allegory homer

7/27/2019 Allegory Homer

1/18

Homeric Scholarship and Bible Exegesis in Ancient Alexandria: Evidence from Philo's'Quarrelsome' ColleahuesAuthor(s): Maren R. NiehoffSource: The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 1 (May, 2007), pp. 166-182Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4493482 .

Accessed: 26/07/2013 08:09

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 [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.26.205.145 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:09:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4493482?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4493482?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/18


3/18

HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 167Furthermore,the evidence from Philo suggests that Aristarchusenjoyed popularityin various scholarly circles.5During the Augustan period Aristonicus and Didymusrecorded and discussed Aristarchus' work, drawing new attention to him andproducing a student as famous as Philo's contemporary Apion.6 Jewish participationin 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 toappreciate his own views on the application of Homeric hermeneutics in order toevaluate the nature and reliability of his testimony. While praising Homer as theforemost poet, 'most highly esteemed among the Greeks', Philo hardlymentioned thestudy of his works.7Important insight, however,may be gained from an investigationinto the classical terms of Homeric scholarship, namely ?iqyr"Taand Jir6propla. Philooccasionally tolerated or even welcomed an inquiry into Scripturethat was based onthese 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'screation (LXX Gen. 1.26-7).Philo approvingly mentions a q'rlCqa n man's place in the creation, which hadbeen discussed by some of his colleagues:'E7TtLSyUEELE'iV Tt' T,)v alTl-av,(' 7"),v"o-`ar6vEUTLvpcp7To T" rTOV,o"CrpovSomeoneight inquire into the reason why it is that man was created last with regard tohepafLSvtOVuW,tpyauaTO. A7YOVAU 01) d T V/tow ~7ri rXE/ovqfga~vZvaVTES KClL 'r& KCLTOaVTOV9ws EVL UT1)L VLE7Tramp/kE La7EWS- aKpL/3OvvTEor TSp)aVTOi3UVYYEVElCSr

PLETa5O.I6S 0 OEOS cLOpWS7Tw) TSp) AoytK?S, -7q'Tg aplOTS)(SUpTWEW 57, Ot(E TW a"AAwvo0v0"VE1,V AA'C04O1KELtoTa.TWatOaATa'TWc w T ElKO/VO) STa)aTp 7TpOLp.C/uaTO/ovA'r7lE'SEVOIJEvOv5TOvIfEvO& arop-qig7cLtW TpoSE TON 7VKat To E) 7NV.Someonemight nquire nto the reasonwhyit is that manwascreated ast withregard o thecreationof the cosmosfor,as the holywritingsreveal, he Creatorand Fathermadehimlastafterall the others. ndeed, hose whoimmersehemselvesurthern theLawsandinvestigate

5 Aristarchus'nfluencen scholarly irclesmust be distinguishedromhis influenceon thevulgate ext of the Iliad.Didymusalreadydistinguished etweenAristarchus'eadings ndatKoLval(schol.11.5.797) or a' qtbk 5ELS (schol. Il. 5.881). See also M. L. West, Studies in the TextandTransmissionf theIliad Munich-Leipzig,001),50-2, 61-7;id., 'Thetextual riticism ndediting of Homer', in G. W Most, Editing Texts: Texteedieren,Aporemata2 (G6ttingen, 1998),99,wherehe stressesAristarchus'nfluence n thenumerusersuum;M. Finkelberghowed hatAristarchus ardly nfluenced he readingsof the Homeric ext, while he did have a crucialimpactonthe numerusersuumM.Finkelberg, "She urnsabout nthe samespotandwatchesforOrion": ncientcriticism ndexegesisof Od.5.274= Il. 18.488',GRBS44 (2004),231-44;ead.,'Regionalextsand thecirculation f books: hecase of Homer',GRBS46(2006),231-48;see also K. McNamee,Aristarchos nd "Everyman's"omer',GRBS22 (1981),247-55;J. I.Porter,Hermeneuticines and circles:Aristarchos nd Crateson the exegesisof Homer', nR. Lamberton and J. J. Keaney (edd.), Homer's Ancient Readers.:The Hermeneuticsof GreekEpic's EarliestExegetes (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 alsoAbr.10;Philorefersonly ngeneralerms o his 'reading ndstudyof thewritings f thepoets' Congr. 4) nthecontextof hisown nstructionngrammar;eealsoR. Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind. Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt(Princeton-Oxford,001),194-7;M.Finkelberg,Homerasa foundationext', nead. andG. G.Stroumsa(edd.), Homer,the Bible and Beyond(Leiden, 2003), 75-96.8 Fordetails, eeM. R. Niehoff, Questions ndanswersnPhiloandGenesisRabbah', tudiaPhilonicaAnnual 2007),forthcoming;n Philo's ormulation f canonicity, eeead.,Philo onJewish dentity nd CultureTiibingen, 001),187-209;Siegert n.4), 172-6.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


4/18

168 MARENR. NIEHOFFthoroughlyndwithallscrutiny,s muchas ispossible,nto thethingsconcerninghem,saythatGodaftergivingmana share n hiskinshipwithregardo thelogical aculty,whichwasthe bestof allgifts,did notbegrudge imanyof theotherseither, utprepared verythingnthe cosmosforhimas for the most familiar ndbeloved reature, ishing hatuponbeingcreated e shouldnot lackanything eedful o live and to livewell.(Opif.77)9

Philo has nothing but praise for these scholars, whose work is in his view informedby the highest degree of scrutiny and precision. He wholeheartedly embraces theirinterpretation, paraphrasing not only their basic solution, but also the parable theysubsequently provided for illustration.1' His description of their activity moreoversuggests that they systematicallyapplied themselves to the interpretationof Scripture,'investigating ... into the things concerning them [the Laws]'. The expression


