PDF

THE KING, THE ARCHITECT, THE CRAFTSMAN: A PHILOSOPHICAL IMAGE IN PHILO OF
ALEXANDRIA
Author(s): DAVID T. RUNIA
Source: Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement, No. 78, ANCIENT
APPROACHES TO PLATO'S "TIMAEUS" (2003), pp. 89-106
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43767934
Accessed: 31-01-2017 01:42 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Institute of
Classical Studies. Supplement
This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE KING, THE ARCHITECT, THE CRAFTSMAN:
A PHILOSOPHICAL IMAGE IN PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA
DAVID T. RUNIA
1. Alexandria
My paper commences not with our protagonist, Philo, but rather with the famous city wh
he spent virtually his entire life, Alexandria ad Aegyptum. The city, as we all know, w
famous for its location and urban plan, which went back to its foundation. The city m
found in many modern accounts hardly do the site and the plan justice.1 A better idea can
gained from the reconstruction made recently by the French scholar J.-C. Golvin, in w
the city is represented as it would have appeared from the air to an observer at the height
a modern aeroplane ( a view, of course, which no one in antiquity ever had).2 Built on a
strip of land no more than 4 km in width between the Mediterranean on the one side and
Mareotis on the other, the city plan is like a stretched-out oblong. One can easily see wh
was compared in the ancient world with a Macedonian military cloak, the %ka 1lii3ç, laid
on the ground.
There are two differing traditions on how the city came to receive this plan. The firs
find, for example, in the historian Arrian, who describes its foundation in the year 331
as follows {An. 3.1.4-5):
From Memphis Alexander sailed down the river again... And when he had reach
Canobus and had sailed around Lake Mareotis, he finally came ashore at the spot wher
Alexandria, the city which bears his name, now stands. He was at once struck by th
excellence of the site, and was convinced that if a city were built upon it, it would
prosper. Such was his enthusiasm that he could not wait to begin the work; he himse
indicated the main features of the city - where the agora should be constructed, and h
many temples there should be, and of which gods, those of the Greek gods and of
Egyptian Isis - and what the course of the city wall should be. And he made sacrifice f
the furtherance of these projects, and the omens appeared good.
In this account both the decision to found the city and the major details of its plan
performed by Alexander the Great.
1 See for example the maps in C. Haas, Alexandria in late antiquity (Baltimore 1997) 2, Der Neue Pauly, 1
(Stuttgart-Weimar 1996-) vol. 1 463.
2 Illustration in the catalogue of the exhibition on Alexandria at the Musée du Petit Palais in 1998, La
d'Alexandrie , Les expositions de l'œil (Paris 1998) 62-63.
Ancient approaches to Plato's 'Timaeus'

89
90 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS
A second tradition differs somewhat. We find it briefly allu

architecture of Vitruvius. In the preface to book II he self
with the distinguished architect Dinocrates of Rhodes
exceedingly ambitious, Dinocrates attracted the attention of t
tribunal clad in a lion skin and armed with a club. Alexander fe
what he wanted. Dinocrates presented a far-fetched plan fo
city. Alexander approved of the planning, but not of the si
by arable land. But he allowed Dinocrates to join his retinu
the latter gained his chance for glory. I quote the text in V
From that time Dinocrates did not leave the king and follow
Alexander observed a naturally safe harbour, an outstandin
throughout Egypt, and the great advantages of the vast r
establish a city with his name, Alexandria.
In this text (and several others like it) it is still Alexander

the site and decides to found the city, but it is the architect
the details of the city plan.
In the course of this paper it will emerge that these details
have more relevance to interpretation of the Timaeus of Pla
first we must turn to one of the more famous inhabitants of
names of Philo of Alexandria and Philo the Jew.
2. Philo of Alexandria
There can be no doubt that Philo lived in an interesting time. The dates we have for his birth
and death, 15 BCE and 50 CE, are no more than approximate because accurate biographical
details are very scanty.3 His life overlaps on both sides the life of Jesus Christ, and he is a
slightly older contemporary of the Roman statesman and amateur philosopher Seneca. On the
Greek side there are no well-known philosophers with extant works who are contemporary
with Philo. This is a fact of some significance. It is apparent from Philo's writings that he had
a very extensive knowledge of Greek philosophy and the liberal arts. He belonged to an
extremely wealthy and well-connected Jewish family in Alexandria. Presumably his wealth
allowed him to obtain an excellent training in the intellectual atmosphere of the metropolis.
As a result his writings, and especially the so-called philosophical treatises, have been used
for centuries as a rich quarry of material on Hellenistic and early Imperial philosophy. One
only has to look at the contents of standard collections of texts, such as those of Von Arnim,
Long and Sedley, and to a lesser extent Dörrie/B altes, to see how valuable his evidence is.4
3 For a brief introductory account to Philo and his world see my 'Philo, Jew and Alexandrian', in D. T. Runia, Exegesis
and philosophy : Studies on Philo of Alexandria, Variorum Collected Studies Series (London 1990), article I. More
extensive accounts in P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: an exegete for his time , NTSupp 86 (Leiden 1997), and, with
particular regard for his Alexandrian context, D. I. Sly, Philo's Alexandria (London 1995).
4 J. von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta (4 vols, Stuttgart 1905-24) vol.4 205-07; A. A. Long and D. Sedley,
The Hellenistic philosophers (2 vols., Cambridge 1987) vol.1 497; M. Baltes, Der Platonismus in der Antike: Index
zu Band 1-4 (Stuttgart 1997) 136.
DAVID T. RUNIA: A PHILOSOPHICAL IMAGE IN PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA 9 1
This does not mean, however, that Philo himself was a philosopher in our sense
It is plain from his writings that his primary loyalty was to his own people an
the dreadful pogrom of 38 CE - often compared to the Kristallnacht of 1938 -
clear, the situation of the Jews in Alexandria, sandwiched in between the Gree
and the native Egyptian populace, by this time was full of peril. Philo contrib
people's struggle by trying to show that Judaism was an admirable religion, o
in the broader ancient sense of the word, that the lawgiver Moses was the sour
wisdom, provided that one read his writings in the right way. Although man
allegorical convolutions seem utterly far-fetched to us today, there is evidence
of defence of ancestral Jewish wisdom, focusing on Moses, was found attra
contemporaries. One thinks of the author of On the sublime , who in a well-known
Moses for the way he worthily describes the power of the divinity in Genesis.5
In my opinion Philo should not be regarded as a philosopher in anything like
the term. As is quite evident from his writings, he is in the first instance an
scripture. But when he explains Moses, he is certainly influenced by and makes
of his extensive knowledge of philosophy. In so doing he furnishes us with valu
into important philosophical developments of his time. This is most certainly t
passage on which I will be concentrating in this paper.
3. Philo 's treatise On the creation of the cosmos
At the beginning of every text and translation of the works of Philo stands h
opificio mundi , or in the exact wording of its Greek title, On the making of
according to Moses. The work undertakes to give an exposition of the seven day
of the Mosaic cosmogony in Genesis 1 , together with a brief treatment of it
second creation of humankind and the events in paradise in Genesis 2 and 3. The f
work extends to the expulsion from paradise is not without significance. At th
Philo briefly states his view on the relation between law and cosmos:6
The beginning is ... quite marvellous. It contains an account of the making of t

