homeric scholarship and bible exegesis in ancient alexandria, evidence from fhilos quarrelsome

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



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



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



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


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 (



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


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)



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.


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



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


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



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.


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).



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


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



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


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.



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


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)



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


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



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


51 For a survey of the discussion on athetesis see Schmidt (n 50) 19–22



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


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 (



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-


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



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




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

[email protected]




Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

homeric scholarship and bible exegesis in ancient alexandria, evidence from fhilos quarrelsome

Documents