5/18

HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 169the sequence of creation, with man placed at the end, may indicate his low value. Atstake is the precise message conveyed by Scripture.The ,Avtosprovided by the literalexegetes is much to Philo's liking, because it confirms man's centrality as God's mostbeloved 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( q'r'za-ra tradition had been far more subversive. Aristotle confronted fundamentalquestions concerning the logical consistency, historical truth, and moral propriety ofthe Homeric epics.13 The first Jew known to have raised explicit questions concerningthe Biblical text also proceeded in a more critical spirit. Demetrius, an AlexandrianJew 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 Egyptunarmed'.14He also asked 'why did Joseph give Benjamin a five-fold portion at themeal even though he would not be able to consume so much meat?'15Both questionsindicate that Demetrius addressed issues of apparent inconsistency in Scripture.TheBiblical notice about the Israelites' war against the Amalekites seemed to contradictthe earlier information about their lack of weapons during the Exodus from Egypt.Joseph's measure to Benjamin appeared illogical in view of Benjamin's physicalcapacities. To be sure, Demetrius provided answers justifying the Biblical text. Itremains remarkable, however, that he approached Scripture intellectually open toconsideration of its inconsistencies.The question raised by Philo's exegetes instead looks as if it had been invented forthe sake of providing an interesting solution. It serves as a spring-board for aninterpretation which may have been ready beforehand. This feature fits the milieu inAlexandria that saw an inflation of Homeric questions. Aristarchus complainedabout this phenomenon, accusing its practitioners of 'wanting to invent /rqjltara'.16Philo's literal exegetes seem to havebelonged to an environment where questions wereno longer put to actual text-critical use, but rather served more general hermeneuticpurposes. In certain circles they had become something of a stylistic device. Philo'sexegetes thus did not participate in the discourse of hard-core Homeric criticism, butratherbelonged to a milieu that was loosely inspired by the scholarlymethods withoutrigorously applying them.This observation is further supported by the fact that these exegetes show nointellectual affinity to the Peripatos, the school most influential in text-criticalAlexandrian scholarship.17 The above quoted interpretation instead relies on Plato'sTimaeus, where man is presented as a creature endowed with divine reason and

13 Arist.Apor.Hom. inV.Rose,AristotelisFragmenta(Leipzig,1886), rs.142-79; ee also N. J.Richardson,Aristotle'seading f Homerand tsbackground',n LambertonndKeaney n.5),30-40; M. Carroll, Aristotle's Poetics, c. XXV in the Light of the Homeric Scholia (Baltimore,1895),10-13.14 Editionand translationwithmy emendations) y C. R. Holladay,FragmentsromHelle-nistic Jewish Authors(Chico, 1983), 1.76 = Euseb. Praep.evang.9.29.16 (r7TtIr-Ei^v E Tva r(0jSo1 'IparqAiYat irAa 'uaXov Ivo7TAo\ 'EAO'SElSr). Demetrius' importance in terms of criticalscholarship has been stressed by Y. Gutman, The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature(Jerusalem,969;Hebrew), .138-9;Kamesarn. 1, 1994),219-21.'1 Holladay (n. 14), 1.70 = Euseb. Praep. evang 9.21.14 (&ta7opEdOat S' td T rtTorE'Iwac)75 EVLa1LiV7T oL O)dpt'roV rEvTa7TvrhaalovaIEpLPaC'WKE [4'T 8vvajuE'vOVc'vro0Uoaa6TaKa-ravahcLaaLppa).16 Schol. II. 10.372.

17 Fordetailson the connectionbetweenAlexandriancholarship ndAristotle, eebelow.



6/18


7/18

HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 171work based on Aristotle's model.22Furthermore, the above JirrdprlyLaelates to theTorah 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 aspeech considered unusual. This approach closely parallels the kind of literarycriticism in the spirit of Aristotle's Poetics, which has been identified especially in theexegetical scholia and also in Aristarchus'work.23Philo clearlywas ambivalent about this To'rdpr-la. nstead of lavishing praise on itsexpounders, as he did in the previous case, he admits that their question is raised 'notwithout justification'. He furthermore reports their approach only fragmentarily.While he reported the full details of the previous question and answer,omitting noteven the parable, in this case he transmits only the question without providing theanswergiven by the literal exegetes themselves.Abruptly terminatinghis report, Philoinstead formulates his own question in a highly pointed, if not sarcastic, tone. It isthus difficult to reconstruct the exegetes' own interpretation.Wemay, however,gain aclue from Philo's apologetics. When sharply asking his readerswhether one can reallythink of God, the creator of the whole cosmos, as someone in need of collaboratorswhen it comes to the creation of man, Philo seems to give an ironic twist precisely tothe kind of claim that had been made, namely that God needed a helper for thecreation of man.Philo's own solution to the problem raised by the literal exegetes characteristicallyreflects a Platonic spirit. Inspired by the Timaeus,he devotes all his exegetical effortsto provingthat the plural in ToL477wVEEvas ethical significance. God relied on 'othersasif oncollaborators'o asto shunresponsibilityorman's vil nclinations(Opif.75).24Onlyman'spiritualspects,einsists,were reatedntheDivinemage,whileall his nferior ualitiesriginatedromGod's ssistants.hilo'sheologicalAvatsnthe image of Plato's Timaeusthus replaces the original solution of the literal exegetes,who had beeninspiredby Aristotle'sapproach.Thisprocedure onforms o a moregeneral endencyn Philo'swork.Onother mportant ccasionshedistancedhimselffrom the Aristotelianorientationprevailingn Alexandria,counteringPeripateticinfluence among his fellow Jews.25 He advocated Plato rather than Aristotle as athinkercongenial to Judaism.Philo was committed to upholding proper standardsofspeaking about God, rejecting an inquiry into the Hebrew Bible that was not boundby certain theological considerations. It now remains for us to investigate how hereacted to a branch of literal exegesis that went, in his view, far beyond what wasproper.

22 N. J.Richardson,AristotlendHellenisticcholarship',nF.Montanaried.),LaphilologiegrecquedI'p1oquehellknistique t romaine Geneva, 1993), 7-28.23 N. J.Richardson,Literaryriticism n theexegeticalcholia o theIliad:a sketch',CQ30(1980), 265-87; Richardson (n. 22), 23-5; Porter (n. 5), 74-80; D. Liihrs, Untersuchungenu denAthetesen Aristarchs in der Ilias and zu ihrer Behandlungim Corpusder exegetischen Scholien(Olms,1992),13-17.24 Cf. Tim.41B-E,where he lowerdeitiesaresaid to be responsibleor theinferiorbodilyaspectsof man.Beingcreated hemselves,heyensure hatman will not be immortal.Philo,bycontrast,does notexplain heoriginandnature f God'scollaborators.25 See hispolemicsagainstAristotelian iewsof creation, iscussed yM. R.Niehoff, Philo'scontribution o contemporaryAlexandrianmetaphysics',n D. Brakke,A.-C. Jacobsen,andJ. Ullrich (edd.), Beyond 'Reception'.Mutual InfluencesbetweenAntique Religion, Judaism andEarly Christianity Frankfurt,2006), 35-55.