the reasoning for this being that the cosmos is in harmony with the law and th
the cosmos, and the man who observes the law is at once a citizen of the co
directing his actions in relation to the rational purpose of nature, in accor
which the entire cosmos also is administered.
The cosmogony needs to be explained as a prelude to the far more extensive Exposition of
the Law which follows in 1 1 succeeding treatises (two of which have been lost).7 This means,
in fact, that the order of the treatises in almost all our editions and translations of Philo (in
which the De opificio mundi is followed by the treatises of the Allegorical Commentary) is
wrong, but this is an issue on which there is no need to dwell in the present context. The
reason I mention the more general purpose of the work is because we can legitimately draw
5 Ps.Longinus, De sublimitate 9.9.

6 Translations of Opif. are my own, as published in Philo On the creation of the cosmos according to Moses , Philo
of Alexandria Commentary Series 1 (Leiden etc. 2001).
7 On the place of Opif. in the Philonic corpus see Philo On the creation of the cosmos 1-4.
a first parallel here with the Timaeus. Just as in Plato's dialogue

as originally planned) philosophy of nature is in the fin
anthropology and ethics, as the climax in 89-92 makes quite
treatise is ultimately to guide the reader in how he or she sho
Law, a life of excellence and devotion to God. We note, however
section is clearly couched in terms that are more Stoic than P
This central Philonic treatise and its relation to the Timaeus
the heart of my dissertation, which I completed nearly two
returned to the subject when I undertook to write a commentar
the first volume in the new Philo of Alexandria Commentary
Greg Sterling of Notre Dame University. My argument in the p
on the research carried out for these two books.
4. Interpretation of De opificio mundi 15-24
(a) context
The passage upon I wish to concentrate is the first part of Philo's exposition of the first day
of creation as described in Genesis 1:1-5. It reads as follows:
(§15) To each of the days he assigned some of the parts of the universe, making an
exception for the first, which he himself does not actually call first, in case it be counted
together with the others. Instead he gives it the accurate name 'one', because he perceived
the nature and the appellation of the unit in it, and so gave it that title.
We must now state as many as we can of the things that are contained in it, since it is
impossible to state them all. It contains as pre-eminent item the intelligible cosmos, as the
account concerning it (day one) reveals. (§16) For God, because he is God, understood
in advance that a beautiful copy would not come into existence apart from a beautiful
model, and that none of the objects of sense-perception would be without fault, unless it
was modelled on the archetypal and intelligible idea. Therefore, when he had decided to
construct this visible cosmos, he first marked out the intelligible cosmos, so that he could
use it as an incorporeal and most god-like paradigm and so produce the corporeal cosmos,
a younger likeness of an older model, which would contain as many sense-perceptible
kinds as there were intelligible kinds in that other one.
(§17) To state or think that the cosmos composed of the ideas exists in some place is
not permissible. How it has been constituted we will understand if we pay careful
attention to an image drawn from our own world. When a city is founded, in accordance
with the high ambition of a king or a ruler who has laid claim to supreme power and,
outstanding in his conception, adds further adornment to his good fortune, it may happen
that a trained architect comes forward. Having observed both the favourable climate and
location of the site, he first designs within himself a plan of virtually all the parts of the
city that is to be completed - temples, gymnasia, public offices, market-places, harbours,
8 As brilliantly argued recently by C. Steel, 'The moral purpose of the human body: a reading of Timaeus 69-72',
Phronesis 46 (2001) 105-128.
9 Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato , Philosophia Antiqua 44 (Leiden 19862).
10 Philo On the creation of the cosmos, above n.6.
DAVID T. RUNIA: A PHILOSOPHICAL IMAGE IN PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA 93
shipyards, streets, constructions of walls, the establishment of other buildings

and public. (§18) Then, taking up the imprints of each object in his own soul
he carries around the intelligible city as an image in his head. Summon
representations by means of his innate power of memory and engraving th
even more distinctly (on his mind), he begins, as a good builder, to construct t
of stones and timber, looking at the model and ensuring that the corpore
correspond to each of the incorporeal ideas. (§19) The conception we have
God must be similar to this, namely that when he had decided to found the g
city, he first conceived its outlines. Out of these he composed the intelligib
which served him as a model when he completed the sense-perceptible cosm
(§20) Just as the city that was marked out beforehand in the architect had
outside, but had been engraved in the soul of the craftsman, in the same way
composed of the ideas would have no other place than the divine Logos who
(ideas) their ordered disposition. After all, what other place would there b
powers, sufficient to receive and contain, I do not speak about all of them, b
single one in its unmixed state?
(§21) Among these is also his cosmos-producing power, which has as its s
which is truly good. For if anyone should wish to examine the reason why this
constructed, I think he would not miss the mark if he affirmed, what one of t
also said, that the Father and Maker was good. For this reason he did not begru
of his own excellent nature to a material which did not possess any beauty of i
was able to become all things. (§22) Of itself it was unordered, devoid of qual
life, dissimilar, full of inconsistency and maladjustment and disharmony; bu
a turning and change to the opposite and most excellent state, order, quality, e
similarity, homogeneity, sound adjustment, harmony, indeed all the char
possessed by the superior idea. (§23) With no one to assist him - indeed wh
there? - but relying solely on his own resources, God recognized that he had to
unstinting riches of his beneficence on the nature which of itself without divine
not sustain any good whatsoever. But he does not confer his blessings in propor
size of his own powers of beneficence - for these are indeed without limit an
great - but rather in proportion to the capacities of those who receive them. The
what comes into existence is unable to accommodate those benefits to the extent that God
is able to confer them, since God's powers are overwhelming, whereas the recipient is too
weak to sustain the size of them and would collapse, were it not that he measured them
accordingly, dispensing with fine tuning to each thing its allotted portion.
(§24) If you would wish to use a formulation that has been stripped down to essentials,
you might say that the intelligible cosmos is nothing else than the Logos of God as he is
actually engaged in making the cosmos. For the intelligible city too is nothing else than the
reasoning of the architect as he is actually engaged in the planning of the foundation of the
city.
It is apparent that, when tackling the biblical text, Philo first has to explain what Moses
intends with his scheme of six days (excluding the seventh day, on which God rests). The
number, he claims, is intended not to indicate that God needs a length of time in order to
complete his work, but as a symbol of order. For a number of reasons six is the number most
suited to creation. Mutatis mutandis we are reminded here

whether Plato meant his account in the Timaeus literally o
to, though not identical with, the one first suggested in the
affirmed that the cosmos had been created 'for the purpose
(b) 'day one'

