Declarar FUNDADA la queja interpuesta, debiendo la Administración proceder conforme con lo expuesto en la presente Resolución.

Philo’s metaphorical imagery most commonly depicts encyclical paideia as preliminary to and necessary for virtue and wisdom, but, like many of his contemporaries, he understood the encyclia as subordinate also to philosophy on this upward path.129 _{Mesē paideia is the}

handmaiden to philosophy (Cong. 145), and the lovers of kalokagathia know that it is impossible to approach philosophy without first becoming acquainted with the entire range of encyclical learning (Ebr. 49). Once one has progressed to the study of philosophy, a reversion to the lesser branches of paideia is not advisable (Ebr. 51).

Philo’s adamancy on the necessity of approaching true philosophy only after being prepared with the encyclical studies derives from philosophy’s relationship to and origin from

116

the lower branches of education. Closely following Plato, Philo argues that contemplation of the universe is ultimately responsible for the development of philosophy. In Opif. 53-54, Philo, drawing on Tim. 47a-c, describes the ascent to philosophy, beginning from observation of the stars and planets, making use of the sense of sight, whose instrument is light. The mind ponders the harmony of the heavenly bodies, which move in accordance with the laws of music. This leads to the soul contemplating the substance of the stars, their existence, their origin, and the causes of their movements. Finally, “it is from inquiry into these things that the genus of

philosophy has arisen; no more perfect good has ever entered into human life. / ἐκ δὲ τῆς τούτων ζητήσεως τὸ φιλοσοφίας συνέστη γένος, οὗ τελειότερον ἀγαθὸν οὐκ ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν ἀνθρώπινον βίον” (Opif. 54; cf. 77).130 _{Though not explicit in this passage, this type of speculation and}

contemplation is due to one’s training in the preliminary studies (Her. 274; Spec. 3:187ff.), an idea hinted at in Opif. 53 and the focus on the instrumentality of the light of the soul, which Philo elsewhere claims is nothing else than paideia (Leg. 3:167).

In De congressu Philo delves deeper into this connection between philosophy and preliminary paideia. Here, it seems that philosophy did not so much originate as was inherent and waiting to be discovered. It is philosophy that provided the first principles and seeds to the particular branches of instruction, from which, then, speculation arises (Cong. 146).131 _{While the}

particular branches occupy themselves with the invention of a multiplicity of complications, philosophy is concerned with the fundamental nature of things. Geometry may focus on triangles

130 _{Compare to Tim. 47a7-b2: περί τε τῆς τοῦ παντὸς φύσεως ζήτησιν ἔδοσαν: ἐξ ὧν ἐπορισάμεθα φιλοσοφίας γένος,} οὗ μεῖζον ἀγαθὸν οὔτ᾽ ἦλθεν οὔτε ἥξει ποτὲ τῷ θνητῷ γένει δωρηθὲν ἐκ θεῶν. Runia describes Philo’s use as a “loose paraphrase,” arguing that he likely cited the passage from memory. See David Runia, On the Creation of the

Cosmos according to Moses. Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series

1; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 203. See also V. Nikiprowetzky, Le commentaire de l’Écriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie:

son caractère et sa portée; observations philologiques (ALGHJ 11: Leiden: Brill, 1977), 98-99.

131 _{Philo is not unaware of the circularity of his argument; instead, it appears to be a fundamental part of his larger} argument on the cyclic origin and destiny of the nous.

117

and circles and all sorts of other figures, but the exact nature of a point or a line is the

provenance of philosophy (Cong. 146-147). Reading and writing are fundamental to the study of grammar, but it is philosophy which contemplates the nature and elements of language (Cong. 148-150). This is why Philo can, disparagingly, refer to the encyclia as technai, but philosophy as epistēmē (Cong. 142).

This distinction between encyclical paideia and philosophy is based on Philo’s understanding of the core of philosophy. The branches of paideia, though they may hint at nature, are above all concerned with particulars. Philosophy, instead, is entirely focused on the nature and essence of existing things; “the world is its subject matter / ὕλη γάρ ἐστιν αὐτῆς ὅδε ὁ κόσμος” (Cong. 144). Encyclical education is akin to following good and noble law codes of particular cities (Ebr. 34, 63, 68), but philosophy is paideia in the universal and in nature, and devotion to philosophy is to live according to natural law (Prob. 160).

Philo, at times, draws a distinction, seemingly Stoic in origin, between the natural, logical, and moral principles of philosophy.132 _{Philo, openly following ancient tradition,}

compares the three with the image of the field or garden of philosophy, where physical or natural philosophy is represented by the trees and plants which produce the fruit of moral philosophy, all of which is protected and hemmed in by the fence of logical philosophy (Agr. 14ff.; Mut. 75).133

All three are necessary and mutually beneficial: “through the logical comes infallible interpretation, through the moral comes the correction of manners, and through the physical

132 _{On the Stoic division, see Catherine Atherton, The Stoics on Ambiguity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,} 1993), 40ff.

133 _{The garden imagery also appears Stoic in origin. See John M. Dillon, “The Pleasures and Perils of Soul-} Gardening,” in Wisdom and Logos: Studies in Jewish Thought in Honor of David Winston (ed. D. T. Runia and G. E. Sterling; SPhA 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 190-197.

