Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T21:19:45.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Philonic God of Revelation and His Latter-Day Deniers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

H. A. Wolfson
H. A. Wolfson
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Philo, professionally, was not a teacher of philosophy. He was a preacher, a preacher on biblical topics, who dispensed his philosophic thoughts in the form of sermons. And because he was not professionally a teacher of philosophy, some modern students of his works say that he was not a philosopher. For nowadays, as we all know, to be called philosopher one must be ordained and one must be hired to teach philosophy and one must also learn to discuss certain hoary problems as if they were plucked yesterday out of the air. Some say that Philo was an eclectic. But there is one eminent authority who would begrudge him even the title of eclectic without further qualification, for, after all, eclecticism is the name of a reputable system in ancient Greek philosophy. The eclecticism of Philo, our eminent authority says, “is that of the jackdaw rather than the philosopher.” But, while we may deny Philo the honorific title of philosopher, with the privilege of wearing ostentatiously a special garb like that affected by ancient Greek philosophers, we cannot deny him the humbler and more modest title of religious philosopher. As such, Philo was the first who tried to reduce the narratives and laws and exhortations of Scripture to a coherent and closely knit system of thought and thereby produced what may be called scriptural philosophy in contradistinction to pagan Greek philosophy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , April 1960 , pp. 101 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dodds, E. R., “The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic ‘One’,” The Classical Quarterly 22 (1928), p. 132, n. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Cf. my Philo, I, pp. 165–167.

3 De Confusione Linguarum 2, 2.

4 Cf. my Philosophy of the Church Fathers, I, p. 19.

5 De Decalogo 9, 32 f.

6 Cf. Philo, II, pp. 52 f.

7 Phys. I, 4, 187b, 7; Metaph. II, 2, 994b, 27–30.

8 Cf. Philo, II, pp. 112–113.

9 Cf. my paper “The Knowability and Describability of God in Plato and Aristotle,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 56–57 (1945–1946). pp. 233–249.Google Scholar

10 Cf. Philo, II, pp. 94 ff.

11 Timaeus 29 D-E.

12 Ibid. 41 A.

13 Cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 1.

14 Apud Cicero, De Natura Deorum II, 66, 167; cf. III, 35, 86; Plutarch, De Stoicorum Repugnantiis 37, 2.

15 De Migratione Abrahami 33, 186.

16 Cf. Philo, II, pp. 279–303.

17 De Providentia 2, 54. Cf. Philo, II, p. 291, n. 49.

18 Cf. Philo, I, pp. 325–347.

19 Cf. Ibid., I, pp. 315–316.

20 Cf. Ibid., I, pp. 347–356.

21 Cf. Ibid., I, p. 316.

22 Cf. Ibid., I, pp. 295 ff.

23 Cf. Ibid., I, pp. 300–316.

24 Cf. Ibid., I, pp. 328–330.

25 Cf. Ibid., I, pp. 315–316

26 Opif., 14, 46; cf. Jos. 40, 244; Mos. I, 31, 174; Qu. in Gen. IV, 17.

27 Tractatus Theologico-Politicus 5 (Op., ed. Gebhardt, III, p. 79, ll. 19–20).

28 An Inquiry Concerning the Human Understanding X, 2 (Philosophical Works, 1854, IV, p. 138).Google Scholar

29 “Theism, Part IV: Revelation,” in Three Essays on Religion, New York, 1878, p. 217.Google Scholar

30 Eth. II, Prop. 47.

31 De Anima II, 2, 413a, 15; Anal. Post. II, 10, 93b, 38 ff.

32 Short Treatise I, 7, § 9.

33 Tractatus de Intellectus Emendatione § 96 ff. (Op., ed. Gebhardt, II, p. 35).

34 Eth. I, Prop. 8.

35 Cf. my Philosophy of Spinoza, I, p. 138.

36 Eth. I, Prop. 47.

37 Short Treatise I, 1; cf. Sum. Theol. I, 2, 1c; Cont. Gent. I, 10–11.

38 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Philosophical Works, 1854, II, p. 451).Google Scholar

39 Cont. Gent. I, 12.

40 Ibid.

41 Categ. 7, 7b, 15–35.

42 Eth. I, Appendix (Op., II, p. 79, 11. 18–20).

43 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X (op. cit., II, pp. 496 f.).

