.212–17). The exegetical crux is the tension between Poseidon’s initial resignation
( ) and his immediately following threat (
). Aristarchus rejected lines 212–17, thus casting doubt on the motif of the
threats. His motivation, as recorded by Aristonicus,52 was the following:
‘ ’‘ ’
‘ ’
From this line until ‘let him know this, that between us’ (Il . 15.217) six lines are athetised,because they are cheap, both in composition and in authorial intention. [Poseidon] havingstarted by saying ‘indignant I shall withdraw’, as if repenting, attacks ‘I shall utter a threat.’Poseidon knows that in the end he [Zeus] will not spare the city, but he assisted the Trojans onlyfor the purpose of giving honour to Achilles. Someone transferred the names of the gods fromthe theomachia (Il . 20.33–6), associating [the names of] their opponents with the barbarian gods,while no longer understanding that the things pertaining to sacking a city were of no concernfor Hermes and Hephaestus, but [the poet] has mentioned them only for the purpose of opposition. (schol.Il . 15.212A)
Aristarchus argues that lines 212–17 are a later addition to the original Homeric
text. He identifies a rather incompetent editor, who invented the part of Poseidon’s
speech containing the threat. The latter did so by transferring the names of Hermes
and Hephaestus from Il . 20.33–6, without, however, realizing that he inserted them
into a context entirely out of character for them. Poseidon could not, in Aristarchus’
view, have appealed to these gods as prospective sackers of Troy. The text in Book 20
does not explicitly say what Aristarchus takes it to mean, but, at least, the verses do
not mention Hermes’ and Hephaestus’ martial intentions vis-à-vis Troy. Hera, by the
way, is not at all discussed in this context, presumably because Homer dwelt precisely
on her plan to sack the city (Il . 15.14–29). Aristarchus moreover considered Il .15.211–17 as ‘cheap’, because they contain contradictions which cannot be reconciled
with the context. Indignation and shame thus imply repentance, which cannot be
followed immediately by angry threats. Furthermore, Poseidon knew the ultimate fate
of Troy and could therefore not have threatened what he would do in case the city
should be spared. Aristarchus implies that Poseidon must have known of Thetis’
appeal to Zeus, asking him to ‘honour my son’ ( ).53 Zeus hesitantly
agreed to her request, nodding assent as a sure token, yet aware that he will thus
invoke further reprimands from Hera, who earlier had already criticized his support
for the Trojans (Il . 5.19–27). It is thus assumed that the reader’s knowledge is also
178 MAREN R. NIEHOFF
51 For a survey of the discussion on athetesis see Schmidt (n 50) 19–22
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 14/18
shared by all the actors of the Homeric plot, especially when they are divine figures.
All of these considerations led Aristarchus to suggest an unusually long athetesis of
six verses.
A scholion from the bT tradition presents a radically different view, countering
Aristarchus’ judgement of by an emphatic affirmation of the lines’ poeticpropriety:
‘ ’
‘ ’‘ ’.
He (the poet) set up a becoming relief [of emotions], withholding the anger until the end, as alsoAchilles says ‘but of everything else that is mine’ (Il . 1.300). Six lines are athetised. For why isthere the threat? But we say that he [the poet] befittingly wishes to [present him] as being out of
his mind. If he heard that Ilios will be sacked, how does he now show disbelief? ButAgamemnon [similarly said] ‘dreadful grief for you will be mine’, and yet he knew it fromCalchas. Otherwise it is necessary to [admit] that this verse contradicts ‘But in fact I will yield fornow’ (Il . 15.211). (schol. Il .15.212B)
The scholiast shows a fine literary sensitivity, which is inspired by Aristotle’s notion
of katharsis in tragedy. Homer, he insists, presents a ‘becoming relief’ of emotions,
carefully postponing the expression of anger. The tension between lines 211 and 212 is
thus not a logical contradiction, as Aristarchus assumed, but rather a dramatic
tension that is purposefully built up.54 The scholiast moreover refers to a parallel case
of protracted anger. Achilles initially declared that he will not fight for Briseis, but
instead accept Agamemnon’s decision to take her for himself (Il . 1.298–9). He stressesin a seemingly subservient mood that Agamemnon is only taking back what he has
given. Then, however, Achilles threatens mutiny. He and his soldiers will no longer
participate in the war. This parallel case supports the scholiast’s argument for the
authenticity of Il . 15.212–17. Both passages are in his view poetically appropriate.
They portray a troubled character whose emotions are both exceptionally strong and
unusually coerced by external circumstances. Release can thus not come in a regular
fashion, but only in an extraordinary way.
Philo’s ‘quarrelsome’ colleagues must be appreciated in the context of this type of
Homeric scholarship. Their judgement that certain Biblical items, such as the change
of Abraham’s and Sarah’s names, cannot be maintained as corresponds toprevalent exegetical considerations among Greek scholars. Unable either to offer a
proper textual solution or to withdraw to allegory, they rejected certain Biblical
verses. Gen. 17.5 and 17.15 were considered spurious. These verses would not have
been omitted from the manuscript, but instead athetized. Following Aristarchus, the
literal exegetes probably marked such verses in the margins of the manuscript with an
obelus, while separately discussing the reasons for their criticism.55
HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 179
54 See similarly: M. van der Valk, Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad (Leiden,1964), 2.426.
55 The scholia often distinguish between Aristarchus’ atheteses and what appear to beZenodotus’ emendations. See esp. schol.Il . 8.385–7a: …
Similarly in schol Il 8 528; schol Il 8 371–2 (
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 15/18
Philo’s ‘quarrelsome’ colleagues were thus especially close to Aristarchus. They did
not follow the path of the bT scholiasts who often pleaded for poetical propriety in
the face of Aristarchus’ atheteses. Instead, they declared that a certain Biblical item
was not , thus using a virtually identical term to Aristarchus’ . The
latter rejected, for example, Il . 1.29–30, because. Aristarchus also rejected Il . 24.130–2, because
‘ ’. Some Jewish exegetes in Alexandria
adopted Aristarchus’ approach, applying it to the Hebrew Bible. Given their radical
commitment to textual criticism, it is no longer surprising that Philo disliked them
intensely. Preceding modern Bible criticism by almost two thousand years, these
Alexandrian exegetes inevitably aroused animosity in certain circles of the Jewish
community.56
Placed in the context of Homeric scholarship, Philo’s report yields further striking
evidence. His description of one particular exegete allows us to recover the reasons for
rejecting particular verses. According to Philo, this exegete criticized Gen. 17.5 and17.15, because he found the letters alpha and rho, which were added to Sarah’s and
Abraham’s names, utterly superfluous ( ). He moreover considered
the notion of God donating a gift of this sort rather ludicrous.57 His criticism thus
relied on a linguistic observation that was supported by a theological judgement. In
other words, the exegete initially noted a superfluous item in the text, which does not
add any new information. His doubts about its authenticity were then corroborated
by the impression that, in terms of content, the lines in question express inappropriate
ideas. Taken together, these two considerations justified athetesis.
The procedure of this Jewish exegete can best be understood in the context of
Aristarchan scholarship. Aristarchus rendered the notion of a centralcategory. Erbse’s index shows almost an entire column of references to it, most of
them relating to Aristarchus’ work.58 It became an important criterion in decisions of
athetesis. Aristarchus athetized, for example, Il . 21.471, because ‘it is superfluous after
(the verse) “But his sister rebuked him harshly, the queen of wild beasts” ’ (Il . 21.470).
Dietrich Lührs stressed that Aristarchus’ decisions of athetesis were usually based on
a two-fold consideration, namely a linguistic redundancy together with an obser-
180 MAREN R. NIEHOFF
the ekdosis of Homer’, in Most (n. 5), 1–21, who argued for a pluralistic model, suggesting thatboth Zenodotus and Aristarchus were engaged in emending the text as well as commenting on it;cf. the view that Zenodotus did not eliminate lines, but only noted his suspicions in the margins:West (n. 5), 38–45; H. van Thiel, ‘Zenodot, Aristarch und Andere’,ZPE 90 (1992), 1–32, and id.,‘Der Homertext in Alexandria’, ZPE 115 (1997), 13–36, who argued that all so-called editions byancient commentators were in reality commentaries on an existing text.
56 There are signs that some methods of Homeric scholarship may have been applied byrabbinic exegetes in Palestine of the first few centuries C.E., see esp. S. Lieberman, Hellenism inPalestine2 (New York, 1962), 20–47; A. A. Halevi, ‘Rabbinic midrash and Homeric midrash’(Hebrew), Tarbiz 31 (1962), 157–69, 264–80; P. S. Alexander, ‘ “Homer the prophet of all” and“Moses our teacher”: late antique exegesis of the Homeric epics and the torah of Moses’, in L. V.Rutgers, P. van der Horst et al. (edd.), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World (Leuven,1998), 130–2; id., ‘Why no textual criticism in Rabbinic midrash? Reflections on the textualculture of the Rabbis’, in G. J. Brooke (ed.), Jewish Ways of Reading the Bible, Journal of SemiticStudies suppl. 11 (Oxford, 2000), 175–90.
57 Philo, Mut. 61 (quoted above in the extensive passage).58 See also Lührs (n. 23), 18–148. His analysis is somewhat compromised by two facts: he
focused too narrowly on cases of redundant verbs at the beginning of verses and furthermore
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 16/18
vation of improper content. Aristarchus was thus inclined to suspect a verse, or even a
series of consecutive verses, if these showed signs of superfluity both in terms of
language and of content.
Two examples may suffice here to illustrate the background of Philo’s ‘quarrel-
some’ exegete. The first pertains to Theano’s prayer in the temple of Athene, which isreported with some redundancy.
< > :
‘ ’
‘Thus she prayed and Pallas Athene threw back her head as a token of denial.’ (Il . 6.311)[This verse] is athetised, because the phrase added for ornament is to no purpose anduncustomary. It is in contrast to the opposite [scene where] Zeus confirms by nodding assent( ).59 Since the same idea is repeated subsequently, ‘Thus they were praying’ (Il.