118

comes knowledge of heaven and the world” (Spec. 1:336), though the moral portion is typically understood as the pinnacle, which utilizes the other two in its search for virtue (Mut. 75).

We saw that, in Philo’s allegorical interpretation, Abraham’s transition from Hagar to Sarah represents the ascent from encyclical paideia to virtue or wisdom. Elsewhere, Philo describes another transition for Abraham, that from natural to moral philosophy. Prior to becoming Abraham, Abram “delighted in the lofty philosophy which investigates those things which take place in the air, and the sublime nature of those things which exist in heaven, which mathematics has appropriated as the most excellent part of natural philosophy. . . . But, when Abram, instead of an inquirer into natural philosophy, became a wise man a lover of God, had his name changed to Abraham” (Cher. 4, 7). The Genesis narrative literally describes the changing of his name, but the true allegorical understanding describes how “he migrated from natural to moral philosophy, from contemplation of the world to knowledge of the creator, from which he acquired piety, the most excellent of possessions” (Mut. 76). From the larger

allegorical reading, Philo suggests that Abram’s interest in natural philosophy alone was unable to bear the fruit of moral philosophy. It was only after his acquisition of the encyclical studies that Abraham was then able to advance to moral philosophy and virtue. (Leg. 3:244).

Jewish Philosophy

In all this discussion on philosophy and paideia to this point, there has been nothing to suggest the provenance of this philosophy which is subsequent to preliminary education and necessary for the attainment of virtue. We are not told whether this is Greek or barbarian or Jewish philosophy. Philosophy, so far, appears universal, transnational. And, this should not be

119

he seems to go out of his way to omit it. However, at several points Philo does refer to the Jews’

patria philosophia, their ancestral philosophy. According to Philo, the emperor Tiberius was

well aware that Jewish people practiced their ancestral philosophy in the synagogues on the Sabbath (Legat. 156), and that the legate Petronius himself, because of his zeal for paideia, had learned something of “Jewish philosophy (Ἰουδαϊκῆς φιλοσοφίας)” (Legat. 245). But, what exactly is this ancestral or Jewish philosophy?

In book two of the Life of Moses, Philo claims that the lawgiver, whose own education included the full curriculum of encyclical paideia and philosophy (Mos. 1:23), intended the seventh day to be devoted to meeting together and public training in philosophy, through which the populace would advance in kalokagathia and improve their moral characters and lives (Mos. 2:215), a custom which continues to Philo’s own day:

ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ εἰσέτι νῦν φιλοσοφοῦσι ταῖς ἑβδόμαις Ἰουδαῖοι τὴν πάτριον φιλοσοφίαν τὸν χρόνον ἐκεῖνον ἀναθέντες ἐπιστήμῃ καὶ θεωρίᾳ τῶν περὶ φύσιν· τὰ γὰρ κατὰ πόλεις προσευκτήρια τί ἕτερόν ἐστιν ἢ διδασκαλεῖα φρονήσεως καὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ δικαιοσύνης εὐσεβείας τε καὶ ὁσιότητος καὶ συμπάσης ἀρετῆς, ᾗ κατανοεῖται καὶ κατορθοῦται τά τε ἀνθρώπεια καὶ θεῖα;

According to this custom, even to this day the Jews pursue philosophy on the seventh day, dedicating this time to their ancestral philosophy and to the knowledge and contemplation of nature. For what are the prayer houses in each city but schools of prudence, courage, temperance, and justice, and of piety, holiness, and every virtue, by which things human and divine are understood and set right? (Mos. 2:216)

Though the description here of the proseuchai as Greek philosophical schools may have been influenced by Philo’s audience and purpose of this particular text, it is clear thus far that Jewish

120

philosophy, as it is devoted to nature and the attainment of virtue, cannot be distinguished from any other sort. However, when Philo describes the philosophical education of the Essenes and the Therapeutae and its connection to Jewish law, we can begin to see the distinctive character of the Jews’ ancestral philosophy.

Essene education is devoted entirely to the moral aspect of philosophy, as the logical part is unnecessary for the acquisition of virtue and the natural part is only beneficial for the

contemplation of the existence of God and the creation of the universe. In their education in moral philosophy, “they utilize their ancestral laws as trainers, laws which would have been impossible for the human soul to devise without divine inspiration. / ἀλείπταις χρώμενοι τοῖς πατρίοις νόμοις, οὓς ἀμήχανον ἀνθρωπίνην ἐπινοῆσαι ψυχὴν ἄνευ κατοκωχῆς ἐνθέου” (Prob. 80). They are instructed with these laws throughout the week, but especially on the Sabbath, when they gather together in the synagogues. There, one member reads the books and another, one of the most experienced elders, teaches, explaining the philosophical, symbolic meaning of the text (Prob. 81-82). In this way, the members of the community “are educated in piety,

holiness, justice, economy, politics, and the knowledge of those things which are truly good, bad, or indifferent, and to choose what is beneficial and to avoid the opposite, making use of three established criteria, the love of God, the love of virtue, and the love of man” (Prob. 83).

