The World of Ideas in Philo of Alexandria: An Interpretation of De opificio mundi 24-25 Author(s): J. C. M.

Van Winden Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Sep., 1983), pp. 209-217 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583083 . Accessed: 03/02/2014 17:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 79.114.148.176 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:14:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Christianae 37 (1983)209-217, E. J.Brill, Leiden Vigiliae

THE WORLD OF IDEAS IN PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA

AN INTERPRETATION OF DE OPIFICIO MUNDI 24-25 BY

J. C. M. VAN WINDEN is theBible,and To Philo theone truesourceof philosophical activity in particular its first fivebooks, the Law. Moses, the Jewish lawgiver, of philosophy"(Opif. 8), and the only has attained"the verysummit is to studyand to explainMoses' words,which task of a philosopher humancapacityof speechand of ideas a transcending embody beauty hearing(Opif. 4). In explainingMoses' words Philo makes use of his knowledgeof the creationstoryof Genesis he Greek philosophy.And in explaining Plato's 'creationstory'as told in the Timaeus. uses in particular of a craftsman theimagery In Tim. 28 Plato introduces who, looking world. Philo explains at the eternalideas, makes the sense-perceptible thatit depicts themaking of Genesisin sucha manner thecreation story of two worlds,a worldof ideas whichhe calls the kosmos noetos,and the sense-perceptible world,as we know it. of the Philo is quitewellaware of thefactthatsuch an interpretation an That is whyhe devotesto thismatter Genesistextis not self-evident. sectionof his commentary extensive (Opif. 13-25). preliminary Genesis says that the world was created in six days. But, Philo of timefor thisdoes not mean thatthemakerneededa length remarks, comhis work.God made thewholeworldat once, whereby planning, thatcome to existence coincide.But sincethings mandingand creating requireorder,and orderinvolvesnumber,and the numbersix is the Moses declaredthat the world numbermost suitableto productivity, was createdin six days. Genesissays: On theotherhand,at theend of thefirst day of creation xatx Yvito irpj, 'jpac pl&. Thus it does not speak of dYCvo ~irpa xx t 'the first day' but of 'one day', or as we perhapsshould say 'day one'. showsthathereMoses does notdeal with In Philo's viewthisexpression world but with the noetic world which has the the sense-perceptible

This content downloaded from 79.114.148.176 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:14:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

210

J. C. M. VAN WINDEN

natureof oneness(riv ?ovrsoS of the Opif. 15). This replacement y6aLv, expectedacpGr by ?a--whichin fact is a hebraism-is a sufficient forPhilo to discoverin Genesisthe creationof ideas. pretext In Opif. 15-25Philo elaborateshisviewof thisnoeticworld.He comwho is goingto builda city.Just as thisarpares God withan architect chitectcannot work without a plan of thatcityin his mind,so God, to createthissense-perceptible wishing world,knewthatitwouldnotbe

was muchdissension about theinAmongthedisciplesof Plato there of theimagery of the Timaeus.Those who chose fora more terpretation or less literalinterpretation and understood theDemiurgeas representthe had to meet the ing highest principle problemof thelocationof the worldof ideas. Therewas a tendency to putthose amongthesethinkers ideas within thehighest and to interpret themas its thoughts. principle Philo's solutionto thisproblemis as follows:the worldwhichconsists of ideas has no other location than the divine logos who has orderedthisworld.Thus the noeticworldis in thelogos of God (Opif. 20). Afterdiscussing some otherproblemsconcerning theworldof ideas Philo comesto a finalobservation, whichrunsas followsin thecritical editionof L. Cohn and P. Wendland: &vErepov [24] si 6 0stL&ioejatL s XP~loBLtToLS odtiv 6v6patov, 6 ToG arXLt vorT7 dTL [vo71Tjv] IOXLV Tiepv eatye opXLTxTovoy xoyLoo6too~"v xx?((s 8toavoougivou. ~ co~r o MOUES kiQ(v,odx [25] r6 86y7t? Tv yOUv &v0pCnou yBveatv ilg6v" G
&voryp&uv &v ToLS B7etraT &tpp(8gyjv
SiLOL

he speaks of the x6ajos vo1jr65. voijr6v

faultless unless it was madein thelikeness of an impeccable, i.e., inPhilois walking here in Plato'sfootsteps, telligible, pattern. Evidently he does notfollow himin his terminology: of (jov instead although

