The Spirit in First-Century Judaism

THE SPIRIT IN FIRST CENTURY JUDAISM THE SPIRIT IN FIRST-CENTURY JUDAISM BY JOHN R. LEVISON ^6 8^ * BRILL ACADEMIC...

Author: John R. Levison

96 downloads 1267 Views 19MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

THE SPIRIT IN FIRST CENTURY JUDAISM

THE SPIRIT IN FIRST-CENTURY JUDAISM

BY

JOHN R. LEVISON

^6 8^ *

BRILL ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS, INC. BOSTON • LEIDEN 2002

library of Congress Cataioging'tn-Publication I^ta Levison, John R. The spirit infirstcentury Judaism / by John R. Levison. p. cm. Originally published: Leiden ; New York : Brill, 1997. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums ; Bd. 29. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-391-04131-2 1. Judaism—History—Post-exilic period, 586 B.C.-210 AD. 2. Holy Spirit (Judaism)—History of doctrines. 3. Judaism—Relations—Greek. 4. Greece— Religion. I. Title. BM176 .U8 2002 296.3*1—dc21 2002066279

ISBN 0-391-04131-2 O Copyright 1997 by Koninidijhe Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All right5 reserved. No part of (his puHication may be reprodwxd, iramlat^, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, elKtmnic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otHemnse, withoM prior umtien permission from the publisher.

Authorisation to photoo^ items for iruemal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The C o p y r ^ Clearance Center, 222 Bxxeuxiod Drive, Suite 910

Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are suhject to change. PRINTED IN THE UNFTED STATES OF AMERICA

For Priscilla

CONTENTS

PREFACE

xiii

I. I N T R O D U C T I O N Discerning an Appropriate Method The Isolation of Exegetical Movements The Identification of Relevant Milieux The Elucidation of Particulars Cicero Plutarch Cicero and Plutarch Consulting Influential Antecedents Paul Volz and the Vitality of Early Judaism Hans Leisegang and Popular Greco-Roman Religious Philosophies

1 4 4 5 6 7 10 13 17 17 19

PART ONE AN ANOMALOUS PROPHET PROSPECT II. T H E SPIRIT AS AN INVADING ANGEL Exegetical Movements The Angel and the Spirit Loss of Mental Control Relevant Milieux Israelite Literature Platonic Literature Plutarch Summary IIL T H E SPIRIT AS LIFE ITSELF The Spirit as Life Itself Exegetical Movements Relevant Milieu: Israelite Literature

25 27 27 28 30 33 34 42 46 54 56 57 57 59

Vlll

CONTENTS

Genesis 6:3 Wisdom Literature Summary The Spirit as the Holy Spirit Exegetical Movements Relevant Milieux Israelite Literature Greek and Latin Literature Stoicism and the Spirit Greek Danielic Literature The Dead Sea Scrolls Summary RETROSPECT

59 62 64 65 65 65 65 67 67 72 73 76 78

PART TWO A N ECLECTIC ERA PROSPECT

83

IV. T H E SPIRIT A N D H U M A N TRANSFORMATION: PALESTINIAN A N D DIASPORA PERSPECTIVES .... Pseudo-Philo's Exegetical Movements Kenaz's Military Prowess Gideon's Military Prowess Philo Judaeus' Exegetical Movements Abraham's Ancestral Character Abraham's Rhetorical Prowess Summary

84 84 84 88 90 91 93 97

V. T H E SPIRIT A N D PROPHETIC TRANSFORMATION: A PALESTINIAN PERSPECTIVE Exegetical Movements Joshua's Prophecy to Israel Shared Prophetic Experiences of Kenaz and Saul Kenaz's Vision Amongst the Elders Relevant Milieux Early Jewish Accounts of Ascent

99 99 99 102 104 109 109

CONTENTS

IX

Popular Greco-Roman Culture Summary

114 128

VI. T H E SPIRIT A N D PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSFORMATION: D L \ S P O R A PERSPECTIVES Josephus and Jewish Philanthropy Exegetical Movements The Relevant Stoic Milieu Philo Judaeus and the Ascent of the Mind Exegetical Movements Plant 18-26 Gig. 19-55 Summary Relevant Milieux The Sapiential Tradition Stoicism and the Sapiential Tradition Philosophical Ascent and Platonism Summary RETROSPECT

131 131 131 133 137 137 138 139 142 143 143 144 151 158 161

PART THREE AN EXTRAORDINARY MIND PROSPECT

167

VIL T H E SPIRIT A N D E X T R A O R D I N A R Y INSIGHT Exegetical Movements Daniel according to Josephus Moses according to Philo Judaeus Three Sorts of Inspired Oracles Moses as a Prophet "in the Strict Sense" Joseph according to Philo Judaeus Summary Relevant Milieux The Israelite and Early Jevrish Sapiential Tradition The Spirit of Wisdom and Israel's Leading Figures ...

168 168 168 171 171 173 176 177 178 178 178

X

CONTENTS

The spirit of Wisdom and the Messianic Servant Socrates' Daemon in Greco-Roman Discussion

181 183

VIII. T H E SPIRIT A N D INSPIRED EXEGESIS Autobiographical Reflection Relevant Milieux Israelite and Early Jewish Literature The Greco-Roman Milieu Summary

190 190 194 194 208 210

RETROSPECT

212 R E T R O S P E C T A N D PROSPECT

IX. R E T R O S P E C T The Spirit and the Human Spirit The Spirit and Extraordinary Power The Spirit and the Military Hero The Spirit and the Prophet The Spirit and the Ideal Ruler The Spirit and the Philosopher The Spirit and Cosmic Unity The Spirit and the Temple The Spirit and the Sage The Spirit and Angelic Presence An Invading Angel A Customary Friend Summary

217 217 220 220 221 223 224 226 226 227 229 229 232 235

X. PROSPECT The Spirit and Individual Authors The Spirit and Prophecy The Spirit and Charismatic Exegesis

237 238 244 254

APPENDIX: Essential Data on Philo Judaeus, Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarunij and Josephus ABBREVIATIONS SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

261 273 276

CONTENTS

INDEXES Ancient Sources Subjects and Ancient Names Modern Authors

XI

281 281 296 301

PREFACE

Although this research would have proven satisfying and stimulating even without personal or professional support, I have been the for tunate recipient of both. I undertook this research in earnest during the summer of 1992 in the marvelous context of a National Endow ment for the Humanities Summer Seminar for College Teachers on the theme, "The Greek Encounter With Judaism in the Hellenistic Era," led by Louis H. Feldman, Professor of Classics at Yeshiva Uni versity. That community of scholars, in the purest sense, comprised the crucible in which I could envision the contours of this study. That professional opportunity also yielded a gratifying friendship with Louis, whom I regard as a colleague and friend of enormous worth. Other scholars provided an unforeseen venue of professional sup port to render this research feasible. During the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in 1991 (in the book stalls to be exact), I had ex pressed to Larry Hurtado my dream of studying in Germany. Larry then took the initiative to correspond on my behalf with Martin Hengel, who agreed to sponsor my application for a research fellow ship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. David Aune then proffered valuable advice on the research proposal. In November, 1992, I received the good news that I had received a Humboldt research fellowship. The privilege of passing the 1993-94 academic year in Tubingen, at the Institut flir antikes Judentum und hellenistische Religionsgeschichte, of the Eberhard-Karls-Universitat Tubingen, proved remark able. Although I spent the lion's share of my hours in a study with a wonderful view of the hills, too many other opportunities prevented me from sequestering myself altogether. I participated in a splendid seminar on Torah and Covenant, led by Hermann Lichtenberger, director of the Institute. I attended various seminars sponsored by the Melanchthon Stiftung. I had enlivening conversations with new colleagues and friends, such as Friedrich Avemarie, Otto Betz, Marietta Hammerle, Ronald Heine, Armin Lange, and others associated with the Institute. Martin and Marianne Hengel were extraordinary hosts, inviting my family and me to their lovely home on countless occasions, both scholarly and celebratory. Martin Hengel's impact, therefore.

XIV

PREFACE

extends measurably beyond his sponsorship of my application for a Humboldt fellowship and even beyond his recommendation to E. J. Brill that this volume be published in the AGAJU series. Nor have I remained isolated while bringing this research to com pletion. Bruce Fisk and Ross Wagner, Duke University graduate stu dents, commented on an early version of the manuscript. A recent graduate of Duke Divinity School, Edgardo Colon-Emeric, painstak ingly checked citations and references. Joan Lamorte, Assistant to the Faculty of Duke Divinity School, whose aid I enlisted because of her efficient effort on a prior volume, typed the bibliogr^hy and undertook excruciating labor in an effort to compile the index of ancient sources. Gerald F. Hawthorne, who taught me Greek more than two decades ago and has himself written on the topic of the spirit, read the manuscript thoroughly, proflferring acute critique and honest appraisal. The significant ways in which I have modified this book—though apparent only to him—are an indication of my re spect for Jerry's intellect. One colleague and confidant in particular has remained with re markable consistency by my side each day of the past five years. During these days, we have together experienced the precious pleas ure of welcoming our two children, Chloe and Jeremy, into our lives, and we have known the satisfaction and joy of being appointed to the faculty of Duke Divinity School. I have dedicated this book to Priscilla Pope-Levison because of how deftly she has allowed our personal and professional aspirations to dovetail, how elegantly she has folded our lives—as parents and scholars—into one another. John R. Levison Durham, North Carolina 30 May, 1997

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

In Plutarch's De gemo Soaatis, Simmias narrates the myth of Timarchus who, "in his desire to learn the nature of Socrates' sign [inspiration], acted like the high-spirited young initiate in philosophy he was'" and descended into the crypt of Trophonius, where he waited underground two nights and a day until it seemed to him "that he heard a crash and was struck on the head, and that the sutures parted and released his soul." Timarchus' soul raised its eyes to a celestial world popu lated by spirit beings—daemons—then dipped to a pitch dark abyss, from which souls intermittently ascended and into which they plunged. Then came the query of Timarchus' guiding daemon, "Timarchus, what would you have me explain?" foUowed by the flustered re^Donse, "Everything." The daemon's explanation is intricate, the blueprint of a calculable cosmos—all of which, of course, is lost on an impetuous and unprepared Timarchus, who confesses, "But I see nothing.. . only many stars trembling about the abyss, others sinking into it, and others again shooting up from below." The realm of research represented by this study is equally complex and confounding. The range of meanings suggested by the single word, icvevjia, is itself bewildering, encompassing entities as diverse as subter ranean vapors, heavenly winds, human attitudes, unpredictable ghosts, and a holy spirit. Because an unmoored exploration of this realm may lead less to comprehensibility than to confusion—Timarchus, seeing much, sees "nothing"—the present book is intended to function similarly to Timarchus' daemon as a guide through the amorphous realm of the spirit.

' The myth of Timarchus is recounted in Plutarch, De gemo SocraHs 589F- 592E. All citations of classical literature, including Philo Judaeus and Josephus, are from the Loeb Classical Library, unless otherwise indicated. On rare occasions, I have modesdy changed gender-exclusive tnmslations when the Greek is more inclusive (e.g., t o . . . OeoKXvcouncvov Y^O<; is translated in IXIL by "the r a c e . . . of men in spired." I translate instead, "the r a c e . . . of people inspired."). Biblical translations are from NRSV, unless otherwise stated.

INTRODUCTION

To facilitate this expedition, I have selected the writings of three early Jewish authors as the primary lens for this research:^ the writings of Philo Judaeus,^ an Alexandrian philosopher and statesman who was bom between 20 and 10 BCE and died approximately 50 GE; the Uber Antiquitatum Biblkarum, authored anonymously (by Pseudo-Philo) For introductions to these authors, see the appendix. ^ Although twentieth century scholarship has not overlooked Philo's significance for ascertaining first century Jewish understandings of the divine spirit, these analy ses have led to fundamentally divergent assessments of Philo's view of the spirit. There is virtually no consensus concerning the most profound influences that shaped Philo's understanding of the spirit. H. Leisegang {Der Heilige GeisL Das Wesen und Werden der mj^shsch-intuitttm Erkemtnis in der Phibsophie und Religion der Griechen; 1.1: fhe vorchrutlichen Anschauungen und Lehren vom nvev^a und der mystisch-intuitiven Erkenntnis [Darmstadt: Wissenschafdichc BuchgescUschaft] 53-69), H. Lewy {Sobria Ebrietas. Unlersuchungen zur Geschichte der antiken MystUi [BZNW 9; Giessen: T6f>elmann, 1929] 64-66), and E. R. Goodenough {By Light, Light- The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism [New Haven: Yale University, 1935] passim) located Philo's view of inspiration pri marily in the ecstatic experiences of the hellenistic mystery religions. G. Verbeke {L'evoluHon de la doctrine du pneuma du Stokisme a S. Augiistin: etude phiiosophique [Paris/ Louvain: L'Institut Superior de Philosophic, Univcrsite de Ix)uvain, 1945] 254) dis agreed emphatically by tracing inspiration to the Septuagint rather than to popular Greco-Roman beliefs, as did H. Burkhardt {Die Inspiration heiliger Schrijien bei Philo von Alexandrien [Giessen, Basel: Brunnen, 1988] 221), who looked to the wisdom tradi tion, according to which "Inspiration voUzieht sich entsprechend nicht unter Ausschaltung der menschlichcn Vemunft, sondcm als ihre Indienstellung und Begnadung mit iiber die Moglichkeiten empirischer und radonaler Erkenntniswege hinausfuhrender Erkenntnis." H. A. Wolfson {Philo: Foundations of Religious Phibsophy in Judaism, ChrisHanity, and Islam [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1947] 2.25) chose neither alternative entirely, recognizing instead in Philo's writings a synthesis of the biblical view of the spirit as the cause of prophecy and the Hatonic view of ecstatic posses sion. R. Berchman ("Arcana Mundi: Magic and Divination in the De Somniis of Philo of Alexandria," SBLSP 1987, 403 28; "Arcana Mundi: Prophecy and Divina tion in the Vita Mosis of Philo of Alexandria," SBLSP 1988, 385-423) portrayed Philo as an eclectic philosopher whose view of inspiration was influenced by a wide range of sources, from Plato to Hutarch. Other studies have looked to Philo's apologetic motive to explain his conception of the spirit—though again without consensus. D. Geor^ ( 7 ^ Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986] 109-12), who contended that the synagogue was the center of Jewish mission in the first century, saw the spirit as the central force in biblical interpretation which, according to Georgi, was considered by Philo to be a prophetic phenomenon: ''The interpreters of the Bible, the exegeles, are therefore for I^ib the prophets of the present" (111). M. E. Isaacs {The Concept of Spirit A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and its Bearing on the New Testament [HM 1; Ia)ndon, University of London, 49) disagreed fundamentally with Georgi, contending instead that Philo recounted contemporary instances of inspiration, such as dream interpre tation and prediction, but limited possession by the spirit to the biblical prophets in order to assert impliciUy "that the inspiration of the authors of scripture was quali tatively different from any subsequent insight." Most recenUy, in "Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus," 26 (1995) 271-323, I have developed a typology of philonic concep tions of the divine spirit.

INTRODUCTION

i

during the first century CE, in which the Jewish scriptures, from crea tion to the death of Saul, are retold;* and the writings of Flavius Josephus,^ bom 37 CE and died ca. 100 CE, who was a former Jew ish general who capitulated to the Romans and spent his final three decades in Rome, composing works of varying apologetic intensity on behalf of the Jews. These three first century GE authors are the anchors to which this study is tethered. They do not comprise the parameters of this research but instead, from the perspective of chro nology, provide a point of reference for this study. I have apportioned this research into five parts, including this intro duction and a concluding portion which contains both a synthesis of results and a detailed inquiry into the implications of this research for the ongoing study of the spirit in Early Judaism and Christian ity. What I have proffered in each of the three intervening parts is, as J. Barton describes his Oracles of God^ "not a comprehensive text book in which every relevant text and article is fully discussed, but a long essay."^ The focus of each part consists of essential observations about {>erceptions of the spirit in first century Judaism. Part one, An Anomalous Prophet, explores the ways in which marvelously divergent and creative first century interpretations of the spirit

* A. Rnero ("A Mediterranean View of Prophetic Inspiration: On the Concept of Inspiration in the Uber Andquitatum Biblicarum by Pseudo-Philo," Mediterranean Historical Reviav 6 [1991] 5-34) devotes only a few pages of his analysis to the spirit in Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, preferring instead to analyze Pseudo-Philo's Mediterranean milieu. In "Prophetic Inspiration in Pseudo-Philo's IJber Antiquitatum Biblicanm," JQR 85 (1995) 297-329, I have analyzed Pseudo-Philo's portrayal of inspiration with respect to Balaam, Joshua, Kenaz, and Saul. * Despite Josephus' niche as an important representative of first century Juda ism, his conception of the .spirit has received meagre attention, as the studies of modem scholars demonstrate: H. Leisegang {Der Heilige Geist); P. Volz {Der Geist Gottes, 82,

143); F. Biichscl {Der Geist GoUes im Neuen Testament [Gutcrsloh: Bertelsmann,

1926] 94-99); G. Verbeke {t'evolution); W. Bieder ( 7 Z W 6.375); M. E. Isaacs {Con cept of Spirit, 46, 48, 50); M.-A. Chevallier {Soiffie de Diew le Scnnt-esprit dans le Nouveau Testament [Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1978] 73); and R. P. Menzies {TJu Development of Eearfy Christian Pneumatology wUh special reference to Luke-Acts [JSNT 54; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991] 58-61). E. Best's "The Use and Non-use pneuma by Josephus" (jVT 3 [1959] 221-25), although it devoted less than four pages to the divine spirit, comprised for several decades the most thorough analysis of Jtvev^a. In "Josephus' Interpretation of die Divine Spirit," J 7 5 47 (1996) 1-23, I have explored Josephus' additions to the biblical text, his adaptations of the biblical text, and his omissions of biblical references to the spirit in the Antiquities. * J. Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (New York/Oxford: Oxford, 1986) 10.

4

INTRODUCTION

were spun from the single formulaic and apparently innocuous bib lical strand of Num 24:2, "And the spirit of God came upon him [Balaam] " Part two. An Eclectic Era, uncovers the complex impulses that propelled first century Jewish authors both to assimilate and to resist Greco-Roman perceptions of inspiration. Part three, An Extraordinary Mind, redresses a balance in scholar ship, which has tended to underscore the blessings of madness in Jew ish Antiquity, by detailing modes of inspiration which were believed to lead not to ecstasy but to intellectual acuity.

Discerning an Appropriate Method The credibility of these research essays lies rooted in their cogency and clarity. Therefore, I should like to chart as clearly as possible the advantages and difficulties of each step employed in this approach to the spirit in first century Jewish literature. This research is moored, I have noted already, to three first century GE Jewish authors; this study therefore lays claim to a relatively assured degree of chronolc^cal reliability. I have chosen as well a modus operandi intended to provide additional moorings by f(K:using primarily upon specific biblical texts, upon Jewish interpretations of those texts during the Greco-Roman era, and upon datable writings of ancient Greek and Greco-Roman authors which bear upon these interpretations.

The Isolation of Exegetical Movements By observing levels of acceptance and transformation of biblical texts, it is possible to glimpse the direction in which early Jewish authors' conceptions of the spirit may drift in relation to the biblical anchors to which their interpretations are tethered. How are we to understand, for example, the measurable difference between Num 24:2—"the ^irit of God came upon Balaam"—and Pseudo-Philo's version, which reads instead, "the spirit of God did not abide in him" (LAB 18:10)? Or how ought we to construe Josephus' insertion into Solomon's dedica tory prayer at the temple of a request that God "send some portion of Thy spirit to dwell in the temple" (Ant. 8.114)? Or how can we explain Philo's definition of the spirit as "susceptible of neither sev erance nor division, diffijsed in its fullness everywhere and through all things . . ." {Gg. 27)?

INTRODUCTION

5

These sorts of exegetical movements are like buoys for this re search from which a variety of conceptions of the spirit can be charted. They provide anchors—specific biblical texts and subsequent trans formations—that possess the potential to tell us a great deal about first century Jewish apprehensions of the spirit. The Identification of Relevant Milieux A portion of that potential can be unleashed by the identification of other texts from a variety of contexts which elucidate these exegetical movements, such as other portions of the Jewish scriptures, post-biblical Jewish literature, Greek literature, and Greco-Roman discussions of inspiration. Assessing the relationship of various exegetical movements (and, in part three, autobiographical reflections) to a variety of milieux is integral to determining perceptions of the spirit in the first century. Naturally the question of influence rears its head when one evalu ates the relevance of various milieux. Since I do not in this study draw back from an effort to identify influences on first century Jew ish authors—and, in some instances, to deny certain influences—I ought to trace the limits and dangers of this endeavor by recalling M. Hengel's discussion of this thorny issue in Judaism and Hellenism J Significant critiques notwithstanding,® Hengel has cogendy demon strated that Greco-Roman influence may have permeated even the recesses of first century Judaism. Fundamental to the present study, therefore, is the possibility that a Palestinian Jewish piece of litera ture such as IM>er Antiqtdtatum Biblicanm may have incorporated GrecoRoman conceptions of inspiration. The implication of this assumption is that even correspondences between Jewish texts may simultaneously reflect their larger Greco-Roman context. For instance, when I sur vey Jewish (rather than Greco-Roman) accounts of ascent, I recognize that those Jewish accounts are often the product of apocalyptic authors, of which Hengel writes, ". . . no Jewish trend of thought borrowed so strongly from its oriental Hellenistic environment as apocalyptic."^ Neat boundaries simply cannot be drawn in the encounter between Jewish literary texts and their Greco-Roman context. ^ Judaism and HeUemsm: Studies in their Encounter in Palestme during the Early Hellenistic Period (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1981). ' See particulariy the many important observations in L. H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attibtdes and Interactions From Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University, 1993) 3-44. ' Judaism and Hellenism, 1.251.

b

INTRODUCTION

Hengel's Judaism and HeUmism teaches the complementary lesson that, despite the pervasiveness of Greco-Roman thought, "the deriva tion of individual themes is often difficult to elucidate, and it is also often difficult to decide whether we have chance analogies to alien con ceptions or real instances of dependence.'"" Thus, even where there exists a considerable degree of correspondence between cultures, it is extraordinarily difficult to determine influence (or dependence)." The inevitable question of dating accompanies as well the issue of influence. I have addressed this question by appealing, with only the rarest of exceptions, to Greco-Roman and Jewish writings which are datable prior to the late first century CE. The later among these texts are rarely cited except in a sequence of related, chronologically prior texts. For instance, 4 Ezra 14, which was composed either in the late first or early second century CE, is employed to illuminate Philo's writings, which were composed approximately forty to eighty years earlier, only as the last in a series of texts which relate to a similar trajectory of inspired interpretation. The Elucidation of Particulars On several occasions in this book I shall explain exegetical movements by appealing not only to a shared environment or milieu but to par ticular correspondences in other Jewish and Greco-Roman literature. This will probably not evoke surprise on such occasions as when I appeal to the Damascus Document from among the Dead Sea Scrolls to explain an exegetical movement in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, Judaism and Hellenism, 1.251. '' The difficulty of determining influence with respect to the spirit is suggested by Hengel's discussion of the closely related topic of higher wisdom through reveladon. After gathering a wide variety of ancient literary sources on inspired interpretation, Hengel {Judaism and Hellenism, 1.216-17) concludes cautiously: "The examples and parallels mentioned do not on each occasion demonstrate a direct influence on early Jewish apocalyptic by its Hellenistic oriental environment—this is certainly present, but the investigation would have to go into much more detail to demonstrate it in particulars—but only show the relevant spiritual milieu which is typical of the Hellenistic period from the beginning of the second century BC onwards. The com mon basis is formed by the idea oVhigher wisdom by revelation'" Hengel (1.246) takes a similar tack when he distinguishes the Elssenes from Pythagoreans. He begins by writing, "the Essenes—like the Hasidim before them—adopted and worked over to a considerable degree foreign influences in their Hellenistic environment from Babylonia and Iran and indeed from Ptolemaic Egypt," but then continues cau tiously by stating that their "docuine of the immortality of the soul merely corre sponded to a widespread religious opinion in their Hellenistic environment."

INTRODUCTION

7

since both texts were written prior to the second century CE in Pal estine in Hebrew. Less self-evident may be my frequent appeal to Greco-Roman sources. Therefore, an explanation of the rationale for this methodological venture is in order. I ought first to say that I shall turn our attention to Greco-Roman'literature only when I am satisfied that biblical antecedents and early Jewish correspondences cannot satisfactorily account for the exegetical movements of Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus. Further, in this effort to situate exegetical movements within their Greco-Roman context, in order to avoid "painting the lion from a single claw," as Plutarch, quoting Alcaeus, nicely phrased it,'^ I have consistendy avoided com bining scattered texts—a few claws—from widely varying eras and provenance to create a putative point of view or motif I have instead derived the lion's share of evidence from three treatises of two GrecoRoman authors, Cicero and Plutarch, who lived within a century of our biblical interpreters. ^Fheir era, their writings, and the remark ably similar conceptions of inspiration they convey situate Cicero and Plutarch at the center of this exploration of the spirit in first century Jewish exegesis. Because their most relevant treatises will be analyzed ad hoc, only as they relate to the writings of Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus, I consider it advisable to introduce them now in a brief but organized format. Ckero^^ Cicero, who was bom on January 3, 106 BCE and died on December 7, 43 BCE, wrote De divinatione^^ to explore the nature of divination, which

The term, Greco-Roman, is used advisedly in an attempt to distinguish this era from Greek Antiquity. Although direct allusions to ancient literature do appear in these biblical interpretations (e.g., to Plato's Phaedrus in Philo's writings), equally otlen exegetical transformations arc not primarily due to the direct i n f l u e n c e of ancient Greek literature—as if our authors simultaneously read Torah and the Tmatm—but to the literature and beliefs of their own era. " Or "to draw great conclusions from small data" {I)ef. Orac. 4IOC). '* Marcus TuUius Cicero was bom into a wealthy equestrian family which lived seventy miles southeast of Rome. His education as philosopher-statesman was unparalleled, including the study of law at Rome under the two great lawyer cum politicians of his day, the Scaevolas, and the study of philosophy under Philo, the former head of the Academy at Athens, as well as Diodotus the Stoic. In his late twenties, Cicero took up again the study of philosophy alongside oratory at Athens, as well as Rhodes, where he met the renowned Stoic philosopher Posidonius, whose writings Cicero would utilize extensively more than thirty years later, when he wrote De dmnatwne.

8

INTRODUCTION

he had passed over in an even more comprehensive treatment of re ligion, De natura deorum {Div. 1.8-9; 2.3). What prompted him to devote a treatise to the topic was a conviction that the growing disbelief in divinadon on the part of Roman intellectuals had led to a misuse of divinadon as a convenient fictional ritual to serve political or personal ends. The rejection of divination by Roman intellectuals had an impact on the populace, for they could now turn to a variety of detrimental and delusional beliefs. Moreover, some prominent figures responded to this repudiation of divination by becoming reactionaries and cham pioning forms of divination which Cicero considered obsolete, such

Cicero was an ambitious participant in civic life. At the age of seventeen he entered military service, serving under the father of Pompey the Great. In his midtwendes he established his reputation as lawyer by his first case {Pro Quinctio) and by his successful defense of Rosdus of Ameria on a c h a r ^ of parricide. A (kcade later, his reputation as a lawyer became unshakable with his succe^ul pn^cution of C. Verres, the corrupt governor of Sicily from 73 to 71 BCE. The rise of his public career included being appointed queslor at the minimum age of thirty, frraetor at the minimum age of forty, and being elected consul prior at the minimum age of forty-two—and the first in over thirty years to be elected to the consul without an official political background. Despite his brilliant successes in law and politics, two events shordy thereafter led to Cicero's partial demise. First, Cicero secured evi dence of a conspiracy masterminded by CataUne. Cataline left Rome, but five con spirators, including a praetor, were executed with Senate approval but without a trial. Cicero was responsible for these executions. Second, a year later Publius Clodius d i ^ i s e d himself as a woman to join in the (female) mysteries of the Bona Dea. Although Clodius was acquitted through bribery, Cicero had collected evidence to undermine his alibi. These two events conver^xi when Clodius gained political power and, as tribune, proposed to oudaw anyone who had put Roman citizens to death without trial. Cicero spent his exile in 58 BCE in Macedonia. Although he was recalled on 4 August, 57, to Rome, this mixture of political successes and failures (though he steadfasdy defended the executions) reflected the vicissitudes of Roman p>olitics during these decades. During this period of his life, the growing realization that Julius Caesar would not be able to restore the republican constitution was coupled with personal sadness. In 46 BCE, Cicero divorced his wife of thirty years, Terentia, and soon married Publilia. In 45 BCE, Cicero's daughter, Tullia, died, and Pufcrfilia's lack of sympathy led to divorce. Caesar was then mur dered in 44 BCE. During these years, 46~44 BCE, while he was in his eariy axties, Cicero compmed many of hb philosophical writings, such as De fimbus bamum et malorum, on the \^uyii^ conceptions of the "chief good" hdd by philosophers, Tuxukmae disputationes, on the conditions of happiness, De natura demon, on the views of various philosophical schoob on the nature of the gods, and De fato, on free will. During thb period, Cicero wrote as well De etioinatime. Just shy of two years after the pub lication of De dioinatione, on December 7, 43 BCE. Marc Antony's soldiers captured Cicero, executed him, and di^layed hb head and hands on the Rostra in Rome. For a critical text, an excellent introduction, and commentary, see A. S. Pease, M. TuUius Ciceroms De Divinatume, University of lUinob Studies in Language and Literature, 3 parts (Urbana: Univereity of Illinois, 1920-24).

INTRODUCTION

9

as the interpretation of thunder. De dmnatwne, then, was written to counter popular ignorance, convenient political fictions, and the re actionary adoption of obsolete religious practices.'® Book one of De divinatione presents the most important Stoic views on divination (e.g., 1.10, 82, 118; 2.8, 100), based predominantiy upon the works of the great Stoic philosopher, Posidonius, whom Cicero had met in Rhodes. Book two contains a refutation of this view, with particular attention paid to the arguments of Cameades. Of the two, book one is more significant for our study. Quintus, Cicero's brother and an advocate for the Stoic position, defines divination as "the foreseeing and foretelling of events consid ered as happening by chance" (1.9). He distinguishes between two forms of divination: artificial, which employs methods of divination such as augury, astrology, and the examination of entrails; and natu ral divination, which is produced by mental excitement and dreams (1.12). The validity of both, contends Quintus, demonstrates two re lated propositions: "if there is divination there are g o d s . . . if there are gods there is divination" (1.10, 82-83). In particular, the gods communicate with humankind, and divination is the means by which humans interpret the gods' signs. Based upon this fundamental distinc tion, the first book of De divinatione is tighdy organized. (1) l . l l b - 3 6 and 1.72-109. Quintus discusses artificial divination in two lengthy sections. He amasses coundess examples (including Cicero's own writings) to demonstrate that artificial divination is both ancient, extending as far back as Romulus, and widespread, encom passing Romans and barbarians alike. Quintus is deeply concerned to refute the objection that occasional errors of artificial divination disqualify the entire enterprise; he observes that all arts based on deduction are occasionally wrong (1.24-25). (2) 1.37-71 and 1.110-121. Quintus also discusses natural divina tion in two sections, as well as in his peroration (1.129-30). Once again, he is concerned to dispute the inference that a few false dreams invalidate the entire enterprise. This concern leads Quintus to argue, on a negative note, that untrustworthy dreams come to ill-prepared people and that unskilled interpreters misconstrue the meaning of dreams and oracles (1.60 and 1.116-21). On a positive note, Quintus contends that people must be properly prepared to receive dreams

See Pease, De Dtoinatione, 1.10-13.

10

INTRODUCTION

and inspirauon. The details of this latter point are of extraordinary significance for the present study: the souls of such people have devel oped their innate kinship with the cosmos and receive dreams and oracles when they are freed from the body and are stimulated by some external, divine impulse (1.60-67; 1.114-15; 1.129-30). De divinatione is a resource of enormous significance for this study. In particular, its lucid depiction of natural divination is integral to comprehending conceptions of the divine spirit in the writings of Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus. Plutarch'' Plutarch, who was born approximately 46 CE, throughout his life maintained particularly close ties with the oracular shrine at Delphi and held a priesthood from 95 CE until his death sometime in the 120's CE. In light of this intimate relationship to Delphi, it is not surprising that he devoted several of his dialogues to topics related to Delphi. In De E apud Delphos, he interpreted the word EI at the shrine's entrance. In De Pythiae oracuLis, he sought to explain why the priestess no longer responded to queries in verse. And in De defectu oraculorum, he addressed the problem of diminished oracular activity at Delphi, "or rather the total disappearance of all but one or two; but we should deliberate the reason why they have become so utterly weak" (411E). To this question Plutarch proffered four significant answers and responses. (1) 412F-413D. Didymus the Cynic, nicknamed Planetiades, won ders why Divine Providence permits any oracular activity at all in light of human wickedness in general and, in particular, the shaming of the oracle with improper questions (e.g., about inheritances). After

Although I^utarch lived in central Greece, in the inauspicious city of Chaeronea, where he was lx)rn in approximately 46 CE, he visited cities such as Sparta, Corinth, and Alexandria, was studying physics, natural science, and rhetoric at Athens when Nero visited in 66 CE, and sojourned for a while in Rome in fulfillment of civic re sponsibilities. Under the emperor Hadrian, moreover, he was a citizen of Athens and procurator of Achaea. Plutarch's participation in public life took literary form in his ViUu, biographies of leading soldiers and statesmen, usually in pairs, first of a Greek, then of a Roman, accompanied by a comparison (twenty-three of which are extant). He wrote as well numerous dialogues and diatribes on a variety of topics including: critiques of superstition. Epicureanism, and Stoicism; discussions of Eros, divine justice, the task of virtue, musical forms, and cosmology; commentaries on Rato's writings; even reflections on his daughter's death. For further introduction, see 77u Oxford Classical LHctionaTy, s.v., "Plutarch;" and R. H. Barrow, IHutarch and his Tunes (Bloomington and London: Indiana, 1967) 1-50.

INTRODUCTION

11

Lamprias responds, first, that prophecy constitutes part of the continu ing nurture of a gentie god, and, second, that humans were wicked even at the inception of prophecy, Didymus departs silentiy. (2) 413D-414C. Before proffering his own opinion, Ammonius expresses two assumptions. First, "prophecy is something created by a god, and certainly no greater or more potent force exists to abolish and obliterate it." Second, the essential character of the activities of the gods is "moderation." On these bases, Ammonius argues that oracular activity has decreased at Delphi under divine direction due to depopulation, so that "the exercise of the prophetic art which continues at the present day is sufficient for all." Lamprias disagrees (414D-E), contending instead that the god may create many things, but that nature causes them to disintegrate. No god would abolish a prophetic shrine or oracle; this must be due to natural causes. He adds a word of caution to the discussion by remind ing his dialogue partners that prophecy is not a form of ventriloquism, as if the god "enters into the bodies of the prophets and prompts their utterances, employing their mouths and voices as instruments." Such inspiration results in the gods' becoming entangled in human need, a situation quite at odds with the gods' majesty. (3) 414F-418D (cf 431A-B; 435A; 436F-437A). Cleombrotus, be cause he agrees with Lamprias that the god is an agent, neither entirely uninvolved in all nor wholly responsible for all, introduces into the discussion a race of daemons or demigods who share both "human emotions and godlike power" and mediate between the gods and humankind. When these daemons leave a shrine, the oracles lose their powers, but when they return later, "the oracles, like musical instruments, become articulate" once again. (4) 431E-434C. Lamprias presents the Stoic position, beginning with the innate capacity of the soul to discern the future when it separates from the body through the impetus of an external influence, the divine pneuma (understood in Stoic terms), whether through the air or water. For a variety of physiological reasons, these lakes and springs and vapors, which contain the impetus of inspiration, dry up and disappear. Lamprias attributes the obsolescence of oracles at Delphi to just such a cause, to the intermittent activity of the famous vapor at Delphi.'®

See Plutarch, Pyth. Orac. 402B-C; Cicero, Div. 1.38; 2.117.

12

INTRODUCTION

Two important summaries follow. In 435A, Philip criticizes the interlocutors for transferring the prophetic art firom the gods to the daemons, and then for discarding these daemons in favor of "winds and vapors and exhalations." In 436D-438D, Lamprias summarizes the discussion, though favoring the Stoic position.'^ Plutarch's interest in matters of religion was not limited solely to Delphi. Possibly later in life, while he composed his dialogues on the Pythia at Delphi, Plutarch also penned De Iside et Osiride, in which he reported to the Delphic prieste^, Clea, an account of E^;yptian religion, with a particularly mystical flavor. Plutarch's preoccupation with reli gion characterized him even early in life, as the discussion of Socrates' inspiration in one of his earlier works, Lk genio Socratis, reveals. In this dialogue, De gemo Soaatis, from which I garnered the myth of Timarchus, Plutarch presented a detailed discussion of the nature of Socrates' inspiration. The narrative context of this treatise is the con spiracy that led to the liberation of Thebes from Sparta in 379 B C E . ' " Because the discussions of the conspirators when they gather are interrupted throughout by these events, discussions of Socrates' in^iration cluster in two distinct parts, with the second a continuation of the first: 580C-582C and 588B-589F. The catalyst for this discussion is news that an honorable Italian Pythagorean has waited for a sign at a grave (579D-580C). Galaxidorus the rationalist labek such an action superstition and refers approvingly to Socrates, who preferred simplicity to such humbug. This prompts Theocritus to ask if he believes that Socrates had no use for things divine. To Galaxidorus' contention that Socrates used philosophy to face life with sober reason, Theocritus counters, "but what, my dear sir, do we call Socrates' sign [TO 6aiji6viov]?" (1) 580C-F. Theocratus describes it generally as a "guide" which lent divine sanction to Socrates' decisions. (2) 580F-581A and 581F-582C. Galaxidorus interprets it as a sneeze, chance remark, or omen which tips the balance of a difficult, well-reasoned decision. When charged later with making sport, he counters that an omen such as a bird's song, in itself trivial, can be recognized as the sign of a great event to a mind, such as Socrates', expert in (artificial) divination.

" In Pyth. Orac. 402B-C, Plutarch proffers the further explanation that the Delphic priestesses failed to go to the proper ^)ot. ^ See also Plutarch's JUfe of Petopidas 6-13 and the introduction in die Loeb edititm.

INTRODUCTION

13

(3) 581A-D. The narrator's father supposes that it must be more than chance happenings because Socrates made decisions as "one guided by a higher authority and principle to noble conduct." (4) The second part of the discussion about the nature and activity of the daemonion continues with the view of Simmias (588B). (a) 588C-589F. Simmias conjectures that the daemonion is "the unuttered words of a daemon, making voiceless contact with his intelligence," which is free from bodily distractions and passions. He cautions that "the messages of daemons. . . find an echo in those only whose character is untroubled and soul unruffled...." Simmias recognizes that this interpretation of inspiration differs from popular belief, according to which people receive inspiration when asleep. (b) 589F-592F. As evidence for this interpretation, Simmias reluctandy summarizes the myth of Timarchus of Chaeroneia, in which the guiding daemon identifies those stars which float above the abyss as the daemons of understanding people whose souls are not entirely submerged in passions. Of these daemons, some float erratically because they are tethered to unruly souls. Other dae mons, however, are ordered because they are tethered to respon sive, obedient souls from which come the race of diviners and inspired people. Cicero and Plutarch The significance of Cicero and Plutarch, taken together, is impres sive, for their treatises comprise an unparalleled quarry of conceptions about religion in the Greco-Roman era. Several characteristics of the writings of Cicero and Plutarch, related both to the specific question of inspiration and to the nature of their writings as a whole, attest to their potential importance for understanding first century Jewish biblical interpretation. A Common Era. On the most basic level, Cicero and Plutarch bracket the era of our biblical interpreters chronologically. Cicero was bom on 3 January, 106 BCE, seventy miles southeast of Rome, and died 43 BCE, a few decades before the birth of Philo Judaeus in ca. 20 BCE. Plutarch was bom ca. 46 CE, possibly about the time of Philo's death and within a decade of Josephus' birth in 37 CE. A Common Academy. The importance of the writings produced by Cicero and Plutarch as a wimess to viewpoints prevalent in the first centuries BCE and C E swells even further when we recognize that

14

INTRODUCTION

both writers belonged to the New Academy, a cardinal principle of which was that judgment must be suspended because truth has two faces. The result of this commitment is that Cicero and Plutarch, be cause they defended even those opinions to which they did not adhere, shaped their treatises as a whole to present an expansive range of opinions other than their own.^' This attitude is evident in an inter change between the narrator of De defectu oracukrum and Demetrius. The narrator closes his comments with a note of caution: "But if in any other place we have recalled the Academy to our mind, let us do so here as well, and divest ourselves of excessive credulity. . . Demetrius agrees that facts cause j>eople to lose their footing "when ever we make bold to pronounce opinions about such matters as if we understood them" (43 lA).^ This commitment explains in part why Cicero was not satisfied merely to refute the Stoic position on divination; he instead offered it cogendy in book 1 of De divinatione before he refuted it equally forcefully in book 2. This commitment explains also why Hutarch presented four distinct answers, with a concluding synthesis, to the q u e s t i o n of the d e m i s e of Delphic activity.^' It explains also why Plutarch preserved several interpretations of Socrates' daemonion, such as a guide from youth, a sneeze, a divine authority, and a daemon's voice. The questions of Delphic inspiration and Socrates' inspiration are precisely the insoluble sort to which adherents of the New Acad emy were unwilling to proffer a definitive opinion; they preferred to present a range of alternatives. A Common Heritage. In addition to this commitment to refraining from definite opinions about thorny issues, both Cicero and Plutarch were careful also to solidify each point of view by collecting aUusions to and citations of their predecessors and contemporauies. Cicero's Quintus, for instance, in his discussion of dreams, begins by demon strating his familiarity with the treatises on dreams of Chrysippus and Antipater (Div. 1.39). He continues with a dream-story of Philistus, followed by relatively lengthy quotations from Ennius, an unknown author, and Accius. He then turns to foreign instances of dreams,

^' E.g., in Div. 1.7, Cicero writes of Panaetius, "At any rate, this praiseworthy tendency of the Academy to d o u b t . . . " Sec also 7 ^ £ 0/ Dett>hi 387F. ^ Sec further R. Flaceliere, nitarque: Star ta IXsparition des Oracles (Paris: Belles Lcttres, 1947) 50-52.

INTRODUCTION

15

citing several stories and their literary sources, such as a story about Cyrus in Dinon's Persian annals, or one about Hannibal in the writ ings of Coelius. When he turns his attention to the dreams of philo sophers and poets, his list includes Socrates, Xenophon, Aristode, and Sophocles. He continues by turning from Greek sources to Roman and proceeds in the same manner. When he shifts his argument to answer the question of why some dreams are untrustworthy, Cicero's Quintus begins not surprisingly with the words of Socrates in Plato's Republic [Div. 1.60). Plutarch's interlocutors display a similar respect toward their prede cessors. Cleombrotus, for example, quotes from Plato, Hesiod, Pindar, Euripides, Herodotus, Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Empedocles. He sum marizes Homer, Heracleitus, Orpheus, and Xenocrates. Integral to Cleombrotus' argument are the references to Hesiod's Works and Days 122, in which Hesiod delineates four classes of rational beings, in cluding daemons, and Plato's Symposium 202D-E, in which daemons are accorded an "interpretative and ministering nature" between the gods and humankind. Other interlocutors in De defectu oraculorum and De genio Soaatis employ a similar abundance of allusions, quotations, and references. Even the discredited Cynic Didymus refers to Hesiod and criticizes Pythagoras. The persuasive appeal of Cicero's De Divinatione and Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum and De genio Soaatis, then, is based upon the citation of external wimesses to validate divination. This approach renders their treatises of extraordinary value for ascertaining perspectives prevalent both prior to and during the Greco-Roman era. A Common Perspective. Equally important, the writings of Cicero and Plutarch, though separated by more than a century, preserve similar perspectives on many aspects of inspiration. These similarities attest to the reliability of their treatments of the viewpoints which circulated during the period, approximately 50 BCE-100 CE, which found Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus engaged in the task of biblical interpre tation. For example, both Cicero and Plutarch distinguished between artificial divination—through the examination of omens, entrails, etc.— and natural divination—through direct inspiration and dreams. The level of reliability these treatises exhibit over the course of two centuries will become evident if we present in a thumbnail sketch their treatment of es^ntial features of inspiration, understood from the Stoic perspective. Lamprias, in Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum 431E-434C, and Quintus, in three separate but related sections of Cicero's De

16

INTRODUCTION

dwmati(m-~\.60-66, 110-115, 129-30—both represent the Stoic posi tion. Their presentations of this phenomenon exhibit similar features despite the passing of more than a century between their composition. (1) Innate capacity of the soul. Lamprias begins his explanation of the disappearance of oracles at Delphi by contending that souls, like the daemons, "possess the natural faculty of knowing and revealing fliture events before they happen" {Def. Orac. 43 lE).^* Quintus assumes as well that "the human soul has an inherent power of presaging or of foreknowing infused into it from without" {Div. 1.66). (2) Soul withdrawn from the body. Lamprias recognizes, however, that souls possess this capacity "to a slight degree while conjoined to the body" {Def. Orac. 43IF) and that souls must be withdrawn from the body and "released from their present state" (432C). Quintus recog nizes as well that "the human soul never divines naturally, except when it is so unrestrained and free that it has absolutely no associa tion with the body, as happens in the case of frenzy and dreams" {Div. 1.113; see 1.63, 66, 129). (3) Sleep and death. Both Lamprias {Def Orac. 432C) and Quintus (/)». 1.63-64) discuss together nearness to death and sleep as the states in which the inherent power of the soul is released. (4) An external in^ndse. Lamprias traces the withdrawal of the soul from the body to a "change which we call inspiration" which is brought about often by physical forces, whether "through the air or. . . running waters" {Def Orac. 432D-E), "that dispose souls to inspiration and impressions of the future" (433C). Quintus delineates several physical forces. Inspired souls "do not cling to the body and are kindled by many different influences," including vocal tones, groves and forests, rivers and seas {Div. 1.114). (5) Hot amifierysoul. The inspired soul is described by Lamprias as "hot and fiery" {Def Orac. 432F) and by Quintus as "inflamed and aroused" {Div. 1.114). Other elements of inspiration could be appended to this list, such as the need for proper preparation {Def. Orac. 438A; Div. 1.62), but this sketch should suffice to demonstrate the potential contribution Cicero and Plutarch make to our understanding of inspiration during the period, 50 B C E - 1 0 0 CE. Cicero and Hutarch provide a rich reser voir for understanding first century Jewish perspectives on the divine

See also Drf. Orac. 432A, C.

INTRODUCTION

17

spirit because their writings belong to the same era, because they devote serious attendon to explaining the phenomena of inspiration, because they base arguments upon the writings of their predecessors, because they offer a fair treatment of views other than their own, and because they reliably preserve potentially relevant viewpoints which span the century in which Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus com posed their own works.

Consulting Influential Antecedents Simmias prefaces his narrative of the Timarchus myth by recalling with clear disdain that Timarchus descended into the crypt, "consulting no one but Cebes and me . . . " (Gen. Soa. 590A). Although I have natu rally consulted many more, I am especially indebted to two studies, both neariy a century old but each of inestimable worth, in my attempt to navigate simultaneously the surging waters of Judaism and the expansive waters of the Greco-Roman world. P. Volz has provided a beacon from the Jewish shoreline, H. Leisegang from the GrecoRoman. In an effort to sail the waters between the two, I have become the beneficiary of both. Paul Volz and the Vitality of Early Judaism Paul Volz's study, Der Geist Gottes und die verwandten Erscheimmgen im Alten Testament und im anschliefienden Judentum, published in 1910 (Tubingen, Mohr), has exercised a centripetal force that has drawn my own studies into its orbit. The most fundamental of Volz's contributions is his willingness to stand among very few scholars who analyzed Israelite and early Jewish literature in their own right rather than as prole gomena to the interpretation of early Christian literature. The basis for this commitment is Volz's positive assessment of Early Judaism: Die Gewohnheit, das au^hende Judentum mit dem jungen Christentum zu ver^eichen, hat stets dazu gefiihrt, das erstere zu verkennen; das ist historisch ungcrecht, und aufkrdem ist cs viel wahrscheinlicher, daB die neue Religion aus einer religios beweglichen und tief empfindenden Zeit hervoipng als aus einer erstarrten und erstorbcnen. Vergleichen wir das Judentum etwa mit der heutigen Zeit oder sonst irgend einer Zeit der Menschheitsgcschichte, so bekommt man den Eindruck, daB ein verhaltnismafiig reiches Lebcn des Geistes in der jiidischcn Gemcindc der letzten vorchristUchcn Jahrhunderte sich kundgab und daB sich die

18

INTRODUCTION

Juden auch hierin als das Volk der Religion enviesen. Manchcs von dem was unter ihnen mit pneumatischcm BewuBtsein auftrat, muB als edle Frucht des Geistes anerkannt werden, und der MaBstab, mit dem das Judentum die pneumatischen Erscheinungen verwertetc, bezeugt selbst am besten die Echtheit seiner Religion.'^ Volz here provides the assumption from which the present book begins, namely, that conceptions of the spirit in Early Judaism are the product of a fertile spirituality that provided the soil for the fecundity of early Christian pneumatology. Following the lead of his predecessors, H. GunkeP and H. Weinel,^^ Volz analyzed the ejfects of the spirit in Elarly Judaism and Christianity by devoting a considerable section of the book to the effects (Wirkungeri) of the spirit, such as inspired speech, inspired poetry, prophetic and predictive speech, inspired writing and translation (LXX), and inspired wisdom. Those figures whom the spirit affects, "pneumatische Personen," extend from Moses in the distant past, to Philo, Ben Sira, the apocalypticists, the rabbis et al. in the present, to the messiah and the people of salvation in the eschatological future.^® What Volz succeeded in accomplishing as well, beyond the achieve ments of his predecessors, was to explore in detail not only the eficts of the spirit but also the nature of the spirit. Volz clarified this goal in his forward: "Die Beschreibung der Wirkungen bedarf der Erganzung durch die Geschichte der Vorstellungen. Manches, wie die Idee der Geisthypostase, erhalt bei der Uebersicht der Wirkungen nicht seinen voUen Wert."^ This commitment to apprehending both the effects and the nature of the spirit in Israelite and early Jewish litera ture led him to devote a sizeable portion of the book to "Die Geisthypostase.'"'' The first section of this analysis is diachronic, beginning with post-exilic texts such as Isa 63:7-14 and concluding with rabbinic literature. The second section consists of an analysis of related topics and sources, such as the spirit in Babylonian and Persian literature, or angels, Shekhinah, and logos. " Der Geist GoUes, 144. ^ Die PVirkungen des heiUgen Geistes nach der populdren Anschamng der apostoUschen ^eit und nach der Lehre des Apostels Paulus (Goltingen: Vandenhocck & Ruprccht, 1888). ET, The Influence of the Holy Spirit- the Popular View of the Apostolic Age and the Teaching of the ApostU Paul (?hi\2ide\phisi: Fortress, 1979). Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister im nachapostolischen ^eitalter bis auf Irendus (I^ipzig and Tiibingcn: Mohr, 1899). Der Grist Gottes, 78-145. ^ Der Geist GoUes, v. ^ Der Geist Gottes, 145-94.

INTRODUCTION

19

The present book is the beneficiary of Volz's indispensable study. I shall follow Volz in devodng considerable attention to early Jewish conceptions of the nature of the spirit. I have also adapted Volz's diachronic approach to Israelite and early Jewish literature by incorpo rating several diachronic analyses of Israelite and early Jewish litera ture which illuminate various aspects of the spirit and first century Jewish biblical interpretation. The influence of Paul Volz's study of the spirit of God on this study, therefore, is inestimable. The originating impulse, emphases, and contours of the present book have been shaped by Volz's appre ciation of the vitality of Early Judaism, his attempt to apprehend early Jewish conceptions of the nature of the spirit, and his deft use of a diachronic approach to Israelite and early Jewish literature. Hans Leisegang and Popular Greco-Roman Religious fiiilosopkies Six years later, a book with nearly the same tide, Der Heilige Geist, was left with a publisher in Darmstadt, where it remained for three years, until 1919, while its author fought in and returned safely from the First Worid War. While Volz's appreciation of early Jewish spirituality has influenced the present book, Leisegang's positive assessment of Greek and Roman spiritualities has exercised a commensurate influence. Leisegang recog nized that the Greeks already had a developed notion of Jtvevna, so that Jewish and Christian conceptions of the holy spirit could not be conceived of as creations de rum?' To demonstrate this thesis, Leisegang selected a single author, Philo Judaeus, because Philo was situated ideally between the Greek, Jewish, and Christian worlds and in an eclectic period in which religion began to supplant philosophy, which had proven bankrupt in the experience of the masses, according to I-^isegang.^^ By analyzing Philo, Leisegang intended to reconstruct those Greek and Roman conceptions which proved of particular significance during the Greco-Roman era.^^

" Der Heilige Geist, 4. Der Heilige Geist, 12 H. " Leisegang {Der Heilige Geist, 12-13) chose Philo also because no other sin^e pre-Christian writer had such a developed conception of jtvev^a, and because all post-Chrisdan authors, including Greco-Roman writers, may have been influenced by Christian pneumatologies.

20

INTRODUCTION

These conceptions Leisegang did not discern in Platonic and Stoic philosophies per se but in later hellenistic mystery religions, which synthesized and distorted those philosophies in an eclectic blend of popular "folk" religiosity. Philo, contended Leisegang, embraced these conceptions, although he coated them with a veneer of philosophical vocabulary: Hiilons Anschauungen zwar tief im griechischen Volk^^uben wurzdten, dafi er aber die Volksvorstellun^n bcreits durchtrankt mit griechischer Philosophie ubemahm und den Prozess der Vcredelimg und Veigcistigung des urspriinglich recht ungefiigen und rohen Materials bis zu einer staunenswerten Verfeinerung fortfuhrte, so daB sich der Volksgiaube unter seinen Handen zu einer philosophischen Religion der Gelehrten umgestaltete.'* The analysis which we are about to undertake will provide evidence to support Leisegang's thesis. What he has discovered of Philo—that the key to Philo's conceptions of the spirit is to be discerned in the eclectic, popular religious philosophies of his own time—applies as well to Josephus' Antiquities and to Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Bibiicarum. Although I depart from Leisegang in not tracing these conceptions to the Dionysian, Orphic, and nature mystery religions, I shall often discover data to explain early Jewish exegetical move ments in the eclectic philosophical writings of Cicero and Plutarch, that is, in popular Greco-Roman conceptions contemporary with first century Jewish biblical interpreters. Leisegang's analysis has also influenced the tenor of this book by way of contrast. Leisegang queried, "Ist die Lehre vom Heiligen Gciste griechischen oder orientalischen Ursprungs?'"* Volz had sought the development of conceptions of the spirit of God in the "oriental" sphere of Israelite and early Jewish thought and experience; Leisegang located its origin and development entirely within the sphere of "Greek" thought and experience: Er schopft sie [speculations about the holy spirit] nicht aus der jiidischen, auch nicht aus anderer orientalischer Oberiieferung, sondem aus der Philosophie seiner Zeit, die bcstrebt war, einen alten und durch die Mysterienreligionen der hellenistischen Zeit neu belebten Volksglauben durch die Verbindung mit hauptsachlich platonischen und stoischen

»* Der Heilige Geist, 240. ^ Der Hei% Geist, 4

INTRODUCTION

21

PhUosophemen auch den GcbUdeten und Gelehrten schmackhaft und annehmbar zu machcn.'* In contrast to Leisegang, who maintained a rigid dichotomy between Jewish and Greco-Roman conceptions of the spirit, I shaU frequendy reject this disdncdon in favor of an eclecdc synthesis of Jewish and Greco-Roman influences on conceptions of the spirit in first century Jewish biblical interpretation. Leisegang's influence on this book, therefore, is not inconsider able. The distinction he drew between Greek philosophies and GrecoRoman popular eclectic philosophies will suggest itself in many of my discussions of Greco-Roman—as opposed to ancient Greek— milieux. Further, Leisegang's appreciation of Greco-Roman popular views riveted my attention upon similar potential influences. It is hardly surprising, in the shadow of M. Hengel, that I should depart from Leisegang in my preference for interpreting Jewish and popular GrecoRoman spheres of thought in tandem.

* Der Heilige Geist, 241. See also p. 238: . . . die gesamte Mystik des Juden Philon dem griechischen Gebtesleben entspringt... Es war also mdglich, dass in der Zeit, die dem Auftreten des Christentums unmittelbar vorau^ng, ein Jude sich von dem Geiste der Religion seiner V^tcr so wcit cntfcmte, dass der Chaiakter seiner Frommigkeit im innersten Kerne nicht von der judischen Religionslehre, sondem vom griechischen Mysdzismus bestimmt wurde " Even I ^ o ' s use of the Septuagint is related to Judakm "nur mit dem Wordaut, nicht mit ihrem Geist " For adher ence to the same preference for hellenbtic mysteries over against Judaian when xveO^a is interpreted as wind, sec p. 53; similarly when jtveOno is the ^irit of knowl edge or wisdom, see p. 75.

PART I

AN ANOMALOUS PROPHET

PROSPECT

According to Numbers 22^24, which contains the biblical story of Balaam and the ass, Balak, king of Moab, sent emissaries to Balaam, a noted seer, to obtain from him an oracle that would defeat Israel, Balak's enemy (22:7~21). Balaam set off on his ass, not without equivo cation, and was confronted on the way by an angel. Ironically, the ass perceived the angelic presence, but Balaam did not. Balaam, therefore, continued until the angel blocked the way, causing the ass to lie down. In anger Balaam struck the ass, which addressed him widi human language (22:22-30). Then "die LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the r o a d . . ." (22:31). The angel subsequendy permitted Balaam to con tinue on his journey to meet the king of Midian but commanded him to speak only what the angel would teU him to speak (22:35). Balaam delivered four oracular speeches, all of them extolling Israel, including the prediction that a star would come out of Jacob and crush the Midianites, with whom Balak was allied (24:17). Perplexing ambiguities beset this narrative. Though a travelogue of sorts, the journey is jagged, begiin with the putative approbation of God (22:20) but interrupted immediately by God's angel, who confronted Balaam disapprovingly in a walled path between two vineyards. This encounter introduces an element of ambiguity into the narrative, for now the process by which Balaam was capable of delivering oracles becomes confused. Originally God had commanded, "Do only what I tell you to do" (22:20); subsequendy the angel commanded, "Speak only what I tell you to speak" (22:35). The angel did not reappear, however, to spark Balaam's oracles; instead, God "put a word into his mouth" (23:16),' and, prior to the third oracle, die spirit of God "came upon him" (24:2). (LXX 23:7 adds a similar explanation prior to the second oracle as well.) Equally troubling is the focus of a tale, central to Israel's selfconsciousness as a blessed nation, upon a diviner (Josh 13:22) who hailed from the Euphrates (Num 22:5) and journeyed to Moab to

' See Num 22:38; 23:4-5, 12, 16, 26; 24:13.

26

AN ANOMALOUS PROPHET

deliver oracles at the request of a foreign king who ruled Israel's enemies. Further, the responsibility for sparing the Midianite women who seduced Israel, led them to idolatry, and consequendy brought about a plague which killed 24,000 (Num 25:1-9) is attributed to Balaam in Num 31:16. How could it be that the angel of God would instruct Balaam (22:35), or that the spirit of God would come upon him (24:2), or that God would "put a word into his mouth" (23:16)— an experience promised the true prophet in Deut 18:18 and denied diviners and soothsayers (18:9-14)? This jarring dissonance which so violates the principle of prophecy espoused in Deuteronomy 18 led the author of Deuteronomy to another explanation of Balaam's bless ing. Balaam cursed rather than blessed Israel, but God thwarted Balaam's efforts by refusing to listen to the curse and by transforming it (^Sn) into a blessing: "the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loved you" (Deut 23:6).^ The author of Deuteronomy makes no attempt to salvage Balaam; Balaam cursed, God blessed. Other explanations of Balaam's experience arose during the postbiblical era. The conundrums of the source of Balaam's oracles and the incorrigible character of this seer^ led first century Jewish biblical interpreters in two distinctive directions, both of which very nearly burst the old wineskin of the biblical text with robust new wines that matured during the Greco-Roman era. The products are indeed intoxicating, celebrations of exegetical creativity.*

* Slightly more ambiguous but along the same lines is Josh 24:9-10, in the context of Joshua's summary of Israelite history: "Then King Balak son of Zippor of Moab, set out to fight against Israel. He sent and invited Balaam son of Beor to c u i ^ you, but I would not listen to Balaam; therefore he blessed you; so I rescued you out of his hand." See further, particularly on LXX Josh 24:9-10, J. R. Baskin, name's Counsellors: Job, Jetkro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Papistic Tra^tition (BJS 47; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 75-77. ' For a brief survey of the various levels of culpability attributed to Balaam by early Jewish authors, see G. Vermes, Scripture <md Tradition in Judaism (SPB 4; 2nd. ed.; Leiden: BriU, 1973) 173-75. * Some of the more important secondary discussions of early Jewish interpretations of Balaam include: Vermes, Scripture and Trattitum, 127-77; B a ^ n , naraoh's Counsel lors, 75-113; O. Betz, "Die Bileamtradidon und die biblische Lehre von der In^iration," in Religion im Erbe Agyptens: Beiirdge zur spatantiken Rebpon^cfuchte ZM^ Ekren Alexander Bdhlig, ed. M. Gorg (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1988) 18-53; L H. Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Balaam," SPhA 5 (1993) 48-83; J. T. Greene, Balaam and His Interpreters: A Hermeneudced History of the Balaam Traditions (Adanta: Schc^ars Pre», 1992).

CHAFFER T W O

THE SPIRIT AS AN INVADING ANGEL

Exegetical Movements Philo and Josephus modify Numbers 22-24 by means of different methods.' Philo moves seriadm, adapting and altering details as they arise in the biblical text. Josephus takes his more typical tack, placing a speech into Balaam's mouth which announces Josephus' point of view.^ Despite these differing methods of modifying the biblical text, the interpretations of Josephus and Philo concur remarkably about both the source of Balaam's oracles and the state in which he found himself when he delivered his oracular blessings of Israel. Both authors

' HiUo derived his detailed interpretarions from the Septuagint, which he regarded not as an unfortunate step away from the Hebrew but as an inspired translation (e.g., Vu. Mos. 2.37-40). See Y. Amir, "Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Hiilo," in Mikra, Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretathn of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Qmstiamfy, ed. J. Mulder and H. Sysling (Compendia Rerum Judaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2.2; Assen: van Gorcum, 1988) 1.2.440-44. Josephus probably had access to a Hebrew text since, according to his own account, he had received a first-rate education in Palestine, and even in Rome he had access to Jewish communities. He may also have consulted a Greek text, since this would have facilitated his Greek paraphrases of the biblical texts, particulariy in the Antiqmties. In the proemium to the Antiquities (1.10-12) he did in fact cite the Septuagint, and he devoted considerable space in Ant. 12.1 - 5 9 to a paraphrase of the Letter of Aristeas, the apologetic and imaginative rendition of the translation of the Hebrew into Greek. In addition to a Hebrew and Greek version, Josephus may possibly have consulted an Aramaic targum, itself a paraphrase of the Hebrew, since he would have spoken Aramaic in Palestine. The language and exact character of the Vorlage ofJosephus' biblical paraphrase, however, remains a desideratum of Joscphan studies. See L. H. Feldman, "Use, Authority, and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus," in Mikra, ed. Mulder and Sysling, 1.2.455-60. For an introduction to Greek versions of the Bible, see E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC-AD 135), rev. ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman. 3 vok. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986) 3.1.474-504. ' On Jc»ephus' historiographical techniques, sec H. W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Jos^>hus (HDR 7; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), passim; for further discussion of Greco-Roman historiographical techniques, see the introduction in the Loeb edition of Dionysius of Halicamassus, The Roman Antiquitus, xvi-xviii and xxxv-xxxviii; and F. W, Walbank, fblybius (Berkeley: University of California, 1972) 43-46.

28

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

identify the angel of Num 22:35 with the spirit of Num 24:2 (or LXX 23:7)^ and characterize Balaam as having lost mental control.* The Angel and the Spirit Philo eliminates the ambiguity of the multiple sources of Balaam's oracles which inheres in the biblical text by drawing an integral rela tionship between the prediction of the angel and its fulfillment by the spirit. The prediction of the angel in Vit. Mos. 1.274 and its accom plishment by the prophetic spirit in Vii. Mos. 1.277 describe the same event, the former in anticipation and the latter in retro^ct. In an ejq^anded version of Num 22:35, the angel predicts: " . . . I shall prompt the needful words without your mind's consent, and direct your organs of speech as justice and convenience require. I shaU guide the reins of speech, and, though you understand it not, employ your tongue for each prophetic utterance."^ This prediction is fulfilled when Balaam "advanced outside, and straightway became possessed, and there fell upon him the truly prophetic spirit which banished utterly from his soul his art of wizardry."* Philo creates this direct correspondence between the prediction of the angel and its fulfillment by the divine spirit by eliminating the intervening references to God in Num 22:38 and 23:5, according to which God placed a word in Balaam's mouth. In Philo's version the angel who had promised to prompt Balaam's words, direct his vocal organs, guide the reins of speech, and employ his tongue actually accomplished this when it reappeared, designated appropriately in this new context as the prophetic spirit. This identification of the angel with the prophetic spirit is confirmed by means of two subde exegetical modifications. Philo relates how Balaam, having turned aside and been overpowered by the prophetic

' Num 24:2 reads, "Balaam looked up and saw Israel camping tribe by tribe. Then the spirit of God came upon h i m . . . . " LXK Num 23:7 reads, "And the ^irit of God came upon him . . . " (icoi ^yevf|6Ti irveviia %eoK> kx' avt^). * Some of the material in this chapter has been published in "The Debut of the Divine Spirit in Josephus's Antiquities" HTR 87 (1994) 123-38 and "The Prophetic Spirit as an Angel According to Philo," HTR 88 (1995) 189-207. * Riilo Vu. Mos. 1.274. Greek, Eiioti t o "kexxka tncincovvtog ovew TT^ ovviivTo^. * Philo Vu. Mos. 1.277. Greek, 1 ^ 5^ icpoeXdoiv l v 6 o \ } ^ ovrtKa Yivecai, xpofittiian> icvdJ^QTo^ iKi^iTTjoavtcx;, o icaoav otvtov TTIV IVTCXVOV ^ovrudiv vxepdpiov ¥VX^^

THE

SPIRIT AS A N INVADING A N G E L

29

spirit, returned and "spake these oracles as one repeadng the words which another had put into his mouth" {Vit. Mos. 1.277). This oblique reference to another (etepo<;) replaces the direct reference to God, who is said to have "put a word in Balaam's mouth" in Num 23:5. Who might this "other" be than the prophetic spirit, its direct ante cedent, who just before has fallen upon Balaam? Philo underscores this identification as well by repeating the verb, Beawi^eiv, in Vit. Mos. 1.274 and 1.277. The angel claimed that it would prophesy (Oeojci^cDv) by using Balaam's tongue without his understanding; now Balaam prophesies (Geoni^ei) by means of "another"—the prophetic spirit—who "cast into" him what he should say. Josephus arrives at a similar identification of the angel and spirit of Numbers 22-24, though by different means.' He carefully draws a parallel between the initial approach of the divine angel and the ass's perception of the divine spirit But on the road an angel of God confronted him in a narrow place, enclosed by stone walls on either side, and the ass whereon Balaam rode, conscious of the divine spirit approaching her, turning aside thrust Balaam against one of these fences, insensible to the blows with which the seer belaboured her. .. ,^ In this summary, Josephus shows no reluctance to use the expressions, "angel of God" and "divine spirit" interchangeably.^ In Philo's De vita Mosis and Josephus' Antiquities, therefore, the source of inspiration is not, as in the Bible, God, whose dominant presence eclipses the impact of the angel and spirit. Instead, Philo and Josephus through independent means transform the character of the divine spirit. After identifying the angel which appears to the ass with "the divine spirit" {Ant. 4.108), Josephus attributes Balaam's oracles to "the divine spirit" (4.118), "die spirit of God" (4.119), and "die divine" which, in this context, is a shorthand reference to the divine spirit ' For a discussion of Josephus' omission of all prior references to the spirit in Antiquities, see my "Josephus' Interpretation," 252-54. ' Ant. 4.108. Greek, Kota 8e rnv ciSov ocy^^Xou 9eim) itpoopoA>6vTO^ ovt^ KOtd Xtopiov nepieiXTinn^ov amaaxaiq SucXaiq fi ovo^, e^' fjq 6 BdXa(U)^ ibxEito, ovveioa t o v Oeiov xvev^oto^ tmavt&vto^ atxhckivt tov BdXa^ov npix; tov etepov t u v xpvfxjm avaioOiVco)^ ixowsa xm nXivfow, 'as; b BdXa^oq fatapepev a v t f i . . . . ' This identification has been recognized by A. Schlatter, "Wie Sprach Josephus von Gott?" Beitrd^ zjur Fordenmg chistUcher Theologie 14.1 (1910) 32; BUchsel, Geist Gottes, 95; Best, "Use and Non-use," 222; and M. Smith, "The Occult in Josephus," in Josephus, Judaism, and Christiamty, ed. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne State, 1987) 240.

30

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

(4.121). In Philo's De vUa Mosis, the angel appoints itself the source of Balaam's oracles (1.274), and Balaam is then overcome, in explicit fulfillment of the angel's prediction, by this "prophetic spirit" (1.277).

IJOSS

of Mental Control

Another question which Philo and Josephus address concerns the process by which Balaam's oracles were produced. On this process Numbers 22-24 offers precious litde detail. The angel commanded Balaam to utter only what the angel would say (22:35). The remaining descrip tions are laconic and formulaic. The first and second oracles occurred because "the LORD put a word in Balaam's/his mouth" (23:5, 16). Similarly, Balaam's repeated retort to Balak, that he spoke only what God put into his mouth (23:12) or what he heard from God (23:26; 24:13), provides litde clarification because it too consists of formu laic language drawn from the description of the true prophet in Deut 18:18: "I shall put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak everything that I command." The attribution of Balaam's third oracle to the spirit, "Then the spirit of God came upon him" (Num. 24:2; and the second according to LXX 23:7), is described in equally formulaic language. Expressions similar to "the spirit of God came ufX)n him" (L)'l l'^ rm V'^SJ Tim) occur, for example, in Jdg 3:10; 11:29; 1 Sam 16:16; 19:9, 20, and 23. The precise process according to which Balaam was inspired, then, is unclear. Philo and Josephus concur with respect to the resolution they disco ver to dispel this lack of clarity. According to Philo, as we observed, the angel was displeased with Balaam and said: Pursue your journey. Your hurrying will avail you nou^t. I shall prompt the needful words without your mind's consent, and direct your oigam of speech as justice and convenience require. I shall guide the reins of speech, and, though you understand it not, employ your tongue for each prophetic utterance {Vit. Mos. 1.274). Within a few days, Balaam delivered his first oracle: He advanced outside, and straightway became p o ^ ^ d , and there fell upon him the truly prophetic spirit which banished utteily from his soul his art of wizardry. For the craft of the sorcerer and the inspira tion of the Holiest might not live together. Then he returned, and, seeing the sacrifices and the altars flaming, he spake these oracles as one repeating the words which another had put into his mouth {VU. Mos.

1.277).

T H E SPIRIT AS A N

INVADING

ANGEL

31

These descriptions of Balaam's first oracle preserve traces of their biblical source: the angel's speech is an elaboradon of Num 22:35; the reference to the prophedc spirit is traceable to LXX Num 23:7 or Num 24:2; and the expression, "words... put into his mouth" echoes Num 23:5. Far more evident, however, is the exegedcal trans formation which has taken place. The passivity implicit in Balaam's having said what he heard (Num 22:35) and having received a word in his mouth (Num 23:5) is elaborated with an exclamation point in two ways. First, for Philo it entails the complete surrender of Balaam's mental faculties. The angel predicted that Balaam's mind would not be active during the oracle, and he did indeed understand nothing. This prediction was fulfilled specifically in the expulsion of his ability to practise artificial divination by means of augury and inferences based upon chance utterances: "the truly prophetic spirit which ban ished utterly from his soul his art of wizardry."Second, the angel predicted emphatically through repetition that, while Balaam's mind was inoperative, the angel would prompt words, direct Balaam's organs of speech, guide his speech, and prophesy through his tongue. This prediction was fulfilled when Balaam did no more than repeat the words which were given to him: "he spake these oracles as one repeat ing the words which another had put into his mouth." These two elements recur in Philo's interpretation of Balaam's sec ond oracle. According to Num 23:16, this oracle transpired when "the LORD put a word in his [Balaam's] mouth.. . ." Philo expands this laconic description: "In this solitude, he was suddenly possessed, and, understanding nothing, his reason as it were roaming, uttered these prophetic words which were put into his mouth."" Once again, the oracle transpired when Balaam's intellectual faculties were extinguished. Josephus' narrative summary of Balaam's first oracle is uncom monly similar to Philo's portrayal of Balaam's experience: "Such was the inspired utterance of one who was no longer his own master but was overruled by the divine spirit to deliver it."'^ In the context of the ensuing speech of Balaam, in which Balaam explained why he blessed Israel, Josephus employs two statements, each followed by an

According to Vit. Mos. 1.287, these are the means Balaam usually employed. '' ViL Mos. 1.283. Greek, 6 5k. >IOVOI9EI^ e^{9vnq SEo^opeitai KOI utiSev ovvieC^, oSonep nerovurtcmivov xov Xoyionov, xa vnoPoXXojicva d^eXoXei Kpo
32

AN ANOMALOUS PROPHET

explanation introduced by an explanatory "for" (YCtp) to specify the mode of inspiration to which Balaam was susceptible: Balak.. . hast thou reflected on the whole matter and thinkest thou that it rests with us at all to be silent or to speak on such themes as these, when we are possessed by the spirit of Gcxl? For that spirit gives utterance to such language and words as it will, whereof we are all unconscious." Balaam continued: But God is mightier than that determination of mine to do this favour; and wholly impotent are they who pretend to such foreknowledge of human affairs, drawn from their own breasts, as to refrain from speak ing that which the Deity suggests and to violate His will. For nothing within us, once He has gained prior entry, is any more our own.'* In this speech, Balaam included himself among all other human beings—thus his use of the first person plural pronoun, we—in order to urge Balak to realize that his oracles were not the product of his own initiative. Josephus emphasizes this interpretation through his own narrative summary (4.118) and this speech in which Balaam insists that he would gladly have pleased Balak had it been vrithin his power to do so, but that he could not resist the divine spirit which power fully overcame him, coercing him to say what it would. The expla natory comments in each case underscore the absolute passivity of Balaam, including especially the absence of mental control.'^ This

" Ant. 4.119. Greek, & BdXaKC . . . 8oicei(; e«p' fuitv elvai ti ^epi twvTOIOUTOWOIY&V I\ Xhftiv, oTov r\nd^ to tov BeoO Axx0^ icvevixa; ipcovou; yap ^ovXetai tovto ical Xoyotx; OV5EV r\\im eiSotoafv dupiiioiv. Ant. 4.121. Greek, Kpeittcov 5c 6 Qeix; &v eyd> xapiC^o^ai 8ieyvoaicEiv • icai navteXw^ doOevci^ ol xpoyivcboKEw Jtepi t&v dvOpomcCvcov Jtop' kcvt&v imoXo^pdvovte^, iaq \ir\ xoni&' Sucp uxctYopEVEi to ^lov Xkftiv, Pid^EO0ai 8e tfiv EKEIVOV PovXnoiv • oi^y/ yap EV iiniv rti
T H E SPIRIT AS A N I N V A D I N G A N G E L

33

experience entailed the loss of mental control. He was not in himself (ovK wv ev eauT^; Ant. 4 . 1 1 8 ) , and, like other inspired seers, he became unconscious (ovScv T^^ISV eiSotwv; 4 . 1 1 9 ) and no longer in possession of his mental faculdes (ovSev Tap ev f^^iiv exi (p0doavTO<; eioeXBeiv eKeivou fmetepov; 4 . 1 2 1 ) . Philo's and Josephus' exegedcal movements permit us to pinpoint with reladve accuracy the nature of Balaam's inspiration. (1) Balaam's conscious mental faculties were rendered inactive by the invading presence of the angelic spirit. (2) Balaam was "possessed" by this angelic spirit {Vit. Mos. 1.277, 2 8 3 ) which gained early entry into him {Ant. 4 . 1 2 1 ) . (3) From within, this divine spirit utilized Balaam's mouth to produce oracular words and sounds of its own choosing. Where Numbers 2 2 - 2 4 is ambiguous—on the source of Balaam's oracles—the versions of Philo and Josephus ring with clarity: the divine angelic spirit was the source of Balaam's oracles. Where Numbers 2 2 - 2 4 is vague—on the process involved in the production of oracles— the versions of Philo and Josephus are unambiguous: Balaam was rendered unconscious by this angelic spirit who ousted his mental control and manipulated his vocal chords to bless Israel. These devel opments, impressive both in clarity and creativity, are not isolated interpretations entirely without precedent. Aspects of these biblical interpreters' milieux paved the way for such noteworthy exegetical movements.

Relevant Milieux Before embarking upon the first of our journeys into the relevant milieux of first century biblical interpreters, we ought to recall that the purpose of this portion of the quest is not primarily to discover the particular texts which influenced these interpreters. The purpose rather is to ascertain the milieux that shaped their world. The various interpretations I include may have contributed to the milieu which facilitated the bold exegetical movements I have identified. These constitute the chemicals, so to speak, which combusted in the first century when certain particulars and details were introduced into the mixture.

34

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

Israelite Literature Oblique hints of the loss of mental control and the angelic nature of the divine spirit are scattered throughout the literary landscape of the biblical foreground on which Philo and Josephus based their own versions of Balaam. The Bible affords only rare and ambiguous glimpses of a possible association between the loss of mental control and the spirit. In the eighth century BCE, Hosea criticized Israel for saying, "The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad!" (9:7), and Micah contrasted his own being filled with power and "the spirit of the LORD" with false prophets' inability to obtain visions and revelations, the disgrace of the seers, and the shame of the diviners (3:5-8).'^ Exilic prophets may also have laid claim to experiences of ecstasy. Deutero-Isaiah commanded a hearing because "the LORD God has sent me and his spirit" (48:16), while Ezekiel claimed that "the spirit lifted me up" (3:12, 14) in a vision and that "the spirit of the LORD fell upon me" (11:5).'^ These biblical descriptions are muted, in contrast to the descriptions of Philo and Josephus, in which loss of mental control is explicit and unmistakable. Moreover, the participle in LXX Hos 9:7 which depicts prophetic madness, 6 nape^eaxTiK©^, is adopted by neither Philo nor Josephus, and the conten tion of Micah, that the "seers... and the diviners . . . shall all cover their lips, for there is no answer from God," does not correspond to Philo's and Josephus' Balaam, who has much to say when the spirit controls him. The descriptions in Isa 48:16 and Ezekiel are altogether too vague to provide an adequate explanation of the particular exe getical movements of Philo and Josephus. Other biblical texts which contain descriptions of the psychologi cal agitation of prophets and seers, though without explicit reference to the spirit, hint at the possibility of ecstatic experiences: Jeremiah's heart beat wildly (4:19); he had an incurable wound (15:18); Isaiah experienced what seemed like birthpangs, accompanied by a reeling mind and trembling (21:3); Habakkuk trembled within, and his lips quivered while his steps trembled (3:16); Daniel's spirit was troubled and terrified (7:15); he entered a trance, prostrate on the ground

J. Undblom {Prophecy in Ancient Israel [Philadelphia: Foru-ess, 1962] 173-78) contends that ecstaUc prophecy persisted well beyond the period of pre-exilic Israel. " See further Lindblom, Prophecy, 65-82; 122 37; 173-82. Also R. R. Wilson, Proplucy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), especially 32- 51 on general characteristics of prophetic possession and mediation.

T H E S P I R I T AS A N

INVADING

ANGEL

35

(8:17-18), lay down sick (8:27), lacked strengdi (10:8-9), and was speechless and prostrate (10:15-17). What disqualifies these descrip tions fi^om consideration as likely antecedents to Balaam's experience, according to Philo and Josephus, is that in them intimations of ecstasy exist in physical action or inaction, yet in the accounts of Philo and Josephus it is not physical effects but mental displacement by the spirit which indicates a loss of mental control. Philo and Josephus do not say that Balaam reeled or quivered or lay prostrate; rather they describe the loss of mental control he experienced when the spirit spoke through him. Further, biblical experiences of ecstasy (if these intimate the experience of ecstasy at all) are said to have occurred qfler a vision or revelation which portended horrible calamity. Pain, trembling, and enervated states were the result of an experience of horror at the future destruction which had just been revealed.'" In contrast, according to Philo and Josephus, Balaam's loss of mental control transpired at the beginning of his possession. Two autobiographical prophetic reflections may signal the loss of mental control. In Jeremiah 20:9, the prophet cried out, "If I say, 'I will not mention him [God], or s{>eak any more in his name,' then within me there is something like a burning fire shut up in my bones; I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot." Jeremiah was not, however, talking about an ecstatic experience but about a compul sion to preach words of judgment (20:10). The second text, Ezek 3:14, depicts Ezekiel's transport to Babylon: "The spirit lifted me up and bore me away; I went in bitterness in the heat of my spirit, the hand of the LORD being strong upon me." In this possible depic tion of an ecstatic s t a t e , h e a t may suggest loss of mental control. Philo and Josephus, however, do not depict Balaam's loss of mental control as a hot, fiery, or bitter state.^'' In E z e k 2 1 : 1 5 , similar w o r d s arc e m p l o y e d by the p r o p h e t to describt! w h a t

the people felt when they saw the swords about to slaughter them: "therefore hearts melt and many stumble." These words describe fear but not ecstatic experiences. " On ecstasy and die hand of the LORD, sec Lindblom, 134-35; 174-^75. ^ One important biblical text. Numbers 11, which could offer further insight into the views held by Philo and Josephus on possession by the spirit, appears not to have influenced them. In Numbers 11, the spirit inspired some prophesying among the seventy ciders of Israel (Num 11:17, 25, 26, 29). In De ffganHbus, Philo excises all intimations of ecstasy from his version of this story, interpreting the spirit of Numbers 11 as the "pure knowledge in which every wise person naturally shares" and "that spirit of perfect wisdom" {Gig. 23-24) which is not reduced "in under standing and knowledge and wisdom" when it is shared with others (27), Elsewhere, in a discussion of the number, seventy, he refers laconically to "the Divine Spirit of

36

AN ANOMALOUS PROPHET

Although these texts may have contributed to a first century milieu in which the loss of mental control was valued as integral to the pro phetic experience, they do not provide adequate fodder to explain the details of Philo's and Josephus' exegetical movements. In addi tion to the inadequacies I have observed already to substantiate this conclusion, I would add that another deficiency of these texts as a backdrop for early Jewish interpretations is the absence of a concep tion of the spirit as an angelic being. Both elements—a loss of men tal control and the presence of the angelic spirit—characterize Philo's and Josephus' descriptions of Balaam. These biblical antecedents supply neither aspect adequately; they certainly do not combine the two into a portrait of prophetic inspiration in the coherent way that Philo and Josephus do. There is, however, one biblical narrative that may exhibit this com bination and may thus be considered a potential biblical antecedent to the versions of Philo and Josephus.^' A constellation of references to the spirit of God enfolds the narrative of Saul's rise and demise in I Samuel 10-19.^^ In these numerous references to spirits, several correspondences between the evil spirit of God and the good spirit of God suggest that they are to be understood as similar in nature. First, both are depicted as a "spirit of God." The good spirit is rm trrt^ in 10:10 and 11:6; the evil spirit is nin DTT*:^ mi in 16:15, 16, and 18:10, and simply D T T ^ n n in 16:23a. Second, both are also designated "spirit of Yahweh." The good spirit is TTTT m"l in 10:6, 16:13, and 14a; the evil spirit is UTT R»«D nJTI IM in 16:14b and in 19:9 nin TTSV TVn. Third, the same verb, rf72i, is employed to de pict both spirits' presence with Saul—the good spirit in 10:6, 10; 11:6; 16:13; and in 18:10 the evil spirit. Fourth, the good spirit de parted (yo) from Saul in 16:14, and the evil spirit departed plO) in

prophecy bestowed on only seventy elders" {Fi^. 186). Josephus omits this text alto gether, although the preservation of several elements from its framework in Ant. 3.295-99 betrays his knov^edge of this story, e.g., Esermoth (Num 11:35), the revolt (Num 11:4), quails (Num 11:18-19), and graves of lust (Num 11:34). " I have discussed other texts in the Hebrew Bible and S e p t u ^ n t in which the spirit may have been portrayed as an angelic being in "The Angelic Spirit in Eariy Judaism," in SBLSP 1995, 464-93. Because they do not contain the element of loss of mental control which is integral to the versions of Philo and Josephus, I do not include here from diat paper interpretations of: 1 Kgs 22:19-24; Isa 63:7-14; Hag 2:5; Neh 9:20. For a discussion of the spirit as hypostasis, see Volz, Geist Gottes, 145-94. ^ 1 Sam 10:6, 10; 11:6; 16:13, 14a, 14b, 15, 16, 23a, 23b; 18:10; 19:9; and 19:20, 23-24.