When the passage under consideration starts, the reader is immediately in for a surprise.
There is apparently something out of the ordinary about the first day. Moses in fact does not
call it such, but rather 'day one', using the cardinal rather than the ordinal number (the
Septuaginta translates the Hebrew original literally at this point). It is a fundamental
hermeneutical assumption on Philo' s part that Moses writes nothing unusual without there
being a good reason for it. So a reason must be sought for the 'exceptional' or 'separate'
status (depending on how one translates éÇaípeTOç) of this day. The reason is that it
describes not the creation of the physical world accessible to our senses, as the casual reader
might suspect, but the intelligible world that can only be thought by the mind.
It is worth pointing out that Philo in §15 is appropriating a piece of Pythagorean
arithmological lore. In his exposition of the first ten numbers Theon of Smyrna links the
monad with 'all that is noetic and ungenerated and the nature of the ideas and God and mind
and the beautiful and the good and each of the noetic substances'.12 But Theon does not use
the expression introduced by Philo, namely the term vor|TÒç Kooļuog.
(c) the noetic cosmos

Philo is the first extant author to use the term vor|TÒç kóo|lioç, which after him became so
important in the history of philosophy that Ritter' s famous dictionary of philosophical terms,
Historische Wörterbuch der Philosophie , has a separate lemma for it (under its Latin equiva-
lent, mundus intelligibilis ).13 Undoubtedly it was not Philo's invention, for the term appeared
to be hanging in the air waiting for someone to pluck it down.14 To start with, there are
important antecedents in Plato himself. Apart from the vorļiov (coov m the Timaeus , to which
we shall return, there is the mention of the vor|TÒç tótcoç in the image of the sun in Republic
508c 1. This could be connected by creative Platonists with the imepoupávioç totîoç of the
Phaedrus myth, where reside xà eÇa) toû oùpavoû (Phdr. 247c 1-2). Two other texts
approximately contemporary with Philo can also be mentioned. In Timaeus Locrus, often
dated just a little earlier than Philo, we read (§30) that the cosmos was created with reference
to (Tipóç) an ever-lasting model, the iôaviKÒç kóojuoç. Two examples of the actual term
vorwog KÓ01U0Ç are found in the Placita of Aëtius, probably to be dated to a few decades after
Philo (which means the term is older, since doxographers do not aim at novelty in their
terminology). In fact, to judge by the evidence in the texts we have at our disposal, the term
is actually rather less common in the period before Plotinus than one might think when reading
11 As reported by Aristotle in De Cáelo 1.10, 279b32-280al 1 ; see Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato,
above n.9, 44, 96.
12 Expos. 100.9.
13 Historische Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 5 (Darmstadt 1980) 235-240 (by W. Beierwaltes).
14 For what follows see D. T. Runia, 'A brief history of the term kosmos noétos from Plato to Plotinus', in J. J. Cleary
(ed.), Traditions of Platonism: Essays in honour of John Dillon (Aldershot etc. 1999) 151-172.
the scholarly literature. But Philo certainly uses it very prominently in the
discussion.
(d) the role of the noetic cosmos in creation

He thus has an obligation to his reader to explain what he means with the term used to
elucidate the contents of 'day one'. This occurs in §16. There is no difficulty in recognizing
that the philosophical framework invoked here by Philo draws on Plato's Timaeus and i
interpretative tradition. There are numerous clues, both in conceptuality and terminology, tha
point to this conclusion. Yet in other important respects we seem to have entered a different
world. Let us focus on a number of details, namely five.
(i) God, the protagonist of the Genesis creation account, has already earlier been
introduced as maker and father (§8), the same epithets as in Tim . 28c. Here the demiurgi
metaphor is unreservedly taken over with terms such as ôruuioupyfjoai and ¿TtepyaoriTa
(ii) The relation between the noetic cosmos and the visible cosmos is above all described
in terms of model and imitation or image. One thinks foremost, of course, of the variou
passages in Tim. 28-3 1 in which Plato describes the demiurge as looking to an intelligible
model and fashioning the cosmos out of the disorderly chaos confronting him. But the tex
actually closest to Philo is 48e-49a, where Plato explicitly speaks of a TiapáôeiyiLia and a
|ii|Lir)|Lia. The dialectical argument that there must be a correspondence between model an
copy is taken from 28a. Only use of a fair model can result in a fair product.
(iii) More intriguing is Philo' s use of the metaphor of mould or seal, by means of whic
marks can be made in a material like wax. The word ti37îoç can indicate both the mould an
what is marked out in a material like wax by means of a mould. When God is described as
'first marking out' (TipoeÇeTÚTiou) the intelligible world, he appears to refer to the latte
process, though nothing is said about the material. We shall return to this description when
we examine the extended image. The term áp^éiuTCOç, on the other hand, signifies the rol
of the idea as mould used to make many examples. We also find the term in Arius Didymu
description of the role of the ideas preserved by Eusebius (fr. 1 Diels). It is a Middle Platonis
development of hints strewn through the Timaeus , esp. the use of the verb à7î0Ti)TU0i3|iev0ç
at 39e7 and the description of the receptacle as éKjiayeîov.15
(iv) Philo is very deliberate in his use of temporal expressions. God twice does somethin
in advance (TrpoXaßcäv and TipoeÇeTÚTiou already mentioned earlier). Moreover the noeti
cosmos is an 'older model' of a 'younger likeness'. Trpeoßuxepov and vecoxepov are
precisely the terms used of world-soul and world-body in Tim. 34c. The conception and
language of the creational sequence is being adapted to the Mosaic presentation of the six
days, but instead of soul and body we have the noetic and the corporeal cosmos.
(v) Finally we note that Philo describes the contents of the noetic cosmos in the final line
of §16 in terms of yevr| vor|ia. These recall the generic animals that form the contents o
the VOT1TÒV C<î>ov that serves as the model in Plato (see esp. 31c6). But Philo may also b
thinking of the kinds of animals and plants that play a significant role in the remaining days
of creation. After all the biblical account also uses the term yevoç on a number of occasion
15 On this imagery and its use in Philo and the Platonist tradition see Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plat
above n.9, 163; T. M. Popa, 'Functions of the typos imagery in Philo of Alexandria', Ancient Philosophy 19 Speci
Issue: Representations of Philosophy in the Classical World (1999) 1-12.
in Genesis 1 with regard to the species of animals and plants.