TAYVOrTjTVXOGjOV

TuLvoripotL LVGL

0j UBOL 1670V iTjO XOGj?O7rOLOUVTO( 0QUO

yTp 71

teTuc B0r l (Gen.

1, 27). It 8i TOjipoS six&v Eixdvos Xov [8nXov ort] xati ~X

6
ao71T6~Z X~aE?OS, difl?dicOvt~iS &v~OpICinrlv ~aiV, 'skr 7v

joJoyXsy,

po

xorT' eix6va

Oso

or13TOdOS ILv

OeiCo eix6voS, afjXov OTL Ovcpe?Iv vorOv yevrL xeLTjl &VpXytuioS acppofi', x6altov,
['rd [7 r~p&rsI~y~L,&ptrp6uoS
Wisiv]6 toIO X6yoS.

aisI, irE7OlS oiho5

t~Ct~rj~

This passage has been dealtwithin numerous workson Philo, but its exact meaningis stillremarkably elusive. In particular Philo's way of arguingin ch. 25 has remainedunclear.Obviouslythisstateof affairs has influenced thetradition of thetextand itsproblematic constitution in thecriticaledition.

This content downloaded from 79.114.148.176 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:14:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE WORLD OF IDEAS IN PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA

211

To start it must thegeneral ofthewhole be saidthat structure with, Philo is clear. discerns three 1. First One forward his steps: puts passage world is nothing elsethanthelogosof the thesis, viz.,thatthenoetic of the God. 2. Thenthisthesis is illustrated by theexample creating Philoshows architect. 3. Finally that this thesis is nothisowninhuman in Moses' words in Genesis butis already vention 1, 27. present three asksforsomefurther HenceI Each ofthese explanation. steps will now discusssuccessively Philo's thesis, its illustration and the Mosaictestimony. Philohadreached Philo'sthesis-Intheprevious discussion theconcosmoswas in thelogosof God. His intention clusion thatthenoetic of nowis to makean attempt at giving this conclusion a greater degree to sayitina more So hesays:'If onewould wish simple way, precision.
the noeticworld <is not onlyin thelogos but> is thelogos of God in act of God His His veryact of creating'.In otherwords,in thecreative logos and the noeticcosmos coincide. One should observe that this more simple way of speech is not a

the truth.Simplex sigillumveri. For a comparable use of the term yujv6s,see Probus 43, Contempl.78, Sacrif.30. to the case The illustration.-Plato illustrates his thesisby referring The plan of the future of the humanarchitect. city(i.e. in themindof this architect), he says, is nothingelse than the logismos(intellectual thecity.In thesame the in his veryact of planning architect of faculty) act else thanthelogos of God in hisvery waythenoeticworldis nothing of creating. Here one should not be misled by the fact that in the case of the in thecase of God Philo speaks of theact of planning, humanarchitect This difference thedifference of theact of creating. reflects between the in man and that in God. In God, as was said above, creativeactivity and creating coincide,in man theseare different phases of the planning process. is of no consequencein the present But thisdifference comparison. of the plannedworld(= noeticcosmos) Philo comparesthecoinciding and the logos of God withthe coincidingof the plannedcityand the logismosof the humanarchitect. is not an invention Moses' testimony-Thisthesis,Philo continues, of minebut is an implication of whatMoses saysin Genesis 1, 27, viz., thatman was made after theimageof God. This statement mustsurely

itis more itis nearer to On thecontrary, because precise, simplification.