T H E SPIRIT AS A N

INVADING

ANGEL

37

16:23b. Fifth, both spirits produced the identical effect, depicted by the same verb, 1^33, in the hithpael—the good spirit in 10:6 and 10:10 (cf 10:13), and the evil spirit in 18:10.^' The sort of contrast between a good and evil spirit which may be presupposed in 1 Samuel 10-19 can be illustrated by two extracts from Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions that depict exorcisms.^* One such inscription reads: When I draw near unto the sick man, When I lay my hand on the head of the sick man, May a kindly Spirit, a kindly Guardian stand at my side. Whether thou art an evil Spirit or an evil Demon, Or an evil Ghost or an evil Devil. .. Be thou removed from before me. Out of the house go forth!^^ As in 1 Sam 16:13-23, in which the spirit of God was with David and the evil spirit of God with Saul, this Babylonian account refers to a good spirit which accompanies the exorcist and an evil spirit which must leave the possessed person. In another inscription, the sick person is, as in 1 Samuel 16~19, the king: May a kindly Spirit, a kindly Guardian, Enter the house. May no evil Spirit or evil Demon, " The evil spirit is thought to be present perhaps also in 1 Sam 19:20, 2 3 - 2 4 , in which the "spirit of God" brouj^t about an experience of "prophesying." In 1 Samuel 10, this prophesying accompanied Saul's transformadon into another person (10:6), but in 1 Samuel 19 such prophesying issued in Saul's spending the night in an un dignified state of nakedness. This difference lends support to the suspicion of R. W. Klein (/ Samuel [WBC 10; Waco: Word, 1983J 198) that, in 1 Samuel 19, "the spirit may have been the evil spirit from God previously referred to (cf 16:14)." This inteiprctadon is not lacking in exegetical support. First, the preceding instance of Saul's "prophesying" took place when the evil spirit of God rushed upon him (18:10). Second, the idiom e m p l o y e d to describe the spirit's presence in 1 Sam 19:1923, *7J3 rrn, is employed otherwise in thb narrative only of the eoU spirit (16:16, 2 3 ; 19:9). Third, each of the seven prior references, from 16:14 to 19:9, is to the evil spirit, and its presence is so well established that in 16:23 it can be described simply as "spirit of God," without the adjective, "evil." To these may be added the more general observation that the appearance in 1 Samuel 19 of the evil rather than good spirit of God would accentuate, by means of contrastive parallel with I Samuel 10, the irony of Saul's rise and demise: although Saul prophesied at both the begin ning and end of his reign, the source of his experiences were as different as night and day. ^ Edited and translated by R. C. Thompson, TTu Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia. 2 vols. (London: Luzac, 1903). " Thompson, Devils, 1.17 (tablet 3.150-580); see 1.19-23 (tablet 3.179^ 203).

38

AN ANOMALOUS

O r evil

PROPHET

Ghost or evil Devil,

O r evil God or evil Fiend,

Draw nigh unto the king. By Heaven be ye exorcised! By Earth be ye exorcised!^ I have not quoted these texts to suggest direct Babylonian influence on 1 Samuel 10-19 but rather to illustrate the sort of conception of good and evil spirits that characterized at least part of Near Eastern Antiquity. In a milieu shaped by such conceptions, the correspondences between the good and evil spirit in 1 Samuel 10-19 may have rendered it pos sible for Philo and Josephus to interpret these spirits as angelic and demonic in nature. Ek|ually noteworthy is that both spirits in 1 Samuel 10-19 were capable of bringing about a state marked by a loss of mental control. Saul, under the influence of the good spirit, prophesied with a band of prophets who utilized musical instruments—harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre—perhaps to induce some form of ecstasy (1 Sam 10:5-6). Loss of mental control may be implied as weU in descriptions of the effects which the evil spirit had on Saul, who tried to pin David to the wall with his spear when the evil spirit was with him (18:10; 19:9). In Saul's last encounter with Samuel and the band of prophets, loss of mental control is explicit; Saul stripped, prophesied (KSm), and lay naked (19:23 24). The story of Saul, then, contains two elements critical to Philo's and Josephus' versions of Balaam: an angelic spirit and the loss of mental control. Whether Philo is influenced by this tale must be left to conjecture, since his biblical references and allusions, apart firom the Pentateuch, are sparse. His citations of 1 Sam 10:22-23 are limited to texts which hardly illuminate his interpretation of Balaam: "Lo, he [Saul] hath hidden himself among the baggage" and "he ran thither and taketh him thence." Josephus, on the other hand, re-tells the story of Saul with emphases suggesting that he understands the stories of Balaam and Saul similarly as stories in which an angelic spirit overpowered its subject by seizing mental control.^® ^ Thompson, Devils, 1.111 13 (tablet 16.306-13). " For a recent discussion of whether the two ^irits in 1 3 - 4 are to be inter preted as angelic beings, see A. E. Sekki, JJu Mamij^ of Ruah at Qma^an (SBLDS 110; Adanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 7-69, 193-219; and my "AngeUc Spirit," 4 8 0 86. I do not include that discussion here because it is not germane to the dual topics of prophesying and loss of mental control. The divine spirit confronted the ass on the road pre-emptively to refrain it

THE

SPIRIT AS A N

INVADING

ANGEL

39

In the tale of Balaam, Josephus emphasizes the irresistible power of the divine spirit with the verb, viKOtv, in Ant. 4.118 and by Balaam's retort to Balak, " . . . thinkest thou that it rests with us at all to be silent or to speak . . . when we are possessed by the spirit. . ." (4.119). In the story of Saul, Josephus stresses the inexorable power of the spirit by means of the participle, eXa\)v6nevo<;.^ Further, in both sto ries, the ultimate effect of the divine spirit is a loss of mental control. Josephus describes Saul's state as £K(ppa)v yiveiai and Balaam's as wv ev kam& {Ant. 4.118), oi)5ev r\\i(av eiSorcov (4.119), and ovSev yap ev fijAiv . . . fmetepov (4.121). This loss of mental control occasioned by the powerful presence of the spirit in both stories suggests that a similar interpretation of inspiration characterizes the stories of Balaam and Saul, which comprise the first six references to the spirit in the Antiquities. Therefore, the biblical story of Saul may have contributed to the relevant milieu which paved the way for Josephus', and perhaps Philo's, exegetical movements. There are nonetheless some reservations that ought to be registered about regarding the biblical story of Saul as the pre-eminent antecedent of the interpretation of the spirit as an angel in the writings of Philo and Josephus.

from serving Balaam on the mission lo which he sped {Ant. 4.109). Balaam describes the pre-emptive work of the divine spirit which prevented him from cursing the Israelites with the words, q)6doavxo<; eioeX6etv (4.122). The purpose of the divine spirit in Ant. 6.222-23 is also to intervene pre-emptively to prevent Saul (and his soldiers) from killing David. Josephus underscores the desperate need for interven tion by employing militaiy vocabulary to depict Saul's effort. Saul sent warriors, onXito?, not messengers, d y y ^ v ^ (IJCX 1 Sam. 19:20 21). Saul's journey to find David is not described by the neutral verb, ^opevdn (19:22-23), but by the verb, E^wwnoev, which describes elsewhere an army's rushing out or an attack upon one's enemies with the intent to annihilate (e.g., David "threw himself upon the Philis tines of Killa, and Saul consequendy ordered his people to "march against" Killa, to besiege it, and to kill David {Ant. 6.271-73). The intensity of Saul's campaign to assassinate David explains why the divine spirit had to intervene pre-emptively, that is, why Samuel, "even before seeing him," caused Saul to prophesy. ^ Greek, . . . i^Bm .. . ikavvoyxvoq EKcppoov yivetai. If the participle, iXavvojicvoq, is to be taken with the preceding participle, eX6o)v, then the divine spirit prevented Saul from killing David by driving Saul physically to Samuel rather than to David. The meaning of physical movement is usual in Josephus' writings (e.g., one drives troops, a sword, or a post). If the participle, eXa\)v6}ievo^, is taken with the verbs which follow, Iwppeov yivetoi, then the divine spirit prevented Saul from killing David by rendering him incapacitated through an experience of inspiration. Josephus re fers occasionally to being driven by suffering to act in a certain way (e.g., Ant. 6.6; 10.132). ^ See further my 'Josephus' Interpretation," 245-49.

40

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

First, Saul's loss of mental control in the biblical account must be inferred from physical acdons of prophesying, stripping, and lying on the ground. Philo and Josephus, in contrast, emphasize repeatedly Balaam's loss of mmkd control when the spirit seized him. (We observed this difference earlier when we sought biblical precedence in other biblical texts which perhaps describe prophetic ecstasy.) Second, a focal point of the angelic spirit in Josephus' and Philo's tale of Balaam—the intelligible oracular word—plays no part in the biblical story of Saul. The crucial task of the spirit according to Josephus' version of Balaam is to give "utterance to such language and words as it will, whereof we are all unconscious" (i4n^. 4.119; see 4.121), and, according to Philo's, "to prompt the needful words" v^thout Balaam's consent {Vit. Mos. 1.274; see 1.277). These reserva tions do not exclude 1 Samuel 10-19 from consideration as a suit able antecedent to Philo's and Josephus' versions of Balaam. They suggest rather that, although the biblical story of Saul constitutes an integral portion of the milieu of Philo and Josephus, it cannot ad equately explain the particular emphases of their versions. Third, Philo and Josephus both adopt the distinction between know ing the future through human means and knowing it by divine power through possession by the spirit. In Josephus' account, Balaam con trasted his possession by the spirit with those "who pretend to such foreknowledge of human affairs, drawn from their own breasts" {Ant. 4.121).^' Philo contrasts repeatedly Balaam's art of wizardry with true possession {Vit. Mos. 1.277, 282~83, 287).32 -phis distinction, which is

" Josephus, in contrast lo Philo, suggests that Balaam construed the blewng of Israel both from the spirit and from the flames of the sacrifice. On this, sec my "Debut," 126-27. " The biblical tale of Balaam is transformed by Riilo to commimicate the mes sage that this diviner increasingly turned from his false apparatus of divinadon to a true form of prophedc inspiradon. The laconic biblical introducdon of Balaam as "the son of Beor at Pethor, which is on the Euphrates, in the land of Amaw [his people]" (Num 22:5) becomes in Philo's De vita Mosis "a man living in M^opotamia far-famed as a soothsayer, who had learned the secrets of that art in its every form, but was particulariy admired for his high proficiency in augury, so great and incred ible were the things which he had revealed to many [xirsons and on many occa sions" {Vit. Mos. 1.264). Philo very carefully reworics the biblical text to ensure that the reader understands that Balaam's ability to prophesy did mt come from his ability to discern God's will in the flames and smoke of the sacrifkes. Balaam could bc truly inspired only when "there fell upon him the truly prophetic ^irit which banished utteriy from his soul his art of wizardry. For the craft of the sorcerer and the inspiradon of the Holiest might not live tc^ether" (1.277). T o reinforce this interpretation, Hiilo once again rewrites the biUical text: Balaam's in^iration took

T H E S P I R I T AS A N

INVADING

ANGEL

41

absent from 1 Samuel 10-19, where Saul does not predict the future at all, was, by contrast, central to popular Greco-Roman conceptions of inspiration. Philo's consistent tendency to contrast legitimate and illicit means of ascertaining future events, which he understands as the difference between an art of observation, such as augury, and true prophetic possession by the divine spirit, demonstrates that ultimately he presupposes a distinction between "artificial" and "natural" forms of divination that was thoroughly developed by the first century BCE and popularized by Cicero in De dimnatione. One character in this dialogue, Quintus, at the beginning of a lengthy discussion of divina tion, makes a crisp distinction between so-called artificial and natural forms of divination: There are two kinds of divination: the first is dependent on art, the other on nature. N o w — t o mention those almost entirely dependent on art—what nation or what state disregards the prophecies of soothsayers, or of interpreters of prodigies and lightnings, or of augurs, or of astrol ogers, or of oracles, o r — t o mention the two kinds which are classed as natural means of divination—the forewamings of dreams, or of frenzy (1.12; c f 1.34).

Similarly, Philo, in contexts other than his interpretation of Balaam, drives a wedge between "the interpreters of portents and auguries and of sacrificial entrails, and all the other proficients in divination who practise an art which is in reality a corruption of art, a counter feit of the divine and prophetic possession" and "a p r o p h e t . . . an interpreter prompted by Another in all his utterances, when knowing not what he does he is filled with inspiration, as the reason withdraws

place prior to his return to the place of the sacrifices; Balaam "advanced outside . . . became possessed.. . returned, and, seeing the sacrifices and the altars flaming, he spake these oracles as repeating the words which another had put into his mouth . . . " (1.277). A similar scenario characterizes Balaam's preparation for the second oracle. Philo adds to the biblical story the detail that Balak sent Balaam "to seek good omens through birds or voices" (1.282). This did not u-anspire because Balaam fulfilled what the angel had predicted only when he "was suddenly possessed, and, under standing nothing, his reason as it were roaming, uttered these prophetic words which were put in his mouth" (1.283). Balaam himself, in his oracle, claimed that the Israelites "care nothing for omens and all the lore of the soothsayer, because they trust in One Who is the ruler of the world" (1.284). As a consequence of his expe rience, Balaam lost confidence in his divinatory practices and, in preparation for his third oracle, "did not go again, as was to be expected, to seek for omens from birds or voices, for he had conceived a great contempt for his own art, feeling that, as a picture fades in the course of its years, its gift of happy conjecture had lost all its brilliance" (1.287).

42

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

and surrenders the citadel of the soul to a new visitor and tenant, the Divine Spirit which plays upon the vocal organism . . . " (Spec. Leg. 4.48-49; cf 1.65). This Leitmotiv of Philo's understanding of inspira don in general and his conception of the inspiradon of Balaam in particular is drawn, not from 1 Samuel 10-19, but from Greco-Roman discussions of inspiration.^^ This third observation provides perhaps a hint of the direction in which we should proceed in this attempt to excavate the underpin nings of these first century exegetical movements. The clear percep tion of Philo and Josephus of the prcK:ess by which the angelic spirit employed Balaam to produce oracles cannot be explained satisfactorily as an unprovoked or uncombusted development from a biblical fore ground, which is permeated by relative vagueness in comparison with the descriptions of Philo and Josephus: "I shall guide the reins of speech, and though you understand it not, employ your tongue for each prophetic utterance" (Vit. Mos. 1.274); "he was suddenly pos sessed, and, understanding nothing, his reason as it were roaming, uttered these prophetic words which were put into his mouth" (Vit. Mos. 1.283); "For that spirit gives utterance to such language and words as it will, whereof we are all unconscious" (Ant. 4.119). Even the most promising biblical antecedent proves to be deficient: loss of mental control did not lead Saul to expressed speech, and the con trast between true (natural) and false (artificial) divination is absent from this otherwise fruitful narrative. Consequendy, we ought to turn to Greco-Roman literature, though this must not be undertaken without first exploring Cicero's own relevant milieu, viz. the dialogues of Plato. Platonic Literature The gap between the biblical data and the finely honed explanations of Philo and Josephus is due in no small measure to the influence of

" Philo trims the list of false divinatory practices in Deut 18:10-11 to include only: the examination of sacrificial victiitis (SimicTi) (1.65); the interpretation of signs (e.g., weather), of birds, and of sacrifices (4,49); in the case of Balaam, augury, that is, divining the future on the basis of the flight and sounds of birds (VU. Mos. 1.264). This list corresponds less to Deut 18:10-11 than to the categories of artificial divi nation cited in Div. 1.72: i n a c t i o n of the body parts of sacrificial victims; natural omens, such as thunder and lighming; and augury, or predicting the fiiture by means of the flight and sounds of birds.

T H E S P I R I T AS A N I N V A D I N G A N G E L

43

Plato's Socrates. Socrates' statement that the loss of mental control is the central characteristic of inspired utterance can be located in his discussion of madness (jiavia), the headwaters of which appear prin cipally in Socrates' discussion of insanity: . .. but in reality the greatest of blessings come to us through madness, when it is sent as a gift of the gods. For the prophetess at Delphi and the priestesses at Dodona when they have been mad have conferred many splendid benefits upon Greece both in private and in public afiairs, but few or none when they have been in their right minds... ?* Socrates also describes the inspiration of the poet, who "is unable ever to indite undl he has been inspired and put out of his senses, and his mind is no longer in him. . . ."^^ Composition of odes, dance songs, and verse are uttered "not by art. . . but by divine influence." Therefore, God takes away the mind of these and uses them as his ministers, just as he does soothsayers and godly seers, in order that we who hear them may know that it is not they who utter these words of great price, but that it is God himself who speaks and addresses us through them.'^ Discernible here is a repository of conceptions which lie at the base of Philo's and Josephus' elucidadon of the process by which Balaam was rendered a vehicle of oracular blessing. He succumbed to madness, to divine madness, which caused his mind to wander, his conscious ness to be lost. Plato provides another piece of the scaflTolding—this time with respect to the role of figures of mediation—upon which Philo and Josephus could build their presentation of the angelic spirit which functions as the central mediator figure in the story of Balaam. Plato identifies love as "a great daimonic being," 6ai^(ov neyo^, for, explains Phaedms 244A-B. Greek, vuv Se tot \ikyvcna xmv ayaQSiv i\yXv yiYverai 5ia ^av{aq, ncvToi 56oei SiSonivTiq. te ^ap Sir\ ev Athpoiq npotfn^tu; ai t' ev Aa)6a)vp lepeuxi jiavetoai ^ev xoXXa Sri KOI KOXjoi ibiq. TE icai dn^ooigi triv 'EXXd5a eipYOoavto, ooxppovoOoai 5c Ppoxea

dtiq.

Ion 534B. Greek, xplv av cvBeoq TE YEvntai Kai EKSEI^ yitp evvovq e^dnxexai ^Mxvxllal^ ev6co\) Kai OXTIOOV*;, aXk' f\ KOQ' iijivov XT]V xf^q (ppovf|OE(oq neSridEiq 5v)va^lv r\ 5ia vooov r\ 5id xwa

44

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

Diotima, "the whole of the spiritual is between divine and mortal."^' Plato condnues to describe daemonic beings: .. . interpreung and transpordng human things to the gods and divine things to humans; entreaties and sacrifices from below, and ordinances and requitals from above: being midway between. It makes each su{^lement the other, so that the whole is combined in one. Through it are conveyed all t^vination and priestcraft concerning sacrifice and ritual and incantations, and all soothsaying and sorcery. God with himians does not mingle: but the spiritual is the means of all society and converse of humans with gods and of gods with humans, whether waking or asleep.... Many and multifarious are these spirits, and one of them is Love.'" The importance of Plato's Symposium 202E-203A and Greco-Roman interpretations of this text, such as Plutarch's Is. et Os. 36IC, is evident in Philo's discussions of angels. In his most thorough explanation, Gig. 6-18 (on Gen 6:2), Philo introduces a comparison: "It is Moses' custom to give the name of angels [offYtKomq] to those whom other philosophers call demons [Sai^iovou;] . . . souls that is which % and hover in the air" (Gig. 6). These angels are "consecrated and devoted to the service of the Father and Creator whose wont it is to employ them as ministers and helpers, to have charge and care of humans."^ Philo discusses angels also in his commentary on Jacob's dream (Gen 28:12), in which he argues that the designation, angel, is superior to the word, demon: "These are called 'demons' by the other [than Moses] philosc^hers, but the sacred record is wont to call them 'angels' or messengers employing an apter tide, for they both convey the biddings of the Father to His children and report the children's need to their Father."^ Plato's discussion of daemonic beings reverberates " Syn^sium 202E. Greek, icai i^p nav to Sai^oviov ncra^v a m Scov te icoi SVTJTOV. ^ Symposium 202E 203A. Greek, 'EpunveOov m i 5iajtop0ji£t>ov 8eoi<; Kai dvBfxojiou; td xapd Oewv, tov nrv rdq bei\atv<; Kai Oucioq, t&v 5e tdq ixxxaJ^v^ te KOI d^oi^dg [tSv 6vot&v], ev ^eocp 5e ov d^^otepov m>|ixXiipoi, mote t6 KOV avto a v t ^ OVV&e6^O0OI. 5id toutov KOI TI ^avtixf) xaaa X(o^\ KOI \\ twv Up^iiav xk](yc\ xm tc icepi td^ 0\Mj(aq Kttl tdq teXctdq KOI tdq ^qtSdq Kai tf|v ^avteiav KOOOV KOI Totiteiav. fe&q ^ dvOpfiMup ov ixtTwmxi, dXXd 5id tovtov xdod ^ i v x\ d^iXta KOI n StdXcKtoq 6eotq xpbq dv6pci>iim>q xatpoq exiKeXevoeu; xoxq endvow; wxl tdq twv tffovwv xfitxa^ x^ xatpl Siorfy^XXovoi.

T H E SPIRIT AS A N INVADING A N G E L

45

in these Philonic texts,*' demonstrating how cridcal they are for Philo in his effort to associate his Jewish tradidons with the Greco-Roman world while simultaneously demonstrating the superiority of his own.*^ Plato's discussions of the integral relationship between loss of mental control and oracular utterances, as well as the pivotal role of daemonic beings in the relationship between God and humankind, are indeed characterized by a clarity which far outweighs the comparatively vague and scattered biblical references to oracles and angels. Nonetheless, Plato does not explicidy draw the association between angels (dae mons) and loss of mental control which is integral to Philo's and Josephus' interpretation of Balaam.*^ According to these two GrecoRoman Jewish authors, Balaam did not merely lose mental control. He lost the reins of his mental control to an overpowering angelic spirit which possessed him, thrust away his understanding, and uti lized his vocal capacity to pronounce blessings upon Israel. Although this particular association of inspiration with the world of mediating spirits is not evident in Plato's dialogues, it was developed consider ably by the time both Josephus and Philo penned their interpreta tions of Balaam.

*' In nmt. 14, Philo describes angels in terms which are once again reminiscent of Spr^osum 202E: "These are the purest of spirits of all, whom Greek philosophers call heroes, but whom Moses, employing a well-chosen name, entides 'angels,' for they go on embassies bearing ddings from the great Ruler to his subjects of the boons which He sends them, and reporting to the Monarch what H b subjects are in need of" See the discussion of D. Winston, Tivo Treatises of Pkib of AUxandria: a comtrmtary on De gigantibus and Quod Deus sit immutalnlis (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 197200, with biUiogn^hy on 371, in which he places Philo's discussion into the con text of Middle-Platonism. See also D. T. Runia, I^ido of Alexandria and the Timaeus ofPtato (PA 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986) 228-29. Nor does Greek Antiquity supply adequate details to explain the nature of Hiilo's contrast between artificial (fake) and prophetic (true) divination. Hato, after discussing, among others, the prophetess at Ek:lphi, who conferred benefits "through madne^," remariked only in passing that "the ancients... testify t h a t . . . prophecy {mantike) is superior to augury..." {Phaedrus 244D). Who these "ancients" were Hato did not specify, but his interpreter, Hutarch, traced this distinction, yet without extensive details, as far back as Homer: "Homer too, it is evident, knew the distinc tion of which we others speak, as he calls some diviners 'consulters of birds' and 'prieste,' but thinks that others indicate the future fix>m an understanding and aware ness of the actual conversation of the gods" (C^. Soa. 593C). Hato's comparison, though consistent with Kiilo's distinction between true and false prophecy, hardly serves to explain the intensity and detail of Hiilo's discussion.

46

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

Plutarch'' These forays into biblical and Platonic antecedents bring us to the cusp of a satisfactory explanation of Philo's and Josephus' creative interpretations of Balaam's experience of inspiration. Israelite literature provides a slender precedent for the conception of an angelic spirit who ousts mental control, particularly in the story of Saul's prophetic experiences (1 Samuel 10-19). Absent from this possible antecedent, however, are im{>ortant elements of this first century interpretation: an explicit affirmation that Saul lost his mental faculties in the pres ence of the good spirit of God (Saul's exj>erience in 1 Samuel 19 may be attributable to the evil spirit); the distinction between omens (arti ficial divination) and possession (natural divination); and the most basic ingredient, oracular speech itself Socrates in Hato's dialogues generates additional insight into the exegetical movements of Philo and Josephus by attributing to poets and seers a form of inspiration that requires the loss of mental faculties and by describing daemons (which Philo centuries later identifies as angels) as mediating beings between the divine and human worlds. What Plato does not attempt to do, however, is to combine these two ingredients into a smooth consistency—which is precisely what Philo and Josephus accomplish.

** In "Angelic Spirit," 474-80, I have analyzed the tendency to depict the i^irit of God as an angelic spirit in Septuagintal transladons: LXX Jdg 13:24-25; LXX 1 Kgs 22:19-24; LXX Isa 63:7-14; LXX Mic 2:7 and 11, 3:8; LXX Hag 2:5; and Judith 16:14. Although these Greek transladons demonstrate that the interpretadon of the spirit of God as an angelic being existed in the Greco-Roman era, I do not include those discussions here because these transladons do not associate this angelic spirit of God with the loss of mental control. In general, it should be recognized how easily a "spirit" could be idendfied as an "angel". The Enoch cycle of literature contains over one hundred references in which the phrase "Lord of spirits" displaces the more biblical "Lord of hosts" as a reference to the lordship of God over angelic beings (e.g., 1 En 39:12; 40:1-10; 46:3-8). Angelic beings, both evil and good, are depicted as "spirits" p T T T I or rrfTTI; ?cvev)uxTa, etc.) in many other eariy Jewish documents: Jubilees (e.g., 1:25; 2:2; 10: 1-11:14); TAbr (B) 13.7; (A) 4.7-10 (Michael says, "Lord, aU die heavenly spirits are incorporeal, and they neither eat nor drink"); the Testaments of the Twclw Patriarchs (e.g., TReub 2:1-3:7; TSim 3:1, 5; 6:6; TLevi 3:2-3; 9:9; TJud 13:3; 14:2, 8; TIss 4:4; TGad 1:9; 3:1; 6:2; TAsh 1:9; 6:1-5; TBen 5:2. On BeUar's [Satan'sl spirits, see: TJud 25:3; TIss 7:7;TZeb 9:7-8; TDan 1:6-8; 3:6; 4:5; 5:5-6; 6:1; TJos 7:4; TBen 3:3-4; 6:1); and approximately fifty occurrences in the nont»Uical Hebrew Qumran scroUs (e.g., IQM 13.10; ICIH 3.18). Sekki {Meamng, 145-71) con tends that this identihcadon occurs fifty-eight times. For the consensus view, set 148 n. 11. See also the index on pages 225-39. This linguistic interchangeability would have facilitated the identification of the angel of Num 22:35 with the ^irit of 24:2 (and LXX 23:7).

T H E S P I R I T AS A N

INVADING

ANGEL

47

Although the discrete elements of Philo's and Josephus' exegetical movements have precedent, to varying degrees, in relevant Israelite and Platonic milieux, these milieux do not, then, adequately illumi nate the particulars and details of that combination of those elements into a consistent conception of inspiration. For that clarification Plu tarch's De defectu oraculorum is indispensable. In the spirit of the New Academy, Plutarch does not finally answer the question of why there was less oracular activity at Delphi than in prior eras but instead proffers several points of view. Two of these are critical for under standing the exegetical movements of Philo and Josephus. One of the participants in the discussion, Cleombrotus, attributes the obsolescence of oracles at Delphi to the departure of the mediat ing demons, the divine messengers. This is, he observes, a longstanding view that was claimed by adherents long in advance of Cleombrotus himself:*^ Let this statement be ventured for us, following the lead of many others before us, that coincidcndy with the total defection of the guardian spirits assigned to the oracles and prophetic shrines, occurs the defection of the oracles themselves; and when the spirits flee or go to another place, the oracles themselves lose their power.** Later in the discussion, Lamprias*^ criticizes Cleombrotus' explana tion, but before he does he summarizes it: "For what was said then [i.e., earlier], that when the demigods withdraw and forsake the oracles, these lie idle and inarticulate like the instruments of musicians. . . Cleombrotus' attribution of oracular, prophetic power to daemonic beings can be profitably pressed into service to elucidate one of Philo's

The view propounded by Cleombrotus may represent Plutarch's own view. See Flaceliere, Dispariium des Oracles, 48; E. de Fayc, Origene: sa vie, son onivre, sa pensee. II: Vambiance pkilosopkique (Paris: Librairie Ernest Leroux, 1927) 110. ** 4 I 8 C - D . Greek, icai TeToX4iTia6to ^etd xoXXotM; etpi^odai Kal T\M^V, oti TOI^ Kcpi td navteia KOI xpilotTjpux TrtoyiiEvoi^ 6oi^ovioi(; eKXciitowi TE KomSfi ovvEKXciJiei t a v t ' avtd Kal (jmydyttov f\ imooravtcov OKOPOXXCI TT^V Svvaniv. . . . *^ Lamprias holds to the opinion, based upon the Stoic theory of secondary causes, that a vapor rises from the ground and inspires the Delphic prophetess, and that changes in sun and earth led to the cessation of this vapor, resulting in the obsoles cence of oracles {Def. Orac. 431E-434C). On the theory of the vapors, see J. Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and Operations (^rkeley/Los Angeles: University of California, 1978); H. W. Parke and D. E. W. Wormell, The Delphic OracU I: The His tory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956) 19-26; Flaceliere, Disparition des Oracles, 42-46. ** 431A-B. Greek, tdydp d^ioto^tevcov Kal dxoXemovTtov t d xp^iorfipia t&v 5aHi6vcov c6cmep opTfava T€xvit«v dpyd wxl dvavSa KCIO^I Xcjfikv rcepov Xoyov kytipti tov jtcpl xi\q aitio^ ^cC^ova Kal Svvdiieo)^.

48

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

and Josephus' exegetical movements, namely, the attribution of Ba laam's inspiration to the angelic spirit rather than direcdy to God, although in Numbers 22-24 God is the dominant source of inspi ration. Throughout his version of Balaam, Philo wrests this inter pretation from Numbers 22-24 by identifying the angel (VU. Mos. 1.274) and the prophetic spirit (1.277) while simultaneously excising the direct references to God which punctuate Numbers 22-24. In his version of Num 23:12, Philo replaces the reference to God in Balaam's retort to Balak following the first oracle with a vague ref erence to "the divine" (xoSeiov) {VU. Mos. 1.281). In Philo's version of Num 23:16, the source of the second oracle is not God. Instead, Philo writes that Balaam prophesied "what was cast" into him {VU. Mos. 1.283). This passive participle indicates that the source of the first and second oracles is the same. Just as Balaam prophesied what was put in his mouth by another (vjtopdXXovro^ erepou) in the first oracle, so the content of the second oracle consists of "what was cast," xa imopaXXo^eva, once again, presumably, by this "other," erepoq, whom Philo has already identified as the prophetic spirit.*® In his version of Num 23:26, Philo omits Balaam's response to Balak following the second oracle, that he will do only what God says. In his version of Num 24:2 {VU. Mos. 1.288), the reference to the "spirit of God" prior to the third oracle is replaced by the words, "became inspired" (ev0ov^ Yev6^£vo<;). And in his version of Num 24:13 {VU. Mos. 1.294), Philo omits references to "die word of die LORD."" These omissions and substitutions demonstrate how careful Philo is to attribute consistendy the inspiration of Balaam to the angelic spirit, although the displacement of God by the angelic spirit as the source of Balaam's experience marks a radical departure from Numbers 22-24, in which God is direcdy involved with Balaam.*' *' Another oblique reference to this source occurs in an extta-biUical addition in which Philo observes that Balaam followed Balak erringly after his third orade, "though he had met the charges brought against him solely by the true plea that nothing which he said was his own but the divinely in^ired version of the prompdi^ of anodier [td h ^ ] " {Vu. Mos. 1.286). ^ This is probably also due in part to the p<»idve portrait of Balaam, which Philo avoids, as someone who could resist money. Philo adds to the Bible that Balaam embarked on his journey in response to courtiers who brought moiwy and the pn»nbe of more. "Enticed by those offers present and prcwpective . . . he gave way .. ." {VU. Mos. 1.267-68). This exegetical movement reflects the overall theological commitments of VhHo and Josephus. Hiilo is caught between abstract philosophical notions of pure beii^ and the biblical characterization of God as active within the worid. (See £. Br6hier,

T H E SPIRIT A S A N I N V A D I N G A N G E L

49

Josephus also accords God a diminished role in his version of Balaam. When Josephus includes the story of Balaam, he character istically avoids the descriptions in Numbers 22-24 of God's meeting Balaam, conversing with him, and placing a word in Balaam's mouth.^^ To compensate for this withdrawal, Josephus attributes Balaam's inspiration to the angelic spirit.*^ The diminished role of God suits Josephus' general tendency to remove God from the pale of particu larly thorny biblical passages. The tale of Balaam is clearly one of them, as its concluding counsel to the reader reveals: "On this narrative readers are free to think what they please . . . " {Ant. 4.158).^ The effort Philo and Josephus expend to distance God from Balaam

Les utees phUosophiques et religieuses de Philon d'Alexandrie [2nd. cd.; Paris: J. Vrin, 1925] 69"82.) God is, on the one hand, "the uncreated, the unchangeable, the immortal, the holy and solely Wessed" (Soa. Cain and Abel 101). God exists, on the other hand, in relation to the created world. The tension between these per^ctives demands that Hiilo introduce mediators between God and the created world, such as the Logm, Sophia, the Powers of God, logoi, and an^ls. (See G. Pfeifer, Ursprung und Wesen der Hypostasemmstellungen im Judentum [AzT, Reihe 1, Heft 31; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1967] 47-59.) For instance, Philo explains the creation of the human bdng by adapting Plato's discussion of creation in Timaeus 41-42, according to which the subordinates create the mortal part of the human. Philo explains, on the basis of the presence of the plural, "us," in Gen 1:26, that " . . . of the real human, who is absolutely pure Mind, One, even the only God, is the Maker; but a plurality of makers produce the human so-called, the one that has an admixture of sense-perception" {Fug. 68-72; see Opif. 72-75). God does not, therefore, direcdy create the physical world of sense. " In the only possible reference to God's direct involvement in the production of Balaam's oracles, Josephus selects the oblique word, "deity" (to 9eiov). Balaam ex plains that he cannot resist "sf)eaking that which the Deity [x6 8eiov] suggests... . For nothing within us, once that one has gained prior entry [ipOdoovtoq eioeXSeiv CKEIVOV], is any more our own" (4.121). This reference should be understood, for two reasons, as a reference to the angelic spirit rather than to God. First, prior to this explanation, Josephus punctuates Balaam's first oracle with a narrative sum mary in which the adjective, BEIOV, describes the spirit: "Such was the inspired utter ance of one who was no longer his own master but was overruled by the divine spirit [T^ 6^ 6eUp jcvev^iaxi] to deliver it" (4.118). Second, in this explanation (4.119), in which reference is made to xi> dciov, Balaam has already unequivocally attributed his words to the grasp of the spirit of God: " . . . when we are possessed by the spirit of God [TO TOV Seen)... xveO^a] . . . " which "gives utterance to such language and words as it wiU." Josephus' subsequent reference to "speaking that which the Deity [toOeiov] suggests" o u ^ t then to be understood as this same divine spirit. This exegetical movement is consistent with Josephus' theological commitments. He espoiises a view of God as one who is "perfect and blessed, self-sufficing... the beginning, the middle, and the end of all things. By His works and bounties He is plainly seen . . . but His form and magnitude surpass our fxtwers of description . . . " {CA 2.190). Josephus writes in the proemium to Antiqtdties that God "possesses the very perfection of virtue" {Ant. 1.23). ^ This polite conclusion often accompanies accounts that might be difficult for Josephus' readers to swallow. E.g., Ant. 1.108, 2.347-48, 3.81, 10.281, 17.354.

50

AN ANOMALOUS PROPHET

corresponds remarkably well widi the motivation for Cleombrotus' view in the first place, suggesting the appeal a view such as Cleombro tus' may have held for them. Cleombrotus contends that the purpose of this view, which he himself adopts, is to keep God from becoming entangled in the morass of human existence. He explains that "those p>ersons have resolved more and greater jjerplexities who have set the race of demigods midway between gods and humans, and have dis covered a force to draw them together, in a way, and to unite our common fellowship . . ."^^ The force of this explanation becomes evident when we recognize that it follows on the heels of another explanation of inspiration, in which gods themselves possess people direcdy. Prior to Cleombrotus' statement, Lamprias caricatures this form of inspiration as ventriloquism, criticizing it because it is incon sistent with the need to draw sufficient space between the divine and human worlds: "For if he [a god] allows himself to become entangled in people's needs, he is prodigal with his majesty and he does not observe the dignity and greatness of his pre-eminence" (Def. Orac. 414E). Cleombrotus proflfers his view of inspiration, therefore, to pro vide an alternative to Ammonius' view which, according to Lamprias, inappropriately entangles the god in human affairs. Although Philo, Josephus, and Cleombrotus are three quite different personalities, all three esf)ouse a mode of inspiration in which an angelic or daemonic being inspires oracular speech. Moreover, the motivation for attributing inspiration to an angelic or daemonic being rather than direcdy to gods is in all three uncommonly similar. Each is concerned to disentangle their god from a form of inspiration which violates the necessary distance between the divine and human realms. Thus Cleombrotus' view, both with respect to content and motivation, was appealing to these first century Jewish interpreters. These observations do not exhaust the kinship of Cleombrotus' view with Philo's and Josephus' versions of Balaam. The means of inspiration is also analogous: the recipient of inspiration remains passive in the presence of the inspiring angel. Balaam, in Josephus' Antiquities, says, "For that spirit gives utterance to such language and words as it will, whereof we are all unconscious (4.120). In Philo's De vita Mosis, the angel predicts, "I shall prompt the needful words without your

" Def. Orac. 4 1 5 A . Greek, RXCCOVOU; Xvoai KOI jici^ovoi; dtnopio^ oi to xoiv Saijiovcov y^vo^ cv ^iocp 9evTC(; Oe&v Kai dvOpomov Kai Tponov tivd rnv Koivcoviav r\\iviv (ruvdyov eiq tauTo Kal OMvamow e^evpovre^. . .

T H E S P I R I T AS A N

INVADING

ANGEL

51

mind's consent" (1.274). In De defectu oraculorum, Cleombrotus accen tuates this passivity by adopting the simile of musical instruments. When the daemons return, "the oracles, like musical instruments, become articulate, since those who can put them to use are present and in charge of them" (4180).^*^ This image occurs as well in the philonic corpus, in a related descripdon of the prophedc phenomenon. Philo equates the onset of ecstasy with the arrival of the divine spirit: "This is what regularly befalls the fellowship of the prophets. The mind is evicted at the arrival of the divine Spirit, but when that departs the mind returns to its tenancy."^^ Philo continues by connect ing this interpretation of ecstasy in Gen 15:12 with the words, "it was said to Abraham," in Gen 15:13: "For indeed the prophet, even when he seems to be speaking, really holds his peace, and his organs of speech, mouth and tongue, are wholly in the employ of Another, to shew forth what He wills. Unseen by us that Other beats on the chords with the skill of a master-hand and makes them instruments of sweet music, laden with every harmony.""^ The elements of inspi radon integral to Philo's version of Balaam—the spirit, the loss of mental control, the mutual exclusiveness of mortal and immortal,^^ the prompting of the vocal organs, and the passivity of the prophet— coalesce in this definition of prophecy. The use here of the metaphor of music links this definition of prophecy to the view held by Cleom brotus, according to which, "when the spirits return many years later, the oracles, like musical instruments, become articulate, since those who can put them to use are present and in charge of them" (Def. Orac. 418D). Cleombrotus' explanation of Delphic inspiration, then, sheds extra ordinary light on the exegetical movements of Philo and Josephus. All three preserve the boundaries between the spheres of gods and ^ 4 1 8 D . G r e e k , cito napovteov auT&v 6id zpovou KOXXOO KaOdxep opyava ^ c y y e r a i Twv xpco^evcDv aiioTdvtwv Kai napovrwv. " Her. 265. Greek, 6e npocpiTtiK^ yevei <{>iX€i t o v t o o v ^ ^ i v E i v • e^oiKi^Etai ^lb/ yap ev njiiv 6 vov^ Katct tx\v tov Oeiov nvtviiaroq acovTiTiipioi<; opydvoK;, axo^iaxi Kal YXdarqi, Jip6<; nfiwoiv wv av 0eX|i • xexy^ SE dopdx

52

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

humans by attributing prophetic activity to an angelic or daemonic being who plays upon a passive prophet. Still, Cleombrotus' point of view, despite its significance for understanding the views of Josephus and Philo, does not explain entirely the inordinate emphasis they place upK>n the angel's manipulation of Balaam's vocal chords. According to Josephus, the angel "gives utterance to such language and words as it will. . ." {Ant. 4.120). According to Philo, the angel predicted: " . . . I shall prompt the needful words without your mind's consent, and direct your organs of speech as justice and convenience require. I shall guide the reins of sf)eech, and, though you understand it not, employ your tongue for each prophetic utterance" {Vit. Mos. 1.274).*° That the simile of the musician in Cleombrotus' interpretation does not fully explain these detailed depictions of inspiration ought not to be surprising, for Cleombrotus' explanation is deemed inadequate even by some of his dialogue partners in De drfectu oraculorum. Lamprias, for example, points out that Cleombrotus has not adequately explained the mechanics of inspiration. Rather, according to Lamprias, Cleom brotus' conviction "that when the demigods [twv Saijiovcov] withdraw and forsake the oracles, these lie idle and inarticulate like the instru ments of musicians" raises another question of greater import regarding the causative means and power which they employ to make the prophetic priests and priest esses possessed by inspiration and able to present their visions. For it is not possible to hold that the desertion by the demigods is the reason for the silence of the oracles unless we are convinced as to the manner in which the demigods, by having the oracles in their chaige and by their presence there, make them active and articulate {Def. Orac. 43IB).

Illumination of Philo's and Josephus' emphasis on the manipulation of the vocal chords does not, however, lie far afield of Cleombrotus' words. We have noticed already that earlier in De defectu oraculorum Lamprias maligned a view of inspiration according to which it could be imagined "that the god himself after the manner of ventriloquists (who used to be called 'Eurycleis,' but now 'Pythones') enters into the bodies of his prophets and prompts their utterances, employing

In Philo's explanation of prophetic ecstasy, the prophet's "oi^ans of speech, mouth and tongue, arc wholly in the employ of Another," i.e., that divine ^irit which evicts the mind [Her. 266). In his discussion of prophecy, Hiilo contends that the divine spirit "plays upon the vocal orgaimm and dictates words which clcaiiy express its prophedc message" {!^>ec. L^. 4.49).

T H E SPIRIT AS A N I N V A D I N G A N G E L

53

their mouths and voices as instruments."^' The passivity of the prophet, according to this interpretadon, extends to the manipuiadon of his or her vocal chords. This characterizes, of course, the experience of Balaam who stated, according to Josephus, that the "spirit gives utter ance to such language and words as it will" (Ant. 4.119), and to whom, according to Philo, the angel promises that it will "guide the reins of speech, and . . . employ your tongue for each prophedc utter ance" (Vii. Mos. 1.274).^^ Statements such as . . . ev(picnK6T0<;xou Oeiov JTVEV^atoq m i naoav Tr\q
*' D^. Orac. 414E. Greek, tdv 9e6v avrw woiiep to\)q eyytMrrpi^tuOovi;, EvpvKXca^ xoXat w v l 8e nv6o>va^ Kpooayopew^vov^, £v8v6n€vov eiq xd o(0)iaxa xwv npo^T&v \m096eYYCciOai, xoi^ ^Keivtov ot6|iaoi ical ^pcovau; xp^M^^vov dpydvoi^. Philo's omission of br^xmpi\i\Soc, in Spec. L^. 4.48 from the list of false divinatory pracdces in Deut 18:11 indicates the extent to which he is willing to go to include this form of divination among legitimate forms of inspiration. Because this form of inspiration which Deut 18:11 proscribes belongs, according to Philo, to the positive side of the contrast between artificial and natural divination, and because this sort of inspiration ousted Balaam's abilities of artificial divination, such as augury, and because it characterisses prophetic inspiration in general, Philo does not include it in the list of false forms of divination in his version of Deuteronomy 18. " The context of Spec. 4.49 is, npo^TTRN^ \ikv ydp ov8ev ISiov dwo^aivexai x6 napdicav, aXk' loxiv ep^^vev<; vicopdXXovxo<; kxipov iidvO' 00a icpo^epexai, ica6' ov xpdvov ^vOotKTi^i ycfovdx; ev ofSfoiq., jicxavioxaiievov jiev xtni XoyiojioO KOI RapaKCXOopntcdxc^ . . . xe wxl ^xovvxoq £15 EvapYn 6f|Xo(xnv &v npoOecnii^ei.

54

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

Summary The deft crafting of the tale of Balaam by Philo and Josephus can be situated within two relevant milieux. One is, of course, their scrip tures, particularly the story of Saul in 1 Samuel 10-19, in which the spirit is portrayed as an angelic presence and inspiration as the loss of mental control. The other milieu consists of Platonic descriptions of the mediating roles of daemonic beings and, in other contexts, the attribution of prophetic and poetic inspiration to the loss of mental control. Biblical and Platonic antecedents, however, though provid ing the relevant milieux, cannot adequately explain the integral con nection drawn by Philo and Josephus between the angelic spirit, Balaam's loss of mental control, and the utilization of the speaker's vocal organs to produce oracles. Ultimately it is the views summarized by a Greco-Roman contem porary, Plutarch, in a single dialogue, De defectu oraculorum, which serve best to account for the exegetical movements of Philo and Josephus. Cleombrotus, a figure in this dialogue, both attributes oracular activ ity to the presence of daemonic beings and implies, by means of the simile of musical instruments, that such inspiration entails the loss of mental control. This view alone elucidates how easily Philo and Josephus attribute Balaam's oracles to an angelic spirit and under score his concomitant loss of mental control. The additional detail, repeated in both versions, that the angel manipulated Balaam's vocal chords, is discernible as well in Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum, in Lamprias' description of the gods' use of vocal chords. By combining this view of inspiration with that of Cleombrotus' attribution of oracu lar activity to daemonic beings, Philo and Josephus ably interpret the story of Balaam. Their versions both underscore the validity of Balaam's oracles by attributing them to an angelic spirit's manipula tion of Balaam's vocal organs and maintain God's distance from this delinquent diviner.^ " By adopting these interpretadons of pythian inspiraUon for the Jews, Kiilo and Josephus are able also to lay claim to a mode of in^iradon which was associated with the most ancient and auspicious of Greek oracular shrines. Kiilo and Josephus are, of course, familiar with Delphi. Philo quotes "the Delphic motto 'Know thy self" {Gaius 69) and refers to the records of disdnguished persons which are found at Delphi {Post. Cam 113). Josephus, in a discussion of Moses as legislator, dtes Greeks who traced their laws "to Apollo and his oracle at Delphi" {Qi 2.162). He describes the table in the tabernacle by comparing it "to those at Delphi" {AiU. 3.139), and he refers to die burning of Delphi {CA 2.131).

T H E SPIRIT AS A N INVADING

ANGEL

55

Cleombrotus' view of Delphic inspiration has the added apologetic advantage of being traceable to Kato, the pre-eminent Greek philosopher. Hiilo and Josephus are not unaware of the appeal which a theory traceable to Plato holds for their readers. Philo so thoroughly baptizes the Bible in platonic thought that one cannot refer simply to one passage or another to demonstrate the influence of Hato upon Philo; Hatonism permeates Philo's works. In particular, we may recall again how influen tial Plato's Syn^nmim 202D-E was on his view of angelic beings. See, for example, Runia, Philo of AUxandria and the Timaeus of Hato, passm; H. Chadwick, "Philo and the beginnings of Christian thought," in The Cambrie^e History of Later Greek and Early Malieval PhUost^, ed. A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge: University Press, 1967) 13757, 164-65. Josephus, though not himself a philosopher in the strict sense, carefully notes the »milarity between the views of God espoused by Moses and Hato {CA 2.168) and even goes so far as to suggest that in two points Plato followed the example of M ( ^ s : the prescription of the study of laws and precautions against the random mixing of foreigners (2.257-58).

CHAPTER THREE

THE SPIRIT AS LIFE ITSELF

Although he interprets the spirit in his version of Numbers 22-24 along a bearing altogether different from Philo and Josephus, the author of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum no less impressively, creatively, and consistendy wrests the inspiration of Balaam from the hand of God. In general, Pseudo-Philo adapts the oudine of Numbers 22-24 in ways which accentuate the prominence and clarify the character of the spirit. The most apparent method is his retention and addi tion of references to the spirit in a context in which he tends other wise to abbreviate the biblical text. The initial encounter with the talking ass, for instance, is shortened to, "And his she-ass came by way of the wilderness and saw an angel and lay down beneath him" (LAB 18:9),' and Balaam's four oracles are reduced to one (18:1012). Despite this penchant for abbreviation, Pseudo-Philo freely supple ments Numbers 22-24 with extra-biblical material, such as God's message to Balaam in his first night vision, in which God recalls the election of Abraham (18:4—6). Along these lines, Pseudo-Philo retains the reference to the spirit in Num 24:2 and supplements it with two new references, bringing the total to three.^

' All quotations from pseudepigraphical literature are taken from The Old Testament Pseud^apha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 2 vols. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985). I have attempted unobtrusively to render exclusive language more inclusive (e.g., "human" rather than "man"). ' Pseudo-Philo did not, in all probability, use the LXX but, more likely, a Hebrew text on which the LXX depended. On that text, see D. J. Harrington, "The Bibli cal Text of Pseudo-Philo's liber Antiqtdtatum Biblicarum,"" €5(^33 (1971) 1 17; idem. "The Original Language of Pseudo-Philo's liber AntiquiUUum BibHcarwn" HTR 63 (1970) 503-514; L. H. Feldman, "Prolegomenon" to TTie Biblical Antiquities of Philo, ed. M. R.James (New York: Ktav, 1968) li-lii; H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudomb's Liber Andquitatum Biblicarum, 2 vols. (AG/JU 31; Leiden/New Yoric/Koln: Brill, 1996) 2 1 5 - 2 4

T H E S P I R I T A S L I F E ITSELF

57

The spirit as life Itself Ex^etical Movements The first reference to the spirit occurs in LAB 18:3, where PseudoPhilo conjoins the initial approach of Balak's messengers (Num 22: 7-8) with a distant paraphrase of Balaam's second response follow ing the second visit of Balak's messengers (Num 22:18). Pseudo-Philo places into Balaam's mouth the words, "Behold this has given pleas ure to Balak, but he does not know that the plan of God is not like the plan of humans. Now he does not realize that the spirit that is given to us is given for a time. But our ways are not straight unless God wishes."^ This quotation contains the first extra-biblical addi tion of a reference to the spirit in Pseudo-Philo's version of Balaam. The second reference to the divine spirit (LAB 18:10a-b) occurs, not in a quotation, but in a narrative insertion that depicts Balaam's arrival in Moab: "And he came into the land of Moab and built an altar and offered sacrifices. And when he saw part of the people, the spirit of God did not abide in him."* This account of the entrance into Moab and sacrifice is a highly truncated version of Num 22:3623:6, in which only two aspects of the biblical version are left sub stantially intact: the viewing of a part of the people is based upon Num 22:41b; and the reference to the spirit is a re-telling of a Vorlage akin to Num 24:2. The significance of the spirit is evident in its ability to survive the exegetical scalpel of Pseudo-Philo, which excises nearly every other detail from this portion of the biblical text. This second reference is significant as well because of the simple but profound way in which Pseudo-Philo modifies the biblical text. "And when he saw part of the people, the spirit of God did not abide in him" (LAB 18:10). This re-telling is a blatant contradiction of the biblical text. According to Num 24:2, Balaam uttered his first oracle when "the spirit of God came upon him." According to LAB 18:10, Balaam uttered his oracle when "the spirit of God did not

' Ladn, Ecce placuU Batac, et nescit quomam non ita est consilium Dei sicut consilium homnis. Ipse autem non rutvit, qwmum spiritus qui nobis dcUus est in tempore datus est, vie auUm mstre non sunt directe nisi velit Deus. * Latin, Et verdt in terram Moab, et ed^avit sacrcaium et obtutit oblaUones. Et cum vidisset partem populi, non permansit in eo spiritus Dei.

58

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

abide in him." Whereas in die biblical tale the oracle is produced by the presence of the spirit, in Pseudo-Philo's version the oracle is pro duced despite the absence of the spirit. Pseudo-Philo places the third reference to the spirit direcdy into Balaam's mouth: "I am restrained in my speech and cannot say what I see with my eyes, because there is little left of the holy spirit that abides in me. For I know that, because I have been persuaded by Balak, I have lessened the dme of my life. And behold my remain ing hour."^ This moment of critical self-reflection interrupts Balaam's oracle, in which he curses Balak and blesses Israel, providing a remaricable window into Pseudo-PhUo's perspective on the source of Balaam's oracular abilities. The retention of a biblical reference to the spirit, supplemented by two references of Pseudo-Philo's own, in an otherwise abbreviated re-telling of the biblical tale of Balaam, suggests how important it is to Pseudo-Philo to clarify the source of Balaam's oracle. Moreover, all of these references to the spirit have something significant in com mon, for all three have to do with the tendency to lose this spirit. LAB 18:3 states that the spirit is given for a time; 18:10 contradicts Num 24:2 by stating that the spirit did not continue to abide in Balaam; and in 18:11 Balaam himself laments the loss of the spirit.^ Though the source of this transformation lies buried amongst the layers of Pseudo-Philo's biblical exegesis, the ensuing attempt at excavation may yield clues as to where those sources lie and, concomitantly, how Pseudo-Philo conceives of the spirit in LAB 18.'

* Latin, Retineor in sonis vocis met, et non possum diem que video oadis meis, quia modicum mihi superest sancH spiritus qui manet in me, quormm cognovi et per quod suasus sum a Batac, perdidi tempus vite mee. * This consistency suggests that Jacobson's {A Commentary, 594) rather complicated hypothesis is unnecessary. He proposes that Piseudo-Hulo wrote what essentially occurs in Num 24:2, btbitto nvevna, and that this was misread as i^eve xh xvev^a, permemsit spiritus. He conjectures further that "the negative may have been introduced by a scribe who thought he was improving the sense, or m i ^ t simply have arisen through paleographical corruption, if e.g. the verb in question was compoimd rather than simplex (^veyeveto, ^ey^cxo, vel sim.)." Jacobson's reason for this su^estion is that he does "not see how such a sense [the loss of the spirit] could work in LAB's context." The bss of the spirit, we have seen, is integral to the context. ' Sec below, pages 107-09, on the significant but ambiguous sentence in LAB 18:10, Et ipse nescivit quoniam idea elatus est sensus ems, ut festinet perditio eius.

T H E S P I R I T AS L I F E H'SELF

59

Relevant MUmu Israelite Literature Balaam's initial contention "that the spirit that is given to us is given for a time" is set in a context that expresses human dependence upon the divine with such aphorisms as "the plan of God is not like the plan of humans," and "our ways are not straight unless God wishes it." This setting for the first reference to the spirit suits an understand ing of that spirit as the source of human existence, the life-giving spirit which human beings possess for only a short time, the spirit which, according to God's primeval decree, is the quintessential charac teristic of transitory human life. Precisely that conception of the spirit is secured by allusions to Gen 6:3. Genesis 6:3 Pseudo-Philo transforms the spirit from that which comes upon Balaam, producing prophecy, into that which departs from Balaam, partially preventing prophecy. The first intimation of this transfor mation occurs in an allusion to Gen 6:3 early in the narrative (LAB 18:3). The biblical text reads, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred and twenty years." This conviction reverberates in Balaam's first encounter with Balak's entourage, when Balaam replies, "the spirit that is given to us is given for a time." This allusion to Gen 6:3 is accompanied by several elements from Genesis that Pseudo-Philo imports into this context. In God's response to Balaam (LAB 18:5-6), shordy after Balaam's decree "that the spirit that is given to us is given for a time," contains several references to the Genesis narrative. God's words include a citation of the promise to Abraham that his seed "will be like the stars of the heaven," words sjxjken in the context of the sacrifice of Isaac in Gen 22:17. PseudoPhilo adds also a paraphrase of Gen 18:17-18, which reads, "I will reveal everything I am doing to Abraham," as well as a recollection of the wresding of Jacob with an angel (Gen 32:24—27). God's words are then capped with the question, "But if you curse them, who will be there to bless you?" echoing Gen 12:3, where God promises, "I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." Thus, in LAB 18:5-6, Pseudo-Philo combines Genesis 12:3, 18:17, 22 (cit ing Gen 22:17), and 32:24-27. The allusion to Gen 6:3 suits such a context rife with echoes and citations of Genesis. Further, Balaam,

60

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

in the ironic conclusion of his oracle, claims bitterly that the promise of Gen 12:3 was not fulfilled: "And the wise and understanding will remember my words that, when I cursed, I perished, but though I blessed, I was not blessed" {LAB 18:12).« Nor can this allusion to Gen 6:3 be considered unexpected, because Gen 6:3 appears elsewhere no less than three times in LAB: in 3:2 as part of Pseudo-Philo's re-telling of Genesis 6:3 ("And God said, 'My spirit shall not judge those people forever, because they are flesh'"); in 9:8 as part of a predicdon of Moses' life ("And I will reveal to him my Law and statutes and judgments, and I will bum an eternal light for him, because I thought of him in the days of old, saying, 'My spirit will not be a mediator among these people forever, because they are flesh and their days will be 120 years'"); and in 48:1 as part of the final words of God to Phinehas ("Behold you have passed the 120 years that have been established for every person"). Pseudo-Philo is, then, familiar with this text and prepared to cite it or to allude to it in a variety of contexts throughout his re-written history. The recurrence of Gen 6:3 throughout LAB and the concentradon of allusions to Genesis 12-32 in LAB 18:5-6 heighten the prob ability that the words, "the spirit that is given to us is given for a time," constitute a frame of reference built upon the conviction of Gen 6:3. This suggestion is borne out by a second, more certain 2dlusion that arises from Pseudo-Philo's inventive reinterpretation of Num 24:2 in LAB 18:10. Pseudo-Philo, as we observed, contradicts the biblical text by introducing the word, non, into his version, which does not read, as in Num 24:2, "the spirit of God came upon him," but "the spirit of God did not abide in him." The nature of this spirit is not at first apparent. In other contexts of LAB, the spirit is a special endowment which comes upon people to inspire them to accomplish great deeds (LAB 27:9-10; 36:2), to dream (9:10), to praise (32:14), or to prophesy (28:6; 31:9; 62:2). The context of LAB 18:10 certainly permits such an interpretation: the prophetic spirit left the evil diviner Balaam at the moment he glimpsed Israel, whom he had intended to curse.^

* See further B. N. Fisk, "Retelling Israel's Story: Scripture, Exegesis and Transfor madon in Pseudo-Philo's Uber AntiquUtUum Biblicanm 12-24" (I^.D. thesis, Duke University, 1997) 221-50. ^ This understanding of the spirit as a special endowment is die usual interpretation. E.g., Pseudo-PkUon, ed. D. J. Harrington, J. Cazeaux, C. Perrot, and P.-M. Bogaert, 2 vols. (SC 229-30; Paris: du Ccrf, 1976) 2.127; Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, 145.

T H E S P I R I T AS L I F E ITSELF

61

The particular shaping of these words, however, suggests that Pseudo-Philo has deepened the echo of Gen 6:3 which he introduced in LAB 18:3. LAB 18:10 reads, non permansit in eo spiritus Dei. This ver sion differs from LXX Num 23:7 and MT Num 24:2, both of which state instead that the spirit of God "came/was upon" (eyevfiOTi... e i c ' / T ' P P 'nm) Balaam."' In contrast, LAB 18:3 mirrors the Vulgate version of Gen 6:3: dixitque Deus non permambit spiritus mens in homine.. . . The similarities between LAB 18:10 and Gen 6:3 are extraordinary; each word of LAB has a counterpart in the Vulgate of Gen 6:3: LAB 18:10

Vulgate G e n 6:3

mn permansit in eo spirihis Dei

non permanebit in homine spiritus mens (Deus)

The startling exactness with which the vocabulary of LAB 18:10 mirrors Gen 6:3 serves to substantiate the initial allusion to Gen 6:3 in LAB 18:3, reinforcing once again that the spirit which Balaam possessed but now loses is probably not to be interpreted as the special endowment of the so-called prophetic spirit but instead as the lifegiving spirit which each human has for a limited time." Baskin [Hutraoh's Counsellors, 87) quotes rabbinic texts which, she contends (100), are similar to l A B 18 in that Balaam "loses the Spirit of God and attempts to curse Israel." Numbers Rabbah 20:19 reads: "It is like the case of a man who was walking with a king when he saw a robber, and forsaking the king he walked with the robber. When he returned to the king the latter said to him, 'Go with the person with whom you have been walking, for you cannot possibly walk with me.' It was the same with Balaam. He had been attached to the Holy Spirit and had returned to be a diviner at first, a fact that can be inferred from the text, 'Balaam also the .son of Beor, the soothsayer' (Josh 13:22)." In this midrash, the spirit is something which Balaam p o ^ s s e d as a special endowment but then lost. Consequendy, he cried, "I was high and Balak brought me low." The midrash is based upon the interpretadon of the first line in Balaam's oracle, "Balak has brought me [down] from Aram," with the word, tTTH, interpreted in relation to Dl, "high." '° Vulgate of Num 24:2 differs sharply from LAB 18:10: et inruente in se spiritu Dei ("And the spirit of God rushed into him"). The Vulgate here appears to be influenced by the many instances in which the spirit comes upon (Hebrew ffTJffn) people (e.g., Jdg 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Sam 10:6-10). " This interpretation of Balaam's experience in LAB 18:10 echoes as well the experience of foreign kings in Josh 5:1 who saw the division of the Jordan River while the Israelites crossed over. Their "hearts melted, and there was no longer any spirit in them [tTD DS CD ITiTH'Ti U32b OO'I] because of the Israelites." Balaam also lost the rm, though for him its loss brought death rather than dread.

62

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

In two ways, then, this interpretation marks a radical departure from Num 24:2. First, while in the biblical text, the spirit comes to Balaam, in LAB 18:10, the spirit departs {non permansit) from Balaam. Second, while the spirit of the biblical text arrives as a special endow ment in andcipation of an oracular experience, in LAB 18:10 the spirit is understood, by means of allusions to Gen 6:3, as the source of human life. In the third reference to the spirit, these allusions to Gen 6:3 are brought irrevocably into the open, for Balaam draws an intimate association between loss of the spirit and the imminence of death: I am restrained in my speech and cannot say what I see with my eyes, because there is litde left of the holy spirit that abides in me. For I know that, because I have been persuaded by Balak, I have l e ^ e n e d the time of my Hfe. And behold my remaining hour (LAB 18:11).

The addition of two allusions to Gen 6:3 in LAB 18:3 and 18:10 alongside this explanatory insertion produce a remarkable transfor mation of the biblical text. Balaam does not succumb to the power ful prophetic spirit; instead he loses the vital power of life in the face of impending death. Restraint in speech, loss of the spirit, and a less ened dme of life comprise Balaam's experience as he faces his remain ing hour. These exegetical modificadons comprise more than a superficial tampering with the conception of the spirit in Numbers 22-24. The spirit no longer functions as superadditwn but comes instead to be under stood as the sustenance of human life. Quite clearly, and unsurpris ingly, Balaam nears death once he has forfeited this spirit. He docs not claim, however, that he dies now that his possession of the spirit has lessened. More curiously, Balaam claims instead that he is restrained in speech because there is litde left of the spirit within him. This puzzling association between the loss of words and the loss of the spirit leads beyond Genesis 6 to another portion of Israelite literature. Wisdom iMerature Discernible within the wisdom tradition is an association between the breath or spirit of God and righteous human speech. Job, for instance, claims: As G o d lives, w h o has taken away my right, and the Almighty, w h o has made my soul bitter, as long as my breath is in m e [*• TTDB^ Tli?"*?D"'D]

T H E SPIRIT AS LIFE ITSELF

63

and the spirit of God is in my nostrils ['StCJ m*?H n m j my lips will not speak falsehood, and my tongue will not utter deceit (27:2-4). This perspective comes to fuller flower in two statements of Job's intrepid companion, Elihu, both of which illuminate Balaam's state ment in LAB 18:11. The youthful Elihu defends his right to speak by rejecting the view that age brings wisdom: 1 am young in years, and you are aged; therefore 1 was timid and afraid to declare my opinion to you. I said, "Ixt days speak, and many years teach wisdom." But tmly it is the spirit in a mortal, the breath of the Almighty that makes for understanding.

[•ran 'itf noB^n diaa HTnrn It is not the old that are wise, nor the aged that understand what is right (Job 32:6-9). The point is clear: knowledge does not result from age but from possession of God's life-giving spirit or breath.'^ Therefore, youth possess the potential for wisdom because the breath—the spirit in all people—teaches wisdom. What Elihu does not say is that all people, old and young, have equal access to wisdom. He contends rather that elders are not wise. By pointedly denying wisdom to the aged while simultaneously attribut ing wisdom to the breath of God, Elihu implies that robust and healthy youth have rather more access to wisdom than do older persons. This interpretation of Oihu's words is borne out by a statement he makes slighdy later in his soliloquy: They [the other, older speakers] are dismayed, they answer no more; they have not a word to say. And am I to wait, because they do not speak, because they stand there, and answer no more?

I also will give my answer; I also will declare my opinion. For I am full of words; the spirit within me constrains me. Elihu understands this spirit as the life-breath of Gen 2:7 rather than as a spe cial endowment. This is obvious in Job 33:4, 6, where he employs language that echoes Gen 2:7: The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life

[rnn naJ rem ^rtos ^-rm]... See, before God I am as you are; I too was formed from a piece of clay.

64

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

My heart is indeed Uke wine diat has no vent; like new wineskins, it is ready to burst. I must speak, so that I may find relief; I must open my lips and answer (32:15-20). Here Elihu contrasts the speechlessness of the elders with his own robust, relendess urge to speak. The source of this compulsion is the spirit within him:

With these two statements, Elihu builds his right to speak upon two related bases. First, the spirit or breath gives wisdom; age does not. Therefore, youth have a right to speak. Second, the compulsion to speak is the product of this spirit within him; the elders lack such an internal pressure. Therefore, this youth has even more of a right to speak than the elders. If words are the product of God's breath, then the absence of words signals the loss of this breath, which is plendful in a youth such as the robust Elihu. This relationship between possession of God's spirit or breath in full measure and the compulsion to burst into words is peculiarly suited to explain Balaam's association of loss of words and loss of spirit in LAB 18:11. Balaam claims that he can say litde because there is litde left of the spirit in him: "I am restrained in my speech and cannot say what I see with my eyes, because there is litde left of the holy spirit that abides in me." The elders' experience (accord ing to Elihu) is analogous to Balaam's: neither Balaam nor the elders can speak because they no longer possess the spirit as those in the full bloom of youth do. Israelite literature, then, provides a significant ^ m p s e into PseudoPhilo's exegetical movements. Although there is litde in the way of literal echoes and clues—such as characterize Pseudo-Philo's appeal to Gen 6:3—to cement the possibility that such a perception of the spirit influenced Pseudo-Philo, he does nonetheless subscribe to the association between the possession of breath or spirit and the ability to speak forthrighdy and righteously. Summary We have attained a level of clarity in this exploration of PseudoPhilo's exegetical movements. These can be attributed to a combustion of elements from Israelite literature. The transformation of the spirit

T H E S P I R I T AS LIFE ITSELF

65

from superadditm to the life-breath has occurred under the influence of Gen 6:3. The association of Balaam's inability to speak with his loss of that spirit may reflect the association of word and spirit such as is to be discerned in Job 32—though Pseudo-Philo offers no specific echoes of this text in LAB 18.

The Spirit as the Holy Spirit Exegetical Movements There is, moreover, another interesting dimension of Pseudo-Philo's transformation of Num 24:2. Following the two allusions to Gen 6:3, and in the context in which he associates the loss of the spirit with the advent of death, Pseudo-Philo refers to the spirit, not as "spirit of God," as in Num 24:2, but as "holy spirit." In other words, where he understands the spirit as the substance of life, the loss of which brings death, he chooses what appears to be the less typical expres sion, "holy spirit." Rekvant Milieux Israelite Literature The expression, holy spirit, occurs in the Hebrew Bible only in Isa 63:10-11 and Ps 51:13. In Isaiah 63, the spirit acts within the cor porate experience of Israel and cannot, therefore, be understood as the spirit which individual humans possess from birth until death. Only Psalm 51, which contains no less than four occurrences of the word, rm, permits the identification of the holy spirit with the human spirit.'^ Three references occur in close succession in this psalm (51:10-12; MT 51:12-14): This is not the only way in which the language of Psalm 51 may be interpreted. The reference in 51:19 to God's presence, set in a posidon panillel to the holy spirit, could easily have suggested the external presence of God, such as that which led Israel, according to Exodus 33. Precisely this paraUel is drawn in Isaiah 63, which contains the only other reference to "holy spirit" in the Hebrew Bible. In Isa 63:9-10, "the angel of his presence" appears to he identified with the "holy spirit" whom Israel grieved. In the ensuing lines, the "holy spirit" is set in a position parallel to God's glorious arm which divided the waters of the sea at the exodus (Isa 63: 11-12). Thus, the parallel between God's presence and the holy spirit may sug^st equally the exterior power of God which cannot be identified as the sustaining power of human life. See my discussion in "The Angelic Spirit," 470-71.

66

AN ANOMALOUS PROPHET

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me. Do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take your holy spirit from mc. Restore to me the joy of your salvauon, and sustain in mc a willing spirit.'* I^ter the psalmist declares (51:17; MT 51:19): The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. 15 The interpretadon of the holy spirit as that which sustains human beings is made possible in these texts by an ample use of synonyms. In Ps 51:12 (MT), the words, "right spirit," are placed in a position parallel to "clean heart." In Ps 51:19, the words, "broken spirit," are set in a parallel position to the words, "broken and contrite heart." The identification of this spirit as the human spirit appears to be borne out by the third reference to the spirit in this psalm: "sustain in me a willing spirit." Such a spirit presumably corresponds to the "clean heart" and "right spirit" of 51:12 and to the "broken spirit" and "broken and contrite heart" of 51:19. I^odged as the second amidst four references, the expression, "holy spirit," ought perhaps to be construed as the human spirit, akin to the human heart. According to this interpretation, the psalmist's prayer is for life and restoration, for continued possession of the holy spirit which sustains existence in lieu of the punishment of death for sin. Interpreted from this f>erspective, the tandem conceptions in Ps 51:13 of being cast away from God's presence and having the holy spirit taken away would be associated with death. Psalm 51 may, therefore, provide the impetus for Pseudo-Philo's willingness to employ the term, "holy spirit," to depict the human spirit. The psalmist prays to remain alive (in God's presence) through the retention of that holy spirit. Similarly, Balaam reckons with the

'* Hebrew,

'a-pi

arm

]TD3 nm

crrtm ' V H - O

^DDon HDNJ N M -\s^

jmi

-ITTID ^'P

2b

n a ^

Hebrew, H D H D T T ^ NDTTI i^iir±> mjoh rvn crrf7« Tar Analogously, in 2 Kgs 13:23, it is written of Israel that God "would not destroy them; nor has he banished them from his presence undl now." Of the false prophet, according to Jeremiah, God says, " . . . I will . . . cast you away from my presence, you and the city that I gave to you and your ancestors. And I will bring upon you everiasting disgrace and perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten" (23:39-40).

THE

SPIRIT AS LIFE ITSELF

67

imminence of death when he recognizes the loss of that holy spirit.'^ Although the lack of other more concrete echoes renders a final appraisal injudicious, the appearance of the same vocabulary and a similar association with death suggest the possibility that Pseudo-Philo adopted the language of this psalm to depict the spirit of Balaam. It is not surprising that we cannot yet pinpoint with total accuracy Pseudo-Philo's exegetical movements. Pseudo-Philo tends to gather expressions and phrases from a variety of contexts. Echoes are often fleeting, collected in a cornucopia of expressions from other passages. Moreover, these allusions are not always pristine; often they are forged on the anvil of the Greco-Roman era, including concepts Jewish and Roman. Our quest for illumination cannot be completed, therefore, until we have wrung from the Greco-Roman era potentially relevant texts.

Greek and Latin Literature Stoicism and the Spirit The four references to the spirit in Psalm 51 were, of course, trans lated into Greek during the Greco-Roman era. The Septuagint transla tion of Psalm 51:12-14 is sufficiendy interesting to deserve citation: KapSiav Ka9apav KTIOOV ev ejioi, 6 8e6<;, K a l jiveOjAO e{>8e; e y K a i v i o o v ev toiq eyxaToi^ \io\). o c K o p p i y p c ; \ie aiu> tov npoaomo'o oo\) Kttl TO JtveOjia to ayiov aov ^ii avtaveXfic; otji' e^ov. otKoSoc; ^ioi xr\v ayaXkiaaiv tot) omr\pio\) OOD Kttl nve^nati % e n o v i K ^ onipioov ne ( L X X Ps 50:12~14).

" The similarity o f expression that unites Ps 51:12 and LAB 18:11, including t h e analogous relationship betv^reen the holy spirit and life or death, does not surest that these two t e x t s c o n t a i n i d c n u c a J c o n c e p t i o n s o f t h a t h o l y spirit. I n t h e p s a l m , anthropological terms are preceded by adjectives: "clean heart" or "ri^t spirit" or "willing spirit" or "broken spirit" or "broken and contrite heart." In this psalm, terms such as heart and spirit connote something other than the spirit given t o sustain physical life. The psalm reflects rather the notion of renewal, even national renewal, that is found in exilic prophetic texts. According to Ezekiel, for instance, God promises Israel: "A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you . . . I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances" (36:26-27; see ll:19;Jer 31:33). In contrast, in LAB 18, two allusions to Gen 6:3, followed by a clear association of the loss of the holy spirit with the imminence of death, suggest that Pseudo-Philo understands the holy spirit as that which sustains human life, quite a p a r t from conceptions of cleansing, brokenness, and contrition.

68

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

This translation conveys the ambiguity that characterizes its Hebrew Vorli^ vis-a-vis the holy spirit, which can be taken to mean the human spirit-breath or, alternatively, the spirit as an endowment granted in addition to this life-breath. The identification of the holy spirit with the life-breath is supported perhaps by the translation of the Hebrew verb, n p b , by the Greek verb, dvtaipeiv. Though this verb occurs only ten times in the Sep tuagint, eight of them in the psalms, two of these are situated in contexts in which life and death are at issue. Of the animals it can be said that when God takes away their spirit (ovtaveXeiq TO icvev^a avxwv), they are cut oflfand return to the ground (LXX Ps 103:29). Further, the psalmist implores God not to take away his life or soul (\ir\ dvTaveX^q TT^V Y\)xf\v \io\i) in LXX Ps 140:8. In both instances, the verb, avtaipeiv, is associated with the presence or loss of life. If the choice of this verb in LXX Psalms 103 and 140 provides any clue, then the psalmist in LXX Ps 50:13 is presumably begging God not to take away the holy spirit—understood as that which sustains life and prevents return to the earth. The translation in LXX 50:14 of the third reference—to the willing or generous spirit—could also be construed as a reference to the human spirit.'® The words, jcvevjuxtifiYEjioviK^, may refer to the human spirit which steadies the psalmist by ruling over the human soul.'^ This interpretation approximates the understanding of the holy spirit as the vivifying force of life, such as in Gen 6:3 or LAB 18, although this conception of the spirit is interpreted along the lines of Stoicism as the rational component of a human being. Apart from the conceptual distinction between the Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum and LXX Psalm 50, this reference nonetheless provides significant evi dence of the willingness of post-biblical Jewish interpreters to identify the human spirit as the holy spirit.

'* On the other hand, the words, icvev^axt iryEjioviic^, may refer to the spirit which exists independendy of a human being and strengthens or rules the psalmist by leading, in a manner similar to the spirit's leading in LXX Ps 142:10, to xvEv^ia <xn> to dyo^v oSinrnoei jie ev yp ziAtvq.. Tliis understanding of the holy ^irit, we have seen, characterizes as weU Isa 63:9-14, where the holy spirit can be grieved and, like God's glorious arm, set in Israel's midst. This ^^\T\t of the LORD leads or giv^ rest to Israel. " See, for example, Sextus Empiricus 8.400, hxi o5v ^rvx^i m i t o TIYQIOVIKOV jTvnJMXx earIV r{ X o m ^ p e o t e p o v TI jrvcunaToq, ox; 90KJIV. . . . See also the index entry, to irmtoviKov, in H. von Amim, Stokorum Vetenm Fragmenta, 4 vols. (Tcubncr, 190324) 4.65.

T H E SPIRIT A S LIFE ITSELF

69

An equally evocative reference to dyiov Ttvevjia constitutes a por tion of the opening lines of the first century BCE Alexandrian tract, Wisdom of Solomon: ayiov yap itvev^ux miSeiou; (pru^etai 56Xov (1:5). Although some interpreters have construed the words, dyiov jwev^ia, as a reference to the spirit which exists apart from human beings rather than as the human spirit which all possess by virtue of human existence,^ these words have also been interpreted as a reference to the human spirit which all people possess. The words, ayiovrevdijux,in WisSol 1:5 may then constitute another instance of the designation, holy spirit, to describe the spirit that is constitutive of human life. This similarity of vocabulary, however, does not mean that the conceptions of the spirit in Wisdom of Solomon and Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum are similar. Actually they diverge dra matically. First, the holy spirit in WisSol 1:5 comprises part of the triad of anthropological components of a human being, the first two of which have already been mentioned in the preceding lines of Wisdom of Solomon: " . . . because wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul, or dweU in a body enslaved to sin. For a holy and disciplined spirit will flee from deceit.. (1:4—5a). This holy spirit can be con trasted with a soul characterized by deceit (1:4a) and a body enslaved to sin (1:4b), into which wisdom will not enter. This conception of the spirit as an integral component of a person does not allow for the spirit to be lessened or forfeited prior to death.^' One simply cannot have "litde left" of this component while alive, as Balaam did accord ing to LAB 18:11. Second, the adjective dyiov appears to be used non-technically to describe the spirit that is pure through the instruction characteristic of the wisdom schools. The words, dyiov Jtvev^ia, are followed by the

™ E.g., D . W i n s t o n , The Wisdom of Solomon ( G a r d e n C i t y , NY: D o u b l e d a y , 1979) 99. E. G. Clarke {The Wisdom of Solomon [Cambridge: University Press, 1973] 17), for example, translates this sentence, "The holy spirit, that divine tutor, will fly from cunning stratagem." According to this interpretadon, the holy spirit is to be idend fied in its context with wisdom that will not enter a deceitful soul (1:4), with wisdom understood as a philanthropic spirit (1:6), and with the spirit of the Lord that "has filled the worid" and "holds aU things togedier..." (1:7). " In WisSol 15:7-13, the breath of life of Gen 2:7 is interpreted similariy as an integral anthropological component which characterizes a human being from birth to death. People die "when the time comes to return the souls that were borrowed" (15:8). Idolators in particular have no hope "because they failed to know the one who formed them/and inspired them with active souls/and breathed a living spirit into them."

70

AN ANOMALOUS PROPHET

genitival adjective, TiaiSeia^, suggesting that the human spirit becomes holy through instruction. Such an understanding differs even from other occurrences of this expression in Wisdom of Solomon, such as 9:17, in which God's "holy spirit" is sent from on high to grant wisdom to people such as Solomon. There exists still a third conceptual difference that divides WisSol 1:5 from LAB 18:10: this reference to the human spirit (if WisSol 1:5 refers primarily to the human rather than cosmic spirit) is set within a context defined by Stoic terminology. A few lines later, the spirit of the Lord is depicted as that which "filled the world, and that which holds all things together. . ." (1:7). These spirits appear to be related, for the relationship between them is anchored by an analogous resistance to unrighteousness. Just as the holy spirit is "ashamed at the approach of unrighteousness," so the cosmic spirit of the Lord will not permit "those who utter unrighteous things" to escape notice (1:5, 8). The close relationship between the human spirit and the cosmic spirit presupposes the Stoic conception according to which the human spirit is a portion of the cosmic 7cveij|ia. Conse quently, as w a s the case with I.XX Psalm 50, the spirit is interpreted in a manner fundamentally different from LAB 18:11. Thus LXX Psalm 50 and WisSol 1:5 provide important evidence that the human spirit, understood as that which is constitutive of life itself, could be designated the holy spirit, as is the case in LAB 18:11. However, in both texts the spirit is understood along Stoic lines as a portion of the human being, in LXX Psalm 50 as the "ruling spirit" and in WisSol 1:5 as the instructed spirit that, like the cosmic spirit, resists unrighteousness. The chasm which separates the conception of the holy spirit in LAB 18:11 from Stoic conceptions of Ttvevna can be brought into starker focus by comparing LAB 18 with a poignant letter of the Roman Stoic statesman, Seneca, penned perhaps during the years, 63-65 CE. Seneca commends Lucilius in this letter for aspiring to sound understanding by looking to himself rather than to gods and idols external to humankind. In this context, Seneca refers to a "holy spirit" which indwells within human beings: We do not need to uplift our hands towards heaven, or to beg the keeper of a temple to let us approach this idol's ear, as if in this way our prayers were more likely to be heard. God is near you, he is with you, he is within you. This is what I mean, Lucilius: a holy spirit in-

T H E SPIRIT AS LIFE ITSELF

71

dwells widlin us, one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian." As we U^at this spirit, so are we treated {Epistulae morales 41.2). The person who fulfills the Stoic ideal of being unterrified by dangers, untouched by desires, etc. does so by virtue of a spirit which, while abiding within, remains first of all allied with its heavenly origin: When a soul rises superior to other souls, when it passes through every experience as if it were of small account, when it smiles at our fears and at our prayers, it is stirred by a force from heaven. . . . Therefore, a great part of it abides in that place from whence it came down to earth . . . the great and hallowed soul, which has come down in order that we may have a nearer knowledge of divinity, does indeed associate with us, but sdll cleaves to its origin .. . (41.5). What marks this perfect soul is not external accoutrements which can be passed on to someone else but a life lived according to reason, a life lived according to one's nature: Praise the quality in him which cannot be given or snatched away, that which is the peculiar property of the human. Do you ask what this is? It is soul, and reason brought to perfecdon in the soul. For a human is a reasoning animal. Therefore, one's highest good is attained, if he has fulfilled the good for which nature designed him at birth. And what is it which this reason demands of him? The easiest thing in the world—to live in accordance v^th his own nature (41.8-9). In this eloquent essay, the task and character of the holy spirit, understood in Stoic terms, are explained with exceptional clarity: living according to reason (the Stoic ideal) and living according to one's own nature are synonymous because one's own nature consists in part of a spirit, the god within, which has descended from the di vine, rational world and continues, though embodied in humans, to seek association wdth the divine world. Although the holy spirit is analogously identified with the human spirit, as sacer spiritus by Seneca and sanctus spiritus by Pseudo-Philo, the characteristic earmark of the human spirit, interpreted from this first century C E Stoic perspective, is notably absent from LAB 18. Balaam does not claim to have lost the holy spirit because he failed to live in accordance with reason, with his true nature, but because he was persuaded by Balak and transgressed what God had spoken

^ Ladn, sacer intra nos spiritus sedet, malorum bonorumqtu nostrorum observator et custos.