Philo' s V0T1TÒÇ KÓ01U0Ç is a question to which we will be retu
(e) the contents of 'day one' according to Moses

At this point we should briefly indicate what the actual cont
according to the Mosaic text as read by Philo. He explains this
based on the first three verses of Genesis: heaven, earth, darkne
seven items in all. As Wolfson attempted to show, with a bit o
taken as the ideas of the four elements, soul or life, light and v
very little of this systematization comes to the fore in Philo
fanciful though Philo's interpretation of 'day one' might be, it
text (in addition, that is, to the unexpected expression 'day on
mention of heaven and earth on day one on the one hand and da
(Philo did not follow the view of modern exegetes and rega
introductory summary of the whole creational event). Moreover
rather curiously described in verse 2 as àópaxoç Kai aKaiaoK
adjectives is often used by Plato of the ideal realm, eg. at Tim.
(f) the location of the noetic cosmos?

From Philo's explanation in §16 it is clear enough what the ro
cosmos is. It serves as a model or blueprint for the visible cosm
This way of putting things might seem to make what is onto
subordinate to that which is ontologically of lower status. But
stand why Philo might wish to use this kind of formulation w
creation account.
Nevertheless Philo is not content to leave his explanation at that. The reader might be
inquisitive about this notion of the noetic cosmos. If it has been created by God - after all
that is what the biblical text says - where should we look for it? Speculations phrased in such
terms have to be nipped in the bud. The noetic cosmos is 'noplace', to use a transatlantic
expression. Philo's actual formulations are interesting. Firstly he says in §17 that it is 'in no
place' (ie. not év tótto) ti ví), and continues by undertaking to explain 'how it is constituted'.
This makes sense. If you cannot say where it is, then you have to ask a different question. But
at the end of the discussion in §20 he returns to the question by saying that 'it would have no
other place than the Logos'. In other words the question at issue really is the location of the
ideal cosmos, but one needs to be careful not to understand this physically. Doubtless Philo
has in mind Plato's famous depiction of the ideas as being outside the cosmos in the
Phaedrus , to which I have already referred earlier.
(g) the image 'drawn from our own world'

In order to explain how the noetic cosmos should be understood, Philo suggests that 'we pay
careful attention to an image drawn from our own world'. And this brings us to the passage
that is the main theme of my paper. I have called it an image because that is what Philo calls
it, an eÍKCÓv Tiç tgov 7tap' Tļļuīv. It is, however, a very extensive comparison, and one might
16 H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of religious philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam , 2 vols. (Cambridge,
Mass. 1947, 4th edn 1968) 306-307.
wish to compare it with other extended images, such as we find in the Ps

mundo and also, tantalizingly, in the fragments of Numenius. Another com
can make is with the image of the cave in Plato's Republic. The latter has ofte
more as an allegory than as an image, because Plato has gone to a lot of
many of the details (though apparently not all) correspond to the compar
between the shadow world of phenomenal existence and the higher realm
question arises as to whether we should read Philo' s image in the same w
extended allegory? It is possible, in my view, to read the image in two w
simple comparison with a single tertium comparationis , or as an extended
has been written as a kind of allegory explaining how Philo understands the
It will emerge from my interpretation that I favour the second alternative.
But first some words about the image itself. It seems to me a rather att
writing. It successfully captures the atmosphere of the Greek ideal of formal
initiated by Hippodamus of Miletus in the period of Greek colonization, b
much grander scale as part of the expansionist policies of the Hellenistic
Moreover, I am convinced that Philo is first and foremost thinking of the
his own city, the greatest of the seventy cities founded by Alexander.17 Th
we note, on rational planning. Layout and functionality are determined in
no question of allowing the city to grow organically, as in the case of a
developing in response to the contingencies of its situation and experien
highly revealing metaphor to use in a creationistic context.
Let us now first examine the basic features of the image. Most important is
the process of founding the city, three professions or functions are involved
of the king. It is his magnificence that supplies the conditions which make th
of the city possible. We note that the king's motives are neither practic
political or economic ends) nor benefactory (eg. to benefit the citizens of the
motives are portrayed as internal to his own concerns, ie. to promote hi
ei)Tuxia, good fortune. The second profession is that of the architect. He is
trained man, a man of Tiaiôeía. His knowledge and skill in the area of plann
the city is well designed. The third profession is that of the craftsman , th
is his practical skill that allows the rational plan of the city to be properly ex
when the craftsman undertakes his task that the concrete aspects of material
play, ie. the use of building materials such as timber and stone. Needless to
had to take such aspects into account during his planning. For this reason h
the lie of the land and its climate. His plan would not involve placing a ma
on top of a hill or a dockyard miles away from the harbour. But this is white
keeps his hands clean. At the most he might get muddy boots, or, in the Alex
sand in his shoes. The actual direct working of the materials, the hard labour
laying foundations, dredging and so on and so forth, that is the task of the c
So much for the three professions, regarded somewhat abstractly. But ho
to the persons in the actual image? The relation between the architect and
made clear enough. Philo combines them in the one person, but makes cl
17 I have argued this in an article, D. T. Runia, 'Polis and megalopolis: Philo and the foun
Mnemosyne 42 (1989) 398-412, reprinted as study III in Exegesis and philosophy, above n.3.
activities are quite distinct, that the task of planning precede

about the relation between the king and the architect? These
in the one person. The decision to found the city is not in
presumably taken by the king, though Philo does not say this
the decision to establish the city has been taken that the arch
80TIV oie (it may happen that) seem to have the deliberate i
the architect distinct. In his lofty eminence the king does not
and practical aspects of designing and building the city.
The relationship between king and architect recalls the t
Alexandria with which I started this paper. As I just men
formulating this image, Philo had the founding of his own ci
that the image here is closer to the account found in Vitr
Alexander selects the site and decides to found the city, but i
does the detailed planning and executes the work. In Philo'
even less involved than Alexander was. We might wonder w
the king from the decision to found the city in its par
involvement in its planning.
A brief word too about the metaphorics of the passage.
standing in the tradition of the Timaeus. The demiurgic m
The term ÔT11jioupyóç itself is present, but it describes th
Indeed, it would seem that the craftsman in Plato's Timaeu
puzzled commentators, especially in relation to the three class
a significant upgrade.18 He has become an architect, involve
than fashioning a pot or a vase. The comparison of the cosm
Timaeus , except in the imagery used to explain the trilocatio
- goes back to the Hellenistic period, or perhaps even furth
from the mocking comments of the Epicurean Velleius in
that it was commonly used to further develop the demiurgi
How could your Plato in his mind's eye have envisaged the
by which the world was constructed and built by God? What
tools, what levers, what machines? Which agents were at h
task? How could the elements air fire water earth obey a
architect?
As for the king, he too is far from being a novel figure. As

have here a Platonic 'Schlüsselwort', a key term going back t
epistles, and enthusiastically taken over by the Middle Platoni
overlook the contribution made by the Aristotelian tradit
emphasis of Aristotle's theology in Metaphysics A (notably
image of the Great King in the De mundo (6, 398al l-b7). W
this latter tradition there is no room for the conception of cr
18 On these developments see further Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeu

19 H. Dönie, 'Der König: ein platonisches Schlüsselwort, von Plotin mit neu
Philosophie 24 (1970) 217-35; reprinted in Platonica Minora , Studia et test
Attention should also be given to the description of the activity of the arch
Philo uses even more emphatically the imagery of seal or mould, but this time
to the mental process involved in the architect's planning. We can recognize the or
image in the epistemological passage in Theatetus 191c-192c. But it is now be
the formation of the ideal plan of the city in the architect's mind. From this
application to the cosmos, whereby the plan or blueprint is used as a kind of mo
physical matter, follows quite naturally. In §25 the noetic cosmos and the Logos
identified, but explicitly called the seal and the archetypal idea respectively.
earlier, Philo very clearly takes over the language of the Trapáôeiyiua and cíkg
Timaeus , and this is reinforced in §18 when the architect is said to 'look towards
But in the Timaeus the origin and composition of the model remain unexplained
adaptation the epistemological imagery of the Theatetus fills the breach.
(h) application of the image to the creation of the cosmos

It is now time to look at how the image is applied to the creation account in Genes
The passage falls into two parts. In the first, § 19, the general outline of the im
to the cosmos. What strikes one immediately is that now all three functions
attributed to God the creator. It is God who decides to found the city; it is God w
the noetic cosmos as rational design; it is God who executes the visible cosmos b
design as model for his activity. The differentiation of the three tasks and fun
present, but they have been brought together in the person of the creator God of
In the second part, §20, Philo works out further the comparison with the archit
formation of the plan or blueprint required for the city's establishment. The city
external existence - so it was not really a blueprint - but was located in the crafts
(Philo speaks here of his soul, but we may take that to be his rational soul, ie. his
mind is described as the divine Logos. We thus have an answer to the question of
of the intelligible cosmos posed in §17. It is located in the divine Logos and can
at least partially identified with it, as emerges in §24. We briefly note two details
Firstly the vor|TÒç kóojlioç is here called ò ćk tôv iôecòv kóoiuoç, which
reminiscent of the phrase ó iôaviKÒç kóojuoç which, as was noted earlier, is f
Timaeus Locrus 30. Secondly there is the phrase tòv tccûtoc 0iaKOOļjiļaavxa (l
one ordering these things') which qualifies the divine Logos. The phrase is unde
vague. Both the Loeb translation and John Dillon take this to refer to the form
cosmos,20 but I continue to resist this view, preferring to understand xaûxa as refe
ordering of the ideas in the vot]tòç kóojlioç itself. My chief argument is that
refrains from saying that the Logos creates the cosmos, preferring the view that
the instrument of creation. Moreover the ordering of the ideas in the design c
exactly to the designing activity of the architect as described in §17.
(i) general interpretation of the passage

How, then, should we interpret the entire passage, §17-20, containing both the i
application? I would argue that when we compare the two, we can see that th
20
F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and R. Marcus, Philo of Alexandria in ten volumes ( and two supplementary volumes),
Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge Mass. 1929-62) 1.17; J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists: a study ofPlatonism 80
B. C. to A.D. 220 (London 1977) 160.
1 00 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS
separate tendencies at work, which I have called separation and

When Philo is describing the process of creation, both in the ima
the act of creation, he is very careful to separate out the functions o
executor. But when these functions are distributed among the 'p
brought together again. This is already to a limited degree the cas
architect and the builder are combined in the one person. It is
application, where all three functions, as we saw, are attributed t
It may well be that this interpretation is met with some sceptici
is less complex if one takes its point only to refer to the parallel be
and God's Logos. Nevertheless I am convinced that the king's ro
ignored, especially if we recall the philosophical background of t
above. It is moreover reinforced by the background of the two t
foundation of Alexandria. And - what is more - it corresponds ra
feature of Philo's theology.
If the three functions were not coalesced together, we would hav
theology of two or three separate gods, such as we find in
Neopythagorean) authors Eudorus, Numenius and Alcinous. For Ph
unacceptable. Even if we should be careful in retrojecting mo
monotheism back to the Hellenistic Judaism of Philo's time,21 th
his conviction that God is one and that only he can be regarded as cr
in §23 when Philo says that there was no one else to help God in
Moreover in the conclusion of the argument in §24 the Logos is i
cosmos, but at the same time is directly linked with God in his cr
We remain, then, with the question why in the image the kin
separate. Is this just a matter of articulating functions in the process
is involved. Philo is eager to take over the Platonist conception of
not at the cost of separating God from the cosmos and denying h
His solution, as far as I can see, is to emphasize that the task of cr
exhaust either the fulness of God's being or the fulness of his thoug
though source of all being, he is unreachable in his essence, whic
role as creator. This is another reason why Logos, noetic cosmos a
tightly together in the formula in §24. Through the Logos God
himself. The Logos can even be regarded, in David Winston's ph
turned toward creation'.23 What is effectuated through the Log
himself, but what God is in his essence is more and other.
21 See for example the argument of P. Hayman, 'Monotheism - A misused word i

1-15.
22 It should be noted, however, that later on, in §72-75, secondary creators are introduced, involving a further debt
to Plato's Timaeus and the division of labour initiated in 41a-42e.
23 D. Winston, Logos and mystical theology in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinatti 1985) 49: The Philonic Logos is thus
not literally a second entity by the side of God acting on his behalf, nor is it an empty abstraction, but rather a vivid
and living hypostatization of an essential aspect of Deity, the face of God turned toward creation.' It should be noted,
however, that Philo is multivocal in his use of the term, and he quite often speaks of a logos or logoi who are definitely
not to be identified with God himself, but have the status of angels.
DAVID T. RUNI A: A PHILOSOPHICAL IMAGE IN PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA 1 0 1
If we recall the fact that Philo is explaining the first five verses of Genesis, we
his striking exegesis conveys the notion of divine transcendence in a radical w
existence of the ideal world, design of the entire cosmos, is a matter of genesi
special kind of genesis that occurs on 'day one'. In his excellent dissertation su
than a hundred years ago,24 Jacob Horovitz argued that the vor|TÒç kóojjoç w
Planwelt , not corresponding to the entire world of the Platonic ideas, and saw a
limited contents of the vor|TÒv Çôov in the Timaeus. This, I believe, is a mi
Philo is closer to Plotinus than to Plato. The noetic cosmos contains on the int
all that is required to create the world and all that is required to understand it
genesis of 'day one' is a way of expressing the contingency of the cosm
Platonizing framework. It was open to Philo to step outside that framework and p
the notion that God in his fulness of being could create more Koaļuoi, and tha
be different from the world in which we live. But this is not something he wish
fourth of the five chief Mosaic doctrines that he summarizes at the end of the tr
is the unicity of the cosmos. Within the context of an exegesis of Genesis 1 such
is quite gratuitous, and it has also not been prepared within the body of the treat
is rather revealing that Philo nevertheless chooses to place so much emphasis
(j) further themes

It would go too far to examine every aspect of the remainder of the passage in de
our purposes a few interesting points still remain.
(i) At the end of §20 Philo introduces the notion of divine powers in addition
Logos. It seems to be implied that even the noetic cosmos can be regarded as
powers, since it has just been described as present in the Logos. In a passage in the
specialibus legibus 1 .48, written not long after Opif. (if he wrote the treatises of
of the Law in sequence, which seems likely), Philo states that some thinkers (
means pagan philosophers, it seems) call God's powers the 'ideas' or 'forms'. E
however, Philo often argues that there are two main powers, the creative an
associated with the divine names ôeóç and KÚpioç respectively. When, therefore
divine name ôeóç in the biblical account, we must interpret that the divine cre
at work. Philo obliquely refers to this doctrine at the beginning of §21 .
(ii) The allusions to the Timaeus in §21-22 could, of course, not be clearer, ev
name is not explicitly mentioned. We have a kind of paraphrase of 29e-30a, co
the famous epithets used of the demiurge in 28c.25 Presumably Philo wants to ind
is well aware that he is interpreting Genesis in terms drawn from that dialogue a
pretative tradition. Plato is called 'one of the ancients', a description that is certai
a compliment, even if we should not forget that Moses is even more venerable.
of the motive for creation is not one that directly flows from the biblical text. The v
one asks it might seem to detract from the position of the pure contingency of th
24 J. Horovitz, Das platonische N0T|TÒv Zcòov und der philonische Kóo|lloç NoTļuoc; (diss. Marbur
25
For an analysis of the exact phrasing of Philo' s paraphrase in relation to the Platonic text see my 'The text of the
Platonic citations in Philo of Alexandria', in Studies in Plato and the Platonic tradition: Essays presented to John
Whittaker , ed. M. Joyal (Aldershot etc. 1997) 261-91, esp. 265.
which the Bible seems to imply. It must be said, however, that the
terms of unconditional divine grace is certainly not out of line wit
(iii) Finally I want to draw attention to the rather interesting t
here on the theme of measurement and mixture in the metaphys
he states that only God's Logos can contain his powers, or eve
unmixed state'. This statement anticipates and should be contras
§23, in which Philo argues that divine beneficence has to be conf
divine magnificence, but in accordance with the capacity of th
Elsewhere Philo calls the Logos the 'premeasurer', and this sam
be implied here.26 Both in relation to being and to knowledge d
measured out in order for it to be accepted by created reality,
Logos. One thinks of the later medieval adage quidquid recipitu
recipientis , which has strong Neoplatonic roots.
What is striking in Philo - and I drew attention to this in my
Hellenisticum two years ago -27 is that Philo here and elsewhe
overwhelming power of divine being and beneficence, which in
of the recipient if - counterfactually - it were received in an undi
Logos is to measure it out so that this collapse does not occur. In my
of an overdose of being. One thinks of the myth of poor Semeie
of the divine visitation. But I was unable to find good para
exploitation of this idea elsewhere. We note too the emphasis on
gifts, which might be seen as an early presentiment of the later
doctrine of divine infinity.28 Certainly Philo' s conception of the r
the divine Logos seems more dynamic than what we encounter
Platonism. One might compare Alcinous Didaskalikos 9.1, wher
described as juetpov in relation to matter, but there is no mention
this strong emphasis on divine dynamism in Philonic theology
Neoplatonism, or should we rather attribute it to the influence of
5. Philo and the philosophical tradition
By way of summary and conclusion I want to return to the ma