This content downloaded from 79.114.148.176 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:14:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

212

J. C. M. VAN WINDEN

of Mosesthat manwas made How can thedoctrine amazethereader. God's image in favour ofthecoinciding ofGod's after be an argument of ideas? logosand theworld ofthis hasbeen theexplanation statement handed Thetext containing of a critical edition found which theGerman editors downin a form 'b twoelements: at thestart, Theyeliminated unacceptable. 8gXov het , 8 tcv soevat the end. They werefollowedby potBL'y~t .pX&ruioC Greek nr1293, andR. Arnaldez intheLyon C. J.de Vogel, Philosophy, ofPhilo(Les oeuvres de Philon vol 1). Colsonin edition d'Alexandrie, thefollowing Arnaldez French translation: "Or si la partie est gives tout de ce monde etsi la forme entibre, sensible, image d'image, totalit6 estimitation de l'imaestplusgrande humaine, puisqu'elle que l'image il clair le sceau nous disons est le divine, ge que que 8tre archetype, ne saurait le de Dieu". monde intelligible, que Logos 8tre runs as follows: "Wennaberschon J.Cohn'sGerman translation der Teil AbbildeinesBildesist,also auchdie ganzeGattung, dieseganze istals das menschliche sinnlich wahrnehmbare Welt,da sieja grSsser eine des Abbild, Bildes,so istklar,dass das Nachahmung gbttlichen wiewir diegedachte Welt die nennen, Siegel (dasUrbild), urspruingliche ist". Vernunft Gottes selbst tworenderings difference these The only between is theword also in I translation This word no theGerman have has basis (which italized). in thetextus which was accepted receptus, obviously bythetranslator. itindicates On theother which for a consequence is fundamental hand, Philo,as willappearin whatfollows. A newattempt at interpretation is clearly calledfor.Philobegins this es as follows: 84 7ipoS ... For the eixev dx6voC, argumentation '6 ofthis itisvital toknow that Genesis 1,27, (God understanding protasis createdman) xor' ex6va ~r oe Beo, was interpreted by Philo in a peculiar to him,these manner. words do notmeanthat"man was According theimageof madean imageof God" but thathe "was madeafter God". In other is of and there an image God manwas made words, after that so that ofan image".'Philosaysthis he is "an image image,
in Her. 231 " disertis verbis the Loeb seriesdoes not delete8iov iSt, as will appear below.

td akpoS, of this conclude that thesubject man. indicates protasis,

"6 odxt roC-rae", yp c9rTa, O~i~ t6v&v0poprov" If is saidofman,onemay OBoU, &XX& "xxt EiX6XYV. eiXv' xovx dxovoS

one mustrecall to mind that the image after Before going further which man was made is the image of God (xx7' dx6va Oeoo), and,

This content downloaded from 79.114.148.176 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:14:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE WORLD OF IDEAS IN PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA

213

thattheimageof God is thelogos. This is a vitalelement in moreover, 6 the argumentation. See forthisequivalenceFug. 101: xrih6 (sc. X6yoS 6 Bioi, and Conf. 147: BOos y&p i~xdv OioG) dxdv 6x&pXtov ,6yoo

oftheprotasis Nowonemaycircumscribe thecontent as follows: 'If itis truewhatGenesis 1, 27 says,viz.,thatman, beingpartofa whole,

which is nota statement ofMoses.See theFrench translation: protasis from thusdrawing a conclusion-which must drawn be an conclusion
"et si la formetout entibre ...". The Germanrendering adds an also, Moses' words-and makes the argumentation but the textus coherent, does not give thisalso a textualfoundation. receptus All themanuscripts, do givea conclusionhere,in the form however, of an apodosis: i1Xov ote xat ... which we no longer Let us nowreadthat partofthetextconcerning 'b bXov have any seriousdoubts: sd8 tb 4tpoC dx6voC, dixyv GlXov iht xxri

was createdas an imageof theimageof God, i.e. thelogos of God, ...'. Here the rightway of arguingrequiresthat now the consequenceof Moses' statement is given.The textus adds another however, receptus,

