winden-the world of id-vigiliae christianae

8/12/2019 Winden-The World of Id-Vigiliae Christianae

1/10

The World of Ideas in Philo of Alexandria: An Interpretation of De opificio mundi 24-25Author(s): J. C. M. Van WindenSource: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Sep., 1983), pp. 209-217Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583083 .Accessed: 03/02/2014 17:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 79. 114.148.176 on Mon, 3 Feb 20 14 17:14:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1583083?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/1583083?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap


2/10

Vigiliae hristianae 7 1983) 09-217, . J. Brill, eiden

THE WORLD OF IDEASIN PHILO OFALEXANDRIA

AN INTERPRETATION OF DE OPIFICIOMUNDI 24-25

BY

J. C. M. VAN WINDEN

To Philo the one true ource of philosophical ctivity s the Bible,andin particular ts first ive books, the Law. Moses, the Jewish awgiver,has attained the very ummit f philosophy" Opif. 8), and the onlytask of a philosopher s to study nd to explain Moses' words, whichembody beauty of ideas transcending uman capacity of speechandhearing Opif. 4).

In explaining Moses' words Philo makes use of his knowledge fGreek philosophy. And in explaining he creation tory f Genesis he

uses in particular lato's 'creation tory' s told in the Timaeus.In Tim. 28 Plato introduces he magery f a craftsman ho, ookingat the eternal deas, makes the sense-perceptible orld. Philo explainsthe creation tory f Genesis n sucha manner hat t depicts hemakingof two worlds, world of ideas whichhe calls the kosmos noetos, ndthe sense-perceptible orld, s we know t.

Philo is quite wellaware of the fact hat uch an interpretation f theGenesis ext s not self-evident. hat is whyhe devotes othis matter n

extensive reliminary ection of his commentary Opif. 13-25).Genesis says that the world was created in six days. But, Philoremarks, hisdoes not mean that he maker needed length f time forhis work. God made the wholeworld t once, whereby lanning, om-manding nd creating oincide.But since things hat ome to existencerequire order, nd order nvolvesnumber, nd the number ix is thenumber most suitable to productivity, oses declared that the worldwas created n six days.

On the otherhand,

at the nd of the firstay

of creationGenesisays:xatx YCvo~irpa xx t vito irpj, 'jpac pl&.Thus it does not speak of

'the first ay' but of one day', or as we perhaps hould say day one'.In Philo's view his xpression hows hathereMosesdoesnot deal withthe sense-perceptible orld but with the noetic world which has the

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


3/10

210 J. C. M. VAN WINDEN

nature f oneness riv ?ovrsoS 6aLv,Opif. 15).This replacement f theexpected acpGr by ?a--which n fact is a hebraism-is a sufficientpretext or Philo to discover n Genesisthe creation f ideas.

In Opif. 15-25Philo elaborateshis viewof this noeticworld. He com-pares God with n architect ho s going obuild a city. Just s this r-chitect annot work without plan of that city n his mind, so God,wishing ocreate his ense-perceptible orld, knew hat t wouldnot befaultless nless t was made n the ikeness f an impeccable,.e., in-telligible, attern. vidently hilo swalking ere n Plato's footsteps,although edoes not follow im n his terminology:nstead f (jovvoijr6vhe speaks of the x6ajosvo1jr65.

Amongthe disciples f Plato there was much dissension bout the n-terpretation f the magery f the Timaeus. Those who chosefor moreor less iteral nterpretation nd understood he Demiurge s represent-ing the highest rinciple ad to meet he problem f the ocationof theworld of ideas. There was a tendency mong these hinkers oput thoseideas within hehighest rinciple nd to interpret hem s its thoughts.

Philo's solution o this problem s as follows: the world which on-

sists of ideas has no other ocation than the divine logos who hasordered his world. Thus the noeticworld s in the ogosof God (Opif.20).

After iscussing ome other problems oncerning heworld of ideasPhilo comes to a final observation,which uns s follows n the criticaledition of L. Cohn and P. Wendland:

[24]si 6 sstL&ioejatLTuLvoripotL P~loBLtToLSv6patov, dtiv&vErepov

SiLOL TAYVOrTjTVXOGjOV LVGL 0j UBOL1670V iTjO XOGj?O7rOLOUVTO(QUOyTp 71

vorT7 rXLt Tiepv TLeatye 6ToGopXLTxTovoyoyLoo6 oo~"vvo71Tjv]OXLVxx?((s 8toavoougivou.[25] r6 ~86y7t?o~r o MOUESkiQ(v, dx ilg6v"v yOUv v0pCnou Bveatv

&voryp&uv &v ToLS B7etraT &tpp(8gyjv joJoyXsy, G po xorT' eix6va Oso

teTuc0r l (Gen. 1, 27). It 8i TOjipoS six&vEixdvos8nXov rt] xati ~XovaisI, irE7OlS iho5 6 ao71T6~ZX~aE?OS,i l?dicOvt~iS&v~OpICinrlvaiV, t~Ct~rj~

OeiCoix6voS,fjXov TLxeLTjl&VpXytuioScppofi',Ovcpe?Iv orOv yevrL6altov,or13TOdOSLv ['rd7 r~p&rsI~y~L, ptrp6uoS 'skr 7v Wisiv]6 toIO X6yoS.