relate them to Philo's Greek and Jewish backgrounds. There can
an important witness to the development of Platonism in the fir
we saw, the concept of the vorwog kóojuoç is used in a clear and
first time. Moreover the text is full of references to the Timaeus and to doctrines and terms
that have clearly been developed on the basis of that dialogue. These doctrines and the
accompanying terminology have been extensively studied by scholars such as Pierre
26 Quaestiones in Genesim 1.4; see further Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, above n.9, 138.
27 Now published as 'Philo of Alexandria and the end of Hellenistic theology', in Traditions of theology: Studies in
Hellenistic theology, its background and aftermath, edd. A. Laks and D. Frede, Philosophia Antiqua 89 (Leiden 2002)
281-316, esp. 296-99.
28 See the brief discussion in Philo On the creation of the cosmos, above n.6, 146 with further references.
DAVID T. RUNI A: A PHILOSOPHICAL IMAGE IN PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA 1 03
Boyancé, Willy Theiler and John Dillon.29 Given Philo's location, it is tempting
Alexandrian background for these developments and to postulate a pre-Philonic co
tradition. Theiler spoke of the 'hellenized Timaeus ' and associated it with the f
Eudorus, but had to admit that this was done as a matter of convenience and not b
can really demonstrate that Philo's interpretations are indebted to that rather shadow
The difficulty from the methodological point of view is that Philo presents us w
one might call a 'double leap' in relation to the Timaeus itself. In the first place
developments in the understanding and interpretation of the dialogue which he sim
over; in the second place we have the adaptations that he introduces himself for the
of his exegesis of Jewish scripture. Disentangling these two stages is very difficu
For a first example we might examine the place of the ideas in relation to God the
There can be no doubt whatsoever that Plato's ideas have here been reinterpreted so t
are regarded as the 'thoughts of God', in contrast to the fully independent status tha
enjoy in the Timaeus. But, as we have noted, Philo does this in a particularly radic
correlating the formation of the ideal world with the creation of 'day one'. The drast
of this move can best be appreciated by relating it to the question of first princip
well known, the Middle Platonists showed in general a preference for the doctrine
ápxaí, God, the ideas and matter. In this scheme God thinks the ideas and the ide
object of God's thought, but they are not actually described as God's creation, for
would be difficult to regard them as one of the àpxaí. Philo, however, in an earli
of our treatise (§8) deliberately opts for a doctrine which appears to intro
principles,30 God and matter, and even goes so far as to say that God as active
superior to the idea of the Good, a deliberate statement that for a Platonist wo
unthinkable. There are in fact very few Middle Platonist texts that put forward a do
two principles in terms of God and matter (and not in terms of the One and the Dya
masterly survey Matthias Baltes could only name two texts, the Plato doxog
Diogenes Laertius and the report on Plato's doctrine in Aëtius.31 In the latter text,
the vor|TÒç KÓOJLAOÇ does appear to be described as God's eicyovov, which br
doctrine closer to what we find in Philo.32
Another example of the complex relation of our text to the Platonist backgroun
doctrine of the Logos which is so prominent in Philo's text. For Middle Platonis
standard doctrine to say that the ideas are located in God's nous, or in God as Nou
his Logos. John Dillon suspected that the Stoic doctrine of the Logos exerted some
in Middle Platonism, that is in its immanent form, equated with the world-soul, a
29 '
P. Boyancé, 'Etudes p
kaiserzeitlichen Piat
ismus ; Festgabe für
isierte Timaeus', in Ph
and R. G. Hamerton
30 The qualification i
certainly deny that m
^1
M. Baltes, Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus: einige grundlegende Axiome / Platonische Physik (im
antiken Verständnis) /, Der Piatonismus in der Antike 4 (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1996), Bausteine 1 10-22, esp. 1 19.
32 For a comparison of this doxographical text and Opif. 7-25 see 'Philo of Alexandria and the end of Hellenistic
Theology', above n. 27, esp. 282.
in Atticus.33 In our Philonic text, however, the Logos transcends

it is the location of the vor|TÒç kóojlioç as paradigm. Here too
Jewish background makes its presence felt. Not only can the pr
Genesis account be regarded as logoi (as we find in Philo' s pred
there are also strong indications that the divine Logos, equated
regarded as a divine hypostasis in Hellenistic Judaism.35 From t
view, however, Philo's conclusion in §24 that 'the intelligible cosm
Logos of God as He is actually engaged in making the cosmos' m
odd, and the oddity would not have been lessened by the analo
phrase with the logismos of the architect. The suggestion o
connection with the composition of the ideal paradigm wo
disapproval. It will be clear from these remarks that I cannot
Roberto Radice to claim a role for Philo in the development of t
of the ideas as the thoughts of God.36 Philo's position is o
independence from that tradition at the same time.
My final point in connection with Philo's relations to th
background goes in a different direction, and is admittedly specu
show how difficult it can be, in light of our lack of evidence fo
the exact nature of his borrowings and dependencies. In a magis
years before his untimely death, John Whittaker explored the M
of an important triad found in Proclus, namely the triad of goodn
The triad is developed in Neoplatonism, where it is explicitly rel
of the act of creation in Tim. 29e-30c, even though some force i
there. Whittaker endeavoured to trace the doctrine of this triad back to Middle Platonist
sources, and drew attention to texts in Galen, Clement and Irenaeus, where it is clearly
presupposed.38 He concluded as follows:39
Whatever its ultimate origin, it remains nonetheless the case that in the sources to which
we have access the triad Goodness-Power-Wisdom first comes to the fore in the 2nd
century of our era in the ambit of the interpretation of the Timaeus. Its appearance at this
33 The Middle Platonists, above n.20, 46, 252 and passim.
34 Fr. 4 = Eus. Praep. Evang. 13.12.3-4.

35
Cf. Winston, Logos and mystical theology , above n.23, 15-16.
36 R. Radice, 'Observations on the theory of the ideas as the thoughts of God in Philo of Alexandria', in Heirs of the
Septuagint. Philo, Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity: Festschrift for Earle Hilgert , edd. D. T. Runia, D. M.
Hay and D. Winston, Brown Judaic Studies 230 [= The Studia Philonica Annual 3 (1991)] (Atlanta 1991) 126-34.
37 J. Whittaker, 'Goodness power wisdom: a Middle Platonic triad', in , EO<ī>IHE MAIHTOPEE: «Chercheurs de
sagesse» Hommage à Jean Pépin, Collection des Études Augustiniennes: Série Antiquité 131 (Paris 1992) 179-94.
38 Galen, De usu partium 3.10, [of the demiurge] oîoç pèv éoTi tt)v oocpíav, oîoç ôè Tfļv ôúva^iv, cmoîoç ôè Tīļv
XPTļOT0Tr|Ta, followed by clear allusion to Tim. 29e; Clem. Alex. Strom. 5.1.6, ó yap toö Ttatpóę tûv ötaov Àóyoç
oí>x éoTiv ó TtpocpopiKÓç, oocpía ôè Kai xptiotótt|ç cpavepoúTáiri toû ùeoû ôi5va|uiç xe aú TtayKpocTfjç Kai tcò
ovil ůeía ...; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 4.38.3, Ttepi tòv úeòv ôúvafiiç òpoC Kai oocpía Kai âyaftÓTr|<; ôeÍKVuxai-
ôúvapiç pèv Ka' àyaúÓTT|<; év xâ> xà ^òérca) õvxa êkouoícdç KTÍÇeiv xe Kai Ttoieív, oocpía ôè év tcò cupula
Kai éfi|ieÀf1 Kai eÚKatáoKeua ra yeyovÓTa TtercoiiļKevai... Note that in two of these texts xpt1otótt|ç is used
instead of àyaúÓTTiç.
39 'Goodness Power Wisdom', above n.37, 190.
DAVID T. RUNI A: A PHILOSOPHICAL IMAGE IN PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA 1 05
date is no doubt in part a consequence of the random survival of texts and of o