ofan image, itis evident that thewhole is an image then ... "If thepart here itis manifest that 'thewhole'means is so too". From what follows world'.Thustheargument is: 'if manas 'thewholesense-perceptible partof thecosmosis an imageof God's image(= an imageof the thewholecosmosis so too". The valueof thisargument logos),then willbe discussed a formal butfrom later, pointof viewthereasoning lookssound. oneread Butwhat aboutioq? Allmanuscripts andall editions except of this is hardFrom a formal view, however, reading point r6 i!~oS. ofa 'from to thewhole'is a kind Theargument thepart acceptable. ly6,ov from 'the to how but could one part' 'the argue argument, fortiori whatdoes 'form'mean here?Fromwhat wholeform'?Moreover, Butdoesthis term itmust world. follows indicate thesense-perceptible of that world? is that indication Oursuspicion givea proper seio does I to whatfollows? But couldit belong notbelongto whatprecedes. itcould. One findsthere another fXiov think 6&r xL. This seemstobe an with condianother hisargumentation indication thatPhilocontinued
6 Philo tionalperiod.This meansthatbeforejdgeaS oi~oS arlr64 x6aogo

make five letters another et8' 6 oid g. Now thefirst started protasis: in the of that it the and this as is, seems, strange origin isog, siog, manuscripts.

This content downloaded from 79.114.148.176 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:14:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

214

J. C. M. VAN WINDEN

moresimple manner "thenit is evident thatthenoetic cosmosis the logosof God". Quod eratdemonstrandum! This conclusion asks forsome further becausePhilo explanation to a conclusion without all the jumps formulating stepsof theargument. In the previoussentencePhilo has come to the conclusionthatthe visible world is an image of God's image; in otherwords the visible worldis made afterGod's image, the logos of God. Now one should bear in mindthat earlier(Opif. 16) Philo had alreadyshownthatthe visibleworldwas made afterthe pattern of the noeticworld.Thus he has reachedtwo conclusions:1. The visiblecosmos is an image of the noeticcosmos. 2. The visiblecosmos is an image of the logos of God.

An analysisof Philo's trainof thought me yearsago to had brought whenI discovered thisconjecture, in theirLoeb thatColson-Whitaker the same solution.(They do not say a wordabout it, editionpresented in a footnote neither at thetextnorin "the supplementary listof cases, not mentioned in the footnotes, wherethe textprinted is not vouched for by any manuscript of ancient authority"(in Vol V, p. 613-4). thisconjecture as one of the cases whichthey Perhapstheyconsidered did not mention, viz., thatof a "wrongdivisionof words,in whichthe actual letters are correct". But this is not completely true here. The have a sigma too many. Moreover,the conjectureis in manuscripts itselfdeserving of mention. If one acceptsthisconjecture Philo's argumentation consistsof two stepswhichfroma formalpointof view are parallel: L B pO ..., OV 8'A7 Ott " X=l... t. f, 0 oUfL7 ..., L' OTL xo~ ... G),ov i. theargument The secondstepof runsas follows:"If thisentire sensible world,whichis greater thanman (thismustbe themeaning;theactual textwillbe discussedbelow),is an imageof a divineimage,it is evident that ..." One observesthatthisprotasistakes up the conclusion whichwas formulated in theprevious apodosis, just as thefirst protasis took up thestatement of Moses in Genesis1, 27. Thus Philo says: "If it is truethatthewholesense-perceptible worldis an imageof a divineimis theequivalent of e~ixv eix6voS; the 'divineimage Be0Seix6voS (#iErl?x age' is, of course, the divinelogos), thenit followsthat ... But what followsthen? Philo says: "then it is evidentthat the archetypal seal, which we declarethenoeticcosmos to be, is thelogos himself".Or to say it in a

This content downloaded from 79.114.148.176 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:14:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE WORLD OF IDEAS IN PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA

215

inthe be solidenough; butat a closer view itappears to be a weaklink

These two conclusionsallow Philo to draw his final conclusion: the he has shown noeticcosmos and the logos of God coincide. Herewith of Opif.24, viz., thatin theact thatthethesisproposedat thebeginning of creating coincide is supported by Moses' voirjS x6aj6oSand X6yos OeoG and, in consequence,is valid and true. authority The argumentation of Opif. 25 can be summarizedas follows: - man, being part of the cosmos, has been createdas an image of God's image(= thelogos); - thenafortiorithewholecosmoshas been createdas an imageof God's logos; - now itwas shownearlier thatthe cosmos was createdas an image of the noeticcosmos; - Ergo: noetic cosmos and logos of God coincide(in the act of creating). The previousanalysishas made the structure of the argumentation clear. But it does leave thereaderwithsome problems:1. with perfectly of thepassage, 2. withregardto theconstitution regardto thecontents of the text. ad 1. With regardto the contentstwo questionsarise: a) how could Philo make the firststep of his argumentation? How could he argue from the part to the whole, from man to sense-perceptible world? Elsewhere Philo statesthatman was createdafter theimageof God, not as a wholeconsisting of bodyand soul, but onlyin so faras he has a rationalpart,a soul. The afortioriargument shouldpresupposethatthe world, too, is a compositionof body and soul. But Philo does not subscribeto such a theory; he in factdoes not believein a world-soul. How are we to understand in thiscontext? Philo's argument One knows thathe speakssometimes of manas a micro-cosmos. Is thisidea perhaps behindthepresent thefactthattherelation argument? Notwithstanding microbetween and macro-cosmos is notone between partand whole,I am inclinedto think thatthisrelationship has led Philo to arguein the an argument whichat first seemsto wayhe does here,thusmaking sight argumentation. b) The second question concernsPhilo's thesisitself. theworldof ideas withthelogos of Whydoes he endeavourto identify God? The answer,I think,should be: because Philo triesto reduceas in his system. faras possiblethemultiplicity Thereis nota logos of God and the ideas withinhim,but thesetwo are one and the same reality. One shouldbear in mindthatPhilo does notdeal herewiththerelation-

God andhislogos.Thusitis nothisintention tostress the shipbetween

in hisadof thedivine",as Nikiprowetzky "fundamental unity suggests de l'Ecriture mirablebook, Le commentaire chez Philon d'Alexandrie,

This content downloaded from 79.114.148.176 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:14:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

216

J. C. M. VAN WINDEN

de la pseudo-multiplicit6 que p. 250, wherehe writes:"Ainsi, en d(pit et de Logos y inde mondeintellectuelle les notionsde Cause premiere, In du divinest finalement staurent, l'unit6fondamentale sauvegard(e". myview the unityconcernsthe noeticcosmos and the logos only,not the 'Firstcause'. In Opif. 16 Philo statedthatGod, beforemakingthe world,created first(xpot~iESTou)thenoeticcosmos. If sense-perceptible the noeticcosmos was createdand logos and noeticcosmos coincidein the logos was createdtoo. Thus thereis no fundamental some respect, in thedivinereality. Indeed,Philo does have in viewa fundamenunity ideas and logos. This is forhima conbut onlythatbetween tal unity, of makinghis systemmore simple,an siderablestep in the direction for. strives ideal whicheveryphilosopher ad 2. Two textualproblemsare stillto be dealt with. editionis a conditional clause, whichin thecritical a) The subordinate fromtheindirect This stems one: d I~EOvTi &vOpO~i(vlC reading ~t(v. tradition of thisPhilonictextin Eusebius,Praep. Ev. XI 24. The whole tradition has a relative clause: thepronounmaybe masculine direct (84 (8 iut'ov). (i yu(&v) or neuter IuECov)feminine an dIof Philo's argument If thereconstruction givenabove is correct, a conditionwhichis not inhere. It inserts clause is almostimpossible and in so doing weakensthe forceof the cluded in Moses' statement siof another Thus from a logicalpointof viewtheinsertion argument. of such clause would be unbearable.On theotherhand, theemergence as soon as thereading?1o0sinsteadof an sd-clause becameless offensive Et8' 6 had obscuredPhilo's way of arguing. had a relativeproThus one has to assume that the textoriginally f to x6orwo; thefeminine noun.Butwhich one?Themasculine 54refers substantive anticipatesthe feminine supposed in 'rj &vOptilvi, viz., in But thereare two arguments the neuter6 anticipates EiX?v; 1=. this has of most the feminine: the manuscript (V) important support (1) is easierto explainif tradition reading;(2) thereading Bi of theindirect

