Footnotes to Nomenclature

* This piece of research was suggested by a conversation I had with David Winston in Washington in November 1993, when we were attending the Philo Seminar as part of the annual AAR/SBL meeting. David asked me whether Jerome was the first to call Philo 'Judaeus'. I said I thought this was correct, but could not say for certain. At almost the same time as this article will appear in print, David will withdraw from active teaching duties at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, where he has been Professor of Hellenistic and Jewish studies for nearly 30 years. By means of this article I would like to wish him a blessed and fruitful period of retirement.

1 See the remarks at SPhA 1 (1989) 6, and note the title of the final chapter, 'Prolégo-mènes à une étude de Philon'. .

2 Nikiprowetzky (1977) 12-49. .

3 The ending -wn indicates that it was originally a name derived from the adjec-tive (used as a noun) filoj, i.e. 'dear', in Dutch 'lieverd'; cf. Kühner-Blass (1890-1904) 1.1.476, 1,2.281, and compare Agaqwn (from agaqoj, = 'goodie'), Trufwn (from trufh, = 'sweetie' or 'softy'), and indeed Platwn (from platuj, = 'broad one'), Simwn ('flat-nosed one'). Another possibility, to which my colleague G. Mussies drew my attention is that it is a hypocoristic (shortened form) of a longer name such as Filodhmoj etc. .

4 Cf. the long list at Pape-Benseler (1911) 1630-31 and now the much longer list in Fraser-Matthews (1987) 472-473 (315 exx. covering only a small part of the Greek world). .

5 In the papyri, cf. Preisigke (1922) 465 (at least 30 exx.), Foraboschi (1967) 2.1.322 (at least 50 exx.); for the Zeno archive see Pestman et al. (1981) 436-7. .

6 Cf. Royse (1991) 11 n. 49, who refers to CIJ 1.xix and its indices. See further Mussies' analysis of Jewish personal names, (1994) 243ff., where Philo would fall in category c4 (Jewish Greek names with no Hebrew equivalent). In a private communication Mussies suggests to me that Philo's name might have had its origin in a theophoric name such as Theophilos or Philotheos. In Egypt, however, surprisingly few Jewish inscriptions and papyri have been found containing the name Philo; cf. CPJ 3.195, Horbury-Noy (1992) 2-3 (but many more indexed on p. 331 for Cyrenaica). .

7 Solin (1982) 2.740-742, 63 exx., largely based on the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum. .

8 See RE XIX 2 (1938) 2526 - XX (1941) 60, with additions at Supplbd. VIII (1956) 469, X (1965) 534. Shorter list at Kleine Pauly (Munich 1975) 4.770-777 (by various authors). See also the impressive list in Fabricius (1795) 4.750-754, 46 in all, but with various inaccu-racies, including a Philo Pythagoreus from Clement (who is of course a double for 'our' Philo). It may be sus-pected that the name declined in popularity in later antiquity: in the last two volumes of PLRE (Jones-Morris-Martindale), covering the years 395-641, only one Philo occurs. .

9 Royse (1991) 11-12, and esp. n. 49. .

10 If this is correct, it would contradict Royse's assertion in the note just cited that 'only modern scholars have actually assigned texts from another Philo to Philo of Alex-andria'. To complicate things further, C-W in their invaluable collection of ancient testimonia at 1.lxxxxvi assert wrongly that Clement had Philo of Byblos in mind. .

11 Doubtless suggested by Philo of Larissa. This character is a bother when one searches electronic data-bases. .

12 Runia (1993); see also further below in this volume, pp. 90-110. .

13 See Runia (1993) 348-356, and further below in this volume, pp. 111-122. .

14 For further details on the editions used etc. see below pp. 111-122. .

15 Van Rompay, the translator of this text, informs me that the Syriac probably translates Filwn, Ioudaioj tij. All discussions of texts preserved in Syriac in this article are based on collaboration with my esteemed colleague, for which I offer him once again my sincerest thanks. .