dearth of Hellenistic philosophical literature. However, the absence of the tr
writings of Philo of Alexandria strongly suggests that in his day the triad
assumed the dominant role that it was destined to play in the later t
commentary upon the Timaeus of Plato.
The question I have at this point is the following. If Philo in our passage is d
commentary tradition on the Timaeus , as plausibly suggested by Theiler, shou
harder to see whether there are already traces of this triad present here too?
and God's power are explicitly connected in the opening sentence of §21, so
covered. But what about the third member of the triad, wisdom (ooqría) or
(yvôoiç)? The specific terms do not occur. But of course the immediat
discussion of the place of the vor|TÒç kóo|uoç in the divine Logos. So the thi
the triad is certainly implicitly present. We note that in the example from Cl
Whittaker, God's ooqría is explicitly identified with the Logos of the Father o
So I would suggest that the triad can be seen as lurking behind Philo' s formulat
of thought in our passage. Admittedly the Philonic doctrines of the Logos an
powers complicate the matter to a considerable extent, but that is just one m
of the 'double leap' that I mentioned earlier.
6. Philo and Jewish-Christian tradition
Finally I cannot resist just briefly mentioning the further history of our passage in the
Jewish-Christian tradition, in order to round off our account. As is well known, Philo 's
writings were preserved because they were considered useful in the context of Christian
exegesis and theology.40 The reception of two aspects of our passage should be mentioned.
Firstly, the radical exegesis that Philo gave of 'day one' of the Mosaic creation account did
not find much favour among later exegetes. The only one who takes it over without
reservation is Clement in Book 5 of the Stromateis (93-94). There are, however, exegeses
that show a structural resemblance to what we find in Philo, eg. Augustine's exegesis of Gen.
1:1, found for example in the Confessiones Book 12, where heaven is the spiritual world of
intelligible reality and earth the material world of our experience. Similar interpretations are
also found in earlier authors such as Theophilus of Alexandria and Ps. Justin (recently
plausibly identified by C. Riedweg with Marcellus of Ancyra).41
The image of the king and the architect fared better. References to the Logos as architect
are found in Origen, Didymus and Athanasius (all three, we note, from Alexandria).42 The
most interesting text, however, is found outside the Christian tradition, namely in the
40 This history is traced in my monograph, Philo in early Christian literature: a survey , Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum
ad Novum Testamentům HI 3 (Assen-Minneapolis 1993); see also Philo On the Creation of the Cosmos , above n.6,
passim.
41 Augustine Conf. 12.1, 9; Theophilus A ut. 2.13, Ps.Justin Coh. 30; C. Riedweg, Ps.-Justin (Markeil von Ankyra?)
Ad Graecos de vera religione (bisher «Cohortatio ad Graecos»). Einleitung und Kommentar , Schweizerische Beiträge
zur Altertumswissenschaft 25 (Basel 1994).
42 Philo On the creation of the cosmos , above n.6, 154.
Rabbinic exegetical compilation Genesis Rabbah. It concerns exeg

attributed to Rabbi Hoshai'a:43
The Torah declares: 'I was the working tool of the Holy One, b
practice, when a mortal king builds a palace, he builds it not with
the skill of an architect. The architect moreover does not build
employs plans and diagrams to know how to arrange the chamber
Thus God consulted the Torah and created the world, while the
beginning God created (1:1)', 'beginning' referring to the Torah.
We are surely reminded here of the image in Philo. There is the sam
and an architect, though in this case what is built is not a city bu
may well have a Jewish background. It converges with the Jewis
as the dwelling-place and even the plaything of the master of t
significant difference, however, lies in the treatment of the plan or
Rabbi explicitly denies that it has its location in the head or mind o
or diagram that is written down. The motivation is clear. The Ra
words 'in the beginning' to the Torah. Just like the vor|TÒç kóoil
as pre-existing before the creation of the cosmos, but there is thi
Torah is written down, consisting of the twenty-two letters of the H
tempting to conclude that in the Rabbi's text there is a specific p
philosophically influenced Hellenistic Judaism in general and Phi
opificio mundi in particular. But is the connection historically pl
from Caesarea. Not only was he a contemporary of Origen, but he
friendly relations with the Church Father.45 Origen was the perso
a complete collection of Philo's writings to Caesarea, as we know f
the Episcopal Library in that city. So there is every reason to sup
in his adaptation of the image of the king and the architect, was
Platonizing use of the image in Philo of Alexandria which has been
Queen 's College , University of Melbourne
43 Translation H. Freedman and M. Simon, Midrash Rabbah , 10 vols. (London 193
44 In his discussion of this text, E. E. Urbach, The sages, their concepts and beliefs
Cambridge Mass. 1987) 201, has noted that there is a later Midrashic text in which
Torah are called the 'workmen' of God, i.e. ôt||uioi>py<5i in the terminology of Ph
45 Philo in early Christian literature , above n.40, 14, 25 (with further references).

PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

THE KING, THE ARCHITECT, THE CRAFTSMAN: A PHILOSOPHICAL IMAGE IN PHILO OF

Ancient approaches to Plato's 'Timaeus'

A second tradition differs somewhat. We find it briefly allu

In this text (and several others like it) it is still Alexander

3. Philo 's treatise On the creation of the cosmos

The beginning is ... quite marvellous. It contains an account of the making of t

5 Ps.Longinus, De sublimitate 9.9.

a first parallel here with the Timaeus. Just as in Plato's dialogue

4. Interpretation of De opificio mundi 15-24

10 Philo On the creation of the cosmos, above n.6.

shipyards, streets, constructions of walls, the establishment of other buildings

suited to creation. Mutatis mutandis we are reminded here

(b) 'day one'

(c) the noetic cosmos

(d) the role of the noetic cosmos in creation

in Genesis 1 with regard to the species of animals and plants.

(e) the contents of 'day one' according to Moses

(f) the location of the noetic cosmos?

(g) the image 'drawn from our own world'

wish to compare it with other extended images, such as we find in the Ps

activities are quite distinct, that the task of planning precede

As for the king, he too is far from being a novel figure. As

18 On these developments see further Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeu

(h) application of the image to the creation of the cosmos

(i) general interpretation of the passage

separate tendencies at work, which I have called separation and

21 See for example the argument of P. Hayman, 'Monotheism - A misused word i

(j) further themes

5. Philo and the philosophical tradition

By way of summary and conclusion I want to return to the ma

in Atticus.33 In our Philonic text, however, the Logos transcends

33 The Middle Platonists, above n.20, 46, 252 and passim.

34 Fr. 4 = Eus. Praep. Evang. 13.12.3-4.

date is no doubt in part a consequence of the random survival of texts and of o

6. Philo and Jewish-Christian tradition

42 Philo On the creation of the cosmos , above n.6, 154.

Rabbinic exegetical compilation Genesis Rabbah. It concerns exeg

Queen 's College , University of Melbourne

43 Translation H. Freedman and M. Simon, Midrash Rabbah , 10 vols. (London 193

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi