Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

Master himself. I do not mean to imply by this that the portions of his writings selected by the earlier Christian Parallelists are the most beautiful of his sayings: as far as I know, none of them seeks to employ his doctrine of the Logos in direct illustration and defence of the Christian Faith : I have never anywhere found quoted the magnificent passage in the De Somniis II. $ 37, και ψυχή δ' ευδαίμονι το ιερώτατον έκπωμα προτεινούση, τον εαυτής λογισμόν, τίς επιχεί τους ιερούς κυάθους της προς αλήθειαν ευφροσύνης ότι μη οινοχόος του Θεού και συμποσίαρχος λόγος ; and the general supposition amongst Ecclesiastical writers that Christian attention was drawn to Philo by his monastic works is not verified by our quotations. For example there is only one extract from De Vita Contemplativa and only one from Quod Omnis Probus. Nor have I, which is more surprising, found any consciousness on the part of those making the extracts, of the close parallelism between Philonian terms and the language of the New Testament. But this does not prevent us from feeling that a certain worth attaches to even the least quotations from so great a writer, and that unless the fragments are gathered up, something will be lost.

In the case in question an additional interest arises from the fact that the lost writings of Philo are many, and of many of those which are preserved the Greek has disappeared.

Philo himself often alludes to works which he has written (and almost all his books form an ordered series of expositions) which are not now to be found amongst his collected writings. For example he opens his treatise De Ebrietate with the remark that in the previous treatise he had discussed the opinions of other philosophers on the subject of drunkenness. It appears therefore that our present treatise is the second of two on the same subject, of which the former is lost, unless we take the words to refer to the De Plantatione, and what confirms us in this belief is the fact that we often find passages referred to De Ebrietate in Parallels which do not seem to occur in the published treatise.

The treatise “Who is the Heir of Divine Things” opens with the statement that the previous book had been repi ulov. It is possible that this may be a reference to the De Migratione Abrahami and the promise discussed in it “Surely blessing I will bless thee," but I do not feel sure of the point.

The book which preceded the De Somniis 1. was a discourse on visions, which also seems to be lost. The treatise Quod Omnis Probus Liber was preceded by another to which Eusebius and Jerome are said to refer, the title of which seems to have been complementary to this one, tepi toû trávta δούλον είναι φαύλον.

The opening of the treatise against Flaccus seems to me to bear the mark of incompleteness, and we are confirmed in this belief by a number of unrecognized fragments referred thereto. The same must be said of the treatise against Gaius, at the close of which the writer breaks off with the remark λεκτέον δε και την παλινωδίαν προς Γάϊον. .

In another passage De Mut. Nom. § 6 (1. 586), he refers to treatises on Covenants which he has written, and it is perhaps to these that Jerome refers when he includes a treatise De Testamentis amongst the writings of Philo'.

Further, the quotations which Eusebius makes from Philo are often taken from books which have disappeared either in Greek, or altogether, such as the Questions on Genesis, Exodus, &c., the book De Providentia and the Hypothetica, which was a sort of hortatory treatise on ethics, and indirectly was an apology for the Jewish people.

A great step was taken in the direction of restoring Philo when Aucher published with a number of other tracts an Armenian and Latin edition of the De Providentia and of the greater part of the Questions on the Pentateuch. By the aid of this book we have been enabled to restore more than a hundred fragments of the Questions to their proper places. The treatise has an especial value; with the exception of one or two glosses it is, I believe, pure Philo; and it is, as pointed out by Mai and Aucher, the basis of many of Ambrose's expositions on the book of Genesis.

A single instance of this may be taken from the beginning of Ambrose's treatise on Cain and Abel.

Ambrose, Cain et Abel 1. c. 1 § 2. Questions on Genesis 1. 58 (Aucher Adam autem cognovit Evam mulierem

II. 41). suam, quae concepit et peperit Cain et An recte dictum fuerit de Caini Acdixit; Acquisivi hominem per Deum. quisivi hominem per Deum ? Quae acquirimus, ex quo, et a quo et per Distinguitur esse ab aliquo et ex quid acquirimus, considerari solet: ex aliquo et per aliquid; ex aliquo sicut quo, tamquam ex materia: a quo, quis ex materia ; ab aliquo ut a causa ; et auctor; per quid, tamquam per aliquid per aliquid, ut per instrumentum. Atqui instrumentum. Numquid hic sic dicit: pater et creator universorum non est Acquisivi hominem per Deum: ut Deum instrumentum, sed causa, &c. intelligas instrumentum ? Non utique: &c.

1 Cf. De SS. Abelis et Caini, § 12 ad fin.

Let us now enumerate briefly the sources from which the principal collections of fragments of Philo have come. Mangey edited his fragments in the following order:

a'. The fragments from lost books quoted by Eusebius.

B. The fragments which he could not identify ascribed to Philo in the printed text of Damascene's Parallels (ed. Lequien). N.B. Those which he did identify may be compared with a number of texts of the same passages especially in the Cod. Reg. 923, but I have not, for want of space, gone over the ground again at length in order to add a few variants.

y. The fragments from Cod. Rupef. also printed by Lequien.

8'. The fragments from John Monachus, which, as we have shewn, is only another name for the part of Cod. Rupef. neglected by Lequien.

é. A number of extracts from the Melissa of Antony.

s'. Some unidentified extracts from an Oxford Florilegium Cod. Barocc. No. 143.

Ś. A French Catena (Cod. Reg. 1825) brought to light a number more. To the foregoing we may make additions as follows:

n' The Res Sacrve of Leontius and John as edited by Mai: vide supra.

O'. A large collection made by Pitra Anal. Sac. 11. from Cod. Coislin. 276, and from certain codices in the Vatican Library.

í. A collection made by Tischendorf and published in his Philonea, one passage from Cod. Vat. 746, the rest from a Florilegium at Cairo.

ca'. The Cod. Reg. 923 described above.

'. Some passages given by Cramer, in his Anecd. Oxon. IV. and in his Catena on the New Testament.

wy'. The whole of the fragments referred to Philo in the Loci Communes of Maximus and his literary follower Antony (Melissa) need to be re-examined; and as will be seen below I have made a large number of fresh identifications.

id'. The great Leipsic (printed) Catena (Lips. 1771) of Nicephorus is full of fragments of Philo. It was made from two private MSS. in Constantinople, see Zahn Suppl. Clem. p. 5. I have gone through the book, and, I believe, identified them all, but the result was disappointing, as there seemed to be indications that the text had been artificially conformed to the printed edition of Mangey. At all events, it often differs little from it.

'. Closely connected with this beautiful Catena is the British Museum Catena (Cod. Burney 34) which with Cod. Reg. 1825, and one or two other Catenas, is probably derived from the same original as the Leipsic Catena. I have worked through the Burney Catena and identified almost every passage.

15'. Somewhat different from the preceding, but often agreeing with it in quotations, is the (Latin) Catena of Zephyrus the Florentine (Colon. 1572) which contains many extracts from Philo. Zephyrus says that his translation was made from a “ Codex vetustus” (? Florentinus).

(? Florentinus). I have gone through this Catena and identified nearly all the passages referred to.

18. A Latin Catena on Genesis published at Paris in 1546 by Aloysius Lippomanus, and followed by a second volume in 1550 containing a Catena on Exodus. I have examined and verified, I believe, all the passages quoted from Philo in this Catena.

in'. Attention should also be given to Cordier's (Latin) Catena on Luke, published at Antwerp in 1628 from a MS. in the Library of S. Mark at Venice. A similar Catena exists, according to Cordier, in the library at Vienna. (? Cod. Vind. theol. gr. 71.) Zahn points out (Suppl. Clem. 7) that this Catena is only a part of a great four-vol. Cat. of Nicetas on Luke. I have identified all the passages of Philo translated by Cordier. In particular it will be found that on Luke xxii. 1 he quotes almost the whole of the treatise De Septenario.

10'. A number of passages are also given in the Florilegium of Georgis (? Georgides, Georgidios) Monachus, published in Migne Patr. Gr. 117. In this Catena the passages are arranged alphabetically, in the order of their initial letters. Zahn points out the importance for the text of a Florentine MS. plut. ix. cod. 15 from fol. 25 a—103 a.

k'. The commentary of Procopius on the Pentateuch is full of passages and abridgments from Philo.

These are the principal sources for Philonea : and no doubt the list might be largely increased. Our space does not permit us to print at length all the extracts referred to nor the variants occurring therein; even in passages referred to, our remarks are of necessity brief. Indeed, until the matter is gone into, one has little idea of the enormous extent to which Philo is quoted by Christian writers.

We may now proceed to arrange in order the results of our investigations, beginning with those fragments which can with any show of truth be ascribed to special lost books, and in particular devoting especial attention to the lost books of the Quæstiones in Genesim, E.codum et Leviticum, by which means we shall remove from the collections in Mangey and other writers the greater part of their accumulated fragments.

Our first collection is from the lost book styled the fourth of the Allegories of the Sacred Laws. At present there are only three such books ; but the extracts published by Mai shew that the numeration of books of Allegories ran beyond these three, and that this numeration after a certain point became double; so that the treatise Quod Det. Pot. is almost always cited as VII. and vill. of the Allegories'. And we may remark here that these ancient titles are much to be trusted. They often conserve ancient names of books, which have given place to others in later copies. For instance, our Cod. Reg. often speaks of the books Sntnuárwy eis Triv čFaywynv, which last word is employed by Philo instead of Fodos, just as he often uses επίνομις in place of δευτερονόμιον. .

Fragments of Philo from the lost fourth book of the Allegories of the

Sacred Laus.

[πάντων μέν, ει δει το αληθές ειπείν, γαρ κατα πλούτον ή δόξαν ή φίλους ή άκυρον άνθρωπος, ουδενός ενειλημμένος, αρχάς ή όσα άλλα τυχηρά, τις ουκ οίδεν, ουχ ότι των άλλων, αλλ' ουδε των περί ως έστιν αβέβαια; Ώστε ανάγκη ομολογείν, αυτόν βεβαίως, ουχ υγείας, ουκ ευαισθη- ότι περί ένα το κύρος των απάντων εστί, σίας, ουκ αρτιότητος της περί τα άλλα του τον όντα όντως κύριον.] σώματος, ουχί φωνής, ουκ αγχινοίας. Τα

Dam. Par. 326, but in Cod. Reg. 923 (fol. 55) it is referred to èx Toû tńs νόμων ιερών αλληγορίας. On the other hand this title may more properly belong to the immediately preceding extract only, which I identify as coming from the treatise Quod Det. Pot. S 37, for this treatise is often described as VII. and VIII. Alleg. Sac. Leg. Hence we enclose the preceding in brackets.

1 This double numeration may have arisen from counting the treatise De Mundi Opificio as the first book of the Allegories : and on f. 23 of

Cod. Rup. a passage from 1. Leg. Alleg. is quoted as εκ του δευτέρου της νόμων ιερών αλληγορίας.

« PredošláPokračovať »