Philo’s description of the education of the Therapeutae is similar. During the week, they study their ancestral philosophy in complete solitude, utilizing their holy texts, reading them allegorically in order to uncover the secret meaning lying beneath the literal expressions (Cont. 28). They also study ancient allegorical treatises and attempt to imitate their systems and explanations in the creation of new written works (Cont. 29). Then, like the Essenes, they meet

121

together on the Sabbath, and one of the elder members instructs the others, allegorically exegeting the precise meaning of the laws (Cont. 30-31).134

As with the Essenes, the Jewish law is instrumental in the education and philosophy of the Therapeutae. In fact, Philo knows of a tradition that claims that they are called “Therapeutae” or “Therapeutrides” because “they are educated by nature and the sacred laws to serve God / ἐκ φύσεως καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν νόμων ἐπαιδεύθησαν θεραπεύειν τὸ ὄν” (Cont. 2). While I will focus on the role of Jewish law in education more broadly in the following section, it is important here to see how and why the Jewish law is involved in this educational philosophy.

Nikiprowetzky has argued that, for Philo, this ancestral philosophy was, above all, the study and practice of the Jewish law.135 _{Philo describes the Jewish laws themselves as}

“philosophical” (Mos. 2:36), and argues that “whatever benefits are derived from the most esteemed philosophy for its students are derived for the Jews through their laws and customs / ὅπερ γὰρ ἐκ φιλοσοφίας τῆς δοκιμωτάτης περιγίνεται τοῖς ὁμιληταῖς αὐτῆς, τοῦτο διὰ νόμων καὶ ἐθῶν Ἰουδαίοις” (Virt. 65). We have seen that the philosophical study of the laws requires proper interpretation through allegorical exegesis that the literal text might reveal its true teaching and lead, ultimately, to the acquisition of virtue. This goal of the study of Jewish philosophy is no different than that of Greek philosophy. Yet, the Jewish laws serve as the best possible teachers, as they were set down by the greatest student, teacher, and philosopher in history, Moses (Mos. 2:2), who understood that the study of philosophy must begin with the contemplation of nature and be in line with order of the universe (Mos. 2:211). The exact relationship between the law of Moses and the universal law of nature and the connection to Jewish paideia will be discussed

134 _{For more on the study of philosophy on the Sabbath, cf. Mos. 2:211-212; Dec. 98-101; Spec. 2:62-64; Hyp.7:10-} 14; and Opif. 128.

122

below, but it is important to point out now that both philosophy—whether foreign or native—and the laws of Moses could serve as paideia in the law of nature.

Philosophy as Another Step on the Upward Ascent

Philo makes it clear time and again that the study of philosophy is necessarily subsequent to encyclical paideia and that to approach philosophy prior to completing the preliminary studies is dangerous and ill-advised. But, philosophy is not the end; it is another means to an end, another step towards the attainment of loftier goals. It would be wrong, therefore, to see in Philo’s

thought a too elevated veneration of philosophy, even Jewish philosophy. Philosophy, in the end, is another tool, an excellent tool, but a tool nonetheless, which is utilized towards greater

objectives. Philo makes this perfectly clear: “Just as the encyclia contribute to one’s ascension to philosophy, so philosophy contributes to the acquisition of wisdom. . . . Therefore, just as

encyclical scholarship is the handmaid of philosophy, so philosophy is the handmaid of wisdom (γένοιτ᾽ ἂν οὖν ὥσπερ ἡ ἐγκύκλιος μουσικὴ φιλοσοφίας, οὕτω καὶ φιλοσοφία δούλη σοφίας)” (Cong. 79).136

Philo described the encyclia as a road which leads to virtue, but he also describes philosophy as the road to virtue, though a better road, a “royal road” (Post. 101-102).

Philosophy, also like the preliminary studies, is crucial for the ascent of the nous, out of the body and back to heaven (Spec. 2:230). And the study of philosophy is “that which man, though

136 _{It is not uncommon to find scholars who argue that Philo is here subordinating Greek philosophy to Jewish law,} an idea based on the deeply problematic notion that the identification between Jewish law and wisdom was ubiquitous at this time. See, e.g., Wolfson, Philo, 1:149-150; or M. Pohlenz, Kleine Schriften (2 vols.; Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1965), 1:324-330. Dillon, though unfortunately maintaining the assumed identity between wisdom and law, nuances the argument and arrives at a concept perhaps more in line with Philo’s thought. Seeing that Philo’s subordination of philosophy to wisdom is completely in accord with Stoic thought, Winston argues, “Far from subordinating philosophy to Scripture, Philo is rather identifying the summit of philosophical achievement with the Mosaic Law” (“Response” to Thomas Conley’s “‘General Education’ in Philo,” 19).

123

mortal, is made immortal” (Opif. 77). Philosophy is preliminary and preparatory like the

encyclical studies, but, unlike the encyclia, it is a lifelong pursuit, not a source of simple lessons, which, upon grasping, can be discarded. The knowledge gained through the study of philosophy connects to the soul rather than the body, the noetic rather than the sense-perceptible. Philosophy thus poses no danger to those infatuated with it.