had j thanifit had b' ori6(iotacism). theoriginal

os b) The seclusionof r6d vtSeuv. Here theGer&p6Xtrno '8ro 1orTp&EIyT, werefollowed man editors byColson in theLoeb seriesand Arnaldezin thatthewordsadsti &v It is evident theLyon edition.But is it necessary? "The are an excellent conclusionof thewholeargument: EYf6 0,o0 ,6yoS seal (= the noetic cosmos) is the logos of God himself". archetypal seemsto be awkward followedby td6 Moreover nap~retLy at7t; &v siT Greek.

This content downloaded from 79.114.148.176 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:14:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE WORLD OF IDEAS IN PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA

217

Nevertheless all manuscripts have a couple of expressions herewhich are qualifications of thedivinelogos and whichone finds in manyplaces elsewhere Philo's oeuvre.Is it notpossibleto maintain these throughout here? striking qualifications One shouldbear in mindthat1. in Opif. 24-5 Philo is demonstrating the coincidenceof the noeticworldand the logos himself, and 2. that thelogos is permanently in thecourseof theargumentation present (xor' oca S dx6voS. @ g OIy dx6voS, Sxo6vx Ooo0,Eixcov When Philo thenat the end of the argument has written the words the what he intends to reader understands iV'r, already say: "the or6t,&v the But instead of noeticworld is he himself (sc. logos)". mentioning an element of tenthename of thelogos, Philo introduces immediately of the logos. sion to his statement some epithets by summing up first a littlestrokeafterortjs &v its. One could indicatethisby printing on theseepithets: One finalremark thereading givenabove is thatof the manuscriptV and of Eusebius; all other manuscriptshave tb of the ApXt~flov1rpbOcPyLh, x txv 8v. Philo speaks many times logos as &p~ruynov wapdreTyo (Opif.70; Poster. 105; Congr. 8; Somn. I 126; Spec. I 279, 327; Virt.70; Aet. 15) and severaltimesas &pX~tUno~ x (Ebr. 133; Mutat. 135, 146; leg. I 22; Her. 280). But &pXritnoC x r7v isEv seemsto me hardly acceptable,because theformula x (tcv) ta v r (yov or ga?x ~a?&t&v, does not admitany isV, just like t& &yT further qualificationof greatness.It indicates already in itselfthe of Ex. 28, 22, theappocyS highest degree.In Migr. 103 Philo, explaining ~86 tortv1i8v, xa0' iv 6 Oi~s ~ttjicaE'v (xECvj says: 'AXX' yiv?iappoary x6aiov. The logos is 1i8 O87v, the highestidea, the &pXtrtnot E8. of thesetwoexpressions. (8 rv i~3v is in facta conflation 'Apx~rutnoS to followthe othermanuscripts.2 In thiscase I would prefer

NOTES

to thefact of Opif.25 Cohndraws attention at hisGerman translation ' In a footnote a similar ideain theMidrash. that one finds 2 for artoMr.D. T. Runia this thankful I amsincerely reading (Kampen, Netherlands) ofthis the aras well as for andmaking several useful observations ticle correcting English readthe to Professor V. Nikiprowetzky ticle.I am also indebted (Paris),whokindly with mea letter of this article andwrote several helpful suggestions. manuscript

106 2312 GD Leiden, Haarlemmerstraat

This content downloaded from 79.114.148.176 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:14:10 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions