Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T02:28:33.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Prophetic Spirit as an Angel According to Philo*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

John R. Levison
John R. Levison
Affiliation:
Duke Divinity School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Nearly a century ago, Paul Volz, who is known primarily for his research on early Jewish eschatology, wrote a provocative analysis of the divine spirit in Jewish antiquity; one quarter of this study is devoted to “the spirit hypostasis” (Geisthypostase), that is, spirit (πνεῦμα) interpreted as an independent being rather than a natural element, such as wind, or the spiritual element of humankind, such as the soul.1 In the context of this intriguing discussion, Volz observed that “Philo unequivocally describes the spirit as an hypostasis,” for it mediates God's own power (Mittelwesen), accomplishes concrete actions, such as visiting and leading to truth, and possesses particular characteristics, such as invisibility and complete wisdom. According to Volz, however, Philo understood this spirit hypostasis less as a personal being than a cosmic principle:

The personal character of the Philonic pneuma normally retreats into the background, despite its hypostatic character. The reason for this lies probably in Stoic influence, from which Philo took over the panpsychic pneuma, and moreover in the Philonic conception of the Logos, alongside which the pneuma could never fully be developed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 88 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 189 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1995

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 Volz, Paul, Der Geist Gottes und die verwandten Erscheinungen im Alten Testament und im anschlieβenden Judentum (Tübingen: Mohr, 1910) 145–94Google Scholar.

2 ”Philo beschreibt den Geist unzweideutig als Hypostase, namentlich wo er der A.T.lichen Vorstellungswelt freier gegenübersteht” (Volz, Der Geist Gottes, 159).

3 Philo Som. 2.252.

4 Idem, Vit. Mos. 2.265.

5 Idem, Som. 2.252.

6 Idem, Gig. 24.

7 ”Der personhafte Charakter tritt übrigens beim philonischen Pneuma trotz des Hypostatischen zurück. Das hat seinen Grund wohl in dem stoischen Einfluβ, von dem Philo das pan-psychische Pneuma übernahm, und auβerdem in der philonischen Logosidee, neben der das Pneuma sich nicht voll entfalten konnte” (Volz, Der Geist Gottes, 160).

8 Wolfson, Harry A., Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948) 2. 30–31Google Scholar.

9 Philo Vit. Mos. 1.274 (LCL; trans. F. H. Colson; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935) 6. 417. All biblical references are to the Septuagint; I assume that Philo used the Septuagint.

10 Ibid., 1.277 (ET 6. 419).

11 On the ease with which ἄϒϒελος and πνεῦμα were identified by early Jewish authors, see Levison, John R., “The Debut of the Divine Spirit in Josephus's Antiquities” HTR 87 (1994) 123–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Shoemaker, William R., “The Use of nn in the Old Testament, and of πνεῦμα in the New Testament: A Lexicographical Study,” JBL 23 (1904) 37–38, 40–41Google Scholar; and Sekki, Arthur E., The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran (SBLDS 110; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 145–71Google Scholar. See also Septuagint Job 4:15–16.

12 Philo Vit. Mos. 1.274 and 1.277.

13 Cicero Divin. 1.11–12.

14 See the discussion in Levison, “Debut,” 128–29.

15 Plutarch Def. orac. 418C–D, in idem, Moralia (LCL; trans. Frank Cole Babbitt; 15 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927) 5. 397. See also 431B.

16 Ibid., 418D (ET 5. 397). For a more detailed discussion of Cleombrotus's view and relevant bibliography, see Levison, “Debut,” 130–31.

17 Plato Symp. 202E (LCL; trans. W. R. M. Lamb; 12 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975) 3. 179.

18 Plutarch De hide et Osiride 361C, in idem, Moralia, 5. 65.

19 Philo Gig. 6–18 on Gen 6:2.

20 Ibid., 6 (LCL; trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929) 2. 449.

21 Ibid., 12 (ET 2. 451).

22 Plato Plant. 14 (LCL; trans. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968) 3. 221.

23 Philo Som. 1.141 on Gen 28:12 (ET 5. 373).

24 See the discussion of Winston, David, Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary on “De gigantibus” and “Quod Deus sit immutabilis” (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 197–200Google Scholar, in which he places Philo's discussion into the context of Middle Platonism; see bibliography on p. 371. See also Runia, David T., Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Philosophia Antigua 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986) 228–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 On the apologetic benefits that would result from a Jewish adoption of Cleombrotus's point of view, see Levison, “Debut,” 133–37.

26 Philo Rer. div. her. 265 (LCL; trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; 10 vols; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958) 4. 419.

27 Ibid., 266 (ET 4. 419).

28 Plutarch Def. orac. 418D (ET 5. 397).

29 Levison, “Debut,” 123–38.

30 Philo Vit. Mos. 2.188–91 (ET 6. 543).

31 For analysis of Philo's Vit. Mos. 2.187–91, see Burkhardt, Helmut, Die Inspiration heiliger Schriften bei Philon von Alexandrien (Gieβen: Brunnen, 1988) 166–67Google Scholar.

