Emil Schürer writes (The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, pp. 329-331):
While this shorter explanation in a catechetical form [Questions and Answers on Genesis] was intended for more extensive circles, Philo’s special and chief scientific work is his large allegorical commentary on Genesis, Νομων ιερων αλληγοριαι (such is the title given it in Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 18. 1, and Photius, Bibliotheca cod. 103. Comp. also Origen, Comment. in Matth. vol. xvii. c. 17; contra Celsum, iv. 51). These two works frequently approximate each other as to their contents. For in the Quaestiones et solutiones also, the deeper allegorical significance is given as well as the literal meaning. In the great allegorical commentary on the contrary, the allegorical interpretation exclusively prevails. The deeper allegorical sense of the sacred letter is settled in extensive and prolix discussion, which by reason of the copious adducting of parallel passages often seems to wander from the text. Thus the entire exegetic method, with its draggin in of the most heterogeneous passages in elucidation of the idea supposed to exist in the text, forcibly recalls the method of Rabbinical Midrash. This allegorical interpretation however has with all its arbitrariness, its rules and laws, the allegorical meaning as once settled for certain persons, objects and events being afterwards adhered to with tolerable consistency. Especially is it a fundamental thought, from which the exposition is everywhere deduced, that the history of mankind as related in Genesis is in reality nothing else than a system of psychology and ethic. The different individuals, who here make their appearance, denote the different states of soul (τροποι της ψυχης) which occur among men. To analyse these in their variety and their relations both to each other and to the Deity and the world of sense, and thence to deduce moral doctrines, is the special aim of this great allegorical commentary. Thus we perceive at the same time, that Philo’s chief interest is not—as might from the whole plan of his system be supposed—speculative theology for its own sake, but on the contrary psychology and ethic. To judge from his ultimate purpose he is not a speculative theologian, but a psychologist and moralist (comp. note 183).
The commentary at first follows the text of Genesis verse by verse. Afterwards single sections are selected, and some of them so fully treated, as to grow into regular monographs. Thus e.g. Philo takes occasion from the history of Noah to write two books on drunkenness (περι μεθης), which he does with such thoroughness, that a collection of the opinions of other philosophers on this subject filled the first of these lost books (Mangey, i. 357).
The work, as we have it, begins at Gen. ii. 1; Και ετελεσθησαν οι ουρανοι και η γη. The creation of the world is therefore not treated of. For the composition, De opificio mundi, which precedes it in our editions, is a work of an entirely different character, being no allegorical commentary on the history of the creation, but a statement of that history itself. Nor does the first book of the Legum allegoriae by any means join on to the work De opificio mundi; for the former begins at Gen. ii. 1, while in De opif. mundi, the creation of man also, according to Gen. ii, is already dealt with. Hence—as Gfrörer rightly asserts in answer to Dähne—the allegorical commentary cannot be combined with De opif. mundi as though the two were but parts of the same work. At most may the question be raised, whether Philo did not also write an allegorical commentary on Gen. i. This is however improbable. For the allegorical commentary proposes to treat of the history of mankind, and this does not begin till Gen. ii. 1. Nor need the abrupt commencement of Leg. alleg. i seem strange, since this manner of starting at once with the text to be expounded, quite corresponds with the method of Rabbinical Midrash. The later books too of Philo’s own commentary begin in fact in the same abrupt manner. In our manuscripts and editions only the first books bear the title belonging to the whole work, Νομων ιερων αλληγοριαι. All the later books have special titles, a circumstance which gives the appearance of their being independent works. In truth however all that is contained in Mangey’s first vol.—viz. the works which here follow—belongs to the book in question (with the sole exception of De opificio mundi).
Emil Schürer comments:
“Νομων ιερων αλληγοριαι πρωται των μετα την εξαημερον. Legum allegoriarum liber i. (Mangey, i. 43-65). On Gen. ii. 1-17.—Νομων ιερων αλληγοριαι δευτεραι των μετα την εξαημερον. Legum allegoriarum liber ii. (Mangey, i. 66-86). On Gen. ii. 18-iii. 1a.—Νομων ιερων αλληγοριαι τριται των μετα την εξαημερον. Legum allegoriarum liber iii. (Mangey, i. 87-137). On Gen. iii. 8b-19.—The titles here given of the first three books, as customary in the editions since Mangey, require an important correction. Even the different extent of Books i. and ii. leads us to conjecture, that they may properly be but one book. In fact Mangey remarks at the commencement of the third book (i. 87, note): in omnibus codicibus opusculum hoc inscribitur αλληγορια δευτερα. Thus we have in fact but two books. There is however a gap between the two, the commentary on Gen. iii. 1b-8a being absent. The commentary too on Gen. iii. 20-23 is wanting, for the following book begins with Gen. iii. 24. As Philo in these first books follows the text step by step, it must be assumed, that each of the two pieces was worked up into a book by itself, and this is even certain with respect to the second. Hence the original condition was very probably as follows: Book i. on Gen. ii. 1-3, 1a, Book ii. on Gen. iii. 1b-3, 8a, Book iii. on Gen. iii. 8b-19, Book iv. on Gen. iii. 20-23. With this coincides the fact, that in the so-called Johannes Monachus ineditus, the commentary on Gen. iii. 8b-19 is indeed more often quoted as το γ της των νομων ιερων αλληγοριας (Mangey, i. 87, note). When on the other hand the same book is entitled as showing that the actual second book was already missing in the archetype of these manuscripts.” (The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, pp. 331-332)
F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker write (Philo, vol. 1, pp. 295-299):
A. Man Exiled. Gen. iii. 8 (1-48).
a. Man hiding from God (1-27).