This passagehas been dealt with n numerousworks nPhilo,

but tsexact meaning s still remarkably lusive. n particular hilo's way ofarguing n ch. 25 has remained nclear. Obviously his tate of affairshas influenced hetradition f the text nd its problematic onstitutionin the critical dition.



4/10

THE WORLD OF IDEAS IN PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA 211

To startwith, t must e said that hegeneral tructure f thewholepassages clear. Onediscerns hree teps: . First hiloputs orward isthesis, iz., that he noeticworld s nothing lsethan he ogosof thecreating od. 2. Thenthis hesis s illustrated y the example f thehuman rchitect. . Finally hilo hows hat his hesis snothis wn n-vention ut s already resent n Moses' words n Genesis , 27.

Eachof these hree teps sksfor omefurther xplanation. encewill now discuss uccessivelyhilo's thesis, ts illustration nd theMosaictestimony.

Philo's thesis-In heprevious iscussionhilohadreached he on-

clusion hat henoetic osmos was n the ogosof God. His intentionnow s to make n attempt t giving his onclusion greater egree fprecision. o he says: If onewouldwish osay t n a more imple ay,the noetic world is the ogosof God inHis very ct of creating'. n other words, n the creative ct of God Hislogos and the noetic cosmos coincide.

One should observe that this more simple way of speech is not asimplification. n the ontrary, ecauset smore recise,t s nearer o

the truth. Simplex sigillum veri. For a comparable use of the termyujv6s, ee Probus 43, Contempl. 78, Sacrif. 30.The illustration.-Plato llustrates is thesis by referring o the case

of the human architect. he plan of the future ity i.e. in the mind ofthis architect), e says, is nothing lse than the logismos intellectualfaculty) f the rchitect n his very ct of planning hecity. n the samewaythe noeticworld s nothing lsethan he ogosof God in hisvery ctof creating.

Here one should not be misled by the fact that n the case of thehuman rchitect hilo speaksof the ct of planning, n the case of Godof the ct of creating. his difference eflects hedifference etween hecreative ctivity n man and that n God. In God, as was said above,planning nd creating oincide, n man these re different hasesof theprocess.

But this difference s of no consequence n the present omparison.Philo compares hecoinciding f the planned world = noetic osmos)

and the ogos of God with he coinciding f the planned city nd thelogismosof the human architect.Moses' testimony-This hesis,Philo continues, s not an invention

of mine but s an implication f what Mosessays n Genesis1, 27, viz.,that man was made after he mageof God. This statement must urely



5/10

212 J. C. M. VANWINDEN

amazethe reader.How can thedoctrine f Mosesthat manwas madeafter od's mage ean argumentn favour f the oincidingf God'slogos nd the world f deas?

Thetext ontaininghe xplanationf this tatement asbeenhandeddown n a formwhich he German ditors f a critical dition oundunacceptable. hey liminated woelements: gXovet t the tart, b

potBL'y~t,

.pX&ruioCtcv soevat the end. They were followedby

C. J. deVogel,Greek hilosophy, r1293, ndR. Arnaldezn he yonedition f Philo Lesoeuvres e Philon 'Alexandrie, ol1).Colson nthe Loeb seriesdoes not delete 8iov iSt, as will appear below.

Arnaldez ives hefollowing rench ranslation: Or si la partie stimage 'image, t i a forme out ntibre, otalit6 ece monde ensible,puisqu'elle stplusgrande ue 'image umaine, st mitation e 'ima-ge divine, l est clairque le sceau archetype, ue nous disons tre emonde ntelligible, e saurait tre ue le Logosde Dieu".

J. Cohn'sGerman ranslationuns s follows: Wenn ber chon erTeil Abbild ines Bildes st, lso auch die ganzeGattung, ieseganzesinnlich ahrnehmbare elt, a sie a grSsser st ls das menschliche

Abbild, ineNachahmung esgbttlichen ildes, o ist klar, dass dasurspruinglicheiegel das Urbild), iewir iegedachte elt ennen, ieVernunft ottes elbst st".