72

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

to him earUer at night: "But I will gnash my teeth, because I have been led astray and have transgressed what was said to me by night" (LAB 18:12). This emphasis upon the reception of external instruc tion by some revelatory means, upon divine revelation from without, violates the thrust of Seneca's essay that, because the human spirit never forfeits its character as divine rationality, one need look nowhere else than to oneself for guidance. Substantive evidence emerges, therefore, from LXX Psalm 50, WisSol 1:5, and Seneca's forty-first Episde, to illuminate Pseudo-Hiilo's application of the term, holy spirit, to the human spirit. Apart from this common vocabulary, however, the similarities evaporate. Although Pseudo-Philo may not necessarily resist hellenization with respect to his conception of the spirit, his interpretation of the spirit in LAB 18:11, apart from the similarity of vocabulary, has litde in common with the Stoicized interpretations of the spirit that characterize LXX Psalm 50, WisSol 1:5, and Seneca's forty-first letter to Lucilius. These texts, however, do not circumscribe the totality of references to the human spirit as the holy spirit during the Greco-Roman era. Greek Danielic Literature Further instances in which the human spirit is referred to as the "holy spirit" occur in the Greek literature of the Danielic cycle. In Theodotion's version of Susanna 45, the idiomatic reference to the stirring of a person's spirit which occurs with relative frequency in post-exilic literature^^ is modified slighdy by the addition of the adjec tive, dyiov. God is said to have stirred up the holy spirit of a young lad named Daniel: e^fiyeipev 6 8e6<; to jwev^a to dyiov naiSapiou vecorepou. The occurrence of this modified idiom in Susanna 45 provides a certain reference to the human spirit as the holy spirit during the Greco-Roman era. In other instances, the LXX version contains references to the holy spirit within Daniel where the Aramaic version does not.^* Twice the queen recognizes that Daniel has an excellent spirit, mTT rm, in him (MT 5:12; 6:4). Theodotion's version translates this expression « See LXXJer 28 (MT 51):11; Hag 1:14; 1 Esdras 2:2, 8; 2 Esdras 1:1, 1:5; 1 Chron 5:26; 2 Chron 36:22. On the Greek versions, see J. J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993) 3-11; T. J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Deadel and Greek Damet A Uterary Company (JSOTSS 198; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995); English translations on 2 8 1 306.

T H E S P I R I T A S L I F E ITSELF

73

predictably as revev^a itepioaov, but the LXX version contains refer ences to the holy spirit, itvevjia dyiov ev avt^ (5:12; 6:4)." In light of the tendency of LXX to translate literally,^^ the shift from "excellent spirit" in Aramaic to "holy spirit" in LXX proves significant, for it suggests forcefully how readily a translator could have preferred the translation, wvevna dyiov, to Jtvevna nepioaov, as a description of the human spirit.^' It is once again diflficult to determine whether the conceptions of the holy spirit in Susanna 45, LXX Daniel 5:12, 6:4, and LAB 18:11 are similar. The association of the loss of the holy spirit with impending death characterizes only LAB 18:11. Even the association of the holy spirit with extraordinary knowledge (interpretation of dreams and prophetic sight) may not provide an unequivocal connection, for it is not prophetic sight that the loss of the holy spirit occasions for Balaam in LAB 18:11 but the words to communicate what he has seen. None theless, references to the human spirit as the holy spirit are discern ible in the Danielic cycle, unequivocally in the idiom of Susanna 45 (Theodotion) and probably in the LXX translation of Dan 5:12 and 6:3. Despite their composition and translation in Greek, these texts comprise the relevant milieu of Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum^ for each is a text from the Greco-Roman era which identifies the human spirit as the holy spirit. The Dead Sea Scrolls While Pseudo-Philo's construal of the human spirit as the holy spirit corresponds to these texts from the Greek Danielic cycle, to Psalm 51 in Hebrew and Greek, to the Wisdom of Solomon, even in less measure to Seneca's forty-first letter to Lucilius, its most particular correspondences are to be found not in Alexandrian Egypt or Italy

" The reference in Dan 5:14 to ]TI*?K r m reads, in Theododon's version, jrvdijia SeoO. Dan 5:14-15 is missing from the LXX version. ^ See Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel, 23-26. Theodotion's version of Daniel 4-6 contains references to the holy spirit within Daniel where the Aramaic version does not. In Daniel 4, three times in succession Nebuchadnezzar recognized that Daniel had within him |n*W fTH (4:5, 6, 15). In all three cases, Theodotion's version reads instead, ]^vEO^a 6eov ayiov (4:8, 9, 18; LXX version lacks verses 6-9). It is not jx)ssible, however, to ascertain whether the ^irit is here understood as a constituent characteristic of life, as in LAB 18:11, or as an extraordinary endowment. In Dan 5:11, HD ftZ^ip ]'Th^ rm, these words are spoken by the queen; but here Theododon's version reads, ^ nvev^a 0eou. The LXX version lacks this reference.

74

AN ANOMALOUS

PROPHET

but in Pseudo-Philo's homeland of Palestine. Two references in the Dead Sea Scrolls elucidate Pseudo-Philo's use of the expression, "holy spirit," to refer to God's spirit as the source of life rather than as an exceptional, temporary endowment.^® CD 7.4 contains the formulation: . . . to keep apart from every uncleanness according to their regulations, without anyone defiling his holy spirit, according to what God kept apart for them. For all those who walk according to these matters in perfect holiness, in accordance with his teaching, God's covenant is a guarantee for them that they shall live a thousand generations (CD 7.3~6). It is not immediately clear in this text whether the possessive, "his," in the words, TWTlp r m , refer to God or to a member of the community, although from a syntactical perspective the antecedent of this pos sessive pronoun is a member of the community and not God. More unequivocal evidence for the identification of this spirit as that which a human being possesses from birth to death surfaces when the vo cabulary of CD 7.4 is compared with CD 12.11-13, which reads: "No-one should defile his soul with any living being or one which creeps, by eating them, from the larvae of bees to every living b e i n g . . . which creeps in water." The formulations and vocabulary of 7.4 and 12.11 are strikingly similar:

CD 7.4: v&ip rm m ^

yptzr ^'t)

CD 12.11: "Kzsa n« er» fpe^ "t^ The repetition of vocabulary in CD 12.11, including the reappear ance of the verb, |*p2^, suggests forcefully that the words, r m in CD 7.4 and Cfe3 in CD 12.11-12 are to be understood as synonyms.^ Further, the formulation in CD 7.4 incorporates the language of Leviticus, so that a comparison of the biblical precedent v^th CD 7.4 illuminates the identification of Tiznp r m wdth Bto3. Two texts in particular are significant: You shall not make yourselves detestable with any creature that swarms; you shall not defile yourselves with them, and so become unclean (Lev 11:43).

^ In the Qumran literature, the word, im, not surprisingly refers frequendy to the human spirit. For an overview, see the appendix in Sekki, Meaning, 225-39. ^ The antecedent of the possessive pronoun in CD 7.4, IHyip, like 1CB3, is one of the brothers of the community and not God; thus "his" designates the member's holy spirit.

T H E S P I R I T AS L I F E ITSELF

75

. . . you shall not bring abomination on yourselves by animal or by bird or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean (Lev 20:25). The phraseology of Lev 11:43 and 20:25 is closely reproduced, apart from necessary contextual modificadons, in CD 7.4: CD 7.4: Wip mn m ^

xp^

Lev 20:25: DD'naJsa r» i2ipBJn H'PT

Lev 11:43: DD"*nefe2 r» lil^p&l ^ The difference between the biblical texts and CD 7.4 is the substi tution of VCnp r m for DDTRDEU. One defiles one's (DSa in Leviticus, but one defiles one's 2 h p rrn in CD 7,4. The expression, holy spirit, is then an apt replacement for the word, 2?5M."^ CD 5 . 1 1 - 1 3 , moreover, contains an indictment of wicked priests similar to CD 7.4. The author contends that "they have defiled their holy spirit": And also they defile his [Hebrew, "their"] holy spirit, for with blasphe mous tongue they have opened their mouth against the statutes of God's covenant, saying: they are unfounded. They speak abomination against them. Particularly significant in this formulation is the possessive pronoun appended to the adjective, holy: O T T ^ p TTTi riK nx\. The plu ral possessive indicates that it is not God's holy spirit that is defiled but "their holy spirit," that is, the holy spirits of the members of the community. These references from the Damascus Document shed essential light upon LAB 18:11. Most fundamentally, they provide important counter parts—composed in Hebrew and from a Palestinian milieu—to PseudoPhilo's reference to the human spirit as the holy spirit. These references from the Damascus Document also draw a relationship between one's moral life and one's holy spirit: one can indeed defile it. As we might expect, the penalty for such defilement at Qumran is located in escha tological judgment (e.g., IQS 4.19-23), while Balaam in LAB receives for his disobedience a shortened life span. Still, the overt relationship between one's actions and one's holy spirit in the Damascus Document corresponds to LAB 18:11, in which Balaam's loss of the holy spirit

For background and bibliography, see Sekki, Meaning, 112-14.

76

AN ANOMALOUS PROPHET

is integrally related to his failure of obedience: " . . . there is litde left of the holy spirit that abides in me . . . because I have been jjersuaded by Balak."

SuntTTUiTy

Difficuldes in the biblical text do not escape Pseudo-Philo's aware ness. He preserves, for example, the quesdon in Num 22:9 which suggests that God is not omniscient, "Who are the men who have come to you?" (LAB 18:4), but adds to it the unbiblical response of Balaam which dispels any doubt that God knows aU: "Why, LORD, do you try the human race? They cannot endure it, because you know well what is to happen in the world, even before you founded it. And now enlighten your servant if it be right to go forth with them" (18:4). Pseudo-Philo is careful also to under^rd the validity of Balaam's oracle by distinguishing between the speaker, Balaam, and the oracle that is spoken. Balaam concludes his oracle: But I will gnash my teeth, because I have been led astray and have transgressed what was said to me by night. And my prophecy wiU remain public, and my words wiU Uve on. And the wise and under standing will remember my words that, when I cursed, I perished, but though I blessed, I was not blessed (LAB 18:12). Nor is the difficulty of how such a negadve character as Balaam could receive the spirit of God, the special endowment by which he uttered prophedc oracles, according to Numbers 22-24, lost on Pseudo-Philo. His solution is extraordinary. He adds an initial state ment to the biblical account in which he affirms the conviction of Gen 6:3, that humans have the spirit for only a short time. He alludes more j>ointedly a second time to Gen 6:3, successfully transforming the biblical affirmation that Balaam received a special e n d o w T n e n t of the spirit into the claim that Balaam lost the life-sustaining spirit. This interpretation of the spirit is bolstered by Balaam's final words, in which he associated the loss of the holy spirit with a loss for words and the imminence of death. The sum total of these transformations is that Balaam is denied the spirit which otherwise inspires prophetic oracles. He is not like Joshua, Kenaz, or even Saul, who prophesied by means of the spirit; this Mesopotamian seer who followed Balak and who later plotted to overthrow Israel dirough the seduction of

T H E S P I R I T A S L I F E ITSELF

77

Midianite women (LAB 18:13-14) never possessed that extraordinary spirit, and he succeeded through disobedience in losing even the sustaining spirit of life which keeps death at arm's length. The milieux to which Pseudo-Philo is perhaps indebted are multiple. Integral to Pseudo-Philo's revision of Numbers 22-24 is other biblical passages. Thoughtful allusions to Gen 6:3 are primary, although they do not explain entirely Balaam's experience. Part of the exegetical puzzle consists as well of conceptions at home in the Israelite wis dom tradition, represented particularly by Elihu in Job 32, in which an association is drawn between fullness of God's rm and abundance of words. Pseudo-Philo's Balaam, like the elders whom Elihu criticized, lacked God's spirit and thus could not speak all that he wanted. Nor do the allusions to Gen 6:3 satisfactorily explain the reference to "the holy spirit" in LAB 18:11. Although this designation may have been culled from Psalm 51, LAB 18 evinces few traces of this psalm. Nonetheless, the use of the expression, holy spirit, to depict the human spirit was not altogether unusual during the Greco-Roman era. In regions as far flung from one another as Alexandria, Rome, and Palestine, and in three languages of the Roman Empire—Greek, Ladn, and Hebrew—could the designation, holy spirit, be used to refer to the spirit humans possess by virtue of life itself Seneca the Stoic referred to the holy spirit, the god within, and the author of Wisdom of Solomon, who was influenced by Stoicism, possibly de scribed the human spirit as "holy spirit". The Greek versions of the Danielic cycle of literature contain references to the human spirit as holy spirit, as well as the idiom, "God stirred up the hofy spirit." The Damascus Document, which, like Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, was composed in Hebrew, contains two references to the holy spirit under stood synonymously with the Hebrew, These various milieux, then, contain conceptions of the spirit that shed significant light on Pseudo-Philo's exegetical movements in LAB 18. Balaam's experience in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum can be attrib uted, not to a temporary endowment of the spirit, but to the lessening of that life-sustaining spirit, the holy spirit, which would normally provide a reservoir of speech.

RETROSPECT

Our probing and prodding complete for the moment, we may now during this hiatus sift the layers of our finds. What first rises to the surface of our results is how radically Philo, Josephus, and PseudoPhilo have transformed the nature of the ^irit of God. According to Philo and Josephus, the spirit is an angel, a pre-eminent daemonic being charged with the task of producing oracles through the mis guided seer. The slight opportunity for identifying the angel of Num 22:35 widi die spirit of LXX Num 23:7 or M T Num 24:2 diat is opened by the ambiguity of the biblical text—the failure of the angel to reappear to place words in Balaam's mouth and the presence in stead of the spirit of God—becomes the central characteristic of the spirit in the tale of Balaam according to Philo and Josephus. PseudoPhilo's transformation of the nature of the spirit is no less daring. For this Palestinian author, the presence of the spirit does not signify the special endowment characteristic of a prophet, as in LXX Num 23:7 and MT Num 24:2, but the spirit given to each human to sustain life. These extraordinarily different but equally fascinating exegetical movements are occasioned by the tension between the negative char acter of Balaam and the positive significance of his oracular blessings. Philo utilizes the figure of Balaam as a whipping post for his diatribes against artificial divination, and, even if Josephus and Pseudo-Philo modify the biblical text to present Balaam in a more favorable light,' they go out of their way to accentuate the role of Balaam in the plot to destroy Israel through the seduction of Midianite women, although the biblical basis for this connection is slight—nsb2 "DID in Num 31:16.^ Josephus and Philo alleviate the tension between Balaam and his oracles by portraying the divine spirit as an angel who conquered Balaam, ousted his mental control, and spoke by means of his vocal chords but without Balaam's consent or awareness. The oracles be-

' See Vemies, Scripture and Tradition, 173-75; Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Balaam," 52-56. ' LAB 18:13-14; Josephus, Ant. 4 1 2 9 - 3 0 .

RETROSPECT

79

come, by these means, solely God's, while Balaam is nothing more than a vehicle, an instrument of the divine will. Pseudo-Philo alleviates this tension by interpreting the spirit, not as the prophetic spirit which inspired such Israelite noteworthies as Joshua, Kenaz, and Gideon, but as the spirit which had sustained Balaam and which, as Balaam came to realize, he had forfeited through disobedience. The exegetical movements of Philo, Josephus, and Pseudo-Philo suggest the range of repositories that were available to Jewish bibli cal interpreters during the Greco-Roman era. Each interpreter com mences, of course, with the biblical text. The exegetical movements of Philo and Josephus, however, cannot be satisfactorily explained from biblical antecedents alone. Nor are Platonic antecedents ade quate. It is rather Greco-Roman discussions of Delphic inspiration that prove adequate to explain the precise and detailed interpreta tions of Philo and Josephus. The coalescence of ingredients—angelic spirit, loss of mental control, and manipulation of the prophet—comes to full flower in the first century in popular explanations of Delphic inspiration. It is to these Greco-Roman interpretations from their own era that Philo and Josephus are most heavily indebted. Nor is Pseudo-Philo's interpretation of Numbers 22-24 explicable entirely in light of biblical antecedents. Allusions to Gen 6:3 do prove fundamental to his transformation of the spirit of God of Num 24:2 into the spirit that all people possess but eventually forfeit, while the association of a loss of words with loss of that sustaining spirit can be traced to the later wisdom tradition. On the other hand, the use of the expression, holy spirit, to describe that sustaining spirit can not finally be understood on the basis of biblical antecedents. Psalm 51 provides only ambiguous precedent; it is not clear how the holy spirit is to be understood. Far more illuminating and numerous are references to the human spirit as the holy spirit in literature of the Greco-Roman era, including Stoic literature and Stoically influenced Jewish literature, as well as Greek versions of Daniel and Susanna. The most congenial correspondences to this designation can be located in the post-biblical literature of Pseudo-Philo's homeland, in the Damascus Document, in which the author contends that one can defile one's holy spirit. Once again, then, an adequate explanation of first century exegesis must take into consideration both the biblical text and related conceptions and interpretations that circulated during the Greco-Roman era. Such an observation provides entry into the second part of this

80

AN ANOMALOUS PROPHET

Study, the focus of which is the nature and extent of heUenizadon in first century Jewish interpretadons of the spirit. The purpose of the ensuing study is to provide a nuanced answer to the question of the extent to which first century Jewish interpreters modified the biblical text through the assimilation of Greco-Roman culture.

PART II

AN ECLECTIC ERA

PROSPECT In the swirling eclecticism of the Greco-Roman era, various concep tions of the spirit inevitably collided with one another with varying degrees of force. We have noted already, for example, the dissimilarity between Pseudo-Philo's concepdon of the holy spirit and Seneca's, as well as the affinities between Cleombrotus' daemons and the angelic spirit in Philo's and Josephus' portraits of Balaam. As the biblical narratives were transmitted and rewritten during the Greco-Roman era, the nature and function of the spirit were naturally transformed by means of an uneven mixture of resistance and accommodation to Greco-Roman culture. The ensuing analyses explore that interplay between Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures. The first of our analyses of Jewish eclecticism • during the GrecoRoman era (chapter four) would appear to follow the well-trodden distinction between Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism. The conception of transformation by the spirit in Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, of Pales tinian provenance, is circumscribed by biblical boundaries, with no recourse to Greco-Roman conceptions, while the conception of trans formation by the spirit in Philo's De virtutibus, of Alexandrian pro venance, would prove vacuous were it not for the nearly wholesale adoption of Greco-Roman conceptions. This assessment, however, belies the complexity ofJewish approaches to Greco-Roman conceptions. The subsequent study (chapter five), therefore, is devoted to excavating the impulse toward Greco-Roman conceptions of prophecy on Palestinian soil in Pseudo-Philo's exegetical expansions of biblical narratives. The ensuing tandem study (chapter six) detects substantial traces of resistance to Greco-Roman conceptions in Alexandria and Rome, in the writings of Philo and Josephus. What provides the pulse of this section is the putative distinction between Palestinian and hellenistic Judaism against which M. Hengel has labored so strenuously. Pseudo-Philo, whom one might expect to resist hellenization, often interprets the effect of the divine spirit with conceptions that seem far more at home in the Greco-Roman world than the Bible. Philo and Josephus, who might be expected to as similate Greco-Roman conceptions uncritically, reveal rather a keen awareness of just how far Greco-Roman conceptions can be profitably adopted. The result is a complex coalescence of convictions about the divine spirit that does not divide neady into concise categories.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE SPIRIT AND HUMAN TRANSFORMATION: PALESTINIAN AND DL\SPORA PERSPECTIVES

Exegetical modifications notwithstanding, Philo and Josephus sustain the biblical association of spirit and prophecy in their interpretations of the tale of Balaam; Pseudo-Philo does so as well by inverting the tale to emphasize the spirit's conspicuous absence from Balaam's pro phetic experience. All three interpreters concur moreover in the shared conviction that prophecy is not the only legitimate product of the spirit. According to Philo and Pseudo-Philo, the divine spirit also enhances capacities resident within human beings, such as qualities of leadership. In the Liber AnHqtdtatum Biblicarum, this transformation affects Kenaz and Gideon, in Philo's De virtutibus, Abraham. This analysis of exegetical movements will expose the far reaches to which Pseudo-Philo and Philo travel in order to focus the concrete effects of the divine spirit in activities other than prophesying. More over, this comparison of their exegetical movements will confirm, although only provisionally, the impression produced by the analysis of Balaam in section one, namely that the Liber Antiqtdtatum Biblicarum is rooted deeply in biblical and Palestinian soil, while Philo's writings, though moored in the biblical narrative, float amidst a sea of GrecoRoman conceptions. The inadequacy of that scenario will surface in the subsequent chapters of this study.

Pseudo-L^hUo^s Ex^etical Movements Kenaz's Military Prowess The description of Pseudo-Philo's tale of Kenaz as a "sudden burst of inventiveness" which "draws freely on his own im^nation" is apt.' This imaginative tale is spun from a slender biblical thread in Jdg 3:9-11: ' James, Biblicd Antiquities, 146.

THE SPIRIT AND HUMAN TRANSFORMATION

85

But when the Israelites cried out to the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer for the Israelites, who delivered them, Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother. The spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel; he went out to war.... So the land had rest forty years. Then Othniel the son of Kenaz died.^ The Hebrew underlying Pseudo-Philo's tale of Kenaz's grandiose mili tary exploits is formulaic: mrP m t Vbv "Tim. From this unremarkable snippet, Pseudo-Philo spins a wondrous tale of Kenaz as military hero which contains not one but two references to the spirit (27:9, 10), each longer than this laconic precedent. Pseudo-Philo describes in the first reference how Kenaz drew his magnificent sword when the spirit clothed him: "And Kenaz arose, and the spirit of the LORD clothed him, and he drew his sword."^ This sword could shine like a lightning bolt (27:9) and had its own peculiar power, with the result that, because Kenaz could not release his right hand from it after killing 45,000 Amorites, his hand actually took in some of the sword's power (27:11). In a manner consistent with the intensity of this context, PseudoPhilo replaces the colorless Hebrew vocabulary of Jdg 3:9, T**P1? Tim, with the more vivid metaphor of clothing drawn from the story of Gideon in Jdg 6:34, which reads: "But the spirit of the LORD took possession of [clothed] Gideon... The adoption of this metaphor of clothing from Jdg 6:34 in LAB 27:9 is hardly surprising because its context in LAB is {>eppered with other elements from the story of Gideon: the reduction of warriors to three hundred;^ a spying expe dition followed by a reference to the blowing of a trumpet to begin the attack;® the symbolic significance of the sword, especially the rec ognition of Kenaz's sword by the enemies, which Kenaz overheard * James {Biblical Antiquities, 146-47) contends that Pseudo-Philo "may be following a current fashion" when he presents Kenaz rather than Othniel as the first judge. Josephus, in Ant. 5.182, takes this lack as well, and the possibly first century Pales

tinian Lives of the Prophets 10.9 contains the detail that Jonah "was buried in the cave of Kenaz, who became judge of one tribe in the days of the anarchy." {Dated by D. R. A. Hare, "Prophets, Lives of the," ABD 5.502.) Hare ("lives of die Proph ets," in OTP 2.393) follows the explanation of J. Jeremias who suggests, according to Hare, "that the change reflects local Idumean tradition, which glorified Kenaz as the ancestor of an im|x>rtant Edomite tribe. The cave of Kenaz thus constituted the Idumean response to the cave of Machpelah, the grave of the patriarchs near Hebron." ' LAB 27:9. Latin, Et surrexit Cenez, et induit eum spiritus Domini, et evagmavit rompheam suam. * Jdg 6:34. Hebrew, |TP13"nn mi±> mrp n m . ' LAB 27:5 and Jdg 7:8 (see LAB 36:1). ^ LAB 27:6 and Jdg 7:9-18 (see LAB 36:1-2).

86

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

while spying on the enemy camp;' the request for a sign;® the ambush of the enemies' camp;^ and the confused detail that Kenaz killed forty-five thousand and that they killed one another.'° Pseudo-Philo has, then, expanded Jdg 3:10 by establishing an association with Jdg 6:34 and its context. This exegetical expansion is far more suggestive of the palpable and jx)werful presence of the spirit of God than is the formula in Jdg 3:10. The bestowal of power for military victory is indeed the central function of the spirit in LAB 27:9-10, as the designation "spirit of power"" in the second reference to the spirit, in LAB 27:10, indi cates. Pseudo-Philo recounts how the spirit inspired Kenaz again when he was privy to the Amorites' intent to destroy Israel: "And when Kenaz heard their words, he was clothed with the spirit of power and was changed into another man, and he went down to the Amorite camp and began to strike them down.'"^ Once again, the parallel with Gideon is obvious: just as Gideon was propelled to batde by over hearing his enemies' words (Jdg 7:13-15), so the catalyst for Kenaz's attack proved to be the words of his enemies. However, the particular effect of this powerful spirit, expressed vaguely in Jdg 3:10, "he judged Israel; he went out to war," PseudoPhilo heightens by importing still another expression that occurs even farther afield than Jdg 6:34 or 7:15: Kenaz was "changed into another man. . . ." This description echoes 1 Sam 10:6, in which Samuel addressed Saul: "Then the spirit of the LORD will come mightily upon you, and you shall prophesy with them and be turned into an other man.'"^ Pseudo-Philo's application of this expression obfuscates the original context of I Sam 10:6, in which transformation is related to prophecy, "Then the spirit of the LORD will come upon you.

' LAB 27:7-12 and Jdg 7:14, 20 (see LAB 36:2). « l A B 27:7 and Jdg 6:36-40 (see LAB 35:6-7). ' LAB 27:10 and Jdg 7:19-23 (see LAB 36:1-2). '° LAB 27:10 and Jdg 7:22. " Although this expression may be traced to Isa 11:2, "^irit of counsel and might," it is perhaps as likely that Pseudo-Kiilo is underscoring, without slavishly following any biblical antecedent, the powerfiil nature of the spirit Frequendy, of course, the word, spirit, is accompanied by genidval nouns, as in the remainder of Isa 11:2-4 (see also 1 En 49:3) and texts such as Z^ch 12:10 (spirit of compassion). In the Pastoral Episdes, Timothy is said to have received, not "a ^irit of cowardice, but rather a spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline" (2 Tim 1:7). 27:10. Ladn, EU factum est ut mutiuU Cenez verba mum, indutus est spirit virtutis et transmutatiis in vinm ahum, desceruUt m castra Amorreorum et cefnt percutere eos. Hebrew, T ! H BJ^*? rOBTm. Vulgate reads, et mutaberis in virum ahum.

T H E S P I R I T AND

HUMAN

TRANSFORMATION

87

and you shall prophesy along witli t l i c i n a n d b e c o m e another p e r s o n . " Pseudo-Philo instead bends this transformation b y the spirit to extra ordinary military prowess, the focus of this portion of his narrative. The disregard for original context which is apparent in PseudoPhilo's application of the expression, "another person," to military f)ower rather than prophetic abilities becomes even more evident in comparison with LAB 20:2, where he employs the same expression to depict Joshua's prophetic—not military—abilities. God said to Joshua, "Take his [Moses'] garments of wisdom and clothe yourself, and with his belt of knowledge gird your loins, and you will be changed and become another man" (20:2). Joshua then proceeded to prophesy to the Israelites. These two very different applications of 1 Sam 10:6— transformation into another person—reveal the freedom Pseudo-Philo exercises vis-a-vis the original context of biblical expressions. In LAB 20:2, the topic is Joshua's prophetic power, in LAB 27:9-10, Kenaz's military prowess. The same phrase, culled from 1 Sam 10:6, is assim ilated to these respective contexts: Joshua speaks prophetically and Kenaz fights powerfully. The same exegetical freedom Pseudo-Philo displays when he supple ments Jdg 3:9-11 with allusions to 1 Sam 10:6 and Jdg 6:34 will be come evident further if we juxtapose his interpretation of Num 24:2 with his interpretation of Jdg 3:9-10. Both in his tale of Balaam and his tale of Kenaz, Pseudo-Philo encounters nearly identical formula tions of the spirit's effect upon an individual: Num 23:7: c m ^ mi rhs 'nm'* Num 24:2: crrfTK rm rbs

Tm

Jdg 3:10: m r m n rbs Ttm We have observed already that this expression occurs in the tale of Balaam and that Pseudo-Philo adds the negative, non, in flagrant violation of the biblical text, to make clear that what Balaam lost was not the temporary endowment of the prophetic spirit but the life-sustaining spirit which is the possession of all. In contrast, when Pseudo-Philo encounters the nearly identical expression in the tale of his central hero, Kenaz (biblical Othniel), he stretches the limits of the text in another direction to emphasize the special capacity of the spirit to transform Kenaz into a successful military leader. One biblical formula yields two extraordinarily divergent interpretations. '* My reconstruction, based upon LXX Num 23:7, icai eyevfiOn nve^»^aft^ov) in' avx^.

88

A N ECLECTIC

ERA

Despite these enormously divergent exegetical departures firom scrip ture, Pseudo-Philo adheres in both cases to a consistent exegetical method. Pseudo-Philo underscores the absence of the spirit from Balaam by introducing allusions to another biblical text that refers to the spirit—Gen 6:3—alongside a statement which denies to him that spirit. He underscores the presence of the spirit with Kenaz by introducing allusions to other biblical texts that refer to the spirit—Jdg 6:34 and 1 Sam 10:6—alongside the explicit designation, "spirit of power." Gideon's Military Prowess These observations do not deplete Pseudo-Philo's exegetical cache. Pseudo-Philo further underscores the association of the spirit and military power in his characterization of Gideon, whose biblical story, as we just saw, is the anvil on which Pseudo-Philo forges his relatively expansive portrait of Kenaz. In contrast to his amplification of Kenaz's tale, however, in which Pseudo-PhUo generously supplements the bibli cal text, he omits elements of the biblical version of Gideon's story which tend to attenuate the association of the spirit with leadership in batde. Jdg 6:34 reads: "But the spirit of the LORD clothed [took possession of] Gideon; and he sounded the trumpet, and the Abiczrites were called out to follow him." The ensuing episodes in Judges 6-7 interrupt the segue from Gideon's reception of the spirit to battle. The advent of the spirit (Jdg 6:34) is followed, not by batde, but by the gathering of people from the Abiezrites, as well as the tribes of Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun, and Naphthali, who "went up to meet them" (6:33-35). The next episode, in which Gideon laid a fleece to determine whether Israel would be victorious, further delays the batde with the Midianites and functions, moreover, to undermine the im pression that Gideon possessed an unusual endowment of the spirit to lead his people into batde (6:36-40). Nor is the subsequent whitding down of the soldiers to three hundred given a military rationale (7:1-8); the task was undertaken simply because the "LORD said to Gideon" (7:2, 4). The delay occasioned by the episodes in Jdg 6:357:8, then, weakens the association between Gideon's reception of the spirit (6:34) and God's proclamation of Gideon's impending military success (7:9). The principal effect of the omission of these elements from Judges 6:34b-7:8 is the characterization of the spirit as the defining factor of leadership in batde. Consequendy, in contrast to the biblical text.

T H E SPIRIT A N D H U M A N T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

89

in which the association between the spirit and military success lessens with each intervening episode, according to LAB 36:2, the direct re sult of Gideon's reception of the spirit is military success.'^ Accordingly, Pseudo-Philo's abbreviated version reads: And as soon as Gideon heard these words, he put on'^ the spirit of the Lord and was strengthened and said to the three hundred men, "Rise up, let each one of you gird on his sword, because the Midianites have been delivered into our hands (LAB 36:2). In this version, the juxtaposition of Jdg 6:34, which recounts the reception of the spirit, with Jdg 7:14—15, the story of the Midianites in their tents, characterizes the spirit as the impetus for batde. Pseudo-Philo's versions of Kenaz (Othniel) and Gideon, therefore, accentuate the relationship between the spirit's presence and military success which is implicit in Jdg 3:9-11 and muted in Jdg 6:34. He accentuates this association through creative exegetical movements including: (I) the incorporation of expressions from other biblical texts about the spirit (Jdg 6:34 in LAB 27:9; 1 Sam 10:6 in LAB 27:10); (2) the introduction of explicit references to power ("the spirit of power" in LAB 27:10 and possibly "was strengthened" in 36:2);'^ and (3) re casting the biblical text by means of imaginative expansions of Kenaz's heroic military feats (Jdg 3:9-11 and LAB 25-28) and omissions of biblical elements that obfuscate the association of the spirit with mili tary success (Jdg 6:34b-7:8 and LAB 36:1-2).

The tautness of this association is apparent furthermore in the way Pseudo-Philo subdy re-orders the biblical text. Had Pseudo-Hiilo simply omitted Jdg 6:34b-7:8, Gideon's reception of the spirit would praxde what he hears from the Midianite camp in Jdg 7:14. In other words, Jdg 6:34 would precede 7:14-15. In LAB 36:1-2, how ever, the divine spirit clothes Gideon efier he has heard the Midianites predict his victory and immediately prior to batde. H a r r i n g t o n {OTP 2.349 n. 36b) s u g g e s t s the possibility of emending mdtdt spiritum ("he put on the spirit") to indtdt spiritus ("the spirit clothed [him]"). This minor emendation produces greater consistency between LAB 36:2 and Jdg 6:34. Despite the ^ p c a l of this emendation, it is unnecessary for two i^asons. First, according to Pseudo-Hiilo's version ofjo^ua's commissionii^, Joshua is depicted as clothing hiinself in Moses' garments of wisdom, an act which, I ("Prophetic In^iration," 314-16) have argued, is tantamount to the reception of the spirit (LAB 20:2-3). The image of clothing oneself with the spirit is not, then, an isolated image in the tale of Gideon. Second, this point of view is not without biblical precedent, for Elisha's clothing of himself with Elijah's mande is associated with the presence of the spirit of EUjah on Elisha (2 Kgs 2:13-15). The word, virtut^catis, occurs only in those manuscripts grouped under R in the edition of Sources chretiennes.

90

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

Uber Antiquitatum Biblicanm is not constricted by its biblical Vorlage. Rather, Pseudo-Philo allows the context of the passage into which he imports biblical expressions from other contexts to overshadow domi nant biblical associations. The expression, "changed into another per son" (1 Sam 10:6), for example, loses its association with prophesying in a context devoted to Kenaz's military success, although the same expression in LAB 20:2, which is concerned with prophetic activity, retains the biblical association with prophecy. Nonetheless, PseudoPhilo's generous measure of exegetical freedom is still confined to expressions and fragments of biblical texts; there is in LAB 27 no apparent adoption of Platonic turns of phrase or fundamental Stoic conceptions of the spirit. In contrast, the kinds of Greco-Roman con ceptions which Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum lacks are indispensable to many of Philo Judaeus' descriptions of human transformation by the divine spirit.

Philo Judaeus' Exegetical Movements In a lengthy encomium on the virtues of Abraham, Philo pauses to explain how Abraham could have been noble despite his being the son of idolatrous parents. Central to this explanation of Abraham's nobility is Abraham's transformation into an eflfective orator by means of the spirit: Thus whenever he was possessed, everything in him changed to some thing better, eyes, complexion, stature, carriage, movements, voice. For the divine spirit which was breathed upon him ft-om on high made its lodging in his soul, and invested his body with singular beauty, his voice with persuasiveness, and his hearers with understanding. Would you not say that this lone wanderer without relatives or friends was of the highest nobility, he who craved for kinship with God and strove by every means to live in familiarity with Him, he who while ranked among the prophets, a post of such high excellence, put his trust in nothing created rather than in the Uncreated and Father of all, he who as I have said was regarded as a king by those in whose midst he settled {Virt. 217-18). Slender indeed is the biblical basis of this description. Philo's prior description of Abraham as the first to believe in God is probably based upon Gen 15:6: "And Abraham believed G o d . . . " {Virt. 216). The description of Abraham as a king can be traced to Gen 23:6, in

T H E SPIRIT A N D H U M A N T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

91

which the Hittites say to Abraham, " . . . you are a king from God among us."'® The segue from Abraham as king to the focus of Philo's descripdon, Abraham as ideal orator, is hardly explicable from the perspective of the biblical portrait of Abraham. For example, the issue in Genesis 23, the text which provides the biblical pretext for Philo's characteriza tion of Abraham as king, is the purchase of burial caves from the Hittites, in which Abraham's request to purchase a field in Machpelah (Gen 23:8-9, 13) hardly constitutes a rhetorical tour de force. Abraham's Ancestral Character Although the source of this emphasis upon Abraham's ability to per suade cannot be located in the biblical text, it can be explained in part as the product of Philo's apologetic aim of extolling the ances tors of Israel—in this instance, the first proselyte to Judaism. Philo's emphasis upon both internal and external beauty—"the divine spirit which was breathed upon him from on high made its lodging in his soul, and invested his body with singular beauty"—is not unique to Abraham, for it reappears in other contexts devoted to the praise of Israel's ancestors, such as in Philo's portrayal of the first human: That first man, earth-born, ancestor of our whole race, was made, as it appears to me, most excellent in each part of his being, in both soul and body, and gready excelling those who came after him in the tran scendent qualities of both alike; for this man really was the one truly "beautiful and good" {Ofnf 136). Gen 2:7 supplies Philo with the exegetical toehold for this construal of Adam's superiority. On the one hand, Philo contends that God used consummate skill and the finest of clay to form Adam's body. On the other hand, God breathed into the first human a breath that was patterned after the image of Gen 1:27, and thus became in Philo's hands the infusion of a perfect soul into a perfect body. Thus, the comf>osition of the first human was "a composite one made up of earthly substance and of Divine breath [jtv£v^iato<;0e{o\)]" {Opif. 135). Despite the similarity with Abraham suggested by Adam's excel lence with respect both to body and soul, the effect of the breath or

Greek, PaoiXcv^ napa Oeofi EI
92

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

spirit differs substantially in Optf. 136 and Virt. 217-19. The inbreathing into Adam of the divine breath lends beauty to Adam's soul alone; the beauty of Adam's body is due to the quality of the clay from which he was molded. In contrast, the spirit alone infuses both Abraham's body and soul with a peculiar excellence. Moses, to whose excellence as lawgiver, prophet, priest, and king Philo devotes the entirety of De vita Mosis, experienced a form of inspiration that has even more in common with Abraham's transfor mation. In his discussion of Moses as lawgiver {Vit. Mos. 2.1-65), Philo attributes the brightness of Moses' face on his descent from the mountain (Exod 34:29-35) to an internal, spiritual transformation: . . because he had the better food of contemplation, through whose inspiration, sent from heaven above, he grew in grace, first of mind, then of body also through the soul, and in both so advanced in strength and well-being that those who saw him afterwards could not believe their eyes."'^ The co-ordination of external and internal beauty which characterized the inspiration of Moses is similar to Abraham's transformation, according to which "the divine ^irit which was breathed upon him from on high made its lodging in his soul, and invested his body with singular beauty." This symbiosis between mental or spirimal and physical transforma tion reappears also in Philo's interpretation of the story of the golden calf (Exod 32:26), which contains a description of Moses' transforma tion into a prophet.^ Philo expands Moses' laconic question, "Who is on the LORD's side?" with the observation that Moses "became another man, changed both in outward appearance and mind, and, inspired, he cried:^' *Who is there who has no part with this delusion nor has given to no-lords the name of lordship? Let each one come to me.'" Characteristic of these Israelite ancestors, then, is a beauty of charac ter that encompasses both internal and external spheres. Both inner |>erson (i.e., mind or soul) and outer person (i.e., the body) are charac terized by extraordinary excellence. In the portrait of Adam, the spirit is the source of the soul's beauty. In the instances of Moses' inspiration, the implicit presence of the spirit in the process of inspiration effects

" Vit Mos. 2.69. * Philo discusses Moses' prophetic qualities in VU. Mos. 2.187-287. VU. Mos. 2.272, Greek, Si f|v aitiav OVKETI ii^aiv 6 otvto^ ^flXk&xxexm x6 xt tl&oq KOI TT^v Siavoiav icai kniQti&aac; ipr\o{...

T H E SPIRIT A N D H U M A N T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

93

both internal and external transfbrmaiion. In die account of Abraham's transformation, the spirit's role is explicit; it is the source of both Abraham's internal virtue and external beauty and persuasiveness. There exists a modicum of biblical precedent for these depictions. Philo does not intend primarily to exhibit creative exegesis, allegori cal or literal, but to extol the virtues of Israel's ancestors. This he accomplishes admirably, although the attempt hangs upon a tenuous biblical thread. Abraham's Rhetorical Prowess Despite the important similarities which unite the inspiration of Adam, Abraham, and Moses, the description of Abraham's transfor mation is singular in its level of detail. Philo employs very specific language to describe this transformation, language which can be ade quately understood only as the fusion of biblical and Greco-Roman conceptions. Philo's Abraham was no ordinary ruler, nor did he possess merely "exceptional gifts of speech" and "excellence of character." Abraham was a person "of the highest nobility" whom his contemporaries regarded as a king, not because of the outward state which surrounded him, mere commoner that he was, but because of his greamess of soul, for his spirit was the spirit of a king. Indeed, they continued to treat him with a respect which subjects pay to a ruler, being awe-struck at the all-embracing greamess of his nature and its more than human perfection {Virt. 216-17). Philo's inexorable eflPort to robe Abraham in the wardrobe of royalty leads him to emphasize three primary characteristics: Abraham's rhetorical skill; his virtue; and his combination of inner and external beauty. The focus of inspiration in Philo's description of Abraham is Abra ham's power of persuasion. The transformation of Abraham's body— eyes, complexion, stature, carriage, movements, voice—resembles a catalc^e of elements which comprise the orator's delivery. The author of the first century rhetorical handbook, Rhetorica ad Herennium, for instance, defines delivery as "the graceful regulation of voice, coun tenance, and gesture."^^ Cicero lists the components of delivery:

1.3; see also 3.19-27.

94

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

. . bodily carriage, gesture, play of features and changing intonation of voice. . . ."^^ Abraham's rhetorical skill was not merely an exhibition of a cata logue of rhetorical tropes but evidence of his royal character, for skill in rhetoric was deemed during the Greco-Roman era to be an c^ntial tool of the competent ruler. Training in rhetoric therefore constituted an integral component in the education of Rome's leading citizens.^* In his eighteenth discourse, Dio Chrysostom commends an elder poli tician for realizing "that a statesman needs experience and training in public speaking and in eloquence."^* In a dialogue placed by Dio Chrysostom into the mouths of Philip of Macedon and his father, Alexander, Philip suggests, ". . . you know that a king might find that even rhetoric was valuable to him . . ." (2.18). In light of the impor tance of rhetoric for Roman statesmen, it is of no small incidence that Philo would have the spirit invest Abraham's "voice with persua siveness, and his hearers with understanding. . . ." Rhetoricians during the Greco-Roman era recognized that rhe torical skill was insuflficient when unaccompanied by im{>eccable vir tue. It is not, therefore, by chance that this description of Abraham's rhetorical skill occurs in a longer elucidation of Abraham's "greatness of soul" (Virt. 217), because this was considered a primary quality of the orator. In the introduction to his InstituUo oratoria, Quintilian writes, "My aim, then, is the education of the perfect orator. The first essential for such an one is that he should be a good man, and consequendy we demand of him not merely the possession of exceptional gifts of speech, but of all the excellences of character as well."^ In addition to rhetorical skill, therefore, Greco-Roman authors ex pected the king to exhibit exemplary virtue. Dio Chrysostom (ca. 40-120 CE), in particular, devoted four discourses to the nature of kingship. In the first, following the lead of Homer, Dio Chrysostom enumerates the virtues of a good king. He begins: " . . . a king is, in the first place, regardful of the gods and holds the divine in honor. Similarly, Philo characterizes Abraham first of all as a person of faith:

" De oratore 1.18. See S. F. Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome: From the elder Cato to the younger Piiny (Berkeley: Univereity of California, 1977) 65-89; and G. Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World: 300 K A D 300 (Princeton: Princeton University, 1972) 318-21. " On Training for Public Speaking 2. ^ Book one, preface, 9. " The First Discourse on Kingship 15.

T H E SPIRIT A N D H U M A N TRANSFORMATION

95

Abraham, "having gained faidi, the most sure and certain of the virtues . . . craved for kinship with God and strove by every means to live in familiarity with Him."^'' In his third discourse on kingship, Dio Chrysostom repeats these emphases, this dme following the lead of Socrates by affirming that the most prosperous and powerful of kings is recognizable by the prosperity of his subjects, which transpires when the king, "a man of good mind and heart, respects the law, cares for his subjects with an eye to their safety and welfare, and is, to begin with, happy and wise himself. . . and shares this happiness of his with others, not divorc ing his own interest from that of his subjects, but rejoicing most and regarding himself as most prosperous when he sees his subjects pros perous t o o . . . ."^^ Similarly, Philo acknowledges that Abraham's king ship is evident, "not because of the outward state which surrounded him, mere commoner that he was, but because of his greatness of soul.. . ." His subjects "continued to treat him with a respect which subjects pay to a ruler. . . ."^ Philo's characterization of Abraham as a king explains as well why Abraham's transformation by the spirit is not limited to the mechan ics of rhetorical skill—stature, carriage, movements, voice—but in cludes Abraham's physical presence. Philo writes that the divine spirit ". . . made its lodging in his soul, and invested his body with singular beauty." Homer associates beauty, even more than physical size, with kingship in the words of the elderly Priam to his daughter-in-law, Helen, about Agamemnon: ".. . this man of Achea so valiant and so tall. Verily there be others that are even taller by a head, but so comely a man have mine eyes never yet beheld, neither one so royal: he is like unto one that is a king."^' Plato praises the combination of inner and external beauty: " . . . when there is a coincidence of a beau tiful disposition in the soul and corresponding and harmonious beau ties of the same type in bodily form—is not this the fairest spectacle for one who is capable of its contemplation?"'^ Plato also contends 2" Ftrt. 216, 218. " The Thrd Discourse on Kmgskip 39. Vtrt. 216-17. " Iliad 3.167-70. On the relationship between physical presence and rhetorical skill, Antenor's words to Helen about Odysseus in Iliad 3.221-24 are apropos: "But whenso he uttered his great voice from his chest, and words like snowflakes on a winter's day, then could no mortal beside vie with Odysseus; then did we not so marvel to behold Odysseus' a ^ c t . " « Republic 2.402D.

96

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

that this combination characterizes the ideal ruler: "The most stable, the most brave and enterprising are to be preferred, and, so far as practicable, the most comely."^' Cicero, following this line of thought, praises both the spiritual and physical qualities of Romulus, the myth ical founder of Rome: "And when he grew up, we are told, he was so far superior to his companions in bodily strength and boldness of spirit that all who then lived in the rural district where our city now stands were willing and glad to be ruled by him."'* Philo's portrait of Abraham in De virtutibusy therefore, evinces an indefatigable effort to characterize Israelite figures with qualities that would have appealed to admirers of Greco-Roman culture. With almost no biblical precedent, Philo's portrayal of Abraham as an extraordinary king mirrors Greco-Roman discussions of rhetoric and rule. Consequendy Abraham is characterized as a king who displayed unassailable virtue, resplendent rhetorical skill, and incomparable physical beauty. Although the features of Philo's portrait of Abraham as the ideal ruler cum rhetor are drawn from the Greco-Roman repertoire of statesmen and kings, Philo differs considerably from his Greco-Roman contemporaries with respect to the source of rhetorical abilities. Cicero attributes rhetorical excellence primarily to natural ability. Crassus, the primary spokesperson in Cicero's dialogue on oratory, contends that rhetorical training can provide only polish and that an orator must possess an inborn capacity: ". . . in the first place natural talent is the chief contributor to the virtue of oratory; and indeed in those writers on the art [of rhetoric] . . . it was not the principles and method of oratory that were wanting, but inborn capacity."'^ This inborn ca pacity encompasses "the ready tongue, the ringing tones, strong lungs, vigour, suitable build and shape of the face and body as a whole."'^ Philo's description of Abraham's rhetorical ability encompasses simi larly "eyes, complexion, stature, carriage, movements, voice.. . ." The source of Abraham's rhetorical skill is, however, altogether different; it transpired, not because Abraham was a gifted orator but because his virtue made him receptive to possession by the spirit of God.

" ^ " ^

Republic 7.535A. De re publico 2.4. De oratore 1.113. De oratore 1.114.

T H E SPIRIT A N D H U M A N T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

97

The handbooks on rhetoric, such as Rhetorica ad Herermium, and other treatments of the topic, such as Quindhan's InstituHo oratoria and Dio Chrysostom's discourse on training for public speaking—not to mendon the inclusion of rhetoric in Roman curricula—demonstrate how firm the conviction was in the Greco-Roman world that rhetorical skill required dili^nt training. Even Crassus, who in Cicero's De oratore 1.115 stresses the priority of natural ability, admits that training in rhetoric can "in some cases give polish" and "that good abilities may through instruction become better. . . ." In contrast, Philo attributes Abraham's rhetorical skill and physical transformation not to training but to possession by God's spirit, which entered his virtuous soul. T h u s whenever he was possessed, everything in him changed to some thing better, eyes, complexion, stature, carriage, movements, voice. For the divine spirit which was breathed upon him from on high made its lodging in his soul, and invested his body with singular beauty, his voice with persuasiveness, and his hearers with understanding.

Summary Philo and Pseudo-Philo share the conviction that the spirit of God can produce enormous effects upon Israelite leaders and thus have an impact on their subjects and enemies. Kenaz, Gideon, and Abraham were transformed by the spirit for marvellous feats which demanded extraordinary gifts. The scope of this transformation can be illustrated by the adoption of the notion that Moses and Kenaz were changed into other per sons (1 Sam 10:6). According to Pseudo-Philo, Kenaz, in preparation for batde, "was clothed with the spirit of power and was changed into another man" (LAB 27:10). According to Philo, Moses "became another man, changed both in outward appearance and mind; and, inspired, he c r i e d . . . " [Vit. Mos. 2.272). When these allusions are compared, Philo's is, surprisingly, more consistent with the original context of 1 Sam 10:6 than Pseudo-Philo's because it preserves the emphasis upon prophetic inspiration which is vitiated by Pseudo-Hiilo's herculean effort to accentuate the spirit's role in military success. The contexts into which these references to the spirit are assimilated, however, reveal the divide which separates Pseudo-Philo and Philo. Pseudo-Philo's portraits of Kenaz and Gideon are shaped by means of biblical vocabulary, complementary aUusions, and omissions intended

98

A N ECLECTIC

ERA

to heighten the spirit's role in military success. Philo's description of the spirit's effect upon Abraham, in contrast, is sh^>ed primarily by the Greco-Roman convicdons concerning the rhetorical prowess, the unassailable virtue, and the coalidon of inner and outward beauty required of the ideal king. This observation would appear to substantiate the alleged distinc tion between Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism which M. Hengel labored to dismande, for it appears that the role of the spirit in early Jewish exegetical revisions of the biblical text are determined in no small measure by the level to which Greco-Roman concepdons are permitted to influence this revision. Philo's and Josephus' revisions are permeated by Greco-Roman conceptions, some of which can be pinpointed accurately; Pseudo-Philo's revision appears to be impervi ous to this influence, bordered as it is by its biblical and early Jewish conceptual worlds. The reality is more complex. Although the bifurcation between Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism for the most part characterizes Pseudo-Philo's portrait of Balaam and his descriptions of Kenaz's and Gideon's military heroism, the following analysis contains ample data to suggest that this scenario does not adequately circumscribe the contours of Pseudo-Philo's portrayals of the prophetic experience.

CHAPTER

nVE

THE SPIRIT AND PROPHETIC TRANSFORMATION: A PALESTINIAN PERSPECTIVE

Pseudo-Philo's accent upon the spirit as the source of military success is created by a combination of biblical allusions and considerable exegetical maneuvering. His conviction that Balaam did not receive a special endowment of the spirit is developed similarly by means of biblical allusions and vocabulary at home in Palestinian Judaism. In contrast, the prophetic experiences ofJoshua, Kenaz, and Saul, though firmly entwined in the biblical tradition, contain elements which can be explained more satisfactorily by recourse to Greco-Roman prophetic phenomena. The method of this chapter will exhibit the familiar pattern I have already utilized, beginning with exegetical movements and proceeding to relevant milieux. I shall begin by discussing Pseudo-Philo's exegeti cal movements in aggregate concerning Joshua, Saul, and Kenaz, and then proceed to the relevant milieux which illuminate his exe getical movements.

Exegetical Movements Joshua's Prophecy to Israel Pseudo-Philo's depiction of the commissioning of Joshua is related only tenuously to Deuteronomy 34 and Joshua I: Then God said to Joshua the son of Nun, "Why do you mourn and why do you hope in vain that Moses yet lives? Why do you wait to no purpose, because Moses is dead. Take his garments of wisdom and clothe yourself, and with his belt of knowledge gird your loins, and you will be changed and become another man..." And Joshua took the garments of wisdom and clothed himself and girded his loins with the belt of understanding. And when he clothed himself with it, his mind was afire and his spirit was moved, and he said to the people . . . ' ' LAB 20:2-3. Latin, Turn dixit Deus ad JhesumfiliumMaue: Ut quid luges et ut quid

100

A N ECLECTIC

ERA

The biblical antecedent of this scene, with its emphasis upon wis dom and understanding, is Deut 34:9a: 'Joshua son of Nun was fiiU of the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands on him . . The impression that Pseudo-PhUo has deliberately omitted the refer ence to the spirit (of wisdom) in his version is muted by the reaUzadon that the image of clothing and the descripdon of transformation into another person signal obliquely but colorfully the presence of the spirit. The prediction that Joshua would "become another person" when he put on Moses' garments (LAB 20:2) constitutes a clear allusion to I Sam 10:6: "Then the spirit of the LORD will possess you, and you will prophesy along with them and be turned into a different person." We have already seen that Pseudo-Philo employs similar words to attribute the transformation of Kenaz to the spirit: "he [Kenaz] was clothed with the spirit of power and was changed into another man . . ." (27:10). In both Pseudo-Philo's biblical source and his own expanded version of Kenaz, the spirit transforms a person "into another person." This expression in LAB 20:2-3, therefore, evokes the presence of the transforming power of the spirit. The metaphor of clothing in this scene ought also to be interpreted as a signal of the spirit, for, as we have seen, in Pseudo-Philo's por traits of both Kenaz and Gideon, as well as the biblical account of Gideon (Jdg 6:34), the metaphor of clothing is used to describe the overwhelming power of the spirit.^ . . . he [Kenaz] was clothed with the spirit of jx)wer and was changed into another man . . . (lAB 27:10). And as soon as Gideon heard these words, he put on the spirit of the Lord and was strengthened . . . (LAB 36:2). But the spirit of the LORD clothed Gideon . . . (Jdg 6:34). This depiction ofJoshua in LAB 20:2~3—which has its biblical roots in a reference to the spirit (Deut 34:9, "spirit of wisdom"), which contains an allusion to 1 Sam 10:6 (".. .you will be changed and become another man"), and which employs the metaphor of clothing speras in vanum cog^tans quod Moyses adkuc vivet? Et ideo superfbu sustum, quomam diftautus est Moyses. Accipe vestimenta sapimtie eius et indue te, et zona scientie ^sius pr&inge Uanbos tuos, et immutaberis et eris in virum alimt.. . . Et accepit Ihesus vestimenta sapientii ^ vestivit se, et zona intelligentie precinxit limbos suos. Et factum est cum vestket se ea incensa est mens eius et spiritus ems commotus est, et dixit popub. .. ^ LAB 27:9-10 of Kenaz; 36:2 of Gideon. Ladn, et induit eum spiritus Domim.

T H E SPIRIT A N D P R O P H E T I C TRANSFORMATION

101

that in LAB 27:10 and Jdg 6:34 is associated with the spirit's power— ought to be construed as a vivid account of inspiradon by the spirit.' Further, by incorporating the same two biblical allusions—to 1 Sam 10:6 and Jdg 6:34—into his versions of both Joshua's commissioning and Kenaz's preparation for batde, Pseudo-Philo not only signals the powerfiil presence of the spirit but also draws a correspondence be tween the power of the spirit at critical junctures in the lives of two renowned Israelite leaders. The effects of the spirit upon Joshua, however, cannot be understood on the basis of biblical precedent: "And when he clothed himself with it, his mind was afire and his spirit was moved, and he said. . . . " Several prophetic figures underwent an inordinate level of psychological distress, resulting in a rapid heartbeat (Jer 4:19), trembling (Isa 21:3; Hab 3:16), and a troubled spirit (Dan 7:15). But these descriptions lack the image of fire. Nor is Jer 20:9 the antecedent, for the fire in his bones was the irresistible compulsion to preach judgment. The heat of Ezekiel's spirit (Ezek 3:14) constitutes the closest biblical pre cedent, but heat is hardly synonymous with fire. Therefore, although some of the exegetical movements in LAB 20:2-3 can be explained by Pseudo-Philo's penchant for importing biblical allusions, the source of the concrete description of the spirit's eflfect on Joshua—a fiery mind and agitated spirit—must be sought elsewhere.

' Pseudo-Philo alters his biblical source from "the spirit of the LORD took pos session [i.e., clothed] of Gideon" to "Gideon . . . put on the spirit of the Lord." This alteration introduces a possible echo of the succession scene between Elijah and Elisha. Although LAB ends, perhaps prematurely, with the death of Saul, making it rather difficult to detect the influence of texts which he does not relate, the later biblical story in which Elisha succeeded Elijah contains the element of clothing (al though Elisha did not immediately put the mantle on). Having watched Elijah ascend in a whirlwind, Elisha tore his o w n clothes and " . . . picked up the m a n d e

of Elijah that had fallen from him, and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. He took the mande of Elijah that had fallen from him, and struck the water, saying, 'Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?' When he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other, and Elisha went over. When the company of prophets who were at Jericho saw him at a distance, they declared, 'The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha'" (2 Kgs 2:13-15). It is not inconceiv able that the biblical paraUel between the parting of the Jordan by Elisha and the parting of the Jordan River under Joshua's leadership (Josh 3:17-4:1) has led PseudoMiilo to import elements of the succession narrative of Elisha into his version of the succession narrative of Joshua. The allusion would underscore the prophetic and miraculous presence of the spirit which accompanied the lives of Ellijah and Oisha and create a powerful backdrop for Moses' successor, Joshua.

102

AN ECLECTIC ERA

Shared Prophetic Experiences of Kenaz ond Saul Pseudo-Philo paraphrases Saul's final experience of die spirit: And [a] spirit abided in Saul, and he prophesied, saying, "Why are you led astray, Saul, and whom are you pursuing in vain? The time allotted to your kingdom has been completed. Go to your place. For you wall die, and David will reign. Will not you and your son die together? And then the kingdom of David will appear." And Saul went away and did not know what he had prophesied.* This version of 1 Sam 19:20-24 is not so highly abbreviated that it cannot absorb a general prediction of David's reign, a specific predic tion of the death of Saul based upon 1 Sam 31:6, and the insertion of elements which produce extraordinary literary parallels with Kenaz's prophetic experience in LAB 28:6-10. Both accounts begin similarly with the association of the indwelling spirit and prc^hesying. Of Kenaz, Pseudo-Philo writes, "And when they had sat down, [a] holy spirit came upon Kenaz and dwelled in him and elevated his mind [put him in ecstasy], and he began to prophesy, saying. . . . " Of Saul, he writes, "And [a] spirit abided in Saul, and he prophesied, saying. . . ." The association between Saul's ability to prophesy and possession of the spirit^ is drawn from biblical roots, particularly 1 Sam 19:2024. Five times, the verb, tQ3, occurs in I Sam 19:20-24, as well as another five times in the parallel account of Saul's experience of the spirit in 1 Sam 10:5-6, 10-13.^ The conclusions of both accounts, moreover, contain the similar element of the inability to recall what was exf>erienced under the in fluence of the spirit: And when Kenaz had spoken these words, he was awakened, and his senses came back to him. But he did not know what he had said or what he had seen. But this alone he said to the people: "If the repose

^ LAB 62:2. Latin, £f mansit spiritus in Saul et prophdamt dicens: Quid sabtcms. Sad, out quern persequeris in vamm? Completum est tempus r^ni tuL Perge in locum ttaan. Tu emm morieris, et David r^nabit. Nonne tu et fiUus turn simul moriendnP Et tunc apparebit Daoid regnum. Et abOt Saul et non scivit que prophetaviL * Jacobson {A Commentary, 1186) conjectures that the Latin verb, mam, is a trans lation of r m , which is found in 1 Sam 19:23, for in Vulgate Psalm 89:37, the verb, maneo, translates i m . ^ The Septuagint translates all ten occurrences consistendy with jtpo^pnrevEiv. Simi lariy, the Vulgate translates all ten occurrences with prophetare. These parallel trans lations leave litde room to doubt that the Hebrew verb underiying the Latin, pr^jihetmnt, in LAB likewise was

T H E SPIRIT A N D

PROPHETIC TRANSFORMATION

103

of the just after they have died is like this, we must die to the corruptible world so as not to see sins." And when he had said these words, Kenaz died and slept with his fathers. And the people mourned for him thirty days.^ A n d Saul went away and did not know what he had prophesied.

This inability to recall what was experienced stands squarely against the biblical prophetic tradition. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous instances in which prophets were to remember the divine words com municated during revelation. The man ofJudah in I Kings 13 refused to go home with another "man of God" because he remembered God's warning: "thus I was commanded by the word of the LORD" (13:9). Isaiah recalled what he had heard during what may have been an ecstatic experience:^ "For the LORD spoke thus to me while his hand was strong upon me, and warned me not to walk in the way of this people, saying . . ." (8:11). Ezekiel, following his extended visions of 8-11, had perfect recollection: "The spirit lifted me up and brought me in a vision by the spirit of God into Chaldea, to the exiles. Then the vision that I had seen left me. And I told the exiles all the tilings that the LORD had shown me" (11:24-25). The para digmatic biblical reference to prophetic recollection is Ezek 3:10-11: "Mortal, all my words that I shall speak to you receive in your heart and hear with your ears; then go to the exiles, to your people, and speak to them.. . ."^ The conclusions of the prophetic experiences of Saul and Kenaz exhibit a pattern of exegetical movements similar to Pseudo-Philo's ver sion of Joshua's prophetic experience. On the one hand, the basis of this experience is retold in language that is biblical. Joshua put on the garments of wisdom and became another person (Deut 34:9, Jdg 6:34, and 1 Sam 10:6), and the spirit came upon Saul, as in 1 Sam 10:6, 10. On the other hand, the spirit has an effect that is not specifically

' LAB 28:10. Latin, Et factum est cum hctUus fuisset Cenez verba hec, expergefactus est et reversus est sensus eius in eum. Ipse autem nesciebat que locutus fuerat, tuque que vulerat. Hoc autem solum dixit popub: Si sic est requies iustorum posteaquam defimcti fiterint, opcrtet eos mori. .. * lindblom {Prophecy, 121, 135-36, 174-75) contends that the language of this passage indicates an ecstatic experience. ^ According to Ezek 10:20-22, Ezekiel was able to identify elements of a prior vision that occurred in a subsequent one: "These were the living creatures that I saw underneath the God of Israel by the river Chebar; and I knew that they were cherubim." See also Ezekiel 40, in which Ezekiel was brouj^t to Israel "in visions of God" (40:2) and told by God to "declare all that you see to the house of Israel" (40:4).

104

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

biblical in character. Joshua's spirit became inflamed and agitated, while Saul could not recollect what he had said. In other words, while the cause of inspiration is expressed in biblical terms, the effect is not. A similar exegetical pattern is discernible even in the lengthier account of Kenaz's prophedc vision. Here too the repository from which Pseudo-Philo constructs the hosts of Kenaz's inspiration is differ ent from the cache out of which he culls the effects of Kenaz's vision. Kenaz's Vision Amongst the Elders The centrality of Kenaz in Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum is evident, not only in the disparity between the meagre mention he receives in the biblical book ofJudges and the immodest space he occupies in PseudoPhilo's version, but in the attentive exegetical care Pseudo-Philo exer cises to shaj>e his character. We have noted already that Pseudo-Philo incorporates allusions to 1 Sam 10:6 and Jdg 6:34 in an otherwise unremarkable reference to the spirit in Jdg 3:9-11 in order to accen tuate Kenaz's mercurial heroism. Military success is not, however, the sole occasion for Kenaz's reception of the spirit; Pseudo-Philo spins out of equally thin air a climactic prophetic vision at the end of Kenaz's extraordinary life: "And when they [the prophets and elders of Israel] had sat down, [a]'° holy spirit came upon Kenaz and dwelled in him and elevated his mind [put him in ecstasy], amd he began to prophesy, saying.. .""

'° Harrington (077* 2.374) translates sfnritus with the indefinite article, "a." James {BibUcal AnHquitus, 235) translates, "the spirit"; Harrington, et al {Pseudo-Hulon 1.373) translate, "L'esprit"; and C . Dietzfelbinger {Pseiub-PhUo: Antiquitates Btblicae, JSHRZ 2.2 [GUtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975] 257) n-anslates "der heilige Geist." It is difficult to determine whether spiritus should be translated as "a spirit" or "the spirit" The latter interpretation is supported both by biblical antecedents and by prior refer ences in Uber AnUquitatmn BibUcarum. First, references to the ^irit in other instances of prophetic inspiration in LAB can be traced to biblical references to the ^irit of God (LAB 18:10 to Num 24:2 or LXX 23:7; LAB 20:2 to Deut 34:9; LAB 27:910 to Jdg 3:9 and 6:34; and LAB 28:6 to Ezek 8:1). Second, Pseudo-Philo has already established that the ^irit which in^ires is CkxI's ^irit: Kenaz was empow ered for batde by the spirit (LAB 27:9); Baiak atuributed Deborah's prophetic £d>ility to God's spirit, for upon discovering Sisera dead he said, "Blessed be the LORD, who sent his spirit and said, 'Into the hand of a woman Siseia will be handed over'" (32:9); and Gideon put on "the spirit of the Lord" to defeat the Midiardtts (36:2). By this point in the narrative, therefore, the reader can probably assume that the spirit which inspired Saul was God's spirit. '' LAB 28:6. Latin, B dum sederent, msihdt spiritus sanctus habitans in Cenez, d extidit sensum eius, et cepit propheUare dicens....

T H E SPIRIT A N D P R O P H E T I C

TRANSFORMATION

105

This depiction of Kenaz's final experience of the spirit, as we have been led to expect by Pseudo-Philo's exegedcal method, is permeated by biblical allusions. First, the communal context of this vision is remi niscent of Ezekiel, whose vision of abominations in the temple took place among the elders: " . . . as I sat in my house, with the elders of Judah sitting before me, the hand of the Lord G O D fell upon me there" (8:1).'^ Similarly, Kenaz experienced his vision when the prophets and elders sat down. In both cases as well the spirit is an integral component of the prophet's experience. Ezekiel recounted, "and the spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven, and brought me in visions of God to Jerusalem" (8:3). Pseudo-Philo writes that "[a] holy spirit came upon Kenaz . . . " Second, the expression, holy spirit, which occurs in MT Ps 51:13 and Isa 63:10-11, became a relatively widespread description of God's spirit among Jews, both Palestinian and Diaspora, during the GrecoRoman era.'^ We have seen already that one usage of this expression with respect to Balaam in LAB 18:10-11 has its closest aflfinities with the scrolls from Qumran. Thus the occurrence of this expression in LAB 28:6 is in character with Pseudo-Philo's biblical text and the Palestinian provenance of Liber Antiquitatum Bibiicarum. Third, the choice of the verb, insilire, echoes 1 Samuel 10-11; in the Vulgate of 1 Sam 10:6, 10, and 11:6, the verb, insiliOy translates Tf7)i, which depicts the powerful presence of the spirit when it over came Saul, causing him to prophesy or to gather his people for war by cutting a yoke of oxen in several pieces. The exportation of the verb, insilio, from the biblical story of Saul's prophetic experience to Pseudo-Philo's story of Kenaz is entirely consistent with Pseudo-Philo's exegetical method. We have observed that he exports the notion of transformation into another person from 1 Sam 10:6 to his descrip tions of Joshua (LAB 20:2) and Kenaz as a military hero (27:9-10). This reference to the approach of the holy spirit depicted by a verb culled from Saul's prophetic experience in a context reminiscent of Ezekiel's vision amongst the elders corroborates what we have al ready discerned about both Pseudo-Philo's exegetical method and his conception of inspiration by the spirit, namely that he launches his descriptions of this experience from within the biblical world. Such " See also Ezek 20:1, according to which Ezekiel's vision began when ".. . cer tain ciders of Israel came to consult the LORD, and sat down before me." " E.g., 4 Ezra 14:22; PsSol 17:37; WisSol 9:17; IQS 4:21; IQSb 2:24.

106

A N EGLECnC E R A

a perspective is entirely in keeping with Pseudo-Philo's prior depictions of inspiration in: Balaam's experience, which transforms Num 24:2 by means of allusions to Gen 6:3; Joshua's experience, which trans forms Deut 34:9 by means of allusions to Jdg 6:34 and 1 Sam 10:6; and Kenaz's military heroism, which consists as well of allusions to Jdg 6:34 and 1 Sam 10:6. What has also become apparent in our analyses of the inspiration of Joshua and Saul in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum is that, while the advent of the spirit is portrayed predominantiy with biblical hues, the effects of the spirit in general cannot be adequately ascribed to exegetical movements that are circumscribed to the same extent by the biblical text. These extra-biblical elements abound in Pseudo-Philo's inventive account of Kenaz's prophetic experience. First, the impetus for Kenaz's vision was his impending death, which transpired shordy after the completion of his vision (28:10). This sce nario, in which an extraordinary vision precedes death, is not charac teristic of biblical portrayals of death. Perhaps the nearest antecedent, Jacob's blessing of his sons (Genesis 49), serves to underscore the difference between the L^er Antiquitatum Bibticamm and its biblical pre cedent: Jacob blessed his sons with modest predictions, while Kenaz ranged the cosmos to receive a vivid depiction of judgment. Moreover, never in the biblical literature does the spirit inspire such a vision in the face of impending death. Second, in this context the spirit was said to spring upon Kenaz arui to inhabit him {insiluit spiritus sanctus habitans in Cenez). Neither conception—springing upon and indwelling—taken indej>endendy is unbiblical. The verb, insiUre, we have seen, recalls Saul's experience of the spirit. The notion of a spirit that indwells an individual is also at home in numerous texts that speak of wisdom, such as Gen 41:38, Exod 31:3, Num 27:18-20, Deut 34:9, Job 27:3, 32:7-8 and 18, and MT Dan 4:5-6, 4:15, 5:11-14.'^ However, what distinguishes Kenaz's experience from these potential biblical antecedents is the juxtaposi tion of these two very different conceptions of the spirit: the spirit both sprung upon Kenaz and indwelt him. Tliis close sequencing of the advent and indwelling of the spirit should probably not be con strued as a coalescence of biblical aUusions because, while insilire echoes 1 Samuel 10-11, a verb equivalent to habitare does not occur in these '* In Ezek 1:28-2:3 and 3:24 the spirit is said to have come in Ezekiel (*3 O i l ) ; this expression corresponds neither to insiHre nor to halntare.

T H E SPIRIT A N D P R O P H E T I C T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

107

biblical texts. The absence of specific vocabulary that would permit us to discern a biblical allusion suggests that the impetus for PseudoPhilo's exegedcal movement ought to be sought elsewhere. Third, alongside the elements of an inspired vision prior to death, as well as the springing and indwelling of the spirit, Pseudo-Philo's descripdon of the impact which the spirit had upon Kenaz lacks substantial biblical precedent: extulit sensum eius. The mode of this experience in general may be inferred, once again, from a biblical allusion. The setting of Kenaz's vision amongst the elders, which echoes Ezek 8:1, may suggest as well that the depiction of the spirit's eflfect—the elevation of Kenaz's mind—was prompted by the elevation of Ezekiel by the spirit in Ezek 8:3 (cf 3:12, 14). Although the verb in LAB 28:6, effero, differs from the verb, elevare, in Vulgate Ezek 8:3, both have the semantic range to suggest the action of lifting and ascent. Three elements—the setting, the spirit, and elevation—combine, therefore, to suggest that Kenaz, like Ezekiel before him, was lifted by the spirit to receive a vision.'^ Despite the occurrence of these elements in both texts, the descrip tion of Ezekiel's experience lacks the specificity of Kenaz's experience, in which the spirit performed three actions: it leapt; it inhabited; it elevated Kenaz's sensus. Ezekiel recalls that "the spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven, and brought me in visions of God to Jerusalem." The words Ezekiel chooses, UVh^ TOTDD, hardly pinpoint the characteristics of his experience. In contrast, Pseudo-Philo proffers significant details, which go beyond what Ezekiel evinces, to depict the characteristics of Kenaz's vision. This vision began when the spirit caused Kenaz's mind to ascend {extulit sensum eius in LAB 28:6) and concluded when Kenaz's mind returned to him {reversus est sensus eius in eum in 28:10).'^ Kenaz's experience, therefore, is depicted as the ascent and descent of his mind immediately prior to his death. '* For these reasons, this interpretation is preferable to those in which the spirit is believed to have ousted Kenaz's mind (Harrington's translation in OTP, "put him in ecstasy") or lo have constrained Kenaz's physical senses (James' translation in &blical Antigmties, "... took away from him his bodily sense"). The verb, remto, usually denotes a return from a variety of journeys (6:12; 10:3; 15:1; 18:14; 20:6; 27:6, 12; 31:6, 7, 9; 39:10; 40:1, 3, 8; 41:1; 47:10; 58:4; 61:1), return to one's tent after a burial (24:6), or return to the ground at death (39:5). This denotation of remto elsewhere in LAB supports interpreting Kenaz's inspired experience in 27:6, 10 as the aw:ent and subsequent descent of his mind. According to this interpretation, Kenaz's mind travelled in its vision and returned to Kenaz upon completion of his vision.

108

A N ECLECTIC

ERA

The fourth extra-biblical detail is the associadon of the return of Kenaz's mind with an awakening: " . . . he was awakened," and his sense came back to him" (expergefactus est et reversus est sensus eius in eum). Kenaz was obviously in a trance-like state from which it was neces sary to awaken him. Like the others, this detail of Kenaz's experience lacks firm biblical precedent. The closest is found, oddly enough, in the account of Nebuchadnezzar, when he returned to normalcy follow ing his illness. Nebuchadnezzar recounted, "At that dme my reason returned to m e . . . " (Dan 4:36).'® The Vulgate translation (Dan 4:33), sensus meus reversus est ad me, is strikingly similar to LAB 28:10, et reversus est sensus eius in eum. However, for several reasons this text, even if it provides the vocabulary, hardly contains the scaffolding of Kenaz's vision. (1) The return of Kenaz's mind cannot be taken in isolation, for in LAB 28:6-10 it is integrally related to the ability to prophesy: et extulit sensum eius, et cepit prophetare dicens... expergefactus est et reversus est sensus eius in eum. Nebuchadnezzar did not prophesy. (2) Return to normalcy follows different experiences. Nebuchadnezzar was ill, while Kenaz is in some sort of trance. (3) Kenaz is the quintessential Israelite military hero; the elevation and restoration of his mind make

Other references are more ambiguous. The occurrence of the verb in LAB 10:6 combines the notions of return and restoration and therefore can be translated either to mean loss and restoration—"The LORD commanded the sea, and it started flowing again" (Harrington in OTP)—or movement elsewhere and return—"and it returned to its course" (Jacobson). The occurrence of the verb injephthah's query, "Does love so return after hatred . . . " (39:4) may imply either that love has retreated in the face of hatred only to return when hatred disappears or that love is extinguished by hatred and then restored. The former interpretation suggests the image of retreat and return (similar to Kenaz's ascent and descent), while the latter suggests the con ception of vitiation and restoration (similar to Kenaz's ecstasy and return to sense). The use of this verb to describe iron in LAB 30:6 may support the view that Kenaz's mind, originally intact, was extinguished until it was once again restored: ".. . iron cast into the fire, which when made molten by the flame becomes like water, but when it comes out of the fire it reverts to its original hardness." Here the emphasis lies rather more on lews-restoration than on return from a journey. Therefore, although the predominant occurrence of the verb, reverto, describes the return from a journey, the verb suggests in some contexts restoration to an original state. I have contended that allusions to the experience of Ezekiel, as well as Kenaz's vision itself, which entails a visionary journey throughout cosmos and chronos, suggest that the verb in LAB 28:10 should be interpreted to mean that Kenaz's mind has returned following its ascent in a visionary journey. " Although this verb usually denotes physical awakening from sleep (6:15; 27:14; 31:5, 6; 32:8; 53:3), it can be used metaphorically to describe springs awakened from their sleep (28:7; 32:8). Whether Kenaz awoke from physical sleep or from a trance is, therefore, unclear. "« Sec also Dan 4:34.

T H E SPIRIT A N D

PROPHETIC TRANSFORMATION

109

of him as well a visionary who foretells the future. Nebuchadnezzar was a misled, proud foreign ruler who "ate grass like oxen . . ." (Dan 4:33). (4) Pseudo-Philo emphasizes the role of the divine spirit in Kenaz's experience, while in Daniel 4 Nebuchadnezzar simply returned to health. It is unlikely, in light of these differences, that Pseudo-Philo intends an echo of Nebuchadnezzar's woeful loss of mind. Even if he does extract this expression from the biblical tale of Nebuchadnezzar, the associadon of it with the holy spirit, the mind's elevation, and prophesying suggests how readily he exports this vocabulary from Daniel 4 to an entirely new context in his own re-telling of Israelite history. As if this were not adequate to circumscribe Kenaz's vision, PseudoPhilo includes in his embellishment a fifth detail: "But he did not know what he had said or what he had seen" (LAB 28:10). This conclusion to Kenaz's prophetic vision, we have seen, characterizes Saul's expe rience as well (LAB 62:2). We have seen as well that it cuts against the grain of its bibUcal precedent. An extraordinarily rich collection of details, therefore, distinguishes the eflfects of the spirit on Kenaz from bibUcal accounts of the spirit's effects. The spirit springs upon Kenaz, indweUs him, and elevates his mind just prior to his death. A vision ensues in which Kenaz's mind traverses the cosmos to see the judgment that will transpire far in the future. Once he is awakened and his mind returns from its travels, Kenaz is unable to recollect what he saw. Compared with bibUcal accounts of "visions of God," Pseudo-Philo's description of Kenaz is remarkably lucid, detailed, and consistent. The contours of the spirit's eflfect upon Kenaz are clear and well-conceived, and they are most decidedly not the contours suppUed readily by the bibUcal story he purports to re-teU. These elements are explicable rather within the early Jewish and Greco-Roman miUeux in which the Uber Antiquitatum Bibiicarum was composed.

Relevant Milieux Early Jewish Accounts of Ascent Although not entirely bibUcal in character, Pseudo-Philo's portrait of Kenaz's prophetic experience shares in many respects the hues of other early Jewish portrayals of visionary experiences. The depiction

110

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

of Kenaz, therefore, is not altogether alien to Pseudo-Philo's early Jewish milieu. The placement of this vision just prior to Kenaz's death (LAB 27:1) aligns it with the experiences of many other Israelite figures in early Jewish literature who receive visions prior to death. Early Jew ish descriptions of Enoch's ascents, for example, were occasioned by the biblical account of Enoch's departure from the earth: "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him" (Gen 5:24). The summary of his ascent at the conclusion of the SimiHtudes (70-71) accordingly places Enoch's vision at the end of his earthly life: "(Thus) it happened after this that my spirit passed out of sight and ascended into the heavens" (71:1). Further, in the Testament of Abraham, Abraham's ascent is part of God's desperate effort to convince Abraham that he must die, an experience in which Abraham intransigendy refuses to participate ([A] 8-10; [B] 7-8). The depiction of Kenaz's vision in LAB 28 suits such a milieu in which Israelite heroes were believed to have had visionary experiences prior to death. Kenaz receives this vision in a state from which he must be awak ened (28:10: expergefactus est). Although the significance of dreams and visions is evident in Israelite literature,^ there occur far more numerous instances of dreams and visions in the literature of Early Judaism. Many IsraeHte heroes were accorded their own visionary experiences, including, among others, Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Levi, Elijah, Baruch, Ezra, and Daniel.^' Just as the catalyst of the vision (impending death) and Kenaz's condition (a state from which he is awakened) are at home in Early Judaism, so also is the elevation of Kenaz's mind apart from his body, though perhaps to a lesser extent because more frequendy an ascent is depicted either as a bodily experienced^ or as an experience

Impending death is not always the impetus for ascent: Adam's ascent occurs after the expulsion from paradise, although its contents are withheld from Seth until just prior to Adam's death {VUaAdae 25.1-30.1). Levi's vision occurs when he is yet youthful (TLevi 2.3). Abraham's ascent in the Apocalypse of Abraham 15-32 occurs in the context of his evening sacrifice (Genesis 15). Baruch ascends shordy after the destruction of Jerusalem (2 Bar 6:1). ^ E.g., Num 12:6-7; 1 Samuel 3; 1 Kgs 3:5-15; MTJoel 3:1 2. " Many visionary ascents arc uranslated in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Daniel's visions, of course, are contained in the Hebrew Bible. One of Adam's visions is recounted in VUaAdae 25-29, and Levi's in Testament of Levi 2. " In many early Jewish accounts of visions, ascent is portrayed as occurring in

T H E SPIRIT A N D

PROPHETIC

TRANSFORMATION

111

the nature of which is inchoate.^^ Nonetheless, other early Jewish authors can depict the experience of ascent without the body. In the Enoch Cycle, for example, Enoch was translated in his vision only in spirit: "He [the angel Michael] carried off my spirit, and I, Enoch, was in the heaven of heavens" (71:5). These extra-biblical characteristics of Kenaz's ascent vision are at home in the world of Early Judaism. To say this, however, is not to suggest that these details are peculiarly Jewish and not Greco-Roman. On the contrary, these extra-biblical elements—the imminence of death, the condition of sleep, and the separation of the sensus from the body—correspond to popular Greco-Roman conceptions of the ascent of the soul. Cicero's De divinatione contains an illuminating precis of the inspired prophetic ascent of the soul: When, therefore, the soul has been withdrawn by sleep from contact with sensual ties, then does it recall the past, comprehend the present, and foresee the fiture. For though the sleepir^ body then Ues as if it were dead, yet the soul is alive and stong, and will be much more so after death when it is wholly free of the body. Hence its power to divine is much enharued by die approach of the body. Adam recalls to Seth, " . . . while wc [Adam and Eve] were praying, Micliael the archangel and messenger of God came to me. And I saw a chariot like the wind and its wheels were fiery. I was carried off into the Paradise of righteousness" {VitaAdae 25.2). After his vision, recalls Adam, Michael had to freeze the waters that surround paradise so that Adam might not cross and bc taken by Michael "to the place from where he had seized me" (29.3). In 2 Enoch, Enoch actually leaves his house and shuts the doors behind him (2 En [J] 1:10), and Methuselah is able to hear Enoch's return to his bed: "And he was terrified when he heard my arrival" ([J] 38.3; see also 2 En 3:1). Comparable depicdons of Abraham include physical ascent. In the Apocalypse of Abraham, he ascends physically to Mount Sinai; then the angel, recalls Abraham, "took me with his right hand and set me on the right wing of the pigeon and he himself sat on the left wing of the turtledove, (both of) which were as if neither slaughtered nor divided. And h e carried me up to the edge of the fiery flames. And we ascended as if (carried) by many winds to the heaven that is fixed on the expanses .. ." (ApAbr 15.2 4). A similar experience transpires for Isaiah when an angel grasps his hand in Asclsa 7.3. Abraham's ascent is physical as well in the T e s t a m e n t o f A b r a h a m , in w h i c h A b r a h a m pleads, "I b e s e e c h you, lord, if I am t o leave my body, I want to be taken up bodily, in order that I may see the things of creation which the Lord my God created in heaven and on earth" (TAbr 7.18 [B]). In response, " . . . the Lord answered Michael, 'Go and take up Abraham in the body and show him everything'.... Then Michael left and took Abraham up onto a cloud in the body and bore him up to the river Oceanus" ([B] 8.1~2; see [A] 9.8-10.1). Baruch's vision of the ruined temple, which is modelled after Ezekiel's ascents, appears also to be physical, "And behold, suddenly a strong spirit lifted me and carried me above the waill of Jerusalem" (2 Bar 6:3). " The aposde Paul, for instance, during the mid-first century, though aware of the distinction between body and soul, could not specify which aspect(s) of his per son ascended: ". . . whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows" (2 Cor 12:2).