Contrasted with Moses (12-14), who is open before God and shuns Distraction (“Pharaoh”).
Contrasted with Jacob (15-23), who flies from Material Temptation (“Laban”), to heights of Virtue and Witness (“Gilead”).
Contrasted with Abraham (24-27), who, loyal to God, refuses the offer of the World (King of Sodom).
b. Man taking refuge in Self (28-47).
Exod. xxii. 1 f. Rejection of God, that comes to nothing, far less heinous than thorough-going Self-exaltation (32-35).
Deut. xxvii. 15. Evil of secretly holding false opinions (36).
Exod. ii. 12. Evil of being buried in our own loose mind (37).
Gen. xv. 5. Bliss of flying from Self to God (39).
Gen. xxiv. 7—and of quitting the mortal body to be with God (42).
Exod. ix. 29—and our own mind to open all to God (43)
Exod. xxxiii. 7—of going out of Self, and seeking God, even if we fail (46 f.).
The Call. Gen. iii. 9-13 (49-64).
The Call is addressed to Mind, for Mind is capable of instruction. (Sense-perception receives no special call.)
The Question, “Where art thou?” capable of being taken in other ways.
The Answer of Mind comes to this, “there where fear is, and hiding from Thee, and nakedness of virtue” (49-55).
The words “gavest with me” imply the freedom of Sense-perception, which apprehends simultaneously with Mind, and gives it occasions of apprehending (“She gave it me”) (56-58).
The Answer of Sense-perception is pertinent, though she says “I ate,” when asked about Adam’s eating, for Mind concurs at once with Sense-perception.
And she rightly says “beguiled,” for, while Sense-perception gives without any guile, Pleasure falsifies the object (59-64).
Pleasure, Evil in Origin. Gen. iii. 14 (65-106)
God cursing the serpent (viz. Pleasure), without giving him an opportunity to defend himself, is paralleled with God slaying Er (Gen. xxxviii. 7), without bringing an open charge against him. Slain Er is the Body, a corpse from the first, and the soul knows itself best to be a corpse-bearer when perfected (65 ff.).
How the God of Goodness came to create Er and the Serpent, we are not told. We are told that creation is due to the goodness of God (75 ff.).
And the Book of the Law affords many examples of wide divergence in original endowments. Noah “finds grace in the sight of the Lord,” and Melchizedeck is made His “Priest” and “King of peace,” no previous merit being mentioned in either case (79 ff.). (Philo stops to contrast M. with the Moabites and Ammonites, who failed to bring forth bread and mater, Deut. xxiii. 3 f.) Abram was created good, and led to a better city. Isaac, who is compared with Hope, was richly endowed before birth. The lots of Jacob and Esau were told when they were unborn (82). Ephraim and Manasseh have names denoting, the one Memory and its Fruitfulness, the other escape only from Forgetfulness (94). Bezalel called to a position, which he is not said to have earned, bears a name meaning “In the shadow of God” and is taught by Moses, while Moses is taught by God. In view of all this we must pray and ponder God’s goodness (95-103).
The Curse on Pleasure. Gen. iii. 14 (107-199).
Its Ground, 107-110.
Its Fitness, 111-114.
Its Content, 115-199.
Content of the Curse—115-159. Posture and Motion.
On the Breast (115-137).
The Breast the seat of high spirit—the Urim and Thummim there point to Aaron’s control of high spirit which Moses whole exscinds (Lev. viii. 29).
On the Belly.
Appropriate to Pleasure whose lover goes “on” or “after” the belly and the four passions (138 f.).
The perfect man contrasted with the man of gradual improvement in their dealing with self-indulgence (140-144).
The belly the basis of all passions (145-150). Note: Breast cut out, while the belly is washed, for it is indispensible (147).
Bodily necessity compels us to go forth from the house of wisdom—girded with Reason—putting out of sight all that is unreasonable (151-158).
161-181. Food. The earth body feeds on earth.
Contrast of the “Bread out of Heaven,” “the day’s portion for the day,” like dew—prolific as coriander-seed—like hoar-frost, called “What is it?” (Deut. viii. 3).
Contrast “The God who feedeth me,” said by Jacob, with “I will nourish thee,” by Joseph—true son of Rachel (“Give me children”).
Enmity (182-199).
The Combatants (185-187).
Their Warfare (188).
Jacob grips the heel of Esau, the man who says “Mine,” a word for God only to use (189-199).
The Discipline. Gen. iii. 16-19 (200-253).
Of the Woman (Gen. iii. 16) (200-245).
Grief the lot of Sense-perception (200).
Contrast God confirming good to Abraham by an oath (201-203).
Discussion of oath taken by God (204-208).
Groaning—good and bad (211 continued from 200).
Subjection to her husband (220 ff.).
Num. xxi. 27ff., the women adding to the fire. Potiphar’s wife contrasted with Joseph and Phinehas. Sarah. Hagar (224 ff.).
Of the Man (Gen. iii. 17 ff.) (246-253).
Due to Serpent. Thorns. Grass. Return to Earth.
Leave a Reply