Theonly ifference etween hese worenderingss the word lso ntheGerman ranslationwhich have talized). hiswordhasno basisin the extus eceptus, hich bviously asaccepted y he ranslator.Onthe ther and, t ndicates consequence hichsfundamental orPhilo, s will ppear n what ollows.

A new ttempt t nterpretationsclearly alled or. hilo begins hisargumentation s follows: es84 6ipoS eixev dx6voC, .. For theunderstandingf this rotasist s vital o know hatGenesis ,27, (Godcreated man) xor' ex6var oe Beo, was interpreted y Philo in a peculiarmanner. ccording ohim, hesewords o not mean hat man wasmade an image f God" but that he "was made after he mage fGod". In otherwords, here s an image f Godand manwas madeafter hat mage, o that e s "an image f an mage".'Philo ays his

disertis erbis n Her. 231"

roC-rae", p c9rTa,6

O~i~t6v &v0poprov"dxtexovx BoU,&XX&xxt EiX6XYV.f iXv' dxovoSssaid of man, nemayconclude hat he ubject f this rotasis, d akpoS,ndicates an.Before going further ne must recall to mind that the image after

which man was made is the image of God (xx7' dx6va Oeoo),and,



6/10


moreover, hat the mageof God is the ogos. This s a vital element nthe argumentation. ee for this quivalence ug. 101: xrih6 (sc. 6 X6yoSOioG)dxdv 6x&pXtovioi, and Conf. 147: BOosy&p i~xdv ,6yoo6

Now onemay ircumscribehe ontent f theprotasis s follows:Ifit s true what Genesis1, 27says, iz., hat man, beingpart of whole,wascreated s an imageof the mageof God, i.e. the ogosof God, ...'.Here the right way of arguing requires hat now the consequenceofMoses' statement s given. The textus eceptus, owever, dds anotherprotasis hich s not statement f Moses.See theFrench ranslation:"et si la forme out entibre ..". The German rendering dds an also,thus drawing conclusion-which ust ean conclusion rawn romMoses' words-and makes the argumentation oherent, ut the textusreceptus oes not give this lso a textual foundation.

All the manuscripts, owever, o givea conclusionhere, n the formof an apodosis: i1Xovte xat ...

Let us nowread hat art f the ext oncerning hichweno ongerhave any seriousdoubts: sd tb 4tpoC ixyvdx6voC,GlXovht xxrib bXov

... "If thepart san mage f an mage, hen t s evident hat he wholeisso too". From what ollows t s manifest hat thewhole'means ere'the whole ense-perceptibleorld'.Thusthe rgument s: 'if man spart of the cosmos s an imageof God's image = an image f thelogos), hen he whole osmos s so too". The valueof this rgumentwillbe discussedater, ut from formal oint f view he reasoninglooks ound.

Butwhat bout oq? Allmanuscriptsnd ll editions xcept neread

r66,ov ~oS.From formal oint f view, owever, his eadings hard-ly cceptable. heargumentfrom hepart othewhole' s a kind f afortiori rgument, ut how could one arguefrom the part' to 'thewhole orm'? Moreover,what does 'form' mean here? From whatfollows t must ndicate he ense-perceptibleorld. ut doesthis ermgive proper ndication f that world? ur suspicions that eio doesnot belong o what precedes. ut could t belong o what follows?think t ould. One finds here nother fXiov &rxL. This seems to be anindication hat hilocontinued is

rgumentationith nother ondi-

tional period. This means hat before dgeaSoi~oS6

arlr64 x6aogo hilostarted nother rotasis: t8' 6 oid g.Now the first ive etters akesiog, and this s, as it seems, heorigin f that trange sog, in themanuscripts.



7/10


An analysis f Philo's train f thought ad brought me years go tothis conjecture, when discovered hat Colson-Whitaker n their oeb

edition presented hesame solution. They do not say a word about it,neither n a footnote t the text nor n "the supplementary ist of cases,not mentioned n the footnotes, where he text printed s not vouchedfor by any manuscript f ancient authority" in Vol V, p. 613-4).Perhaps they onsidered hisconjecture s one of the cases which heydid not mention, iz., that of a "wrong division f words, n which heactual letters re correct". But this s not completely rue here. Themanuscripts ave a sigma too many. Moreover, the conjecture s in

itself eserving f mention.If one accepts this conjecture hilo's argumentation onsists f twosteps which from formal point of view are parallel:

t. f,L O .., 8'A7VOttX=l...

i.'0 oUfL7 ..., G),ovOTLo~ ..The second tep of the rgument uns s follows: If this ntire ensi-

ble world, which s greater hanman this must be the meaning; he c-tual text willbe discussed elow), s an imageof a divine mage, t s evi-

dent that .." One observes hat this protasis akesup the conclusionwhichwas formulated n the previous podosis, ust as the first rotasistook up the tatement f Mosesin Genesis1,27. Thus Philo says: "If itis true hat hewhole ense-perceptible orld s an imageof a divine m-age (#iErl?xBe0Seix6voSs the equivalent f e~ixveix6voS;he divine m-age' is, of course, the divine ogos), then t follows that .. But whatfollows hen?

