Philo of Alexandria Blog

THE SEVENTH FESTIVAL
Decalogue 160:
(160) And also the day on which is offered the sheaf of corn, as an offering of gratitude for the fertility and productiveness of the plain, as exhibited in the fulness of the ears of corn. And the day of pentecost, which is numbered from this day by seven portions of seven days, in which it is the custom to offer up loaves, which are truly called the loaves of the first fruits, since, in fact, they are the first fruits of the productions and crops of eatable grain, which God has given to mankind, as the most tractable of all his creatures.

Spec. Leg 2,176ff:
The solemn assembly on the occasion of the festival of the sheaf having such great privileges, is the prelude to another festival of still greater importance; for from this day the fiftieth day is reckoned, making up the sacred number of seven sevens, with the addition of a unit as a seal to the whole; and this festival, being that of the first fruits of the corn, has derived its name of pentecost from the number of fifty, (pentēkostos). And on it it is the custom to offer up two leavened loaves made of wheat, as a first fruit of the best kind of food made of corn; either because, before the fruit of the year is converted to the use of man, the first produce of the new crop, the first gathered corn that appears is offered as a first fruit, in order that by an insignificant emblem the people may display their grateful disposition;
(177) We must disclose another reason. Its nature is wondrous and highly prized for numerous reasons including the fact that it consists of the most elemental and oldest of the things which are encased in substances, as the mathematicians tell us, the rightangled triangle. For its sides, which exist in lengths of three and four and five, combine to make up the sum twelve, the pattern of the zodiac cycle, the doubling of the most fecund number six which is the beginning of perfection since it is the sum of the same numbers of which it is also the product. To the second power, it seems, they produce fifty, through the addition of 3 x 3 and 4 x 4 and 5 x 5. The result is that it is necessary to say that to the same degree that fifty is better than twelve, the second power is better than the first power. (178) If the image of the lesser is the most beautiful sphere of those which are in heaven, the zodiac, then of what would the better, the number fifty, be a pattern than a completely better nature? This is not the occasion to speak about this. It is sufficient for the present that the difference has been noted so that a principal point is not considered to be subordinate.
(179)The feast which takes place on the basis of the number fifty has received the name “the feast of the first produce” since during the feast it is customary to offer two leavened loaves made from wheat as the first fruit of grain, the best food. It is named “the feast of the first produce” either because before the annual crop has proceeded to human use, the first produce of the new grain and the first fruit which has appeared are offered as first fruit. (180) For it is just and religiously correct that those who have received the greatest gift from God, the abundance of the most necessary as well as most beneficial and even the sweetest food, should not enjoy it or have any use of it at all before they offer the first fruits to the Supplier. They are giving him nothing since all things and possessions and gifts are his, but through a small symbol demonstrate a thankful and God-loving character to the one who needs no favors but showers continuous and ever-flowing favors. (181) Or else because the fruit of wheat is most especially the first and most excellent of all productions.

I found an older article by Donald A. Hagner on the vision of God in Philo and John, now available on the Internet. I mention it here, as some would like to read it, and it will be included in the next update of my Philo page.Donald A. Hagner, 'The Vision of God in Philo and John:A Comparative Study,' Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 14.2 (1971): 81-93.

Mentoring a study on 1 Cor 8-10, I had to review some studies dealing with these passages. In several of these, but not in all, Philo and his works are dealt with as part of the Jewish background to Paul's attitudes. A recent study, however, made me think a little about how we go on when we use Philo in this way, and how we teach our students to use Philo.

In the particular study I am here thinking about, Philo is dealt with as part of the "Background to Paul's attitudes to Idol food in Early Judaism." But Philo is dealt with primarily only on 5 pages, being characterized as "a Jew who fully assimilated Hellenistic culture and yet remained loyal enough to his Jewish heritage to risk his life in pleading the cause of Alexandrian Judaism before Gaius Caligula." I have my reservations about characterizing Philo as "a Jew who fully assimilated Hellenistic culture", but that depends upon how I/you define assimilation, and is not my issue here.

My main point here, however, is the fact that the author deals only with a few passages from Philo in this 'background' section; accordingly he provides a very limited view of Philo's views and attitudes concerning the issues focused in the letter of Paul. One gets the impression that the author, in fact, do not know Philo's works as well as he should. This impression of the authors lack of knowledge and use of Philo in the background section is confirmed in a disturbingly way when one proceeds and reads the main sections of this study. For Philo is never dealt with again in that study!

This raises some questions of methods both related to research procedures and presentation:
- when should we draw upon Philo as part of the Jewish background to a particular chosen topic?
- when Philo is not found worthy of further discussion in the main part of a study, why should there then be any need to focus on his views in a 'background' section? When he is not found relevant, why care about him?
- or is it sufficient reason to deal with him in an introductory section, only to demonstrate that he is not relevant? I would hardly think so.

The Society of Biblical Literatur regularly has a sale of some/many/most of their books, and in this spring sale there are also several Philo related books on sale. Unfortunately for those of you who are not members of SBL, you can just skip this post; but for the others, here are some books that ought to be on your book shelves (prices in dollars):Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos (Commentary on De Opificia) goes for 20,97
van der Horst, Philo's Flaccus (Commentary), 17,97
Borgen, An Exegete for His Time, 21,57
Studia Philonica XVIII(2006), 29,97
Studia Philonica XVI (2004), 29,37
Studia Philonica XVII (2005), 23,97

In addition, you would perhaps be interested in
Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors Vol. 1, 17,97
Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors Vol. 2, 17,97
Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors Vol. 3, 23,97
Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors Vol. 4, 29,97

They also have some special offers, only 7 (=seven) dols pr book:
Dillon & Winston, Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus sit immutabilis.
Grabbe, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation; The Hebrew Names in Philo.
Mendelson, Philo's Jewish Identity
The Studia Philonica Annual; Studies in Hellenistic Judaism
Vol. V, 1993
Vol. VI, 1994
Vol. VII, 1995
Vol. VIII, 1996
Vol. IX, 1997
Vol. X, 1998
Vol. XI, 1999
Vol. XII, 2000
Vol. XIII, 2001
Vol. XIV, 2002
Vol. XV, 2003
Orders must be placed by June 15, 2007.

I have earlier (cf. the arhcive) been writing on the Philo blog about the project at the University of Aarhus on "Jews, Christians as Pagens in Antiquity; Criticism and Apologetics".


I myself presented a paper on the subject Philo's relationship to the Temple in Jerusalem in an apologetic perspective at one of their seminars (Filons forhold til tempelet i Jerusalem i eit apologetisk perspektiv). This paper and several other interesting papers are now published in A. Klostergaard Petersen, J. Hyldal and K. Fuglseth (Eds.): Perspektiver på jødisk apologetik (Perspectives on Jewish Apologetics).

Parts of the books is printed in pdf-format.

The books have the following chapters (all in Danish, translated by me):
1. Anders Klostergaard Petersen: Jewish apologetics, the history of the scholarly debate and historical development
2. Anders Klostergaard Petersen: Apologetics in Aristeas
3. Anders Klostergaard Petersen: Artepanos - an early Jewish apologetic writer
4. Anders Klostergaard Petersen. The books of the Maccabeans in an apologetic perspective
5. Per Bilde: Philo as a polemic and apologetic writer
6. Jesper Hyldal: Between a new and an old culture
7. Henrik Tronier: Boundaries of apology
8. Anders Klostergaard Petersen: Philo as an apologetic writer, a reading of De migratione Abrahami
9. Kåre Fuglseth (op. cit.)
10. Per Bilde: Contra Apionem, a key to the authorship of Josephus?


In the same series you will also find (all in Danish):
René Falkenberg og Anders-Christian Jacobsen (Eds.): Perspektiver på Origenes’ Contra Celsum (Perspectives on Origenes' Contra Ceslum)
Aage Pilgaard (Eds.): Apologetik i Det Nye Testamente (Apologetics in the New Testament).
Jakob Engberg, Anders-Christian Jacobsen og Jörg Ulrich (Eds.): Til forsvar for kristendommen – Tidlige kristne apologeter. (Defending Christianity - early Christian Apogetics).

Just wanted to tell you all that I went to see Prof. em. Peder Borgen today while I am in Oslo in these days.

Peder is going to San Diego at the SBL-meeting this year to present a paper summing up all his Johannine research and commenting on those scholars who have been discussing with him the last 50 years or so. Really interesting article, and of course Philo plays an essential role.

There is a session at the SBL-conference where several senior scholars are going to present their Johannine studies in the previous century (!), and for each senior, there is a junior, or a younger professor to the comment on their paper. I have not yet decided for myself whether I am going to the meeting or not, but I might, because it seems like an interesting way of presenting their research and the scholarly debate connected to it.

Kåre