44 “Theism, Part II: Attributes,” op. cit., p. 192.

45 Short Treatise I, 2, 5 (Op., I, p. 20, II. 18 ff.).

46 Op. cit. (p. 501; cf. p. 505).

47 Eth. I, Appendix (Op. II, p. 81, II. 10–11).

48 Op. cit. (p. 505).

49 Op. cit. (p. 192).

50 Moreh Nebukim II, 13 (3); Contra Gentiles II, 25.

51 Eth. I, Prop. 17, Schol (Op. II, p. 61, II. 27–32).

52 Ibid. (p. 62, II. 10–30).

53 Contra Celsum III, 70; V, 23.

54 Contra Faustum XXVI, 4–5.

55 Ibn Hazm, Fiṣal fī al-Milal wa'l-Ahwā' wa'l-Niḥal (Cairo, A.H. 1317–27) IV, p. 192, ll. 13–14; Ghazālī, Tahāfut al-Falāsifah, XVII, 24, p. 292, ll. 2 ff. (ed. M. Bouyges); Maimonides, Moreh Nebukim I, 73, Prop. 10.

56 Emunot ve-De'ot II, 13, p. 110, ll. 4–7.

57 De Fato 30.

58 Enn. VI, 8, 21.

59 Cf. chapter on “Omnipotence” in R. M. Grant, Miracles and Natural Law in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Thought, pp. 127–134.

60 Contra Celsum III, 70.

61 Ibid., V, 23.

62 Mark 10:27; cf. Matth. 19:26.

63 Contra Celsum III, 70. Incidentally, Celsus' statement would seem to be a paraphrase of the Septuagint version of Job's address to God (Job 42:1): “I know that Thou art able to do all things (πάντα δύνασαι).”

64 Ibid., V, 23.

65 De divinis nominibus VIII, 6.

66 Contra Celsum III, 70.

67 Ibid., V, 23. Cf. H. Chadwick's notes in his translation of Contra Celsum, ad loc.

68 Al-Ash'arī, Maḳālāt al-Islāmīyīn, ed. H. Ritter, p. 555, ll. 6–8.

69 Al-Shahrastānī, Al-Milal wa'l-Niḥal, ed. W. Cureton, p. 37, ll. 8–9.

70 The Book of Substances, Fragment II, in A. Altmann and S. M. Stern's Isaac Israeli, p. 82.

71 Moreh Nebukim III, 32; cf. II, 29.

72 Cont. Gent. II, 22, Item.

73 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part V (Op. cit., p. 459).

74 Ibid. (p. 461).

75 Enn. V, 1, 6.

76 Ibid., V, 2, 1.

77 Moreh Nebukim II, 22.

78 Contra Gentiles II, 21–24.

79 “Theism, Part II: Attributes,” op. cit., pp. 126–167.

80 Long Commentary on Metaphysics IX, Comm. 7 (ed. Venice, 1574, fol. 231 H) and XII, Comm. 18 (fol. 305 F).

81 Moreh Nebukim III, 25.

82 Sum. Theol. I, 105, 5c.

83 Cf. J. R. Weinberg, Nicolaus of Autrecourt, pp. 84 ff.

84 Sum. Theol. I, 105, 2c.

85 Cont. Gent. III, 67.

86 Moreh Nebukim II, 18 (2).

87 Moreh Nebukim II, 48.

88 Cf. Philo, I, pp. 269–270, I, 223, 282.

89 Cf. Ibid., I, pp. 332–347.