8/18

172 MAREN R. NIEHOFFPhilopassed he following udgementon certain iteralexegeteswhoapplied heiracumen o thechangeof Abraham's nd Sarah's ames:

AEyEcraLapoTL00 Kr76qOUcrTcatLr-,vota urov fpc4, A' a-ratTOovo6 auov A/paac4'(Gen. 17.5). EvLOt oVoi0v -rov,thacrrlTExlO

wV KOaL,WLOUsvETOELS

'a/oWtkotL7Tpoa7TTEtV

JOEAO'VTwvt UaotCpaULttAAovq 7pdytLaLUt at rTTOAEOVaK'PVKKTOVTOAEPOPvTWV0TOEpOrg r7Tav'aa t TO7rV7eTPEaYlpno ,E al 6OKEA iblto ,a walwle A aKpnvTTEOcatLtAoardl e7rtpXovra ETaKpe tLO~ ErPEavr7S26 9an oaaVtrav TrE7T wageoAropoEpovatL, 8taq0EpOVTWSE TLS Trgv V3vopLcTOV(T.LaaETOUEL. ralTTP77Tv 7)KOvuaaXAEV6oVToS Kcl KaLaKEpToLOVVToSov6po LEp oOaE31oN, it E,'A/lcLa"ELv E LEtYaACLLn-dKa~tre7TEprp Aovaat olWpEa,"i~sa rero Macwb c yesLcial 7thV8OchJav pEYELVTO atXElOVgrpoaO-der ,toy m Ans a, taOLXEOVTEPtLTr727aLiTnagLVic p. 7TpoUtETELao bOavLaaCr77v7ApKroqviOnEVhEV'pyEUOlav7rapEUax7uOatt28T7Vaf3praLyvvasKa o6lpav6ppavovotaahE8& rONP O7tapaoayLW'vKata oaa OLOtrLpo7T VVEepwvrTvEVUTsKwal EMoTrLCpK'ISW)VtLea LEreL"t.roi dEVOoVrpvoEVo/hAa3EtaSofK Els oLaKpavWKEl pVapoL OUp aoV 8ltK77vCd7Tyap 1KtpaasaCLt s TVXOvfn pOta)EwrEtr,aYrXVV s ~Ev, oh Laps KL ~vHKmOaprTOS/17,aEKaOapo)OavLTW EAEVT9'O7.LKCrLWS'() LV'7VE~L~STEp TOV)7) KaN"TEPOVOES'LTOLS^,AJvat TLSv7TrovolaEaKKO6aaPLLEV,atLOAOyOVVTE9a a7TOSLKVVVTETar EY'tyLEva aVTa7TrLU'17s27~4LTL'a a7rov.

For t is said hat your ame hallnolonger e calledAbram,utyournamewillbe Abraam'(LXXGen. 17.5).Some,however, f thosewholovequarrel ndalwayswish to attachblame o blamelesshings,not so muchregarding xternalmattersbut the very meaning,29nd of thosewho wageanundeclaredwaragainstholythingsreproach y calumny,speciallyhechangesof names,afterhavingdeprecated ymeansof a detailed nquiryall thethingswhichseemto themcannotbepreserved s appropriaten the literalsense,although hese are in realitysymbolsof naturewhichever ikes o hide.I have ustnowheard roma godlessandimpious ellowwho wasjestingandrailingviolently,having he effronteryo say:'greatand surpassingndeedarethe giftswhichMosessaystheLeaderof allprovided.Forbytheadditionof a letter,onesinglealpha,a superfluousetter,andagain by the addition of anotherletter,a rho, He seems to havegiven from Himself anextraordinarilyreatgiftnamingSara hewife of AbrahamSarrabydoubling herho'. And atthe sametime he continued o go in detailthroughall similar asesspeakingbreathlesslyndsneering atthem].Not before onghepaidthesuitable enalty or hisinsanity.Fora minorandtrivialallegationhe rushed o thehangingbuttress o thatthefilthyand mpureellowcamenotevento a cleandeath.Rightly hen, norder o prevent nyone lsebeingcaughtbythesame literalnterpretations]e

26 Cohn/Wendland,d loc., suggesta substantialemendationof the text addingo'K orreplacing LETdy l'xa.Yet hemanuscriptext sgrammaticallyorrect,husnotwarrantingnychange,andits contentsbecomesperfectly learwhenwe consider he continuation f Philo'scriticism:he accusesthe 'quarrelsome' ible critics of havingstudiedall the cases of namechanges husgroundingheirattackon a broadand detailedanalysis Mut. 61).WhileCohn'sconjecturewas unfortunately cceptedby the EnglishtranslatorColson, it has rightlybeenrejected ythe French ranslatorArnaldez.27 Cohn/Wendland,d loc., puttheexpressionTroLXELCTEpLTTEVELn brackets.followColson andArnaldez,whoaccept he formrestored y Markland, amely otOLXELOVTEPLTTO77.We shallmoreover ee below hatthisexpressionitswell nto theoverall xegetical pproach ftheseexegetes.28 Cohn/Wendland,dloc., suggesta lacuna, ssuminghat Philo must nitiallyhavepointedto theetymological xplanationf Abraham's ame.This s possible,but not at allnecessary.

29 Theexpression i3acTpauLL,uAAovi) 7TpdyoLaashighlyunusual.Colson ranslatednot somuch to materialhingsas to actionsand ideas' Philo n TenVolumes, oebClassicalLibrary[Cambridge,MA, 1981], .173).Myowntranslationnstead eflectsheStoicdistinction etweencwv7r, he actualwordspoken,arl/LLVEvov irp7ayta,hemeaningunderstood y thehearerand TvyXLvov,the actualobjectspokenof (SVF 2.166). Throughouthis discussionof thechangesof namesPhilo stresses heunderlyingmeaning onveyed ythem,seeesp.hisreferenceto ra 8~E VYXvLvovTampliednthechange romZd'pao dappaMut.77).