32 Philo Vit. Mos. 2.264–65 (ET 6. 583).

33 Ibid., 2.259 (ET 6. 579).

34 Ibid., 2.264 (ET 6. 583).

35 Ibid., 2.268–69 (ET 6. 585).

36 Ibid., 2.269.

37 Ibid., 2.270 (ET 6. 585).

38 Ibid., 2.188 (ET6. 543).

39 On the importance of the rational element in these illustrations, see Levison, John R., “Two Types of Ecstatic Prophecy According to Philo Judaeus,” Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1994) 83–89Google Scholar.

40 Philo Vit. Mos. 2.265. These terms are foreign to the Hellenistic Jewish tradition. Neither word occurs in the Septuagint, the Greek pseudepigrapha, or the writings of Josephus. Josephus does employ the cognate noun εί καστής in Ant. 18.321.

40 Philo Conf. ling. 159.

42 Idem, Cher. 69.

43 Idem, Leg. Gai. 21 (LCL; trans. F. H. Colson; 10 vols; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press, 1962) 10. 13.

44 Idem, Som. 1.23 (LCL; trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934) 5. 307.

45 Idem, Vit. Mos. 1.294 (ET 6. 429).

46 Idem, Spec. leg. 1.63 (LCL; trans. F. H. Colson; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press, 1937) 7. 139.

47 Ibid., 4.50 (ET 8. 39).

48 Idem, Poster. C. 80.

49 Idem, Spec. leg. 1.38 (ET 7. 121); see idem, Rer. div. her. 98. In Philo's Vit. Mos. 1.68, εὶκασία simply denotes a comparison. For the adjective εἰκαστικός, see idem, Cher. 116; Sacr. AC. 13; and Det. pot. ins. 38, where the adjective is used of specious rhetoric.

50 Idem, Op. mund. 70.

51 Idem, Praem. 84.

52 Idem, Poster. C. 31.

53 Idem, Spec. leg. 1.269.

54 Ibid., 1.269 (ET 7. 255–57).

55 Idem, Deus imm. 182 (LCL; trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954) 3. 99.

56 Idem, Migr. Abr. 23 (LCL; trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958) 4. 145.

57 Idem, Fug. 21 (LCL; trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934) 5. 21.

58 Idem, Virt. 215 (LCL; trans. F. H. Colson; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1939) 8. 295; see also wisdom's teaching in idem. Spec. leg. 1.269.

59 Idem, Jos. 110 (LCL; trans. F. H. Colson; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935) 6. 193–95.

60 Ibid., 116 (ET 6. 197).

61 Ibid., 117 (ET 6. 197).

62 Idem, Vit. Mos. 2.265 and Jos. 116.

63 For example, in idem, Som. 1.23; Spec. leg. 1.38, 4.50; and Leg. Gat. 21.

64 Idem, Som. 2.252 (ET 5. 555–57). For a fuller discussion of this text and an explanation of why the spirit of Som. 2.252 is divine rather than human, see John R. Levison, “Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus,” 757(1995; forthcoming). This article also contains a detailed analysis of Cher. 27–29 and Fug. 53–58, in which Philo reflected similarly upon the process of allegorical interpretation, which is at once both inspired and rational.

65 Philo Som. 2.251 (ET 5. 555).

66 See, for example, Plato Euthyphr. 3B; Xenophon Mem. 1.1–2.

67 Cicero Divin. 1.122–24.

68 Hermann Hobein, ed., Maximi Tyrii: Philosophumena (Leipzig: Teubner, 1910).

69 Plutarch Gen. Socr. 58OC–D, in idem, Moralia (LCL; trans. Phillip H. de Lacy and Benedict Einarson; 15 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959) 7. 405. Translation in italics is mine.

70 Philo Vit. Mos. 2.187 (ET 6. 541).

71 Ibid., 2.188.

72 Ibid., 2.246–87.

73 On this pattern, see Levison, “Two Types of Ecstatic Prophecy,” 83–89.

74 Philo Vit. Mos. 2.263.

75 Plutarch Gen. Socr. 589D (ET 7. 457).

76 Philo (Som. 2.251) was free of turmoil (ταραχῆς). Simmias (Plutarch Gen. Socr. 589E) accused the ignorant of being in turmoil (ταραχῆς) for believing that one hears only in sleep.

77 ”Im Hinblick auf seine eigene Person spricht er Somn. II 252 mit deutlicher Anspielung auf Sokrates' Daimonion von dem unsichtbaren Pneuma, dessen Stimme er in seinem Innern vernimmt.” (Pohlenz, Max, “Philon von Alexandria,” Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Götlingen. I, Philologisch-historische Klasse 5 [1942] 473Google Scholar). Hay, David (“Philo's View of Himself as an Exegete,” Studio Philonica Annual 3 [1991] 44–45 nn. 9–10Google Scholar) accepts Pohlenz's interpretation.