6.312), the verse is clearly superfluous. And Athena throwing her head back as a token of denialis ludicrous. (Schol. Il . 6.311)
Il . 6.311–12 drew Aristarchus’ attention, because these lines contain a puzzling
repetition. Their opening was linguistically almost identical:
versus . While verse 311 mentions the conclusion of Theano’s
prayer as well as Athena’s negative response, verse 312 summarily refers to the prayer
of Theano and the women of Troy, using the same expression as in Il . 6.303–4.
Aristarchus identified verse 311, rather than 312, as spurious, because it violates
Homeric usage. In his view it becomes Homer to ascribe to a deity a literal nodding in
the case of assent, as he did in Il . 1.527 with regard to Zeus. , by contrast, is
used metaphorically, as the opposite of the verb (Il . 16.250–2).60 Given the
context of Theano’s prayer to Athena’s statue, Aristarchus seems to have rejected the
possibility of a metaphorical meaning. On the other hand, a statue moving her head
back also appeared ludicrous. When the metaphorical meaning seemed inappropriate
and the literal meaning implied both repetition as well as violation of Homeric usage
and common sense, athetesis was the only solution.
Another example may illustrate how Aristarchus combined linguistic consider-
ations with judgments of content:
< > :
‘ ’‘ < > ’.
‘the goddess, white-armed Hera, provided him [the horse Xantes] with human speech’ (Il .19.407)(This verse) is athetised as superfluous and containing a contradiction. It is in discord with (theverse) ‘After he had thus spoken, the Erinyes held back his voice’ (Il . 19.418) – thus they clearlyhad also granted [speech]. Of this kind is the poet: ‘the god who brought him to light, made himdisappear’ (Il . 2.318). (schol. Il . 19.407)
Aristonicus provides two reasons for Aristarchus’ athetesis: superfluity and contra-
diction. The former consideration is no longer explained in detail, but Aristarchus’
reasoning was surely the following: verse 407 is redundant, because it presents Hera asinitiating the horse’s speech, while according to verse 404 the horse was already
HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 181
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 17/18
speaking ( ). Aristarchus athetized verse 407, rather than 404, because only
the former contained also a contradiction to Il . 19.418, where the Erinyes are said to
stop the horse’s human speech. Aristarchus took Il . 2.318 as a proof of Homer’s
principle that the god who has initiated an exceptional situation, will also restore the
previous state. On his view, Homer cannot have attributed the restoration of theanimal state to the Erinyes, while Hera gave human speech to the horse. If Hera had
indeed been instrumental in the initial stage, she would also have been mentioned at
the end of the episode.
Philo’s ‘quarrelsome’ colleague adduces similar considerations. He, too, is sensitive
to the fact that the letters alpha and rho in Sarah’s and Abraham’s new names are
superfluous. Their change of names, as reported in the LXX, turns out to be no real
change at all, as the sound of the names remains virtually the same. Furthermore, this
exegete considers the contents of the verses in question to be ludicrous. Philo’s report
of his criticism, especially the formulation ‘great and surpassing indeed are the gifts
which Moses says the Leader of all provided’ (Mut. 61), suggest that this exegeteconsidered the idea conveyed in Gen. 17.5, 15 as a violation of Moses’ characteristic
ways of speaking about God. He was convinced that Moses would never have
attributed to God the ridiculous notion of donating gifts as worthless as the addition
of a single, superfluous letter.
This judgement has a clearly Aristarchan flavour and must be understood in the
larger context of the group of literal exegetes whom Philo criticized in Mut. 60–2.
Philo said about them that they rejected certain items in Scripture, such as Gen. 17.5
and 17.15, which could, in their view, ‘not be preserved as appropriate in the literal
sense’. Philo did not mention any reason for their judgement of athetesis, instead
attacking their whole approach. It would seem that the exegetical considerations of the individual exegete, which he subsequently reports, are in fact an explanation of the
athetesis in question. In the same way as Aristonicus sometimes only recorded an
athetesis by Aristarchus, but on other occasions provided or reconstructed also his
reasons for doing so, Philo initially reported the exegetes’ decision that certain verses
‘cannot be preserved’ and then adduced the reasons for that decision, as formulated
by one particular exegete.
If my analysis is correct, we have evidence of a text-critical branch of Jewish Bible
exegesis in Alexandria that was inspired by Aristarchus. More than 2,000 years ago
there were Jewish scholars who judged certain verses to be spurious. In the present
article one example of this critical scholarship has come to light. Others will bediscussed in my full treatment of the topic. Philo thus provides crucial insights into a
now lost world of Jewish Bible scholarship in ancient Alexandria. This world was
extremely rich and engaged in a meaningful dialogue with Homeric scholarship.
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem MAREN R. NIEHOFF
182 MAREN R. NIEHOFF
7/27/2019 Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria, Evidence From Fhilos Quarrelsome
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/homeric-scholarship-and-bible-exegesis-in-ancient-alexandria-evidence-from 18/18
Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.