Philo says: "then it is evident hat the archetypal eal, which wedeclare the noetic osmosto

be,is the

ogoshimself". Or to

sayt n a

more implemanner then t s evident hat he noetic osmos s thelogosof God". Quoderat demonstrandum

This conclusion sks for somefurther xplanation ecausePhilojumps to a conclusion ithout ormulatingll the teps f the argu-ment.

In the previous entence hilo has come to the conclusion hat thevisible world s an image of God's image; in other words the visibleworld s made after God's image, the ogos of God. Now one shouldbear in mind that earlier Opif. 16) Philo had already hown that thevisibleworld was made after he pattern f the noetic world. Thus hehas reached wo conclusions:1. The visiblecosmos s an image of thenoetic cosmos. 2. The visible osmos s an image of the ogosof God.



8/10


These two conclusions llow Philo to draw his final conclusion: thenoetic cosmos and the ogos of God coincide. Herewith e has shownthat he thesis roposed t the beginning f Opif. 24, viz., that n the ctof creating oirjS x6aj6oSnd X6yos eoGoincide s supported y Moses'authority nd, in consequence, s valid and true.

The argumentation f Opif. 25 can be summarized s follows:- man, being part of the cosmos, has been created as an image ofGod's image = the ogos);- then fortiori hewholecosmoshas beencreated s an imageof God's logos;- now t was shown arlier hat hecosmoswas created s an image of the noetic cosmos; - Ergo: noetic

cosmos and logos of God coincide in the act of creating).The previous nalysis has made the structure f the argumentationperfectly lear. But t does leavethe reader with omeproblems: . withregard o the contents f the passage,2. with egard othe constitutionof the text.ad 1. With regard to the contents wo questions arise: a) how couldPhilo make the first tep of his argumentation? ow could he arguefrom the part to the whole, from man to sense-perceptible orld?

Elsewhere hilo states hat man was created fter he mageof God, notas a wholeconsisting f body and soul, but only n so far s he has a ra-tional part, soul. The afortiori rgument hould presuppose hat heworld, too, is a composition f body and soul. But Philo does notsubscribe o such a theory; he in fact does not believe n a world-soul.How are we to understand hilo's argument n this ontext? ne knowsthat he speaks ometimes f man as a micro-cosmos. s this deaperhapsbehind he present rgument? otwithstanding hefact hat he relation

betweenmicro- nd macro-cosmos s not one between art nd whole,am inclined o think hat this relationship as led Philo to argue n thewayhe doeshere, husmaking n argument hich t first ight eems obesolid nough; ut t a closer iew t appears obea weak ink ntheargumentation. ) The second question concerns Philo's thesis tself.Why does he endeavour o identify heworld of ideaswith he ogosofGod? The answer, think, hould be: becausePhilo tries o reduce sfar s possible hemultiplicity n his system. here s not a logosof God

and the deas within him, but these two are one and the same reality.One should bear n mind hatPhilo does not deal herewith herelation-ship etween od and his ogos.Thus t snothis ntention ostress he"fundamental nity f the divine", as Nikiprowetzky uggests n hisad-mirable book, Le commentaire e l'Ecriture hezPhilon d'Alexandrie,



9/10


p. 250, where he writes: Ainsi, en d(pit de la pseudo-multiplicit6 ueles notions e Cause premiere, e monde ntellectuelle t de Logosy n-staurent, 'unit6 fondamentale u divin st finalementsauvegard(e". Inmy view the unity oncerns he noetic cosmos and the ogos only, notthe First cause'. In Opif. 16Philo stated hat God, before making hesense-perceptible orld, reated irst xpot~iESTou) henoetic osmos. fthe noetic osmos was created nd logosand noetic osmos coincide nsome respect, he ogoswas created oo. Thus there s no fundamentalunity n the divine eality. ndeed, Philo does have n view fundamen-tal unity, ut only that between deasand logos. This is for him con-siderable tep in the direction f making his system more simple, nideal which very hilosopher trives or.ad 2. Two textual problems re still o be dealt with.a) The subordinate lause, which n the critical dition s a conditionalone: d I~EOvTi &vOpO~i(vlCt(v. This reading tems from he ndirecttradition f this Philonic ext n Eusebius,Praep. Ev. XI 24. The wholedirect radition as a relative lause: the pronoun may be masculine 84IuECov)feminine i yu(&v) or neuter 8 iut'ov).