78 See also the autobiographical reflections of Philo in Cher. 27.

79 Plato Ap. 40A; ή ϒὰρ είωθυῖά μοι μαρτικὴ ἡ τοῦ δαιμονίον (my translation).

80 Idem, Phaedr. 242B; τὸ δαιμόνιόν τε καὶ τὸ εὶωθὸς σημεῖόν μοι (my translation).

81 Idem, Euthyd. 272E; τὸ εἰωθὸς σημεῖον τό δαιμόνιον (my translation).

82 Idem, Ap. 31D.

83 Pseudo-Plato Theag. 128D.

84 Plutarch Gen. Soc. 580C, 589E–F.

85 The precise nature of this daemon was not always clear. The basic conviction concerning Socrates is that he possessed an extraordinary gift. Plato consistently designated this gift as [a] daemon (Euthyphr. 3B; Ap. 40A; δαιμόνιον) or, using an adjective, as “something divine and daemonic” (Ap. 31D; θεῑόν τι καὶ δαιμόνιον). In Plato Phaedr. 242B–C (ET 1. 458), Socrates associates it with a sign, “the daemon and the customary sign” (see also Euthyd. 272E), and attributes to it a voice, “and I thought I heard a voice from it” (Phaedr. 242C). Despite these ample references, it remains unclear whether the daemon is to be understood more generally as “the divine” or more specifically as “a daemonic being.” Nor does Xenophon clarify this question. Because he began his Memorabilia Socratis with a refutation of the charge that Socrates rejected the gods of the state, he defended Socrates by demonstrating his conformity to the state religion. Therefore, he referred to this daemon in terms that conform to rather than differ from the state religion. Xenophon went so far as to include Socrates' daemon alongside commonplace forms of divination such as augury (Mem. 1.1.4) and twice stated in general terms that it pointed the way (σημαίνειν) for Socrates (Mem. 1.1.2–3). The process of conforming Socrates' daemon to the state gods extends so far that Xenophon referred to it as a god (Mem. 1.1.5). Neither Plato nor Xenophon, therefore, offered a satisfactory definition of the precise nature of the daemon which accompanied Socrates. The author of Theages also entered the quest for clarity, giving a straightforward answer: what accompanied Socrates from his youth up was a voice (ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο φωνή) which functioned as a sign to Socrates to prohibit an action (128D–29D). Despite this attempt at clarity, this author's answer retains a certain ambiguity about the source of this voice. He can write, “the voice of the daemon” (128E). Although the voice is the central focus in the Theages, then, the ultimate source of that voice remains shrouded in obscurity.

86 Plutarch Gen. Socr. 588D–E (ET 7. 451).

87 Ibid., 589B (ET 7. 455).

88 Ibid., 591D (ET 7. 471).

89 Ibid., 592A (ET 7. 473).

90 Ibid., 592C (ET 7. 475). This interpretation of Socrates' daemon as a daemonic being reappears in Maximus of Tyre's Orationes. His discussion of Socrates' daemon (τὸ δαιμόνιον) mentions a variety of daemonic beings (9 § 7). The inspiration of the daemon is entirely rational (3 § 3).

91 Philo Plant. 65–66 (LCL; trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954) 3. 247. See idem, Deus imm. 146–47. Philo is dependent upon a tradition found also in Cicero Tusc. 5.91, in which Socrates is explicitly mentioned. The story is also recounted in Diogenes Laertius (2.25). In another reference to Socrates, Philo included Socrates' physiological observations in support of his allegorical interpretation of why the door of Noah's ark is at the side: “[This is] very excellent, for, as Socrates used to say, whether taught by Moses or moved by the things themselves” (Quaest. in Gen. 2.6 [LCL; trans. Ralph Marcus; 10 vols. and 2 suppls.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979] supp. vol. 1. 77–78. In Vit. cont. 57 ([LCL; trans. F. H. Colson; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941] 9. 147), Philo considered the “two celebrated and highly notable examples” of banquets held in Greece to be those in which Socrates took part.

92 Levison, “Debut,” 123–38. “Josephus Ap. 2.262–63 (LCL; trans. H. St. J. Thackeray; 9 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926) 1. 399; τίνος ϒὰρ έτέρου χάριν Σωκράτης άπέθανεν; οὑ ϒὰρ δὴπροεδίδου τήν πόλιν τοῖς πολεμίοις οὐδὲ τῶνίερῶν ἐσύλησεν οὐδέν, ἀλλ ὅτι καινοὺςὅρκους ὤμνυε καί τι δαιμόνιον αὐτῷ σημαίνειν ἔφασκε, διὰ ταῦτα κατεϒνώσθη κώνειον πιὼν ἀποθανεῖν (italicized text is my translation).

94 This view of Socrates' daemon may also have influenced Josephus's descriptions of John Hyrcanus in Bell. 1.69–70.

95 On this characteristic of Plutarch, see Flacelière, Robert, Plutarque: sur la disparition des oracles (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1947) 50–52Google Scholar.

96 In addition to the texts analyzed here, see also Lucan De bello civili (Pharsalia) 5.163–67; Origen Cels. 3.25; Chrysostom Horn, in 1 Cor. 29.1 (PG 61. 242); Pseudo-Longinus De sublimitate 13.2.

97 See Tiede, David L., The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (SBLDS 1; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972) 30–42.Google Scholar

98 On this issue, see Amir, Yehoshua, “Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo,” in Mulder, Martin J., ed., Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Compendia Rerum Judaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2.1; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 421–22Google Scholar.