112

A N ECLECTIC

ERA

(kath. For example, those in the grasp of a serious and fatal sickness realize the fact that death impends; and so, visions of dead people generally appear to them and then their desire for fame is strongest; while those who have lived otherwise than as they should, feel, at such a dme, the keenest sorrow for their sins.^* Following this summary, Quintus provides an example from Posidonius "of the power of dying people to prophesy" (1.64). Kenaz of the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum could equally provide another example of such an inspired figure. Just prior to his death, Kenaz enters a state akin to sleep, from which he must be awakened, when his sensus is elevated in a vision. Although Kenaz confesses that his eye does not know what it sees, his vision nonetheless extends from the abyss to the mountaintops and encompasses the endre seven thousand years of human existence. The chronological span of this vision, therefore, as in Cicero's precis, encompasses the creation (past) and the consum mation (future) of the world, providing the basis for an exhortation to his hearers (present). A similar description of inspired ascent from the first century CE is proffered by Rutarch who, in his interpretation of Hato's Ttmaeus 11E, contends that soub exercise their innate capacity "in dreams, and some in the hour of death, when the body becomes cleansed of all impurities and attains a temperament adapted to this end, a temperament through which the reasoning and thinking faculty of the souls is relaxed and released from their present state as they range amid the irrational and imaginative realms of the fiture.''^^ This description circumscribes the experience of Kenaz, whose sensus is raised in a sleep-like state to range the future just prior to his death.^® ^* Die. 1.63; see also 1.64-65. Italics mine. » Def. Orac. 432C. ItaUcs mine. " The content of Kenaz's vision also reflects a segment of Judaism that shares with Greco-Roman Antiquity a concern with the afterlife. The scene extends from the creation, prior to sin, to judgment, an hour which some "saw even before the earth was corrupted" (LAB 28:6). After he was awakened, Kenaz delivered a precis of his vision: "If the repose of the just after they have died is like this, we must die to the corruptible worid so as not to see sins" (28:10). The elements of this vision, spanning creation to judgment and extending from the abyss to the heavens, do not occur in Pseudo-Philo's biblical sources. The centrality of death explains as well the content of Kenaz's vision, the climax of which lies in future judgment and could therefore be summarized by Kenaz with the words, "If the repose of the just after they have died is like this, we must die to the corruptible worid so as not to see sins" (LAB 28:10). Thb emphasis upon judgment characterizes many other examples of early Jewish literature. Each portion of the Enoch cycle, for instance (1 Enoch 1-36; 37-71; 72-82; 83-90; 91-104) contains visions of judgment. Enoch prefaces

THE

SPIRIT A N D PROPHETIC TRANSFORMATION

Tkis coalescence of elements of inspirafion suggesh Ait

113

Mft-

tours of Kenaz's visionary experience were shaped in a Jewish milieu which incorporated, consciously or unwittingly, fundamental elements of pc^ular Greco-Roman views on the ascent of the soul. That PseudoPhilo's portrait reflects popular rather than esoteric thinking on the subject is evident in a detail such as the need for Kenaz to be awak ened. One of the interlocutors in Plutarch's De genio Socrads, Simmias, observes with disdain that, "In popular belief, on the other hand, it the vision which comprises much of the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36), for example, by describing his own commission l o reprimand the angels who had sexual intercourse with human women (Gen 6:1-4). To diem Enoch said, "From now on you will not be able to ascend into heaven unto all eternity, but you shall remain inside the earth, imprisoned all the days of eternity" (1 En 14:5). According l o the Similitudes of Enoch, the day of judgment will arrive, "and the power, the punish ment, and the judgment, which the Lord of the Spirits has prepared for those who do not worship the righteous judgment... it will become a day of covenant for the elect and inquisition for the siiuiers" (1 En 60:6). The emphasis upon jut^ment is particulariy strong in eariy Jewish interpretations of Abraham's ascents. In the Tes tament of Abraham, Abraham is witness to a vivid jut^ment scene in which souls after death are evaluated in three ways: by fire, by a written record, and by a balance (TAbr [A] 11-14; [B] 8-12). The scene emphasizes the value of good works, the possibility of repentance, and the tension between God's justice and mercy. In the many viaonary experiences of the Apocalypse of Abraham, the underiying issue is the status of God's people who arc "humiliated by the heathen" (ApAbr 31.1). Abraham's vision guarantees that oppressors and idolators will be punished and shall "putrefy in the belly of the crafty worm Azazel," their evil leader who de ceived Adam and Eve (31.5; 23.11). Even where the purpose o f an ascent is not primarily to receive a vision of judgment, such as Levi's in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (TLevi 2 5), the Israelite hero receives nonetheless a word about the status of Israel. Unbelievers "shall be condemned with pimishment" (4.1), and God will dwell in Israel's midst. Pseudo-Philo, therefore, places Kenaz in good company by imputing to him a vision of universal judgment.

respite these numerous examples, this interest in the afterlife ought not to be construed as peculiarly early Jewish but as part o f a fundamental characteristic o f heavenly ascents in many cultures of the ancient worid, in which such ascents were an anticipation o f the ascent o f the soul after death. Basing his analysis upon W. Bousset's important study, Die Hmmelreise der SeeU (Darmstadt: WisscnschafUiche B u c h g c a c l l s c h a f l , 1^0, sp>ccial e d i t i o n ) , A . S e g a l ( " H e a v e n l y A s c e n t in H c U c n i s t i c Judaian, Eariy Christianity and their Environment," in AitfsH^ und M^rgtmg der romiscfm WeU 2.23.2: Vorhmstantmisches Christentum: Verhalbns zu romischem Stmt und heidmscher Rebgion, ed. W. Haase [Beriin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980] 1341) writes, "His [Bousset's] perception o f the parallel between ecstatic trance journeys to heaven and the suppcMcd journey o f the soul after death is a remarkable intuition into the almost universal structure o f the ascent myth. Though there are a f e w crucial cases in which the heavenly journey is not explicidy interpreted as a prefiguration o f a particular soul's journey after death, the structural similarity between the ecstatic journey and the final journey o f humans after death is so widespread as to be crucially important." Sec also M. Dean-Otting, Heavenly Journeys: A Study of the Motif in Hellenistic Jewish Literature (Frankfurt/New York: Peter Lang, 1984) 8-20. O f foundational significance is the myth of Er found in Halo's Republic 614B-621D.

114

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

is only in sleep that people receive inspiration from on high; and the nodon that they are so influenced when awake and in full possession of their faculdes is accounted strange and incredible" (5890).^'' This analysis of Kenaz's visionary experience has satisfactorily ex plained many of Pseudo-Philo's exegetical movements concerning the spirit. The locus of the vision within the community, the image of the spirit's leaping, and its designation as holy spirit reflect PseudoPhilo's exegetical tendency to import biblical texts from several other contexts (Ezekiel 8; 1 Samuel 10; Isaiah 63 and Psalm 51, though the designation, holy spirit, was even more popular in Early Judaism) into the primary text underlying his revision (Jdg 3:9-11). Although these exegedcal movements are explicable in light of Pseudo-Philo's biblical text, most are not. The details that Kenaz was facing death, that he had to be awakened, and that his mind was elevated reflect rather a Palestinian Jewish milieu which was, at least in its views on the holy spirit, deeply influenced by popular Greco-Roman culture. Kenaz's experience provides a quintessential example of the ascent of the soul, as it was discussed in Cicero's De dmnaHone and Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum^ as well as numerous other Greco-Roman literary works. However, even these observations do not adequately explain the totality of Pseudo-Philo's exegetical movements. The attribution of the ascent of Kenaz's mind to the spirit's leaping and indwelling can be matched neady neither with biblical antecedents nor with other early Jewish literature. Further, the concluding detail that Kenaz cannot re collect his prophetic experience—an inability he shares with Saul—cuts against the grain of its biblical antecedents, in which recollection is integral to visions, and finds no substantive counterpart in other early Jewish Hterature. Finally, the ir^ammation and agitation of Joshua's mind and spirit similarly leads not to the biblical text but to PseudoPhilo's Greco-Roman context, as do all of these otherwise inexplicable exegetical movements. Popular Greco-Roman Culture To ascertain the contours of prophetic inspiration as it could be under stood during Pseudo-Philo's era, we tiun again to De dumatione, in which Cicero's brother and stalwart proponent of Stoic thought, Quintus, Sec also Rato, Timaeus 7IE; Cicero, Dio. 1.129.

T H E SPIRIT A N D P R O P H E T I C T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

1 15

describes the inspiradon of Cassandra, "who prophesied . . . under a heaven-inspired excitement and exaltadon of soul" (1.89). This thumb nail descripdon of Cassandra's abiUdes presupposes a lengthier descrip tion in which she illustrates how the human soul's ability to foreknow the future can be abnormally developed: "Therefore the human soul has an inherent power of presaging or of foreknowing infused into it from without, and made a part of it by the will of God. If that power is abnormally developed, it is called 'frenzy' or 'inspiration,' which occurs when the soul withdraws itself from the body and is violendy stimulated by a divine impulse."^^ The point that Quintus wishes to make with such illustrations from the prophetic experiences of Cassandra is "that true prophecies arc made during frenzy. . ."^ In a later discussion of prophetic ecstasy, Quintus resumes the argument that, "In fact, the human soul never divines naturally, except when it is so unrestrained and free that it has absolutely no associa tion with the body, as happens in the case of frenzy and of dreams."^ He develops, on the basis of naedrus 246A-47E, the Platonic image of the ascent of the soul: T h o s e then, whose souls, spuming their bodies, take wings and fly a b r o a d ^ i n f l a m e d and aroused by a sort of passion—these, I say, certainly see the things which they foretell in their prophecies. Such souls d o not cling to the body and are kindled by many diflferent influ ences. For example, some are aroused by certain vocal tones, as by Phiygian songs, many by groves and forests, and many others by riv ers and seas. I believe, too, that there were certain subterranean vapours which had the effect of inspiring persons to utter oracles.^'

Of this form of inspiration, the signal example is, once again, Cassandra, who illustrates the principle that "the frenzied soul sees the future long in advance.. ."^^ ^ Div. 1.66. Larin, Irust i^tur in animis praesc^itio extrinsecus iniecta atque inclusa diinnitus.

Ea, si exarsit acrius, Jum appellatur, cum a corpore animus abstractus divino msHnctu concitahtr. For Cassandra, that divine impulse is unwanted possession by Apollo and Paris. ^ Div. 1.67. Ladn, vaticinari Jitror vera soUai. ^ Div. 1.113. Ladn, .Nec vero umquam animus hominis naturaUter divinat, nisi am ita solutus est et vacuus tU ei pUme nihil sit cum corpore, quod end vatibus contingit aut dormientibus. Div. 1.114. Ladn, Ergo et ei, quorum animi spretis corporibus evolant atque excummt foras, ardore aiiquo inflammati atque incitati, cemunt ilia prqfecto quae vaticinantes pronuntiant; rmMsque rebus ir^ammanUir tales ammi qui corporibus non inhaerent, ut ei qui sono quodam vocum et Phry^ cmtibus iruitmtur. MuUos nemora sikaeque, multos amnes aut maria commovent. Credo etiam carduUtus quosdam Jmsse terrarum quibtis ir^atae mentes oracla jimderent. The sub terranean vapors are probably to bc associated with Delphi. Div. 1.114. Latin, Juribunda mens videt ante midto, quae sint Jutura.

1 16

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

Characteristic features of the prophetic exf>erience can be garnered from Quintus' accounts of Cassandra: (1) the ascent of the soul apart from the body; (2) a frenzied condition of inflammation and excite ment; (3) the impetus of external arousal by a violent divine impulse or tones, forests, vapours, etc.; (4) knowledge of the future. These features reappear in less anecdotal and more philosophical form in Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum, in which Lamprias, another ardent proponent of Stoicism, explains Delphic inspiration in very similar terms. Like Quintus in Cicero's De dimnatione, Lamprias shares the Stoic conviction that the soul's innate capacity to divine the future is hampered by its association with the body. When, however, the soul is free of the body's impurities and of mental control, it can range the realms of the future: Souls therefore, all possessed of this power, which is innate but dim and hardly manifest, nevertheless oftentimes disclose its flower and radiance in dreams, and some in the hour of death, when the body becomes cleansed of all impurities and attains a temperament adapted to this end, a temperament through which the reasoning and thinking faculty of the soul is relaxed and released from their present state as they range amid the irrational and imaginative realms of the future.'' The absence of mental control is so important that Lamprias reiter ates the point that the condition of enthusiasm (evBotKnaanov) requires release from intellectual eflfort: But that which foretells the future, like a tablet without writing, is both irraUonal and indeterminate in itself, but receptive of impressions and presentiments through what may be done to it, and inconsequendy grasps at the future when it is farthest withdrawn from the prc^nt. Its withdrawal is brought about by a temperament and disposition of the body as it is subjected to a change which we call inspiration.'* Lamprias continues by proflfering examples of the catalysts which bring about this change in condition, opting himself for the final example:

Def. Orac. 432C. Greek, tautriv ouv Ixovoai TTIV Suvo^iiv a i yvxaiCTVjMpwovjicv d|i\)5pav 5e Kal SvofpdvtaoTov, o^ctx; i^ovdovai icoXXdKiq Kal dvaXa^K
T H E SPIRIT A N D PROPHETIC TRANSFORMATION

117

Often the body of itself alone attains this disposition. Moreover the earth sends forth for people streams of many other potencies, some of them producing derangements, diseases, or deaths; others helpful, benig nant, and beneficial, as is plain from the experience of persons who

have come upon them. But the prophetic current and breath is most divine and holy, whether it issue by itself through the air or come in the company of running waters; for when it is instilled into the body, it creates in souls an unaccustomed and unusual temperament, the peculiarity of which it is hard to describe v^th exactness. . . .'^ As a Stoic, Lamprias is compelled to describe inspiradon as a physical phenomenon. Although he cannot with exacdtude explain the condidon produced by the icveujia, he searches nonetheless for analogies to explain this physical condition. It is likely that by warmth and diffusion it opens up certain passages through which impressions of the future are transmitted, just as wine, when its fumes rise to the head, reveals many unusual movements and also words stored away and unperceived. "For Bacchic rout/And fren zied mind contain much prophecy," according to Euripides, when the soul becomes hot and fiery, and throws aside the caution that human intelligence lays upon it, and thus often diverts and extinguishes the inspiration.'* Following this explanation of the physiology of the prophetic spirit, Lamprias enunciates the principle that the prophetic spirit is effec tive because it has a particular or peculiar affinity with the soul (433A-B). He then proffers examples of such suitability. A bean has a peculiar suitability for the dyeing of purple, but sodium carbonate of scarlet. Further, only water drawn from the river Alpheius causes ashes piled against the altar at Olympia to congeal. Lamprias continues with an introduction to the vapor at Delphi: "It is not, therefore. '* Def. Orac. 432D-E. Greek, auto jicv ouv i% autoO to o%a toiavtriv noKKo-Kxc, loxet 5id8eaiv • fi 81 yii xoXX&v yihi &XX(ov 5uvd^eo>v wrryd^ dviiioiv dvOpcoxou;, td^ \iky/ ^KOtatiKo^ icai vooa>5ei(; loxl 6avatii^, tdi; 5e xp^l^td^ Kal xpooT|vei^ Kal totpeXi^ovq, raq SfiXat Ytyvovtai xeipijc npootuyxdvowi. t o 5e jiavtiKov pEV)ia Kal Jtvdifia Beiotatov eoti Kal ooubtatov, dv t e KOB' feovt6 5i' d£po^ av t e jicO' uypou vd^ato<; dTtepdtai. Kataneiyvunevov ydp t{<^ to o%ia Kpdotv eMxoiei tot*; tfi>xai^ dii0Ti Kal atoKOv, li? tfiv iSiotiita xaXenov eijteiv oa^p&q... ^ Def. Orac. 4 3 2 E - F . Greek, Oep^ottiti ydp Kal 6iaxiKjei itopouq tivdq dvoiyeiv 9avtaatiKoi>^ tov (le^Aovto^ eiKo^ ^ctiv, ax^ oTvo^ dva9u)xia6el^ etepa icoAAd Ktvfi^ta Kal XdYO\>q ditoKei^evoxx; Kal XavOdvovta^ ditoKoXuictei- t o ydp PaKxewnjiov KOI t o ^avi&Sei; navtiKTjv xoXXfiv Ititx Kot* EvputiSnv, orov bStpv^ r\ yuxn yevojievri Kal in>pca$n^ d}i«boT|tai tf|v evXd^eiav, t^v dvritri (pp6vT|oi^ IxdYouoa icoXAdKi^ dxootp£(pei Kal K a t a o p c v w o i tov ^v6ovoutO)i6v. Lamprias continues (433A) that the dryness engendered by such heat purifies the spirit of prophecy.

118

A N ECLECTIC

ERA

anything to excite amazement if, although the earth sends up many streams, it is only such as these that dispose souls to inspiradon and impressions of the future. Certainly the voice of legend also is in accord with my statement. . . Lamprias then relates one of the legends surrounding the discovery of Delphi, according to which a shepherd fell into the Delphic crevice and later was inspired (433C-D), concluding his discussion of the prophedc spirit by reiteradng once again the principle that this spirit and the soul have a peculiar affinity with one another (433D-E). This discussion of Delphic inspiradon does not stand alone among Plutarch's wridngs. In a discussion indebted to Plato's enumeradon of the four forms of ^lavia {Phaedrus 265B), Plutarch delineates four kinds of inspiradon. The second, he observes, entails the loss of mental control: "There is a second kind, however, which does not exist without divine inspiradon. It is not intrinsically generated but is, rather, an extrinsic afflatus that displaces the faculty of rational inference; it is created and set in motion by a higher power. This sort of madness bears the general name of 'enthusiasm' [evGovaiaaTiKov]" {Amatorius 758E). Such an explanation reveals that the Stoic interpretation of Delphic inspiration is actuaJly anchored in a more general understand ing of enthusiasm which can, in turn, be traced to Plato's discussion of jittvia. What is indeed striking about Plutarch's explanations is that, though they rely far more on philosophical conceptions and vocabular^r— Cicero's is self-consciously more reliant upon illustrations (e.g., Div. 1.68)—they follow the same contours as Cicero's in their effort to explain the prophetic experience. Unifying features of these discus sions of Cicero and Plutarch include: (1) a soul that withdraws from the body and ranges amidst the realm of the future; (2) a frenzied condition of inflammation and excitement, a hot and fiery soul; (3) external arousal by a divine impulse, usually in the form of physical phenomena, of which the vapor of Delphi constitutes the best exam ple; (4) knowledge of the future. In light of the diflferent approaches employed by Cicero and Plutarch, the similarities between their dis cussions are astonishing, creating a conceptual umbrella of sorts, span ning the period from ca. 50 BCE to ca. 100 CE, during which time Pseudo-Philo probably composed his Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. In light of the popularity Stoicism experienced during the first century, as well as the fame of Delphi, the incorporation of these popular Stoic elements into Pseudo-Philo's rewritten Bible is hardly surprising.

T H E SPIRIT A N D PROPHETIC TRANSFORMATION

1 19

When Pseudo-Philo writes, then, that the spirit leapt upon and indwelt Kenaz, elevadng his sensus, he adheres closely to the GrecoRoman conception of prophedc inspiration espoused by popular Stoicism during the Greco-Roman era. It may have been more typi cal to recount that an angel led Kenaz in this ascent, for in many other accounts of ascent in early Jewish literature, an angel descends in order to guide the visionary into the heavenly world. Adam was taken to and expelled from paradise by Michael {VitaAdae 25.1; 29.2). In the Book of the Watchers, Enoch was accompanied by the angel Uriel, who explained to him what Enoch saw (1 En 19:1). In the Similitudes, Enoch was accompanied by two angels (1 En 60:11). Abraham too was accompanied by the angels, laoel (ApAbr 10.3) and Michael (TAbr 2.1; 10.1).^' What Pseudo-Philo presents, in con trast, is an experience of possession in which the mind ranges the realms of the future.'^ The level of detail employed to depict the spirit also distinguishes Pseudo-Philo's from other early Jewish accounts of inspiradon, such as TLevi 2.3, where Levi recalled, "As I was tending the flocks in Abel-Maoul a spirit of understanding from the Lord came upon me, and I observed all human beings making their way in life deceit fully." Precisely what eflfect the spirit exercised over Levi, or what he saw about human beings that he could otherwise have not, is un clear. The precision with which Pseudo-Philo pinpoints the means of ascent—leaping upon and indwelling Kenaz so that his mind is ele vated to gain a grasp of the future—is far more lucid and charac terized by far more detailed contours than most other early Jewish descripdons of inspiradon.

" According to the book of Ezekiel, ascent did not take place by the spirit's possession of Ezekiel but by lifting him (3:12) in a manner parallel to the hand of God, which lifted him by his hair (8:3). When the spirit entered Ezekiel, it was to revive him and to set him on his feet (2:2). ^ It would not be implausible to suggest that Pseudo-Philo and these other early Jewish authors are simply using different terms for the same agent of ascent; we have seen that "spirit" and "angel" were readily and frequendy used interchangeably in Early Judaism. According to this view, the holy spirit of LAB 28 would be Kenaz's accompanying angel. Despite its appeal, this interpretation is not possible because the spirit is said not to accompany Kenaz but to dwell in him {habitans in Cenez)- Al though the participle, habitans, is difficult to interpret in relation to its coming upon {insihtit) Kenaz, as Jacobson {A Commentary, 810-11) observes, it refers nonetheless to the indwelling of the spirit within Kenaz and not to the spirit's accompanying him. ^ Details are unclear as well in 1 Enoch 14, where Enoch recalls laconically, "I saw in my sleep what I now speak with my tongue of flesh..." (I En 14:2). The

120

AN ECLECTIC ERA

Those contours match closely those traced by Cicero and Plutarch. Fundamental to the experience of Kenaz in the Liber Antiquitatim Bib licanm is the concomitant attack and indwelling of the spirit. Cicero's Quintus contends that frenzy occurs only *Svhen the soul withdraws itself from the body and is violentfy stimulated by a divine in^ndse" (Div. 1.66); the soul is "kindled" by such influences, inspired to fly abroad {Eyb. 1.114). Plutarch's Lamprias concurs, emphasizing as well the indwelling presence of the divine vapor: "But the prophedc current and breath is most divine and holy, whether it issue by itself through the air or come in the company of running waters; for when it is instiUed into the body, it creates in souls an unaccustomed and unusual temperament" (Def. orac. 432D-E). Enthusiasm is occasioned by "an extrinsic cfflatus that displaces the faculty of radonal inference" (Amat. 758E). Although Pseudo-Philo identifies this external divine impulse with the spirit of God, conveyed in biblical terms by the designation, "holy spirit," by the image of transformation of someone into another person (TTK in 1 Sam 10:6), and by means of the verb insilere ( t t e in 1 Sam 10:6, 10; 11:6), the actions and eflfect of this holy spirit— leaping and indwelling and elevating Kenaz's mind—have their devest affinities with descriptions of inspiration in the writings of Cicero and Plutarch. So too does Pseudo-Philo's depiction of Joshua's mind as inflamed and his spirit agitated (incensa est mens eius et spiritus eius commotus est) share its strongest aflfinities with precisely these passages in Cicero's De divirmtione and Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum. The combination of inflammation and agitation echoes the familiar juxtaposition of images employed to characterize the ecstatic soul in the precis of Quintus in Div. 1.114, in which prophecy is attributed to people "whose souls, spuming their bodies, take wings and fly abroad—inflamed and aroused by a sort of passion . . . who see the things which they foretell in their

ascent takes place, not as Kenaz's, al the onset of a vision, but as part of the vision which b already taking place. Enoch sees himself, within the vision, ascend: "And behold I saw the clouds: And they were calling me in a vision; and the fogs were calling me; and the course of the stars and the lighmings were rushing me and causing me to desire; and in the vision, the winds were causing me to fly and rushing mc high up into heaven" (14:8). How Enoch came to have a vision in the first place is explained as sleep and sight. The disappearance of EUioch at the end of his earthly existence is attributed also to winds: "From that day on, I was not counted among them. But he placed me between two winds, between the northeast and the west, where the angels took a cord to measure for me the place for the elect. . ." (70:3).

T H E SPIRIT A N D P R O P H E T I C T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

121

prophecies." This coUocation of frenzy and fire appears as well in anodier discussion familiar to us in which Plutarch's quotation of Euripides to support his view of the necessity of the frenzied mind is followed immediately by a description of the enthusiastic state in which the "soul becomes hot and fiery, and throws aside the caution that human intelligence lays upon it" (Def. orac. 432E-F). That this was indeed a popular view, and not a matter of esoteric interest, is evident in the presence of this juxtaposition of fire and frenzy in popular portrayals of prophetic inspiration. Cicero's Quintus proflfers a citation from the tragic poets in which Cassandra's frenzy is depicted first and foremost by "those flaming eyes, that sudden rage.'"*^ The eflfect of Apollo's invasive inspiration of the priestess is depicted even more vividly as inflammation and severe agitation by Lucan, who was bom in Spain in 39 CE and died in Rome in 65 CE: Frantic she careers about the cave . . . she scatters the t r i p o d s . . . she boils over with fierce fire, while enduring the wrath of Phoebus. N o r does he ply the whip and goad alone, and dart flame into her vitals: she has to bear the curb as well, and is not permitted to reveal as much as she is suffered to know.*'

In this vivid account, inspiradon is a fire, and the metaphor of plying the whip probably a metaphor for agitation, for in the Sibylline Oracles the sibyl cries, ". . . and why is my spirit lashed like a whip?" (3.4-5). Cicero's De divinatione and Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum, then, contain the conceptions of prophetic inspiration that explain PseudoPhilo's expansions of Deut 34:9 and Jdg 3:9-11. The juxtaposition of inflammation and agitation that characterizes the eflfects of the spirit upon Joshua is expressed tersely in both. Similarly are the fundamental elements of Kenaz's experience located in summary definitions of prophetic inspiration in these two texts: the imminence of death; the leaping and indwelling of the spirit; the elevation of

lyiv. 1.66. Ladn, oadis rabere visa est derepente ardentibus. Although Cicero says that he relies on the tragic poets for iUustradons (1.68), it is not clear whether this quo tation is from the Heaiba of Accius or the Alexander of Ennius. *' De beUo dvUi 5.169-77. Latin, Bacchatur demens ediena per antrum. . . Obstantes tripodas maffwque exaestuat igne Iratum te, Phoebe, ferens. Nec verbere solo Uteris et stimulos flammasque in viscera mergis: AccipU et Jrenos, nec Umtum prodere vati Quantum scire licet.

122

AN ECLECTIC ERA

Kenaz's mind by the spirit; and a sleep-like state from which Kenaz must be awakened. The extent to which the key extra-biblical ingre dients of Pseudo-Philo's understanding of prophetic inspiration should be traceable to two Greco-Roman texts is stunning yet comprehen sible, for Cicero and Plutarch alike purport to describe views of pro phetic inspiration that were particularly popular during Pseudo-Philo's lifetime and before. There remains one further element, introduced into the final lines of Kenaz's experience, which exhibits extraordinarily close aflfinities with Pseudo-Philo's Greco-Roman milieu: "And when Kenaz had spoken these words, he was awakened, and his senses came back to him. But he did not know what he had said or what he had seen." Saul, too, after his exi>erience, "went away and did not know what he had prophesied." This inability to remember, we may recall, can not be explained by adducing biblical antecedents. Such an impact of inspiration was, on the other hand, integral to several accounts of oracular ecstasy during the Greco-Roman era and later. The headwaters of this interpretation are Plato's Apology 22C and Meno 99C, in which Plato contends that inspired poets (oi 6eop,dvtei^ and 0 1 XPTIOM^(p6oi) do not know what they are saying (loaoiv 6e ovSev ©V AiYou0i[v]). This view spawned interpretations in which the inability to recall what was experienced during a period without mental con trol signalled the authenticity of the prophetic condition. Already during the late first or early second century GE, the pseudo nymous Jewish author of 4 Ezra reveals an awareness of this inter pretation in a description of an inspired experience in which Ezra allegedly dictated ninety-four books. During this period, Ezra's heart poured forth understanding, and wisdom increased in his breast because {nam) his own spirit retained its memory (14:40 Nam spiritus meus conservabat memoriam). The need to explain that Ezra retained his memory suggests that the author is aware of a form of inspiration that entailed the loss of memory.*^ The conviction that inspiration may bring a loss of recoUection app)ears more explicidy in the writings of the second century GE public

*^ M. E. Stone (Fourth Ezra: a amanetUary on the book of Fourth Ezra [Hemieneia; Minneapolis: Foitress, 1990] 120) contends correcdy that this statement about the retention of memory constitutes a "deliberate" reversal of this t(^, i.e., the loss of memory. For a detailed discussion of this conception in the context of 4 Ezra, see chapter eight below, pages 204-07.

T H E SPIRIT A N D P R O P H E T I C T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

123

speaker and man of letters, Aelius Arisddes. Following his defense of the Delphic priestesses of Apollo, Aelius Arisddes discusses the inspi radon of the priestesses of Zeus in Dodona, "who know as much as the God approves, and for as long as he approves." These inspired priestesses have no knowledge of Zeus's oracles prior to inspiradon, "nor afterwards do they know anything which they have said, but all inquirers understand it better than they."*^ The second or third century Chrisdan author, Pseudo-Jusdnus, in his Cohortatio ad Graecos, discusses Plato's admiration for the Sibyl because her prophecies came to pass. To support his case, Ps-Jusdn paraphrases Plato's Meno, in which prophedc persons are said to be divine. Twice in this paraphrase, Ps-Jusdn expresses the opinion that the Sibyl cannot recall what she said while inspired: For, unlike the poets who, after their poems are penned, have power to correct and polish . . . she was filled indeed with prophecy at the dme of the inspiration, but as soon as the inspiration ceased, there ceased also the remembrance of all she had said. . . (37.2) . . . they said also that they who then took down her prophecies, being illiterate persons, often went quite astray from the accuracy of the metres; and this, they said, was the cause of the want of metre in some of the verses, the prophetess having no remembrance of tvhat she had said, after the possession and inspiraUon ceased, and the reporters having, through their lack of education, failed to record the metres with accuracy (37.3).** This conviction concerning inspiration characterizes as well a passage in the Collationes or Institutes for monastic orders written by John Cassian, who lived during the late fourth and early fifth centuries. In the context of a discussion of demon possession, he contrasts two types of possessed people, those who "are affected by them [demons] in such a way as to have not the slightest conception of what they do and say, while others know and afterwards recollect it."*^

*' In Defense of Oratory, 43. Greek, ot^' tknepov ouScv ©v einov loaoiv aXka xdvte<; ^aXXov r\ eiceivai. ** Translation from Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1.289. Italics mine. Greek of italics 37.2, xocvoa^evriq 8e xi\q ^ixvoio^ inenavto Kal i\ x&v eipimEvcov jivfijiii. Greek of italics 37.3, Kal TT^^ ^ i K v o i a ^ jiTi iUiivr\nevr\(; x&v eiprmEvoov. Greek text is from Pseudo-Justinus: Cohortatio ad Graecos, de Morunrdda, Oratorio ad Graecos, ed. M. Marcovich (Patnsdsche Texte und Studien 32; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990) 76. ** CoUationes 12. Translation from Post-Nicene Fathers 11.366. Latin, Qmdam enim sic ad^lantur, ut nequaquam ea quae gerunt uel hquuntur intellegant, quidam uero norunt et postea recordantwr. Latin text is from Jean Cassien: Conjerences I- VII, ed. E. Pichery (SC 42; Paris: du Ccrf, 1955) 256.

124

AN ECLECTIC ERA

The Christian prologue to the Sibylline Oracles, which was com posed no earlier than the end of the fifth century, advances this same interpretadon of Plato's view of prophedc inspiradon in an eflfort to explain the occasional absence of metrical accuracy. The author docs not claim to invent this explanadon but a^^als instead to the Christian apologist Lactandus^ who, claims the author, "set forth in his own works what had been said by the Sibyls about the ineflfable g l o r y . . . " The author of the prologue explains: When the Sibylline verses found with us can easily bc despised by those who are knowledgeable in Greek culture, not only because they are easily available (for things which are rare are thought valuable) but also because not all the verses preserve metrical accuracy, he has a rather clear argument. This is the fault of the secretaries, who did not keep pace with the flow of speech or even were ignorant, not of the prophetess. For the memory of what had been said cmsed with the inspiration. With rtgard to this am Plato said that they describe many greattilingsaccwratety uMle knowing notitir^ of what they sqy.*^ Although Plato himself had not contended that authentic inspiration entails an inability to remember, these interpreters did. The persist ence of this interpretation, spanning several centuries, is impressive, as is the variety of adherents to it: a late first or early second century CE Jewish author who claimed that Ezra did not lose the ability to remember his experience; an aflfluent second century Greco-Roman orator; a second century Christian apologist; a fourth century Chris tian monastic leader; and a Christian editor who "set forth the oracles called SibyUine, which are found scattered and confusedly read and recognized, in one continuous and connected book" (Sibylline Oracles Prologue, 9-10). The diversity of these wimesses to a shared view of inspiration or possession with respect to recollection suggests that this was a fK)pular, widely held view during the Greco-Roman era, during which period the lilfer Antiqtdtatum Bibticarum was competed. Moreover, the persistent attribution of this interpretation to Plato, as well as the adherence of Aehus Aristides to this view, indicate a dear awareness

** Or Firmianus. Probable dates are ca. 240-320 CE. Sibylline Oracles Prologue, 82-91. Italics mine. Greek of italics, Sjia y ^ tfl CKiJcvoiqi cxewauTO r\ X&N XtxOrvxcov JIVT|HT|. itpcx; o Kal 6 nXdtov ^Xbifoc, e«pTi, OTI KOTopdcbootKn KoXXa Kal )xietahx KpdyMata tih&ttc, &v Xiyowiv. Greek text is from Die Oracula SifyUina, ed. J. Geffcken (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1902) 4. Despite its attribution to Lactantius, this statement occurs nowhere in Im extant writings.

T H E SPIRIT A N D P R O P H E T I C TRANSFORMATION

125

that this belief about prophetic inspiration lay along a Greco-Roman trajectory. It might be considered astonishing that Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, a Palesdnian text composed originally in Hebrew, contains the earliest extant expression of this point of view, were it not for the realization that Pseudo-Philo elsewhere shapes the experiences of Israelite leaders according to the contours of Greco-Roman conceptions of inspira tion, such as they are delineated particularly in Cicero's Lk dimnatione and Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum. When he concludes the prophetic experiences of Saul and Kenaz with the detail that they could not recollect what they had said and seen, therefore, Pseudo-Philo is pre dictably following his characteristic exegetical method of rooting experiences of the spirit in the biblical world but embeUishing them considerably with extra-biblical details, all of which exhibit affinities with Greco-Roman descriptions of prophetic inspiration. Despite its singular focus upon inspiration, this discussion ought not to give the impression that the impact of Greco-Roman literature and culture on Pseudo-Philo's portrayal of the spirit represents a unique phenomenon, an idiosyncratic and transitory breach in his resistance to Greco-Roman culture. Other such instances of Greco-Roman ele ments in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum have been identified.'*^ The most certain and extraordinary example consists of the lament of Jephthah's daughter, whom Pseudo-Philo names Sella (LAB 40). Her lament begins with regret that she will not marry but then turns to conceiving death as marriage: "O Mother, in vain have you borne your only daughter, because Sheol has become my bridal chamber.. . ." PseudoPhilo spun this lament almost entirely from extra-biblical cloth, and M. Alexiou and P. Dronke*^ have adduced impressive parallels to this lament to demonstrate that Pseudo-Philo "was familiar with the ancient and widespread wedding-and-funeral, bride-and-victim imagery of Greek tradition, and that he was relying on this tradition for his own remarkable innovation in the midst of his biblical material."^ Particularly unmistakable is the resonance between Sella in LJber

*" H. Jacobson {A CommmUoy, 213-14; "Marginalia to Pseudo-Philo's Uber Anti quitatum Biblicarum and to the Chronicles ofjerahmeel" Raue des etudes juives 142 [1983] 456-57) has idendfied several instances of what he construes as Greco-Roman influ ence on LAB. *^ "Tlie lament ofjcphtha's daughter: themes, tradidons, originality," Studi Medievali 12.2 (1971) 819-63. ^ "Lament," 850-51.

126

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

AntiquUaUm Biblicarum and Iphigenia in Euripides' Ipfugmia at Autis.^^ Both were sacrificed by their fathers, Jephthah and Agamemnon. Both died in order to attain a mihtary advantage. Seiia died because of a vow Jephthah had made before battling the Ammonites; Iphigenia died as the price of a fair wind for saifing in the war against Troy. Both figures realized that their sacrifices yielded f>oUdcal benefits. Iphigenia knew that she was the one who "in death . . . gave to Hellas freedom . .." (1383-84);^^ Sella said, "And who is there who would be sad in death, seeing the people free" (LAB 40:2). Both daughters also compared their impending deaths to marriage. Seila lamented that "Sheol has become my bridal chamber (40:6)." Iphigenia her self implored, "Sacrifice me, raze ye Troy; for this through all the ages is/My memorial: children, marriage, glory—all are mine in this" (1398-99)." This comparison between death and marriage, between Hades and the bridal chamber, in laments for the death of young women was not untypical in Greece and Rome.^ The associadon appeared in other Greek tragedies. Cassandra, in Euripides' Daughters of Troy, lamented, "On, that I may haste to wed my bridegroom. Hades' spousal-plight" (445). Antigone, in Sophocles' Antigone, cried, "O grave, O bridal bo wer, O prison house . . . " (891). This imagery was not, however, lim ited to Greek tragedies. The seventh book of the Palatine Anthology contains funeral epigrams for those who died young. One from the sixth or fifth century BCE reads, "Without having seen the marriagebed, I, Gorgippos, descended to the bridal chamber of blonde Perse phone." An epigram from the late fourth century BCE for a betrothed girl Baucis says that Hades is jealous of her fate, "how with the very torch that accompanied her bridal song her father-in-law lit the fimeral pyre/that consumed her. And you yourself, Hymenaeus, transformed the harmonious wedding-chant into the sound of wailing threnodies."

^' On the popularity of Euripides during the Greco-Roman era and Josephus' knowledge of his plays, including Ifdagmia at Autis, see L H. Feldman, "Josephus as a Biblical Interpreter: The Aqedah," JQJt 75 (1984--85) 219-22; 231-32; 235-36; 239-46; more generally, F. L lAicas, Euripides arui His li^btmce (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1928) 39-81. " She refers repeatedly to this aspect of her death on behalf of Greece (1375; 1382-84; 1420; 1473). " Agamemnon laments Iphigenia's death, "Hades meseems shall take her soon for bride" (461). The following examples are from Alexiou and Dronke, "Lament," 825-41, 846-47.

T H E SPIRIT A N D P R O P H E T I C T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

127

A second or first century BCE epitaph begins, "No marriage, but be trothal to Hades." Funerary inscripdons of a less literary and more popular nature also mirror Seila's lament. An inscription from Syros, for example, reads, " . . . having taken my fill neither of my dear parents nor of my friends but of the bitter couch of Hades that is now upon me." Even Seila's regret that she has "not used the sweet-smelling ointment" is parallelled by a second century CE inscripdon from Gyrene: "Alas for your ashes . . . they fell alike on wedding-robes, on wedding garlands not steeped in unguents . . . Alas, wedding-song that is loud with lamentation. . . ." Seila concluded her lament with a plea to the trees and beasts to lament her virginity, "for my years have been cut oflf." Similar is an inscription from Larisa from the second to sixth centuries CE, I, Leonto, died a maiden, like a young flower when it bursts its bud and first shows its petals fifteen years old, just ready to be joined in wedlock, I have come to lie among the dead in a long sleep.

Even Greek folk songs associated death with marriage: "yesterday was my wedding-day, late last night I married./Hades is my husband, the tombstone my mother-in-law." This preponderance of parallels between the situation of Seila and tragic figures such as Iphigenia, between the image of death as marriage in LAB 40 and Greek tragedy, funerary epigrams, funerary inscriptions, even folk songs, and between specific details, such as the lament over not using oils and over years cut off, oflfer substantial grounds for Alexiou's and Dronke's "certainty that the pseudo-Philo knew a Greek tradition of laments for girls who had died young, in which the elegiac language was deeply imbued with the language of epithalamia."^^ This evidence from another context altogether lends considerable credibility to the conclusion that Pseudo-Philo was by no means imper vious to Greco-Roman traditions and culture. Although the scriptures place no lament in the mouth of Jephthah's daughter, Pseudo-Philo does. Alexiou and Dronke have substantiated that, set in the context of Seila's tragic situation, the materials of this lament, including the metaphor of Sheol as bridal chamber, as well as the emotional style and discrete images of the lament, would have suggested to PseudoPhilo's readers that here was a tragic figure, like Iphigenia, who had " "Lament," 851.

128

AN ECLECTIC ERA

her life snatched in its prime for polidcal expediency. Here was a young girl, like so many, who died before she could lie on the marriage bed; thus Hades became her bridal chamber. Seila's lament also illuminates Pseudo-Philo's portrayal of the spirit because the sorts of tradidon they incorporate are similar. The tradi tions embodied by both are longstanding Greek ones: Plato and Delphi provided the primary sources of Greco-Roman views of inspiration, just as the literary Greek dramas provided the headwaters of the lament tradition for girls who died young. The traditions of both Seila's lament and Kenaz's vision, moreover, were not solely literary but popular: Cicero, Plutarch, Vergil et al., quite apart from Philo and Josephus, popularized Greco-Roman interpretations of Plato and Delphi, while laments for young girls appeared in a variety of con texts, including funerary epigrams, funerary inscriptions, and folk songs. It is difficult to imagine that Pseudo-Philo's readers would have failed to interpret Seila's lament and Kenaz's vision (perhaps ako the pro phetic experiences of Joshua and Saul) through the perspective of Greco-Roman perceptions. It is, further, difficult to imagine that Pseudo-Philo, who composed these lengthy extra-biblical portions, would have included them if he had been intransigendy resistant to Greco-Roman influences, since the portrayals of the spirit and Seila in Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum evoke so powerfully these Greco-Roman traditions.

Summary A strikingly consistent exegetical method has emerged from these analyses of Pseudo-Philo's descriptions of inspired experiences. PseudoPhilo follows the order of the biblical narrative, interpreting primary texts in sequence: Deut 34:9 (Joshua in LAB 20); Jdg 3:9~11 (Kenaz in LAB 25-28); and 1 Sam 19:20-24 (Saul in LAB 62). Pseudo-Philo tends to supplement these primary texts with elements from other biblical texts in a manner which renders to those imported texts a fundamental role in his own version of bibhcal stories. (1) He imports to Deut 34:9 (LAB 20:2) the metaphor of clothing from Jdg 6:34, as well as the phrase, "into another person" from 1 Sam 10:6. (2) He creates in part the substance of Saul's prophecy, which has no content in 1 Sam 19:23, by garnering elements from other portions of Saul's life, such as the question "whom do you pursue" from M T

T H E SPIRIT A N D

PROPHETIC

TRANSFORMATION

129

1 Sam 24:15, the description of Saul's pursuit of David as "in vain" from Jonathan's words to Saul in 1 Sam 19:5, and the simultaneous death of Saul and his son(s) from 1 Sam 31:6 (LAB 62:2). (3) He embellishes the life of Kenaz by attributing to him a vision which, like Ezekiel's, transpired amongst the elders (Ezek 8:1) when the holy spirit leapt upon him {insiluit; r^KTl) in a manner reminiscent of Saul (1 Samuel 10-11). Further details of the content of Kenaz's vision and the condition in which Kenaz was inspired, from which he was awakened, are compatible with many other early Jewish expansions of the experiences of Israelite ancestors, such as Adam, Enoch, and Abraham. Pseudo-Philo's exegetical method contains another ingredient; he incorporates extra-biblical Greco-Roman conceptions within this com bination of primary and secondary biblical texts. The effect of the spirit upon Joshua was to cause his spirit to be inflamed and agitated. Kenaz's mind ascended to range the past, present, and future, after the spirit leapt upon him and inhabited him. His mind accomplished this when he was in a sleepnlike state from which he had to be awak ened. After awakening, Kenaz was unable to remember what he had seen in this prophetic vision, even as Saul, in LAB 62:2, could not recall what he had prophesied. Some of these extra-biblical elements are similar to elements in other early Jewish writings, such as the placement of Kenaz's vision prior to death, the sleep-like state from which Kenaz was awakened, even the elevation of Kenaz's mind without his body. However, these elements can be identified in Early Judaism only in disparate contexts in a variety of literary texts. In marked contrast, these extra-biblical elements are found together and in remarkable concurrence only in Greco-Roman descriptions of prophetic inspiration. Further, the other extra-biblical elements for which early Jewish counterparts cannot be identified are counted among the primary, essential characteristics of prophetic inspiration in Cicero's De dimnatione and Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum. These include the combined leaping and inhabiting of the spirit to cause Kenaz's mind to ascend and the inflammation and agitation of Joshua's mind. These observations suggest that the form of Judaism with which Pseudo-Philo's conception of prophetic inspiration shares so much was influenced by its Greco-Roman milieu, for the extra-biblical ele ments that do not exhibit strong correspondences to other early Jewish literary works can be traced easily to Greco-Roman discussions of

130

A N ECLECTIC

ERA

inspiration. Indeed, with but one exception, extra-bibhcal additions in PsmdoPhilo's interpretation of the spirit's effects t^ton Joshua and Kenaz occur leather in unified discussions of prophetic inspiration in Cicero's De divinadone and Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum: the inflammadon and agitadon of Joshua; Kenaz's impending death; the leaping cmd inhabidng of the spirit in Kenaz; the elevadon of Kenaz's sensus by this recepdon of the spirit; and Kenaz's sleep-like state. The extra-biblical detail which cannot be traced to Cicero's De diomatione and Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum—the inability to recall one's prophetic ejq^erience—lies aloi^ a Platonic trajectory. John Cassian, Pseudojustinus, and the author of the prologue to the Sibylline Oracles attributed this point of view to Plato, and one adherent of this view was the Roman statesman, Aelius Aristides. This detail, then, is also an indication of the impact of Pseudo-Philo's Greco-Roman milieu upon his interpretation of Israelite history.

CHAPTER SIX

THE SPIRIT AND PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSFORMATION: DIASPORA PERSPECTIVES

Although Philo and Josephus assimilate Greco-Roman culture more pervasively and explicidy than Pseudo-Philo, although their versions of the biblical text are nuanced by Greco-Roman conceptions and peppered with allusions and references to Greek and Roman literary texts, although Philo and Josephus write in Greek rather than Hebrew, they also exhibit throughout their writings an awareness of the limits of Greco-Roman culture and an unwillingness finally to accept that culture uncridcally. Both authors bend adventurously over the preci pice which divided Early Judaism from Rome, appearing to adopt wholeheartedly the concepdons and vocabulary of their Greco-Roman era, with the result that the spirit of their biblical tradidon appears to blend into the landscape of first century Greco-Roman culture. This uncridcal assimilation is, however, only apparent. On closer scrudny, the spirit is integral to Philo Judaeus' subtle but certain critique of that culture, while the appearance of the spirit in Josephus' Antiquities serves exquisitely his own program of rebutting the antiJewish chaise of misanthropy.

Josephus and Jewish PhiUmdiropy Exegetical Movements Josephus justifiably responds often to the anti-Jewish charge of mis anthropy. Hecataeus of Abdera, writing approximately 300 BCE, and Aelius Aristides, during the second century CE, for instance, depicted the Jews as unsocial (cxTtdvOpciwov) and hostile to foreigners (nioo^evov),'

' See Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 125-49; also P. Spilsbury, Contra Apionem and Antiqtdtates Judakat. Points of Contact," in Josephus' Contra Apiomm: Studies in its Character arui Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levison (AGAJU 34; Leiden/New York/Koln: Brill, 1996) 356-59.

132

A N ECLECTIC ERA

while Apion, according to Josephus, accused the Jews of taking "an imaginary oath . . . to show no goodwill to a single alien, above all to Greeks" {CA 2.121-24). This libel had its more particular and vivid manifestadons in specific libels about the temple. The and Jewish Ubel that the Jews annually sacrificed a gentile in the temple, for exam ple, provides a signal illustration of alleged Jewish misanthropy {CA 2.89-111). The care Josephus exercises to dispel such a libel as this, as well as his detailed refutation of the libel that the temple contained an ass's head,^ reflect his commitment to present the temple in the most positive light possible. He cannot therefore bypass the account of its dedication. Josephus is nonetheless aware that he confronts here a biblical text with the potential to bolster the charge of Jewish misan thropy because of its implication that God dwells in the temple. He must discern a way both to aflRrm God's presence in the temple and to avoid oflfending the sensibilities of the Romans, who were respon sible for the temple's destruction in 70 C E and under whose patron age he now writes the Antiquities. Josephus accomplishes this program in the first place by raising doubt about the conviction that God dwelt in the temple in Ant. 8.102 with the words, "according to human befief:" ". . . this was a sign of God's being present and dwelling—according to human belief—in the place which had been newly built and consecrated to him" {Ant. 8.102). Josephus also exercises creative exegesis by removing aU traces of exclusivism from Solomon's prayer, particularly references to war and enemies in 1 Kgs 8:44-51, and by fanning the spark of the positive reference to foreigners in 1 Kgs 8:43 into a flame, at the prayer's conclusion: "For so would all know that Thou Thyself didst desire that this house should be built for Thee in our land, and also that we are not inhumane by nature nor unfriendly to those who are not of our country, but wish that all equally should receive aid from Thee and enjoy Thy blessings" {Ant. 8.117). The significance of a reference to the spirit in this explicidy apo logetic context cannot be overestimated because Josephus' tendency ' CA 2.80-88, 112-20. This libel circulated in no less than three versions, on which see the following discussions in Feldman and Levison, Josefdms' Contra Afnonem: B. Bar-Kochva, "An Ass in the Jerusalem Temple—The Origins and Develc^mcnt of the Slander," 310-326; R. Bauckham, "Josephus' Account of the Temple in Q^a Afrionm 2.102-109," 327-47; and J.-W. van Henten and R. Abusch, "The Jews as Typhonians and Josephus' Strategy of Refutation in Conta Apionem" 284-88.

T H E SPIRIT A N D PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSFORMATION

133

is to omit references to the spirit. Abandoning this tendency, Josephus sandwiches between Solomon's reference to the promise of heirs (ArU. 8.113 = 1 Kgs 8:24-26) and the question of whether God lives on the earth {Ant. 8.114b = 1 Kgs 8:27) a request for a portion of the spirit: "Beside these things I entreat Thee also to send some portion of Thy spirit to dwell in the temple, that Thou mayest seem to us to be on earth as well."^ Josephus subsequendy records, in a paraphrase of 2 Chron 7:1, that " . . . a fire darted out of the air and, in the sight of all the people, leaped uf>on the altar and, seizing on the sacrifice, consumed it all."* That request, this response, and their context in Josephus' version of the dedication of the temple are permeated by Stoic hues. Otherwise

TTie Relevant Stoic Milieu

Josephus' tendency to adopt Stoic conceptions and vocabulary^ explains in general his wilHngness to employ them to transform the dedica tion of the temple from fodder for the charge of misanthropy into an exemplar of Jewish philanthropy. The Stoic conception of jcvevna, in particular, provides a window of opportunity which, in a context re plete with Stoic conceptions, Josephus gladly opens in Ant. 8.114. These Stoic conceptions encompass epistemology, theology, and cosmology. Josephus employs foundational elements of Stoic epistemology to recast the priests' response to the dark cloud which filled the temple. 1 Kgs 8:10-11 states vaguely that the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud: "And when the priests came out of the holy place, a cloud filled the house of the LORD, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD." Josephus modifies this description of the cloud: ". . . and it produced in the minds of all of them an impression and belief that God had descended into the temple and had gladly made His abode there" {Ant. 8.106). This descrif>tion contains two related Stoic concepts, "impression" (cpavTaoia) and "opinion" (66^0), which Josephus incorporates in order to undermine the view that God began then to dwell in the temple. * Ant. 8.114a. Greek, npbq 8fe TOUTOK; iKExevo) ical jioipdv tiva xov oov K v e u n a t o q tic, tov vaov dxoiKioai, ax; av Kal o t l yn^ fmiv etvai SoKfiq. * Ant. 8.118. Greek, iriip yap depoq 5ia5pa^6v Kal navtcov 6fm/xm hX xov ^CIHIOV ^tfyiyf aitaoav tfiv duotav dviipxaoe Kal KaxeSaiooxo. * For examples and bibliogrj^hy, see my "Josephus' Interpretation," 241 n. 34.

134

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

The conception of "impression" is foundational to Stoicism. Dio genes Laertius, quoting Diodes the Magnesian, writes, "The Stoics agree to put in the forefront the doctrine of presentation [(pavtaaia] and sensation, inasmuch as the standard by which the truth of things is tested is generically a presentation. . . . For presentation comes first; then thought..." (7.49; see 7.54).^ Integrally related to the concept, impression, is opinion, which, according to the Stoics, is always false.' Sextus Empiricus notes that the Stoics distinguish between knowl edge, opinion, and apprehension: ". . . knowledge is the unerring and firm apprehension which is unalterable by reason, and opinion is weak and false assent, and apprehension is intermediate between the t w o . . . of these, knowledge subsists only in the wise, and opinion only in the fools, but apprehension is shared alike by both, and it is the criterion of truth" (Adversus mathematicos 7.151). Sextus Empiricus' explanation indicates that impression (i.e., apprehension) can be mis construed and, when it is misapprehended, the result is an opinion, which is always false.^ l l i e effect ofJc«ephus' incorporation of the Stoic concepts of impres sion and (false) opinion is to c o u n t e r a c t the view that God dwells in the temple and thereby to avoid the charge of misanthropy. The priests received an impression of the dark cloud and misconstrued its meaning, arriving at the false opinion "that God had descended into the temple and had gladly made His abode there." Josephus invalidates this interpretation of the impression, (jKxvtaoia, not only by describ ing it as a false opinion, 66^a, but also by contrasting this false opinion with Solomon's claim that the purpose of the temple is more modest:

* Sextus Empiricus Adversus rruitherrmtUos 7.227 (= Adversus dogmatkos 1.227) writes: "These [Stoics], then, assert that the criterion of truth is the apprehensive presen tation [riiv KatoXnittiicfiv <pavTaoiav]." He (7.426 = Adversus dogmaHcos 1.426) defines it as "That which is imprinted and impressed by a real object.. ." Aedus (4.12.2) agrees that an impression "is an affecdon occurring in the soul, which reveals itself and its cause." (Quotation from A. A. Long and D. N. Sedlcy, The Hellenistic HtHosophers, 2 vols. [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987] 1.237; see texts and notes on Stoic epistemology in 2.238-59.) Cicero {Academica 1.40) summarizes the changes Zcno made in logic, the first of which concerns impression. ' Long and Sedley, Hellenistic Philosophers, 1.258. ' Plutarch, in De Stoicorum repugrumtds 1056E-F, parallels three negadve terms, induding opining, in his discussion of inconsistent or contradictory impressions: Kponmrovtou;, 6layeu8o^l£vov<;, and So^tiCovtec;. According to Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes 4.14, and Galen, De pladtis Hippoaatis et HaUmis 4.2.1-6 {Claudd Galeni Opera Omnia, cd. G. Kiihn [Hildesheim: Gcorg Olms, 1965; orig. ed. 1827]) physical disorders can be caused by opinion and false judgment.

™ SPIRIT AND FHILOSOFHICAL TKANSFORMATION

135

to sacrifice, seek good omens, and send up prayers, in order to be persuaded that God is present and not distant {AnL 8.108). Solomon's prayer, offered in response to the cloud's presence and the priests' false opinion about its implications, is also permeated by Stoic concepdons. Solomon's assertion that God dwells in all the crea tion, "through all of which Thou movest" (8.107), encapsidates Stoic conceptions of God and nature. Alexander of Aphrodisias describes God as the source of av\maQeia, a central Stoic concept,^ and Cicero's Balbus claims "that the element which holds all things in its embrace is pre-eminendy and perfectly rational, and therefore that the world is god, and all the forces of the world are held together by the divine nature.'"" Solomon also depicts God in this context as exemplifying the Stoic ideal of living without need" as "in need of nothing" (dicpoo8e€^ yap TO Oeiov anavxm; Ant. 8.111). Even the denial of God's need for a temple {Ant. 8.114), though contained in the biblical version, represents a cornerstone of Stoic theology. Plutarch,'^ Clement of Alexandria,'^ Origen,'"* and Epiphanius'^ concur in citing Zeno's asser tion that God needs no temple.'^ In a context rife with Stoic conceptions, it would not be incautious to infer that the spirit ought to be interpreted from the perspective of Stoicism. The primary function of nvev^ia, according to Stoicism, to unify the cosmos, accords singularly with Josephus' revision of 1 Kings 8.'^ Balbus, in Cicero's Nat. Deor. 2.19, claims that the world order is "maintained in unison by a single divine and all-pervading spirit." Alexander of Aphrodisias summarizes Chrysippus' theory of mixture: " . . . he assumes that the whole material world is unified by a pneuma which wholly pervades it and by which the universe is made coherent and kept together and is made intercommunicating."'® ' See De mixttone 227, lines 8 10, in Commentaria in AristoUUm Graeca Supplrmenturn

2.2, ed. I. Bruns (Berolini: Georg Reimer, 1887). '° Nat. Deor. 2.30. For Cicero's rebuttal, see 3.20, 40. See also Diogenes Laertius 7.143. " See for example Seneca, E^tulae morales 4; Plutarch, Comparison of Aristides with Marcus Cato 4; and De Stoicorum repugnantiis 1052D. De Stoicorum repugnantiis 1034B. " Stromata 5.12.76. Contra Celsum 1.5. Acbersus haereses 3.36. See also Lactantius, who quotes Seneca in Divirme institudones 6.25. On the rational and divine nature of the spirit, see Hotinus, Ermead 4.7.4 and Lactantius, Diviruu institutiones 1; De falsa reli^om 5. De mixtione 216, lines 14-17. Greek, riv&oOai ^ev imoriOetai TTIV ovjiJiaoav owjiav.

136

A N ECLECTIC ERA

This impression that the spirit in this context ought to be under stood along Stoic lines is borne out by Josephus' modificadon of 2 Chron 7:1. According to the scriptural version, fire came down from heaven and consumed the sacrifices. Josephus elsewhere reveals no misgivings about reproducing such an image, for slighdy later in the Antiquities he describes how "fire fell from heaven and consumed die altar" of Elijah's sacrifice {Ant. 8.342). However, in Ant. 8.118, throughout which Stoic concepts predominate, he writes instead that " . . . a fire darted out of the air and, in the sight of all the people, leaped upon the altar and, seizing on the sacrifice, consumed it all" {Ant. 8.118). This exegetical movement confirms the fulfillment of Solomon's prayer in the Antiquities by employing the language of Stoicism. Solomon prayed for a pordon of the spirit, and now a mixture of fire and air consumes the sacrifice. In Stoic cosmology, fire and air are the components of itvevna. Galen, while objecting to Chrysippus, describes the two parts of the T c v e t i n a which constitute the soul's commanding faculty as air and fire,'^ and Alexander of Aphrodisias asks, in his argument against the Stoics, "Moreover, if breath composed of fire and air passes through all bodies. . ."^ This introduction of a request for the spirit in a context perme ated by Stoic epistemology and theology, as well as a fulfillment of that request in Stoic terms as the appearance of fire from air, con stitutes an apologetic maneuver of remarkable proportions. By incorpo rating the pervasive Stoic Jcvd)^la, the cause of cosmic ov^jtaGeia, alongside key ingredients of Stoic epistemology and theology, while simultaneously removing all traces of Jewish exclusivism and adding

KvevfiaToq tivo^ 6ia Kaar\<; ai)xr\<; 5iT|Kovtoq, inp' ovv^etai t e ical t^ to KOV. In De mixtione 223, lines 6-9, he asks whether the Stoics are not wrong when they affirm "that the whole nature is united by a pneuma pervad ing all of it, and by which the universe is being held and kept together and is in sympathy with itself?" (Quotations from S. Sambursky, I^sics of the Stoics, 120-21.). See Cleomedes, De motii circulari 1.1 [Cleomniis: de motu drcutari corporum caetestium, ed. H. Ziegler [Leipzig: Teubner, 1891] 8), lines 16-22. Origen {Contra Celsum 6.71) distinguishes the Chnstian divine spirit from the Stoic, "which has permeated aU things and contains all things within itself" " De pladtis Hippocrates et Ptatonis 5.3.8. ^ De nwctioru 224, lines 15-16. Quotation from Long and Sedley, Hellenistic Pkibsophers, 1.282. Sec also 225, lines 14-16; De anima 26.6. See also Plutarch who, in a complex attempt to discredit the Stoics, says that, according to their view of mixture, earth and water maintain their unity "by virtue of their participation in a pneumatic and fiery power, whereas air and fire because of their intensity are self-sustaining..." {De communilms notitHs adversus ^oicos 1085D).

T H E SPIRIT A N D PHILOSOPHICAL T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

137

a conclusion which explicitly states that the Jews "wish that all equally should receive aid from Thee and enjoy Thy blessings" {Ant. 8.116), Josephus transforms the potentially exclusivistic biblical version of the dedication of the temple into an affirmation both of the temple's in tegral relationship to the entire cosmos and the Jews' philanthropic nature.^' The introduction of the spirit into the dedication of the tem ple, therefore, expresses in narrative form what Josephus encapsulates in his explicidy apologetic treatise. Contra Apionem: "We have but one temple for the one G o d . . . common to all as God is common to all [icoivoq dicavxcov KOIVOV 6eo\> dwavtcov]" (2.193).

f^ilo Judaeus arui the Ascent of the Mind Exegetical Movements Philo's descriptions of the mind's ascent contain a swirling coalescence of Platonic allusions, biblical elements, and systematic alimentation. The association of the mind with the spirit in Plant. 18-26 and Gig. 19-55 is unusual for Philo, who more typically describes the ascent of the mind without reference to the spirit, whether that ascent leads to the heavenly world of sun and stars^ or beyond this heavenly world to the outer arc of heaven and the world of ideas.^^ Philo's ability elsewhere to trace the ascent of the mind without recourse to the spirit suggests that the association of the spirit with the ascent of the mind in Plant. 18-26 and Gig. 19-55 is purposeful. These references to the spirit are in fact integral to a sophisticated polemical strategy by which Philo adopts Greco-Roman conceptions of ascent while simultaneously seriously calling them into question. Before turning to the sources of the spirit in Philo's exegetical analy ses, it is important to sense the levels of exegetical urgency that compel him to introduce references to the spirit. The issue which " Josephus reinforces this view by means of a literary parallel between the priests' response to the cloud {Anl. 8.106-07) and the people's response to the sacrifice. As the priests supposed that God dwelt in the temple, so the people interpreted this miracle as " . . . a sign that God would thereafter dwell in the temple." In both cases, Solomon proposed a more modest interpretation of the miracle. He now urged the people to worship since they "had tokens of God's goodwill toward them, and to pray that such would be His treatment of them a l w a y s . . . " {Ant. 8.118-19).

" E.g.,

Z/g. 1.37, 207; From. 121-22.

" Opif. 69-71; MuL 179-80; Pram. 30; Gaius 5.

138

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

compels Philo to introduce the spirit is less exegedcal than autobio graphical: the inevitable downward pressure of human cares inhibits the ascent of the mind. Sdll, Philo tethers his depictions of the spirit in Plant. 18-26 and Gig. 19-55 to biblical anchors of varying density. Plant. 18-26 The content of Plant. 18-26 encompasses the entire cosmos although it is rooted in Gen 9:20, a biblical text with a more limited perspective: "Noah began to be a husbandman tilling the ground, and he planted a vineyard." The exegetical leap from the ground to the universe re quires of Philo that he identify God as the greatest planter and "this World" as "a plant" (2). Such an interpretation of this simple text is hardly due to straightforward inference. It arises rather from intro ducing "an old saying" into his discussion of Gen 9:20, that a human being is "a plant not earthly but heavenly" [Plant. 17). This "old say ing" comprises a reference to Plato's Ttmaeus 90A. It is, then, Plato's Timaeus more than Gen 9:20 that permits Philo to transfer the discussion from Noah as tiller in his garden to human kind as star-gazers in the "field of the universe" {Plant, 28). Philo ob serves that plants and irrational animals are fashioned analogously with their roots and heads downward. Humans alone gaze upward: "But the build allotted to humans was distinguished above that of other living creatures. For by turning the eyes of the others down wards He made them incline to the earth beneath them. The eyes of humans, on the contrary. He set high up that they might gaze on heaven, for a human, as the old saying says, is a plant not earthly but heavenly" (17). It is not so much the uncomplicated text of Gen 9:20 as the Platonic depiction of human beings as a heavenly plant, therefore, which creates the opportunity for Philo's discussion of the mind's ascent in Plant. 18-26. Philo introduces two references to the divine spirit into this con text. In the first, he describes the natwre of the divine spirit: ".. . our great Moses likened the fashion of the reasonable soul to no created thing, but averred it to be a genuine coinage of that dread Spirit, the Divine and invisible One, signed and impressed by the seal of God, the stamp of which is the Eternal Word."^* In the second, he

^* Plant. 18. Greek, 6 ^ ^fiYcu; Mannrtv; ovSevi T&V YEyovdtcsv hrfvux^ yvx'K "^^ elSo^ oHioicooev, dXX" elitev aimiv TOV Oeiou icai dopdwu nvev|iato^ eicEivou 56ic^iov etvai vdniojux

THE

SPIRIT A N D

PHILOSOPHIGAI. TRANSFORMATION

139

describes die Junction of die spirit in the mind's ascent: ". . . it is strange if a light substance like the mind is not rendered buoyant by the nadve force of the Divine spirit, overcoming as it does in its bound less might all powers that are here below."^^ Integral to Philo's discussion of the ascent of the mind, then, are two elements Philo imports into his interpretation of Gen 9:20. The first is the "old saying" from Timaeus 90A which permits the readers to discern that the topic of discussion is less Noah in his field than human beings in the field of the universe. The second element is the divine spirit understood as a force fundamental to the ascent of the human mind through the universe. The exegetical movement of importing these items into his interpretation of Gen 9:20 provides Philo with a foundation for what will prove to be a subde yet sub stantial critique of Greco-Roman conceptions of the inspired ascent of the mind. Gig. 19-55 The altogether different content of G^. 19-55 consists of a lengthy interpretation of the story of the giants in Genesis 6. Although the reference to the spirit in this discussion is more firmly rooted in the biblical text than are the references in Plant. 18 and 24, the exegeti cal movements required in preparation for this reference constitute a spiral of sorts, each loop moving farther and farther from its biblical point of origin. The fundamental exegetical movement Philo undertakes is to dem onstrate "that souls and demons and angels are but different names for the same one underlying object" (Gig. 16). Just as a non-biblical conception from Plato's Ttmaeus 90A proved essential to his interpre tation of Gen 9:20, so now the non-biblical Greco-Roman identifica tion of daemons with souls proves essential to Philo's interpretation of Gen 6:2-3. Philo is able to assume the identification of biblical angels with what "other philosophers call daemons (or spirits)..." (Gig. 6). He assumes as well that these daemons are "souls that is which fly and hover in the air" (Gig. 6), and he further identifies these souls with stars, for "the stars are souls divine and without blemish throughout" (Gig. 8).

^* Plant. 24. Greek, rji bt xov Oeiou nvevjuxto^ Kal Jidvxa SuvatoO Kal t a KOCCQ} VIKWVTO^ i|>uoei K(M^K)v 6 vov^ &v ouK EffcXa^pi^etai Kal np6(; JITIKICTTOV vyo^ i^iptxax.

140

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

This identification permits Philo the opportunity to discuss the three sorts of souls he delineates frequendy in his wridngs: those which are pure and free from the flesh, which "have never deigned to be brought into union with any of the parts of the earth;" those which escape and become free from the flesh, that is, "the souls of those who have given themselves to genuine philosophy;" and those which remain entangled in the flesh, "souls which have sunk beneath the stream . .." {Gig. 13-15).» This division of souls allows Philo further opjx»rtunity to loop away from the literal interpretadon of Gen 6:3. The angels of Gen 6:1-4, understood from the perspective of this three-fold classification of souls, represent the incorrigible class of people among whom the spirit cannot dwell: "Among such as these then it is impossible that the spirit of God should dwell and make for ever its habitation, as also the Law giver himself shows clearly. For (so it runs) 'the Lord God said. My spirit shall not abide for ever among people, because they are flesh.'"^' According to Philo, then, the eflfect of this spirit is not life itself, which is apportioned equally to the entirety of humankind for only ^ An illustration of the kind of disdnction that allows Philo to identify stars, demons, and souls with one another and then to distinguish between the three classes of them is not difficult to locate. We may recall the myth of Timarchus, who entered into a crypt and received a vision of the cosmos. In the course of this vision, Timarchus observes the movement of the universe, including sun, moon, and stars. His guiding daemon explains that Timarchus is observing some souls which are able to ascend to the moon (which belongs to terrestrial daemons) and be rescued from the cycle of rebirth, as well as other souls which are forbidden by the moon to approach and thus must descend into the cycle of rebirth. After identifying these as daemons {Gen. Socr. 59ID), the guiding daemon proceeds to describe three classes of daemons. First, the stars which are extinguished are souls that have sunk entirely into their body and become distracted by their passions. Second, the stars which arc lit again, reappearing from below, represent souls which are freeing themselves from the body and participating once again with understanding, which is like a buoy that keeps the soul from being entirely submerged in the body. Third, "the stars that move about on high are the daemons of persons said to 'posses understanding'" {Gen. Socr. 591F; Greek, oi 5e avca Sia<|>ep6|ievoi 5a{(iove^ eioi xm/ vouv Ix^tv Xeyo^evtov dvOpoMceyv). This explanation corresponds to Philo's discussion, both with re^)ect to the identi fication of stars with daemons and with re;^X!Ct to the classification of souls. Based upon the identification of angels with daemons and souls, Fhilo attempts to persuade his readers that both good and bad angels exist {Gig. 16) and that they can be distinguished on the basis of the extent to which they participate in or avoid the irrational life of the flesh. The "angels of God" which PhUo discerns in Gen 6:2 are evil angels who occupy themselves with physical pleasures, such as sight, heating, food, and sex. " Gig. 19 20. Greek, Ev Sfj toiq TOIOVTOK; dnT^X«vov t o toti 6tou Katajieivai KAI Siaitoviooi itvevna, atq 8r(k6i KAI a u t o ^ 6 vofioOern^. "eijic" ydp ^n^oi "KUpio^ 6 de6q- orb KATA^evei t o icvev^d ^ov ev toi^ dv6p
T H E SPIRIT A N D PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSFORMATION

141

120 years, as in the biblical context. Philo interprets the spirit in quite another way to mean, not the breath which all possess, but the spirit which infrequently grants a vision of God to the mass of humankind: The spirit sometimes stays awhile, but it does not abide for ever among us, the mass of humans. Who indeed is so lacking in reason or soul that he never either with or without his will receives a conception of the best? Nay, even over the reprobate hovers often a sudden vision of the excellent, but to grasp it and keep it for their own they have not the strength. In a moment it is gone... To elucidate further the nature of this spirit which cannot remain with human beings, Philo turns to Exod 31:3, according to which God called up Bezalel and "filled him with the divine spirit, with wisdom, understanding, and knowledge to devise in every good work." Philo is satisfied that "in these words we have suggested to us a definition of what the divine spirit of God is" {G^. 23). This definition, however, does not ultimately satisfy Philo, who moves exegetically from Exod 31:3 to Num 11:17: "I will take of the spirit that is on thee and lay it upon the seventy elders." God must do this because the seventy elders "cannot be in real truth even elders, if they have not received a portion of that spirit of perfect wisdom" {Gig. 24). With these exegetical movements from Gen 6:3 to Exod 31:3 to Num 11:17, Philo succeeds in further clarifying that the divine spirit is characterized essentially as wisdom. The lesson Philo finally draws from Numbers 11 is that this spirit does not diminish when it is imparted from Moses to the seventy elders. On the contrary, it crescendoes and matures in a way analo gous to knowledge when it is imparted to disciples, bringing about "the perfect consummation of knowledge" {Gig. 26).^ On the basis of G^. 2 0 - 2 1 . Greek, n^ei \ib/ yap cotiv ore, icata^evei 5" oix eiodnov xapd toi^ xoXkolq tifiiv. t i ^ yhp otho)^ SAoyoq f\ &yf\)x6<; iaxw, oj^ ^r|5licote Iwouxv tow dipurcov nr^' kxiav liVix' &Km Xo^iv; dXXd tap ical toiq ^^oyiotoi^ ixxxoftazai xoXXdcKt^ aitpviSiog f) tov mXov «pavta
142

AN ECLECTIC ERA

Numbers 11, inteqjreted in association with Gen 6:3 and Exod 31:3, Philo's quest for definidon comes to fruition: If, then, it were Mc^s' own spirit, or the spirit of some other created being, which was according to God's purpose to be distributed to that great number of disciples, it would indeed be shredded into many pieces and thus lessened. But as it is, the spirit which is on him is the wise, the divine, the excellent spirit, susceptible of neither severance nor division, diffused in its fullness everywhere and through all things, the spirit which helps, but suffers no hurt, which though it be shared with others or added to others suffers no diminution in understanding and knowledge and wisdom. And so though the divine spirit may stay awhile in the soul it cannot abide there, as we have said.* Sumrruuy Philo's references to the spirit in Pbnt. 18~26 and Gig. 19-55 are strik ingly different. In Plant. 18~26, the spirit is introduced into a discussion of the "field of the universe," which is rooted tenuously in a descrip tion of Noah's farming in Gren 9:20 that has nothing whatsoever to do with the spirit. Exegetical necessity by no means compels Philo to introduce two explicit discussions of the spirit in PUmt. 18-26. In Gig. 19-55, in contrast, it is precisely Gen 6:3 which requires explanation. Here too, however, Philo departs markedly from the clear intent of the biblical text, according to which the possession of breath consti tutes physical life. Philo's exegetical method consists of successive interpretative loops that move incrementally from Gen 6:3 to Ebcodus 31 and then lo Numbers 11. The result is an interpretation of the spirit as the source of the vision of God which comes infrequendy to the majority of humankind. Neither of Philo's interpretations exhibits substantial affinities with its biblical point of departure. Rather, in contexts that depict the ascent of the mind, Philo's references to the spirit depart sharply from the apparent meaning of the biblical text—by means of a sin^e interpretative leap in Plant. 18-26 and successive interpretative loops in Gig. 19-55.

^ Gig. 26^28. Greek, ei jiev ouv to i5iov avtoti Mcsuo^ox; nveviia tivoq aXXov Yevntou xXridei Yvci>p{n
T H E SPIRIT A N D P H I L O S O P H I C A L T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

143

Relevant Milieux TTie Sapiential Tradition The emphasis Philo places upon wisdom in Gig. 27 tediers it to the biblical sapiendal tradidon. Philo alters Exod 31:3 by reversing the references to the deity and the wisdom of the divine spirit. Whereas the LXX reads, "the divine spirit of wisdom" (jcvedna Oeiov ao
144

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

And die glory of the Most High shall burst forth upon him. And the spirit of understanding and sanctificadon shall rest upon him . . . (TLevi 18:7). Philo's interest in the spirit of wisdom shares litde with these depic dons of an eschatological deliverer figure. If therefore he is indebted to Isa 11:2, he takes this text in a direction different from these other early Jewish authors by universalizing and contemporizing the potential of the spirit. The divine spirit of Gen 6:3 for Philo is that which offers in the present rather than the eschatological future "a sudden vision of the excellent" which cannot be grasped, for "in a moment it is gone . . ." {Gig. 20-21). Philo also modifies Exod 31:3, which says that the divine spirit filled Bezalel (as does Philo's version of Exod 31:3 in Gig. 23). In this detailed definition Philo instead writes that the divine spirit fills, not this individual, but the entire cosmos. The universal presence of the divine spirit can arguably be traced to biblical texts such as Ps 139:7, in which the Psalmist asks, "Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence?" Philo's vocabulary, however, is of an altogether different quality from Exod 31:3, Numbers 11, or even Psalm 139, for Philo, drawing cosmological inferences fJ*om the nature of the spirit, describes the divine spirit as "susceptible of neither severance nor division, diffiised in its fullness everywhere and through all things..." {Gig. 27). If therefore Philo's definition has a foothold in biblical conceptions of the spirit, it is a tenuous one, for his exege tical reach extends precariously beyond such notions as indwelling, prophesying, and living within God's ubiquitous presence. Stoicism and the Sapiential Tradition Philo is more likely treading the ground of Alexandrian wisdom tradi tions when, on the basis of Exod 31:3, he defines the spirit both as the origin of wisdom and as a cosmic presence which unifies the created world. Philo's Gig. 23 and the Wisdom of Solomon, written by an Alexandrian contemporary or predecessor of Philo, exhibit very similar characteristics in their descriptions of the divine spirit. In the Wisdom of Solomon, the alleged author of the book, Solomon, refers to the spirit of wisdom: "Therefore I prayed, and understanding was given to me; I called on God, and the spirit of wisdom came to me" (7:7). Another prayer of Solomon exhibits a similar association of wisdom with the spirit: "Who has learned your counsel, unless you

T H E SPIRIT A N D PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSFORMATION

145

have given wisdom, and sent your holy spirit from on high" (9:17).^' Although this affinity is hardly unique, the further attribudon of cosmic unity to the divine spirit draws Philo and the pseudonymous author of the Wisdom of Solomon into the same conceptual orbit of a sapiendal tradidon permeated by Stoicism. The first reference to the spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon attributes cosmic qualities to the spirit: "Because the spirit of the Lord has filled the world, and that which holds all things together knows what is said . . ." (1:7).^^ Such an aflRrmation is similar to Philo's belief that the spirit is "diflRjsed in its fullness everywhere and through all things . . ." {Gig. 27). This shared emphasis upon the indissolubility and coherence of the spirit suggests that both authors, like Josephus, have adopted Stoic concepdons of the spirit. In our analysis of Ant. 8.114, we noted the persistence of Chrysippus' view, in which "the whole material world is unified by a spirit [icvdina] which wholly pervades [8if|KotO(;] it and by which the universe is made coherent and kept together and is made intercommunicating [ovjuiaOeq]."^^ The definitions of Philo and the Wisdom of Solomon reveal the influence of the Stoic view that jcvevjia constitutes the cohesive force of the cosmos.^ Despite the presence of these Stoic characteristics in this definition, Philo does not adopt a Stoic interpretation of the nveiina uncritically. Although he earlier quoted Exod 31:3 to the eflfect that the spirit "filled" (evejcXriaev) Bezalel, he elects in his own subsequent definition {Gig. 27) to adopt the preposition "upon" from Numbers 11 to char acterize the mode of the spirit's presence. In Num 11:17, which he cites, God promises to place the spirit upon {e,nSr\a(a) the elders. In the fulfillment of this promise, which Philo does not cite, the spirit is said to be "upon" Moses (oc' avt^) and then to be placed "upon" the elders {in amovq; Num 11:25). Philo's choice of the preposition, upon, distinguishes his view from popular Stoic conceptions such as " See also TLevi 2:3: "As 1 was tending the flocks in Abel-Maoul a spirit of understanding from the Lord came upon me, and I observed all human beings making their way in life deceitfully." Greek, oti lcvE^)^a icupiov xenXriptoKev tnv oiKovnivriv, KOI to ouvexov t d itdvta yvwoiv cxEi

ipmiiq.

" De tmxtione 216, lines 14-17. This Stoic interpretation characterizes Sibylline Oracles 3.698-701, according to which the future is ascertainable because a single spirit pervades the entire cosmos: "God himself, the great eternal one, told me to prophesy all these things. . . Nor is anything left unaccomplished that he so much as puts in mind, for the spirit of God which knows no falsehood is throughout the worid."

146

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

those held by Lamprias in Plutarch's Def. Orac. 432D-E: "But the prophetic current and breath [jcveiina] is most divine and holy, whether it issue by itself through the air or come in the company of running waters; for when it is instilled into the body, it creates in souls an unaccustomed and unusual temperament." Although Lamprias and Philo might agree that the spirit is divine, Philo does not associate that spirit with physiological phenomena, such as the vapor at Delphi. Nor does Philo's choice of the preposition "upon" suggest any degree of agreement with Lamprias that the spirit, by means of such a vapor, enters the body. Philo's choice of the preposition, up>on, distinguishes as well this interpretation of the spirit's modus vioendi from his own view of pro phetic inspiration. In prophetic inspiration, the mind is "evicted at the arrival of the divine Spirit..." {Her. 265) and surrenders "to a new visitor and tenant" {Spec. Leg. 4.49) which prompts whatever words are necessary {Spec. Leg. 1.65). Balaam's voice, for example, became an instrument upon which the divine spirit played without his aware ness. When the mind, in contrast, is in the process of obtaining wisdom and knowledge, there is no such eviction, no violent possession, no ventriloquism. The spirit rather rests upon the sage, grandng wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. A chasm divides the experiences of Balaam and Bezalel. This experience of the spirit, therefore, is of a different sort from both popular Stoic conceptions of prophedc inspiradon and Philo's own concepdon of prophedc inspiradon. It seems, on the other hand, to have much in common with the Stoic statesman Seneca's descrip tion of the god within in his forty-first letter to Lucilius: "If you see a p>erson who is unterrified in the midst of dangers, untouched by desires, happy in adversity, peaceful amid the storm . . . Will you not say: 'This quality is too great and lofty to be regarded as resembling this petty body in which it dwells? A divine power has descended upon that person'" (41.4). This power "upon" a sage is nothing other than "a holy spirit" which "indwells within us, one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian. As we treat this spirit, so are we treated by it" (41.1-2). This descripdon of the strength which characterizes the Stoic sage—a transcendent divine power which is none other than a holy spirit—exhibits extraordinary affinities with Philo's contention that the spirit comes upon the elders and Bezalel. Nonetheless, a fundamental difference separates Philo's view of the spirit from Seneca's; for Seneca, this transcendent power is not a

THE SPIRIT AND PHILOSOPHICAI. TRANSFORMATION

147

supplement or aid that comes at various intervals but the human soul itself: W h e n a soul rises superior to other s o u l s . . . when it smiles at our fears and at our prayers, it is stirred by a force from heaven. A thing like this cannot stand upright unless it be propped by the divine. There fore, a greater part of it abides in that place from whence it came down to earth. Just as the rays of the sun do indeed touch the earth, but still abide at the source from which they are sent; even so the great and hallowed soul, which has c o m e down in order that we may have a nearer knowledge of divinity, does indeed associate with us, but sdll cleaves to its origin . . . (41.5).