9/18

HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 173wish to eliminateheunderlyingmeanings,xplainingromnaturalprinciples ndshowing hatthesethingswhichhavebeensaid[in Scripture]reworthyof most seriousattention.(Mut.60-2)

Philo evidently dislikes the above mentioned exegetes to such a degree that hisrhetoric obscures their actual activities. It is exceedingly difficult for the modernreader to recover the precise features of their work. Initially therefore, we have toanalyse Philo's own comments, which form the editorial layer and must bedistinguished from the exegetes' self-image. Only after appreciating the particularthrust of Philo's criticism can we begin to analyse the few bits of actual informationthat he provides.It will thus be possible to reconstruct a particular scholarly approachto 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 onemember. Both of them teem with accusations. Characterizing the whole group, hesays that they 'love quarreland alwayswish to attach blame to blameless things'. Theyare also said to 'reproachby calumny'and 'deprecate by means of a detailed enquiry'.All of these terms are highly loaded, suggesting that these exegetes are sinful Jewswho cause internal strife by adopting an outsider's perspective on the Hebrew Bible.Initially, the term tLAarrqEXOlyOtvwvefers in Philo's writings predominantly to Jewswho fail to show sufficient loyalty to their fellow-Jews either by rejoicing over theirmisfortunes or generally behaving as complete strangers.30 Philo says that joining theJewish community implies, among other things, becoming friendly with men, whilethose who 'rebel from the holy laws' become 'quarrelsome' (Virt. 182). He clearlyexpects that Jews foster unity among each other. The harmony of the community maybe disturbed, Philo complains, when some 'lovers of quarrel' compare the story ofIsaac's binding to cases of child sacrifice in Greek and barbarian culture (Abr. 178).Philo rejectssuch a comparison, making considerable efforts to show the unique valueof the Biblical story. Certain literal interpretations were thus identified by Philo asstemming from 'quarrelsome' quartersof the Jewishcommunity.Theirexegesis was inhis eyes equal to other activities of disloyalty and deserved to be uprooted.Philo moreover describes the exegetes as 'attachingblame to blameless things'. Theterms fowftosand ~Luw~os-egularly occur in Philo's writings in the context ofsacrifice, identifying priests and animals as either ritually fit or unfit.31 In somecontexts, however, Philo extends his discussion to the metaphorical realm, speakingof spiritual blamelessness. Besides some general statements,32 he repeats one specifictheme: blameless is the soul that acknowledges God as the cause of everything,preserving His gifts undamaged and perfect.33The arts and sciences, Philo insists,must also be recognized as havingtheir cause and ultimate purpose in God (Her. 116).They are gifts which must not be harmed by putting them to irreverent use. WhenPhilo thus accuses some Jewish exegetes of 'attaching blame to blameless things', heimplies that they profane Scripture which had been donated as a gift by God. Thecanonical text, naturally pointing to God's sovereignty,has in his view been damagedby a kind of exegesis that gives too much consideration to human judgement.

30 See esp. Mos. 1.248;Spec.1.241;Jos.226;Fuga5. Two of the ten occurrences efertohostility hownbynon-Jewso Jews Virt.34;InFlacc.52).For heanalysis f Philonickey-termsI relyon P.Borgen, K. Fluglseth and R. Skarsten, The Philo Index:A Complete Word ndex to theWritingsof Philo of Alexandria(Leiden, 2000).31 Philo, Spec. 1.117, 166, 242, 259, 268;Mut. 233; Somn. 2.185.32 Philo, All. 3.141; Cher.85; Sobr. 11.33 Philo,All. 1.50;Her. 114-23.



10/18


11/18

HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 175moreover ndicatesthat he has been executednot too long ago.37His readersareexpectedto recognizethe case and to be familiarwith the circumstances.Philohimself does not specify hecause, nsteadsuggestinga generalconnectionbetweenblasphemous ermeneutics ndexecution.The latterwasin his view a well-deservedpunishment.The fact thatonly'a minorand trivialallegation'wasputforward t theofficial trial implies that Divine providencewas at play. Philo's biased reportresembles o a strikingdegreehis presentationof Flaccus,the Romanprefect nAlexandriaunderTiberius. n hiscase,too, he saidnothingaboutthe trial tself,butinsteadused it to teacha lesson n Divineprovidence.He suggested hatFlaccuswastriedand executedbytheRomans,becausehe hadmaltreatedheJews.38 odmerelyused the Romancourtas an instrument f retribution. he historical eality,however,musthavebeen ratherdifferent,heRomanshaving heirown reasons orprosecutingFlaccus.Philoclearlywished o setupthisfigureas a signof assurance o his readersthat no enemyof the Jewswill go unpunished or long. The sameholds true for'quarrelsome'ontemporariesromwithinthe Jewish ommunity. hilosawthem asenemiesof the Jewishnationwhobring imilarpunishment n themselves s Flaccus.Havingappreciated hilo'sgeneralattitudeandrhetoric,we are now in a positionto analysehis reportabout the methods of the literalexegetes.The first bit ofinformationwe receiveabouttheirwork s theirrefusal o read heBibleallegorically.Philocomplains hattheyattachblame not so muchregardingxternalmattersbutto theverymeaning'Mut.60).Theymissthe real ntentionof Scripture,ecause heydo not recognizehe 'symbolsof naturewhichever ikes to hide'(ibid.).Philohopesto mend the damage they havecausedby pointing to 'the underlyingmeanings,explaining rom naturalprinciplesand showingthat thesethingswhichhave beensaid [in Scripture] re worthyof most serious attention' Mut. 62). Interpretationaccording o nature s in Philo'swritingsa regularermforan allegorical eadingofScripture.He sometimesapprovinglymentionsallegoriesby VULoKOLv)pEs.39 Theliteralexegetescriticizedby Philo obviously belong to the opposite camp.Theirneglectof allegory s not accidental,butrepresents consciousapproach.Philosaysabout themin anothercontext that they 'areunwilling o applythemselves o theinward acts of thingsand followafter ruth'.40Philoprovidesalso somepositiveclues nto theirmethod.Hisaccusation hatthey'reproachby calumny, especially the change of names' conveys some crucialinformation Mut.60). It impliesthat theseexegetes ocused on a particularopic,such as thechangeof names.Theystudiedreferenceso a particularhemethrough-out Scripture.This is preciselywhatthe exegete,who was executed, s said to have

37 Scholars enerally nderstoodPhiloto refer o suicide Colson,adloc.;Shroyern. 2],279;Hay [n. 10],92).A parallel ase n Spec.3.161maysupporthis view.Anotherpassage,however,proves ar morerelevant, ecausehangingappears ere npreciselyhe samecontextof dyingan'unclean eath' Aet.20).InthispassagePhiloexplicitly numeratesangingamong hewaysofdying hatcometo mennot'fromwithin hemselves'(JsavTr&v),but fromoutside'(trr678 TvCKTdS). Execution ather han suicide s also meant n Mut.62,wherePhilomentionsa 'minorandtrivialallegation'.38 See esp. In Flacc. 147-52, discussed by P. van der Horst, Philo's Flaccus.:The First Pogrom.