If the reconstruction f Philo's argument iven bove scorrect, n dI-clause is almost mpossiblehere. t inserts condition which s not n-cluded in Moses' statement nd in so doing weakens the force of theargument. hus from logicalpoint of view he nsertion f another i-clausewould be unbearable. On the other hand, the emergence f suchan sd-clause ecame ess offensive s soon as the reading 1o0snstead fEt ' 6 had obscured Philo's way of arguing.

Thus one has to assume that the text originally ad a relative ro-

noun.Butwhich ne?Themasculine4refers ox6orwo;he eminineanticipates he feminine ubstantive upposed in 'rj &vOptilvi, viz.,EiX?v;

the neuter anticipates 1=. But there re two arguments nsupport f the feminine: 1) the most mportant manuscript V) has thisreading; 2) the reading iof the ndirect radition seasierto explain fthe riginal ad j than f t hadb' or i6 iotacism).b) The seclusion f r6d

1orTp&EIyT, p6Xtrnos'8ro v Seuv.Here the Ger-

man editorswerefollowed y Colson in the Loeb series nd Arnaldez n

the Lyon edition. But s t necessary? t is evident hat hewordsadsti &vEYf6 0,o0 ,6yoSare an excellent onclusion f the whole rgument: The

archetypal eal (= the noetic cosmos) is the logos of God himself".Moreover at7t; &vsiTfollowedby td6nap~retLy seemsto be awkwardGreek.



10/10

THE WORLD OF IDEAS INPHILO OF ALEXANDRIA 217

Nevertheless ll manuscripts avea couple of expressions erewhichare qualifications f the divine ogosand which ne finds n manyplaceselsewhere hroughout hilo's oeuvre. s it not possible omaintain hesestriking ualifications ere?

One should bear in mind hat 1. in Opif. 24-5 Philo is demonstratingthe coincidence f the noetic world and the ogos himself, nd 2. thatthe ogos spermanently resent n the ourse of the rgumentation xor'

Sxo6vx oo0,Eixcov x6voS,@ gIy ocadx6voS.When Philo then t the end of the argument as written he wordsor6t, &v V'r, hereader lready understands hat he intends o say: "the

noetic world s he himself sc. the ogos)". But instead of mentioningimmediately hename of the ogos, Philo introduces n element f ten-sion to his statement y summing p first ome epithets f the ogos.One could indicate hisby printing little troke fter rtjs &v ts.

One final remark n these pithets: hereading iven bove is that ofthe manuscript V and of Eusebius; all other manuscripts have tb

ApXt~flov rpbOcPyLh, x txv 8v. Philo speaks many times f thelogos as &p~ruynovapdreTyo Opif.70; Poster. 105;Congr. 8; Somn. I

126;Spec. I 279, 327; Virt. 0; Aet. 15)and several imes s &pX~tUno~x (Ebr. 133;Mutat. 135, 146;leg. I 22; Her. 280). But &pXritnoCr7v isEv seemsto me hardly cceptable,because the formula x (tcv)isV, just like t& &yTa v yov or ga?x ~a?&t&v,does not admit anyfurther ualification of greatness. t indicates already in itself thehighest egree. n Migr. 103Philo, explaining heappocySf Ex. 28, 22,says: AXX'xECvj iv?iappoary 86 tortv i8v, xa0' iv 6 Oi~s~ttjicaE vx6aiov. The logos is 1i8 O87v, the highest dea, the &pXtrtnot 8.

'Apx~rutnoS8 rv i~3v is in fact conflation f these woexpressions.In this case I would prefer o follow the other manuscripts.2

NOTES

' In a footnote t hisGerman ranslation f Opif. 5 Cohndraws ttention o the actthat ne finds similar dea n theMidrash.2 I amsincerelyhankfuloMr.D.T. Runia Kampen, etherlands) or eadinghis r-ticle ndmakingeveral seful bservations s well s for orrectinghe nglish f his r-ticle. am also indebted o Professor . NikiprowetzkyParis),whokindly eadthemanuscript f this rticle nd wroteme letter ith everal elpful uggestions.

2312GD Leiden, Haarlemmerstraat 06
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

winden-the world of id-vigiliae christianae

Documents