In other of his biblical interpretadons, Philo would appear to find no difficulty in concurring wdth Seneca. In Opif. 135, for instance, he proflfers a Stoic interpretadon of Gen 2:7—remarkably similar to Seneca—when he describes the rational part of the human soul: . . for that which He breathed in was nothing else than a Divine breath that migrated hither from that blissful and happy existence for the benefit of our race. . . ."^^ In De gigantibus, in contrast, Philo contends that the spirit which comes "upon" the elders and Bezalel is not the human soul itself but a transitory supplement which brings knowledge, wisdom, and under standing. After proflfering his detailed definidon in Gig. 27, Philo sum marizes, "And so though the divine spirit may stay awhile in the soul it cannot abide there, as we have said" {Gig. 28). With this affir mation Philo turns full circle to his interpretation of Gen 6:3, prior to his introduction of Bezalel: "The spirit sometimes stays awhile, but it does not abide for ever among us . . . even over the reprobate hovers often of a sudden the vision of the excellent, but to grasp it and keep it for their own they have not the strength" {Gig. 20). For Philo this is a biblical proposition: "And Moses himself aflfirms this when he says that 'because they are flesh' the divine spirit cannot abide" {Gig. 29). In Gig. 19-31, then, Philo appears to be on the verge of a whole hearted, uncritical assimilation of Stoic conceptions of the cosmic spirit and the human soul.^ He does not, however, finally identify this Greek, o ydp evwpwnioev, ov8cv ^v erepov TI nvev^a Seiov, djto tnq t^aKapiou; Kal evSai^ovo^ ^iiatmq iKt\vr\q dnoiKlav riiv ev8d5e oteiXdnevov kn axpeXei^ toti yevo\)(; rm&v... For example, Kiilo's discussion of the order of creation in ImmuL 3 5 is composed of Stoic vocabulary, including "rational soul," "cohesion," and "breath."

148

A N ECLECTIC ERA

spirit with the human soul, a fragment of the divine spirit, for the human soul is not in itself capable of producing an uninterrupted life of virtue, beset as it is by daily cares and, in the case of most, mired in the flesh. The soul needs the aid of the wisdom and knowledge imparted by the spirit which can come upon it. The unfortunate reedity is that "though the divine spirit may stay awhile in the soul it cannot abide there." An analogous reluctance to adopt Stoic conceptions uncritically underlies also Plant 18-26, in which Philo introduces the spirit in the context of an overt polemic against the Stoics. Philo begins by unequivocally distinguishing himself from the Stoics: "Now while others, by asserting that our human mind is a particle of the ethereal substance, have claimed for humankind a kinship with the upper air. . ."^^ Although the Stoics were not unanimous on this point, in general aether was, like spirit, related to or identified with the ratioprinciple which unifies the world. Diogenes Laertius attributes this view to the Stoic Antipater of Tyre: "Thus, then, the whole world is a living being, endowed with soul and reason, and having aether for its ruling principle."^® Philo interprets the breath of life from Gen 2:7 in similar terms: "The body, then, has been formed out of earth, but the soul is of the upper air, a particle detached from the Deity: Tor God breathed into his face a breath of life, and the human became a living soul'. . . the soul being a portion of an ethereal nature has on the contrary ethereal and divine food. . . ."^^ As in Opif. 135, Philo is willing here to define the rational portion of the human soul in Stoic terms when he describes the composite nature of human beings as consisting of body and soul. Contrasted with the " Plant. 1 8 . Greek, dXX'oi ^ev aAAoi xfiq aiOepiou ^vaecoq xov fi^etepov vovv (loipav einovxeq elvaiCTwyyeveiavdv6pam(p npoq aiOepa owtiyav. Diogenes Laertius, in the context of a summary of Stoics ( 7 . 1 4 3 ) , including Chrysippus, Zeno, Apollodorus, and Posidonius, attributes to Stoicism the view that the world is "a living being, rational, animate and intelligent," which is "endowed with soul, as is clear from our several souls being each a fragment of it." Cicero, quoting Chrysippus, describes the human being as "a small fragment of that which is perfect" {N(U. Deor. 2 . 3 8 ; see De senectute 2 1 . 7 8 . O n this Stoic language, see the notes on Div. 2 . 3 8 in A. S. Pease, De Divinatwne 2 . 6 3 1 . ) Epictetus describes human souls as "parts and portions" of God's being ( 1 . 1 4 6 ) .

^ Diogenes Laertius 7 . 1 3 9 . Greek, ovrco 8TI Kal xov oXov KOO^IOV ^SOV ovxa Kal en\|n)xov Kal XoyiKov, exew fiyeixoviKov \ih/ xov aiOepa. L^. AU. 3 . 1 6 1 , based upon Gen 3 : 1 4 . Greek, TO jiev oSv o©na EK ynq 5e8Tmioupynxai, tl 5£ \|n)XTi aidipoq eaxiv, dicoanaona 0eiov • "evetpvorioe ydp eiq TO Jipooowiov amofb nv^\ux CcOTig 6 Oeoq, Kal eyeveTo 6 wSpamoq eiq \|n)XTiv ^fioav". . . . fi 5e aiOepiov ipvaeioq ^oipa o^oa vuxn ndA.iv aidepiou^ Kal Oeia^.

THE SPIRIT AND PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSFORMATION

149

body, a soul which consists of aether or the fire and air of jcvev^a is of a much diflferent nature. Ultimately, however, Philo is not satisfied with this viewpoint. In Spec. L^. 4.123, for example, he reproduces the stoicized interpreta tion of Gen 2:7 but supplements it with his own suggestion that the radonal pordon of the soul is composed of something better than aether: For the essence of substance of that other soul is divine spirit, a truth vouched for by Moses especially, who in his story of the creadon says that God breathed a breath of life upon the first human, the founder of our race, into the lordliest part of his body, the face.... And clearly what was then thus breathed was ethereal spirit, or something if such there be better than ethereal spirit, even an eflfulgence of the blessed, thrice blessed nature of the Godhead.**' In Plant. 18, where the polemical edge is sharper, Philo's own con ception of the spirit functions neither as an affirmation of Stoicism, as in Opif. 135, nor as a qualification of Stoicism, as in Gg. 27 and Spec. Leg. 4.123, but as a refutation of Stoicism: Now while others, by asserting that our human mind is a particle of the ethereal substance, have claimed for humans a kinship with the upper air; our great Moses likened the fashion of the reasonable soul to no created thing, but averred it to be a genuine coinage of that dread [unseen] Spirit, the Divine and invisible One, signed and im pressed by the seal of God, the stamp of which is the Eternal Word. His words are "God in-breathed into his face a breath of Ufe" [Gen 2:7]; so that it cannot but be that the one that receives is made in the likeness of Him Who sends forth the breath. Accordingly we also read that a human has been made after the image of God [Gen 1:27], not however after the image of anything created.*'

Greek, EKEIVTI^ ydp oinsia KveO^a 6eiov icoi ^dXicna icaxd Monxiiiv, ev tfi Koo^oicoiic^ ^pT^iv dvOpcoRtp nparrcp KOI dj^cnyrqi toO yev^ tineav eM5evl T«bv yeyovoTtav TTI^ ^oyiidl? ¥*>X% el8o^ cb^ouDoev, dXX.' cljiev avtfiv Toti ^ l o u xal dopdTov Jcvev^oToq eKeivov 56KI^OV elvai vi>\i\o\ut cnmeicoOev Kal TUXCOO^ o^poririSi 0eotj, f^^ ^ X'o^poxxi\p katxv b diSio^ Xoyoq

150

AN ECLECTIC ERA

The use of what Philo defines as Moses' concepdon of the spirit to refute the Stoics, from whom he has so often borrowed, is both sur prising and significant. Philo, who is otherwise so prone to eclecticism, earmarks here with precision and clarity his own opinion, diflferendating it from those whose influence in many cases cannot be distin guished from Philo's own viewpoints. The single point Philo wishes to make is that the rational part of the human soul is not a created element. He argues this case, first and foremost, by asserting that it is a copy of the unseen spirit. Tliis argument, however, particularly to his stoically oriented readers, is hardly an argument against the created nature of the human soul because the spirit of which the human soul is a part—understood in Stoic terms—is a material reafity composed of fire and air. If the human soul is related to the unseen Tcveu^a, understood in Stoic terms, it must be a created entity, for the Jtvevna, although divine and rational, is also created. Philo attempts to differentiate his own view from the Stoic concep tion by demonstrating the superiority of the biblical view of the human soul to the Stoic. To this end, Philo subordinates the Stoic interpre tation of Gen 2:7 to a Platonic interpretation of Gen 1:27 by iden tifying the breath in G e n 2:7 with the image of God in Gen 1:27. The effectiveness of this identification for establishing the uncreated character of the spirit hinges upon a Platonic interpretation of Gen 1:27, which Philo adopts explicidy in passages such as Opif. 24- 25. In this text, in an attempt to locate in the biblical account of creation the Platonic conviction that the world is a copy of God's reason or logos, Philo interprets the phrase, "according to the image" in Gen 1:27 to mean that the logos of God is the image according to which the world is constructed. The "image of God" is not what characterizes human beings but an independent reality, the rational logos of God, the blueprint "according to" which the world is created, an incorpo real idea.'^^ This identification of the breath of Gen 2:7 with the uncreated image or logos of Gen 1:27 affords Philo the opportunity to infer that the soul, because it is a portion of the uncreated breath or image. " This Platonic interpretation is part of Opif. 13~35, in which Philo interprets "day one" of Genesis as the creation of the incorporeal ideas of the intelligible world. On Philo's incorporation of Stoic and Hatonic interpretations in his accounts of creation, see T. Tobin, The Creation of Man: I^nlo and the History of Interpretation (CBQMS 14; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983).

T H E SPIRIT A N D PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSFORMATION

151

is itself uncreated. In this way Philo calls into question the Stoic con ception of the spirit as a created clement, composed of fire and air, in which the rational part of the soul participates. Philo's attitude toward Stoicism is, therefore, elastic, stretching from acceptance {Opf. 135) to critical adaptation {Gig. 19-31; Spec. Leg. 4.123) to vociferous opposition {Plant. 18-26). This elasticity and the contex tual character of his assertions function as a warning against attempts finally to homogenize Philo's presentations of the spirit. Phibsophical Ascent and Platonism In view of Philo's refutation of Stoic conceptions by mezms of Platonic ones, as in Plant. 18-26, alongside his penchant for allusions to Plato and Platonic vocabulary, a modern interpreter could justifiably infer that Philo opts for Platonism rather than Stoicism with respect to his view of the spirit. The introduction of the spirit in Plant. 18-26 and Gig. 50-55 reveals, however, how errant such an inference would be. The introducdon of the divine spirit into these discussions is crucial both to Philo's concepdon of inspiradon and to his appraisal of the Hmitations of the philosophical conceptions which dominated his intellectual world. To appreciate Philo's departure from Platonism, it is important to assess how deeply indebted Philo is to Platonism. It is as if, once again, Philo climbs precipitously up a cliflT to win his niche among Platonic philosophers only in the end to eschew their company in favor of an altogether different form of inspiradon which leads the Jewish philosopher to an even higher plateau. The dominant influence upon Philo's own view of the ascent of the mind is Plato's Phaedrus 246A-253C. Its vocabulary and concepts are integral to Philo's vivid description of the ascent of the mind {Opif. 69-71),*^ to his own experience {Spec. Leg. 3.1-6),*"* and to the A . Measson {Du char aile de ^eus a I'Archr d'Atliance: images et mythes platonicims chez

Philon d'Alexandrie [Paris: fetudes Augusdniennes, 1986] 384) contends that the myth of Phaedrus is a principal source of the theme of the ascent of the intellect. Philo's elaborate description in Op^. 69-71 bears the distinctive marks of Phaedrus 246A253C: "Again, when on soaring wing it has contemplated the atmosphere and all its phases, it is borne yet higher to the ether and the circuit of heaven, and is whirled round with the dances of planets and fixed stars, in accordance with the laws of perfect music, following that love of wisdom which guides its steps. And so, carrying its gaze beyond the confines of all substance discernible by sense, it comes to a point at which it reaches out after the intelligible world, and on descrying in that worid si^ts of surpassing loveliness, even the patterns and the originals of the things of sense which it saw here, it is seized by a sober intoxication, like those filled with Corybantic frenzy . .." {Opif. 70). Greek, Kal ndXiv Jitrivoq dp6e{(;, Kal tov dcpa Kal td

152

AN

ECLECTIC

ERA

allegorical interpretation of the ascent of Moses {Gig. 50-55).*^ Nor is it difficult to discern the incorporation of fundamental con cepts of the Phaedrus myth in Philo's description of the ascent of the mind in Plant. 18-26, which contains two references to the divine spirit. Philo's composition in Plant. 22 is a virtual compendium of Platonic vocabulary: "The strong yearning to perceive the Existent One gives them [the eyes of the soul] wings to attain not only to the furthest region of the upper air, but to overpass the very bounds of the entire universe and speed away toward the Uncreate."^^ The tenor of this description is reminiscent of the Phaedrus myth, in which Socrates is said to have described the fourth sort of madness, philosophical love of beauty, which drives the philosopher's soul to sprout wings and to ascend beyond the heavenly regions.

TOUTov nadi\iiaxa KaxaoKE^djxevot;, dvoaxepo) cpepexat npoq aiOepa Kal xd<; ovpovov TiepioSoDi;, TtAxxvTJxoDV xe Kttl anXav&v xopeiai^ av\inepinoXr\Qe\q Kaxd xovq fiovoiKfiq xeAeiaq vo^iouq, eno^evo^ epcoxi ooipiaq no&nYetovvxi, jcaaav Tqv aioBrirnv ovoiav vnepKvy^ac,, evxav9a ecpiexai xfj^ voiixfi^' Kal wv ei8ev evxavGa aioOrixcov ev eKeivp td napaSeiy^axa Kal xd(; i5ea^ 9eaad)j.evoQ, vneppdAXovxa KaXh\, \ieQr\ vncpa^iep KaxaoxeOei? wonep oi Kop-uPavxieovxeq evGovaiqt. . . The reference to soaring v^ngs echoes: "a pair of winged horses and a chari oteer" {Phaedrus 246A); the "natural function of the wing is to soar upwards" (246D); and the person who "feels his v^dngs growing" (249D). The soul is "whirled around" (o\)|iJtepwioA,Ti6el<;), as in Phaedrus 246B, in which the soul "traverses [jiepiTcoXei] the whole heaven . . . " and Phaedrus 248A, in which the soul "is carried round [avunepiTivex&n] in the revolution. . . . " The concluding reference in Opif. 69-71 to love as that which conducts the soul in its upward ascent {knoyi&ioc, epwxi 009(05 reoSiiYexovvxi) encapsulates another dominant theme of the Phaedrus myth. Socrates reminds his hearers: "All my discourse so far has been about the fourdi kind of madness, which causes him to be regarded as mad, who, when he sees the beauty on earth, remem bering the tme beauty, feels his v^ngs growing and longs to stretch them for an upward flight, but cannot do so, and, like a bird, gazes upward and neglects the things below. My discourse has shown that this is, of all inspirations, the best and of die highest origin to him who has it or who shares in it, and that he who loves the beautiful, partaking in this madness, is called a lover" {Phaedrus 249D-E). Philo complements this emphasis upon love with that of yearning (ijiepo-u) and thus calls to mind a play on words which Socrates makes between M.epTi (particles) and iVepo? (yeaming) in his description of the growth of wings (25IC). The word, noQoq, occurs as well in Phaedrus 250C and 253E. Philo's indebtedness to Plato extends even to the choice of words; he describes the highest arc of realities perceptible to the mind with the word, d\|/i(;, which occurs similarly in Phaedrus 247B. For detailed discussions of the influence of Phaedrus on Spec. Leg. 3.1-6, see A. Measson {Du char, 230-41) and my "Philo Judaeus," 288-94. For a detailed analysis of Philo's dependence upon Phaedrus in Gig. 50-55, see my "Philo Judaeus," 295-96. ^ Greek, djtep uno noXAxM) xou TO OV Kaxi5eiv TTiXavyw^ ijiepov TixeptoSevxo ot> ^lovov npo^ xov eoxoxov oiOepo xeivexai, 7copa^ei\|rdp.eva 8e KOI novxoq xov KOO^IOV xoix; opou^ eneiyexoi Jipoq xov dyevrixov.

T H E SPIRIT A N D PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSFORMATION

153

Philo's description is characterized by more than a general remi niscence of the Hiaedrus myth. The association of the growth of wings with the soul's "yeaming" (luepoi)) echoes Socrates' reference to in€po<; (yeaming) after beauty which provides the primary impulse toward the growth of wings {Phaedrus 25 IC, E). The image of wings, moreover, is fundamental to the Phaedrus myth, which begins by comparing the soul to "a pair of winged horses and a charioteer" (246A), continues with the observation that the "natural function of the wing is to soar upwards" (246D), and is summarized with a description of the person who "feels his wings growing" (249D). Philo's contention that "strong yeaming" gives the "eyes" of the soul "wings" is, therefore, a short hand way of recollecting Socrates' contention that beauty comes through the eyes, bringing with it a yeaming that causes the hardened parts, which will eventually become win^, to be moistened and warmed and to fill the soul with joy. This association of yeaming with wings constitutes only a portion of the traces of the Phaedrus myth on Plant. 22. The winged soul's ability to pass beyond the heavenly region corresponds to Socrates' con tention that immortal souls, "when they reach the top, pass outside and take their place on the outer surface of the heaven, and when they have taken their stand, the revolution carries them round and they behold the things outside of the heaven" {Phaedrus 247B-C). Finally, this description applies only to the philosopher. Philo writes, "Above all it is strange if this [ascent] is not so with the mind of the genuine philosopher. Such a one . . . has ever made an eamest eflfort to sever and estrange himself" from objects dear to the body {Plant. 24-25). Similarly, Socrates explains, "And therefore it is just that the mind of the philosopher only has wings . . . he separates himself from human interests and turns his attention toward the divine . . . " (249C). The impact of these transparent allusions to the Phaedrus myth is impressive. Philo presents himself as a philosopher who has dmnk deeply of the Platonic pool. This accomplishment is not, moreover, solely a literary project created by allusions to Plato's Phaedrus. Philo's indebtedness to Platonism is evident as well in his claim that the ascent of the mind is his own experience, which he recounts in Spec. L^. 3.1-6: "There was a time when I had leisure for philosophy and for the contemplation of the universe . . . with a soul possessed by some God-sent inspiration, a feUow-traveller with the sun and the moon and the whole heaven and universe..." (3.1). By laying claim to a mode of ascent that Socrates had associated only with philosophers.

154

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

Philo places himself in the company of Greco-Roman philosophers who interpreted the Phaedrus myth as the sobre ascent of the mind.*' Plutarch, for example, comments direcdy upon the Phaedrus myth in PUUonkae questiones 6, where he asks why the wing, among the ele ments of the body, is most closely akin to the divine. He responds: . . while there are a good many faculties of the soul concerned with the body, the faculty of reason or thought, whose objects he has said are things divine and celesdal, is most closely akin to the divine. This faculty he not inappropriately called a pinion because it bears the soul up and away from the things that are base and mortal." The wing, the natural inclinadon of the rational mind toward the divine, and the movement away from what is base are elements already familiar, both from the Phaedrus myth and Philo's interpretadon of it in PUmt. 18-26.*« Although other philosophers were influenced by Plato's Phaedrus,^^ In this way he distinguishes himself from popular Stoic interpreters, such as Quintus in Cicero's De dipinatioru and Lamprias in Plutarch's De defectu oraculomm, who are proponents of what Simmias, in De genio Socratis, derides as the "popular belief" that "it is only in sleep that people receive inspiration from on high; and the notion that they are so influenced when awake and in full possession of their fac ulties is accounted strange and incredible" {Gen. Socr. 589D), This ascent also differs from the ascents of astronomers, whose minds ascend not in a mystic but in a mathematical quest, e.g., Horace, Odes 1.28.1.1-6; Ovid, Fasti, 1.297. ** Plutarch also alludes to the Phaedrus myth in discussions of other topics, such as when he contends that the pleasures of noble works, "not like the golden wings of Euripides but like those heavenly Hatonic pinions, bear the soul on high as it ac quires greamess and lofty spirit mingled with joy" {An seta respublka gerenda sit 786D). In his discussion of love, which is heavily influenced by Socrates' discussion of love, of which the Phaedrus myth is a part, describes "those beautiful and sacred passions which we call recollections of the divine, the true, the Olympian beauty of the other world, by which the soul is made winged . . . " {Amatorius 766E). Plutarch's discussion of geometry in Quaestionum convivalium tibri iii (Table-talk 718E-F), reveals a similariy high level of influence of fiuudrus. Geometry, contends Hutarch, "leads the under standing upward and turns it in a new direction, as it undergoes, so to speak, a complete puriflcation and a gradual deliverance from sense-perception." Rato thought, insists Autarch, that the removal of geometric problems is deleterious because "in this way, he thought, the advantage of geometry was dissipated and destroyed, since it slipped back into the realm of sense-perception instead of soaring upward and laying hold of the eternal and immaterisil images in the presence of which God is always God" (The last phrase, aWep wv 6 Beo^ cu\ Seo^ eotiv, is particularly reminis cent of Phaedrus 249C, oWep GEO^ mv 8ei6(; cotiv). *^ See for example the third century CE Neoplatonic philosopher, Botinus, who in his Enneads begins by describing the preparation which is requisite to ascent, which elsewhere he identifies as mathematics and dialectics, for "gaining footholds in the intelligible and setding ourselves firmly there and feasting on its contents" {Ermead 6.7.36). This preparation, however, is only a precursor to the vision of the intelligible world, where "one lets all study go; up to a point one has been led along and setded

T H E SPIRIT A N D PHILOSOPHICAL T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

155

the discussion of the topic, "The mind sees and the mind hears," proffered by Maximus of Tyre, the second century C E sophist and self-avowed follower of Plato, provides a signal example of the sort of philosophical miheu which indelibly shaped Philo's Plant. 18-26. Maximus of Tyre writes: . . . and the soul maintains its sovereignty by means of true reason and htdXxhy yeaming... . And to the one who puts away things below, always the distinct and the brightest things and the preliminary nature of God are before him. And as it proceeds further, it hears the nature of God, and mounting higher it sees. The end of the journey is not heaven, nor the bodies which are in heaven. These are indeed beautiful and marvel ous, as they are the genuine descendants and the offspring of that one and suited to what is most beautiful. But it is necessary to go beyond these, and to bok over (the border of) heaven at the true place and the calm (sea) which is there.. . . [PhUosophumena 11.10)^° The mind intact, the overcoming of things below, ascent, yearning, the need to peer over the boundaries of the created world—these are elements which characterize as well Philo's description of the ascent of the mind in Plant. 18-26. These affinities of shared imagery and vocabulary between Plato, Philo, Plutarch, and Maximus of Tyre are a measure of the effort Philo expends to adhere to Platonic philosophical conceptions in his bibh cal interpretation. Like these philosophers, Philo interprets the myth of the ascent of the soul in Plato's Phaedrus as a vision of the intelligible world which entails the perfection of the mind. Taken together with the numerous literary allusions to Plato's Phaedrus which permeate his depiction of the mind's ascent, these affinities with other interpreters of Plato demonstrate Philo's acceptance of the Platonic conviction firmly in beauty and as far as this one thinks that in which one is, but is carried out of it by the surge of the wave of Intellect itself and lifted on high by a kind of swell and sees suddenly, not seeing how, but the vision fills his eyes with light and does not make him see something else by it, but the light itself is what he sees" [Ennead 6.7.36), The vocabulary and conceptions which this description shares with Philo's writings are indeed starding: preparation through human knowledge [Opif. 69; Spec. Leg. 3.1, 5-6); the image of being lifted on waves (Kv^ati) toward the vision (enncDjiaTi^oD in Spec. Leg. 3.5); and the final vision of light {Opif. 69; Spec. Leg. 3.6). My translation based upon Maxim Tynv PhUosophumena, ed. H. Hobein (Leipzig: Teubner, 1910) 140-41. This passage is preceded by the question and initial answer, "How therefore does the mind see? And how does it hear? With a healthy and true soul, looking straight toward that pure light, and not dizzied, nor descending to the earth. But it stops the ears and turns the eyes and the other senses toward the self And the things below—mourning, sighing, pleasure, opinion, honor and dishonor— it utterly forgets "

156

AN ECLECTIC ERA

that the philosophical mind, free of bodily concerns, has the capacity to wing its way to the intelligible world. The force of Philo's Platonism in Plant. 18-26 is magnified by the pivotal role Platonism plays in his argument. We observed earUer that Philo's refutation of the Stoic interpretadon of the breath of Gen 2:7 as a created element hinges upon the subordination of Gen 2:7 to Gen 1:27, interpreted from a Hatonic perspective. The identifi cation of the breath of Gen 2:7 with the image or logos of Gen 1:27 permits him to contend that the human soul, which is a portion of that breath, is uncreated. From this identification Philo draws an important inference: "This is why those who crave for wisdom and knowledge with insatiable persistence are said in the Sacred Oracles to have been called upwards; for it accords with God's ways that those who have received His down-breathing should be called up to Him" {Plant. 23).^' Although all people presumably receive God's downbreathing (Gen 2:7), only philosophers, who crave for wisdom and knowledge, are those most Hkely to be called up (Lev 1:1) to God. Theirs are the minds which "suflfer no weight of downward pressure towards the objects dear to the body and to earth. This scenario dispenses with the need for the spirit, or so it would appear: the philosopher possesses a rational mind equipped for its impending upward ascent. All that Philo must introduce now to confirm that he is a disciple of Plato is the notion of recollection which, according to the Phaedrus myth, is the means by which the mind of the philosopher ascends. By recollecting the true nature of beauty which he knew prior to being embodied (254B), the philo sopher's mind takes wings in heavenward flight. But precisely at this point—despite weighty allusions to Plato's Phaedrus, despite Philo's place in a line of Platonic philosophers, despite Philo's use of Hatonic

This statement is indebted particulariy to two biblical texts: to Gen 2:7 for the image of downbreathing; and to Lev 1:1 for the notion of upward calling. As we have come to expect, in neither instance does Philo's interpre^tion preserve the presumably straightforward biblical meaning. The inbreathing [bfkmtwst in Philo's quotation of Gen 2:7 [nnU. 19] but later altered to K a t o x v e v o d ^ o ^ to serve his argument [PtatU. 23]) and the calling of Moses (dveicdXeoe) by God in Lev 1:1 {PlaM. 26) have nothing to do with the ascent of the mind. Still, the vocabulary they con tain functions as an important springboard for Philo's description of the ascent of the philosophical mind. As Plotinus would later phrase it, "But the philcMopher—he is the one who is by nature ready to respond and 'winged,' we may say, and in no need of separation Uke die odiers" [Emmd 1.3.3).

T H E SPIRIT A N D PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSFORMATION

157

conceptions to discredit Stoic nodons of the spirit—^Philo qualifies Platonic thought. Instead of introducing the notion of recollection or an analogous Platonic conception, at the point where the Platonic scaflTolding appears to be indispensable, where Philo adheres apparendy to the pristine Platonic conception of the ascent of the philo sopher's mind, Philo re-introduces that spirit: F o r w h e n trees a r c w h i r l e d u p , r o o t s a n d all, i n t o t h e air b y

hurricanes

and tornadoes, and heavily laden ships of large tonnage are snatched up out of mid-ocean, as though objects of very litde weight, and lakes and rivers are borne aloft, and earth's hollows are left empty by the water as it is drawn up by a tangle of violendy eddying winds, it is strange if a light substance like the mind is not rendered buoyant and raised to the utmost height by the native force of the Divine spirit, overcoming as it does in its boundless might all powers that are here below. Above all is it strange if this is not so with the mind of the genuine philosopher [Mont. 24). According to Plato, Butarch, and Maximus of Tyre, the philosophical mind can—indeed does—ascend to a vision of the ideal world. Philo appears to opt wholeheartedly for this view, not only with Platonic allusions and elements, but also by describing the mind as a copy of the breath and logos and locating its origin in the downbreathing of God. Nonetheless, although Philo has established a firm basis for the ascent of the mind wHthout the aid of the spirit, he introduces that spirit as the sole power which is able to lift the mind upwards. The mind is raised, rendered buoyant, not by recoUection but by the spirit. This spirit exhibits enormous power. Like a hurricane or tornado, it is capable of lifting heavy substances into the air. A fortiori can this powerful spirit lift a substance as light as the mind. The scope of its power includes all things below (itdvta. . . td Kdxw); no human con cern can resist its uplifting force. The extent to which the spirit lifts a philosopher may vary. Some it Ufts only to a place within the created world; this sort of philoso pher is represented by Bezalel, whose name means, according to Philo, "making in shadows." Moses, in contrast, is lifted up into the intelHgible world, a world of archetypes and not copies, a world which yields "a clearer, more radiant vision, as though in unclouded sun shine" {Plant. 27). This accent upon the uniqueness of Moses' ascent brings us again to Philo's discussion in De gigmtihus. In Gig. 50-55, in which the neces sity of the spirit is no less evident than in Plant. 18-26, Philo explains

158

A N ECLECTIC

ERA

the ascent of Moses, with direct reference to Gen 6:3: "He then has ever the divine spirit at his side, taking the lead in every journey of righteousness, but from those others, as I have said, it quickly sepa rates itself, from these to whose span of life he has also set a term of a hundred and twenty years, for he says 'their days shall be a hundred and twenty years.'" As in Plant. 18-26, in which the mind is raised by the spirit, the spirit cannot here be identified with the soul or Seneca's god within. The image of accompaniment (wapurcaTai) in Gig. 55 excludes that possibility. Once again, then, ascent requires a finely tuned philosophical mind, but that mind cannot ascend by its own means, by recollection, by a yeaming for beauty. On the contrary, the philosophical mind may be prepared by such attributes but is Ufted only by the divine spirit, which takes the lead in every joumey of righteousness and overcomes in its boundless might all powers that are below.

Summary The pervasiveness of Greco-Roman vocabulary and conceptions in the writings ofJosephus and Philo suggests that the encounter between Greco-Roman culture and Diaspora Judaism was less a clash than a liaison—but a cautious one, carefully negotiated, and used to their own ends and for the promotion of their own Jewish people. Josephus, in his version of the dedication of the temple, introduces central epistemological, theological, and cosmological Stoic conceptions, climaxing in the unexpected addition of a request for the spirit, understood, when it appears, in Stoic terms as fire and air. The introduction of Stoic concepts into 1 Kings 8 ought not, however, to be construed as a tell-tale sign of Josephus' ultimate loyalty to Stoicism, an intel lectual surrender analogous to his traitorous military capitulation to the Roman army. Josephus' strategy in the Antiquities is sophisticated, and Stoic concepts, particularly the all-pervasive icvevpxx, are adopted to serve Josephus' apologetic eflfort to transform the potentially mis anthropic elements of the dedication of the temple into a salutary illustration of Jewish philanthropy. Despite its sophisticated and self-interested character, Josephus' liaison with Stoicism is relatively simple when compared with Philo's dalliance with Stoicism (G^. 23-27), which ranges from embrace to ambivalence and ultimately to rejection. Philo's loyalties appear rather

T H E SPIRIT A N D PHILOSOPHICAL T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

159

to lie with Platonism, if his allusions to Plato, his points of contact with other Platonic interpreters, and his preference for Hatonic rather than Stoic conceptions of the spirit provide us with intimations of his commitment (Plant. 18-26). Even here, however, HiUo proves prepared for a rendezvous but not a total commitment to Platonism, for he cannot jettison his conviction that the divine spirit is the means by which the mind ascends to a vision of the intelligible world. The fact that the spirit is otherwise superfluous in Philo's detailed depiction of the mind's ascent in Plant. 18-26, which leans so heavily on Plato's Phaedrus, does not cause him to reject it. On the contrary, Philo holds firmly to the conviction that the buoyancy of the philosopher's mind renders it, rwt capable of ascent through recollection or yeaming for beauty, but only prepared for ascent, when the spirit flings it upward. H. Leisegang captured this ambivalence nearly a century ago: Die Theorien der alten Philosophen iiber die Natur der Luft, des Athers und des Himmels, sowie die Lehre der Stoiker vom Urpneuma, das als feinster Stoff" die ganze Welt durchdringt und die Weltvernunft, ja die Gottheit selbst in sich verkorpert, alles das wird von Philon, so wie er es gerade brauchen kann, zur Deutung des biblischen Jtveiina fast kritiklos herang^zogen. Aber auch der andere Weg, die Verwerfung aller wissenschafdichen Ergebnisse und Doktrinen, wird von ihm betreten, wenn es ihm darauf ankommt, die erhabene Gotdichkeit des rcvev^ia als Weltprinzip recht deudich zu crweisen. Dann miissen alle Philosopheme der Weltweisen hinter seiner, des Gottcrfiillten, besseren Erkennt nis zuriicktreten.^' Philo's ability to walk among the Stoa and to visit the New Academy while simultaneously championing the centrality of the spirit is asto nishing. In Gig. 23-27, just as he appears to adopt uncritically both the Stoic conception of the all-pervasive cosmic spirit and Seneca's view that the human soul is a holy spirit, a marvelous particle of the divine spirit that has descended upon the sage, Philo retums instead to the underlying conviction of his discussion, that "though the divine spirit may stay awhile in the soul it cannot abide there" {Gig. 28). Even Moses, the quintessential sage who ascends into the deepest realms of the divine, does not have a god within. The spirit is rather "always at his side" {Gig. 50-55). Philo adopts the same posture toward Platonism. In Plant 18-26 he prefers Hatonism to Stoicism, peppers his discussion with vocabulary

Der Heilige Geist, 64-65.

160

A N ECLECTIC

ERA

from Plato's Phaedrus, and dqjicts the ascent of the philosopher's mind in such a way that PhUo justifiably claims his place amongst the interpreters of Plato. At this pjoint, however, when the mind appears ready to rise, Philo's ultimate loyalty to his Jewish heritage rises, as he claims that the divine spirit alone has the power to come upon the philosopher and to lift him or her into realms divine.

RETROSPECT

Searching for a calm within the storm, as Philo might describe our situation, we ought now to seize a moment for retrospection, for the results of this analysis are exhilarating by virtue of their unexpected ness. We set out to test the hypothesis that Palestinian interpretations of the spirit derive almost nothing from their Greco-Roman context, while Diaspora interpretations of the spirit cannot be understood with out recourse to Greco-Roman prophetic phenomena. In support of this hypothesis, we unearthed instances of human transformation from the Liber AnHqtdtaium Biblicanm and Philo's De virtutibus. Pseudo-Philo, we noted, accentuates the role of the spirit in military success by means which can be explained entirely within the compass of the biblical text, such as the introduction of allusions to 1 Sam 10:6 and Jdg 6:34 in LAB 27:9-10. In contrast, Philo's description of Abraham's pos session by the spirit exhibits tenuous attachments to the biblical text but extraordinary affinities with Greco-Roman discussions of kingship and rhetoric. Within two distinct contexts, therefore, the perception of what transformation into another person (1 Sam 10:6) entails led in two distincdy divergent directions. This neat scenario, in which Diaspora and Palestinian interpretations of the spirit could be neady bifurcated, began to unravel under the weight of other interpretations of the spirit. On the one hand, PseudoPhilo's descriptions of the prophetic phenomenon, though probably written in Hebrew in first century Palestine, can be understood only in part by their biblical foreground and early Jewish context. A fiery mind and agitated spirit, the ecstatic ascent of the mind, and the inability to recall prophetic experiences are features at home in a Greco-Roman miUeu. On the other hand, Josephus and PhUo show themselves to be capable of utilizing Greco-Roman philosophical conceptions of the spirit to advance their own agenda. Josephus and Philo do not assimilate Greco-Roman culture as uncritically as the preponderance of Greco-Roman conceptions and vocabulary in their writings might indicate. They exhibit rather an extraordinary level of finesse, subdy discerning Greco-Roman conceptions which transform misanthropy into philanthropy or which locate the power of the phi losophical experience in the spirit. This was, of course, true as well

162

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

of their portraits of Balaam; by adopting the view represented by Cleombrotus, Josephus and Philo could preserve oracles in praise of Israel without attribuUng those oracles finally to this incorrigible nonJewish seer. To say that all three authors are indebted to Greco-Roman culture is not, however, to contend that the sorts of culture they embrace are identical. Such a statement would be a caricature. Pseudo-Philo incorporates relatively popular Greco-Roman culture. His depicdons of the effects of the spirit on Joshua and Kenaz exhibit affinities with popular accounts of prophetic inspiration, such as Lucan's in De bello ciznli or the point of view explicidy derided in Plutarch's De genio SocraHs (589D) as a "popular belief," that "it is only in sleep that people receive inspiration from on high." The popularity, more over, of the befief that an authentic experience leaves the prophet unable to recollect that experience, such as characterizes the experi ences of Kenaz and Saul, is suggested by the variety of contexts in which it appears: a first century Jewish interpreter, Pseudo-Philo; the Jewish author of 4 Ezra at the turn of the first century; a second century Platonic interpreter, Aehus Aristides; and Christian authors, including Pseudo-Justinus, John Cassian, and the author of the pro logue to the Sibylline Oracles, who cites Lactantius. In contrast to Pseudo-Philo, Josephus and Philo exhibit a facility in the technical vocabulary of Greco-Roman philosophy. Josephus introduces into his version of the dedication of the temple the foun dational Stoic conceptions of impression and (false) opinion, of God as one who moves through all creation and has need of nothing, and of the spirit as a composition of fire and air. Philo defines the spirit precisely in Stoic terms as "susceptible of neither severance nor divi sion, diffused in its fullness everywhere and through all things" {G^. 27). He moves with such ease in the Stoic conceptual world that he confidendy rejects the Stoic belief that the mind is a part of aether, proposing instead that the mind is a copy of the uncreated spirit (Plant. 18-19). His numerous allusions to Plato's Muudrus, as weU as the many points of contact with accounts of the mind's ascent in the writings of Plutarch and Maximus of Tyre, demonstrate that he is equally versed in the literature and conceptual world of Platonism. Despite the differing hues of Greco-Roman culture which color the interpretations of Pseudo-PhUo in contrast to PhUo and Josephus, what cannot escape our attendon as we gamer the results of our analysis is how enormously creative these interpretations are. Josephus'

RETROSPECT

163

insertion of a reference to the spirit in Ant. 8.114 is noteworthy, not only because it is uncharacteristic of him to add one at all, but also because here it is presented as Stoic nvev^ia. Philo's references, we have observed repeatedly, stretch the biblical text to its limits. Noah's plandng (Gen 9:20) leads to a discussion of the ascent of the mind, in which the spirit plays a pivotal role. Philo introduces the spirit in Plant. 18 to refute Stoicism; in Plant. 24 the spirit is introduced, with no exegedcal rationale, as the fundamental power that lifts the philosophical mind in its heavenward ascent. More over, the life-sustaining breath of Gen 6:3 is transformed in Gig. 19 55 into the nv£[)\jia: which pervades the cosmos; which rests on Bezalel to invest him with wisdom and knowledge; which {jcrmanendy accom panies Moses, enabling him to ascend and to obtain a vision of things divine; but which more typically "does not abide for ever among us, the mass of humans" [Gig. 20). Pseudo-Philo also supplements the bibhcal text amply, particularly when he details the effects of the spirit. While Deut 34:9 contains no indication of the effect of the spirit of wisdom on Joshua, according to Pseudo-Philo's version in LAB 20:2-3, Joshua's mind became fiery, his spirit agitated, and he spoke to the IsraeHtes. While Jdg 3:9-11 does not detail the effect of the spirit when it came upon Othniel, according to Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum Kenaz was transformed into a mihtary leader (27:9-10) and became a visionary, with his mind elevated when the spirit leapt upon him and dwelt in him (28:6). In contrast to 1 Sam 19:19-23, in which Saul lost control, LAB 62:2 lacks the biblical elements that indicate ecstasy but includes in their stead the detail—based upon a misapprehension of Plato—that Saul could not recall what he had spoken. As we paused in retrospect to survey the first part of this book, what rose to the surface was the alleged dichotomy between Diaspora and Palestinian Judaism. In this portion of our study, another dichotomy of a diflferent nature has surfaced. During the Greco-Roman era, the myth of ascent encapsulated in Plato's Phaedrus itself took flight in two different directions. In a popular vein, it came to be associated with the loss of mental control, such as in Cicero's description of those "whose souls, spuming their bodies, take wings and fly abroad— inflamed and aroused by a sort of passion" (Div. 1.114). This is, of course, the tack Pseudo-Philo takes when he identifies the effects of the spirit on Joshua and Kenaz. Other Greco-Roman authors, such as Plutarch, Maximus of Tyre, and Plotinus, developed this ascent

164

AN ECLECTIC

ERA

along the lines of Socrates' discussion in the Phaedrus as the ascent of the philosophical mind. Philo too preserves the philosc^hical context of the Phaedrus when he describes the ascent of the mind; in this ascent, intoxication is the result of the ascent and not its cause. In both types, ecstatic and philosophical, the spirit is the means by which the mind is elevated. These trajectories—of ecstasy and intellectual illumination—provide the impetus for the ensuing portion of this study, in which we shaU trace the contours of those Uterary texts that ex plore the effect of the spirit upon the sober inteUect.

PART III

AN EXTRAORDINARY MIND

PROSPECT

Our survey of the landscape of the spirit in early Jewish exegesis has covered a varied terrain. The spirit which according to Num 24:2 came upon Balaam undergoes dramatic metamorphoses into either an angelic spirit or the breath of life. Still another fork in the inter pretative road on which the spirit was taken during the Greco-Roman era led altemadvely either to ecstatic or to intellectual experiences. Our study thus far suggests that, in the topography of Early Judaism, intellectual experiences comprise the valleys and ecstadc experiences the mountains which overshadow them. Balaam loses consciousness in the wridngs of Philo and Josephus, while Kenaz and Saul cannot even recall what they heard and saw, according to the Liber AnhquiUUwn Biblicanm.

The findings of those in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who have journeyed into this jagged terrain corroborate this conclusion. H. Burkhardt, by mapping out the history of philonic research on inspiration, has demonstrated that the opinio communis has tended to interpret Philo's view of inspiration, for example, as a mantic or ec static process. Dissenting voices have been relatively few and often not as weighty as scholars such as H. Gunkel, W. Bousset, fi. Brehier, H. Leisegang, G. F. Moore, H.Jonas, H. Wolfson, and B. Mack, all of whom adhere to the predominant viewpoint.' When in part two I took pick and axe to the cavern of GrecoRoman vocabulary and conceptions, I did so in the shadow of this consensus commmis, which my own findings to that point had confirmed. That modest excavation, contrary to my expectations, led to the discovery of a lode of diversity which in turn led me to imagine that other texts might reflect a similarly high level of nuance and freedom, particularly if the issue were the nature of intellectual awareness. The result lies ahead, in the valleys of early Jewish exegesis and reflection— valleys which perhaps deserve, in the words of Isaiah, to be lifted up, albeit less dramatically, of course.

' InspiraUon, 6 - 7 2 .

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE SPIRIT AND EXTRAORDINARY INSIGHT

On several occasions in the writings of Josephus and Philo does the spirit lead a key figure to the knowledge of what is otherwise unknow able to other humans. The quintessential expression of this ability for Josephus occurs in his re-teUing of the story of Daniel, while Moses and Joseph are for Philo the two most prominent Israelite ancestors whom the spirit inspired to extraordinary insight.

Ex^etical Movements Daniel according to Josephus The fifth chapter of the bibUcal book of Daniel contains three refer ences to the spirit. Belshazzar (Josephus' Beltasares) saw the hand which wrote upon the wall and asked for its interpretation. When none of his sages was successful, the queen reminded the king about "a man in your kingdom in whom is a/the spirit of God, a man characterized by understanding and wisdom" (Dan 5:11). She reiter ated that he had an exceUent spirit in him (5:12) and urged the king to caU him. The king obliged and, after acknowledging Daniel's sta tus as a Judean captive, addressed him with the words, "I have heard concerning you that a/the spirit of God is in you, and perceptiveness, and understanding and wisdom are found abundandy in you . . . " (5:14).' The king concluded by promising Daniel the rank of third in the reign if he could interpret the handwriting on the waU. In his version of the story of Daniel, Josephus preserves the third of these references. He preserves in particular the relationship between wisdom and the spirit which is rooted firmly in the biblical text. Baltasares told Daniel that he had learned of "his wisdom and of the ' Following the Aramaic, 9'Daniel 5 contains three references to (a/the) spirit: cv ^ itvevim 6eov (5:11); ori ICVEV^ nepiaoov cv ovt^ (5:12); '6ft\ >ivet)(ia 6eoO ev ooi (5:14). LXX Dan 5:12 reads m l itvevjui ixyiov ev ctvc^ eori. Josephus appears to follow O'Dan 5:14, which is the king's acknowdedgement rather than the queen's.

T H E SPIRIT A N D E X T R A O R D I N A R Y

INSIGHT

169

divine spirit that attended him and how he alone was fully able to discover things which were not within the understanding of others . . (AnL 10.239). These words comprise far more than royal courtesy or faint praise. Josephus underscores this recognition of Daniel's abiHdes according to Dan 5:11-16 by means of the addidon of a simple word, "only" (novo^)—Daniel was acknowledged by the king to be unique among all others. The enormity of Josephus' praise is evident in comparison with the faint praise he accords Balaam, whom he labels merely "the best diviner of his day" (Ant. 4.104). As if these royal words in recognidon of Daniel's prowess are not enough, Josephus also accentuates Daniel's uniqueness by heightening the magis' failure. While in Dan 5:8 the magi failed once to interpret the handwridng on the wall, in the Antiquities they were unsuccessful twice despite greater numbers and extra effort on their second turn (10.235-36). Although Josephus preserves the biblical associadon between the spirit and wisdom, he alters the text in two important ways. First, the biblical text lacks the definite article, T6, before Jive\)(ia and con sequendy does not sf>ecify whether what possessed Daniel was a spirit or the spirit of God. By adding the ardcle, t o , and the adjecdve, Geiov, Josephus clarifies that the spirit which inspired Daniel was the spirit of God. Josephus' second alteration concerns the mode of this spirit's presence with Daniel. Three times in Dan 5:11-14, the place ment of the spirit is said specifically and unreservedly to lodge within Daniel: the queen described a man in whom was the spirit of God (5:11); she noted the excellent spirit in him (5:12); and Belshazzar acknowledged that the spirit of God was within him (5:14). Josephus does not reproduce the biblical point of view but writes instead that Beltasares told Daniel "that he had learned of him and his wisdom and of the divine spirit that attended [crunndpeati] him . . ."^ (Anl. 10.239). In other words, the spirit did not inspire Daniel's wisdom by existing within, i.e., possessing him, but by accompanying him.

^ Greek, to ©eiov ocvt^ icveu^a ov^jcdpecrti. The verb, ovjimpelvai, is employed by Josephus in seven of twelve instances of God's presence, and in five of these seven, including A n i . 10.239, it explains the occurrence of a disdncdve accompaniment: Abimelech was jealous of God's presence which caused Isaac to be blessed (1.260); the voice from the burning bush predicted Moses' honor amongst the people be cause God was with him (2.268); the Israelites crossed the Red Sea because God accompanied them (2.340); Moses could not calm the angry Israelites himself, but God who accompanied him prepared them for his words (3.316).

170

AN EXTRAORDINARY MIND

With these alterations, Josephus avoids presenting Daniel's inspiradon as an occurrence of spirit possession. In Josephus' source probably lay another reference to the spirit mthin Daniel, in the account of Darius the Mede's reign (9'Dan 6:4), accord ing to which Daniel held a status above the other Median leaders under Darius because "an excellent spirit was in him." Josephus' un easiness with this biblical portrait of the spirit within surfaces again in two exegedcal modificadons. First, Josephus adds the perfect par ticiple, neKiaxE\)iievo<; . . was beUeved . . .") in his paraphrase of this source: "And so Daniel, being held in such great honour and such dazzling favour by Darius and being the only one associated with him in all matters because he was believed to have the divine [to Geiov] . . . in him, became a prey to envy" {Ant. 10.250). With the participle, jcejtioxeo^evo<;, Josephus eflfectively distances this viewpoint from his own.' Darius and his Median contemporaries may have befieved that Daniel had an excellent spirit within him—presumably the same spirit which characterized Daniel also under the reign of Belshazzar—but this is not Josephus' own opinion. Josephus' second modification consists of the omission of the word, wvev^ia. Although TO Geiov could arguably be interpreted as an eUiptical reference to to Geiov nvev^ia,* the absence of the word, spirit, softens the basis for interpreting Daniel's exp>erience as spirit possession. These subde alterations in Josephus' version of Daniel dovetail to reveal a reluctance on Josephus' part patentiy to reproduce the biblical point of view.^ The divine spirit is not said to lie within Daniel but instead to accompany him. Furthermore, Daniel's possession of the divine (spirit) wdthin belongs to the belief world of the Medians but not Josephus' own. Josephus supplants the spirit within with the divine spirit whose accompaniment of Daniel explains his unique abihty "to discover things which were not within the understanding of others . . . " {Ant. 10.239).

' L. H. Feldman ("Josephus' Portrait of Daniel," Henoch 14 [1992] 84) observes that Josephus concludes the entire story of Daniel with similar caution: "Now I have written about these matters as I have found them in my reading; if, however, anyone wishes to judge otherwise of them, I shall not object to his holcOng a diflferent opinion" {Ant. 10.281). Josephus may reserve judgment because of the implications of Daniel's prophecies concerning Rome. * R. Marcus in the Loeb version, which I modified in quotation, translates, . . he was believed to have the divine spirit in him." ^ I have suf^sted reasons for this reluctance in 'Josephus' Interpretation," 2 5 0 51.

THE SPIRIT AND EXTRAORDINARY INSIGHT

171

Moses according to Philo Judaeus

In Vit. Mos. 2.264-65, Philo pinpoints precisely how Moses exercised his prophetic function by predicting the sabbath: Moses, when he heard of this [the manna] and also actually saw it, was awestruck and, guided by what was not so much surmise as God-sent inspiration, made announcement of the sabbath. I need hardly say that conjectures of this kind are closely akin to prophecies. For the mind could not have made so straight an aim if there was not also the divine spirit guiding it to the truth itself^

This narrative explanation is part of a lengthy apologetic analysis of the various roles in which Moses functioned. Philo dedicates the first three-quarters of his De vita Mosis to demonstrating that "Moses was the best of kings, of lawgivers and of high priests . . ." (H/. Mos. 2.187). In Vit. Mos. 2.188, he directs his efforts to demonstrating that Moses was also "a prophet of the highest quality." To accomplish this, Philo distinguishes three types of oracles in the production of which Moses the prophet participates. Three Sorts of Inspired Oracles

The first two sorts of Moses' oracles Philo presents with exceptional clarity. The first group of oracles are given by God through Moses as an interpreter. These comprise the laws which expand the Deca logue. The second sort of oracles Moses receives through question and answer with God: "the prophet asks questions of God about matters on which he has been seeking knowledge, and God replies and instructs him" {Vit. Mos. 2.190).^ Of a very diflferent character is the third sort of oracles, which "are spoken by Moses in his own person, when possessed by God and carried away out of himself"'' This description of Moses contains * Greek, e^p' otq OYyeXXofievoi^ ojia KOI 6p(o(ievoi(; KaTaTtX«Yei^ Monxnif; OVK totoxdoato ^aXXov 11 6Eo<popii6eiq iQianiat xr\v kfib6\xr\v. e
172

AN EXTRAORDINARY MIND

two not wholly compatible parts. One is Moses' speaking in his own person, and the other is Moses' being carried out of himself by in^ired possession. What exactly these parts mean is explained in the following two descripdons of Moses as prophet par excellence. On the one hand, explains Philo, Moses received God's own knowl edge: "God has given to him of his own power of foreknowledge and by this he will reveal future events" (2.190). What Philo means by this statement can be comprehended by Philo's earlier contendon that Moses sjjoke "in his own person." When Philo introduced the first sort of oracles, he employed the words, "in His own person" to describe God's condition while delivering the Decalogue. In the same sentence, while introducing the third sort of oracles, Philo reproduces these exact words to describe Moses' condition while he dehvered other oracles to Israel: "Of the divine utterances, some are spoken by God in His own Person . . . and others are spoken by Moses in his own person. . . ."^ This parallel between God and Moses suggests that Moses, like God, possessed the capacity to produce oracles out of his own self With respect to God, Philo need not explain how this is possible. With respect to Moses, Philo explains laconically that Moses could speak out of himself because "God has given to him of his own power of foreknowledge."'° How very different Moses is from Balaam and the race of prophets, whose minds are temporarily sup planted by the spirit in order to utter oracles; in direct contrast, Mc«es spoke out of himself because he possessed the power of God's own ioTtknowledge. On the other hand—and here Philo's abihty to confiise becomes consummate—these oracles, spoken out of Moses himself, are the sort "in which the speaker appears under that divine fK>ssession in virtue of which he is chiefly and in the strict sense considered a prophet."" This statement concurs with what Philo eariier said immediately after contending that Moses spoke out of himself: "others are spoken by Moses [in his own person], when possessed by God and carried away out of himself" This is the language of ecstasy of the most extra ordinary sort. Moses, who was of course always a prophet, or better.

' ViL Mos. 2.188. Greek, t o v Xxxyiotv t d ^lev kx npoaaaam t o u 6eo0 "khftxax... t o 8' eic xpooctHtov Mcsvolco^. '° Vu. Mos. 2.190. Greek, ^rca86vtoq a v t ^ t o v 6eo0 tiiq xpoyvaKniKf)^ Svvd^eio^. " Vit. Mos. 2.191. Greek, ev ^ T6 tov Xeyovto^ ^vd(nKTi&8e^ ^fupaivetai, KXX6' O \iaXicna m i Kvpiio; vevoniotoi i t p o f ^ ? .

THE SPIRIT AND EXTRAORDINARY INSIGHT

173

the prophet, ejqjerienced a form of possession which transformed him into a prophet "in the strict sense." These two streams reflect Philo's apologedc strategy. He wants to demonstrate that Moses simultaneously embodied both the highest level of human insight ("in his own person") and the most intense form of prophedc ecstasy ("carried away out of himself"). Because the bibhcal texts are put to such unabashedly apologedc use, these two streams vie for prominence and converge wildly in the course of Philo's subsequent interpretadon. It is in the churning waters of these currents that Philo's statement about the spirit surfaces, in Vit. Mos. 2.264-65, like a piece of driftwood. By attending to the particular currents that carry this striking explanation, it is possible to discern the paramount significance of the spirit in Philo's writings. Moses as a Prophet 'Hn the Strict Sense" This apologetic strategy determines Philo's recasting of Moses' predic tion of the sabbath, in which Philo simultaneously accentuates both Moses' inspired state ("carried away out of himself") and his intellec tual acumen ("in his own f>erson"). Into this context Philo introduces the divine spirit. Philo's exegetical movements suggest, on the one hand, that Moses' oracles concerning the sabbath were the product of an ecstatic form of prophecy. According to LXX Exod 16:15, Moses responded to the Israelites' question about the manna with a straightforward de scription of it as bread, prefaced by the simple words, "Moses said [elwev] to them." PhUo records that Moses commanded under inspiration (e«i0£iaoa^) that the IsraeHtes should gather only enough for each day {Vu. Mos. 2.259). According to LXX Exod 16:23, Moses merely "said [elicev] to them" that they should rest on the sabbath. Philo writes instead that Moses "under God-sent inspiration, made announcement [eeo<popii8eic Bianiae] of the sabbadi" (2.264). According to LXX Exod 16:25-26, Moses said (elicev) that the people should eat what was preserved from the prior day rather than searching in the field on the sabbath. Philo transforms this statement in Vit. Mos. 2.268-69 into prediction by emphasizing that it transpired, not on the sabbath, but on the day prior to the sabbath (tfi. . . 7ipotepa(<ji), by describing the oracle as "most portentous" (xptiajioy tepaTCD5eataTov), and by replacing "said" with "prophesied" (Oeoni^ei).'^ The result of these This exegetical movement is part of a larger pattern that is characteristic as

174

AN EXTRAORDINARY MIND

sabbath predictions, Philo records, was Israel's acknowledgement o f Moses "the prophet as a true seer, an interpreter of God, and alone gifted with foreknowledge of the hidden future.'"' As if this exegedcal recasting were not enough, Philo includes three narrative transitions in the sabbath story that accentuate Moses' in spired state. He begins by characterizing Moses' prior utterance at the Red Sea as the begirming of Moses' prophetic work, implying by this that the subsequent oracles concerning the sabbath would be its continuation: "It was thus that Moses began and opened his work as a prophet possessed by God's spirit" {Vit. Mos. 2.258). After the first sabbath oracle about the manna, he then writes, "Not long after, Moses delivered a second inspired pronouncement concerning the sacred seventh day" (Vit. Mos. 2.263). Before turning to the subsequent biblical episode, Philo recapitulates: Moses' explanation of manna was "his pronouncement under divine inspiration [Katexo^Evo^eOeoicioev]" {Vit. Mos. 2.270). Thus Moses' utterances concerning the manna and the sabbath, described consistendy in LXX Elxodus 16 with the simple verb, elnev, are transformed by Philo into instances of prophetic inspiration. Moses was a prophet who spoke "when possessed by God and carried away out of himself" {Vit. Mos. 2.188).'* In this context—in which Philo consistendy replaces the bibhcal word, said, with synonyms for inspiration that were at home in GrecoRoman discussions of inspiration, in which Philo three times adds summaries of Moses' condition with words that would suggest an ecstatic condition, and which is intended to provide an illustration of "that divine possession in virtue of which he is chiefly and in the well of the other biblical illustrations of Moses' prophetic work "in the strict sense:" crossing the Red Sea {Fu. Mos. 2.246-57); die golden calf (2.270-74); and Korah's rebellion (2.275-87). Where the biblical story recounts simply that Mc^es said (elitev) something, Philo embellishes the utterance of Moses with a high concentration of vocabulary to signal presumably the onset of ecstasy. For detailed analysis, see my "Philo Judaeus." 310-12. " Vit. Mos. 2.269. Greek, dXnSonavtiv 5e ical 9eoii'niv. '* The entire section of De vita Mosis which Philo devotes to Moses' prophetic voca tion is introduced with a statement that could hardly have prepared Philo's readers for anything but a description of Moses' prophetic ecstasy: "I will proceed next to describe those delivered [Bexsni<^bna] by the prophet him^lf under divine inspiration [KOT ' ev6o\xjiaon6v].... The examples of his possession [xf\q ScoqwpriTou KatoKioxiK] • • •" (2.246). ITiis transition statement picks up the vocabulary of Philo's introduction of the "third kind [of oracles], in which the ^ a k e r jqjpears under that divine pc^ession [cv6ouoia>8E<;] in virtue of which he is chiefly and in the strict sense considered a prophet" (2.191).

THE SPIRIT AND EXTRAORDINARY INSIGHT

175

Strict sense considered a prophet" {Vit. Mos. 2.191)—in this context a reference to the divine spirit would most likely have been understood as the catalyst for ecstatic prophetic inspiration, not unlike the Delphic vapor. It is this expectation which renders Philo's introduction of a reference to the "mind" and the adoption of two words, eiKaaCa ("conjecture") and TIOSTIYETEO) ("guide"), so significant, for elsewhere Philo uses these two words exclusively in association with the processes of the conscious human mind. Philo consistendy employs the word, conjecture, in contexts that have to do with thought, opinions, and guessing. In Gaius 21, for ex ample, Philo observes, "The human mind in its blindness does not perceive its real interest and all it can do is to take conjecture and guesswork for its guide instead of knowledge." He includes conjecture alongside human ideas, purposes, and aims {Post. Cain 80), and de scribes it as "second to the true vision . . . conjecture and theorizing and all that can be brought into the category of reasonable probabihty" {Spec. Leg. 1.38).'^ Philo corroborates this interpretation of the inspiration of the con scious mind by employing the verb, guide, which occurs without excep tion in Philo's writings in association with the path toward virtue. Guides in the ascent to virtue include love of wisdom {Opf. 70) or divine reason {Immut. 182). When Philo describes wisdom itself as a guide, he presents the essential role of the conscious mind with excep tional clarity: "The mind is cleansed by wisdom and the truths of wisdom's teaching which guide its steps to the contemplation of the universe and all that is therein, and by the sacred company of the other virtues and by the practice of them shewn in noble and highly praiseworthy actions" {Spec. Leg. 1.269). The road to virtue is there fore concomitant with the purification of the mind.'^ Philo's use of these two words, conjecture and guide, to explain Moses' ability to predict the future betoken a view of inspiration in which the highest achievement of human thought is attributable to the spirit. The introduction of the spirit as guide for the mind into a context rife with expressions for enthusiastic inspiration contributes to the convergence in Vit. Mos. 2.188-292 of two apologetic currents. The

E.g, Leg. AU. 3.228; Conf. Ling. 159; Cher. 69; Som. 1.23 Spec. Leg. 1.63; 4.50; Her. 98; Vit. Mos. 1.68. For the adjective, eiKaoxiKoq, see Cher. 116; Sqcr. Cain and Abel 13. For analysis, see my "Prophetic Spirit," 197-98. For related texts and ftirther analysis, see my "Prophetic Spirit," 198-99.

176

A N EXTRAORDINARY

MIND

spirit both induces ecstasy and guides the mind to truth otherwise unknown.'^ Despite the preponderance o f words for inspiradon and inspired possession which permeate Philo's portrait of Moses, there fore, the impression that Moses' inspiradon was ecstadc, that his mind was displaced, that his prophecies were the product of mantic frenzy, reflects only one of the currents which whirl through De vita Mosis. The other complementary current entails the guidance of Moses' mind to the truth by the divine spirit. Moses speaks both while possessed (stream two in Vu. Mos. 2.188-91) and with his mind in possession of God's foreknowledge (stream one in Vit. Mos. 2.188-91).'® Joseph according to Philo Judaeus An analogous model of inspiration characterizes Joseph's success at interpreting Pharaoh's dream (Gen 41:14-45). The source of the advice Joseph tendered on the basis of his interpretation of the dream (e.g., the storing of a fifth of the grain during the seven good years) is, in Philo's view, the product of a divine voice. Joseph eiqslained, "Such are the facts which appear from the interpretation, but I also hear the promptings of the divine voice, devising safeguards for the disease, as we may call i t . . ." {Jos. 110). This description occurs immediately prior to the account of Joseph's advice. Immediately following this advice, Philo paraphrases Gen 41:38: "The king having heard both his interpretation of the dreams, so exacdy and skilfully divining the truth [evdvPoXcoq xai ewjKoiMi)^ otoxa^onevnv TTI^ dXiiOeio^], and his advice to aU appearance most profitable in its foresight for the uncer tainties of the future, bade his companions come closer to him so that Joseph might not hear, and said: 'Sirs, shall we find another such as this, who has in him the spirit of God?'" (116). In this re vision, Philo follows Gen 41:38 closely: o(; Ixei wvev^a 0eot) ev avc^, becomes oq exei icvev^ia Oeiov ev kaxn^ in Jos. 116. However, the paraUel between the introduction and conclusion to Joseph's advice introduces a correspondence between the promptings of the divine voice and the presence of the divine spirit in Joseph. The voice Joseph described {Jos. 110) was identified by the king as the spirit {Jos. 116). The intact state of Joseph's mind is impUed by the subsequent remark of

" For further evidence in De vita Mosis of M6scs* mind intact, sec my "Two Types of Ecstadc Prophecy According to Philo," SPhA 6 (1994) 84-87. " See also Proem. 53-55 and the analysis in my "Philo Judaeus," 312-13.

T H E SPIRIT A N D E X T R A O R D I N A R Y INSIGHT

177

Pharaoh, following his acknowledgement of the spirit, in which he described Joseph as a "man of prudence and sense" (117). A concurrence of vocabulary in the guidance of Moses' mind by the spirit to the truth {VU. Mos. 2.264-65) and the promptings of the divine voice {Jos. 110, 116) suggests that Philo adheres to a common conception of inspiration by the spirit in both. Moses' mind skillfully hit the mark (EVKJKOJMIX; ev)0uP6XTioev); Joseph's interpretation also skill fully hit the mark (evOuPoXox; xai e v a x o T c o x ; ) . That mark in both was the truth (f^ dXriOeia). The abihty to arrive at the truth was in both cases due to the spirit (icve^na). Even the process that led to the truth is described similarly in both stories as conjecture. The words Philo uses to describe these conjectures—eixaoiai of Moses and oxoxaCfi\ikvi\v of Joseph—are synonyms which elsewhere occur in tandem, for instance, in Som. 1.23 (axoxaonoiq xai e i x a o i a K ; ) , Spec. Leg. 1.38, 4.50, and Gaim 2 1 . Underlying VU. Mos. 2.265 and Joj. 116, dien, is a coherent conception of the process of inspiration. There occurs, moreover, a striking parallel between Jos. 110 and Proem. 5 3 - 5 5 , in which Philo summarizes De vita Mosis, including the gift of prophecy illustrated at length in Vit. Mos. 2.188-91 and 2 4 6 92. Both Joseph and Moses were able to discern what is otherwise unknowable because they were prompted. Joseph heard "the prompt ings [vmixei 5e ^loi] of the divine voice . . ." Moses could predict the sabbath because "the prophet is the interpreter of God who prompts from within [ev5o6ev u i H i x o v v i o q ] what he should say" {Praem. 55). There exists, then, an impressive coalescence of vocabulary in Vit. Mos. 2.265, Joj. 1 1 0 - 1 6 , and Praem. 5 3 - 5 5 to suggest the presence of a unified conception of the spirit's eflfect upon the conscious mind.'^

Stmmiary In their interpretations of Balaam, whose vocal chords are said to have been employed by the spirit to say what it would, Philo and Josephus accentuate the loss of mental control in the prophetic expe rience. The portraits of Daniel in the Antiquities, of Moses in De vita Mosis and De praemiis et poems, and of Joseph in De losepho, however, contain com{>elling evidence to suggest that these two first century authors do not subscribe exclusively to the conception, prevalent in On this conception of inspiration in Philo's autobiographical reflections in Cher. 27-29 and Som. 2.252, see my "PhUo Judaeus," 299-313.

178

AN EXTRAORDINARY

MIND

their era, that the sine qua non of inspiration is ecstasy. Josephus re treats from portraying Daniel as a diviner possessed by the spirit while simultaneously presenting him as a person accompanied by the divine spirit. Philo accentuates Moses' experiences of inspired enthusiasm and possession while simultaneously stadng with extraordinary clarity that Moses' abihty to predict the sabbath was due to the spirit's ability to guide his mind to the truth. The process for Moses and Joseph consisted of a prompting by the divine rather than an ousdng of their consciousness.

Relevant Afilieux These interpretadons of the experiences of Daniel, Moses, and Joseph are not without precedent. They were andcipated by the Israelite and early Jewish sapiendal tradidons including, of course, the biblical stories of Daniel, Joseph, and Moses, all of whom were believed to possess extraordinary wisdom. Although these Israelite and early Jewish texts will be shown not to exhibit the precision and detail that charac terize the interpretadons of Philo and Josephus, they nonetheless pro vide the underpinnings of these creative biblical interpreters. The Israelite arui Early Jewish Sapiential Tradition The Spirit of Wisdom arui Israel's Leading Figures The associadon of the spirit with wisdom is not infrequent in Israel ite and early Jewish literature, even apart from the descriptions of Joseph and Daniel. Although in Num 27:16-20, Joshua, "a man in whom is the spirit," was commissioned as military leader, the Deuteronomist idendfies him primarily as a person "full of the spirit of wis dom" (Deut 34:9). The skill of Bezalel, the architect of the tabernacle, is considered a gift of the spirit: " . . . and I have filled him with divine spirit, with ability, intelligence, and knowledge in every kind of craft, to devise ardsdc designs.. ." (Exod 31:3-4; cf 35:31-32). In the book of Job (32:8-9), the self-appointed representadve of the sapiential tra dition, Elihu, refused to be disregarded on the basis of his youth: But truly it is the spirit [nveOna] in a mortal, the breath [nvor^J of the Almighty, that makes for understanding. It is not the old that are wise, nor the aged that understand what is right.

THE SPIRIT AND EXTRAORDINARY INSIGHT

179

Numbers 27, Exodus 31 and 35, Job, as well as Daniel, which are usually dated in the post-exilic period, are indicative of a willingness during the Persian and Greek periods to attribute extraordinary human skill and insight to the spirit. This tendency persisted into the Greco-Roman era with the attri budon of the skill of Israel's heroes to the spirit. In 1 Enoch 91, which creates a narradve bridge between the Dream Visions (1 Enoch 8 3 90) and the Episde of Enoch (92-104/7),^ Enoch's final testament and vision of the future is deemed to be a product of the spirit: "Now, my son Methuselah, (please) summon all your brothers on my behalf, and gather together to me all the sons of your mother; for a voice calls me, and the spirit is poured over me so that I may show you everything that shall happen to you forever" (91:1).^' According to the Book of Jubilees, Jacob and Rebekkah prepared their grandchildren for the future with blessings which issued from the spirit. Of Rebekkah it is said, "And at that time, when a spirit of truth^^ descended upon her mouth, she placed her two hands upon the head of Jacob and said . . ." (Jubilees 25:14). Jacob's blessing transpired with the advent of the spirit: "And they drew near to him and he turned and kissed them and embraced the both of them together. And a spirit of pro phecy came down upon his mouth. And he took Levi in his right hand and Judah in his left hand" (Jubilees 31:11-12).^^ Of Joseph, on the basis of Gen 41:38, it can be said that "the spirit of the LORD is with him" (Jubilees 40:5), that "the spirit of God is upon him" (Joseph and Aseneth 4:7), or that he was "one who had within him the spirit of God" (TSim 4:4). Joseph's son, Levi, received ex ceptional insight with the arrival of the spirit: "As I was tending

* J. VanderKam {Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition [CBQMS 16; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984] 170) suggests that the "Methuselah" Apocalypse (1 En 91.1 10) and the Apocalypse of Weeks (93:1 10 and 91:11-17) "serve as an introduction to and basis for Enoch's exhortations and warnings in the remainder of the booklet." ^' Enoch's remarkable knowledge of the calendar is, in the Book of the Luminaries (1 Enoch 72-82), attributed to the breath of the angel Uriel: "True is the matter of the exact computation of that which has been recorded; for Uriel—whom the Lord of all the creation of the world has ordered for me (in order to explain) the host of heaven—has revealed to me and breathed over me concerning the luminaries, the months, the festivals, the years, and the days" (82:7). Ethiopic manuscript C reads "a holy spirit." See OTP 2.105 n. b. ^' Although the mention of prophecy in the second of these references to the spirit could be construed as an indication of an ecstatic experience, the parallel with the reference to truth in the first text, as well as the absence of any other indication of ecstatic behavior, suggests perhaps an experience in which the intellect is left intact.

180

AN

EXTRAORDINARY

MIND

the flocks in Abel-Maoul a spirit of understanding from the Lord came upon me, and I observed all human beings making their way in Hfe deceitfully" (TLevi 2:3). Even Solomon, whose wisdom in the bibli cal traditions is nowhere attributed to the spirit, declaimed confidendy, "Therefore I prayed, and understanding was given me; I called on God, and the spirit of wisdom came to me" (WisSol 7:7). The final words of the Septuagint version of Susannah (63), in which Daniel figures prominendy, predicts a permanent supply of this spirit: "For the younger ones will live reverendy, and there will be in them a spirit of knowledge and understanding for all time."^'^ This htany reflects a readiness to attribute the extraordinary wisdom and insight of the heroic figures of Israel's past to the spirit during the periods encompassed by Persian, Greek, and Roman rule. What this list of Israelite heroes does not evince is a precise aflfinity with Philo and Josephus with respect to the mode of the spirit's presence. The predominent conception of the spirit's presence in these texts is suggested by the preposition upon and the images of descent or pouring.^^ These are very diflferent conceptions of the spirit's presence from those which Philo and Josephus adopt, according to which the spirit accompanied, guided to the truth, or prompted.^^ Moreover, these texts do not clarify precisely how the spirit reveals truth, while Philo specifically traces this revelation to the mind under the guidance of the spirit. Therefore, sJthough these Israelite and early Jewish texts provide ample precedent for the general association of the spirit with wisdom and knowledge of the future, they exhibit neither a specific mode of revelation (e.g., prompting; guiding) nor an analogous con^* Translation mine. Greek, evoePfiaovai yap vetoxepoi, Kal eoTai ev ai)toi<; nvevM.a e7iiOTii^iTi(; Kal avveoeax; ei(; aicova aiSvoq. In this regard, the affirmation that the spirit was rw'^ Joseph, rather than in him (Gen 41:38), according to Jubilees 40:5, might seem a fortunate parallel to Josephus' adaptation of the tjJe of Daniel, This is not the case, for in the two prior references, Jubilees 25:14 and 31:11-12, a spirit of tmth or prophecy is said to have descended upon Rebekkah and Jacob. littie more is probably meant in Jubilees 40:5, then, than that the spirit which had descended upon Joseph remained with him. The ambiguous language of WisSol 7:7—the spirit came to Solomon—should per haps be interpreted to mean that the spirit descended upon him, in light of the parallel text in WisSol 9:17: "Who has learned your counsel/unless you have given wisdom/and sent your holy spirit from on high?" Joseph and Aseneth 4:7, in which the spirit is said to have come w^on Joseph, although according to Gen 41:38 the spirit was within Joseph, is an example of how influential this interpretation was, in which the spirit was believed to come upon a person. 2^ Other texts are equally distant. The spirit of understanding fills (Sir 39:6), is breadied over one (1 En 82.7), or is given ( I Q H 12.10-12).

THE SPIRIT AND EXTRAORDINARY INSIGHT

181

ception of the mode in which the spirit is present (e.g., accompany ing) sufficient to explain the exegetical movements that Philo and Josephus make in their interpretations of Daniel, Moses, and Joseph. These examples do not, however, exhaust the Israelite and early Jewish repository of texts which attribute extraordinary insight to the spirit. The Spirit of Wisdom and the Messianic Servant A particularly focussed association of the spirit with wisdom emerges from Isaiah's prediction of a Davidic ruler who would bring in the wake of his reign both human and cosmic peace (Isa 11:1-9): The spirit of the LORD shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and die fear of the LORD (Isa 11:2). In later permutations of this figure in the Isaiah corpus, wisdom is supplanted by justice. An exihc prophet describes a servant in whom God delights, of whom God says, "I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations" (Isa 42:lb-c) and will not grow weary "until he has established justice in the earth" (42: Id). The elusive yet related prophetic figure of Isaiah 61:1-7 also claims justice rather than wisdom as the fundamental project of his calhng: The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners... (61:1). Although wisdom is edipsed by justice in the Isaiah coipus, early Jew ish authors rekindled the original association of the spirit with wisdom in their appropriations of Isaiah 11. The spirit which dwells upon the Elect One, the central eschatological character of the Simihtudes of Enoch, is depicted principally, in language reminiscent of Isaiah 11, as a spirit of wisdom: "The Elect One stands before the Lord of the Spirits; his glory is forever and ever and his power is unto all genera tions. In him dwells the spirit of wisdom, the spirit which gives thoughtfulness, the spirit of knowledge and strength, and the spirit of those who have fallen asleep in righteousness" (1 En 49:2-3). Poetic depic tions of the anticipated messianic deliverer, redolent of Isaiah 11, preserve as well the association of the spirit and wisdom. The author

182

AN EXTRAORDINARY

MIND

of the Psalms of Solomon predicts, "And he will not weaken in his days, (relying) upon his God, for God made him powerful in the holy spirit and wise in the counsel of understanding, with strength and righteousness" (17:37).^' With this expectation the author of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs concurs: "And the spirit of under standing and sancdficalion shall rest upon him. . . . The spirit of holi ness shall be upon them. And Beliar shall be bound by him. And he shall grant to his children the authority to trample on wicked spirits" (Yljcvi 18.7, l i b 12). Although these authors subdy modify the Isaianic vision by underscoring strength (1 Enoch; Psalm of Solomon 17) or adding the element of sancdfication (l^stament of Levi), they do not permit these emphases to eclipse the sapiendal character of the spirit. Apart from this longstanding associadon between the spirit and wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, it is difficult to ascertain which aspects of these texts provide an adequate framework for explaining the particular exegetical movements which Philo and Josephus under took. According to the Isaiah texts and the Testament of Levi, the spirit will rest upon the saving figure. 1 Enoch 49:2-3, in which the spirit is depicted as indwelling the Elect One^—^providing a possible counterpart to Philo's conception of prompting from within—is unsuit able, for the next reference in which the spirit and this eschatological figure feature together depicts the spirit as being poured out: "The Lord of the Spirits has .sat down on the throne of his glory, and the spirit of righteousness has been poured out upon him" (62:2).^^ In the Psalms of Solomon, the spirit is associated primarily with power rather than wi.sdom. These Isaianic texts and their early Jewish inter pretations, therefore, share only modest affinities with the interpreta tions of Philo and Josephus, in which the spirit accompanies, guides, and prompts but is not poured out or made to rest upon the recipient of the spirit.^

" See also PsSol 18:7-9. The biblical antecedents of this conception include Isa 32:14 15 and 44:1-3, Zech 12:10, and M T J o e l 3:1. A reference to the spirit in 4Q504 1 2 V 15 is probably influenced by Isa 44:3. On the reladonship of Decal. 175 to this discussion, see my "Philo Judaeus," 297-98. The expressions in Decal. 175 are more traditional: ". . . having filled him [Moses] with the divine spirit [dvanXriocK; ^ e o \ ) nve{>^aT0(;], [God] chose him to be the interpreter of his sacred utterances." This description of inspiration has substantial biblical underpinnings, e.g., God filled Bezalel with the spirit, ability, intelligence, and knowledge of all crafts (Exod 31:3; 35:31); Joshua was full of the spirit of wisdom (Deut 34:9); Micah claimed to be filled with power, the spirit, justice, and might

T H E SPIRIT A N D

EXTRAORDINARY

INSIGHT

183

Nor do diese sapiential texts, which predict the advent of an escha tological figure, clarify the mode of revelation any more than those which attributed the wisdom of Israel's ancestors to the spirit. A large chasm separates an explanadon such as Philo's in Vit. Mos. 2.265 from the expectation that the spirit of wisdom would dwell in the Elect One, that God would make the eschatological redeemer powerful in the holy spirit, and that the spirit of understanding and sanctification would rest upon him. Therefore, these formulaic predictions could hardly have provided the conceptual scaffolding which led Josephus to substitute for the biblical view—the spirit indwelt Daniel—the interpretation that the spirit accompanied him. Nor do they approxi mate the view that Moses, while intensely inspired, consciously grasped the truth of the sabbath because the spirit guided his mind, or that Joseph's strategy for dealing with the imminent famine in Egypt came to him by divine prompting. Because these early Jewish and Israelite literary texts provide only the most general espousal of an association of the spirit with wisdom and thus do not exhibit sufficient affinities with the interpretations of Philo and Josephus, it proves necessary to turn elsewhere to explain their exegetical movements. Once again, the most promising concep tual reservoir for such an explanation is close at hand, in the writings of Plutarch, though not now in discussions of Delphic inspiration but in the effort to ascertain the nature of Socrates' inspiration. Socrates' Daemon in Greco-Roman Discussion The memory of Socrates cut a large swath through the philosophi cal reflection of the Greco-Roman era. Diogenes Laertius quotes the words of the Pythian priestess, "Of all people living Socrates most wise," and adds himself that "for this he was most envied" (2.37). Philo depicts Socrates as "one w h o was enraptured by the beauty of

wisdom" {Plant. 65),^ and Josephus ridicules his opponent, Apion, (Mic 3:8); and the scribe is filled with the spirit of understanding (Sir 39:6). See also P. Schafer, Din VorsuUung vom hei^en Geist in der rabbinischm Ijteratur (SzANT 28; Munich: Kosel, 1972) 4 0 - 4 1 . * See Immut. 146. Philo is dependent upon a tradidon found also in Cicero's Tusadmae Disputationes 5.91, in which Socrates is explicidy mendoned. The story is recounted also in Diogenes Laertius 2.25. Among other references to Socrates, Philo indudes Socrates* physiological observations in support of his own allegorical expla nation of why the door of Noah's ark was at the side (Gen 6:16; Quaest. in Gen. 2.6): "This is very excellent, for, as Socrates used to say, whether taught by Moses or

184

AN EXTRAORDINARY

MIND

for including himself alongside renowned philosophers, "Socrates, Zeno, Gleanthes, and others of that cahbre" (CA 2.135). Of particular interest was the nature of Socrates' inspiring daemonion, which Hato consistently designated x6 Saifioviov (Euthyphro 3B; Apology 40A) or, "something divine and daemonic."^' Socrates associated it with a sign^^ and reflected, " . . . I thought I heard a voice fix)m it.. . Philosophers including Xenophon,^* the author of the pseudo-Platonic dialogue Theages,^^ Cicero,^ Maximus of Tyre,'' and Diogenes Laerdus^ devoted serious attendon to the nature of Socrates' 5ai^6viov for more than half a millennium. Josephus belongs to this current of thought when he attributes Socrates' death to his claim "that he re ceived communications from a certain daemon . . ." (CA 2.263-64).^ Naturally the nature of Socrates' daemonion held intense interest for Plutarch, who, we may recall, devotes two substantive discussions in his De genio Soaatis to the nature and function of this daemonic sign (580B-82C and 588B-89F). These conversations begin with a question raised by Theocritus: m o v e d b y t h e t h i n g s t h e m s e l v e s . . ." I n Vu. Cont. 5 7 , he r e g a r d s t h e " t w o celebrated a n d highly notable examples" o f banquets held i n Greece t o be th(MC i n which Socrates took part. " ApaU>gj> 3ID. Greek, 0eiov TI icai 5aiti6vtov. " In Phaedrus 242B, x6 6ai^6viov te Kal to eicoSo^ OT)^ei6v; to et(066q ot^^iov t6 6a»n6viov in Euthydemus 272E. " Phaedrus 242C. Greek, Kai t w a «(Kovnv e 5 o ^ aikoSev aKovoai. " Xenophon begins his MerrwrabiHa with a refutation o f the charge that Socrates rejected the gods o f the state, defending Socrates by demonstrating his conformity to the state religion. Therefore, he refers to this daamnion in a way that ^similates it to the state religion rather than in ways that distinguish it from that religion. Xenophon goes s o far a s t o include it alongside commonplace forms of divination such as augury (1.1.4) and twice states in general terms that it pointed the way (covf|) which functioned as a sign to Socrates to prohibit an actk>n

[Vuagts 128EK129D). ^ Socrates supphes the precedent for the conviction in De dwinathne that "the power of divination exists" (1.124): "It is this purity of soul, no cbubt, that e}q>lain8 that famous utterance which history attributes to Socrates and which his disciples in their books often represent him as repeating: 'There b some divine influence [dioinumy—Sai^oviov, he called it—'which I always obey, though it never urg^ me on, but often holds me back'" (1.122). Phdosophumem 8. ^ In his Lives of the t^tdosophers 2.32, he mentions that Socrates "used to say that his supernatural sign warned him beforehand of the future." ^ Greek, x\ 5ai|l6viov avtqp oimaiveiv. My translation.

THE

SPIRIT A N D

EXTRAORDINARY

INSIGHT

185

. . . but what, my dear sir, do we call Socrates' daemon [sign]? For my part, nothing reported o f Pythagoras' skill in divination has struck me as so great or so divine; for exacdy as Homer has represented Athena as "standing at" Odysseus' "side in all his labours," so heaven seems to have attached to Socrates from his earliest years as his guide in Hfe a vision of this kind, which alone "Showed him the way, illumining his path," in matters dark and inscrutable to human wisdom, through the frequent concordance of the inspiring daemon with his own decisions.**' Several elements in this conception of inspiration are similar to Philo's description of communication from the spirit in Vit. Mos. 2.265 and Praem. 55. First, Theocritus designates the daemonion a guide {nponodi]yov); Philo uses the cognate verb, TtoSTiYExeo), to describe the guidance of the divine spirit in Vit. Mos. 2.265. Second, the primary function of Socrates' daemonion in this introduction corresponds to the primary function of inspiration in the introduction to Philo's treatment of Moses' prophetic gift in Vtt. Mos. 2.187-292, of which Vit. Mos, 2.265 is an illustration. The daemonion illumined matters inscrutable to human wisdom; Moses as prophet was to "declare by inspiration what can not be apprehended by reason" (2.187). Third, the contention that Socrates' daemonion confirmed his decisions—it d o e s not initiate them or overcome him to eflfect them—is surprisingly similar to Philo's assertion that Moses spoke "in his own person" (2.188), in possession of his o w n mind (2.265). The impetus for Moses' prediction of the sabbath, in fact, was not initially the advent of inspiration but Moses' own response of ameizement {Kaxanhxyex(; in 2.264) at seeing and hear ing of the manna. Fourth, inspiration is described by the same verb. The "inspiring daemon" (Saijioviov ejciGeia^ov) confirmed Socrates' decisions; the sabbath prediction (2.263) was a product of Moses' inspiration (inSemaaq). The details which Plutarch's portrayal of Socrates and Philo's depiction of Moses have in common are impres sive. As the daemonion w a s a guide to Socrates, inspiring him to compre hend inscrutable matters, so did the spirit guide Moses to comprehend truth unknowable. The conversation in De genio Socratis does n o t conclude with this query a n d initial response. After a lengthy interruption, it returns to ^ Gen. Socr. 5 8 0 C - D . Translation mine. Greek, TO 6e 8ain6viov, w ^eXxiaxe, TO ZcoKpdxouq \|/£i)8o(; ii xi (pa|iev; e^oi ydp ov8ev omax; \iiya Ttov rcepl JlvGayopo-u Xfyoiievwv eiq (lavTiicfiv ESO^C Kai 0eiov dTexvw^ ydp owxv "Ojiiipoq 'O&uaaei iteTcoiKe TT^V 'A0r|vav 'ev ndvtEooi Jiovoioi napioTanevnv,' xoiavTriv EOIKE ZwKpdTEi TOV pCot) icporeoSnyov e^ dpxnq Tiva o u v d y a i TO 8ai|Li6viov o^iv, 4]' novti 'oi npooOev iovoa tOei (paoq' EV TCpdyfiaoiv a&i\h}iq Kai npix; dvOpcwrivriv do-uXXoyiOTOK; (pp6vr|oiv, olq avx^ owve
186

AN EXTRAORDINARY MIND

"the problem of the nature and mode of operation of the so-called sign of Socrates" (588B). Another of the dialogue participants, Simmias, proffers his own explanation of Socrates' pecuhar form of inspiration: "Socrates . . . had an understanding which, being pure and free from passion, and comminghng with the body but httie, for necessary ends, was so sensitive and delicate as to respond at once to what reached him. What reached him, one would conjecture, was not spoken lan guage, but the unuttered words of a daemon, making voiceless con tact with his intelligence by their sense alone.'"*' This lucid explanation contains two elements of a conception of inspiration which prove extraordinarily illuminating for the interpreta tion of the spirit in the writings of Philo and Josephus. Firet, the dae monion is not taken to mean, as it could be, merely anything divine, such as a sign (e.g., entrails, birds, or clouds), but as a daemonic being. Simmias refers to this daemon subsequendy as a "higher power" (588E) and "a higher understanding and a diviner soul" (589B). Second, the process of inspiration consists of voiceless contact with the intelhgence of intelligent people. Simmias elaborates this as well when he twice states that this higher power can "lead" (ayeiv) the human soul (588E) or understanding (589B). Such guidance is possible because the thoughts of these "daemons are luminous and shed their hght on the daemonic person [xoi(; Sai^iovioK;]" (589B). The correspondence between this conception of Socrates' inspira tion and Philo's explanation of Moses' inspiration should not surprise us if we recollect that Philo frequendy adopts Greco-Roman concep tions of inspiration to elucidate and expand bibhcal accounts. He adopts Platonic vocabulary to explain the prophetic phenomenon. He portrays Balaam's inspiration as a form of ventriloquism in which a daemonic spirit takes control of Balaam's vocal chords. He constructs his view of the ascent of the philosopher's mind on the basis of Plato's Phaedms. It is consistent with his exegetical tendencies to explain Moses' inspiration via Greco-Roman conceptions of inspiration. Further, the reader is not left to guess in VU. Mos. 2.265 whether Philo has assim ilated Greco-Roman conceptions, for he does so in a narrative aside that is clearly intended to explain Moses' experience in a manner

*' Gen Soa. 588D-E. Greek, IxoKpaitx 8e 6 vov^ KaSapoq fiv Kal d x o ^ ^ , atm^axx ^iKpd tow dvayKaicov xdpiv Katamyvvq outov, exKx^n^ Kal Xoctoq wi6 tou Kpocm«o6vto^ o^ia; nctaPaXciv • TO 5e KpooniRtov a\i f^onfyov dXXd Xoyov av ti^ eiKOOEic $ai|iovoQ SVEU o}vfi^ elpalrc6^evov aut^ t^ StiXouji^cp tov vooOvto^.

THE

SPIRIT A N D E X T R A O R D I N A R Y INSIGHT

187

that is comprehensible to his first century Greco-Roman readers—"I need hardly say t h a t . . Litde wonder, then, that Moses and Socrates experience similar forms of inspiration: . . . the intelligence of the higher power guides the gifted soul. .. {Gen. Socr. 588E). . . . the understanding may be guided by a higher understanding and a diviner s o u l . . . {Gen. Socr. 589B). . . . the divine spirit guiding it [the mind] to the truth itself {Vit. Mos. 2.265).*2

Another feature of this conversation that holds promise for under standing Philo's exegetical movements is the centrality of the unuttered voice. Simmias expresses initially what he claims often to have heard Socrates say, "that people who laid claim to visual communication with Heaven were imposters, while to such as affirmed that they had heard a voice he paid close attention and earnesdy inquired after the particulars" (588C). Simmias conjectures further "that Socrates' sign was perhaps no vision, but rather the perception of a voice or else the mental apprehension of language, that reached him in some strange way" (588D), and that "what reached him, one would conjec ture, was not spoken language, but the unuttered words of a daemon, making voiceless contact with his intelligence by their sense alone" (588E). A voice (xivoc;
The use of different verbs, dYwin Plutarch's writings and no8TiYeTea),in Philo's, is inconsequential, particularly because the noun, npono8r\y6q, is used by Plutarch in Gen. Socr. 580C as the first description of Socrates' 5ai^6viov.

188

A N EXTRAORDINARY MIND

Josephus contends that Socrates was condemned to death because he claimed to receive "communications from a certain daemon . . may shed some light on this question. The occurrence of the indefi nite pronoun, TI, suggests that Josephus agrees with Plutarch's inter pretation of Socrates' daemonion as a particular daemon.*^ Josephus adheres to a similar conception of inspiration, moreover, when he praises John Hyrcanus for his prophetic gift:: "For the daemon was in his company so that he was ignorant of nothing which was to take place . . ." {Bell. 1.69). This explanation—co^iXei yap ain^ TO 5ain6viov—mirrors Josephus' description of Socrates' inspiration—TI 6ai|i6viov a u T ^ ormaiveiv {CA 2.263). These modes of inspiration are also consistent with Herod's statement in Ant. 16.210 that his son Alexander acted virtuously because he was guided by good daemons (5ai^6v(ov ayotOebv eruxev). Underlying these accounts is the interpre tation which Josephus shares with Plutarch (and other interpreters of Plato), that a daemonic being communicates to particularly gifted and praiseworthy human beings.'" Josephus' attribution of Hyrcanus' and Socrates' inspiration to a daemonic being serves to explain hLs alteration of the biblical portrait of the spirit in the story of Daniel. Josephus, uncomfortable with the description of the spirit as that which indwelt Daniel, alters the bib lical version of Daniel in two important ways. He distances himself from the bibhcal perspective by adding that Daniel "was believed" to have this spirit within. He also modifies the biblical language by *' The word, (TO) 8ai>i6viov, has a wide range of meanings, encompa^ng "the divine," "the Satanic," the "daemonic," and divine signs, such as an earthquake. See M. Smidi, "Occult," 241-42. ** In a later version of John Hyrcanus' reign. Ant. 13.300, Josephus substitutes "Deity" (T6 deiov) for "daemonic" (to 6ain6viov): ". . . for the Ddty was with him [cruvfiv ydp o v t ^ to 9ciov] and enabled him to foresee and foretell the future." Two other modificadons indicate that Josephus has not altered his concepdon of in^iration. Rather, he attempts to generalize the presence of the deity to include aU three office ofJohn Hyrcanus—national rule, high priest, and pn^hccy—instead of limiting the presence of the deity to Hyrcanus' prophetic abilities. First, in the later version of the two sons, whom John Hyrcanus was said to predict, Josephus omits the verb, "prophesied" (xpoe^texxjEv), which appears in the eariier veraion of Bdbm Judmam. The two sons, Aristobulus and Antigonus, are national leaders, so Hyrcanus' fore knowledge is related as much to his role as king as it is to his function as prophet. Second, Josephus' attempt to include all three offices under the sway of God explains his preference in the later version for the verb, "was with" (cnivfiv), rather thaji the earher verb, "associated with" (cbjiiXci), which connotes more personal communication and concourse. It is thus Josephus' attempt to generalize the presence of God in the life of John Hyrcanus that may motivate him to avoid language su§$;cstive of daemonic presence akin to Socrates'.

T H E SPIRIT A N D E X T R A O R D I N A R Y

INSIGHT

189

writing that the spirit "accompanied" Daniel rather than indwelling him. Josephus' preference for the language of accompaniment rather than indwelling, when placed alongside his interpretations of Socrates and John Hyrcanus, suggests that he understands the spirit which accompanied Daniel to be a daemonic being which, in a manner par allel to its concourse with Socrates and John Hyrcanus, remained in close association with Daniel. This alteration of his scriptures in what constitutes Josephus' last reference to the spirit in the Antiquities is no more than a natural exten sion of die v i e w J o s e p h u s so carefully established in the initial refer

ences to the spirit in the Antiquities. In those first three references to the spirit—^hich constitute over one-third of the references to the spirit in the totality of Josephus' writings-—the spirit of Numbers 2224 is presented as an angeUc being (i.e., a good daemon) which in spired Balaam's oracles. In the last reference of the Antiquities, Josephus expands the sphere of influence of the divine spirit as a daemonic being to include Daniel. The diflference between the daemonic spirit's activity in the two stories is explained easily by the diflference between the main characters: Balaam is a false prophet whose consciousness must be conquered, Daniel a true prophet whom the daemonic spirit can accompany and prompt. Much the same may be said of Philo's interpretation of the divine spirit as a daemonic being. We have seen the enormous exegetical care Philo exercised to identify the divine spirit with the angel of Numbers 22-24 in the tale of Balaam. We noted furthermore the effort he expends to identify the Sai^oveq of the Greek philosophers with the ayyEAoi of Moses. Entirely consistent with these inteipretative movements, and perfectiy understandable in light of the hefty value placed upon the figure of Socrates in Philo's world, is his ready embrace of conceptions and vocabulary associated with Socrates' daemonion in order to elucidate forms o f inspiration that are Icfl inchoate

in the biblical stories of Joseph and Moses.

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE SPIRIT AND INSPIRED EXEGESIS

In this study devoted to the spirit in first century Judaism, the point of departure for each prior analysis has been the exegedcal move ments that Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus undertook. The tack of the present chapter is diflferent, as it traces, not the exegedcal move ments themselves, but Philo's reflections on the experience of inspi ration that led to such exegedcal movements. The texts, therefore, which provide the focus of this study consist of autobiographical reflecdons on Philo's experience of inspiradon as an interpreter rather than on the texts he purports to interpret. Although this analysis begins with autobiography rather than philonic interpretadons of biblical texts, it follows nonetheless the usual pattern of proceeding to set those early Jewish statements into their most relevant milieux.

Autobiographical

Ration

In the sixth chapter of this book, we discerned a concepdon of inspi radon in Philo's Plant. 18-26 according to which the spirit is integral to the ascent of the philosophical mind. In the seventh chapter, we discerned a concepdon of inspiradon which unites Philo Judaeus' Vu. Mos. 2.265 Mid Jos. 110-16, according to which the spirit, under stood as a daemonic presence, leads the mind to ascertain what would otherwise be unknowable. The present chapter explores Philo's par ticular applicadon of those models of inspiradon to his own role as inspired biblical interpreter. In Som. 2.252, Philo describes the invisible voice which he custom arily hears: "I hear once more the voice of the invisible spirit, the familiar secret tenant, saying,' Triend, it would seem that there is a matter great and precious of which thou knowest nothing, and this I will ungrudgingly shew thee, for many other well-dmed lessons have I given thee.'" This rare autobiographical reflecdon exhibits two characGreek, uwiixEt 8E MOI ROXIV TO eicoOot; d»pavcb^ Ivo^iXeiv nvevim dopaxov loxi ^prjoiv . . .

THE SPIRIT AND INSPIRED EXEGESIS

191

teristics of Moses' prophetic experience, as Philo describes it in Vit. Mos. 2.265: the spirit as the essential factor in leading to knowledge that is otherwise unknowable; and the conscious mind (5idvoia), which the spirit teaches (dva6i6daKeiv). The occasion for inspiradon is not, with Moses, the perception of the manna, but a specific point of exegesis— in this instance, the meaning of the name, Jerusalem. Although it contains no explicit reference to the spirit, Cher. 27-29 recounts a similar experience of inspiration in which Philo claims to receive a specific biblical interpretation. As in Som. 2.252, Philo again permits us a ghmpse of his experience, when he discusses the "higher word"—the allegorical meaning—^of the two Cherubim: But there is a higher thought than these, h comes from a voice in my own soul, which oftentimes is god-possessed and divines where it does not know.^ This thought I will record in words if I can. The voice told me that while God is indeed one, his highest and chiefest powers are two, even goodness and sovereignty . . . O then, my mind, admit the image unalloyed of the two Chembim, that having Icamt its clear lesson of the sovereignty and beneficence of the Cause, thou mayest reap the fmits of a happy lot. For straightway thou shall understand how these unmixed potencies are mingled and united, how, where God is good, yet the glory of His sovereignty is seen amid the beneficence, how, where He is sovereign, through the sovereignty the beneficence still appears. Thus thou mayest gain the virtues begotten of these potencies, a cheerful courage and a reverent awe towards God.' Like Som. 2.252, Cher. 27-29 describes an experience of inspiration that leads to the solution of a similar exegetical conundrum. In Cher. 27-29, the question concerns why there are two Cherubim; in Som. 2.252, the question concerns why two different names are given for Jerusalem. That inspiration, moreover, is directed in Cher. 27-^29, as in Som. 2.252, to the mind: "O then, my mind [Sidvoia], admit the image unalloyed of the two Cherubim...." The process is, once again, one of learning; as in Som. 2.252, so in Cher. 27-29 does the word, d v a 6 i 6 d a K e i v , occur; Philo claims to have "learnt its [the two Cheru bim] clear lesson of the sovereignty and beneficence of the Cause. . . ." ^ Greek, i^Kowa 6e Kote m i oiiouSaiotepov Xoyov xapd v^x^^ ejir^^ eia)8uia<; td noXka OeoXtiJiteioOai teal uepi m oi>K oi5e navteveoOai. ' I have contended in detail ("Philo Judaeus," 299-304) that Cher. 2 7 2 9 and Som. 2.252, in addition to Aetem, mtmdi 76-77 and Ft4g. 53-58, reflect similar expe riences of inspiration. In that context, I have given further evidence to argue that the experience Philo describes in Cher. 27-29 is one in which he is intellectually conscious and in which the spirit is the divine spirit which comes to Philo rather than the spirit imparted to all people.

192

AN EXTRAORDINARY MIND

With these related autobiographical reflections, Philo paints a vivid picture of his inspired experiences as interpreter of Torah. In both, Philo hears an external reality—voice or spirit—which teaches his mind from within, leading it to knowledge to which it would otherwise not attain. These experiences exhibit as well extraordinary affinities with the inspiration of Joseph who, according to Jos. 110-16, pos sessed the divine spirit and heard a voice which prompted him. The conception of inspiration as the prompting or guiding of the conscious mind is not the sole experience which Philo claims for him self or his Israelite ancestors. Autobiographical reflection on a different sort of experience is discernible in Spec. Leg. 3.1-6. Although this re markable window into Philo's self-consciousness describes his experi ence of inspiration laconically by means of the single word, ^iBeiao^iov, its aflfinity with Plant. 24—26, in which the spirit forcefully lifts the mind of the philosopher, suggests that here too the spirit's effects are in plain view. Philo recalls wistfully: There was a time when 1 had leisure for philosophy and for the con templation of the universe and its contents, when 1 made its spirit my own in all its beauty and loveliness and true blessedness, when my constant companions were divine themes and verities, wherein I rejoiced with a joy that never cloyed or sated. I had no base or abject thoughts nor grovelled in search of reputation or of wealth or bodily comforts, but seemed always to be borne aloft into the heights with a soul pos sessed by some God-sent inspiration, a fellow-traveller wath the sun and moon and the whole heaven and universe. Ah then I gazed dowm from the upper air. . . . But, as it proved, my steps were dogged by the deadliest of mischiefs, the hater of the good, envy, which suddenly set upon mc and ceased not to pull me down with violence till it had plunged me in the ocean of civil cares. . . . Yet amid my groans I hold my own, for, planted in my soul from my earliest days I keep the yeaming for culture which ever has pity and compassion for me, Ufts me up and relieves my pain. To this I owe it that sometimes I raise my head and with the soul's eyes dimly indeed because the mist of extra neous affairs has clouded their clear vision . . . And if unexpectedly I obtain a spell of fine weather and a calm from civil turmoils, I get me wings and ride the waves and almost tread the lower air, wafted by the breezes of knowledge which often urges me to come to spend my days with her, a tmant as it were from merciless masters in the shape not only of people but of affairs, which pour in upon me like a torrent from different sides. Yet it is well for me to give thanks to God even for this, that though submerged I am not sucked down into the depths, but can also open the soul's eyes, which in my despair of comforting hope I thought had now lost their sight, and am irradiated

THE

SPIRIT A N D INSPIRED EXEGESIS

193

by the light of wisdom, and am not given over to lifelong darkness. So behold m e daring, not only to read the sacred pages of Moses, but also in my love of knowledge to peer into each of them and unfold and reveal what is not known to the multitude. Philo in this autobiogr^hical reflection characterizes himself, not only as a philosopher, but also as an interpreter, for in it Philo draws a significant correspondence between the ascent of his mind and his ability to interpret Torah. He accomplishes this primarily by the way in which he structures the passage, which begins with the heavenly ascent and sojourn (3.1-2), is interrupted by a plunge into the ocean of civil cares (3.3-4), and concludes with an ascent on the winds of knowledge to interpret Torah. Within this structure, the initial ascent to contemplate the upper air corresponds to the final ascent to interpret Torah. Philo reinforces this correlation, moreover, by employing the same verb, 5iaKVJct£iv, to describe the experiences of ascent and inter pretation. The words, "Ah then I gazed down [8iaici>7tx(ov] from the upper air. . (3.2) correspond to "Behold me d a r i n g . . . to peer into [8iaia)jcTEiv] each of them [the sacred messages of Moses] and unfold . . ( 3 . 6 ) . * Undergirding this entire discussion is the value of learning. As the ascent of the philosopher is made possible by the contemplation of divine themes and truths (3.1), so Philo's ascent as interpreter is pos sible because of his yearning for education (jiai5e{a<; iVepov), because he is wafted on the winds of knowledge (avpaiq tfi<; kniCTr\\ir\<;), be cause of his love of knowledge ((piXejiioTTmova)^). The end of his as cent is the light of wisdom ((pmi x& acHpiaq) and the ability to unfold Torah (3.4-6). This autobiographical reflection, permeated as it is by

* On the relationship between Spec. I^. 3.5 6, Plant. 2 2 - 2 4 , and Gig. 5 3 - 5 4 , see my "Riilo Judaeus," 2 8 8 - 9 8 . The correlation between Philo as inspired interpreter and Moses as inspired teacher is evident in Our. 4 8 , which makes explicit what is

implicit in ^>a:. Leg. 3.6. Philo direcdy addresses the inidates, that is, those who have Ibtened to Philo's allegorical interpretadon of the wridngs of Moses {Qm. 4 3 47), under whom Philo was initiated {Our. 49): "These thoughts, ye initiated, whose ears are purified, receive into your souls as holy mysteries indeed and babble not of them to any of the profene. Rather as stewards guard the treasure in your keeping.... But, if ye meet with anyone of the initiated, press him closely, cling to him, lest knowing of some still newer secret he hide it from you; stay not till you have learnt its full lesson" {Owr. 48). The words, Icpa.. . (ivotfipia, correspond to to^ lEpeototou; teXetdu; in Gig. 5 4 and to toi^ icpoiQ MtxDoeoag in Spec. L^. 3.6, while reference to the initiates as those with "purified cars" b made in both Gig. 5 4 and Cher. 4 8 . Conse quendy, the disdnction, one—many—uninitiated/profane, which is implicit in .SJftec. L^. 3.6, is explicit in Cher. 4 8 and Gig. 54.

194

AN

EXTRAORDINARY

MIND

vocabulary related to education and knowledge, suggests how funda mental the alert mind is to the experience of this sort of inspiration. Philo's vivid autobiographical reflections on the process of inspired biblical interpretation comprise particular applications of his more generahzed convictions concerning inspiration by the spirit. The minds of Moses and Joseph were guided by the spirit to truth unknown; so too is Philo's mind instructed by the spirit. The minds of philosophers, including Moses, ascend; so too does Philo's mind ascend to inter pret Torah. Because Philo's reflections on interpretation share so many affinities with these broader conceptions of inspiration, their milieux presumably have much in common. This is true, for the Israelite and early Jewish miheux exhibit as well a surprisingly refined conception of the spirit as the author of inspired exegesis. Still, as we have ob served already, notwithstanding this substantial basis, Philo continues to remain indebted as well to his Greco-Roman miheu for the parti cular vocabulary and details which he adopts to elucidate with astonish ing precision an otherwise elusive experience of inspired exegesis.

Relevant Milieux

Israelite and Early Jewish Literature Philo's conviction that the divine spirit inspires the mind to interpret Torah finds slender but portentous bibhcal precedent in the postexilic period. In this era of rebuilding and reflection, authors began to glance sweepingly over the past and to summarize the work of the spirit. In the prayer of Ezra in Nehemiah 9, Ezra ascribes centuries of prophetic warning to the spirit: "Many years you were patient with them, and warned them by your spirit through your prophets; yet they would not listen. Therefore you handed them over to the peoples of the lands (9:30)."^ Such an association of the spirit with the prophets, in the wake of the editing of the prophecies of the Isaiah corpus and Ezekiel, both of which amply connect prophecy with the spirit, is hardly surprising. But in the same prayer of Ezra ^ The author of Zech 7:12 refers to the "former prophets" when he explains in his retrospective analysis of Israelite history the cause of the exile: "They made their hearts adamant in order not to hear the law and the words that the LORD of hosts had sent by his spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great wrath came from the L O R D of hosts."

T H E SPIRIT A N D

INSPIRED EXEGESIS

195

occurs the less predictable conviction that God had given the spirit to the Israelites in the wilderness to instruct them: "You gave your good spirit to instruct them, and did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and gave them water for their thirst" (9:20). This reference to the spirit is situated in the context of a prayer of confession which contains a lengthy retrospective, beginning with the creadon of the heavens (9:6) and concluding with the exile (9:30). The immediate context of this reference to the spirit within this prayer is Neh 9:19~25, which extends from God's provisions in the wilder ness to the gift of the land. This portion of Ezra's recoundng of Israel's history corresponds to the prior secdon, Neh 9:12 15. These two parallel pordons are divided by an account of Israelite rebellion (9:16-18). The reiteradon of the elements of Neh 9:12-15 in Neh 9:19-25 is striking: the pillars of cloud and fire: good laws or instmcuon: physical provision of manna and water: promise and possession of the land:

9:12 9:13-14 9:15a 9:15b

& & & &

9:19 9:20a 9:20b-21 9:22-25

The effect of this repetidon is to produce a correspondence between the giving of Torah in the vsdlderness (9:13-14) and the giving of the spirit in the wilderness (9:20). Neh 9:13-14 recounts the giving of Torah at Sinai: "You came down also upon Mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them right ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and you made known your holy sabbath to them and gave them commandments and statutes and a law through your servant Moses." Its counterpart, Neh 9:20a, which is also bounded by references to the pillars of cloud and fire and. the gift of manna and water, reads, "You gave your good spirit to instruct them. . . ." The nature of the relationship between Torah in 9:13 14 and spirit in 9:20a^ can be ascertained by means of the verb, "to instruct [them]," D*7''DBr6 (9:20a). The nominal and verbal forms of the root, '^Dto, occur earlier in Nehemiah 8 in conjunction with the interpretation of Torah. On the first day of the seventh month, "they read from * This literary symmetry may explain the reference to the spirit as "good:" just as God (addressed in second person) gave (]nm) at Sinai "good commands," nCflD UOt^, so God also gave ^TQ) God's "jgoorf spirit," roiun "]rm. Similar vocabulary occurs in Ps 143:10: "Teach me to do your will, for you arc my God. Let your good spirit lead me on a level path."

196

A N EXTRAORDINARY

MIND

the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. The^ gaue the sense f'Dto Ditol], so that the people understood the reading" (8:8). O n the following day, "the heads of the ancestral houses of all the people, with the priests and the Levites, came together to the scribe Ezra in order to study the words of the law [minn nnT*;»« *;>*'3ton'7l]" (8:13).^ The association of this verb and its cognate noun with the study and interpretation of Torah in Nehemiah 8 suggests that the verb ought as well in Nehemiah 9 to denote instruction on the basis of Torah. If the occurrences of the root, "^DtO, in Nehemiah 8 be taken together with the parallel between Torah and spirit in Nehemiah 9, then the function of the spirit is patently to instruct on the basis of Torah.^

^ If these texts be pressed further to determine the process by which the good spirit was believed to instruct, the impression they give is that this spirit instructs the conscious mind. In Nehemiah 8, the effect of instruction was an increased knowledge of two sorts. According to Neh 8:8, on the first day of the gathering of the people, the tasks of reading, interpretation, and instruction led singularly to understanding (»"lpQ3 '13"'3''1). According to Neh 8:13-15, on the second day of the gathering, instruc tion led to the concrete discovery that the people should live in booths during the festival of the seventh month. Although these effects do not preclude the possibility that instruction was believed to occur when the scribes' minds were displaced by the spirit, they contain no evidence to render such a scenario likely. ® Three possible antecedents to the introduction of the spirit in Neh 9:20 are possible. First, if Neh 9:19-21 contains allusions predominantiy to Exodus, then the spirit ought to be construed as a permutation of the angelic presence of Exod 14:19, 32:34, 33:2, and 33:14—15. Specific allusions to Exodus are, however, scant. The verb, nn3, used in Neh 9:19 to depict the leading of the pillar of cloud, occurs similarly in Exod 13:21-22. Additionzdly, the purpose of the pillar of fire is expressed identically in Neh 9:19 and Exod 13:21: nt> "V^Vb. However, because the Hebrew infinitive construct occurs in relation to the pillar in Ps 105:39, one of the psalms which rehearses Israelite history, the expression in Nehemiah 9 may be the product of common liturgical reference to the pillar of fire without conscious allusion to the particular tradition of Exodus. Second, if Neh 9:19-21 contains allusions predomi nantiy to Numbers, then the good spirit ought to be understood as an allusion to the spirit in Numbers 11, where the spirit which is on Moses is divided among the elders, causing them to prophesy. This possibility is not altogether unlikely because elements in the context of Neh 9:20 may have been drawn from Numbers: the context of the impartation of the spirit in Numbers 11 includes the manna (11:1-9); the pillars are mentioned in Num 14:14; and the incident of the miraculous water occurs in Num 20:2-13. Nor is the use of the verb, ]rtl, to describe the impartation of the spirit in both Neh 9:20 and Num 11:25 incidental, although in Numbers the image is different, and the spirit is placed "upon" (*?]?) the elders. More compelling is the reference to water, not in Neh 9:21 but earlier in 9:15, where the source is called a "stone," Vho. This word occurs throughout Numbers 20 but not in Exodus or Deuteronomy of the miraculous source of water. However, the same word occurs in Ps 78:16 which, like Psalm 105, belongs to a group of psalms devoted to re telling Israel's past; once again, then, the choice of this particular word may be an instance of liturgical usage rather than an allusion to Numbers. Third, the prepon derance of allusions in Neh 9:19-21 are to Deuteronomy. The assertion in Neh

T H E SPIRIT A N D INSPIRED EXEGESIS

197

Alongside the gift of the Torah, then, came the gift of the good spirit for interpreting Torah.^ The flowering of Early Judaism during the Greco-Roman era was accompanied by the attribution of numerous experiences of inspired reading and writing to biblical figures. For example, to Daniel and his IsraeUte compatriots God "gave knowledge and skill in every aspect of literature and wisdom; Daniel also had insight into all visions and dreams" (Dan 1:17). According to the Book of Astronomical Writ ings, after Enoch was commanded to read the heavenly tablets, he recalled, "So I looked at the tablet(s) of heaven, read all the writing (on them), and came to understand everything. I read that book. . ." (1 En 81:1"2). According to the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, forty days prior to his departure to heaven (2 Bar 76:2, 4), the Israehtes asked Baruch to write a letter to the Jews in Babylon. The descrip tion of this letter, and the elements of Israelite life it was intended to replace, attest to its inspired character: "Write . . . a letter of doc trine and a roll of hope so that you might strengthen them also before you go away from us. For the shepherds of Israel have per ished, and the lamps which gave light are extinguished, and the foun dations from which we used to drink have withheld their streams."

9:21 that for forty years in the wilderness "they lacked nothing; their clothes did not wear out and their feet did not swell" is based upon Deut 8:4 (cf 29:4), employing in common even the verbs, rf?3 and plO. The clause immediately prior to the mention of the good spirit, HDno'T' "TBJK, echoes Deut 1:33, while the two following clauses, in which the manna and miraculous water are mendoned together in quick succession, may be influenced by Deut 8:15 16, in which they are mentioned in equally quick succession though in reverse order. However, if Neh 9:20 is intended to echo some aspect of Deuteronomy, it is difficult to determine precisely which one, since no explicit reference to the spirit occurs in this book apart from the attribution of the spirit of wisdom to Joshua in Deut 34:9. ' For several less apparent instances of inspired exegesis in Israelite literature, sec D. E. Orton, The Understanding Scribe. Matthew and the Apocafyptic Ideal (JSNTS 25; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989) 40-53. Orton {Understanding Scribe, 65-133) analyzes these and other early Jewish liter ary texts thoroughly. His detailed study complements my selective analysb by pro viding widespread corroborative evidence of claims to inspired e x c e l s in Early Judabm. Orton discerns (120, 161-62) five c^ntial ingredients of perceptions of the (true) scribe which are evident as well in my discussion of Philo et oL: (1) the exer cise of wisdom and the gift of special understanding of parables and mysteries; (2) the notion of authority or true righteousness in the Jewish community; (3) the right interpretation of the law and the prophets in order to inculcate understanding in others; (4) "a dose association with true prophecy: the ideal scribe is a mantic" (162); (5) a sense of inspiration. The scribe has a creative, prophetic contribution to make, whether, e.g., in the composition of hymns or wise sayings.

198

AN

EXTRAORDINARY

MIND

During the decades prior to the Maccabean rebellion, Ben Sira embraced a similar conception of inspired interpretation when he, in self-conscious reflection upon his own scribal calhng, described the wisdom of the scribe (Sir 39:6-8): If the Lord Almighty desires, he [the scribe] will be filled by a spirit of understanding; he will pour out his own words of wisdom and by prayer he will give thanks to the Lord. He will direct his counsel and knowledge And he will reflect" upon hidden matters.'^ He will make known the instruction of what he has learned and boast in the law of the covenant of the Lord.^' It is important to recognize that the filhng of the spirit is not in this context associated principally with the interpretation of hterary (e.g., biblical) texts. Rather, in the three fines which follow this reference to the spirit of wisdom, Ben Sira focusses, not upon texts to be in terpreted, but upon his own abilities: his words; his prayer; his coun sel and knowledge. Nonetheless, the ensuing lines indicate that the scribe's instruction is not free floating but tethered to Torah, consisting of what he has learned from his study of the law of the covenant of the Lord. More over, the encomium on the scribe, of which this is a part, begins with three references to portions of the Hebrew Bible: the Torah (38:34);

Orton then demonstrates (137-63) that, within this context, Matthew portrays the disciples as ideal scribes who share these same characteristics (e.g. Matthew 13:5152; 23:34). Orton concludes his study by contending (165-76) that Matthew's own creative exegesis and composition are the result of his perception of himself and his task within the context of these perceptions of the inspired scribe in Early Judaism. Orton's study, therefore, provides widespread evidence of inspired exegesis in Early Judaism as well as a single first century Jevrish author whose gospel exhibits these ingredients of inspired scribal activity. My study complements Orton's in two ways. First, Orton's analysis of Philo is very brief (59; 109); in contrast, Philo's claim to inspired exegesis is the focus which gives coherence to my discussion. Second, Orton does not pinpoint the process of inspiration, e.g., whether the "mantic scribe" (100) retains or forfeits mental control; the purpose of my analysis is to ascertain precisely Philo's perception of this process. " O n this verb, SiavotiOfioetai, see Sir 3:29; 6:37; 14:21; 16:20, 23; 17:6; 21:17; 27:12; 31:15; 38:34; 42:18. In 39:12 and 39:32-33, as here in 39:6-8, this reflection precedes the oral or written expression of insight. There is no need, with NRSV, to regard the initial avtog as a reference to God ("The Lord will direct his counsel and knowledge"), since this pronoun in 39:6 and 39:8 refers to the scribe. Translation mine. For further analysis of Sirach, see Orton, Understanding Scribe, 65-75.

THE SPIRIT AND INSPIRED EXEGESIS

199

prophecies (39:1); and elements of wisdom hterature, such as sayings, parables, and proverbs (39:2-3). The task of interpredng the Bible remains, therefore, within Ben Sira's purview when he focusses upon his own teaching abilities. The description of the spirit as the "spirit of understanding'' in Sir 39:6 is not insignificant because it intimates that Ben Sira regards interpre tation and instruction as processes which require intellectual acumen. This impression is borne out by the context of this description, in which the scribe is the consummate sage who preserves the sayings of famous people, cracks puzzling proverbs, and appears before foreign rulers in royal courts (39:2-5). The sage discloses what he has ascer tained through learning (mi6eiav 8i5aoKaXia<; in 39:8a). Furthermore, Ben Sira reveals his intolerance for fools who accept other forms of knowledge which are attained through divination, omens, and dreams, when he writes: "The senseless have vain and false hopes, and dreams give wings to fools. As one who catches at a shadow and pursues the wind, so is anyone who believes in dreams . . . Divinations and omens and dreams are unreal..." (34:1 2, 5a).'* Ben Sira casts his lot rather with those who choose instead the life of study: "For dreams have deceived many, and those who put their hope in them have perished. Without such deceptions the law will be fulfilled, and wisdom is complete in the mouth of the faithful" (34:7-8). He praises in this regard the well-travelled, edu cated person who knows many things and learns from observing others (34:9), even as he extols, just prior to his reference to the spirit of understanding, the scribe who "travels in foreign lands and learns what is good and evil in the human lot" (39:4). The occurrence of the phrase, spirit of understanding, in a context which praises the intellectual skills of the scribe, within a literary text composed by an author, himself a scribe, who regards dreams and divination as illicit sources of knowledge, is a clear indication that, for Ben Sira, the spirit leads the mind intact to the sorts of interpre tation which cause a scribe to become renowned (39:9 11). Neh 9:20 and Sir 39:6-7, therefore, are cut from the same cloth, providing pro found precedent for Philo's conviction that the spirit can instruct the mind when it is occupied with the interpretation of sacred hterature. Valuable references can be located as well in the literature from '* On the popularity of dreams, see e.g., Plutarch, Gen. Socr. 589D; JDef. Orac. 432C; Cicero, Div. 1.113.

200

AN

EXTRAORDINARY

MIND

Qumran, although insight into their views of inspired exegesis cannot be extracted direcdy from these texts because references to the spirit tend not to overlap direcdy references to exegesis. Overt references to inspired interpretadon, therefore, contain only veiled references to the spirit, while references to the spirit contain but veiled references to inspired exegesis.'^ These extraordinary texts are, nonetheless, suffi ciently suggestive to warrant discussion. Revealed interpretative insight lies at the heart of this desert com munity. The initiates at Qumran were obligated to take an oath to follow the Torah of Moses as it was interpreted by means of revelation at Qumran, ". . . in comphance with all that has been revealed concern ing it to the sons of Zadok, the priests who keep the covenant and interpret his wiU. . ." (IQS 5.9).*^ More specifically, the central fig ure of Qumran was the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom, accord ing to the Commentary on Habakkuk, "God has disclosed all the mysteries of the words of his servants, the prophets." The clearest Jissociation of inspiration and writing concerns David in llQjPs^DavComp 2-4: "And David, son of Jesse, was wise, a luminary like the light of the sun, learned, [...] knowledgeable, and perfect in all his paths before God and people. And to him [. . .] Y H W H gave a wise and enlightened spirit. And he wrote psalms " The words, TTm n3133 mi mn' t> \T?\ are similar to Sir 39:6-7. For a detailed analysis, see Orton, Understanding Scribe, 122-24. Translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls are from F. Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (2nd. ed.; Leiden/New York and Grand Rapids: Brill and Eerdmans, 1996). I have modified this translation once again to avoid exclusively male lan guage in reference to humanity. For this text see p. 309. D . Aune ("Charismatic Exegesis in Early Judaism and Early Christianity," in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, ed. J. H. Charlesworth and C. A, Evans [JSPSS 14; Sheffield: J S O T , 1993] 137) understands IQS 8.15 as an indication that "the true meaning of Scripture was not based on a single revelation, but rather on a continuing series of revelatory insights." He prefers the translation: "This (way) is the study of the law [which] he commanded through Moses, that they should act in accordance with all that has been revealed from time to time and in accordance with what the prophets revezded by his holy spirit." However, the critical phrase, "from time to time" (ni?3 Di?), is ambiguous and can be translated, "from age to age," with Garcia-Martinez [Dead Sea Scrolls, 12), and thus refer not to occasions in the history of Qumran but to moments of revelation in the history of Israel. IQpHab 7.4. See zJso 2.7-9. Unfortunately a lacuna renders two reconstructions of I Q p H a b 2.7-9 possible. Garcia-Martinez {Dead Sea Scrolls, 198) translates, "the Priest whom God has placed wi[thin the Community,] to foretell the fulfilment of all the words of his servants, the prophets. . . ." G. Vermes {The Dead Sea Scrolls in English [3rd. rev. ed.; London: Penguin, 1987] 284) translates, "The priest [in whose heart] God set [understanding] that he might interpret all the words of His servants the Prophets. . . . " Only the second translation, which fills the lacuna with the words, "into whose heart" rather than "in the Community," suggests overtiy the presence of revelation to the Priest. For a fuller analysis of inspired exegesis at Qumran, see O. Betz, Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qwnransekte ( W U N T 6; Tubingen: Mohr, 1960).

T H E SPIRIT A N D

I N S P I R E D EXEGESIS

201

For this community, the spirit plays an integral role. Several ref erences to the spirit occur in the psalms of the community, some of which may have been composed by the famed Teacher of Righteous ness. In particular, IQH 12.11-13 associates the spirit with revelation: And I, the Instmctor, have known you, my God, through the spirit which you gave to me, and I have listened loyally to your wonderful secret through your holy spirit. You have opened within mc

knowledge of the mystery of your wisdom, the source of your power. .. . The vocabulary of this psalm exhibits an intriguing collocation of words which reflects a context of study. First, if E. Lohse's reading is correct, the psalmist refers to himself as ':'''D(DD,'^ a noun built from the same verbal root, ^DD, which we encountered in Neh 8:8, 13, and 9:20 to describe both the instruction given by the scribal leaders in the period of restoration and the function of the good spirit.'^ Second, the description of the spirit as that which is placed within a person p ]ra)20 echoes Ezek 11:19, 36:26-27, and 37:14. The first two of these references in Ezekiel associate the gift of the spirit with obedience to Torah: I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them; I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, so that they may follow my statutes and keep my ordinances and obey them. Then they shall be my people, and I will be their God (11:19-20).

A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be carefiU to observe my ordinances (36:26-27). Third, the second reference to the spirit (the "holy spirit") in IQH 12.11-13 is wedged loosely between references to HDt^'PB TO and P D r u n . Although the meaning of neither reference is certain,^' we may recall nonetheless that the word, D, refers in IQpHab 7.5 to Die TexU aus Qumran: Hebrdisch und deutsch (Munich: Kosel, 1964) 158. According to S. Holm-Nielson {HodqyoL Psalms Jrom Qumran [ATD 2; Aarhus: Universitctsforlaget I Aarhus, 1960] 204 n. 36), this text is "so erased that it is impossible to come to any real decision with regard to the spelling." See also IQS 9.12; IQH 11.10. ^ See also IQH 13.19; 16.11; 17.17. ^' On T D , see S. Mowinckcl ("Some Remarks on Hodayot 39.5-20," JBL 75

202

AN EXTRAORDINARY

MIND

"the mysteries of the words of his servants, the prophets," that is, to prophetic biblical texts which the Teacher of Righteousness interprets with divine aid. h would be unjusdfiable to wring from these texts an explicit asso ciation between the spirit and interpretadon. Indeed, the absence of such explicit affirmations is significant in light of how readily the au thor of the Community Rule, in contrast, attributes ancient prophetic revelation to the holy spirit (IQS 8.15). Nonetheless, for a commu nity so steeped in the biblical tradidon that truth cannot be conceived of without recourse to biblical concepdons and phraseology- a com munity in which the holy spirit can be a means of knowing God and God's mysteries (IQH 12.11-13),^^ a community whose inidates are obligated to follow Torah as it is interpreted peculiarly by its priestly leaders (IQS 5.9), a community whose central figure receives divine aid to interpret prophetic texts (IQpHab 7.4)—for this community, it is not difficult to envisage that biblical interpretadon by authorized, learned leaders was indeed attributed to the spirit.^^ No less relevant despite his quesdonable motive is Josephus' selfexonerating account of why he surrendered to the Romans: . . . and Josephus overheard the threats of the hostile crowd, suddenly there came back into his mind those nighdy dreams, in which God had foretold to him the impending fate of the Jews and the desunies of the Roman sovereigns. He was an interpreter of dreams and skilled

(1956) 272 73), according to whom this word refers to the council (gathering) or more basically a foundation (e.g., of truth). " Sec also IQH 9.32: ". . . and with certain truth you have supported me./You have delighted mc with your holy spirit,/ and undl this very day you have guided mc" (translation, Garcia-Mardnez, Dead Sea ScroUs, 349-50). Although the concate nation of references to truth, the holy spirit, and guidance may conceivably refer to instruction from ancient texts, these words more likely refer to truth and guidance in general, for they echo Psalm 51, which is occupied less with issues of Torah study than with deeply personal repentance: n » and Ps 51:8; yOl and Ps 51:12; "fOD and Ps 51:14; and TCfOnp im and Ps 51:13. References to foi^veness, a Leitmotiv of Psalm 51, occur in IQH 9.13, 33-34. Josephus' description of the Elssenes, though it too offers litde insight into the particular mode of inspiration, associates an uncanny ability to predict the future with knowledge of the sacred texts of Israel: "There are some among them [the Essenes] who profess to foretell the future, being versed from their early years in holy books, various forms of purification and apophthegms of prophets; and seldom, if ever, do they err in their predictions." The emphasis upon reliability, coupled with the positive descriptions elsewhere of Essenes who reliably predicted the future (Judas in BeU. 1.78; Simon in BelL 2.113; and Menahem in Ant. 13.311), .suggests that Josephus' belief in the ability to predict rests at least in part up>on a need for knowledge of the holy books.

THE SPIRIT AND INSPIRED EXEGESIS

203

in divining die meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity (oDjipaX-eiv Tot dM.
204

AN EXTRAORDINARY MIND

neither text contains an unequivocal indication of the loss of mental control, Josephus' choice of the words, evOoox; Yevonevoq, in contexts occupied with prophesying possesses the potential to conjure the presence of ecstasy to Greco-Roman readers familiar with Plato, his interpreters, and forms of inspiration akin to Delphic enthusiasm.^^ The appearance of the expression, evGovq yevo^evoc;, in a context which emphasizes Josephus' unique interpretative abihties and priesdy descent could imply, therefore, either a heightening of his innate hermeneutical abilities or the reception of revelation in a state charac terized by a loss of mental control. Apart from this ambiguity, what is clear is that Josephus' self-serving autobiographical account of his decision to surrender provides another early Jewish example of the conviction that a putatively correct reading of ancient texts rests upon an experience of inspiration. During Josephus' lifetime or shordy after his death, another Jewish author responded to the destruction ofJerusalem by cloaking his views in the guise of Ezra the scribe. Ezra in 4 Ezra receives the holy spirit not so much to interpret as to re-write the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible which were allegedly destroyed in 70 CE and to dictate an additional seventy books (4 Ezra 14:45-46). Because it is so rich in detail and so lucidly written, 4 Ezra 14 opens an extra ordinary window into early Jewish conceptions of inspiration during the first century GE. The account of Ezra's inspired scribal experi ence begins with a bold request for the holy spirit: For the world lies in darkness, and its inhabitants are without fight. For your Law has been burned, and so no one knows the things which have been done or will be done by you. If then I have found favor before you, send the Holy Spirit to me [inmitte in me spiritum sanctum), and I will write everything that has happened in the world from the beginning, the things which were written in your Law, that people may be able to find the path, and that those who wish to live in the last days may live (14:21-22).2» " O n the question of ecstasy in references to the spirit, see my "Josephus' Inter pretation," 245-49. Laying claim to this sort of experience does not demand that Josephus forfeit his claim to erudition. In Def. Orac. 4 3 2 C - D , for example, the best of seers is "the intelligent person" whose soul is receptive to impressions of the future when it is farthest withdrawn from the present. Although in Israelite and early Jewish texts, the presence of the spirit is ac knowledged, described, and predicted, rarely is it requested in so bold a way as it is here. In the book of Jubilees, Moses twice employed the language of Psalm 51 to implore God to give Israel an upright spirit: "O Lord, let your mercy be lifted up upon your people, and create for them an upright spirit" (Jubilees 1:20); "Create a

T H E SPIRIT A N D INSPIRED EXEGESIS

205

God responds widi alacrity to this request, commanding Ezra to isolate himself for forty days from the people: But prepare for yourself many writing tablets, and take with you Sarea, Dabna, Selemia, Ethanus, and Asiel—these five, because they are trained to write rapidly; and you shall come here, and I will light in your heart the lamp of understanding, which shall not be put out until what you are about to write is finished. And when you have finished, some things you shall make public, and some you shall deliver in secret to the wise; tomorrow at this hour you shall begin to write (14:24—26). The promise of the lamp of understanding, lucemam mtelUctus, and the predicdon that it will remain ht for the duration of Ezra's expe rience, prepares him for an experience of inspiration in which Ezra's mind will remain intact from beginning to end. The nature of this experience, in which Ezra remains intellectually aware, may be con trasted with Ezra's earlier response to the vision of the heavenly Jerusalem: "I lay there like a corpse and I was deprived of my under standing. Then he [the angel] grasped my right hand and strengthened me and set me on my feet, and said to me, *What is the matter with you? And why are you troubled? And why are your understanding and the thoughts of your mind troubled?'" (10:30-31). Ezra here has lost control of himself, not only physically but also mentally, et mtellectus meus aJienatus erat. He, his heart, and his mind [intellectus) are troubled.

Ezra's moribund, uncomprehending state in this passage is fundamen tally diflferent from Ezra's experience of inspired writing in 4 Ezra 14, during which he proceeds energetically for forty days and nights with the lamp of understanding {intellectus) burning continually. His mind, in the former instance eclipsed, is in the latter sharpened. The heightening of Ezra's intellectual abilities finds its most vivid expression in Ezra's own account of his experience: I took the five men, as he commanded me, and we proceeded to the field, and remained there. And on the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, "Ezra, open your mouth and drink what I give you to drink." Then I opened my mouth, and behold, a full cup was offered to me; it was full of something like water, but its color wasfire.And pure heart and a holy spirit for them" (1:21). God responds in kind, combining the vocabulary of M T Ps 51:11-13 with that of Ezek 36:26-27 to emphasize die purifica tory funcdon of the spirit: "And I shall cut off" the foreskin of their heart And I shall create for them a holy ^irit, and I shall purify t h e m . . . ." T h b context, in contrast to 4 Ezra 14:22, presents the spirit as a collective possession—the circumcised heart and holy spirit belong to Israel rather than to an individual, as in 4 Ezra.

206

AN

EXTRAORDINARY

MIND

I took it and drank;^^ and when I had drunk it, my heart poured forth understanding, and wisdom increased in my breast, for my spirit retained its memory; and my mouth was opened, and was no longer closed. And the Most High gave understanding to the five men, and by turns they wrote what was dictated, in characters which they did not know. They sat forty days, and wrote during the daytime, and ate their bread at night. So during the forty days ninety-four books were written (14:37-44). Ezra's experience as quintessential scribe, the tradent of wisdom, fulfills God's original promise that the lamp of understanding would burn without interruption. At the initial moment of his experience, as soon as Ezra drank the cup given to him, his heart poured forth understand ing {intellectum), and wisdom (sapientk) increased within him. This experi ence is comparable to Ben Sira's description of the scribal experience: "he will be filled with the spirit of understanding; he will pour forth words of wisdom of his own" (Sir 39:6). The author's emphasis upon the gushing of understanding and wis dom finds its climactic expression in the concluding description of the books Ezra dictated—a description which comprises as well the chmactic conclusion of the entirety of 4 Ezra. Here the highest concentration of conceptions in the entire book of 4 Ezra encapsulates the grandest attainment of the scribal tradition: "For in them [the ninety-four books is the spring of understanding {intellectus), the fountain of wisdom {sapientiae), and the river of knowledge {scientiaef^ (14:47). From beginning to end, therefore, Ezra's scribal ability is heightened: the lamp of understanding remains lit; the drink initiates a pouring forth of Ezra's understanding and an increase in his wisdom; the product of this inspired experience is ninety-four books, which are themselves springs, fountains, and rivers of understanding, wisdom, and knowledge. Another indication that Ezra's achievement was due to the height ening rather than displacement of his intellectual powers by the holy spirit is evident in the rationale the author gives for Ezra's increased understanding and wisdom. Ezra poured forth understanding and wisdom increased in his breast because {nam) his own spirit retained its

Stone {Fourth E^a, 120) suggests three possible reminiscences in the correlation between the giving of the spirit and Ezra's drinking: (1) Ezekiel's consumption of a scroll (Ezek 2:8-3:3); (2) the Greco-Roman theme of divine drunkenness as a way of describing inspiration (e.g., Philo Ebr. 146-48); (3) various cups of poison mentioned in biblical prophecy (e.g., Isa 51:17, 22) or salvation (e.g., Ps 116:13). It is important to observe that Ezra drinks the cup but is not consequendy described as intoxicated; therefore, this text ought not to be interpreted as an instance of the Greco-Roman topos of divine drunkenness. See also the discussion of Lewy, Sobria Ebrietas, 94—98.

THE SPIRrr AND INSPIRED EXEGESIS

207

memory (Nam spiritus meus conservabat memoriam). The loss of memory,

we may recall, during the Greco-Roman era and later was a distin guishing mark of ecstasy which was included in the literature of PseudoPhilo (LAB 28:10 and 62:2), Aelius Arisddes, Pseudo-Jusdnus, John Cassian, and the author of the late prologue to the Sybilline Oracles. The assertion of the author of 4 Ezra, that Ezra's experience entailed the retention rather than loss of memory constitutes a rejection of this conception of inspiration.^ This vivid and colorful first century depiction of Ezra's inspired scribal activity, with its bold strokes that depict Ezra and his Uterary output as the highest attainment of understanding, knowledge, and wisdom, with the detail that Ezra retained his memory and thus did not succumb to ecstasy, and with the attribution of this experience to the holy spirit, brings us full circle to Neh 9:20, the text with which our exploration of antecedents and analogies to Philo's conception of inspired exegesis began. Through literary parallels and the recurrence of the root, '^'Dto, the author of Nehemiah subdy but unmistakably associates the spirit with the scribal activity of interpreting Torah. The figure at the center of that evocative association was none other than Ezra: he brought the book of the law of Moses before the as sembly (Neh 8:2); he read from it (8:3); Nehemiah, he, and the Levites taught the people on the first day (8:9); on the second day the heads of the ancestral houses, the priests, and the Levites came together to the scribe Ezra to study ("TDtDif?) Torah (8:13); and the prayer which contains the words, "You gave your good spirit to instruct them . . . " was uttered by Ezra (9:6). That imphcit attribution of Ezra's scribal abilities to the good spirit was permutated in the late first century CE into an explicit request for the holy spirit and the consequent gift of understanding to Ezra, who poured forth understanding, increased in wisdom, retained his memory, and kept five qualified scribes occupied by dictating, within the compass of forty days, ninety-four books which represent the product of a remarkable combination of divine revela tion and human intellect. Despite such a widespread adherence mutatis mutandis to the convic tion that the intellect can be integral to the process of inspired exe gesis, these Israelite and early Jewish texts fail to provide the precise amalgamation of conceptions and expressions Philo chooses to employ. Nowhere in Nehemiah, Sirach, 4 Ezra, Bellum Judaicum, and the Dead See Stone, Fourth Ezra, 120.

208

AN EXTRAORDINARY

MIND

Sea Scrolls does die spirit prompt or guide the mind to truth unknown. Nowhere in these texts is exegetical activity associated with the ascent of the philosophical mind. Nowhere is the spirit depicted as a custom ary friend or an echo from within. Once again, then, we encounter a scenario in which Israelite and early Jewish literature provide an essential backdrop to Philo's behefs, although the particular hues which complete the philonic canvas can be found principally on the palettes of Plato and his interpreters.

The Greco-Roman Milieu^^ We observed that Philo draws a correspondence in Spec. Leg. 3.1-6 between the ascent of his philosophical mind and his ascent to inter pret the oracles of Moses. The association which Philo draws between ascent and interpretation is grounded in the Platonic conception of the ascent of the philosopher. Philo's definition of philosophy as "the contemplation of the universe and its contents" and his subsequent description of becoming a "fellow-traveller with the sun and moon and the whole heaven and universe" recadl the words of Pindar in Plato's Theaetetus 173E, which Socrates quotes: . . his m i n d . . . is borne in all directions, as Pindar says, 'both below the earth,' and measuring the surface of the earth, and 'above the sky,' studying the stars, and investigating the universal nature of every thing that is, each in its entirety, never lowering itself to anything close at hand."^^ Philo's use of the verb, G\)\impinoX£iv, to describe his experience as a fellow-traveller with heavenly bodies constitutes an allusion to Phaedrus 246B, in which the soul "traverses [TcepiTcoA^i] the whole heaven . . . " and Phaedrus 248A, in which the soul "is carried round [crup-jtepiTivexOTi] in the revolution...." Moreover, Philo's otherwise obtuse reference to jealousy [(pGovoq] which plunges him again into civil cares echoes Phaedrus 247A, according to which "jealousy [
3' For ftirther details, see my "Prophetic Spirit," 195-206. On this allusion, see A. Measson, Du char aile, 231.

THE

SPIRIT A N D INSPIRED

EXEGESIS

209

Philo's reflections on the voice which prompts him to solve exege tical difficulties [Cher. 27-29; Som 2.252) have their closest affinities with discussions of Socrates' daemonion in Plutarch's De genio Socratis. We observed in the last chapter how frequendy Socrates' daemonion was identified with a soundless daemonic voice (xivoi; <pa)VTi(; in Gen. Socr. 588C), a voice perceived by the pure mind (6 vovq xaOapoq in 588D). Philo claims as well to hear a voice, not a physical voice heard from without, but a voice heard from within, which leads him to interpret Torah. The "higher thought" of Torah, claims Philo, "comes from a voice in my own soul" [Cher. 27); the solutions to exegetical diflficulties arise when "the invisible spirit, the famihar secret tenant" speaks [Som. 2.252). Simmias explains further in De genio Socratis that only extraordinary people in an intellectu2dly alert condition are capable of hearing this unspoken language: . . . the messages of daemons pass through all other people, but find an echo in those only whose character is untroubled and soul unruffled, the very people in fact we call holy and daemonic.^' In popular belief, on the other hand, it is only in sleep that people receive inspiration from on high; and the notion that they are so influenced when awake and in full possession of their faculties is accounted strange and incredi ble. This is like supposing that a musician uses his lyre when the strings are slack, but does not touch or play it when it has been adjusted to a scale and attuned [Gen. Socr. 589D). This lucid description of inspiration contains significant conceptions which Philo appears to adopt in the laconic language of Som. 2.252. First, Philo describes the preparedness of his mind as free from fac tion and turmoil (xapaxfiq). Plutarch contends similarly that, in con trast to the ignorant masses, whose souls are in turmoil (xapaxnv in Gen. Socr. 589E), daemonic language can only be heard by those whose souls are untroubled and unruflfled. Second, Philo describes laconically the process by which the divine spirit spe2dis as an echo (uicrixei 5e ^oi). This reflects the predominant image employed by Plutarch to explain how the language of daemons is communicated: the "messages of daemons pass through all other people, but find an echo [evnxouai] in those only whose character is untroubled and soul unruflfled."

Greek, ouxeoq oi tfiv Sai^ovov Xoyox 8id wdvTwv cpepojievoi ^6vol(; h>r\xo\>ai xolq dBopv^ov TO ^0o<; Kai vnvenov Ixouoi TTIV \|roxT|v, ovq bi\ Kai iepoix; Kai Sai^ioviou^ dvBpamotx; KaAov^ev.

210

A N EXTRAORDINARY MIND

These correspondences between Philo's concepdon of the spirit and Socrates' daemon are anchored by Philo's use of the word, eicoScx; in Som. 2.252 to describe the recurrent presence of the spirit, for ei(i)G6(; constitutes an allusion to this key word in Plato's description of Socrates' daemon.^"* Socrates refers to "the customary prophetic inspiration of the daemon,"'^ "the daemonic and customary sign,"^^ and "my customary daemonic sign."^^ Socrates claims to have had this voice from his childhood {Apolog)f 3ID), a contention which both the author of Theages (128D) and Plutarch (Gm. Socr. 580C; 589E-F) confirm. The aflinities between Socrates' daemon and Philo's spirit are strik ing. Even as the ultimate source of Socrates' voice was a daemon who customarily communicated to him because its unspoken language echoed within his untroubled soul, so the ultimate source of Philo's exegetical insight is the divine spirit which customarily communicates to him by echoing within his untroubled soul.^

Summary

Whether he purports to describe the process of inspired exegesis as the reception of an unspoken voice or as an experience akin to the ascent of the philosophical mind, Philo stands on firm footing. Israelite and early Jewish literature provide ample precedent for the conviction that the divine spirit can lead an educated person to interpret sacred texts accurately. Nonetheless, Philo chooses to express those experiences of inspired exegesis in ways that evoke images of philosophical ascent and Socrates' customary friend, the daemonion.

" See M. Pohlenz, "Philon von Alexandria," Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissemchqften in GoUingen, I^ihbgisch-kisUmsche Klasse 5 (1942) 473. Pohlenz writes, "Im Hinblick auf seine cigenc Person spricht er Somn. II 252 mit deutlicher Anspielung auf Sokratcs' Daimonion von dem unsichtbaren Pneuma, dcsscn Sdmmc cr in seinem Inncm vernimmt.. . ." See also above, page 184. Apology 40A. Greek, fi Y«P eicoBuid jioi ^aptiidi ti tov Sai^oviov (translation mine). ^ Phaedrus 242B. Greek, t o 6ai|i6viov te Kai to Eicadcx; orineiov jioi (tran.sIation mine). " Euthydemus 272E. Greek, to etcoOcx; atiHciov t o Sainovtov (translation mine). Sec also Eulkyphro 3B. Although not direcdy relevant to the theme of the divine spirit, the connection Winston ("Two Types," 55-56) draws between the divine voice and the daemon of Socrates provides further evidence of Philo's awareness of the view espoused by Simmias in Plutarch's De gerno Socratis.

THE

SPIRIT A N D

INSPIRED

EXEGESIS

211

The fundamental similarity of conception but dissimilarity of expres sion which makes it so difficult finally to pinpoint Philo's place in Early Judaism is nowhere more evident than in a comparison of 4 Ezra and Philo's writings. Both are the products of first century authors who espouse in vivid detail similar conceptions of inspired exegesis as the work of the spirit in conjunction with an alert intellect. But while the author of 4 Ezra places Ezra within the Israelite scribal tradition with a description such as ". . . my heart poured forth under standing, and wisdom increased in my b r e a s t . . . " Philo places him self in a trajectory of Platonic philosophers, whose minds ascend, or amongst that holy race of people, including Socrates, who cdone hear echoes of an unspoken daemonic voice. From which reservoir does Philo Judaeus ultimately draw? Where in Philo's autobiographical reflections can the symbiosis of his Jewish and Greco-Roman heritages neady be divided? Perhaps the attempt to respond to this inevitable query should draw" us back to Philo's reflections on his own inspired exegesis in Cher. 27-29. When con fronted with the question of why two, and not just one, cherubim were set to guard paradise, the divine voice instructed Philo that God may be one but that God also has two powers, goodness and sovereignty. The voice continues by explaining that the two realities are mingled and united, that God's sovereignty is exercised in beneficence, and God's goodness reveals God's power. In a distant but ansdogous way, perhaps it is appropriate for us to distinguish the Jewish and Greco-Roman elements in first century exegesis only if we recognize that the two can function in grand unity, reveahng rather than obfuscating one another, invigorating rather than enervating these heritages.

RETROSPECT

During the Greco-Roman era, the blessings of madness were beheved to be plentiful. Cassandra may have cowered firom "that bloody torch," but she recognized in this sudden rage the advent of a god.' The Delphic priestess may have reeled from the invasion of AJK>11O, but she was privy, unlike sober humans, to even more than she revealed.^ The Jewish sibyl may have lamented the lashing her spirit underwent, but she well knew that she divulged "unfailing t r u t h . . . as much as God bids" her to say.' During this era, so transformative for Judaism and formative for Christianity, one could legitimately speak of "the blessings of madness."* One could also have spoken of "the blessings of intellect." Simmias, in Plutarch's De genio Socratis, expresses undisguised disdain for the "fK>pular belief" that people become inspired in sleep rather than when they are "awake and in full f>ossession of their faculties." People who adhere to such false notions, claims Simmias, are themselves troubled, incapable of hearing the messages of daemons which '*find an echo in those only whose character is untroubled and soul unruflfled" {Gen. Socr. 589D). The extent of Socrates' shadow during the Greco-Roman era, as well as a particular interest in his daemonion, attest to the vitality and persistence of discussions about the role of the intellect {Gen. Socr. 588I>-E), about the pre-eminence of purity of soul (Cicero, Dw. 1.122), about the enviable possession of wisdom (Diogenes Laertius 2.37; Philo, Plant. 65). This thrust alone could go a long way to explain the abundance of vocabulary related to philosophical reflection, education, instruction, knowledge, wisdom, and insight in the writings of Hiilo. But Hiilo sits on the shoulders of a tradition in which knowledge was prized, insight cherished. A wisdom attributable to the spirit inspired Joseph, Joshua, Bezalel, and Daniel to tasks as varied as architecture, dream interpretation, and the succession of Moses. And in Philo's era other ' Cicero, Div. 1.66-67. ' Lucan, De beUo civih 5.169-77. ^ Sibylline Oracles 3.3, 7. * This is the title of an important chapter in E. R. Dodds' The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of California, 1951).

RETROSPECT

213

great figures of the past were brought into this compass of the spirit: Enoch, Jacob and Rebekkah, Levi, and Solomon possessed wisdom, discernment, and knowledge of the future by virtue of their reception of the spirit. The messianic servant of Isaiah 11, though initially defined primarily by knowledge and wisdom, came to be ever more associated with justice during the exihc period. Nonetheless, a renewed empha sis upon the spirit-induced wisdom of this figure emerged in Judaism of late Antiquity in association with the figures of the Elect One and the messiah. What is particularly noteworthy is that Philo does not collect these elements haphazardly when he reflects upon the inspiration of the mind. On the contrary, a consistent, unified conception of the inspi ration of the mind is evident in a variety of contexts with a variety of objects. Joseph interpreted dreams when prompted by the divine voice. Moses interpreted events when prompted from within. Philo himself interpreted Torah when he heard the voice of the spirit, his customary friend. Each of these figures of Judaism is directed with mind intact to knowledge which he would not otherwise perceive. Each of these lays claim to the spirit. There is indeed a remarkable consistency in the philonic corpus, the product of considered reflection upon the ways in which the spirit guides the mind to truth. E^specially unique to Philo is the way in which he weaves together the spirit and the interpretation of Torah. To be sure, this associa tion is by no means unique. In a wide variety of bibhcal and early Jewish literary texts, the spirit is believed to inspire interpretation and to instruct. The association of Torah interpretation and the spirit which is perceptible in Nehemiah 9 reappears in Sirach, Josephus' BeUum Judaicum, writings from Qumran, and 4 Ezra. Despite this chorus of compatriots who with Philo claimed inspired insight, Philo's understanding of the relationship between the spirit and bibhcal interpretation cannot entirely be understood from within the Israelite and early Jewish tradition. Though the association is there established, the particular conceptual cache into which Philo reaches to describe what is admittedly indescribable is discernible in hterary texts from along the platonic trajectory. When Philo correlates the philosophical ascent of the mind with the ascent to interpret Torah on the winds of knowledge, he situates inspired exegesis within the boundaries of the philosophical pursuit of knowledge. When he por trays the spirit as that which guides or prompts the mind, he reflects discussions of Socrates' daemonion and the daemonic race of people of

214

AN EXTRAORDINARY MIND

pure intellect. Such folk hear what lesser people miss: the echoes of the daemons, who communicate mind to mind, voice to inner ear. This accompanying presence guided Moses to predict the sabbath, prompted Joseph to proffer advice to Pharaoh, and now, claims this Alexandrian philosopher, speaks to him, instructs him, leads him to knowledge otherwise inaccessible, when he stumbles upon a text he cannot understand. A remarkable and ironic claim of authority, in deed, to attribute an authoritadve interpretadon of Torah to a being, a presence, a "customary" friend which bears a rather strong famihal resemblance, not to the spirit poured out, breathed in, or filling up, as we find it in the biblical and early Jewish tradition, but to the daemonion of Socrates, that "customary" daemonic presence which accompanied him from his earliest days and made voiceless contact with his intelligence! What of Josephus, who has rather more historical and somewhat less philosophical proclivities than Philo? In his version of the tale of Daniel, Josephus shies away from the biblical belief that the spirit actually indwelt Daniel, preferring instead the view that the spirit, which was only believed to indwell Daniel, accompanied him. The result is patent: Daniel is lauded for the wisdom which sets him apart from the sages of Medo-Persia. Josephus does not detad the process of inspiration—^whether prompting, guiding, echoing—but his revisioning of the biblical text to present the spirit as an accompanying rather than indwelling presence suggests that he depicts the spirit here in hues similar to a certain daemonion which, he contends, communicated to Socrates. The chasm which separates Bezalel's architectural abilities from Philo's interpretative ones or the anointing of the messianic servant from the higher voice which Philo hears appears to be crossable only with herculean eflfort. When we recall, however, that Judaism of late Antiquity valued both the presence of the spirit and the attainment of knowledge, and that several authors attributed extraordinary insight to that spirit, then Socrates' daemonion seems surprisin^y suitable for bridging this gap, for here, circhng within the philosophical orbits of the Greco-Roman era, is an inspired figure of unimpeachable mind whose commitment to truth and reputation for insight rendered him comparable to Moses and other bright stars of Israel's past and present who, like Socrates, were enraptured by the beauty of wisdom.'' ^ Plant. 65.

RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

CHAPTER NINE

RETROSPECT

A variety of interpretations of the spirit have emerged in the course of this study. Though we now must inspect the most conspicuous of them individually, I do so reluctandy, for it is pre-eminendy the combinadon of colors and not the dissection of distinctive hues that confounds the rainbow gazer. Still, this is a responsibility incumbent upon the author of a book, at least a book of this sort. We revisit, therefore, in this retrospect the various interpretations of the spirit which emerged in first century Judaism. To facilitate this review, most sub-topics are patterned after the methodological steps that have unfolded throughout most of this book, that is, the identifica tion of exegetical movements followed by analysis of the relevant general and specific milieux which serve ultimately to explain these exegetical movements.

The Spirit and the Human Spirit Pseudo-Philo's ascription of the human spirit to Balaam would be inordinately ordinary, hardly worth mention, were it not for the extra ordinary transformation of the spirit that occurs in his version of the story of Balaam. Pseudo-Philo was presented with a simple formula, "the spirit of God came upon him [Balaam]," that appears undeni ably to portray Balaam as the recipient of that spirit which, on momentous occasions, inspires oracular utterances of particular import. In thb instance, Balaam succeeded in oflfering one of scripture's greatest testimonies to the stellar place of Israel among the nations. Not so in LAB 18, where, by expending considerable exegetical energy, PseudoPhilo not only denied Balaam that spirit which inspires prophetic oracles but also portrayed him as one who lost, by obeying a foreign king, even the spirit that gives life to all people. The exegetical move ments required to complete this transformation are worth recalling. Rrst, in an otherwise abbreviated account, Pseudo-Philo introduced several references, by way of allusion and citation, to Genesis (12:3;

218

RETROSPECT AND

PROSPECT

18:17; 22:17; 32:24-27) into Balaam's story. In this context, he intro duced an echo of Gen 6:3; Balaam stated clearly that Balak "does not realize that the spirit that is given to us is given for a dme" (LAB 18:3). With the introducdon of this allusion to Gen 6:3, the spirit could begin to be understood less as the prophedc spirit which comes upon one in extraordinary moments than as the living breath, the spirit "given to us"—all human beings—^for a hmited time. The second exegetical movement, though related to the first, is even more noteworthy. Pseudo-Philo contradicted Num 24:2 by re cording that "the spirit did not abide in him." Moreover, the verb used, permaneo, echoes Gen 6:3 rather than Num 24:2, of which it is the paraphrase (LAB 18:10). This second allusion to Gen 6:3 in LAB 18 is less innocuous than the first, for this time the allusion contradicts the biblical text. Third, Pseudo-Philo articulated the imphcit association between this spirit and death which the two allusions to Gen 6:3 had evoked. Balaam lamented, "I am restrained in my speech and cannot say what I see with my eyes, because there is litde left of the holy spirit that abides in me. For I know that, because I have been persuaded by Balak, I have lessened the time of my life. And behold my re maining hour" (LAB 18:11). The inteipretation of the spirit as lifebreath, which Pseudo-Philo expended considerable exegetical energy to create through allusions to Gen 6:3 in LAB 18:3 and 18:10, would seem to obtain here as well. To lay claim to the conviction that the energizing breath within is the divine breath is to remain comfortably within the parameters of the biblical purview. The "breath of life" is the vital force in all beings, human and beast (Gen 6:17; 7:15). It is coterminous with life, as Job in the face of death acknowledged: . . . as long as my breath is in me and the spirit of God is in my nostrils, my lips will not sj>eak falsehood, and my tongue will not utter deceit (Job 27:3-4). The psalmist, in reflecting upon creation, realized that God gives that same breath to the beasts: When you hide your face, they [non-human created beings] are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and retum to their dust.

RETROSPECT

219

W h e n you send forth your spirit, they are created; and you renew the face of the ground (Ps 104:29 30).

This conception of the spirit persisted into the Greco-Roman era. In the context of a reflecdon upon "the God of heaven . . . who makes everything upon the earth, and created everything by his word," one Palestinian author asked, "Why do you worship those who have no spirit in them?" (Jubilees 12.5). In the Testament of Reuben, the first of seven spirits given to human beings at creation "is the spirit of life, with which a human is created as a composite being" (2.4). Similarly for Philo is a human being "a composite one made up of earthly substance and of Divine breath" (Opif. 135). Elsewhere Philo queried of Gen 2:7, "why God deemed the earthly and body-loving mind worthy of divine breath at all. . ." (Leg. All. 1.33). What presumably cannot be explained by this milieu, however, is the application of the words, "the holy spirit," to the human spirit— although this is precisely the interpretadon demanded by the allu sions to Gen 6:3, the denial of the spirit to Balaam, and the associa don of the loss of this spirit with impending death. Nor can the designadon be explained satisfactorily by its biblical antecedents, Isa 63:10 and Ps 51:13, or by the Greek translation of Psalm 51 and Seneca's forty-first letter to Lucilius. Valuable precedent for this conception of the holy spirit can be discerned pre-eminendy in the manuscripts of the Qumran sectaries. The expression, "defihng his holy spirit," in CD 5.11 and 7.4 is analo gous to "defiling one's soul" in CD 12.11-13. Furthermore, the bib hcal sources of these texts are Lev 11:43 and 20:25, in which one can "defile one's soul." From the perspective of the Damascus Docu ment, Balaam's contention that "there is litde left of the holy spirit that abides in me" in LAB 18 constitutes his recognition that his self, his life-breath, has diminished to the point of death. Therefore, admitted Balaam, "I have lessened the time of my life. And behold my remaining hour." The transformation Numbers 22-24 undergoes in LAB 18 is re markable. The spirit of God of the biblical account appears clearly to be something which came upon Balaam at a particidar moment and caused him to prophesy blessings on Israel's behalf Pseudo-Philo, however, was determined to deny such inspiration by the holy spirit to Balaam, whom he portrayed as the architect of the plan to seduce Israel by means of Midianite women (LAB 18:13-14). Consequendy,

220

RETROSPECT

AND

PROSPECT

he interpreted the spirit of N u m 24:2 as the human spirit of Gen 6:3, referring to "the holy spirit" to depict the hfe Balaam forfeited through disobedience or, in vocabulary characteristic of the Damas cus Document, to display to his readers what happens to the person who "defiles his or her holy spirit" through obedience to foreigners rather than to God.

The Spirit and Extraordinary Power On some occasions in the course of this study, we have encountered interpretations in which the nature of the spirit is not edtogether clear but the effects are. Within the diversity of those effects, one salient characteristic is the awesome, transforming power of that spirit.

The Spirit and the Military Hero In Pseudo-Philo's version of Gideon's mihtary feats, Gideon's recep tion of the spirit resulted in an immediate rout of the Philistines: "And as soon as Gideon heard these words, he put on the spirit of the Lord and was strengthened and said to the three hundred men, *Rise up, let each one of you gird on his sword, because the Midianites have been delivered into our hands'" (LAB 36:2). This association between the spirit and the ensuing batde was accomplished through an important exegetical movement. In Judges 6, Gideon's reception of the spirit and the rout of the Midianites are separated by inter vening stories about the gathering of the Abiezrites, the setting out of fleece, and the reduction of the soldiers to three hundred. By omitting all three intervening stories, Pseudo-Philo juxtaposed Gideon's reception of the spirit with the batde. The resulting impact was an emphasis upon the power of the spirit as the impetus for batde. If the emphasis upon the spirit's power was accomphshed by omis sion in the story of Gideon, it was achieved by extensive exegetical expansion in the tale of Kenaz, where it was spun from the lacklustre bibhcal formula, "And the spirit of the L O R D was upon him." Around this expression, Pseudo-Philo clustered other expressions related to the spirit's power (LAB 27:9-10). He echoed Gideon's reception of the spirit in Jdg 6:34 with the verb, "clothed." He described the spirit as "the spirit of power" and connected this description with a second occurrence of the verb, "clothed," recalhng agzdn the story of

RETROSPECT

221

Gideon's rout of die Midianites by the impetus of the spirit. Finally, from the story of Saul's initial reception of the spirit in 1 Sam 10:6 he extracted the words, "was changed into another person" and ap plied them to Kenaz's military prowess. By expanding Jdg 3:10 in relation to Jdg 6:34 and 1 Sam 10:6, and by adding the genitival phrase, "of power," Pseudo-Philo transformed the colorless formula, "the spirit of the LORD was upon him," into an impressive affirma tion of the spirit's power in a mihtary context. TTie Spirit and the Prophet The equally ordinary, formulaic words, "Joshua son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom," Pseudo-PhUo wove with other bibhcal threads into a vivid tapestry of inspiration. These words from Deut 34:9 (the spirit) were conjoined with expressions from 1 Sam 10:6 (transfor mation into another person) and Jdg 6:34 (clothing). But that does not encompass the entirety of Joshua's experience, for, when he took up the garments that symbohzed the spirit, Joshua's "mind was afire and his spirit was moved, and he said to the people . .." Despite numerous biblical instances of terror, emotional agitation, and trembhng which constituted a significant slice of the milieu that shaped Pseudo-Philo's beliefs about the spirit, we may still ask where the specific bibhcal precedent is for Pseudo-Philo's attribution of Joshua's inflamed mind and agitated spirit to the divine spirit. Analogously, the formulaic biblical expression, "The spirit of the LORD came upon him" (Jdg 3:10), would provide the smoldering embers from which Pseudo-Philo would fan the flames of prophetic inspiration in his central character: the holy spirit leapt upon Kenaz, indwelt him, altered the state of his mind (probably by elevating it), with the result that he began to prophesy (LAB 28:6) and to obtain a cosmic vision, after which his mind was restored (28:10). Once again, the whole of this unified portrait cannot be explained satisfac torily by the sum of its biblical parts. Although other biblical judges and Saul could receive the spirit in much the same way, and although Nebuchadnezzar too had his sense returned to him, though he had lost it because of pride rather than the spirit's work, one may justifiably ask where the bibhcal precedent hes for the whole of Kenaz's expe rience, with the spirit's leaping, indwelhng, lifting of Kenaz to view the future, and eflfecting an experience that necessitated the retum of sense.

222

RETROSPECT

AND

PROSPECT

What is more, Kenaz could not remember what he had seen (18:10), just as Saul sometime later could not recall what he had heard (62:2). Where is the biblical precedent for this detail, which actually runs counter to the biblical tradition, according to which prophets were charged to remember precisely what they heard in order to commu nicate these words and visions to the people of God? Although biblical precedent for the view of the spirit as the source of powerful prophetic revelations is sujfficiendy ample to provide a relevant milieu for apprehending Pseudo-Philo's extravagant exegeti cal movements, it is not adequate to explain these other particulars of Pseudo-Philo's portraits, all of which can be neatly cut from the cloth of Cicero's De divinatione and Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum, as well as from a complementary trajectory of references from other Jewish and Greco-Roman sources. Quintus, Cicero's Stoic spokesper son, contended that the prophetic frenzy of inspiration occurs "when the soul withdraws itself from the body and is violendy stimulated by a divine impulse" {Div. 1.66). The ascent of the mind entails equally disturbing effects: "Those then, whose souls, spurning their bodies, take wings and fly abroad—^inflamed and aroused by a sort of pas sion—^these people, I say, certainly see the things which they foretell in their prophecies" (1.114). What stimulates these experiences is some external impulse: "Such souls do not cling to the body and are kindled by many different influences . . . certain vocal tones . . . groves and forests . . . rivers and seas . . . certain subterranean vapours which had the effect of inspiring persons to utter oracles" (1.114). In these two passages of De divinatione, inflammation and agitation, ascent of the disembodied soul, and the necessity of an external impulse charac terize inspiration. These elements characterize as well Plutarch's discussions of inspi ration in De defectu oraculorum, where the catalysts of inspiration are external forces upon the body which cause the soul to withdraw, to become agitated, and to foresee the future. Of these external forces, "the prophetic current and breath is most divine" (432D). Under the influence of this prophetic nvev>\ia, "the soul becomes hot and fiery . . ." (432F). Precisely these details characterize prophetic inspiration in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, where an external impulse—the spirit—both clothed Joshua, causing him to become inflamed and agitated, and leapt upon Kenaz, causing his mind to foresee far into the future. Moreover, the detail that Kenaz and Saul could not recollect their

RETROSPECT

223

experiences probably recalls Plato's contention that inspired poets did not know what they were saying {Apologia 22C and Meno 99C). This conviction was later misinterpreted to mean that inspired folk could not remember what they had said. Awareness of this view spanned more than half a millennium, from Jewish literature of the late first century, in 4 Ezra 14, where Ezra claims, "my spirit retained its memory," to the writings of Aelius Aristides, Pseudo-Justinus, John Cassian, and the author of the late prologue to the Sibylline Oracles. The work of the spirit in prophetic inspiration, therefore, is sufficient to dislodge the soul from the body. It leaps and clothes. It produces inflammation and agitation, loss of consciousness, a vision of the future, and the inability to recollect the prophetic experience. The spirit in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum is a power like none other, able both to inspire the mihtary might of Gideon and Kenaz and to disturb the human soul to its core in prophetic ecstasy—though Pseudo-Philo painted these vivid portraits of mihtary and prophetic inspiration with hues from two distinct palettes, respectively, biblical and Greco-Roman. The Spirit and the Ideal Ruler Even Pseudo-Philo's extensive assimilation of Greco-Roman concep tions of prophecy appears conservative in comparison with Philo's depiction of Abraham, of whom it could be said, "whenever he was possessed, everything in him changed to something better, eyes, com plexion, stature, carriage, movements, voice. For the divine spirit which was breathed upon him from on high made its lodging in his soul, and invested his body with singular beauty, his voice with persuasive ness, and his hearers with understanding" {Virt. 217-18). The exege tical point of departure for this description is Gen 23:6, in which the Hittites said to Abraham, ". . . you are a king among us." The bib lical sp)eech which prompted Philo to this celebration of Abraham's rhetorical pre-eminence is Abraham's unremarkable request to buy a field in Machpelah for burial caves. The catalyst for Philo's praise of Abraham fies no doubt elsewhere in a miheu that prized the very attributes Philo ascribed to this noble ancestor. The association of inward and outward beauty which charac terizes Abraham, Adam, and Moses in the writings of Philo (e.g., Opif. 136; Vit. Mos. 2.69; 2.272) owes far less to exegetical interests than to the thoughts of Plato and his interpreters on the ideal ruler (e.g. Republic 7.535A). The emphasis Philo placed upon rhetorical prowess

224

RETROSPECT A N D

PROSPECT

is integrally related to Greco-Roman discussions, such as Dio Chrysos tom's, who stated "that a statesman needs experience and training in pubhc sj>eaking and in eloquence" {On Training for Public Speaking 2). Most important, however, was the conviction that both king and orator be recognized for virtue. Quintihan contended that the orator demonstrate "not merely the possession of exceptional gifts of speech, but of all the excellences of character as well" {Institutio oratoria, book one, preface, 9), while Dio Chrysostom emphasized that the king be "a man of good mind and heart" who is "to begin with, happy and wise himself" {Third Discourse on Kingship 39). Abraham was king, not because of any "outward state . . . mere commoner that he was, but because of his greatness of soul" {Virt. 216). It was not, therefore, training in rhetoric or even natural abilities that rendered Abraham capable of persuasion but the greatness of his soul that permitted "the divine spirit which was breathed upon him from on high" to make "its lodging in his soul" {Vkt. 217). This spirit in turn caused Abraham's body to be beautiful, his voice to be persuasive, and his hearers to understand. Small wonder that he "was regarded as a king by those in whose midst he setded" {Virt. 218)! The spirit, then, was beheved to provide the power capable of trans forming someone ordinary into an orator, a commoner into a king. Nothing escaped this transformation, as Philo observed, for "when ever he was possessed, everything in him changed to something better" {Vtrt. 217).

The Spirit and the Philosopher With an equally slender exegetical underpinning, Philo described the role of the spirit in the ascent of the philosopher's mind. The bibhcal text which Philo purported to interpret is Gen 9:20: "Noah began to be a husbandman, tilhng the ground, and he planted a vineyard." This text led Philo to Plato's Timaeus 90A, in which the soul is "not an earthly but a heavenly plant." The basis for Philo's discussion of philosophical ascent, therefore, is allegedly Gen 9:20 but actually Timaeus 90A; the texts are related by a slender common concern with agriculture. Platonic discussions of the ascent of the mind, based primarily upon Plato's Phaedrus 246A-253C, comprised the miheu of Philo's discussion in Plant. 18-24. In fact, Philo was indebted to this Platonic text for many descriptions of the mind's ascent—of ascent in general in Op^.

RETROSPECT

225

69-71, of Philo's own ascent in Spec. Leg. 3.1-6, and of Moses' ascent in Gig. 50-55. Furthermore, the similarides between these descripdons and Middle and Neoplatonic descripdons of ascent are so palpable

that one could forgivably mistake discussions of philosophical ascent in Plutarch's Platonic QuestionSy Maximus of Tyre's PhUosophumena, and Plodnus' Enneads for Philo's Plant. 18-26. With the excepdon of one element! Philo could have concluded his descripdon of ascent in Plant. 18-24 without the shghtest nod to the spirit, for his discussion begins with Plato's Tbnaeus 90A, is per meated by allusions to the Phaedrus, and has more in common with Platonic philosophers than with Genesis 9. Even a descripdon of the radonal soul as a coinage of the divine and invisible spirit would appear to confirm that the mind is capable of ascent. Nonetheless, at just that point where the discussion could conclude with a reference to Plato's nodon of recollection, to Plutarch's "faculty of reason," to Maximus of Tyre's "self," or to Plotinus' "intellect"^all of which were deemed adequate to cause the mind to ascend—Philo intro duced the divine spirit. According to Plant. 18~26, the ascent of the mind takes place only with the overpowering aid of the divine spirit. Despite his overwhelming indebtedness to Platonism for this dis cussion, therefore, Philo neither jettisoned the spirit nor judged it peripheral. On the contrary, in Plant. 18-26, he ascribed to the spirit, and to the spirit alone, the requisite power for philosophical ascent. Although "those who crave wisdom and knowledge with insatiable persistence are said in the Sacred Oracles to have been called upwards [Lev 1:1]," and although those who received God's "down-breathing [Gen 2:7] should be called up to Him," and although this is "so with the mind of the genuine philosopher" who "suffers from no weight of downward pressure towards the objects dear to the body and to earth"—although all of these descriptions appear to render the spirit superfluous, for Philo the spirit alone has the unleashed force capable of producing such ascent: For when trees are whirled up, roots and all, into the air by hurricanes and tornadoes, and heavily laden ships of large tonnage are snatched up out of mid-ocean, as though objects of very litde weight, and lakes and rivers are borne aloft, and earth's hollows arc left empty by the water as it is drawn up by a tangle of violendy eddying winds, it is strange if a light substance like the mind is not rendered buoyant and raised to the utmost height by the native force of the Divine spirit, overcoming as it docs in its boundless might all powers that are here below [PUmt. 24).

226

RETROSPECT A N D

PROSPECT

The spirit is a hurricane's gzdes, a tornado's winds, drawing philo sophical minds upward in its train. It is ultimately not recollection or intellect that causes the mind to ascend but the violent winds of the spirit that sever the mind from its earthly home and lead it upward.

The Spirit and Cosmic Unify

The Spirit and the Temple

In recasting the biblical version of the dedication of the temple (1 Kings 8), Josephus excluded references to enemies and war, con cluding Solomon's prayer, not with the hope that "all the peoples of the earth may know that the L O R D is God; there is no other" (1 Kgs 8:60), but with the hope that all people would reedize that the Jews "are not inhumane by nature nor unfriendly to those who are not of our country, but wish that all people equally should receive aid from Thee and enjoy Thy blessings" [Ant 8.117). These exegetical movements reflect Josephus' unwillingness to em brace a miheu in which the Jews were subject to unfounded hbels. His Contra Apionem, written shghdy later than the Antiquities, evinces Josephus' dedication to dispeUing the libel of Jewish misanthropy. He proffered a brief account of the Jewish constitution—theocracy— to demonstrate that the Jewish lawcode is intended "to promote piety, friendly relations with each other, and humanity towards the world at large, besides justice, hardihood, and contempt of death" (2.145). The final categories of his survey of Jewish laws encompass "the equitable treatment of ahens" (2.209) and "the duty of sharing," which consists of demonstrating "consideration even to declared enemies" (2.211). Josephus' penchant for promoting the philanthropic nature of the Jews suggests what a difficulty he confronted when he was compelled to interpret in a milieu defined in part by anti-Jewish sentiment the biblicsd version of Solomon's dedication of the temple, in which the chosenness of Israel, the centrality of the temple, and the conviction that "the L O R D is God; there is no other" feature so prominently. Libels current in this milieu explain as well why Josephus garnished his version of the dedication of the temple with Stoic vocabulary. The introduction of Stoic epistemology (the conceptions of impression and opinion) served to undermine the priests' false "opinion" that

RETROSPECT

227

God would permanendy dwell in the temple. Stoic theology replaced the biblical emphasis of God's unique reladon to Israel; God is said instead to move "through all of" creation. The introducdon of Stoic cosmology midgated Jewish exclusivism, for nothing was capable of expressing cosmic unity better than the Stoic concepdon of jcvevjia, the cohesive element of cosmic ovuJcaGeia. A request for a portion of the spirit was fulfilled when fire leapt from air, when the two consdtuent components of revevna, understood from a Stoic perspective, appeared. Josephus' recasdng of 1 Kings 8, then, is the product both of Jose phus' resistance to a milieu of malignancy toward the Jews and of the predominance of Stoicism in his era. With shrewd deftness, he transformed 1 Kings 8 very nearly into a Stoic tract in order to refute his opponents' libels on their own grounds. The Spirit and the Sage If Pseudo-Philo capably transformed the prophedc inspiration of Ba laam into impending death by means of allusions to Gen 6:3—"My spirit shall not abide forever among human beings, because they are flesh"—Philo ably transformed Gen 6:3 from a statement about hfe and death into sapiendal inspiration. Although their commonplace exegedcal movements were largely the same—interpredng one bibh cal text by means of another—the results were endrely diflferent. Philo interpreted Gen 6:3 in relation to Exod 31:3 to include the spirit as one of four elements which expressed the skill of Bezalel: jweujia Oeiov, wisdom, understanding, and knowledge {Gg. 23). From Exod 31:3, Philo turned to another biblical text, Num 11:17: "I will take of the spirit that is on thee and lay it upon the seventy elders," stripped however of its emphasis upon prophesying. Together, Exod 31:3 and Num 11:17 led Philo to a detailed description of the nature of the spirit of Gen 6:3 understood as an endowment that does not remain permanendy with humankind: But as it is, the spirit which is on him is the wise, the divine, the excel lent spirit, suscepdble of neither severance nor division, diffiised in its fullness everywhere and through all things, the spirit which helps, but suffers no hurt, which though it be shared with others or added to others suffers no diminution in understanding and knowledge and wisdom {Gig. 27).

228

RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

This definition of the spirit is more than the product of a loose appli cation of gezerah shawah. In Philo's version, for example, the divine spirit does not Jill Bezalel alone but the entire cosmos. This definition com prises nothing less than an explosion of Stoic vocabulary culled from Philo's Greco-Roman milieu. This exegetical expansion represents an Alexandrian wisdom tra dition in which the author of the Wisdom of Solomon could also be included, for he wrote similarly, "Because the spirit of the Lord has filled the world . . ." (1:7). Cicero's Balbus, in Nat. Deor. 2.19, claimed similarly that the world order is "maintained in unison by a single divine and all-pervading spirit." Alexander of Aphrodisias summarized the perspective of Chrysippus similarly: "he assumes that the whole material world is unified by a spirit [itvdina] which whoUy pervades it [5iTiK0T0<;] and by which the universe is made coherent and kept together and is made intercommunicating [ov^naSe^]" (De mixtione 216.14-17). While this definition indicates how wholeheartedly Philo presimiably was willing to embrace Stoicism, it also demonstrates the point at which that embrace ended. The context into which Philo set this stoicized definition of the spirit is intended primarily to inculcate one lesson: the spirit is an ephemeral supplement which, for most people, infrequendy inspires insight. The spirit is not what each human posses ses from birth to death. The divine spirit which engenders wisdom such as Bezalel's is not the human soul, which Epictetus described as **parts and portions" of God's being (1.14.6), and Cicero, quoting Chryappus, as "a small fragment of that which is perfect" (^at. Deor. 2.37). In contrast to the perspective of Stoicism, according to which the human soul is inherendy inspired by virtue of its character as icvdina, Philo contended that the cosmic Jtvev^ia is a supplement which temporarily imparts wisdom when it comes upon human beings. For all people, with the exception of Moses, wisdom is not the permanent character of human life but a temporary experience induced by the infrequent presence of the divine spirit. Therefore, one does not live, with Seneca, "in accordance with his own nature" (Epistulae morales 41.9) but in expectation of fleeting moments of sapiential inspiration. This indeed is the lesson of Gen 6:3: "And so though the divine spirit may stay awhile in the soul it cannot abide there, as we have said" (Gig. 28). Even Moses, who alone ex hibited a f>ermanent endowment of wisdom, did not do so because of his own soul, purified though it was. Philo extrajjolated once again

RETROSPECT

229

from Gen 6:3 that Moses "has ever the divine spirit at his side, taking the lead in every joumey of righteousness, but from those others, as I have said, it quickly separates itself, from those to whose span of hfe he has also set a term of a hundred and twenty years" [Gig. 55). It was not Moses' spirit but the spirit at his side that led him in his journey as leader of all. The Spirit and Angelic Presence In the literary corpora ofJosephus and Philo we have discemed as well interpretadons of the spirit as an angelic being. In a variety of con texts, and through a variety of exegetical movements, the spirit was portrayed as an angelic being that could quench mental control and enhance intellectual insight. Although both effects of the angelic spirit are discernible in the biblical and Platonic milieux of Philo and Josephus, the particular combination of angelic presence with either loss of mental control or the enhancement of the mind could be pin pointed to two dialogues of a single first century popularizer, Hutarch. An Invading Angel Philo confronted an exegetical conundrum in the character of Balaam, whom he consistendy portrayed as the worst of wizards in contrast with true prophets (e.g., MuL 202; Immut. 181; Conf Ung. 66, 159; Mig. 113; Cher. 32). Balaam hardly exempHfied Philo's conviction that inspiration is contingent upon the possession of wisdom, justice, and goodness {Her. 259). Though Josephus' antipathy toward Balaam is less obvious, the preservation of one reference to the spirit, and the addition of two others, despite his tendency to omit such references elsewhere, suggests that for Josephus, as well, this was a story worth including, but certainly not in its biblical form. Both Philo and Josephus undertook exegetical movements intended to identify die "angel" of Num 22:35 widi the "spirit" of Num 24:2 (or LXX 23:7). Philo did so by relating the prediction of the angel, that it would "prompt the needful words without your mind's consent..." {Vit. Mos. 1.274) with its fulfillment by the prophetic spirit, which "fell upon him" and "banished utterly from his soul his art of wizardry" (1.277). Josephus' identification occurs at the outset of the story, at the angel's debut. When "an angel of God confronted" Balaam, the ass turned aside, "conscious of the divine spirit approaching her" {Ant. 4.108).

230

RETROSPECT AND

PROSPECT

These exegetical movements (and I recall here only the most uncon cealed) are complemented by others in which Balaam's experience was made to consist of the loss of mental control. Philo's angel pre dicted: "I shall prompt the needful words without your mind's consent, and direct your organs of speech as justice and convenience require. I shall guide the reins of speech, and, though you understand it not, employ your tongue for each prophetic utterance" {Vit. Mos. 1.274). As a result, Balaam "became possessed, and there fell upon him the truly prophetic spirit which banished utterly from his soul his art of wizardry. . . . Then he returned, and . . . spake these oracles as one repeating the words which another had put into his mouth {Vit. Mos. 1.277). Balaam's experience prior to his second oracle was similar: ". . . he was suddenly possessed, and, understanding nothing, his rea son as it were roaming, uttered these prophetic words which were put into his mouth" (1.283). Josephus' interpretation is analogous, though he followed his own historiographical techniques by introducing it in Balaam's speech and a narrative aside. Josephus' summary of Balaam's first oracle clarifies the nature of Balaam's inspiration; "Such was the inspired utterance of one who was no longer his own master but was overruled by the divine spirit to deliver it" {Ant. 4.118). Balaam's speech contains the profession: ". . . that spirit gives utterance to such language and words as it will, whereof we are all unconscious" (4.119) and, ". . . nothing within us, once He [x6 Oeiov] has gained prior entry, is any more our own" (4.121). Although they expressed their concurrence through sharply cUflferent exegetical movements, Philo and Josephus wrote in unison on the angelic nature of the inspiring spirit and the process by which this spirit caused Balaam to lose control of his own mental faculties. These two elements of their shared interpretation find ample precedent in a milieu comprised of biblical, Platonic, and Greco-Roman interpre tations of inspiration. Israelite literature supplied narratives in which the spirit may have been construed as an angel, such as the story of Saul. Less in evidence, though not altogether missing, are texts which express the conviction that prophetic inspiration was beheved to be the product of the loss of mental control. Never, however, are these two interpretative strands combined in Israelite literature, vrith perhaps the exception of the story of Saul, although notably absent from that narrative is oracular speech, an integral element of Philo's and Josephus' versions of Balaam.

RETROSPECT

231

During the Greco-Roman era, the translators of the Septuagint preserved those texts and included some others in which m"l is por trayed as an angel (good or evil). This translation provides evidence that the identification of the divine spirit as an angel persisted into the Greco-Roman era, although this identification did not give rise to the association of an angelic spirit with oracular speech in such a way as to explain the interpretations of Philo and Josephus any more than its Hebrew Vorlage could. Plato, whom Josephus and Philo cited, discussed both elements, Socrates confirmed that "the greatest of blessings come to us through madness, when it is sent as a gift of the gods" {Phaedrus 244A) and that a poet writes only when "he has been inspired and put out of his senses, and his mind is no longer in him . . ." {Ion 534B). Diotima, one of Socrates' companions in the Symposium, supplied the comple mentary strand by presenting angels as mediating beings " . . . inter preting and transporting human things to the gods and divine things to people; entreaties and sacrifices from below, and ordinances and requitals from above: being midway between" (202E). But these are separate discussions, independent of one another. That combination—the details and particulars that serve to explain the exegetical movements of Philo and Josephus—could be pinpointed to De defectu oraculorum, a treatise on Delphic inspiration written by Josephus' contemporary, Plutarch. One of the interlocutors, Cleom brotus, suggested: Let this statement be ventured for us, following the lead of many others before us, that coincidendy with the total defection of the guardian spirits assigned to the oracles and prophetic shrines, occurs the defection of the oracles themselves; and when the spirits flee or go to another place, the oracles themselves lose their power (418C-D). Daemonic beings are here responsible for oracular activity at Delphi. In the interpretations of Cleombrotus, Philo, and Josephus, then, in spiration transpires at the approach of an angelic or daemonic spirit. Furthermore, the processes of inspiration are similar, involving fuU surrender to the approaching presence. Cleombrotus expressed the passivity of the prophet by employing the simile of the musical in strument. Similarly, Philo and Josephus portrayed Balaam as a passive instrument whose vocal chords were instruments for the words of the divine spirit. The process is similar to ventriloquism, an interpretation of prophecy which Lamprias, Cleombrotus' companion in De defectu oraculorum, maligned (43IB).

232

RETROSPECT AND

PROSPECT

The discussion of Delphic inspiration in De defectu oraculorum, tiierefore, contains the essential elements that serve to explain the particular exegetical movements Philo and Josephus undertook in their interpreta tions of Balaam's inspiration. T o trace this interpretation of the invasive inspiration of Balaam to a first century Greco-Roman treatise is not to suggest that Philo and Josephus were impervious to the influence of other hterary sources. On the contrary, Philo's and Josephus' miheux contained the elements that would coalesce in Cleombrotus' expla nation of why Delphic activity had decreased. Biblical and Platonic texts supplied what Hengel called "the relevant spiritual miheu." But the "details" and "particulars" could be located more accurately in a single, summary treatise of the first century Greco-Roman popular izer, Plutarch, which he devoted to the nature of Delphic inspiration.

A Customary Friend In an analogous study of Josephus' presentation of Daniel, Philo's dis cussions of Moses and Joseph, and some of Philo's autobiographical reflections on his own allegorical exegesis, a variety of exegeticad movements converged to suggest the emergence of a common under standing of the spirit as an angelic presence which leads the mind intact to the truth. For Josephus these exegetical movements were largely negative, indications of his unease with the bibhcal version of Daniel. His substitution of the verb "accompany" for the biblical contention that the spirit dwelt within Daniel {Ant. 10.239; Dan 5:11, 12, 14) suggests uneasiness with the notion that the spirit indwelt Daniel. His addition of the participle, 7cejiioxe'Ufievo<; (". . . was be heved . . .") evinces a reluctance once again to aflfirm the divine pres ence within Daniel (Dan 6:4): "And so Daniel, being held in such great honour and such dazzling favour by Darius and being the only one associated with him in all matters because he was beheved to have the divine spirit [TO Oeiov] in him, became a prey to envy" {Ant. 10.250). Such exegetical movements reveal an interpretation of the spirit as an accompanying presence that inspires the sage "to discover things which were not within the understanding of others . . . " (10.239). Philo's depiction of Moses' inspiration by the angelic spirit was far more complex and protracted because it represents the convergence of two streams in his depiction of Moses' peculiar experience of inspi ration. This convergence is encapsulated in Philo's confusing intro ductory definition of the third sort of oracles which "are spoken by

RETROSPECT

233

Moses in his own p>erson, when possessed by God and carried away out of himself" {Vii. Mos. 2.188). This description of Moses contains two incongruous parts. One is Moses' speaking in his own person; the other is Moses' being carried out of himself by inspired possession. The second part of this definidon, which consists of Moses' being carried away, Philo illustrated several dmes by replacing the biblical word, "[Moses] said," with vivid descriptions of prophedc possession. For example, in his paraphrase of Exod 14:13-14, in which Moses "said [elwev] to the people" that they should be courageous and watch God's salvation at the Red Sea, Philo wrote: "the p r o p h e t . . . was taken out of himself by divine possession and uttered these inspired words . . ." {Vit. Mos. 2.250). The phrase, ovxet' «v ev ea\)t^, which constitutes according to Philo the sine qua non of inspiration, unites Moses with the race of prophets, whose experience in turn mirrors Platonic perceptions of prophetic inspiration. The first part of this definition, according to which Moses spoke in his own person, suggests a very diflferent form of inspiration, the nature of which is encapsulated in Vit. Mos. 2.264-^5, where Philo interpreted Moses' prediction of the sabbath: "Moses, when he heard of this and also actually saw it, was awestruck and, guided by what was not so much surmise as God-sent inspiration, made announce ment of the sabbath. I need hardly say that conjectures of this kind are closely akin to prophecies. For the mind could not have made so straight an aim if there was not also the divine spirit guiding it to the truth itself" We observed that the two words, eiKaaia and TcoSTTyexeo), Philo employed elsewhere in association with the conscious processes of the human mind. According to the presentation of inspiration in Vit. Mos. 2.264-65, Moses received God's own knowledge: "God has given to him of his own power of foreknowledge and by this he will reveal future events" (2.190). This clarifies the meaning of Philo's contention that Moses spoke "in his own person." Despite the pervasive vocabulary of inspi ration in Vit. Mos. 2.191-292, Moses was not—like Balaam and the race of prophets—a mindless channel of divine oracles but a unique prophet who possessed God's own foreknowledge with mind intact. One counterpart to this fascinating description of Moses' inspira tion is Philo's much simpler explanation of Joseph's abihty to inter pret dreams, in which Philo drew a parallel between the spirit of God and "the promptings of the divine voice" {Jos. 110, 116). The presence of a mind intact is evident in the subsequent remark of

234

RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

Pharaoh, in which he acknowledged Joseph to be a "man of pru dence and sense" (117). This idenuficadon of spirit and voice characterizes as well Philo's autobiographical reflections on allegorical interpretation in Som. 2.252: "I hear once more the voice of the invisible spirit, the famihar secret tenant, saying, 'Friend, it would seem that there is a matter great and precious of which thou knowest nothing, and this I will ungrudg ingly shew thee, for many other well-timed lessons have I given thee. . . ."' References in this reflection to teaching and to the human mind suggest a mode of interpretation in which the mind remains intact. In this respect, Moses' prophetic abilities, Joseph's divinatory abilities, and Philo's interpretative abilities parallel one another. All of these exegetical movements converge in their attribution of various forms of insight to a mind guided by the spirit. In each case, a mind intact and open is prompted or directed to see things other wise unknowable. Not ecstasy, therefore, but heightened intellectual insight was the means by which Moses and interpreters were beheved to approach the truth. Once again, the relevant spiritual milieu of these interpretations was extensive. The spirit was associated in Israehte and early Jewbh literature with many of Israel's leading figures, in such a way that there is litde indication of a loss of mental control. Joseph, Bezalel, Enoch, Jacob, Rebekkah, et cd. attained foreknowledge, skill, and insight through their reception of the spirit. The Israehte leader par excellence, the messianic servant, was also believed to possess wisdom by virtue of the spirit, according to sources as early as Isaiah in the eighth century BCE and as late as the Psalms of Solomon and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in the first century BCE or CE. Moreover, the impetus toward relating inspiration by the spirit to the interpretation of written texts arose in the post-exilic period in Nehemiah 9 and continued well into the Greco-Roman era among such segments of Judaism as the Qumran sectaries, extending even to the end of the first century or beginning of the second century CE in 4 Ezra 14. Philo and Josephus, then, lived in a Jewish miheu suited to under standing the working of the spirit as guidance of the engaged mind. The particulars and details, however, which shaped Philo's descrip tions of Moses, Joseph, and himself as interpreter (and perhaps Jose phus' interpretation of Daniel, though this is evident more by negation and therefore more elusively) could not be explained entirely by these elements of their milieu. For this level of detail two discussions of

RETROSPECT

235

Socrates' daemonion in Plutarch's dialogue, De genio Socratis, prove in valuable. Socrates' inspiradon could be attributed to daemons—which Philo idendfied with angels—who communicated with "unuttered w o r d s . . . voiceless contact with his intelligence by their sense alone" {Gen. Socr. 588D-E). Simmias explains: ".. . the messages of daemons pass through all other people, but find an echo in those only whose character is untroubled and soul unruffled, the very people in fact w c call holy a n d d a e m o n i c " ( 5 8 9 D ) . W h e n Philo referred to the "cus

tomary secret tenant" who taught him the allegorical meaning of the biblical text, when he described the spirit as that which guided Moses' mind to the truth, when he idendfied the voice Joseph heard with the divine spirit, he adopted a mode of inspiradon no less esteemed than Delphic inspiration because it was associated in Greco-Roman circles with the auspicious figure of Socrates. This interpretation, though not exploited to the same extent, was familiar as well to Josephus, who referred explicitly to the daemon of Socrates in a discussion of the Athenians' unwilHngness to tolerate anything about the gods contrary to their laws: "On what other ground was Socrates put to death. He never sought to betray his city to the enemy, he robbed no temple. No; because he used to swear strange oaths and give o u t . . . that he received communications from a certain daemon, he was therefore condemned to die by drinking hemlock" {CA. 2.263-64). With the indefinite pronoun, xi, Josephus indicated that he understood the word, 6ai^6viov, to refer to a specific daemonic being.

Summary

This retrospect has provided a modest glimpse of the creativity and diversity that characterized interpretations of the spirit in the first century CE. That diversity was garnered during the first century from a variety of sources. Consequendy, the ensuing highlights cannot bc neady distinguished from one another, and several may characterize a single first century biblical interpretation. • Interpretations could arise from the juxtaposition of one biblical text with a related text, e.g., Pseudo-Philo's depictions of mihtary might (LAB 27, 36); Philo's interpretation of Gen 6:3 in light of Exodus 31 and Numbers 11. • Interpretations could reflect an Israelite and early Jewish milieu

236

RETROSPECT AND

PROSPECT

that encompassed several prior centuries, e.g., the angehc spirit and I Samuel 10, 19; the associadon of the spirit and wisdom; the attri bution of inspired interpretation to the spirit (from Nehemiah 9 to 4 Ezra 14). • Interpretations could equally reflect a milieu that encompassed several prior centuries of Greek and Greco-Roman thought, e.g.. Stoic conceptions in Josephus' version of 1 Kings 8 and Hiilo's mterpretation of Gen 6:3 {Gg. 23-27); Philo's depiction of Abraham and dis cussions of the ideal ruler, from Plato to Dio Chrysostom. • Interpretations could arise primarily as a response to other con ceptions and interpretations, with no identifiable hterary source, e.g., Philo's attribution of the mind's ascent to the spirit {Plant. 18-24) in a context otherwise rife with Hatonic vocabulary and conceptions. • Interpretations could reflect particular Jewish conceptions during the Greco-Roman era, e.g., Pseudo-Philo's depiction of the human spirit as the holy spirit and the "holy spirit" in the Damascus Docu ment (LAB 18); Riilo's interpretation of Gen 6:3 and the cosmic (Stoic) spirit of the Alexandrian wisdom tradition {Gg. 23-27). • Interpretations could be traced to particular rum-Jewish conceptions of the Greco-Roman era, e.g., Pseudo-Philo's portrayals of prophetic inspiration and popular depictions of prophetic inspiration in Cicero's De divinatione and Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum; Philo's and Josephus' interpretations of the spirit in Balaam's inspiration and the e}q)lanation of Delphic inspiration in Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum as the work of daemonic beings or as ventriloquism; Philo's interpretations of Moses' inspiration, and his own, and discussions of Socrates' daemonion in Plutarch's De genio Socratis.

CHAPTER TEN

PROSPECT

Because Timarchus' vision in the crypt of Trophonius "more resem bles a myth or fiction than an argument," demurred Simmias, "I had better perhaps leave [it] untold" {Gen. Socr. 589F). With Simmias, I am hesitant to stray from the parameters and method to which I have adhered in this study. One rationale for my reservation is the apprehension that these implications, because they are relevant in varying degrees to New Testament studies, will overshadow the de tailed analyses of Elarly Judaism which comprise the substance of this book. T o isolate these imphcations from those analyses would be to violate the very fiber of this book, which is an exploration of E^ly Judaism in its own right. Nevertheless, Simmias was not permitted the luxury of reticence. Theocritus responded, "Do no such thing . . . but let us have it; for myths, too, despite the loose manner in which they do so, have a way of reaching the truth." Despite my reserva tions, then, I have decided to pull up anchor and to drift into a few tributaries in the hope that these implications may "have a way of reaching the truth." Because this chapter is intended not as a summary but as a ghmpse of the imphcations of this book, it is perhaps judicious to express two caveats about this concluding discussion. First, I shaU introduce in this chapter ancient texts which have not been analyzed in this book. These texts are intended to provide additional, sometimes corrobo rative, data concerning conclusions at which other scholars and I have arrived. I do not proflfer novel interpretations of any of these texts. My aim in introducing these is quite simply to clarify and to broaden the discussion. Second, I regard these imphcations as sug gestive rather than exhaustive, as catalysts identified to foster further discussion. Much more could be written, both in notes and text, but I have hmited each of the three following discussions to provide the foci for what I consider to be desiderata that arise from this study of the spirit in first century Judaism.

238

RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

The Spirit and Individual Authors In the previous retrospect, what became so apparent is that a diver sity of portraits of the spirit co-exist in the bibhcal interpretations of these three authors. We noted how a single text, Num 24:2, for in stance, could be transformed in fundamentally different ways, either into the life-giving human spirit, by Pseudo-Philo, or into an invad ing angel, by Philo and Josephus. If we just turn this research slighdy, as one might rotate a prism, so as to view each author individually, another important aspect of first century Jewish conceptions of the spirit will emerge: it is generally the case that each author is able to embrace multiple conceptions of the spirit which might appear to us to be inconsistent. Each of these biblical interpreters preserves an astounding variety of effects of the spirit's presence. Those effects of the spirit in the writ ings of Philo are uncommonly numerous. The divine spirit: inspires an ecstatic experience akin to poetic ecstasy that issues in writing [Mig. 34-" 35); employs prophets as channels akin to musical instru ments (Spec. Ijeg. 1.65, 4.49, and Her. 259-66); ousts Balaam's skill in artificial divination and employs his vocal organs as channels [Vit. Mos. 1.273-84); inspires the philosophical ascent of the mind [Spec. Leg 3.1-6, PlarU. 18-26, Gig. 29-31 and 53-54); inspires die exegete through instruction directed toward the conscious mind [Som. 2.252 and Cher. 2 7 2 9 ) and similarly prompts the interpretation of dreams [Jos. 110 16); directs Moses' mind to the truth while he is inspired to become a prophet in the strict sense [Vtt. Mos. 2.187-92); and transforms Abraham so that he can become the ideal ruler who dis plays both inward and outward beauty and who masters rhetorical skill [Virt. 217-19). Moreover, the spirit represents knowledge and wisdom; though it permeates the cosmos, it can still be placed tem porarily upon the sage [Gig. 23-27). The assortment of the spirit's effects in Josephus' Antiquities is im pressively expansive as well, particularly since such a breadth of effects can be garnered from relatively few references. The spirit: invades Balaam, ousts his consciousness, and speaks through him [AnL 4.10230); migrates from Saul to David, causing David to begin prophe sying (6.166); either drives Saul to Samuel physically or drives him mad,' as it had Balaam (6.222-23); emerges as fire from air, a porOn these alternatives, see my "Jo^phus' Interpretation," 246-47.

PROSPECT

239

tion of the unifying Stoic spirit, leaping upon the altar and consum ing the sacrifice (8.114, 118); and accompanies rather than indwelling Daniel (10.239, 250). No less diverse are the effects of the spirit in Pseudo-Philo's Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. These effects are depicted in various ways: recep tion of a dream (Miriam in 9:10); inflammation of mind and agitation of spirit (Joshua in 20:2-3); transformation into another person to utter a prophecy (Joshua in 20:2-3) or to fight a batde (Gideon in 36:2); the attainment of wisdom and understanding (Joshua in 20:2-3); the ability to predict the death of an enemy (Deborah in 31:9); the ca pacity to praise the works of God which bring about Israelite victory (Deborah in 32:14); the elevation, loss, and subsequent awakening of the mind, sensus (Kenaz in 28:6, 10); and the inabihty to recollect what was seen or said (Kenaz in 28:10 and Saul in 62:2). Philo, Josephus, and Pseudo-Philo also allow a dramatic diversity of natures to accrue to the spirit. Philo adapts the nature of the spirit to the exigencies of context. The spirit that ousts Balaam's art of wiz ardry and squelches his consciousness is an angel [Vit. Mos. 1.274, 277). It is an angel as well, akin to Socrates' daemonion, when it guides the mind of Moses to the truth (Vit. Mos. 2.264-65), grants Joseph the interpretation of Pharaoh's dream {Jos. 110, 116), and leads PhUo himself to the allegorical level of biblical interpretation {Som. 2.252; see Cher. 27-29). When it raises the philosopher's mind, however, the spirit is a violent metaphorical wind, like a tornado {Plant. 23-24; see ^ec. Leg. 3.1-6). As the spirit of wisdom, it is comparable, even identical to, the Stoic spirit, for it is "diffused in its fullness every where and through all things . . ." {Gig. 27). Philo exhibits litde preference for a single understanding of the spirit's nature. Rather he ascribes to it whatever nature best fits the contextual cogency of his argument. This assessment is evident in De gigantibus. A Stoic interpretation dominates Philo's early discussion of Gen 6:3 {Gig. 23-31). At the conclusion of his interpretation of Gen 6:3 {Gig. 55), Philo's description of the spirit as remaining ever at Moses' side, guiding him in an ascent to learn the mysteries of God, has far more in common with the angelic spirit which in Vit. Mos. 2.265 guides Moses' mind to the truth than it does with the spirit of wisdom, defined in Stoic terms at the beginning of his interpretation of Gen 6:3. De gigantibus, then, reveals the facihty with which Philo interprets a biblical text within a unified discussion in a single trea tise to produce disparate conceptions of the nature of the spirit.

240

RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

Josephus' Antiquities exhibits a similar complementarity with respect to the spirit's nature. At its debut, the spirit is identified as the angel that ^proaches Balaam: "But on the road an angel of God confronted him . . . and the ass . . . conscious of the divine spirit approaching h e r . . . " (AnL 4.108). In contrast, the spirit makes its appearance at the dedication of the temple as fire from air, that is, as the Stoic spirit which provides cosmic unity. This disjuncture between the portrayals of the spirit as angel and cosmic pneuma reveals how over riding Josephus' apologetic aims may become. When Josephus attempts to distance God from the inspiration of a foreign seer of dubious character, he presents the spirit as a mediating angel, like the daemons which inspire oracular utterances at Delphi. When Josephus labors to portray the Jews as philanthropic and humane, rather than misan thropic and exclusive, he adopts Stoic conceptions to present the spirit as the unifying principle of the cosmos. As we observed with respect to Philo, particular contexts, specific arguments, and definite aims inevitably shape the contours of the spirit's nature, resulting in the simultaneous embrace of conceptions that appear inconsistent. Because the Liber Antiquitatwn Bibticarum may be a Latin translation of a Hebrew Vorlage through an intermediate Greek translation, it is difficult to ascertain with precision the nature of the spirit in each case. For instance, does spiritus sarwtus signify "a holy spirit" or "the holy spirit" in LAB 28:6? This translational obstacle, however, does not obfuscate Pseudo-Philo's apparent wilhngness to interpret a simi lar Hebrew expression in different ways. The Hebrew depiction of the inspiration of Balaam and Kenaz (Othniel) was probably similar: "the spirit came upon Balaam/Kenaz." Pseudo-Philo conveys the nature of that spirit in two dramatically different ways. The holy spirit of Balaam is his own spirit, his hfe-breath, which he is about to forfeit. The holy spirit that inspires Kenaz is a divine force that compels him temporarily to ascend in a prophetic vision of the future. These divergent interpretations reveal how freely this Palestinian bibhcal interpreter contraverts the biblical text in order to enhance the inspiration accorded a key Israelite figure and to undermine the inspiration of a foreign seer who plotted the demise of Israel. The holy spirit is understood, on the one hand, as the human spirit and, on the other, as a divine j>ower. The writings of first century biblical interpreters, therefore, exhibit enormous creativity and diversity with respect to the and the ruUwre of the spirit, depending upon their contextual needs. Philo, Josephus,

PROSPECT

241

and Pseudo-Philo are not alone among Israelite and early Jewish authors in recording divergent views of the spirit. In so-called Third Isaiah, for example, the "spirit of the LORD" can be set upon a savior figure as an anointing (Isa 61:1; see Isa 11:1-9), or it can be an angelic presence, not unlike the angel of the presence which led the people following the exodus (Isa 63:14; see Exod 23:20 21), depending upon whether the dominant interpretative tradition is the messianic servant or the exodus-wilderness narratives. A similar scenario is evident in the Community Rule (IQS) 3-4, where two quite diflferent interpretations of the spirit are intertwined. In IQS 3.13-4.16, the two spirits of truth and deceit are either human spirits set in people or angeUc and demonic beings which have their respective entourages of good and bad spirits. Thus one reads that God "created 'man' to rule the world and placed within [or 'for']^ him two spirits so that he would walk with them until the moment of his visitation: they are the spirits of truth and of deceit" (IQS 3.17b-19). Or, "Until now the spirits of truth and of injustice feud in the human heart and they walk in wisdom or in folly" (IQS 4.23c24a). These spirits either are at war with one another to control human destiny or co-exist at war within the human soul. Toward the conclusion of this section on the two spirits, the imagery changes, so that the spirit is portrayed, possibly under the influence of Ezek 36:25-27, as an agent of purification. What diflferentiates this text so clearly from the discussion of the two spirits is that the spirit is itself sprinkled on the faithful—an image quite incompatible with the nature of the two spirits, which are conceived either as human dispositions or as angelic beings: Meanwhile, God will refine, with his truth, all human deeds, and will purify for himself the human configuration, ripping out all spirit of deceit from the innermost part of his flesh, and cleansing him with the spirit of holiness from every irreverent deed. He will sprinkle over him the spirit of tmth like lustral water (in order to cleanse him) from all the abhorrences of deceit and from the defilement of the unclean spirit

(IQS 4.20b-22a). This interpretation of the spirit of truth or spirit of holiness as a cleansing agent which can be sprinkled on the faithful diverges from ^ On this translation, sec J. H. Charlesworth, "A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in IQS III, 13-IV, 26 and the 'Dualism' Contained in the Fourth Gospel," JVT5 15 (1969) 396-97.

242

RETROSPECT

AND

PROSPECT

the interpretation of the spirit of truth as either an angehc being or human disposition. Yet both are intertwined within the same topical section of the Community Rule.^ The patent lesson of this portion of our study is that, in light of the diversity of conceptions that co-exist within the writings of individualfirstcentury authors or within a single ancient document, it is ill-advised to attempt to ascertain for eachfirstcentury author one dominant conception of the spirit. The effect of faihng to account for this observation can be illustrated by D. Hill's attempt to legitimate the association Josephus establishes between the priesdy and prophetic dimensions. Hill appeals to the spirit's presence at the dedication of the temple: "All this reflects the sacral and cultic associations of prophecy in Israel. . . [the temple] at its dedication, received a portion of the divine spirit. . . which, for Josephus as for the rabbis, was pre-eminendy the spirit of prophecy."* Hill assumes that the spirit is always the spirit of prophecy, so that a reference to the spirit in a cultic context carries the association with prophecy, despite the absence of a reference to prophecy in that context. Our study has indicated that this attempt to interpret one text in hght of others which have in common with it only a reference to the spirit is ill-advised, for these first century biblical interpreters allow a vari ety of interpretations to co-exist. With respect to Ant. 8.114, to which Hill appeals, we have seen already that the spirit is associated here less with prophecy than with cosmic unity and Jewish philanthropy. Just as it may be inadvisable to assume consistency vis-a-vis the spirit, so is it inappropriate to assume that a lack of consistency is an indication of multiple sources or origins. The importance of this point can again be made by illustration. Studies of the Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel have not without evidence noted the disparity between the spirit in the first thirteen chapters and the Paraclete in the Farewell Discourses. On the basis of these observations, some scholars distinguish the spirit and the Paraclete from one another. H. Windisch's discussion is an instructive example of this approach: The fourth evangelist has not left his reader in doubt as to the identity of the (other) Paraclete: it is the Holy Spirit. No matter what one may think about the integrity of the Paraclete sayings, it is certain... that the Spirit and the Paraclete are originally two very different figures. The Spirit is, according to his nature, power, an incomprehensible being ' See also IQS 3.6b-9b. * New Testament Prophecy (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979) 30.

PROSPECT

243

that suddenly enters into man and imparts to him impulses and insights which lift him above his human existence. T h e Paraclete is a concrete heavenly person, a kind of angel, and when he appears on earth, it is as an emissary from God, as an angel in human form.. . ^

Divergent effects and natures, according to Windisch, indicate different origins. The validity of Windisch's inference that "the Spirit and the Para clete are originally two very different figures" is seriously undermined by the realizadon that first century authors embrace what may appear to us to be incompadble conceptions of the spirit. Philo's descripdon of philosophical ascent, in which "the mind is rendered buoyant and raised to the utmost height by the nadve force of the Divine spirit" (Plant. 18~24), bears an uncanny resemblance to Windisch's depicdon of the holy spirit as "an incomprehensible being that suddenly enters into man and imparts to him impulses and insights which lift him above his human existence." Similarly does Phil6's characterizadon of the spirit as an angelic being, akin to Socrates' daemonion in Vit. Mos. 2.264 65, Jos. 110-16, and Som. 2.252, exhibit an extraordi nary affinity to Windisch's description of the paraclete as "a concrete heavenly person, a kind of angel." Philo embraces both portraits, not because he conjoins two originally different figures, but because con textual requirements compel him to adopt varying characterizadons of the spirit. Is the author of the Fourth Gospel not capable of an analogous embrace of complementarity for contextual reasons? R. Brown, in response to an approach such as Windisch's, ac cords a similar value to consistency. By observing of the Fourth Gospel that "the combinadon of these diverse features into a consistent pic ture and the reshaping of the concept of the Holy Spirit according to that picture are what have given us the Johannine presentadon of the Paraclete,"^ Brown too espouses the assumption that first century authors adhered to a consistent conception of the spirit. We have noted, however, that this sort of consistency does not characterize first century literature about the spirit. Josephus holds to apparently inconsistent conceptions of the spirit both as a cosmic force at the temple dedication and as an angel in the tale of Balaam. Philo allows even more disparate conceptions to co-exist; in addition to being con strued as angel or hurricane wind, the spirit is also wisdom and cosmic ' Thr SpirU-ParacleU in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) 20. The Gospel According to John (AB 29A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1970) 1139.

244

RETROSPECT AND

PROSPECT

unity. Pseudo-Philo designates Balaam's life-breath and the p>ower that indwells Kenaz—two very diflferent entities—with the same words, "holy spirit." Therefore, Brown's attempt to demonstrate "first of all, that the Johannine picture of the Paraclete is not inconsistent with what is said in the Gospel itself and in other N T books about the Holy Spirit,'" though it may provide an essential corrective to theo ries such as Windisch's, does not acknowledge the writings of other first century authors who attributed to the spirit an apparendy incon sistent collection of natures and an array of assorted eflfects. This analysis, therefore, has a two-fold imphcation vis-a-vis diversity. It demonstrates, on the one hand, that consistent conceptions of the spirit cannot be assumed, as does Hill, for an ancient author or docu ment. It demonstrates, on the other hand, that diversity and dispar ity of conceptions ought not to be construed, as do Windisch and Brown, as indications of diflfering sources or origins. Disparities can be ejqjlained by the exigencies of context and exegetical conundrums; it is suf>erfluous to postulate a variety of origins for authors who seem not only to have tolerated but also to have embraced diversity.

The Spirit and Prophecy Among the eflfects of the spirit prophecy is the most pervasive. Accord ing to Philo, Balaam became possessed when "there fell upon him the truly prophetic spirit which banished utterly from his soul his art of wizardry" (Vit. Mos. 1.277). The experience of this false diviner is characteristic as well of the prophetic race: "This is what regularly befalls the fellowship of the prophets. The mind is evicted at the arrival of the divine Spirit, but when that departs the mind retums to its tenancy" (Her. 265; see Spec. Leg. 1.65; 4.49; Qmest. in Gen 3,9). Moses, too, cannot be excluded from this prophetic race, for he too spoke "when possessed by God and carried away out of himself" because he experienced "that divine possession in virtue of which he is chiefly and in the strict sense considered a prophet" (Vit. Mos. 2.188, 191). Josephus also closely associates the work of the spirit with prophecy. On some occasions, Josephus adds references to prophecy in contexts that focus upon the effects of the spirit. For example, while 1 Sam ^ Gospel According lo John, 1139.

PROSPECT

245

16:13 recounts that "the spirit of the LORD came mightily upK)n David from that day forward," Josephus relates that David, "when the divine spirit had removed to him, began to prophesy" (Ant. 6.166). While Zedekiah, the false prophet, asks Micaiah in LXX 1 Kgs 22:24, "What sort of spirit of the Lord speaks in you?", Josephus explicidy relates the spirit to prophecy: "But you shall know whether he is really a true prophet and has the power of the divine spirit" (Ant. 8.408). Although he reduces the number of references to the spirit in his version of the book of Daniel, he does nonetheless preserve a ref erence to the spirit and emphasize Daniel's place as "one of the greatest prophets" (10.266). On other occasions, Josephus preserves the element of prophecy which is already included in a biblical narradve, such as in the story of Saul's pursuit of David. Saul's soldiers, upon encounter ing Samuel and the prophets, "were themselves possessed by the spirit of God and began to prophesy." Samuel himself then "caused him [Saul] too to prophesy" (6.222~23). Further, Josephus uncharacterisdcally adds references to the spirit in his version of the Balaam story. Although he does not designate Balaam a prophet—Balaam was too ambiguous a figure to be included alongside the hkes of Daniel—he nonetheless colors Balaam's inspiration with hues drawn from the palette of prophedc inspiradon at Delphi. In a variety of ways, then, Josephus underscores the attribution of prophecy to the spirit. This associadon between the spirit and prophecy is evident as well in the Liber Antiquitatum BibUcarum. In extra-biblical addidons, the spirit comes upon Miriam to be the recipient of a dream in which the birth of Moses is predicted (9:10), while Deborah is said explicidy to have predicted Sisera's demise by the inspiration of the spirit (31:9). PseudoPhilo also creates de novo the association of prophecy and the spirit in a biblical text, Jdg 3:9-10, in which the spirit is associated only with judging Israel: "And when they had sat down, a holy spirit came u{x>n Kenaz . . . and he began to prophesy" (LAB 28:6). The authen ticity of Kenaz's prophetic experience is confirmed by his inability to recollect what he had said or seen—an element of prophetic inspi ration in Greco-Roman interpretations of Plato's view of prophetic inspiration (28:10). The attentiveness of Pseudo-Philo is evident, fur thermore, in his interpretation of Deut 34:9, where an explicit refer ence to the spirit of wisdom is thoughtfully supplemented by allusions to 1 Sam 10:6 and Jdg 6:34, other biblical texts which refer to the spirit. Pseudo-PhUo combines these allusions with other eflfects upon Joshua—a mind afire and an agitated spirit—which correspond to

246

RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

popular Greco-Roman conceptions of prophetic experiences. Even in a highly abbreviated account of Saul's pursuit of David, PseudoPhilo preserves the explicit association of prophecy and the spirit: "And (a) spirit abided in Saul, and he prophesied." Confirmation of his experience, like Kenaz's, is evident in his inability "to know what he had prophesied" (LAB 62:2). Philo, Josephus, and Pseudo-Philo, therefore, espouse the association of prophecy and the spirit in creative and thoughtful ways that both preserve biblical attributions of prophecy to the spirit and create that association even where biblical texts do not. Theirs is not merely a tacit acceptance of an ancient conception; these authors are themselves part of the creative process which develops and deepens the association of the spirit and prophecy. These firet century interpretations constitute only a portion of the rich patchwork of Early Judaism, in which this association of the spirit with prophecy was aflSrmed. The post-exihc author of the book of Nehemiah had already incorporated a prayer in which God is said to have been patient with Israel for many years and to have "warned them by your spirit through the prophets . . ." (9:30). This conviction is echoed by the Qumran sectarians: "This is the study of the law which he commanded through the hand of Moses, in order to act in compliance with all that has been revealed from age to age, and according to what the prophets have revealed through his holy spirit" (1 QS 8.15-16). In the Book of Jubilees, "a spirit of truth de scended upon the mouth" of Rebekkah so that she could bless her children (25:14), and Jacob blessed Levi and Judah when "a spirit of prophecy came down upon his mouth" (31:12). In the Enoch cycle of literature, Enoch commands, "Now, my son Methuselah, (please) summon all your brothers on my behalf, and gather together to me all the sons of your mother; for a voice calls me, and the spirit is poured over me so that I may show you everything that shall happen to you forever" (1 En 91:1). In a humorous portion of the Testament of Abraham, in which the archangel Michael cannot find the resources to convince Abraham that he will die, God says to Michael: "And I shall send my holy spirit upon his son Isaac, and I shall thrust the mention of his death into Isaac's heart, so that he will see his father's death in a dream" (TAbr [A] 4:8). This association of prophecy and the spirit is evident as well in early rabbinic literature. For example, in Mefdlta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Tractate Shirata 10.58-73, a discussion transpires concerning where in Torah

PROSPECT

247

Miriam is said to have been a prophetess.** The bibhcal text quoted, Exod 2:1-3, contains no such indication: '"There went a man of the house of Levi and took to wife . . . and the woman conceived, and bore a son. . . . And when she could no longer hide him,' etc." The editors appeal to two other details to explain her prophetic role. In the first, prior to the quotation of Exod 2:1-3, Miriam predicts exphcidy that her father will "beget a son who will arise and save Israel from the hands of the Egyptians." Her prophedc convicdon is subsequendy confirmed by appeal to the ensuing verse, Exodus 2:4: "But she sdll held on to her prophecy, as it is said: 'And his sister stood afar oflf, to know what would be done to him.'" The interpretadon of Exod 2:4 becomes particularly significant for ascertaining the association of the spirit and prophecy, for proof of Miriam's prophetic role is based, not upon the discernment of prophegi in this verse, but in the discernment of the presence of the holy spirit in this verse. Thus proof of the holy spirit constitutes proof of Miriam's prophetic role. The hermeneutical principle employed to demonstrate the presence of the holy spirit in Exod 2:4 is gezerah shawah, an argu ment from analogy drawn from two passages with the same expres sion. Accordingly, four expressions in Exod 2:4 are related to the same expression in other verses from which the presence of the holy spirit can be inferred. For example, the expression, "Afar oflf," in Exod 2:4 is said to suggest the holy spirit's presence because in Jer 31:2 it is said, "From afar the Lord appeared to me."^ What is significant from the perspective of our study is how unquestionably Miriam's prophecy is demonstrated by appeal, not to prophecy, but to the holy spirit's (i.e., the lord) presence.'^ ® Miriam has a prophetic dream inspired by the holy spirit in L \ B 9:10. ^ Three other expressions from E x o d 2:4 are interpreted similarly in Sfurata 10.5873. (1) "Standing" suggests the presence of the holy spirit because in three verses w h e r e t h e v e r b , " t o s t a n d , " o c c u r s , t h e Ix>rd is p r e s e n t : "I s a w t h e Ixtrd

standing

beside d i e altar" (Amos 9:1); "And d i e Lord came and stood" (1 Sam 3:10); (The Lord says to Moses) "Call Joshua and stand" (Deut 31:14). (2) "To know" su^ests the presence of the h o l y spirit because it is said in Isa 11:9, "For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord" (cf Hab 2:14). (3) "What would be done" sug gests the presence of the holy spirit because in Amos 3:7 it is said, "For the Lord will do nothing, but He revealeth His counsel unto His servants the prophets." A similar applicadon oi geztrah shawah in the context of an explanation of Exod 12:1 {Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael [ed. J. Z. Lauterbach; 3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933, 1935], Tractate Hsha 1.148-66) demonstrates once again that the association of prophecy and the spirit could be assumed in some rabbinic interpretation. The complaint of Jeremiah's scribe, Baruch, in Jer 45:3 is quoted, "I am weary with my groaning and I find no rest." This is taken to mean that Baruch,

248

RETROSPECT AND

PROSPECT

This collection of early Jewish texts which espouse an association between the spirit and prophecy would seem to support the conclusions of scholars such as G. F. Moore, who writes, "The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy.. ." or G. W. H. Lamp>e, who claims, "In the main, the Spirit condnues to be thought of as being, pre-eminendy, the Spirit of prophecy . . . " or D. Hill, who interprets Josephus on the basis of the assumption that the spirit "for Josephus as for the rabbis, was pre-eminendy the spirit of prophecy." The study we have undertaken, while confirming these statements, has made crystal clear as well that these statements are accurate only if the qualifying state ments, "In the main" and "pre-eminendy," be taken seriously. There are many other instances in which the presence of the spirit does not effect an experience of prophecy. in conurast to other disciples—Joshua the disciple of Moses and Elisha the disciple of Elijah—has not received the holy spirit. Jer 45:3, of course, does not indicate Baruch's failure to receive the holy spirit at all. But the presence of the holy spirit is inferred from the word, "rest" (TifTOD): "'Rest' here means prophecy, as it says, 'And the ^irit rested upon them' (Num 11:26), and again, 'the spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha' (2 Kgs 2:15). and again, 'And the spirit of the LORD will rest in him' (Isa 11:2)." In each text, an explicit reference to the spirit is accompanied by an implicit reference to prophecy in the word "rest" (though in Num 11:26 prophesying appears in the immediate context). The interpretadvc flow of this passage is instructive: (I) Two disciples, Joshua and Elisha, had the spirit. (2) Baruch complains that he does not. (3) Jer 45:3 is quoted as biblical proof of his complaint. (4) "Rest" in Jer 45:3 is interpreted as prophecy—thus what Baruch lacks, at first identified as the ^irit, is now identified as prophecy. (5) The principle of gezerah shawah is applied, and each analogous text does not contain an explicit reference to prophecy but to the spirit which rested. The flow of this passage from references to the spirit to prophecy and back to the spirit reveals the assumption that prophecy and ^irit are interchangeaUe. In Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Tractate Pisha 1.42" 76, the question arises concerning prophets with whom God sf>oke "outside the land of Palestine." This is a problem because it has already been established that "Before the land of Israel had been cially chosen, all lands were suitable for divine revelations; after the land of Israel had been chosen, all other lands were eliminated." One explanation of this conundrum is that God spoke to these prophets outside of Israel "only because of the merit of the fathers." Another is that God sjx)ke only "at a pure spot, near water." Still an other is that God had already spoken to these prophets inside the land. Sul^quendy, God's presence everywhere is acknowledged, as the quotation of Ps 139:7-1Oa indicates, beginning with, "Wither shall I go from Thy spirit" {IHsha 1.74-75). Here the presence of the spirit is inferred within a discu^on of prophecy. On this passage, sec the discussion of W. D. Davies, "Reflections on the Spirit in the Mekilta: A Suggestion," in The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University (The Caster Festschrift) 5 (1973) 95-105. With respect to the Targumim, J. P. Schafer ("Die Termini 'Heiliger Geist' und 'Geist der Prophetic' in den T a i ^ m i m und das Verhiltnis der Targumim Zueinander," FT 20 [1970] 304-14) observes that the expression, "^irit of prophecy," occurs consistendy in T a i ^ m Onkelos, while in Targum Pseudojonathan the expre^on "holy spirit" occurs fifteen times and "spirit of prophecy" eleven times.

PROSPECT

249

This is no more evident than in De gigantibus^ where the influence of Stoicism upon Philo's exegesis results in a detailed descripdon that is, although built upon the foundation of an exphcit citation of Num 11:17, surprisingly void of any reference to prophecy: "But as it is, the spirit which is on him [Moses] is the wise, the divine, the excellent spirit, susceptible of neither severance nor division, diflRised in its fullness everywhere and through all things, the spirit which . . . though it be shared . . . suflfers no diminution in understanding and knowledge and wisdom" (Gig. 24—27). Philo's reservation about Platonism, more over, results in the association of the spirit with the ascent of the philosopher's mind (Plant. 18-24). Even the powerful persuasive abihties of Abraham, which could be attributed to a prophetic experience, are presented as a transformation into an ideal king—with vocabulary far more at home in the world of Greco-Roman conceptions of the ideal ruler than in Philo's perceptions of prophetic phenomena (Vvrt. 217-19). Philo's own allegorical interpretation of scripture is the pro duct of his mind's ascent (Spec. Leg. 3.1-6), and the customary tenant that teaches him bears a striking resemblance to Socrates' inspiring daemonion (Som. 2.252) and thus to the angelic spirit that guides Moses' mind to the truth (Vit. Mos. 2.265). Josephus, like Philo, interprets the spirit along the hues of the cosmic spirit of Stoicism in his version of the dedication of the temple (^nt. 8.114, 118). This is the only instance in Josephus' writings in which the spirit is unrelated to a prophetic experience. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum also contains references to the spirit unrelated to prophecy. In a creative reinterpretation of Gen 6:3, God says, "And I will reveal to him [Moses] my Law and statutes and judgments, and I will bum an eternal hght for him, because I thought of him in the days of old, saying, 'My spirit will not be a mediator among these people forever, because they are flesh and their days will be 120 years'" (LAB 9:8). Then of course there is the inspiration of Kenaz (27:9-10) and Gideon (36:2) in preparation for mihtary routs. Moreover, Deborah is exhorted to "let the grace of the holy spirit awaken" in her so that she may sing praises to God (LAB 33:14). Deborah's experience of the spirit ought to be distinguished from prophetic experiences because throughout the Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum prophesying under the influence of the spirit consistendy involves prediction rather than praise. Philo, Josephus, and Pseudo-Philo constitute but a slender thread in a tapestry whose textures encompass far more than prophetic

250

RETROSPECT

AND

PROSPECT

inspiration. Once again, we may illustrate with a pastiche of early Jewish texts how much more widely than prophecy the effects of the spirit were beheved by Jews of the Greco-Roman era to extend. The spirit is associated with creation. The influence of Gen 1:2 is apparent in 2 Bar 21:4, Baruch's address to God, . . you who cre ated the earth, the one who fixed the firmament by the word and fastened the height of heaven by the spirit. . . God responds to this prayer in 23:5, "For my spirit creates the h v i n g . . ." Ezra in 4 Ezra 6:39 similarly recaUs the earliest creative activity of God: "And then the Spirit was hovering, and darkness and silence embraced everything; the sound of a human voice was not yet there. Then you commanded that a ray of light be brought forth.. . ." In Judith 16:14, it is Gen 2:7 and 2:22,'' mediated through Ps 104:29-30, which influences the depiction of the spirit's relation to creation. Judith praises God, Let all your creatures serve you, for you spoke, and they were made. You sent forth your spirit, and it formed them; there is none that can resist your voice. The spirit's function vis-a-vis creation is not only to grant life but also to convict wrongdoers. A representative of the Alexandrian wisdom tradition can contend that the ungodly will be punished "because the spirit of the Lord has filled the world, and that which holds all things together knows what is said" (WisSol 1:7). In the words of the sibyl composed by another Egyptian author. The earth itself will also drink of the blood of the dying; wild beasts will be sated with flesh. God himself, the great eternal one, told me to prophesy all these things. These things will not go unfulfilled. Nor is anything left unaccomplished that he so much as puts in mind for the spirit of God which knows no falsehood is throughout die world (Sibylline Oracles 3.696-701). In many other early Jewish texts, the spirit is related to human purity and cleansing. Rabbi JMehemiah, in Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Tractate Beshallah 7.134-36, associates obedience with reception of the spirit: "For as a reward for the faith with which Israel believed in God, the Holy Spirit rested upon them. . . . R. Nehemiah says: Whence can you prove that whosoever accepts even one single commandment with true faith is deserving of having the Holy Spirit rest upon him." In See my 'Judith 16:14 and the Creation of Woman,"

114 (1995) 467-69.

PRnSPKCT the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Benjamin attributes sexual purity to the spirit: "He has no pollution in his heart, because upon him is resting the spirit of God" (TBen 8.3). The Community Rule evinces the convicdon that the spirit is integrally related to purificadon: "by the spirit of holiness which links him with the truth he is cleansed of all his sins. And by the spirit of uprightness and of humihty his sin is atoned" (IQS 3.7b-8a). In the eschatological future, the spirit will once again purify the child of light, "cleansing him with the spirit of holiness from every irreverent deed. He will sprinkle over him the spirit of truth like lustral water..." (IQS 4.21). The association of purity with the spirit in the context of community initiation is apparent as well in the Qumran Hymns, particularly if H. W. Kuhn's study of initiatory language in the hymns holds true, according to which certain vocabulary can be understood to indi cate drawing near to God through the community, such as in IQH 14.13-14: . . . in your kindness toward humankind you have enlarged his share with the spirit of your holiness. Thus, you make me approach your intelligence, and to the degree that I approach my fervour against all those who act wickedly and (against) people of guile increases; for everyone who approaches you, does not defy your o r d e r s . . . .

The sixteenth hymn, though fragmentary and obtuse at several points, is particularly rich with such language: . . . to be strengthened by the spirit of holiness, to adhere to the truth of your covenant, to serve you in truth, with a perfect h e a r t . . . (16.15) You have resolved, in fact, to take pity . . . to show me favour by the spirit of your compassion and by the splendour of your ^ o r y . . . (16.16-17) I know that no-one besides you is just. I have appeased your face'^ by the spirit which you have given me, to lavish your favour on your servant for [ever,J to purify me with your holy spirit, to approach your will according to the extent of your kindnesses (16.19-20)." " The phrase, "fSB TtXfm, is difficult to understand. " H. W. Kuhn, Enderwartung und gtgmemtiges Hat UnUrsuchungm zu dm Gemmdeiietkm von Qumran (SUNT 4; Gdttingen: Vandenhocck & Ruprccht, 1966) 117-39. Kuhn discerns initiation language as well in IQH 12.11-12; 13.19; 14.13, and f 3.14.

252

RETROSPECT

AND

PROSPECT

Far from the shores of the Dead Sea—and with much less vehemence— the spirit was also associated with entrance into a life of faith. In the romantic tale, Joseph and Aseneth, Aseneth, the daughter of Pentephres (the bibhcal Potiphar) is converted to Judaism. In this story, Joseph places his hand upon her head and prays, . . . and renew her by your spirit, and form her anew by your hidden hand, and make her alive again by your life, and let her eat your bread of life, and drink your cup of blessing, and number her among your people . .. (8:9). Subsequendy Aseneth is led by a heavenly man to a room with a mar velous honeycomb. He says to her, "Happy are you, Aseneth, because the ineffable mysteries of the Most High have been revealed to you, and happy (are) all who attach themselves to the Lord God in repen tance, because they will eat from this comb. For this comb is (full of the) spirit of life" (16:14). Finally, at a climactic moment, 'Joseph put his arms around her, and Aseneth (put hers) around Joseph, and they kissed each other for a long time and both came to life in their spirit. And Joseph kissed Aseneth and gave her spirit of life, and he kissed her the second time and gave her spirit of wisdom, and he kissed her the third time and gave her spirit of truth" (19:10-11). In this lovely romance, then, as in the poetry of the Qumran sectarians, the spirit purifies and draws people into the sphere of the faithful. This process of purification takes on a communal character in 1 QS 9.3-4: "When these exist in Israel in accordance with these rules in order to estabhsh the spirit of holiness in truth eternal, in order to atone for the fault of the transgression and for the guilt of sin and for the approval for the earth, without the flesh of burnt offerings...." Similarly, in Jubilees 1:20-21, Moses echoes Psalm 51, adapting it to a communal setting, when he intercedes for Israel, "O Lord, let your mercy be lifted up upon your people, and create for them an upright spirit.. . . Create a pure heart and a holy spirit for them. And do not let them be ensnared by their sin henceforth and forever." God responds (Jubilees 1:22-25) in turn by echoing Psalm 51 and Ezek 11:19-20: "And I shall create for them a holy spirit, and I shall purify them so that they will not turn away from following me from that day and forever. And their souls will cleave to me and to all my commandments" (1:23). Although these references to the spirit in relation to experiences

PROSPECT

253

other than prophecy certainly do not exhaust the rich reservoir that characterized Early Judaism, they do indicate unequivocally that the idendficadon of the spirit as "the spirit of prophecy" can be made only with the awareness of just how deeply convictions concerning the spirit were enmeshed in other spheres of life, from creation to new creation. This observation ought to engender reservation about the assumption of studies such as R. Menzies', in which he attempts to reconstruct early Christian pneumatology by attributing one domi nant effect of the spirit to primitive Christianity, another to Judaism, and another to Luke: "Whereas the primitive church, following in the footsteps of Jesus, broadened the functions traditionally ascribed to the Spirit in first-century Judaism and thus presented the Spirit as the source of miracle-working power, Luke retained the traditional Jewish understanding of the Spirit as the source of special insight and inspired speech.'"* Many associations of the spirit, such as PseudoPhilo's with mihtary might, Philo's with the ascent of the philosophical mind, the Qumran sectarians' with purification and initiation, and Judith's with creation, burst the boundary artificially created by grant ing such a notion as the spirit of prophecy all-encompassing scope. Another inference to be drawn from our study is that it is unwise to marginalize any particular form of prophecy. D. Hill, for instance, contends, "In Philo's writings we find either an acute hellenisation of the Jewish concept of prophecy, or a hellenistic view of prophecy justified on a bibhcal basis: whichever view of the matter we take, it must be admitted that it certainly represents a significant departure from what is reflected in other extant Jewish literature of the general period."'^ M. M. B. Turner, following a judicious survey of nonrabbinic Judaism, contends: "In all this there is a predictable, though not massive, shift in emphasis towards the Spirit of prophecy as the source of 'wisdom', whether communicated or infused. We also have quite prominent cases of 'invasive' charismatic speech, though it is notable that the clearest cases (in Philo and Josephus) are heavily marked by the language of divine possession, or of mantic prophetism (cf Plato Phaedms 244a-245c; Ion 533d-534e), and to diat extent cannot safely be regarded as conveying a typically Jewish notion of the Spirit of prophecy."'^ Early Christian PnetaruUobgy, 279. New Testament Prophecy, 33. "The Spirit of Prophecy and the Power of Authoritadve Preaching in LukeActs: A Question of Origins," 38 (1992) 85.

254

RETROSPECT

AND

PROSPECT

There is httle need to rehearse the Greco-Roman elements of Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, but we ought nonetheless to recall how vividly his descripdons of Joshua's inflamed mind and agitated spirit, Kenaz's ascent, and the inability of Saul and Kenaz to recall what they heard and saw bear the marks of popular GrecoRoman conceptions of prophetic inspiration. If Philo in Alexandrian Egypt and Josephus in Rome are accompanied by Pseudo-Philo in Palestine in the process of assimilating Greco-Roman conceptions of prophecy, then one must question the usefulness of a description such as "typically Jewish" and ask further whether these conceptions of prophecy, which exhibit close affinities with Greco-Roman conceptions of inspiration, ought to be shunted aside as a "significant departure" from putatively typical forms of Judaism. Moreover, Hill's conten tion concerning Christian prophecy, that ". . . there will be few schol ars, if any, who will wish to claim that prophetic phenomena in Greek and Roman religion provide primary evidence for the understanding of Christian prophecy,'"^ ought perhaps to be revisited in light of the Greco-Roman elements which permeate, not only Diaspora Jewish literature, but also a first century Palestinian example of re-written Bible composed in Hebrew.

The Spirit and Charismatic Exegesis D. Aune traces the expression, "charismatic exegesis," to H. L. Gins berg who, in conversation with W. Brownlee, coined it in the 1950's to describe the sort of bibhcal interpretation employed in the Habakkuk commentary by the Qumran sectarians.'® During the next decade, D. Georgi broadened the application of this expression by locating the matrix of such inspired exegesis in the synagogue, where ".. . the medium of Jewish propaganda was the synagogue worship and the exegis [sic!] of the law presented there.''^^ Travelling Jewish leaders who were not tied to any particular synagogue would undertsdce this teaching in local synagogues. Such leaders were expected to show tricks, for "pubhc attention was typically aroused by extraordinary, often ecstatic per formances. . . For the clearest window into this arena of Jewish New Testament Prophecy, 9. '» "Charismatic Exegesis," 126. Opponents, 84; see 181-83n 59. 2" Georgi, Opponents, 101.

PROSPECT

255

life, Geoip turned to Philo, who according to Georgi idendfies proph ecy and interpretadon: ''interpreters of the Bible, the exegetes, are therefore for PhUo the prophets of the present. They are capable of setdng free the spirit botded up in the composition of holy scripture. . . . Insofar as they themselves did not create the text which is to be interpreted, the source of the spirit, they are subordinated to it. But insofar as the spirit speaks through their exegesis, they are quite equal to the prophets of old. The spirit has not vanished; it has merely modified itself "2' While Georgi mined Philo's wridngs to locate charismatic exegesis in the synagogue, M. Hengel garnered an impressive array of writ ings'^ as evidence of this phenomenon outside the synagogue, lead ing to the conclusion that "the Spirit was less efifecdve at that time through direct inspiration. The influence of the Spirit was more fre quendy felt via the charismatic interpretation of Scripture. The for mation of the canon did not necessarily have to result in a cessation of prophecy. On the contrary, only someone who was filled with the Spirit could really adequately interpret the words of Holy Scripture which were inspired by God, but were often very obscure."^' This phenomenon played a crucial role, according to Josephus' Jewish War, in the war against Rome. The ambiguous messianic prophecy to which Josephus refers in Bell. 6.312-13, which incited the Jews to rebellion because it predicted the rise of a leader whom Josephus identified with Vespasian, illustrates the need for inspired exegesis: "The un derlying scriptural text could not bc immediately understood: it had first to be interpreted by the oocpoC. This presupposes a prophetic charism on the part of the interpreter."^* In the last batde for the temple, observes Hengel, allegedly inspired prophecies and counterprophecies arose, each of them biblically based. Josephus urged trust in God by appealing to the divine rescue from the siege of Sennacharib, wfhile others demanded resistance to Rome by appealing to prophe cies such as Zech 12:2-6 and 14:2-5.'^ In a less known but significant study, H.-P. Miillcr argued that "die archaische Gestalt einer mantischen Weisheit hat sich in der Georgi, Opponents, III. " The ^ecdots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom MouemetU in the Period From Herod I Until 70 AD (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1989) 235-36. " ZealoU, 234.

Zealots, 237. " Ziakts, 240-44.

256

RETROSPECT AND

PROSPECT

Apokalyptik fortgesetzt."^ Miiller observed first of all that the word, •pn, occurs both in the bibhcal and post-bibhcal tradition in relation to mantic powers or sup>ematural knowledge. Thus, the sage receives knowledge through various forms of inspiration. The quintessential sage in this respect is Joseph, who was educated, possessed the spirit of God, and could know even more than the Egyptian diviners.^' In the Greco-Roman era, observed Miiller, Daniel was the quintessen tial sage who possessed inspired knowledge: "Die Weisheit des Daniel von Kapitel ii, iv und v ist also wirklich rein mantischer Art; anders als Joseph hat er mit der Bildungsweisheit nichts zu tun."^ When, a few years later, D. Patte examined this topic, he arrived at a similar assessment of bibhcal interpretation in apocalyptic circles: " . . . for the Jewish Apocalyptic circles the concept of inspiration in volved a use of Scripture... . We can describe this inspiration as the work of the creative imagination of a man permeated with Scripture." This creative imagination "came to a very large extent from Scrip ture. We should add: from Scripture as read in the writer's miheu, that is, in the Jewish Palestinian milieu of that time. Thus some of die associations which allowed them to taUy various biblical texts with it, imposed themselves on the Apocalyptists because of the way the texts were used in the Synagogal readings, or in other circumstances which lie for the most part, beyond any possible investigation."^ Within a decade of Ginsberg's coining of the expression, "charis matic exegesis," then, this phenomenon had been located, not only at Qumran, but also in the synagogue, in the Palestinian Jewish ix)pulace at large, particularly the Zealots, and in apocalyptic Judaism. When Aune revisited the topic of charismatic exegesis and the Qumran sectarians, he reflected, "Though there is ample evidence that the Qumran Community beheved that God revealed the truth to them, there is precious httie evidence to suggest how they thought that the Spirit revealed truth."^ This uncertainty about the process

^ "Mantische Weisheit und Apokalyptik," in Congress Vobtm Uppsala 1971 (SVT 22; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 271. " "Mantische Weisheit," 271-75. » "Mantische Weisheit," 277; see 275~80. " Earfy Jewish Hemeneutic in Palestine (SBLDS 22; Missoula, Scholars, 1975) 201; 183. He continues (183), "Thus it is not surprising to find a continuity, as G. Vermes has shown, between the traditional biblical interpretations in classical Judaism and in Apocalyptic literature." "Chansmatic Elxegesis," 128.

PROSPECT

257

of charismatic exegesis mirrors prior analyses. Georgi ultimately did not explain how charismatic exegesis transpired when he wrote, "In spite of varied evaluations of pneumatic details, there was a consen sus that possession of the spirit was necessary and real, amd also that the interpretation of the law was the most important spiritual func tion."^' Hengel could not pinpoint how Zealot prophecy occurred: . . . the Old Testament formed the point of departure for its "prophesy ing" and was applied in an authoritative and charismatic way to con crete situations in the eschatological present. It is not possible to know from Josephus' works to what extent this prophecy took an ecstatic form. It is, however, possible to assume, on the evidence provided by certain contemporary parallels, that the ecstatic form of prophesying was not completely unknown to the Zealots.'^ Nor could Patte determine whether the bibhcal material in apocalyptic literature arose "either in a conscious intellectual effort or uncon sciously . . . " that is "in a psychical experience or in the very process of writing."^^ Therefore, scholars who have attended to the topic of charismatic or inspired exegesis have not adequately determined how that inspiration was believed to take place. In chapter eight of our study I highlighted several biblical and post-biblical texts which may prove integral to dispeUing the uncer tainty that surrounds this issue of charismatic exegesis. I acknowl edged that Ezra 9:20, Josephus Bell. 3.351-53, and passages from Qumran, such as I Q H 12.11-13, evince the conviction that knowl edge requires inspiration without delineating how that inspiration was beheved to occur. Other texts, however, do shed indispensable hght on the nature of that inspiration. The exphcit conviction of 4 Ezra 14 is that Ezra's mind is inspired in a wakeful state to write ninety-four books. Prior to this inspira tion, Ezra is given the promise that the lamp of understanding, lucemam intellectus, will remain lit throughout his experience. The process itself begins as he drinks the cup given to him, as his heart pours forth understanding (intellectum), and as wisdom (sapientia) increases within him. Following his experience, it is said that these ninety-four books contain "the spring of understanding (intellectus), the fountain of wisdom (sapientiae), and the river of knowledge (scientiaey (14:47). The impres-

Opponents, 112. '2 Zealots, 244-45. 33 Earlj) Jewish Hemeneutic, 182-83.

258

RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

sion that Ezra is inspired without the onset of ecstasy is confirmed by the significant detail that Ezra's understanding and wisdom over flowed because {nam) his own spirit retained its memory {Mam spiritus meus conservabat memoriam). This assertion that Ezra retains his memory distinguishes Ezra's experience from those ecstatic prophets who cannot recall what they said (according to Pseudo-Philo [LAB 28:10 and 62:2], Aelius Aristides, Pseudo-Justinus, John Cassian, and the author of the late prologue to the Sybilline Oracles). From start to finish, then, Ezra composes ninety-four books by means of a form of inspi ration that magnifies his scribal abihties. We wrested further insight from Philo's autobiographical reflections on his role as allegorical interpreter. Several of those details ought now to be recalled. First, in Spec. 3.1-2 and 3.5-6, Philo draws an evocative correspondence between the ascent of his mind under pos session of the spirit and his ability to interpret Torah allegorically. These correspondences between the ascents of Philo or Moses and Philo's ability to interpret Torah suggest that Philo regards inspired exe gesis as a process in which the mind awake is inspired by the spirit. Second, in Som. 2.252, the spirit is the source of the solution to a biblical conundrum. In this autobiographical reflection, Philo lets the reader know that: the immediate task is to solve an exegetical dilemma, such as why the bibhcal text refers to two, rather than to one, cher ubim; that the spirit teaches (dva8i5d
PROSPECT

259

inspiration contains conceptions which correspond to Philo's reflec tions in Som. 2.252. First, Philo employs the adjective, customary, of the spirit, and Socrates' daemonion was frequendy designated similarly as "customary." Second, Plutarch's Simmias contends that daemonic language can only be heard by those whose souls are untroubled and unruffled, and Philo calls his own mind untroubled. Third, the image of an echo, -birnxei 8e |j,oi, is similar to Plutarch's explanation of how the language of daemons is communicated: the "messages of daemons pass through all other people, but find an echo [evT|xovai] in those only whose character is untroubled and soul unruflfled." There are, then, striking similarities between the form of inspiration which was associated with Socrates and experienced by Philo. This sort of inspiration demands the most alert and attuned of minds. In con trast, according to Plutarch's Simmias, "In popular belief, on the other hand, it is only in sleep that people receive inspiration from on high; and the notion that they are so influenced when awake and in full possession of their faculties is accounted strange and incredible" {Gen. Socr. 589D). Therefore, a mode of inspired writing and exegesis to which intel lectual faculties are requisite characterizes 4 Ezra 14 and the writ ings of Philo Judaeus. Alongside these we ought to include as well Ben Sira, who gives no credence to those who allegedly attain knowl edge through divination, omens, and dreams (Sir 34:5); instead he praises the person who learns inductively through travel and study (34:9; 39:4). It would be unlikely, then, for him to claim for the sage a mode of inspiration by the "spirit of understanding" which obvi ates intellectual faculties. Not by means of ecstasy does Ben Sira "pour forth words of wisdom of his own," but by means of meditation and learning (Sir 39:6-8a). These piquant observations from Antiquity concerning the neces sity of inspiration for the process of interpretation provide an apt conclusion to this study. It is not merely conceptions of the spirit within ancient writings that are riveting, with all of their fascinating permutations and contextual transformations. Equally compelhng, and of no less significance, are perceptions and reminiscences concerning the process by which the spirit was believed to lead to a more ade quate comprehension of those ancient writings. For, with Philo, many of us yearn to "peer into" the sacred texts of Antiquity.^* Spec. Leg. 3 . 6 .

APPENDIX

ESSENTIAL DATA O N PHILO JUDAEUS, PSEUDO-PHILO'S UBER AKTIQUITATUM BIBUCARUM, AND JOSEPHUS

The writings of each of the early Jewish authors who constitute the foci of this study have deservedly been the object of serious research. The importance of the writings of Philo is borne out impressively by the bibhographies compiled by R. Radice and D. T. Runia.' Simi larly, the bibliographies of L. H. Feldman' and H. Schreckenberg^ on Flavius Josephus and his writings* testify to his enormous significance. The growing awareness of how crucial the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum may be for understanding Early Judaism and Christianity is evident, not only in the original commentary devoted to it by M. R. James (1917) and the 160 page prolegomenon appended to that commentary by L. H. Feldman (1971),^ but also in commentaries by C. Dietzfel binger (1975),^ C. Perrot and P.-M. Bogaert (1976),^ and H. Jacobson (1996).^ Several recent studies have explored, moreover, various aspects of the literary characteristics of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, including

' R. Radice and D. T. Runia, t^hilo of Alexandria: An AnnoUUed Bibliograpky 19371986 (SVC 8; Leiden: BriU, 1988). More recent reviews of works on PhUo can be found in The Studia Hdhmica Armual. I shaU include full bibliographical data in this appendix because it may be the first pordon of this book to be read. * Scholarship on PhUo and Josephus (1937-1962) (SJ 1; New York: Yeshiva Univer sity, [963); Josephus and Modem Scholarship (1937-1980) (Berlin/New Yorit: de Gruyter, 1984); "A Selective Critical Bibliography ofJosephus," in Josephus, the BU>le, and History, ed. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1989) 330-448. ' Bibliographie ZM Flavius Josephus (ALGHJ 1; Leiden: BriU, 1968); Bibliographie zu Flavius Josefdms: Supplenuntband mit Gesamtregister (ALGHJ 14; Leiden: BriU, 1979). * See ako the bibUography in J. R, Levison and J. R. Wagner, Jr., "The Charac ter and Context of Josephus' Gm/ra Apionem," in Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context ivith a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. Feldman and Levison (AGAJU 34; Leiden: BriU, 1996) 22-48. * The Bibtical Antiquities of Philo (New York: Ktav, 1968). OriginaUy published in London in 1917 without Fcldman's prolegomenon. * C. EHetzfelbingcr, Pseudo-PkUo: Antiquitates Bibticae (JSHRZ 2.2; Gtitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975). ^ Pseudo-Phikm, Les 4^ntiquitis Bibhqms, ed. D.J. Harrington, J. Cazeaux, C. Perrot, and P.-M. Bogaert (SC 229-30; Paris: du Cerf", 1976). * H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicanmi, 2 vols. (AGAJU 31; Leiden: Brill, 19%).

262

APPENDIX

a commentary by F.J. Murphy (1993),^ a monograph by E. Reinmuth (1994),'« and a doctoral dissertadon by B. N. Fisk (1997)."

A wisp of Philo's stature among Alexandrian Jews is discernible in one datable event which he recounted in De l^atione ad Gatwn, viz. his leadership of a delegadon to visit the Roman emperor Gaius Cahgula in Rome in 39/40 CE following an and Jewish pogrom in Alexandria under the prefect Flaccus in 38 CE. From this and other events of less certain date, it appears that this Jewish statesman was probably bom between 20 and 10 BCE and died approximately 50 CE. Philo's first love was not, however, pohtics and citizenship, for at a seam in his interpretation of the Decalogue, between the command to love one's parents and the proscription against adultery {Spec. L^. 3.1-6), he burst the wineskins of civil hfe to rue his present preoccupa tion with the exigencies of civil life in lieu of his previous occupation with philosophical contemplation. In this extraordinary aside, he ex pressed passionately his yeaming, when he encountered "a calm from civil turmoils," to "get me wings and ride the waves and almost tread the lower air, wafted by the breezes of knowledge which often urges me to come to spend my days with her, a tmant as it were from merciless masters in the shape not only of people but of afifairs, which pour in upon me like a torrent from diflferent sides" {<^f^. L^. 3.5). Though he yearned to float freely on the winds of knowledge, Philo did not do so anchorless but invariably tethered his philosophical in sights to the books of Moses—admittedly with varying degrees of

^ F.J. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univer sity, 1993). '° Pseudo-Philo und Lukas: Studien zim Uber ArUiqidiatum Bibliamm und seiner Baieutu^ Jtir die Interpretation des bdamischen Doppelwerks (WUNT 74; Tubingen: Mohr, 1994). " "Retelling Israel's Story: Scripture, Exegesis and Tranrformation in PSeudo-Philo's Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 12 24" (Duke University, 1997). For introducdons to Hiilo and his writings, see P. Borgen, "Philo of Alexandria," in Jewish Writii^s of the S^ond Terr^tle Period, ed. M. E. Stone (Compendia Rerum ludaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2.2; Assen/Kiiladelphia: Van Gorcum and Fortress, 1984) 233-82; Y. Amir, "Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo," in Mikra: Text, Translation, Rmdir^ and Interpr^eUim of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism cmd Earfy Christiwdfy, ed. M. J. Mulder (Compendia Rerum ludaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2.1; Assen/F^iladelphia: Van Grorcum and Fortress, 1988) 421-53.

APPENDIX

263

tautness! He wrote treatises in three arenas: (1) Exposition of the Mosaic laws: the story of creation, history, and legisladon; (2) Exegedcal commentaries, most of them intended to provide allegorical interpre tadons of Genesis; (3) Other more themadc treatises on such philo sophical topics as the nature of providence and historical topics such as the embassy he led to Gaius. This third category may be under stood as Pentateuchal principles applied to contemporary issues and events. For example, in his De vita contemplativa, Philo illustrated the experience of heavenly ascent by depicting the practices of a religious community, the Therapeutae, who, claimed Philo, are citizens of heaven while dwelhng on earth (VU. Cont. 90).'^ Even in this melange of treatises, Philo did not range too far from the Mosaic books.'* The cosmopohtan perspective of this first century Alexandrian Jewish statesman cum philosopher and exegete invests his exegetical move ments with extraordinary significance for ascertaining first century Jewish perspectives. His treatises and commentaries indicate that he had a thorough Roman education,'^ for they contain frequent allusions to ancient Greek hterature, such as the dialogues of P l a t o . F o r example, he explained the plural form, "Let us make," in Gen 1:26 to mean that God employed subordinates to create a composite human being, which can tend either to virtue or to vice, so as not to impute responsibility for evil to God. This conception of creation stems from Plato's Timaeus 41-42. In other contexts, Philo freely quoted from Platonic dialogues, such as in Aetem. mundi 25, where he cited Timaeus 32C. In that same treatise, he referred to three views of the eternity of the world: "Democritus with Epicurus and the Greek mass of Stoic philosophers . . ." (Aetem. mundi 8). Again, Philo began the treatise. Quod omnis probus liber sit, in which he sought to demonstrate the Stoic principle that the wise person alone is free, with a quotation from the Pythagoreans: "walk not on the highways"—that is, do not " P. Borgen, "Philo of Alexandria," ABD 5.335. '* This observation is borne out by the useful index to Philo's scripture citations in Biblia Patristica Supplement: Philon d'Alexandrie (Paris: £xiitions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1982). See A. Mendelson, Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 7; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1982). See especially A. Measson, Du char aUe de
264

APPENDIX

follow the "popular and beaten tracks" (2). These allusions and quotations demonstrate how adeptly Philo could converse in the language of philosophy, both of ancient Greece and of his own GrecoRoman era. Philo was cosmopolitan in another respect: he could describe not only Greek and Greco-Roman philosophy but also Judaism during that era, including aspects of Diaspora Judaism distant from Alexan dria {Flaccus 44—48), Palestinian Judaism with its temple in Jerusalem (46),'^ and a variety of specific observances of the Jewish laws, such as the burial of crucified victims prior to Roman holidays (83). More over, much of his legacy consists of his preservation of a variety of Jewish exegetical traditions in addition to his own: the extreme allegorists; the extreme literalists; the moderate Alexandrian exegetical tradition represented by his predecessor Aristobulus, and his contem porary, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon. Philo rejected exegetes who opted consistendy for an allegoricjd interpretation of Torah, while he himself with relative consistency attempted to retain the so-called litercd meaning even when he cham pioned an allegorical interpretation as the deeper and truer meaning of Torah. His point of view is expressed most explicidy in Mig. 8 9 93, where he confuted "some who, regarding laws in their literal sense in the hght of symbols of matters belonging to the intellect, are overpunctilious about the l a t t e r . . . . " It is more desirable, contended Philo, to retain the literal interpretation and practice of injunctions.

Although Philo, of course, lived in Egypt, he undoubtedly had access to Pales tinian traditions. The transmission of Palestinian traditions to Egypt, as well as the presence in Egypt of centers of learning capable of receiving such knowledge already in the second century BCE, is evident in the prologue to Sirach, where Ben Sira's grandson, the translator of his writings from Hebrew into Greek, recalls: "When I came to Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes [132 BCE] and stayed for some time, I found opportunity for no little instruction." Another fleeting but not insignificant window to the flow of knowledge from Palestine to Egypt is clear in the colophon to the Greek additions to Esther: "In the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra [114-13 BCE], Dositheus, who said that he was a priest and a Levite, and his son Ptolemy brought to Egypt the preceding letter about Purim, which they said was authentic and had been translated by Lysimachus son of Ptolemy, one of the residents ofJemsalem." Slighdy later, according to b.Sanh. 107b (parallel j.Hc^ 77d), Jehuda b. Tabai, who fled to Alexandria at the beginning of the first century BCE, founded a school there. Philo could hardly have risen to leadership amongst the Alexandrian Jewish community without an awareness of such Palestinian literature in Greek translation. See M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Foru-ess, 1974) 1.100-02; 2.112 n 423.

APPENDIX

265

such as circumcision or temple ritual, because "if we keep and observe these [outward observances], we shall gain a clearer concepdon of those things of which these are symbols." If Philo persisted in dialogue vrith the extreme allegorists who eas ily jettisoned the literal applicadon of Torah, he was equally agitated by his more conservadve contemporaries, the literalists. Philo did not always "censure such persons, for perhaps the truth is with them also." Nevertheless, he did encourage such literalists "not to halt there, but to press on to allegorical interpretadons" {Conf. Ling. 190)."® Philo attempted to travel the via media, holding both to the infe rior but indispensable hteral meaning and to the superior allegorical meaning, to both the body and soul of Torah {Mig. 93), to both the shadow and the object itself {Conf. Ling. 190), the mirror and the beauty of the true object {Vit. Cont. 78). He stood firmly, in fact, in the tradition of his Alexandrian predecessor, Aristobulus. Philo, like Aristobulus before him, interpreted Torah wdth reference to Greek philosophy. Aristobulus had argued that Greek philosophers, including Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato, had adopted the ideas of Moses. Similarly Philo, with somewhat more caution, contended that Greek philosophers, such as Heraciitus {Quaest. in Gen 3.5; 4.152) and Zeno {I^ob. 51-57), and Greek legislators {Spec. Ljeg. 4.61) were indebted to Moses. What ties Philo more closely to Aristobulus is the use of alle gory to avoid the stumbling block of anthropomorphisms. Aristobulus, for example, had interpreted references to the "hand" of God meta phorically as God's strength. Similarly, Philo eschewed anthropo morphisms because " . . . to say that God uses hands or feet or any created part at all is not the true account" {Conf Ling. 98). He there fore interpreted God's descent on Sinai as did Aristobulus (fragment 2.12-17), not as hteral standing, but as an indication of God's im mutability {Som. 2.222). The exegetical movements Philo undertook, then, were not isolated and idiosyncratic. Rather they were conditioned by his response to Jewish literalists and allegorists, influenced by the Greco-Roman education and culture in which he was reared and in which he conversed, and inevitably shaped by his reluctant political involve ment with Jews and imperial Rome as a leading Jewish statesman of Alexandria.

'« See further Amir, "Audiority," 441-50.

266

APPENDIX

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum Because the monumental two volume commentary by H. Jacobson covers introductory issues in detail, it would be superfluous to repro duce his observations here. I shall introduce, therefore, only a few aspects of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum apropos of the present book. The manuscripts and early editions of Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum were ascribed to Philo Judaeus. H. Jacobson suggests that this attribu tion occurred because, when Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum was circulated in its Greek version, someone, in an attempt to identify the author of this anonymous work, thought primarily of Josephus and Philo as the likeliest of authors. Josephus, of course, had written his own Anti quitates Judaicae, covering the biblical period, leaving the gaundet of authorship with Philo of Alexandria who, despite his production of commentaries on some of these texts, had not actually rewritten this portion of scripture.'^ The emphases and styles of Philo's works differ substantially from Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, however, so that the attribution of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum to Philo is doubdess incor rect. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum contains, for example, none of the allegorical exegesis that is so characteristic of Philo's works, nor does it exhibit Philo's penchant for citing Greek philosophical literature. In deference both to the traditional attribution of authorship to Philo and to the recognition that the work is not philonic, I have adopted the scholarly convention of referring to the author as Pseudo-Philo. According to the consensus communis, Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum y^diS probably composed in Hebrew during the second half of the first century or early second century GE;^^ still in dispute is whether Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum was composed prior to or after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 GE.^' The composition of a document in Hebrew during this period suggests further that Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum was the product of a Palestinian author who, hke Josephus, was person ally acquainted with Palestine. The themes and exegetical movements which characterize Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum suggest that Pseudo-Philo was writing for a readership that was in danger of abandoning their covenant God of

See Jacobson, A Commentary, 195-99. ^° See Jacobson, A Commentary, 215-24. ^' On issues of dating, see Jacobson, A Commentary, 199-210; Reinmuth, PseudoPhilo, 17-26; and Fisk, "Retelling Israel's Story," 22-30.

APPENDIX

267

the scriptures in their pursuit of the idols and gods of other nations.^^ When in LAB 25 Kenaz explored the sins of the various tribes, the first three non-levidc tribes admitted to various forms of idolatry (25:9). The tribe of Judah confessed, "We desired to copy and make the calf that they made in the wilderness." The tribe of Reuben excused themselves, "We desired to sacrifice to the gods of those who inhabit the land." The tribe of Issachar explained, "We desired to make in quiry through the demons [demones] of the idols, whether or not they would reveal things plainly." At many other points, the scope of idol atry is accentuated. Gideon's ephod (Jdg 8:24-27) is interpreted ex plicitly as an idol (I.AB 36:3). The minor judge, Jair, about whom litde is recorded in Jdg 10:3-5, becomes a ruler who built an altar to Baal and decreed, "Everyone who will not sacrifice to Baal will die" (LAB 38:1). The story of Micah, the idolator of Judges 17, is not only expanded in LAB 44 but also provides a segue to the second re-telHng of the Decalogue, according to which idolatry is the root of all violations of the Decalogue. In this version of the Decalogue, God interpreted every violation of the Decalogue as a violation of the prohibition of idolatry. For example, Israelites took God's name in vain by giving God's name to graven images. They did abominable things on the sabbath. They committed adultery "with their zeal" for false gods. Pseudo-Philo's antipathy toward Balaam, a Mesopo tamian interpreter of dreams, is evidence of this conviction; so too is Balaam's prediction that Balak's people, the Moabites, who served the god Chemosh,23 would "be made weak" (LAB 18:12). Despite this intransigent rejection of non-Israelite gods, PseudoPhilo did not, as H. Jacobson aptly observed, "lead a cloistered life. His work is filled with evidence of the influence on him of the nonJewish world about him."^'* We observed toward the conclusion of chapter five, for example, that the extra-biblical lament of Jephthah's daughter, Seila, exhibits taut affinities wdth a Greek tradition of la ments for girls who died young, such as Iphigenia in Euripides' Iphigenia at Aulis, Cassandra in Euripides' Daughters of Troy, and Antigone in Sophocles' Antigone, as well as numerous funerary epigrams, funerary ^'^ See further my "Torah and Covenant in Pseudo-Philo's Liher Antiquitatum Bibli canm," in Bund und Tora: <^«f theobgischen Begriffsgtschichte in alttestamentlicher,Jruhjitdischer und wrchrisllicher Tradition, ed. F. Aviemaric and H. Lichtenberger (WUNT 92; Tubingen: Mohr, 1996) 11^22. " On the textual difficuldes of this word, see Jacobson, A Comnrntary, 605. A Commentary, 213.

268

APPENDIX

inscriptions, and folksongs, like Pseudo-Philo's Seila, these young women lamented that they could not be married except to enter the bridal chamber of Hades or Sheol.^^ H. Jacobson has, moreover, isolated a variety of texts and modfs in which he discerns Greco-Roman vocabulary and concepdons.^ Many of these suggest a general knowledge of Greek literature, such as the way in which the vicdm tells his conqueror that he has won only widi die help of a god (LAB 61:8 and Homer, Iliad 16.844-50) or the wish, "I would rather have died in batde" (LAB 62:8 and Homer, Odyssey 5.308-10; Vergil, Aeneid 1.97-101). Odiers suggest perhaps knowledge of a specific literary tradition. For example, the slander against Kenaz, that "he alone is busy at his home with his wife and his concubines and he sends us into b a t d e . . . " (LAB 27:2) is comparable to accusations agamst Achilles in Homer's Iliad 1.14968 as it is retold by Ovid: " . . . a tender mistress holds you in her warm embrace! And does anyone ask wherefore do you refuse to fight?" {Heroides 3.114-15). Similarly, the miraculous release of the twelve men who refused to build Babel from prison (LAB 6:9) shares afiFinities with Acts 16:26, in which Paul and Silas were freed, and Euripides' Bacchae, in which the Bacchanals were freed from prison to flee to the meadows: "The fetters from their feet self-sundered fell; Doors, without mortal hand, unbarred themselves" (448-49).^' Although such resonances are scattered and of varying credibility— a thorough study of Greco-Roman elements in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum has yet to be undertaken—they nonetheless confirm the suggestion that Pseudo-Philo's readers would have understood Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum as a version of the Hebrew Bible which was compatible with their wider Greco-Roman context. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, then, combines a relendess zeal for the ^ See M. Alexiou and P. Dronke, "The lament of Jephtha's daughter: themes, traditions, originality," Studi MediaaU 12.2 (1971) 819-51. 2* See ^ Comnuntay, 213-15, and on LAB 2:2, 5, 9; 4:3; 6:9; 9:3; 16:2; 18:12; 19:2; 27:1-2; 31:7, 9; 32:16; 39:4; 40:3; 40:7; 61:8; 62:8; 65:4 " Pseudo-Hulo e}q>ressed as well certain interests that were less common, according to Jacobson, amongst Jews than amongst other Greco-Roman people. For example {A Commmtary, 384), the detail, according to an extra-biblical addition to the story of the Tower of Babel, that "God divided up their languages and changed their appear ances," is consonant with the interest in physical anthropology of an astronomer such as Firmicus Matemus (fourth century CE), who b^jan his first book on mathemat ics by taking "up die question of the complexions and characters of mankind [tnoribus hominum colibusgue]." Translation of Firmicus Matemus by J. R. Bram, in Ancient Astrology Theory arui Practice: Matheseos LUni VIII (Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes, 1975).

APPENDIX

269

God, covenants, and commands of Israel with a resilience toward Greco-Roman culture. This combination sets Pseudo-Philo alongside Philo and Josephus, as well as others such as the author of Wisdom of Solomon, who imbued their biblical interpretation with GrecoRoman hues, although Pseudo-Philo exhibited much more restraint with respect to Greco-Roman culture than did his Alexandrian and Roman counterparts.

Flavius Josephus While Philo and his contemporaries were beginning to be occupied with the anti-Jewish pogrom in Alexandria, Josephus was bom in 37 CE to a pre-eminent priesdy family in Jemsalem {Vita 1-2).^® Follow ing brief forays at the age of sixteen into the various Jewish schools— Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes—Josephus spent three years with the desert hermit, Banus, then retumed to opt for Pharisaism {Vita 10-12). Although this account raises certain questions—his educa tion amongst the so-called Jewish schools seems remarkably brief— nonetheless it locates Josephus within a particular Jewish tradition. Like Philo, though jjerhaps less reluctandy, Josephus was thmst into the political arena when, at the age of twenty-six, he partici pated in an embassy to Rome, where he fehcitously moved in Rome's privileged circles {Vita 16). Josephus subsequendy participated in the Jewish War against Rome (66 CE), first as a Jewish general, then, after his defection, as a counselor to the Romans against the Jews. Following the war, Josephus was taken to Rome, granted citizenship, and lodged in the Flavian household, with Titus the emperor as his benefactor. During this period he wrote his account of the Jewish revolt of 66-73 CE and the events leading up to it in the Jewish War {Bellum Judmcuni). In tiiis account, Josephus attempted to exonerate himself, to indict revolutionary leaders—rather than Judaism as a whole—for inciting rebellion, and to absolve Rome of responsibility for the destmction of Jemsalem in part by portraying them as the means of enacting God's will. After Titus' death in 81 CE, a Roman

^ For introductions to Josephus and his writings, see H. W. Attridge, "Josephus and His Worb," in Jeunsh Wridngs of the Second Ternple Period, ed. Stone, 185-232; and L. H. Feldman, "Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus," in Mihra, cd. Mulder, 455-518.

270

APPENDIX

intellectual leader, Epaphroditus, became Josephus' benefactor. During the next two decades, with keen political hindsight, Josephus com posed the Antiquities (93/94 GE). Vita, and Contra Apionem. The purpose of the Antiquities is to present a comprehensive history of the Jews in part to inculcate the lesson that those "who conform to the will of God, and do not venture to transgress laws that have been excellendy laid down, prosper in all things beyond belief, and for their reward are offered by God felicity; whereas, in proportion as they depart from the strict observance of these laws, things (else) practicable become impracticable, and whatever imaginary good thing they strive to do ends in irretrievable disasters" {Ant. 1.14).^® The Vita is Josephus' autobiography, the primary purpose of which is to exonerate himself with respect to his defection from the Jews to the Romans at Jotapata during the Jewish War (see Vita 17-421). In Contra Apionem Josephus attempted to demonstrate the antiquity—and therefore superiority— of the Jews and to refute many of the libels that circulated amongst the Greco-Roman opponents of the Jews. During the last three decades of his life, then, until his death in approximately 100 GE, Josephus devoted himself to writing on behalf of the Jews. Josephus was, then, like Philo, a cosmopolitan Jewish author, active in pohtical hfe but, unhke Philo, a resident of Rome for nearly three decades. The numerous sources to which Josephus referred enmesh him in the larger Greco-Roman world. Even in his re-telling of bib lical history, Josephus referred to non-Jewish works; for instance, he validated his account of the long lives of Israelite ancestors, such as Noah, with the attestation: "Moreover, my words are attested by all historians of antiquity, whether Greeks or barbarians: Manetho the annalist of the Egyptians, Berosus the compiler of the Chaldaean traditions; Mochus, Hestiaeus, along with the Egyptian Hieronymus, authors of Phoenician histories, concur in my statements; while Hesiod, Hecataeus, Hellanicus, Acusilaus, as well as Ephorus and Nicolas [of Damascus], report that the ancients lived for a thousand years" {Ant. 1.107-08). For his accounts of the period leading up to 66 GE, both in his Jewish War and Antiquities, Josephus depended heavily upon the writings of Nicolaus of Damascus, a Greek member of the court of Herod the Great who wrote a universal history that included the Jews. Josephus undergirded his authority by telling his readers that ^ See further H. W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR 7; Missoula: Scholars, 1976).

APPENDIX

271

his own account was based upon commentaries on the Roman cam paign in Judea which were composed by Vespasian and Titus (Vita 342, 358; CA 1.56). The most impressive demonstration of Josephus' awareness of Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian, and other non-Jewish perccpdons of the Jews is exhibited in his Contra Apionem. The bulk of book one (1.57-218) is composed of non Jewish testimonies to the andquity of the Jews. The list of authors cited is enormously long, including non-Greek and Jewish sources of Antiquity such as the Egyptian Manetho (CA 1.73 105), Phoenician authors such as Dius and Menander of Ephcsus, as well as Tyrian public records (1.106-27), and the Chaldean Berosus (1.128-60). The list of Greek authors whom Josephus cited in defense of the antiquity of the Jews is equ2illy im pressive (1.161-218), including Hermippus, Theophrastus, Herodotus, Choerilus, Aristode (according to Clearchus), Hecataeus of Abdera, and Agatharchides. That Josephus' experdse extended beyond rote citadon is evident in his attempt to defend the Jews against non-Jewish libels, a task which occupies the end of book one (1.219-320) and much of book two (2.8-144; 2.220-86). In these portions, Josephus employed a variety of approaches to disqualify these libels, all of which exhibit an impres sive level of familiarity with non-Jewish customs, sources, and histo ries. He refuted libels such as the Egyptian Manetho's concerning the alleged association of the Jews with lepers in ancient Egypt (1.223320). He pointed out discrepancies between different accounts of the same event, such as the disparities between the versions of Manetho and Chaeremon on the exodus (1.288-303). He called into question his opponents' sources, such as when he attempted to undermine Apion's hbels concerning the temple by criticizing Apion's sources, Posidonius and Apollonius Molon (2.79). J o s e p h u s also defdy compared the Jews with other p e o p l e s (2.220 86). He contrasted the Spartans' loss of fidelity to their laws when they met reversals of fortune with the Jews' fidelity to their laws even in dire extremities (2.225-35). He compared approvingly Plato's precautions against random mixing with foreigners, the Spartans' resistance to foreign influence, and the Jews' efforts to maintain purity (2.255-61).'° ^ Detailed analyses of the sources and strategics of Contra Apionem arc included in Josephus' Contra Apionem, cd. Feldman and Levison. For introducdon, sec pages 9 20.

272

APPENDIX

Impressive indeed is Josephus' abihty to interact with non-Jewish authors and sources, in both his past and present. Here is a first century Jewish figure whose knowledge ranged from non-Jewish ver sions of the world's origins to the commentaries of recent emperors such as Titus. His Contra Apionem in particular demonstrates an im pressive awareness of non-Jewish philosophies, histories, and critiques of the Jews. N o less significant is Josephus' acqusdntance with Jewish hterature. Books one to ten of his Antiquities are based primarily on the Bible. Book eleven, which recounts the post-exilic period, is dependent upon the books of 1 and 2 Esdras and Esther. The material of book twelve on the Jews consists of paraphrases of the Episde of Aristeas, which embelhshes the origins of the Septuagint, as weU as 1 Maccabees 1:1-9:22. Book thirteen continues the paraphrase of 1 Maccabees. Josephus was, of course, intimately acquainted with persons and events in first century Judea because he was himself an eyewitness of many of them. However, his knowledge encompassed as well Alexandrian Jewry [CA 2.33-78) and Mesopotamian Jewry, 3s his detailed account of the conversion of the royal family of Adiabene reveals [Ant. 20.17-96). In addition to his knowledge of Jewish liter ary sources and Jewry, both Palestinian and Diaspora, Josephus could also capably depict "the laws which govern our daily life," as he did in Contra Apionem, in order to defend the Jews against charges of misanthropy and atheism. This defense includes praise of Moses (2.151-63), praise of Israel's theocratic constitution (2.164—89), and praise of specific laws (2.190-214), including the Decalogue, fair treat ment of ahens, and kindness toward all, even enemies and animals. Josephus' exegetical movements are those of a Palestinian Jew liv ing in Rome who W2is intimately acquainted with hfe in Judea, famihar with developments in world Jewry, from Alexandria in Egypt to Adia bene in Mesopotamia, and able to gain access to non-Jewish and Jewish hterary sources ahke, from Herodotus to 1 Maccabees. Josephus, hke Philo, who was perhaps travelling to Rome about the time Josephus was bom, was a cosmopolitan. He was a citizen of Rome who, after having turned his back on his feUow soldiers in the war against Rome, spent the remainder of his life in a self-exonerating effort to explztin the Jews to his Roman contemporaries.

ABBREVIATIONS

AB ABD Aetem. mundi AGAJU AGSU ALGHJ AmiU. Ant. ApAbr Asclsa ATD AzT 2 Bar BeU. BJS b.Sanh. BZNW CA CBd CBQMS CD Cher. 1-2 Chron Corf. Ung. 1-2 Cor Dan Def. Orac. Deut Div. Ebr. EHPR 1 En Exod Ezek Flaccus FRLANT Fug. Gams Gen Gen. Soc. GigHab

Anchor Bible Andurr Bible Dictionary Philo, De aetemiiate mmdi Arbeiten zur Geschichte des andken Judentums und des Urchristentums Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Spatjudentums und Urchri stentums Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Plutarch, Amatorius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae Apocalypse of Abraham Ascension of Isaiah Acta Theolopca Danica Arf>eiten zur Theologie 2 (Syriac ^X)calypse of) Baruch Josephus, Bellum Judaicum Brown Judaic Studies Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanludrin Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die ncutestamendiche Wistcnschafl Josephus, Contra Apionem Catholic BibUcal Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Scries Damascus Document Philo, De cherubim 1-2 Chronicles Philo, De conjusione Unguartm 1-2 Corinthians Daniel Plutarch, £k defectu oraculorum Deuteronomy Cicero, De divinatione Philo, De ebrietate l^tudes d'Histoire et de Philosophic Religieuses 1 Enoch Exodus Ezekiel Philo, In Flaccum Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments PhUo, Dejuga et irwentione Philo, De l^adone ad Gaium Genesis Plutarch, De genw Socratis Philo, De gigmtibus Habakkuk

274 Hag HDR Her. HM HTR Immut. Is. et Os. Isa JANES JBL Jdg Jer

m Jos. Josh

3QR JSHRZ JSJ JSNT JSNTS JSOTSS JSPSS 1 2 Kgs LAB Ug. AU. Lev LXX Mic Mig. MT Mut. Nat. Deor. Neh NRSV NT NTS Num OptJ. OTP PA PUmt. Post. Cain Praem. Prob. Ps(s) Ps-Justin Ps(s)Sol FI Pyth. Orac. IQH

ABBREVIATIONS

Haggai Harvard Dissertations in Religion Philo, Quis rerum (timnarum heres Heythrop Monogr^hs Harvard Theohgical Review Philo, Quod Deus unmutahUis sU Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride Isaiah Journal for Ancient Near F/Lstem Studies Journal of BibUcal IMerature Judges Jeremiah Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Hag^tdi Journal of Jewish Stiuiies Philo, De losepk) Joshua The Jewish Quarterly Review Jiidische Schriften aus hellenistisch-romischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaim Jourrml for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 1-2 Kings Iiber Antiquitatum Biblicanm Philo, L^um alUgoricu Leviticus Septuagint Micah Philo, De migratioru Abrahami Masoretic Text Philo, De mutatioru nominum Cicero, De natura dmum Nehemiah New Revised Standard Version Novum Testamentum New Testament Shidies Numbers Philo, De op^cio muruU The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. H. Charlesworth) Philosophia Antigua Philo, Tk pUuitatume Philo, De posteritate Caini Philo, De praertttis et poems Quod omnis probus Uber sit Psalm(s) Pseudo-Justinus Psalm(s) of Solomon Le Point Theologique Hutarch, Pythiae oracuUs Qumran Hymns

ABBREVIATIONS

IQM IQpHab IQS IQSb 4Q504 1 IQPs'DavComp (^ext. in Gen RB Saa. Cain and Abel 1-2 Sam SBF SBLDS SBLSP SC Sir SJ SNTSMS Som. SPB Spec. L^. SPhA SUNT SVC SVT SzANT TAbr TAsh TBen TDan TDKT TGad TICP 1-2 Tim TIss TJos TJud TLevi TReub TSim TZeb Virt. VitaAdae Vu. Cont. Vtt Mos. VT WBC WisSol WUNT Zech

275

The War Scroll Habakkuk Commentary The Rule of the Community Rule of the Blessings 4QWords of the Luminaries llQPsalms* Davidic Compositions Philo, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin Recherchcs Bibliqucs Philo, De sacr^tcUs Abelis et Caini 1-2 Samuel Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical literature Seminar Pqxirs Sources chretiennes Sirach Studies in Judaica Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series Philo, De somniis Studia Post-Biblica Philo, De specialUms l^ibus Studia mUmica Annual Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Testament of Abraham Testament of Asher Testament of Benjamin Testament of Dan TheologUMl Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. G. Kittel) Testament of Gad Travaux de I'Institut Catholique de Paris 1-2 Timothy Testament of Issachar Testament of Joseph Testament of Judah Testament of Levi Testament of Reuben Testament of Simeon Testament of Zebulon Philo, De virtutibus Vita Adae et Eoae PhUo, De vita contemplatim Philo, De vita Mosis Vetus Testmientum Word Biblical Commentary Wisdom of Solomon Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zechariah

SELECT BIBUOGRAPHY

This bibhography is hmited to entries which are germane to research on the spirit in Early Judaism. It can be supplemented by three others. R. Menzies. The Development of Earfy Christian Pneumatology: with special reference to Luke-Acts. JSNTS 54. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. (This bibhography contains references to early Jewish and Christian works, with particular attention to Luke-Acts). F. W. Horn. Das Angeld des Geistes: Studien zur paulinischen Pneumatologie. FRLANT 154. Gottingen: Vandenhocck & Ruprecht, 1992. (This bibhography contains a particularly thorough list of Continental publications.) A. E. Sekki. The Meaning ofKuah at Qumran. SBLDS 110. Adanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

Abelson, J. The Immanence of God in Red>binictd Literature. London: Macmillan, 1912. Anderson, A. A. "The Use of 'Ruah' in IQS, IQH and IQM." Journal of Semitic Studies 7 (1992): 293-303. Aune, D. E. Prophe(y in Early Christianity arui the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. . "Charismatic Exegesis in Early Judaism and Early Christianity." In The Pseudepigr(q>ha and Early Biblical Interpretation, ed. J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans. JSPSS 14 Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. 126-50. Baumgarten, F, "KveO|m." Thatlogkal Dictionary of the New Testament VI: 359-68. Bcaven, E. L. "Ruah Hakodesh in Some Early Jewish Literature." Unpublished Hi.D. di^rtation, Vanderbilt Univeraty, 1961. Berchman, R. "Arcana Mundi: Magic and Divination in the De Somniis of Philo of Alexandria." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1987: 403-28. . "Arcana Mundi: Prophecy and Divination in the ViUi Mosis of Philo of Alexandria." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1988: 385-423. Best, E. "The Use and Non-Use of Pneuma by Josephus." Novum Testamentum 3 (1959): 218-25. Betz, O. Offenbarung und Schrif^orschung in der Qumransekte. W U N T 6. Tubingen: Mohr, 1960. -. Der Paraklet, Ftirsprecher im haretischen Spd^udentum, im Joharmesofangelum und in neugefimdenen gnostichen Schriften. AGSU 2. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Bieder, W. "jtveuHa." Theological Dictionary of the New Testament VI: 368-75. Bruce, F. F. "Holy Spirit in the Qumran Texts." The Annual of Leeds Urdoersity Oriented Society 6 (1966-1968): 49-55. Burkhardt, H. Die Inspiration heitiger Schriften bei Phib von Alexandrien. Giessen/Basel: Brunnen, 1988.

SELECT B I B U O G R A P H Y

277

Biichscl, F. Der Geist Gottes im Neuen Testament. Gutcrsloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1926. Charlesworth, J. H. "A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in IQS III, 13-IV, 26 and the 'Dualism' Contained in the Fourth Gospel." New Testament Studies 15 (1%9): 389-418. Chevallier, M. A. L'Esprit et le Messie dans le Bas-Judeasme et le Nowoeau Testament. EHPR 49. Paris: Presses Universitaircs de France, 1958. . Smfffk de Dieu' Le Satnt-Esprit dans le Nouveau Testament Vol. L Ancient Testament, Hellenisme etjudaisme. La tradition sjmoptique. L'auvre de Luc. FT 26. Paris: £xiidons Beauchesne, 1978. Coppens, J. "Le Don de I'E^prit d'apres les textes de Qumran et le Quatrieme fevangile." In Vivangde de Jean. £tudes et Froblemes, ed. M. t . Boismard, et oL RB 3. Louvain: Desclee de Brouwer, 1958. 209-23. Danielou, J. "Une source de la spiritualite Chrctienne dans le Manuscrits de la Mer Morte: la doctrine des deux esprits." EHeu Vivant 25 (1953): 127-36. Davidson, M. J. Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1-36, 72-108 and Sectarian Writings from Qamron. JSPSS 11: Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Davies, W. D. "Reflections on the Spirit in the Mekilta." In The Gaster Festschrift, ed. D. Marcus. JANES 5. New York: Columbia University, 1973. Dietzel, A. "Beten im Geist. Eine religionsgeschichdichc Parallele aus den Hodajot zum paulinischen Beten im Geist." Theologische Z
278

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jonge, M. de and Woude, A. S. van der. "Melchizedek and the New Testament." New Testament Studies 12 (1966): 301-26. Kleinknecht, H. "revevna." Theobgjicd Dictionary of the New Testament VI: 332 59. Koch, R. Der Geist Gottes im Alten Testament. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1991. Kuhn, H. W. Endenvartung und gegmwmt^es Heii Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedem von Qumran. SUNT 4. Gotdngen: Vandenhocck & Ruprecht, 1966. I^urentin, A. "Lc Pneuma dans la doctrine de Hiilon." Efdmimides ThmU^Lcae Ijmadenses 27 (1951): 390-437. leisegang, H. Der Hedige Geist. Das Wesen und Werden der mystisch-intuitiven Erkenntnis in der Philosophie und Religion der Griechen. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1919. ———. Pneuma Hc^n. Der Ursprung des Geistbe^s der synoptischen Evangelien aus der griechischen Mystik. I.eipzig: J. G. Hinrichs, 1922. Ixivestadt, R. "Das Dogma von der prophetenlosen Zeit." New Testament Studies 19 (1973): 288-300. Levison, J. R. "Did the Spirit Inspire Rhetoric? An Evaluation of George Kennedy's Definition of Early Christian Rhetoric." In Persuasive Artistry: Essays in Honor of George Kennedy, ed. D. Watson. JSNTS 50. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. 25 4 0 . . "The Debut of the Divine Spirit in Josephus' Antiquities." Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994): 123-38. "Two ITypes of Ecstatic Prophecy According lo Philo." Stiuiia IMonica Annual 6 (1994): 83-89. "Prophetic Inspiration in Pseudo-Philo's Uber Andquitahtm Biblicanm." The Jewish Quarterly Review 85 (1995): 297-329. . "The Prophetic Spirit as an Angel According to Philo." Harvard Theohgical Review 88 (1995): 189-207. . "Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus." J'oM/Tia/

for the Study of Judaism 26 (1995): 271-323. . "The Angelic Spirit in Early Judaism." In Society of Biblical Uterature Seminar Papers 1995: 464-93. . 'Josephus' Interpretation of the Divine Spirit." Journal of Jewish Studies 47 (1996): 234 55. . "Did the Spirit Withdraw From Israel? An Evaluation of the Earliest Jewish Data." New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 35-57. Lewy, H. Sobria Ebrietas. Untersudmngen zw Geschichte der antiken Mystik. BZNW 9. GieBcn: Topclmann, 1929. Licht,J. "An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in DSD." Scripta Hierosolymi tana 4 (1958): 88-100. Lys, D. "ROach", le Sotfffle dans I'Ancient Testament. Paris: Presses Universitaircs de France, 1962. Manns, F. Le symbole eau-esprit dans U Judaisme Ancien. SBF 19. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1983. Marmorstein, A. "The Holy Spirit in Rabbinic Legend." In idem.. Studies in Jewish Thmbgy, ed. J. Rabbinowitz and M. S. Lew. London/New York/Toronto: Oxford University, 1950. May, H. G. "Cosmological Reference in the Qumran Doctrine of the Two Spirits and in Old Testament Imagery." Journal of Biblical Uterature 82 (1963): 1 1 4 . Menzies, R. The Development of Early Christian PneurruUologj>: with special reference to Ijdce^ Acts. jSNTS 54. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Montague, G. T. The Holy Spml- Growth of a BibUcal Tradition. New York: Paulist, 1976. Miiller, H.-P. "Mantische Weisheit und Apokalyptik." Confess Volume Uppsala 1971. SVT 22. Leiden: Brill, 1972. 268-93. Notscher, F. "Geist und Geister in den Texten von Qumran." Melanges BibUques. Redigees en I'honneur de A. Robert. TICP 4: Paris: Bloud and Gay, 1956. 305-15.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

279

Orton, D. E. The Understanding Scribe. Matthew and the Apocalyptic Ideal JSNTS 25. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989. Parzen, H. "The Ruah Hakodesh in Tannaitic Literature." The Jewish Quarter^ Review 20 [n.s.J (1929-30): 51-76. Patte, D. Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine. SBLDS 22. Missoula, Scholars Press, 1975. Pinero, A. "A Mediterranean View of Prophetic Inspiration: On the Concept of Inspiration in the IM>er Antiquitatum Biblicarum by Pseudo-Philo." Mediterranean Historical Review 6 (1991): 5-34. Schafer, J. P. "Die Termini 'Heiliger Geist' und 'Geist der Prophetic' in den Targumim und das Verhalmis der Targumim zueinander." Vetus Testmientum 20 (1970): 304-14. Schafer, P. Dtf VorsteUung vom hedigen Geist in der rabbinischen literatur. SzANT 28. Munich: Kosel-Verlag, 1972. Schnackenburg, R. "Die 'Anbetung in Geist und Wahrheit' (Joh 4,23) im Lichte von Qumran-Texten." Biblische Zeitschr^i 3 (1959): 88-94. Schreiner, J. "Geistbegabung in der Gemcindc von Qumran." Biblische Z^^f^^ift 9 (1965): 161-80. Schweizer, E. "Gegenwart des Geistes und eschatologische Hoffnung bei Zarathustra, spatjudischen Gruppen, Gnostikem und den Zeugen des Neuen Testaments." The Bac/^otmd of the Mew Testament and its Eschatology. Esscrys in Honor of C. H. Dodd. Cambridge: University Press, 1956. 482-508. «i0jg sieben Geister in der Apokalypse." Evangelische Theobgie 11 (1951-1952): 502-12. . "itvdj^a." Theological Dictionary of the Mew Testament VI: 389-455. . The Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Seitz, O. "Two Spirits in Man: An Elssay in Biblical Exegesis." Mew Testament Studies 6 (1959-1960): 82-95. Sekki, A. E. The Morning ofKuah at Qumran. SBLDS 110. Adanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Shoemaker, W. R. "The Use of TT\1 in the Old Testament, and of wvev^ia in the New Testament." Journal of Biblical literature 23 (1904): 13-67. Sjoberg, E. "Neuschopfung in den Toten-Meer-Rollen." Studia Theob^ca 9 (1955): 131-37. . "nvevna." Theological Dictionary of the Mew Testament VI: 375-89. Trautmann, C. " 'L'instruction sur les deux Esprits': Le dualisme dans la doctrine et la pratique des Esseniens." Foi et 80 (1981): 26-40. Treves, M. "The Two Spirits of the Rule of the Community." Revue de Qumran 3 (1961-1962): 449-52. Verbeke, G. devolution de la doctrine du Pneuma du Stoicisme a S. Augustin. Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1945. Volz, P. £kr Geist Gottes und die verwandten Erscheinungen im Alten Testament und im anschliefienden Judentum. Tubingen: Mohr, 1910. Wan, S.-K. "Charismatic Exegesis: Philo and Paul Compared." Studia Htibnica Annual 6 (1994): 54-82. Weaver, M. J. "nveujia in Philo of Alexandria." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Notre Dame, 1973. Welker, M. God the Spirit Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Wemberg-Moller, P. "A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community (IQSerek III, 3-IV, 26)." Revue de Qumran 11 (1961): 413-41. Winston, D. "Two Types of Mosaic Prophecy According to Philo." Journal for the Study of the Pseudep^apha 2 (1989): 49-67.

I N D E X OF ANCIENT S O U R C E S

a. b. c. d. e. f

Hebrew Scriptures (MT) Greek Versions of Hebrew Scriptures Apocrypha Pseudepigrapha Josephus Philo Judaeus

Dead Sea Scrolls Rabbinic Literature Greek and Roman Authors New Testament Early Christian Literature

a. Hebrew Scriptures (MT) Genesis 1:2 1:6-27 2:7

2:22 3:14 5:24 6:1-4 6:2 6:2-3 6:3

6:16 6:17 7:15 9:20 12-32 12:3 15 15:6 15:12-13 18:17-18 22:17 23 23:6-13 23:8-9 23:13 28:12 32:24-27

250 49, 91, 149, 150, 156, 263 63, 69, 91, 47, 148, 149, 150, 156, 219, 225, 250 250 148 110 113, 139 44, 140 139 59, 60-68, 76-77, 79, 88, 106, 139-42, 144, 147, 158, 163, 218-20, 227, 229, 235, 236, 239, 249 183 218 218 138-39, 142, 163, 224, 225 60 59-60, 217 110 90 51 59, 218 59, 218 91 90, 223 91 91 44 59, 218

41:14-45 41:38 49 Exodus 2:1-4 12:1 13:21-22 14:13-14 14:19 23:20-21 31:3-4

176 106, 176, 179, 180 106

32:26-34 33 33:2-15 34:29-35 35:31-32

247 247 196 233 196 241 106, 141, 142, 144 145, 178, 179, 182 227, 235 92, 196 65 196 92 178, 179, 182

Leviticus 1:1 11:43 20:25

156, 225 74-75, 219 75, 219

Numbers 11 11:1-9 11:17-19 11:23-24 11:25 11:26 11:29 11:34 11:35

35, 235 36, 36, 249 35 145 35, 35 36 36

141-45, 196, 196 141, 145, 227,

248

282 12:6-7 14:14 20:2-13 22-24

22:5 22:7-8 22:18 22:20 22:22-35 22:35 22:36-23:6 22:38 22:41 23 23:4--5 23:12 23:16 23:26 24:2

24:13 25:1-9 27 27:16-20 31:16 Deuteronomy 1:33 8:4 8:15-16 18:9-14 18:10-11 18:18 23:6 29:4 31:14 34 34:9

Joshua 1 3:17-4:1 5:1 13:22 24:9-10

INDEX

110 196 196 2 5 - 3 3 , 4 8 - 4 9 , 56, 60, 62, 76-77, 79, 189, 219 25, 40 57 57 25 25 25, 26, 28, 30, 46, 78, 229 57 25, 28 57 25 28-31 30, 48 25, 30, 31, 48 30, 48 4, 26, 28, 30, 31, 46, 48, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 65, 78, 79, 87, 106, 167, 217-20, 229, 238 30, 48 26 179 106, 178 26, 78

197 197 197 26, 53 42, 53 26, 30 26 197 247 99 99, 100, 103, 104, 106, 121, 128, 163, 178, 182, 197, 221, 245

99 101 61 25, 61 26

Judges 3:9-11

6-7 6:33-35 6:34

6:36-40 7:1-8 7:8-18 7:19-23 8:24-27 10:3-5 11:29 14:6 14:19 15:14 17 38:1 1 Samuel 3 3:10 10-11 10-19 10:5-11

10:10 10:13 10:22-23 11:6 16:13-23 16:16 18:10 19 19:5-9 19:19-24 24:15 31:6 1 Kings 3:5-15 8 8:10-11

30, 84-86, 87, 89, 104, 114, 121, 128, 163, 221, 245 88, 220 88 85-89, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 128, 161, 220, 221, 245 86, 88 88, 89 85, 86, 88, 89 86 267 267 30 61 61 61 267 267

110 247 37, 105, 106, 114, 129 36-42, 46, 54, 102, 129, 236 36-38, 61, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 120, 128, 161, 221, 245 36, 105 37 38 36, 105, 120 36-38, 244-45 30 36-38 37 30, 36, 38, 129 30, 37, 38, 102, 128, 163 129 102, 129

110 135, 158, 226, 227, 236 133

ANCIENT

283

SOURCES

8:24-27 8:43-60 13 13:9 22:19-24

133 132, 226 103 103 36

42:1 44:1-3 48:16 51:17, 22 61:1 63:7-14

2 Kings 2:13-15 13:23

101, 248 66

63:10-11

181 182 34 206 181 18, 36, 65, 68, 241 65, 105, 114, 219

Jeremiah 4:19 15:18 20:9-10 31:2 31:33 45:3

34, 101 34 35, 101 247 67 247, 248

2 Chronicles 7:1 Nehemiah 8 8:2-15 9 9:12-25 9:20

9:30 Job 27:2-4 32:6-9 32:8-9 32:15-20 33:4, 6 Psalms 51 51:8 51:11-13 51:12-14 51:19 78:16 104:29-30 105:39 116:13 139 139:7 143:10 Isaiah 8:11 11:1-9 11:2 21:3 32:14-15

133, 136

196 196-97, 201 194-97, 207, 234, 236 195 36, 194-97, 199, 201, 207, 213, 246, 257 194, 195, 246

63, 106, 218 63, 106 178 6 3 - 6 4 , 65, 77, 106 63

73, 79, 114, 202, 204-05, 252 202 66, 205, 219 65-66, 105 65-66 196 218-19, 250 196 206 144 144 195

103 86, 143, 181, 213, 241, 247 86, 143, 144, 181, 248 34, 101 182

Ezekiel 1:28-2:3 2:2 2:8-3:3 3:10-14 3:24 8-11 8:1-3 8:11 10:20-22 11:5 11:19-20 11:24-25 20:1 21:15 36:25-27 37:14 40:2, 4 Daniel 1:17 4:5-15 4:33-36 5:8 5:11-14 5:11-16 6:3-4 7:15 8:17-18 8:27 10:8-9 10:15-17 10:239-50

105 119 206 34, 35, 101, 103, 107, 119 106 103 104, 105, 107, 119 129 103 103 34 67, 201, 252 103 105 35 67, 201, 205, 241 201 103

197 106 108, 109 169 7 2 - 7 3 , 106, 168-7( 232 169 72-73, 232 34, 101 35 35 35 35 239

284

INDEX

Hosea 9:7

34

Joel 3:1-2

110, 182

Amos 3:7 9:1

247 247

Micah 3:5-8

34, 183

Habakkuk 2:14 3:16

247 34, 101

Haggai 2:5

36

Zechariah 7:12 12:2-6 12:10 14:2-5

194 255 86, 182 255

b. Greek Versions of Hebrew Scriptures LXX Exodus 16:15-26 31:3

173, 174 143

Numbers 23:7

25, 28, 87

Joshua 24:9-10

26

Judges 13:24-25

46

1 Samuel 19:20-23

39

1 Kin^ 22:19-24

46, 245

1 Chronicles 5:26 2 Chronicles 36:22 1 Esdras 2:2

2:8

103:29 140:8 142:10

68 68 68

Isaiah 63:7-14

46

Jeremiah 28:11

72

Micah 2:7, 11 3:5-8

72 72 72 72

2 Esdras

1:1 1:5

72 72

Psalms 50:12-14

67-68, 70, 72, 73,219

46 34, 46

Haggai 1:14 2:5

72 46

Hosea 9:7

34

Daniel 4:5-15 5:12 5:14-15 6:4

73 168 73 72-73

Theododon Daniel 4:8(MT 4:5) 4:9(MT 4:6) 4:18(MT 4:15) 5:11-14 6:4

73 73 73 72-73, 168 72-73, 170

c, Apocrypha 4 Ezra. See under Pseudepigrapha. Judidi 16:14

46, 250

1 Maccabees 1:1-9:22

272

ANCIENT

Sirach Prologue 34:1-9 38:34 39:1-11 39:6-8

Susannah 45 63 (LXX)

264 199, 259 198 198-99 180, 183, 198-99, 200, 206, 259

285

SOURCES

Wisdom of Solomon 69-70, 72, 73, 145, 1:4-7 228, 250 70 1:8 7:7 144, 180 9:17 70, 105, 144-45, 180 15:7-13 69

73 180

d. Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 119 10.3 110 15-32 111 15.2-4 113 23.11 31.1-5 113 Aristobulus 2.12-17

265

Ascension of Isaiah 111 7.3 2 Baruch 6:3 21:4 23:5 76:2, 4

111 250 250 197

1 Enoch 1-36 14:2 14:5 14:8 19:1 37-71 39:12 40:1-10 46:3-8 49:2-3 60:6 60:11 62:2 70-71 70:3 71:1 71:5 72-82 81:1-2 82:7

112, 113 119 113 120 119 112 46 46 46 86, 181, 182 113 119 182 110 120 110, 120 111 112, 179 197 179, 180

83-90 91 91-104 91:1 91:11-17 92-104/7 93:1-10

112, 179 246 112, 179 179 179 179 179

2 Enoch [J] 1.10 3.1 38.3

111 111 111

4 Ezra 6:39 10:30-31 14

14:21-22 14:24-26 14:37-44 14:40 14:45-46 14:47

162 250 205 6, 105, 211, 223, 234, 236, 257, 259 204, 205 205 205-06, 211 122, 207, 223 204 206, 257

Joseph and Aseneth 179, 180 4:7 8:9 252 16:14 252 19:10-11 252 Jubilees 1:20 1:20-25 1:25 2:2 10:1-11:14 12:5 25:14

204 252 46 46 46 219 179, 180, 246

286 31:11-12 40:5

INDEX

179, 180, 246 179, 180

liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 60 3:2 268 6:9 60, 249 9:8 239, 245, 247 9:10 108 10:6 56-77, 217, 218, 18 219, 236 57-59, 61, 62, 218 18:3 76 18:4 56 18:4-6 59-60 18:5-6 56 18:9 4, 56-58, 6 0 - 6 2 , 18:10 70, 104, 105, 218-19, 222 60, 6 2 - 6 4 , 67, 18:11-12 6 9 - 7 0 , 72-73, 75-77, 105, 218-20 76-77, 78, 219 18:13-14 87, 89, 90, 9 9 - 1 0 1 , 20:2-3 104, 105, 128, 163, 239 267 25 89, 128, 267 25-28 267 25:9 27 88, 90, 235 110 27:1 268 27:2 107 27:6 86 27:7-12 60, 84-88, 89, 90, 27:9-10 97, 100, 101, 104, 105, 107, 110, 161, 163, 220, 249 27:11 85 110, 119 28 104-07, 112, 163, 28:6 221, 239, 240, 245 102-30 28:6-10 102-03, 106-09, 28:10 110, 112, 122-24, 207, 221, 239, 245, 258 108 30:6 31:9 60, 239, 245 32:9 104 32:14 60, 239 249 33:14 35:6-7 86

36 36:1-2

36:3 40 44 48.1 61.8 62:2

235 60, 85, 86, 88-90, 100, 104, 220, 239, 249 267 125-28 267 60 268 60, 102-04, 109, 125, 128-29, 163, 207, 222, 239, 246, 258

Psalms of Solomon 17:37-38 105, 143, 182, 183 18:7-9 182 Sybilline Oracles Prologue, 9-10 Prologue, 82-91 3.3-7 3.696-701

124 124 121, 212 145, 250

Testament of Abraham 2.1 119 lO.l 119 [A] 4 7 - 1 0 46 48 246 8-10 110 9.8-10.1 111 11-14 113 [B] 7-8 110 7.8 111 8-12 113 8.1-2 111 13.7 46 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Asher 1:9 46 6:1-5 46 Testament of Benjamin 3:3-4 46 5:2 46 6:1 46 8:3 251 Testament of Dan 1:6-8 46 3:6 46 4:5 46 5:5-6 46 6:1 46

ANCIENT

3:2-3 4:1 9:9 18:2 18:7 18:7-12

Testament of Gad 1:9 46 3:1 46 6:2 46 Testament of Issachar 4:4 46 7:7 46

287

SOURCES

46 113 46 143 143-44 182

Testament of Reuben 2:1-3:7 46 2:4 219

Testament of Joseph 7:4 46

Testament of Simeon 3:1 46 3:5 46 4:4 179 6:6 46

Testament of Judah 13:3 46 14:2 46 14:8 46 25:3 46

Testament of Zebulon 9:7-8 46

Testament of Levi 2 110 2-5 113 2:3 110, 119, 145, 180

Vita Adae et Evae 25 25.1-30.1

119 110-11, 119

e. Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae 27 1.10-12 1.14 270 1.23 49 1.107-08 49, 270 1.260 169 2.268 169 2.347-48 49, 169 3.81 49 3.139 54 3.295-99 36 3.316 169 4102-30 238 4104 169 29, 229, 240 4108 4109 39 4118 31 4118-21 29-42, 49, 50, 52, 53, 230 4119 32 4121 32 39 4122 4.129-30 78 4.158 49 85 5.182 6.6 39 6.56 203 6.76 203

6.166 6.222-23 6.271-73 8.102 8.106 8.106-07 8.107 8.108 8.111 8.113 8.114 8.116 8.117 8.118 8.118-19 8.342 8.346 8.408 9.35-36 10.132 10.235-39 10.239 10.250 10.266 10.281 12.1-59

238, 245 39, 238, 245 39 132 133 137 135 135 135 133 4, 133, 135, 163, 239, 242, 249 137 132, 226 133, 136, 239, 249 137 136 203 245 203 39 169-70, 232, 239 232, 239 170, 232, 239 203, 245 49, 170 27

288

INDEX

13.300-11 15.240 16.210 17.354 20.17-96

188, 202 203 188 49 272

Bellum Judaicum 1.69 1.78 2.113 3.351-53 4.33 4.388 6.312-13

188 202 202 203, 257 203 203 255

Contra Apionem 1 2 2.33-78 2.80-124 2.102-09

270 270 272 132 132

2.131 2.135 2.145 2.151-63 2.162 2.164-89 2.168 2.190 2.190-214 2.193 2.209-11 2.257-58 2.263-64

54 184 226 272 54 272 55 49 272 137 226 55 184, 187, 188,

Vita 1-2 10-12 16 17-421 342 358

269 269 269 270 271 271

f. Phib Judaeus Aetem. mundi 8 25 76-77 Cher. 27-29

263 263 191

32 43-47 69 116

177, 191, 209, 211, 238, 239, 258 229 193 175 175

Corif. Ung. 66 98 159 190

229 265 229 265

Dec. 175

182

Ebr. 146-48

206

Flaccus 44-48 83

264 264

Fug. 53-58 68-72 186

191, 258 49 36

Gaius 5 21 69

137 175, 177 54

Gig. 6 6-18 8 12 13-15 16 19-20 19-31 19-55 20 20-21 23 23-24 23-27 23-31 24 24-27

44, 139 44 139 44 139, 140 139, 140 140 147, 151 137-60, 163 147 141, 144 141, 144, 227 35 158, 159, 236, 239 141 249

ANCIENT

26 26-28 27

28 29 29-31 50-55 53-54 55 Her. 98 259 259-66 264-66 265-66

141 142 4, 35, 143, 144, 145, 147, 149, 162, 227-28, 239 147, 159, 227, 228 147 238 151, 152, 157, 159, 225 193, 238 141, 229, 239

Jos. 110

136 Pknt. 14 17 18 18-19 18-26

22 22-24 23 24

147 183 229 175

24-25 24-26 27 28 65 Post. Cain 80 113

175 54

Praem. 30 53-55 121-22

137 176, 177, 185, 187 137

Prob. 2 51-57

263-64 265

183 265 244 265

117 Leg. AU. 1.33 3.161 3.228

219 148 175

116

72-75 135

137, 151, 152, 155, 175, 224-25 49 91, 147, 148, 149, 151, 219 91, 92, 223

175 229 238 141 51, 52, 53, 146, 244

176-77, 187, 233, 239 176-77, 190, 192, 238 176-77, 233, 239, 243 177, 234

110-16

69-71

45 138 138, 139, 148, 163 149, 162 137-39, 142, 148-60, 190, 224-25, 236, 238, 243, 249 152, 153 193 156, 239 139, 157, 163, 225, 239 153 192 157 138 183, 212, 214

Immut. 35 146 181 182

289

SOURCES

Mig. 34-35 89-93 113

238 264, 265 229

Quaest. in Gen 2.6 3.5 3.9 4.152

Mut. 179-80 202

137 229

Sacr. Cain and Abel 13 175 101 49

150 150

Som. 1:23 1.141

opif. 13-35 24-25

177 44

290 1:164-65 2.222 2.252

Spec. Leg. 1.37-38 1.63-65 1.207 1.269 3.1 3.1-2 3.1-6

3.3-4 3.5-6 4.48 4.48-49 4.49 4.50 4.61 4.123 Virt. 216-17 217-19

INDEX

258 265 177, 190, 1 9 1 , 2 0 9 - 1 0 , 234, 238, 239, 243, 249, 2 5 8 - 5 9

137, 175, 177 42, 141, 146, 175, 238, 244 137 175 153, 155, 193 193, 258 151, 152, 155, 192-93, 208, 225, 238, 239, 249, 258, 259, 262 193 155, 193, 258, 259, 262 53 42 42, 5 2 - 5 3 , 141, 146, 238, 244 175, 177 265 149, 151

90, 94, 95, 224 9 0 - 9 5 , 223-24, 238, 249

Vtt. Cont. 57 78 90

184 265 263

Vit. Mos. 1.168 1.264 1.267-68 1.273-84

175 40, 42 48 238

1.274

1.277

1.281 1-282 1.283 1.284 1.286 1.287 2.1-65 2.37-40 2.69 2.187 2.187-92 2.187-292 2.188 2.188-91 2.190 2.191 2.192 2.192-220 2.221-33 2.233-35 2.246-57 2.246-92 2.250 2.258 2.259 2.263 2.264-65

2.268-69 2.270 2.270-74 2.272 2.275-87

28-30, 40, 42, 48, 5 0 - 5 1 , 52, 53, 229-30, 239 28-30, 33, 40, 41, 48, 51, 229-30, 239 244 48 40, 41 31, 33, 40, 41, 42, 230 41 48 31, 40, 41 92 27 92, 223 171, 185 238 175-76, 185, 233 171, 172, 174, 185, 233, 244 176, 177 171, 172, 233 172, 174-75, 244 171 171 171 171 174 177 233 174 173 174, 185 171, 173, 177, 183, 185-87, 190-91, 233, 239, 243, 249, 258 173, 174 174 174 92, 97, 223 174

g. Dead Sea ScroUs CD 5.11-13 7.3-6 7.4 12.11-13

75, 219 74 74, 75, 219 74, 219

3.18 9.13 9.32-34 11.10 12.10-13

IQH f3.14

251

13.19 1413-14

46 202 202 201 180, 201, 2 0 2 , 2 5 1 , 257 201, 251 251

ANCIENT

16.11 16.15-20 17.17

201 251 201

IQpHab 2.7-9 7.4-5

291

SOURCES

200 200, 201, 202

419-23 4.20-24 4.21 5.9 8.15-16 9.3-4 9.12

75 241 251 200, 202 200, 202, 246 252 201

IQM 13.10

46

IQSb 2.24

105

IQS 3^ 3.6-9 3.7-8 3.13-4.16 3.17-19

38, 241 242 251 241 241

4Q504 1-2 V 15

182

llQpPs'^DavComp 2-4 200

h. Rabbinic Literature Talmud b.Sanhedrin 107b

Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Beshallah 250 7.134-36 Hsha 1.42-76 1.74-75 1.148-66 Shirata 10.58-73

248 248 247

264

j.Hagigah 77d

264

Numbers Rabbah 20:19

61

246-47

i. Greek and Roman Authors Aetius 4 1 2 . 2

134

Alexander of Aphrodisias De anima 26.6 136 De mixtione 216.14-17 223.6-9 22415-16 225.14-16 227.9-10

135, 145, 228 136 136 136 135

Aristides, In Defense of Oratory 43 123 Cicero Academica 1.40

134

De divinatione

8-10

1.7 1.8-9 1.9 1.10 1.11-36 1.12 1.24-25 1.34 1.37-71 1.38 1.39 1.60 1.60-67 1.62 1.63 1.63-64 1.64-65 1.66 1.66-67

14 8 9 9 9 9, 41 9 41 9 11 14 9, 15 10, 16 16 16, 11-12 16 112 16, 115, 120, 121, 222 212

292 1.67 1.68 1.72 1.72-109 1.82-83 1.89 1.110-15 1.113 1.114 1.114-15 1.116-21 1.118 1.122-24 1.129-130 2.3 2.8 2.38 2.100 2.117

INDEX

115 118, 121 42 9 9 184-85 16 16, 115, 199 16, 115, 120, 163, 222 10 9 9 184, 212, 184 9, 10, 16, 114 8 9 148 9 11

De oratore 1.18 1.113-115

93-94 96, 97

De re publka 2.4

96

De senectute 21.78

148

De natura deorum 2.19 2.30 2.37 2.38 3.20 3.40

135, 228 135 228 148 135 135

Tusculanae disputationes 4.14 134 5.91 183 Cleomedes, De motu circulari 1.1 136 Dio Chrysostom First Discourse on Kingship 15 94 Third Discourse on Kingship 39 95, 224 On Training for Public Speaking 2 94, 224

Diogenes Laertius, Philosophers 2.25 2.32 2.37 7.49 7.54 7.138-39 7.143

lives of Eminent 183 184 183, 212 134 134 148-49 135

Epictetus 1.14.6

148, 228

Euripides Bacchae 448-49

268

Daughters of Troy 445

126

Iphigenia at Aulis 461 1375 1382-84 1398-99 1420 1473

126 126 126 126 126 126

Galen, De pladtis Hippocrates et Platonis 42.1-6 134 5.3.8 136 Horace, Odes 1.28.1.1-6

154

Homer Iliad

1.149-68 3.167-70 3.221-24 16.844-50

268 95 95 268

Odyssey 5.308-10

268

Lucan, De bello ciuili 5.169-77 121, 212 Maximus of Tyre, Phibsophumena 8 184-85 11.10 155 Ovid Fasti 1.297

154

ANCIENT

293

SOURCES

Symposium 202D-E 202E 202E-203A

15 45, 231 44

118, 120 154

Theaetetus 173E

208

Apology 22C 31D 40A

43, 122, 223 184, 210 184, 210

Euthydemus 272E

Timaeus 32C 41-42 71E 90A

263 49, 263 43, 112, 114 138, 139, 224, 225

184, 210

Plotinus, Enneads 1.3.3 4.7.4 6.7.36

156 135 154-55

Heroides 3.114-15

268

Plato Amatorius 758E 766E

Euthyphro 3B

184, 210

Im 533D-534E 534B 534G-D

253 43, 231 43

Plutarch An sera respublica gerenda sit 786D 154

Merw 99C

43, 122, 223

De communibus notitiis adversus Stoicos 1085D 136

Phaedrus 242B 242C 244A 244A-B 244A-245C 244D 246A 246A-247E 246A-253C 246B 246D 247A 247A-253C 247B 247B-C 248A 249C 249D 249D-E 250C 251C 251E 253E 254B 265B

210 184 231 43 253 45 152, 153 115, 152, 153, 208, 224 151-58, 224-25 152, 208 152, 153 208 163, 208 152 153 152, 208 153, 154 152, 153 152 152 152 153 152, 153 156 118

Republic 2.402D 7.535A

95 96, 223

Comparison of Aristides with Marcus Cato 4 135 De defectu oraculorum 7 410G 411E 10 412F-413D 10 413D-414G 11 414D-E 11 414E 50, 53 414F-418D 11 415A 50, 53 418C-D 47, 231 418D 51 14 431A 431A-B 11, 47, 52, 231 431B 52, 231 431E 16 431E-434C 11, 15, 47 431F 16 16 432A 432G 16, 112, 199 432C-D 116, 204 432D 222 432D-E 16, 117, 120, 146 432E-F 117, 121 432F 16, 222 433A-B 117 16 433C

294

INDEX

433G-D 435A 436D-438D 436F-437A 438A

117-18 11, 12 12 11 16

De E apud Delphos 387F

14

De genio Socratis 579D-580C 580B-582C 580C 580C-F 580C-582G 580F-581A 581A-D 581F-582C 588B 588B-589F 588C 588D-E

De Stoicorum repugnantiis 1034B 135 1052D 135 1056E-F 134

589E 589E-F 589F 589F-592F 590A 591D 591F 593C

12 184 185, 187, 12 12, 210 12 13 12 13, 186 12, 184 187, 209 186, 187, 212, 235 186, 187 114, 154, 187, 199, 212, 235, 258-59 209 210 237 I, 13 17 140 140 45

De Iside et Osiride 361C

44

589B 589D

De Pythiae oraculis 402B-C

210

IJfe of Pebpidas 6-13

12

Platonicae quaestwnes 6

154

Quaestionum convivalium libri iii 718E-F 154 Quintilian, Institutio oratoria book one, preface, 9 94, 224

209,

162, 209,

Rhetorica ad Herennium 1.3 3.19-27

93 93

Seneca Epistulae Morales 4 41.1-9

135 71-72, 146-47

Sextus Empiricus, Adversus madmnaticos 7-8 (= Adversus dogmaticos 1-2) 7.151 134 7.227 134 7.426 134 8.400 68 Sophocles, Antigone 891 Theages 128D-129D

II, 12

126

184, 210

Vergil, Aeneid 1.97-101 268 Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.1.2-5 184

j . New Testament John (Fourth Gospel)

242-43

Acts 16:26

268

2 Cor 12:2

111

2 Tim 1:7

86

ANCIENT

295

SOURCES

k. Early Christian Literature Epiphanius, Adversus haereses 3.36 135 John Cassian, Collationes 12 123 Lactantius Divmae insHtutiones 1 135 6.25 135 De falsa religione 5

135

Origen Conta Celsum 1.5 6.71

135 136

Stromata 5.12.76

135

Pseudo-Justinus, Cohortatio ad Graecos 37.2-3 123

I N D E X OF SUBJECTS A N D ANCIENT NAMES

Abraham 90-97, 110-1 In. 22, 113n. 26, 119, 223-24, 246 Adam 9 1 - 9 2 , 110-11, 223 Aelius Aristides 122-24, 131, 207, 258 Alexander of Aphrodisias 135-36, 145, 228 Angels 4 3 - 4 5 , 46n. 44, 48-49nn. 5 1 - 5 2 , 139-40, 188-89, 241. See Daemons. Antipater of Tyre 148 Apocalyptic literature 18, 72-73, 109-111, 168-70, 181-82, 197, 203-07, 214, 232, 245, 255-57 Apollo 121, 123 Apollodorus 148n. 37 Aristobulus 265 Ascent of mind or soul 107-08, 110-11, 112-13n. 26, 114-22, 137, 138-39, 151-58, 192-94, 224-26, 238, 239, 243, 249, 2 6 2 - 6 3 Balaam biblical version 2 5 - 2 6 Josephus, according to 2 8 - 3 3 , 3 9 - 4 2 , 4 7 - 5 5 , 169, 189, 229-32 Philo, according to 2 9 - 3 3 , 47-55, 229-32, 233 Pseudo-Philo, according to 56-77, 87, 217-20, 267 Baruch 197 Beauty 9 0 - 9 3 Ben Sira 18, 183n. 29, 198-99, 206, 259, 264n. 17 Bezalel 141, 143-44, 145, 157, 178, I82n. 29, 227-28 Cassandra 115-16, 121, 126, 212, 267 Charismatic exegesis 190-211, 2 3 4 - 3 5 , 254-59 Christianity 18 Chrysippus 136, 145, 148n. 37, 228 Cicero biography of 7-9, 13-15 inspiration, descriptions of 9-10,

15-17, 110-12, 114-16, 118, 120-22, 184, 222 Plutarch, similarities to 13-17, 110-22 rhetoric, views on 93-94, 96, 97 Stoic pneuma, descriptions of 9, 14, 15-16, 116, 135-36, 228 Clement of Alexandria 135 Cleombrotus 11,47-53,231 Cleomedes 136n. 18 Clothing, as metaphor of inspiration 85, 88, 1 0 0 - 0 1 , 220-21 Cup, as metaphor of inspiration 205-06 Daemons 1, 13, 43-45, 46n. 44, 4 7 - 5 3 , 55n. 64, 139-40, 183-89, 208-10, 213-14, 234-35, 240, 258-59 Z)a
SUBJECTS A N D ANCIENT NAMES

Elihu 63-64, 178-79 Elijah lOln. 3, 136, 203 Elisha 10In. 3, 203 Enoch 110-11, 112-13n. 26, 119, 119-20n. 39, 179, 246 Epictetus 148n. 37, 228 Epiphanius 135 Eschatology 18, 143-44, 181-83 Essenes 202n. 23 Euripides 121, 125-26, 267, 268 Exegesis, charismatic. See charismatic exegesis. Exorcism 37-38 Ezekiel 101, 103, 105, 119n. 37, 206n. 29 Ezra 122, 124, 1 9 4 - 9 7 , 2 0 4 - 0 7 , 257-59 Fire, as metaphor of inspiration 16, 101, 114-18, 120-21, 221, 245-46 Fourth Gospel, spirit in 2 4 2 - 4 4 Galen 134n. 8, 136 Gideon 85-86, 8 8 - 9 0 , 100-01, 220-23, 249 God 47-49, 55n. 64, 171-73 Greco-Roman milieu of Judaism, introduction to 5-6, 7-17, 19-21 Homer Horace

94, 95, 268 154n. 47

Inspiration, Greco-Roman views of, introduction to 9-13, 15-17 Iphigenia 126-28 Jacob 106, 179, 180n. 25, 246 Jeremiah 101, 203 Job 62, 218 John, gospel of See Fourth Gospel. John Cassian 123-24, 207, 258 John Hyrcanus 188-89 Joseph 176-77, 179, 180n. 25, 187, 192, 203, 2 3 3 - 3 4 Josephus autobiography, inspiration according to 2 0 2 - 0 3 biblical text of 27n. 1 biography of 3, 269 exegetical methods 2 9 - 3 3 , 47-50, 78-79, 131-33, 158, 161-62, 168-70, 226, 229, 232, 236

297

Judaism, knowledge of 271-72 Sources, non-Jewish 2 7 0 - 7 1 Plutarch, in relation to 4 6 - 5 5 , 231-32 scholarship on 3n. 5, 261 Stoicism, in relation to 131-37, 145, 158, 226-27, 240 writings of 270-71 Joshua 87, 9 9 - 1 0 1 , 104, 129, 178, 182n. 29, 221-22, 245-46 Kenaz 84-88, 89, 97, 1 0 0 - 0 1 , 102-09, 119-25, 128-30, 2 2 0 - 2 3 , 245-46, 249 Lactantius 124, 135nn. 16-17 Levi 110, 113n. 26, 119, 145n. 31, 179 Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum authorship of 266 biblical text of 56n. 2 Cicero, in relation to 120-22, 222 Daniel (book of), in relation to 72-73 date of 266 Dead Sea Scrolls, in relation to 73-76 exegetical methods 5 6 - 5 8 , 65, 76-77, 79, 8 4 - 9 0 , 9 7 - 9 8 , 99-109, 114, 125, 128-30, 162-63, 2 1 7 - 2 1 , 235-36 Gen 6:3, allusions to 59-65, 217-18, 249 Greco-Roman conceptions and 120-28, 222, 235-36, 267-68 Idolatry in 267 Plutarch, in relation to 120-22, 222 Psalm 51, allusions to 6 5 - 6 8 , 70 rabbinic traditions, in relation to 6 0 - 6 I n . 9 scholarship on 3n. 4, 261-62 Seneca, in relation to 7 0 - 7 2 Stoicism, in relation to 6 7 - 7 2 , 119-22 wisdom tradition, in relation to 6 2 - 6 4 , 6 9 - 7 0 , 218-19 Lucan 121 Matthew, gospel of 198n. 10 Maximus of Tyre 155, 157, 184, 225 Memory, loss of 1 0 2 - 0 3 , 109, 122-24, 2 0 6 - 0 7 , 2 2 2 - 2 3 , 245, 258

298

INDEX

Mental control loss of 11, 16, 30-33, 34-55, 107-09, 112, 114-18, 120-24, 212, 229-32, 233 retention of 168-89, 190-211, 212-14, 233-35, 257-59 Messiah 18, 143-44, 181-83 Methuselah 11 In. 22 Micah 182-83n. 29, 267 Military skill 8 4 - 9 0 , 97-98, 161, 2 2 0 - 2 1 , 239 Miriam 247-48 Moses biblical version 18, 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 196n. 8 Josephus, according to 272 Philo, according to 92, 97, 141-42, 145-46, 151-52, 157-60, 169n. 2, 171-76, 182n. 29, 183-89, 194, 223, 227-29, 232-33, 258-59, 265 Pseudo-Philo, according to 60, 249 Mystery religions 2n. 3, 19-21 Nehemiah 194-97, 207 New Academy 13-14, 47 Noah 138-39, 142 Origen 135, 136n. 18 Othniel. See Kenaz. Ovid 154n. 47, 268 Paraclete 2 4 2 - 4 4 Paul, aposde 11 In. 23, 268 Philo Judaeus autobiography, inspiration according to 190-94, 208-10, 211, 212-14, 234-35, 258 biblical text of 27n. 1 biography of 2, 19, 262-63 Dead Sea Scrolls, in relation to 2 0 1 - 0 2 exegesis, inspired 190-94, 213-14 exegetical methods 2 8 - 3 3 , 35-36n. 20, 4 0 - 4 1 n. 32, 47-50, 78-79, 9 7 - 9 8 , 137-42, 161-63, 171-78, 227-28, 229, 232-33, 235-36, 264-65 Judaism, knowledge of 2 6 4 - 6 5 Plato, allusions to 137-39, 151-53, 223, 224, 263, 265 Platonism, in relation to 150-51,

151-60, 183-87, 208-11, 213-14, 224-25 Plutarch, in relation to 46-55, 146, 183-89, 208-10, 225, 231-32 scholarship on 2n. 3, 261 Stoicism, in relation to 144-51, 158-59, 227-29, 239, 263 wisdom tradition, in relation to 2n. 3, 143-51, 178-83, 198-99, 212-13, 227-29, 249 writings of 263 Philosophy 140, 151-58, 192-94, 208, 213, 2 2 4 - 2 6 Pindar 208 Plato 42-45, 95-96, 112, 115, 118, 122-24, 128, 137-39, 151-52n. 43, 184, 208, 210, 222-26, 231, 271 Plotinus 135n. 17, 154-55n. 49, 156n. 52, 225 Plutarch ascent of the mind, presentations of 154, 157 biography 10, 12, 13-15 Cicero, similarities to 13-17, 110-22 inspiration, descriptions of 10-11, 15-17, 4 6 - 5 5 , 112, 116-18, 222, 231-32 Socrates' daemonion, views of 12-13, 183-89, 208-10, 213-14, 234-35, 243, 258-59 Stoic pneuma, description of 11, 15-16, 47n. 47, 116-18, 136n. 20 Posidonius 148n. 37 Prophecy 2 4 4 - 5 4 biblical 34, 101, 194, 199, 203, 234, 246 Cicero, according to 114—16 diversity of forms 253-54 Josephus, according to 28-33, 39-42, 47-53, 168-70, 189, 229-32, 242, 244-45 Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, according to 246-48 Philo, according to 29-33, 4 7 - 5 3 , 171-76, 229-32, 232-33, 244 Plutarch, according to 116-18 Pseudo-Philo, according to 87, 99-109, 120-25, 128-30, 161, 221-22, 245-46, 249 Pseudo-Justinus 123-24, 207, 258

SUBJECTS A N D ANCIENT NAMES

Pseudo-Philo. See Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Posidonius 9 Quintilian

94, 97, 224

Rebekkah 179, 180n. 25, 246 Rhetoric 93-97, 161, 223-24, 249 Rule, ideal 90-97, 161, 223-24, 249 Samuel 38 Saul 3 6 - 4 1 , 86-87, 102-06, 122-25, 128-30, 203, 230, 245 Seila (Jephtah's daughter) 125-28, 267-68 Seneca 70-72, 135nn, 11 & 16, 146-47, 228-29 Seth 110-1 In. 22 Sextus Empiricus 68, 134 Sibyl 124, 145n. 34, 207, 212, 250, 258 Sirach. See Ben Sira. Socrates 12-13, 4 3 - 4 4 , 152-53, 183-89, 208-10, 213-14, 234-35, 243, 258-59, 265 Solomon 132-33, 135-37, 1 4 ^ 4 5 , 180, 226-27 Sophocles 126 Soul, nature of 139-41 Spirit, characterization of 239-41 aether 148-49 angelic or daemonic being 18, 28-30, 36-53, 119n. 38, 183-89, 229-32, 239, 240, 243 breadi (life itself) 59-77, 178-79, 217-20, 240 customary friend 208-10, 232-35, 249, 258-59 fire from air 135-37, 226-27, 240 holy 65-76, 104-05, 219, 240 hurricane 157, 225-26, 239 soul 6 9 - 7 2 , 91-92. See Stoicism. Stoic pneuma 131-37, 144-45, 162, 226-29, 240 tornado 157, 225-26, 239 vapor 11, 115-18, 146. See Delphi. voice 176-77, 187-92, 209 Spirit, effects of 238-39 ascent of mind or soul 107-08, 110-11, 114-22, 151-58, 192-94, 224-26, 238, 243, 249 beauty, external and internal 90-93, 223-24, 238

299

conversion 252 cosmic unity 131-37, 144—45, 162, 226-29, 240 creation 250 exegesis, charismatic 190-211, 234-35, 254-59 inflammation 16, 101, 221, 245-46 initiation into community 251 life itself 57-77 memory, loss of 102-03, 109, 122-24, 206-07, 2 2 2 - 2 3 , 245, 258 mental control, loss of 11, 16, 3 0 - 3 3 , 3 4 - 5 5 , 107-09, 112, 114-18, 120-24, 212, 229-32, 233 military skill 8 4 - 9 0 , 97-98, 161, 220-21, 239 mind enlightened 168-89, 190-211, 212-14, 232-35, 257-59 praise 239 prophecy 27-55, 87, 99-109, 120-25, 128-30, 161, 168-70, 171-76, 2 2 1 - 2 3 , 229-32, 232-33, 240, 2 4 4 - 5 4 purification 251-52 rhetorical prowess 90, 93-97, 161, 223-24, 249 rule ideal 90-97, 161, 223-24, 249 speech 6 2 - 6 4 , 218-19 wisdom 6 2 - 6 4 , 6 9 - 7 0 , 178-83, 227-29, 238, 239, 255-58 Spirit, modes of presence of 238-41 accompanying 157-58, 169-70, 239 clothing 85, 88, 100-01, 220-21 cosmic sympathy 131-37, 144-45, 162, 226-29, 240 guiding, prompting, and teaching the mind 145-46, 168-89, 191-210, 232-35, 238, 2 5 7 - 5 9 indwelling 3 1 - 3 2 , 90-97, 104-05, 221 leaping upon 104-06, 121, 221 pouring over 179 resting upon 178-81 vocal chords, using 3 0 - 3 3 , 4 6 - 5 3 , 186, 2 2 9 - 3 1 , 238 Spirits, evil 36-38 Spirits, two (IQS 3-4) 38n. 27, 241-42

300

INDEX

Stoicism 9, 11, 14, 15-16, 47n. 47, 6 7 - 7 2 , 116-19, 133-37, 144-51, 226-29, 239-40, 249. See Seneca. Synagogue 254-55 Teacher of Righteousness 200-02 Temple 132-37, 226-27, 240 Therapeutae 263 Timarchus, myth of 1, 13, 17, 140n. 26, 237

and creation 250 Israelite leaders in 178-81 Messiah in 181-83 Philo, in relation to 2n. 3, 143-51, 178-83, 198-99, 212-13, 227-29, 249 Pseudo-Philo, in relation to 62-64, 6 9 - 7 0 , 218-19 and 4 Ezra 204-07 Xenophon

184

Voice, divine 176-77, 187-88, 190-92, 209

Youdifulness

Wisdom tradidon and Ben Sira 18, 183n. 29, 198-99, 206, 259, 264n. 17

Zealots 255, 257 Zeno 134n. 6, 135, 148n. 37, 184, 265

62-64

I N D E X OF M O D E R N A U T H O R S

Abusch, R. 132n. 2 Alexiou, M. 125-28, 268n. 25 Amir, Y. 27n. 1, 262n. 12, 265n. 18 Amim, H. von 68n. 19 Attridge, H. W. 27n. 2, 269n. 28, 270n. 29 Aune, D. 200n. 16, 254 Aviemaric, F. 267n. 22 Bar-Kochva, B. 132n. 2 Barrow, R. H. lOn. 17 Barton, J. 3n. 6 Baskin, J. R. 26n. 2, 6In. 9 Bauckham, R. 132n. 2 Berchman, R. 2n. 3 Best, E. 3n. 5, 29n. 9 Betz, O. 26n. 4, 200n. 17 Bogaert, P.-M. 60n. 9, 261 Bonner, S. F. 94n. 24 Borgen, P. 262n. 12, 263n. 13 Bousset, W. 113n. 26, 167 Bram, J. R. 268n. 27 Brehier, E. 48-49n. 51, 167 Brown, R. 243-44 Brownlee, W. 254 Bruns, I. 135n. 9 Buchsel, F. 3n. 5, 29n. 9 Burkhardt, H. 2n. 3, 167

131n. 1, 170n. 3, 203n. 24, 269n. 28, 27In. 30 Fisk, B. N. 60n. 8, 262, 266n. 21 naceliere, R. 14n. 23, 47n. 45 Fontenrose, J. 47n. 47 Garcia-Martinez, F. 200nn. 15-17, 202n. 22 Geffcken, J. 124n. 47 Georgi, D. 2n. 3, 254-57 Ginsberg, H. L. 254, 256 Goodenough, E. R. 2n. 3 Goodman, M. 27n. 1 Greene, J. T. 26n. 4 Gunkel, H. 167 Hare, D. R. A. 85n. 2 Harrington, D. J. 56n. 2, 60n. 9, 89n. 16, 104n. 10, 107n. 15, 108n. 16, 179n. 22, 261n. 7 Hata, G. 26In. 2 Hengel, M. 5-6, 21, 232, 255, 257, 264n. 17 Henten, van J.-W. 132n. 2 Hill, D . 242-44, 248, 2 5 3 - 5 4 Hobein, H. 155n. 50 Holm-Nielson, S. 20In. 19 Isaacs, M. E.

Cazeaux, J. 60n. 9, 26In. 7 Charleswordi, J. H. 56n. 1, 11 On. 21, 200n. 16, 24In. 2 Chevallier, M.-A. 3n. 5 Clarke, E. G. 69n. 20 Collins, J. J. 72n. 24 Davies, W. D. 248n. 10 Dean-Otting, M. 113n. 26 Dietzfelbinger, C. 104n. 10, 261 Dodds, E. R. 212n. 4 Dronke, P. 125-28, 268n. 25 Evans, C. A.

2n. 3, 3n. 5

Jacobson, H. 56n. 2, 58n. 6, 102n. 5, 108n. 16, 119n. 38, 125n. 48, 261, 266, 267, 268 James, M. R. 56n. 2, 84n. 1, 85n. 2, 104n. 10, 107n. 15, 261 Jeremias, J. 85n. 2 Jonas, H. 167 Kennedy, G. 94n. 24 Klein, R. W. 37n. 23 Kuhn, H. W. 25In. 13 Kuhn, G. 134n. 8

200n. 16

Faye, E. de 47n. 45 Feldman, L. H. 5n. 8, 26n. 4, 27n. 1, 56n. 2, 78n. 1, 126n. 51,

Lampe, G. W. H. 248 Lauterbach, J. Z. 247n. 10 Leisegang, H. 2n. 3, 3n. 5, 19-21, 159, 167

302

INDEX

Levison, J. R. 2n. 3, 3n. 5, 28n. 4, 29n. 7, 36n. 21, 38n. 27, 39n. 30, 40n. 31, 46n. 44, 65n. 13, 89n. 16, 131n. I, 133n. 5, 152n. 45, 170n. 5, 174n. 12, 175-77nn. 15-19, 182n. 29, 191n. 3, 193n. 4, 198n. 10, 204n. 27, 208n. 31, 238n. 1, 250n. 11, 26In. 4, 267n. 22, 27In. 30 Lewy, H. 2n. 3, 206n. 29 Lichtenberger, H. 267n. 22 Lindblom 34nn. 16-17, 35n. 19, 103n. 8 Long, A. A. 134nn. 6-7, 136n. 20 Lucas, F. L. 126n. 51 Mack, B. 167 Marchovich, M, 123n. 44 Marcus, R. 170n. 4 Meadowcroft, T. J. 72n. 24, 73n. 26 Measson, A. 15 In. 43, 152n. 44, 208n. 32 Mendelson, A. 263n. 15 Menzies, R. P. 3n. 5, 253 MiUar, F. 27n. 1 Moore, G. F. 167, 248 Mowinckel, S. 201-02n. 21 Mulder, J. 27n. 1, 262n. 12, 269n. 28 Miiller, H.-P. 255-56 Murphy, F. J. 262 Niese, B.

32n. 15

Orton, D. E. 197-98nn. 9-10, 198n. 13, 200n. 15 Parke, H. W. 47n. 47 Patte, D . 256-57 Pease, A. S. 8n. 15, 9n. 16, 148n. 37 Perrot, C. 60n. 9, 261 Pfeifer, G. 49n. 51 Pichery, E. 123n. 45

4849

Pinero, A. 3n. 4 Pohlenz, M. 21 On. 34 Radice, R. 261 Reinmuth, E. 262, 266n. 21 Runia, D. T. 45n. 42, 261, 263n. 16 Sambursky, S. 136n. 18 Schafer, J. P. 248n. 10 Schafer, P. 183n. 29 Schlatter, A. 29n. 9 Schreckenberg, H. 261 Schiirer, E. 27n. 1 Sedley, D. N. 134nn. 6-7, 136n. 20 Segal, A. 113n. 26 Sekki, A. E. 38n. 27, 46n. 44, 74n. 28, 75n. 30 Smidi, M. 29n. 9, 188n. 43 Spilsbury, P. 131n. 1 Stone, M. E. 122n. 42, 206n. 29, 207n. 30, 262n. 12, 269n. 28 Sysling, H. 27n. 1 Thackeray, Thompson, Tobin, T. Turner, M.

H. St. J. 32n. 15 R. G. 37-38nn. 24-26 150n. 42 M. B. 253

VanderKam, J. 179n. 20 Verbeke, G. 2n. 3, 3n. 5 Vermes, G. 26nn. 3-4, 27n. 1, 60n. 9, 78n. 1, 200n. 17 Volz, P. 17-19, 36n. 21 Wagner, J. R. 26In. 4 Walbank, F. W. 27n. 2 Wilson, R. R. 34n. 17 Windisch, H. 242-44 Winston, D. 45n. 42, 69n. 20, 210n. 38 Wolfson, H. A. 2n. 3, 167 Wormell, D. E. W. 47n. 47 Ziegler, H.

136n. 18

Baptized in the Spirit

Read more

Baptized in the Spirit

Read more

Baptized in the Spirit

Read more

Baptized in the Spirit

Read more

In Spirit

Read more

In the Spirit

Read more

Baptized in the Spirit

Read more

. . IN THE SPIRIT (Epub)

Read more

In Spirit

Read more

In Spirit

Read more

Judaism

Read more

Judaism

Read more

Abortion in Judaism

Read more

Judaism

Read more

Judaism

Read more

Judaism

Read more

Abortion in Judaism

Read more

Judaism in the Roman World (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity)

Read more

In the Spirit of Hegel

Read more

Baptism in the Holy Spirit

Read more

Baptism In The Holy Spirit

Read more

Leadership in the Wesleyan Spirit

Read more

The Holy Spirit In You

Read more

Spirit

Read more

Christ and the Spirit: Spirit-Christology in Trinitarian Perspective

Read more

Spirit

Read more

Spirit Storm (Spirit Guide)

Read more

Spirit

Read more

Spirit

Read more

The Spirit in First-Century Judaism (Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums)

Read more

Recommend Documents

Baptized in the Spirit

PRAISE FOR BAPTIZED IN THE SPIRIT Do not be deceived: Baptized in the Spirit is not mere Pentecostal Theology; rather i...

Baptized in the Spirit

PRAISE FOR BAPTIZED IN THE SPIRIT Do not be deceived: Baptized in the Spirit is not mere Pentecostal Theology; rather i...

Baptized in the Spirit

Baptized in the Spirit

In Spirit

In the Spirit

Baptized in the Spirit

PRAISE FOR BAPTIZED IN THE SPIRIT Do not be deceived: Baptized in the Spirit is not mere Pentecostal Theology; rather i...

. . IN THE SPIRIT (Epub)

In Spirit

Kosmisches Ereignis am 8./ 9. November 2003 Die „Harmonische Eintracht und Vereinigung der Herzen“. Eine wahrlich einzig...

In Spirit