Introduction,ranslationndCommentary,hilo of AlexandriaCommentary eries2 (Leiden,2003),219-29;Niehoff(n.8),40-1, 133-6.39 Seee.g.Abr.99,discussed yM. R. Niehoff, Motherandmaiden, isterandspouse:Sarahin PhilonicMidrash',HThR97(2004),431-3.40 QG3.53treatinghe same nterpretersf thechangeof Abraham's ndSarah's ames.Thispassageis only preservedn an Armenian ranslation, ransl. R. Marcus n Loeb ClassicalLibrary uppl.vol. 1).



12/18

176 MAREN R. NIEHOFFdone: 'he continued o go in detailthroughall similarcases'(Mut.61). This literalapproachwas based on a broadandcomparativetudyof Biblicalphenomena.TheHebrewBible was studied n its entiretyand investigatedwith a view to recurringexpressionsor similarcases.Philo'sreport s our firsttestimony o sucha methodbeingusedamongJews. ts initialoccurrencenthe Alexandrian ewish ommunityshighly significant. t suggests hat the application f this methodwas the resultof adeepacculturationo the Hellenistic nvironment. heseJewish xegeteshadadopteda method of Homericscholarshiphat came to be known as "IOprlpov6" Oftapovoao qvt'ELw.41Aristarchuswas the foremost scholar associated with this maxim.42AsJamesI. Porterhas shown,he rejectedallegoryand instead looked for a solutionwithinthe corpusof the Homeric ext (seen. 5). Aristarchusnvestigated articularHomericexpressions nd theirparallelswith a view to thepoet'scharacteristicsage(7oto7-LtKOV 00s).43 He also studiednames by comparing hem to their paralleloccurrencesn otherpassagesof the Iliad.44Aristonicus aid of Aristarchus hat he'studiedhomonyms'schol.Il. 2.837-8).A furtherpieceof evidence mergeswhenPhilosaysthat heseexegetesdeprecated... all the thingswhich, t seemsto them,cannot be preserved s appropriaten theliteral sense' (Mut. 60). The crucial expression is: irrTv0'aouai EV7rrpE7FErrivAdywl8cau ?ELv 0KE^.t is onlyhere hatPhilouses heverb taoua ina hermeneuticcontext.45tis nota technicalermof Homericcholarship.46etPhilo hus eems ohave referredo an exegeticalechniquehat was not onlyusedby his Jewishcolleagues,but also by Homericscholars.Thetechnique have n mindis athetesis.Philo's reference to EVtrrpE7T supports this conjecture. He explains that consider-ations of fittingness rappropriatenesserecrucial n theexegetes'decisionwhethera particulartemin Scriptureouldbe 'preserved'. videntlyherewereJewishBiblescholars n Alexandriawho studiedScriptureby examiningwhethera passageorword in questionconformedto certain standardsof propriety.They treated thecanonicaltext as a piece of literature o whichthe regularscholarlymethodsofanalysis an beapplied.Sometimes, s in the caseof the Biblicalnamechanges, heseexegeteswere highly critical, suggestingthat a certain Biblical item cannot bemaintained.Theprecisemeaningof theirmethodcan best beappreciatedy lookingatparallelcases in the scholia. The term E,3rpETErsis characteristicof the bT scholia, where it isoftenused to justifythe text aspoeticallyandmorallyappropriate,speciallyn suchcases whereseriousexegeticalproblemshad arisen.47 he truecause of the TrojanWarwas discussedn suchterms.Several choliastswereacutelyaware f thefact thatthe Cypriaprovidedan alternative pproach, uggesting hat Zeusplanned he war

41 Porph. Quaest.Hom.II. 297, quotedand discussedby Porter n. 5), 70-7. C. Schaublin,'Homerum x Homero',MH 34 (1977),221-7, suggestedhat thisexegeticalmaximwasratherwidespreadn the mperialeriod ndnotconfinedo the rammatikoi.42 Porter n. 5), 70-4, arguedagainstR. Pfeiffer,Historyof ClassicalScholarshiprom theBeginningso the Endof the HellenisticAge (Oxford,1968),231, for the probability f theAristarchanriginof the maxim.43 Schol.II. 1.499; ee also 9s o80sairJ in schol. Il. 5.734-6;similarlyn schol.II. 5.299,5.684.44 E.g.schol.Il. 5.708.45 The verboccurs hirty-threeimes hroughout hilo'swork,otherwiseeferringo salvationin a historical r ethical ense see eg. Abr.98, 177;Leg.328).46 The scholiastsuse it onlyonce n thegeneral enseof salvationschol.II.20.335); ee indexbyH. Erbse,ScholiaGraecan Homeri liademBerlin,1983),6.309.47 E.g.schol.II.8.362, 139-40,9.316,334-6;20.94-5.



13/18

HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 177against Troy and incited the Trojans by setting up a beauty contest between Hera,Athena and Aphrodite in which Paris, the judge, preferredthe latter.48On this view,the war emerged as Hera's revengefor her insult. Homer, by contrast, suggested thattension between Zeus and Hera prompted the war.Troywas actually Zeus's preferredcity, which he, however,surrenderedto Hera, who insisted that her dislike of that cityand its inhabitants must at least have some visible effect (1. 4.25-9). While severalscholiasts, including Aristarchus, stressed Homer's ignorance of the version found inthe Cypria,49 a scholiast in the bT tradition tackles what was in his eyes a seriousdifficulty in the Homeric text:8ta TL 6t Atkv ZE's 1Htav, -q 6E` Hpa TpELs ULIv EXELt 7TTOAELSkcOta~T, Kat I/ /qtE''EAA-qlvas, 06 E ip/apov; E'SEL yap Ta KpELaUovas TO)v EaLTA4a TWv OEC3v E'XELvqOLAT'Ta?.whydid Zeussaythathe has one[beloved ity],whileHerasaysshe hasthreebeloved ities,sheevenhavingGreek cities],whilehe has a barbarian ne,fornecessarilyhekingof godsmusthave he best onesas hisbeloved cities]. (schol.II.4.51--2)

This drordprltaerives from the assumption of a strict hierarchy among the gods.The highest god must therefore be associated with the greater number and betterquality of cities. Given the philhellenic spirit of the scholiasts in the bT tradition, thisalso implies Greek cities for Zeus.S5 The Homeric text, however, violates thesesensitivities, associating Troy with Zeus. For the scholiast it was inconceivable thatZeus should have been on the side of the barbarians. Homer's sympathy for theopponents of the Greeks and his lack of an overt nationalism were simply passe,clashing with the exegete'sown world view. On the other hand, the scholiast wished topreservethe Homeric text rather than accept the version of the Cypria.The problemis solved by referenceto propriety:P-7TEoF A Tt EV7TPEI?73OvA6/TLEVOSTEpLqE-vcLLUTI tTII lta lOJTSOpyIS 6I TOLI/Tlq,KatOVX qv 01160o5 avararaTTEL,O ?pa 6 A.TO 1u?7 pOTtq7qOIvatl T77s?poTJr SJET t7) KplaUETO) KOAAhoVSOi TpwoatvXaA,&rawtv,TMlTrq6ESavTasrbltv avTl7v TSTOr7TAE(LtAELv,7TEptS TOToLSaKaT KKaT/lV EAEIv-qVEYOVEVone mustsaythatthepoet,wishing o bestowuponhera becoming eason or herwrathandnotthe one whichmythhadfabricated, amely hat she wasangryat theTrojans ecause hehadnotbeenpreferredo Aphroditenthebeauty ontest,purposefullyaidthatshe ikes hesecitieson accountof which hewrong oncerningHelenwasdone. (schol.II.4.51-2)The scholiast suggests that Homer chose his version wisely, thus dismissing the onefound in the Cypria.This explanation is subsequently expanded, either by the samescholiast or some colleague in the same tradition. It is argued that the Cypric versioncannot be reconciledwith the storyabout Hera'sborrowingof Aphrodite's elt in

48 Cypria 1,apudProclus,ChrestomacyI (ed.H. G.Evelyn-White).49 Schol.II. 4.32, 4.51, 4.52; see also the fine discussionbyA. Severyns, e cycle 'piquedansl'icole d'AristarqueLiege-Paris, 928),261-4,showing hatHomer n fact knew healternativeversion,whichwas,however, ehemently ejectedby Aristarchus,who wished to preserveheHomeric picfromanycontaminationysuchmythicmaterial.50 Thephilhellenicrientation f thebTscholia s conspicucus ight rom hebeginning,eeschol.II. 1.1,2; see also schol. II. 11.197,15.618,16.814-15,17.220-32; or broaderdiscussionand other references,see M. Schmidt, Die Erkliirungen um WeltbildHomers und zur KulturderHeroenzeit in den bT-Scholienzur Ilias (Munich, 1976), 56-7; id., 'The Homer of the scholia:what s explainedo thereader?',n E Montanaried.),Omero remila nnidopo Rome,2002),172-3.



14/18

178 MAREN R. NIEHOFForder to seduce her husband, because, if indeed she had been insulted by a defeat inthe 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.51This is the case, for example, when Poseidon's speech to Iris is discussed (schol. II.15.212-17). The exegetical crux is the tension between Poseidon's initial resignation(vEEoual8ES V7rrodEiow)nd his immediately following threat (dr7TE awo 7 yEOvtfk). Aristarchus rejected lines 212-17, thus casting doubt on the motif of thethreats. His motivation, as recordedby Aristonicus,52was the following:F) %oromIs elne 0nil'let himrko wthir t vTatw us' (I ,15.2617sirt lnAe Kareathriur s0th70e aeS cha7 70both i7T LVC) aOnE7V7aLuth71X01i7Li7Enti [o Kcidh1)a arOEUWLVaClaKLa7aC71a&L.OLOpwTpOELEt7map'VtEpEu'1oqEtS'o(w' oLo1'L%ETCEA-qEr77Ot3EStEpEI 'ar7tELACru'.TEHO0ELt5WVErTrTC7aLg71 K E1S~ri-TAogLGEratL19Sat6AEoWV,A 0o01) op.0 EKCE70) rL(a1 ra01 AXLAaarE7TapVvEto19Tpwal.a TETjV OEW1V 6potcaL7apE7EVTrVOXE*r &6dr T OEoptaXtaS, avuvapoiaa 7)1v EvavrTovtuEvWv7OL9ap/i3pols OEO9,OVKTLEr7T1777aSWSOUtEC; 'EP5UEE 7'HbEpp-^rp"UoC .EAEv SLTa 7r7 7TrpO7'17UEw,AA'EKa777-qa1tKa7arTcaLEW3povov 7TapEtlAq0EvvrovS.Fromthis line until 'let him knowthis, that betweenus' (I/. 15.217)six lines are athetised,becausethey are cheap,both in compositionand in authorial ntention.[Poseidon]havingstartedby saying indignant shallwithdraw', s if repenting, ttacks I shall utter a threat.'Poseidonknows hat nthe end he [Zeus]will not spare hecity,but he assisted heTrojans nlyforthepurposeof givinghonour o Achilles.Someone ransferredhe namesof thegodsfromthe theomachia(II.20.33-6),associating thenamesof]theiropponentswiththe barbarian ods,whileno longerunderstandinghat the thingspertainingo sackinga citywereof no concernfor Hermes and Hephaestus,but [the poet] has mentionedthem only for the purposeofopposition. (schol. I.15.212A)

Aristarchus argues that lines 212-17 are a later addition to the original Homerictext. He identifies a rather incompetent editor, who invented the part of Poseidon'sspeech containing the threat. The latter did so by transferringthe names of Hermesand Hephaestus from II. 20.33-6, without, however, realizing that he inserted theminto 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 20does not explicitly say what Aristarchus takes it to mean, but, at least, the verses donot mention Hermes' and Hephaestus' martial intentions vis-a-visTroy.Hera, by theway, is not at all discussed in this context, presumablybecause Homer dwelt preciselyon her plan to sack the city (II. 15.14-29). Aristarchus moreover considered II.15.211-17 as 'cheap', because they contain contradictions which cannot be reconciledwith the context. Indignation and shame thus imply repentance, which cannot befollowed immediately by angry threats.Furthermore,Poseidon knew the ultimate fateof Troy and could therefore not have threatened what he would do in case the cityshould be spared. Aristarchus implies that Poseidon must have known of Thetis'appeal to Zeus, asking him to 'honour my son' (Trt`rl6v pot UOv).53Zeus hesitantlyagreed to her request, nodding assent as a sure token, yet aware that he will thusinvoke further reprimandsfrom Hera, who earlier had already criticized his supportfor the Trojans (II. 5.19-27). It is thus assumed that the reader's knowledge is also

51 For a surveyof the discussion n athetesis,ee Schmidtn.50),19-22.52 Aristonicus aslongagobeenestablisheds a faithful ransmitter f Aristarchanmaterial,see:Liihrs n.23),4-5 andbibliographyhere.5311.2.505.



15/18


16/18

180 MAREN R. NIEHOFFPhilo's 'quarrelsome'colleagues were thus especially close to Aristarchus.They didnot follow the path of the bT scholiasts who often pleaded for poetical propriety inthe face of Aristarchus' atheteses. Instead, they declared that a certain Biblical itemwas not EV'rPE7TS,thus using a virtually identical term to Aristarchus' drrpE7rrThelatter rejected, for example,11.1.29-30, because adTpETErs KLKat 6 TOvAya4tEvovaTotavTa E'-yEw.ristarchuslsorejected I. 4.130-2, ecause7TpEdTErsrlqTrpatwAEyELy'ayaOdv EaUL yvvaltK t tuyEaOaL'.Some Jewishexegetes in Alexandriaadopted Aristarchus' approach, applying it to the Hebrew Bible. Given their radicalcommitment to textual criticism, it is no longer surprising that Philo disliked themintensely. Preceding modern Bible criticism by almost two thousand years, theseAlexandrian exegetes inevitably aroused animosity in certain circles of the Jewishcommunity.56Placed in the context of Homeric scholarship, Philo's report yields further strikingevidence. His description of one particular exegete allows us to recoverthe 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 andAbraham'snames,utterlysuperfluous (aToLxEtov EprtT-o7).He moreover consideredthe notion of God donating a gift of this sort rather ludicrous.57His criticism thusrelied on a linguistic observation that was supported by a theological judgement. Inother words, the exegete initially noted a superfluous item in the text, which does notadd any new information. His doubts about its authenticity were then corroboratedby the impression that, in terms of content, the lines in question express inappropriateideas. Taken together,these two considerations justified athetesis.The procedure of this Jewish exegete can best be understood in the context ofAristarchan scholarship. Aristarchus rendered the notion of rEpLaU6dsa centralcategory. Erbse's index shows almost an entire column of references to it, most ofthem relatingto Aristarchus'work.58 t became an important criterion in decisions ofathetesis. Aristarchus athetized, for example, l. 21.471, because 'it is superfluous after(the verse) "But his sister rebukedhim harshly,the queen of wild beasts"' (Ii. 21.470).Dietrich Liihrs stressed that Aristarchus'decisions of athetesis were usually based ona two-fold consideration, namely a linguistic redundancy together with an obser-theekdosisof Homer',n Most(n. 5), 1-21,whoarguedor a pluralisticmodel,suggestinghatbothZenodotus ndAristarchus ereengagednemendinghe textas wellascommentingnit;cf. the viewthatZenodotusdid not eliminateines,butonlynotedhissuspicionsn themargins:West n. 5),38-45;H. vanThiel, Zenodot,Aristarch ndAndere',ZPE90(1992),1-32,and d.,'Der HomertextnAlexandria', PE 115 1997),13-36,whoarguedhatall so-called ditionsbyancientcommentators ere nreality ommentariesn anexistingext.56 There are signsthat some methodsof Homericscholarshipmayhave been appliedbyrabbinic xegetesn Palestine f the firstfewcenturiesC.E.,eeesp.S. Lieberman,HellenismnPalestine2New York,1962),20-47; A. A. Halevi,'Rabbinicmidrashand Homericmidrash'(Hebrew),Tarbiz 1(1962),157-69,264-80;P.S.Alexander,"Homer heprophetof all"and"Mosesour teacher":ateantique xegesis f the Homeric picsandthe torahof Moses', n L.V.Rutgers, P. van der Horst et al. (edd.), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World Leuven,1998),130-2;id., 'Whyno textual criticism n Rabbinicmidrash?Reflectionson the textualculture of the Rabbis', in G. J.Brooke (ed.), Jewish Waysof Readingthe Bible,Journalof SemiticStudies uppl.11(Oxford, 000),175-90.57 Philo,Mut.61(quotedaboventheextensive assage).58 See also Liihrs(n. 23), 18-148.His analysis s somewhat ompromised y two facts:hefocused oo narrowly n cases of redundanterbsat thebeginning f versesand,furthermore,examinedmanyscholiawhereanexpression ther hanTrrpLUadss used.A systematictudyofthe referencesn Erbse'sndex,however, onfirmsLihr'simportant onclusion hat rTEptLUaorefers o a particular ategory f athetesis.



17/18

HOMERIC SCHOLARSHIP AND BIBLE EXEGESIS 181vationof improperontent.Aristarchuswas thus nclined o suspectaverse,orevenaseries of consecutiveverses, f these showedsigns of superfluityboth in termsoflanguageand of content.Twoexamplesmay suffice here to illustrate he background f Philo's'quarrel-some'exegete.The firstpertains o Theano'sprayern thetempleof Athene,which sreportedwith someredundancy.WVEa ) EVXOkEI-7q, CLVE"VEVEIJ aAAaV7407>:a'OErELatl, O't rTPOVV';B'V O'E' VY70LaKa o0K 17LLEVOV"KaTO )EYvyap TO EvaVTLOVZEV' EI7TLJEflLOL KaTaVEV"WV. Kat\ E$'jV 3; E'Eyof`VOV w3 at /1EV P EVXOVTO uraqLwVvETracL TEptLcrlOs0 TrXOS. yEAolta E KatL\7 aVcVEUOVaAO'qvd.'Thussheprayedand PallasAthene hrewbackher headas a tokenof denial.' II.6.311)[This verse] is athetised,because the phraseadded for ornament s to no purpose anduncustomary.t is in contrast o the opposite scenewhere]Zeus confirmsby noddingassent(KaTavEWcwv).59 Since the same idea is repeated ubsequently,Thusthey werepraying' I1.6.312), he verse sclearly uperfluous. ndAthena hrowing erheadbackas a tokenof denialis ludicrous. (Schol.II.6.311)

II. 6.311-12 drew Aristarchus' attention, because these lines contain a puzzlingrepetition. Their opening was linguistically almost identical: c ~qs ar7' EVXOpJEv7rversus cwsat (Ev ' 7qVXOV70.While verse 311 mentions the conclusion of Theano'sprayeras well as Athena's negative response, verse 312 summarilyrefers to the prayerof Theano and the women of Troy,using the same expressionas in II. 6.303-4.Aristarchus dentifiedverse 311, ratherthan 312, as spurious,because it violatesHomeric usage. In his view it becomes Homer to ascribe to a deity a literal nodding inthe case of assent, as he did in II. 1.527 with regardto Zeus. 'AvaVE{vw,by contrast, isused metaphorically, as the opposite of the verb 8&sowutII. 16.250-2).60 Given thecontextof Theano'sprayero Athena's tatue,Aristarchus eemsto haverejectedhepossibilityof a metaphoricalmeaning.On the otherhand,a statuemovingher headback alsoappearedudicrous.When hemetaphoricalmeaning eemednappropriateand theliteralmeaning mpliedbothrepetition swell as violationof Homericusageandcommonsense,athetesiswas theonlysolution.Anotherexamplemay illustratehow Aristarchus ombined inguisticconsider-ationswith udgments f content:acL71Evra8'E"O1KE EE AEVK0AEVOVp-l>: COETratTLW7TEpTTOrSatEvavrlovEXwV?EMrLEqpEy p 'wS&pawvo7avoU 'EpLVEV'aXEcOoVv'8-v',d46AOV6tLKal\ 7rapauxovuaL"rotoLTroap 7TroL7T17"T'r v iEV aptI47qAovfKEOEO WTEPrT7P?qwEV'.'the goddess,white-armedHera,providedhim [the horse Xantes]with humanspeech'(II.19.407)(Thisverse) s athetised s superfluousndcontaining contradiction. t is in discordwith(theverse) Afterhe hadthusspoken, heErinyes eldbackhis voice'(II.19.418) thustheyclearlyhad alsograntedspeech].Of this kind s thepoet: thegodwhobroughthim to light,madehimdisappear'II.2.318). (schol.II.19.407)

AristonicusrovidesworeasonsorAristarchus'thetesis:uperfluityndcontra-diction.Theformeronsiderations no longer xplainedndetail,butAristarchus'reasoningwassurely hefollowing: erse407 is redundant, ecause t presentsHeraasinitiatingthe horse'sspeech,while accordingto verse404 the horse was already59 This s not a quotation f II.2.527,but a paraphrase.60 SeealsoLtihrsn.24), 111-12.



18/18

182 MAREN R. NIEHOFFspeaking(rrpog'-q).Aristarchus thetizedverse407, rather han404, becauseonlythe formercontainedalsoa contradiction o II. 19.418,where heErinyes re saidtostop the horse'shumanspeech.Aristarchus ook II. 2.318 as a proof of Homer'sprinciple hat thegodwho has initiatedanexceptional ituation,willalso restore hepreviousstate. On his view,Homer cannothave attributed he restorationof theanimalstate to theErinyes,whileHeragavehumanspeech o the horse.If Herahadindeedbeeninstrumentaln the initialstage,she wouldalsohavebeen mentionedatthe end of theepisode.Philo's quarrelsome'olleagueadduces imilar onsiderations.He, too, is sensitiveto the fact that the lettersalphaand rho in Sarah'sand Abraham's ew names aresuperfluous.Theirchangeof names,as reportedn theLXX,turnsout to be no realchangeatall,asthe soundof thenamesremains irtuallyhesame.Furthermore,hisexegeteconsidershe contentsof the verses n question o be ludicrous.Philo'sreportof his criticism, specially he formulationgreatandsurpassingndeedare the giftswhichMoses says the Leaderof all provided' Mut. 61), suggestthat this exegeteconsidered he ideaconveyedn Gen. 17.5,15as a violationof Moses'characteristicways of speakingabout God. He was convinced that Moses would never haveattributed o God the ridiculous otion of donatinggiftsas worthless s theadditionof a single, uperfluousetter.Thisjudgementhas a clearlyAristarchanlavourandmustbe understoodn thelargercontext of the groupof literalexegeteswhomPhilocriticized n Mut. 60-2.Philo saidaboutthem thattheyrejected ertain tems n Scripture,uch as Gen. 17.5and 17.15,whichcould,in theirview,'not be preserved s appropriaten the literalsense'. Philo did not mentionany reasonfor theirjudgementof athetesis, nsteadattacking heirwholeapproach. t would seem that the exegetical onsiderations fthe individual xegete,whichhesubsequentlyeports, re nfact anexplanation f theathetesis n question.In the sameway as Aristonicus ometimesonly recordedanathetesisby Aristarchus, ut on other occasionsprovidedor reconstructed lso hisreasons ordoingso, Philoinitiallyreportedheexegetes'decision hat certainverses'cannotbe preserved'ndthenadduced he reasons orthatdecision,as formulatedby oneparticular xegete.If my analysis s correct,we haveevidenceof a text-critical ranchof JewishBibleexegesis n Alexandria hat was inspiredby Aristarchus.More than2,000years agothere wereJewishscholarswhojudgedcertainverses o be spurious. n the presentarticle one exampleof this criticalscholarshiphas come to light. Otherswill bediscussed nmyfull treatment f thetopic.Philo thusprovides rucial nsights nto anow lost world of JewishBiblescholarshipn ancientAlexandria.This world wasextremely ichandengagedn a meaningful ialoguewithHomeric cholarship.TheHebrewUniversityf Jerusalem MAREN R. [email protected]

allegory homer

Documents