16 The work is unedited; information given by Wright (1871) 439b, 440a. .

17 List found in some mss. of an East-Syrian Psalm Commentary as well as in one branch of the ms. tradition of the Gannat Bussame (Garden of Delights), a commentary on the East-Syrian lectionary; see Vandenhoff (1899), Chabot (1906) 491-492, Reinink (1977) 125, n. 74. .

18 On the use of Philo in the Easter controversies see further Runia (1993) 231-234. .

19 List at ibid. 223. .

20 Or glossator; see further below n. 73. .

21 On this proverb see further Runia (1993) 4, 208, 313-314, 323. .

22 The three biographical accounts in Eusebius, Jerome and the Souda indicate this feature at greater length, because in each case a long list of Philo's works is given. .

23 On Philo in the Florilegia derived from Johannes see further Royse (1991) 26-27. .

24 On Josephus' reception in the Christian tradition see now the excellent survey in Schreckenberg (1991) 3-148. There are significant parallels with the process of Philonic reception. But he does not give a systematic analysis of (i) the relation to Philo, or (ii) the specific nomenclature used for Josephus. In the Syrian tradition there is an inter-esting, if wholly erroneous, connection made between the two by Bar-Hebraeus (13th cent.) in his Chronography (p. 49 Wallis Budge): 'And at that time Felix, the Eparch of Egypt, was sent, and he afflicted the Jews for seven years, and because of this ambassa-dors were sent to Gaius that they might break him, namely Josephus, the wise man, and Philo the Hebrew philosopher, who was from Alexandria.' 25 Cf. Malingrey (1961) 99ff. and passim, PGL s. vv., Görgemans (1989) 619-620.

26 See esp. C. Ap. 1.162ff., 2.168, and further Pilhofer (1990) 193-206.

27 Cf. TDNT 9.182-184, Mason (1991) 185f. (with further references).

28 As noted by Whittaker (1987) 115.

29 The question remains surprisingly unaddressed in Van den Hoek's excellent mono-graph on Clement's use of Philo, (1988). I intend to deal with this question in greater detail elsewhere. See further my remarks at (1993) 136, 147, 150.

30 HE 2.4.3: ote malista thn kata Platwna kai Puqagoran ezhlkwj agwghn.

31 In the note by Sabbah in Grillet-Sabbah-Festugière (1983) 166.

32 As argued at ibid. 116.

33 As concluded by Bidez-Hansen (1960) 458.

34 On this work, which was sighted as late as 1779, see Duckworth-Osborn (1985), esp. 74-77, where it is noted that Eusebius made use of Clement's material.

35 And so this may be evidence in favour of the view that Eusebius' story about the origins of the Alexandrian church and the Philonic monks there was derived from Clement, as I suggest at (1993) 7. Sozomen's description of the early monks is, however, taken entirely from Eusebius; cf. ibid. 229.

36 Resemblance of thought is explicitly stated by Jerome in De vir. ill. 11.7 (and taken over in Ps.Sophronius and the Souda) and it strong-ly implied at Ep. 70.3.3. Isidore of Pelusium too implies it at Ep. 3.81, as I observe at (1991) 315. Augustine, however, in his only mention of Philo at C. Faustum 12.39 emphasizes only the stylistic resemblance, and perhaps implicitly denies the similarity of thought (but he does emphasize Philo's learning).

37 Note also the 13th cent. text of Bar Hebraeus cited above in n. 24.

38 At (1993) 210 I note that this is the most negative text on Philo in the entire tradition.

39 See ibid. 269-270. The words 'and exegete', deleted in the Scher's translation, have been reinstated by Van Rompay.

40 See translation and comments on this text at Runia (1991) 310-312.

41 Arethas writes en logw autou tw eij thn kata Mwusea filosfian, where we might suspect that the last word is substituted for kosmopoiian in the title of Opif.

42 The only other figure in the list earlier than the 4th century is Origen. In passing we note that Philo is described as philosopher in the following Syriac text taken from the Anonymi auctoris Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens (translation at Chabot (1952) 100): Pilatus autem post tribulationes quae ei acciderunt, seipsum necavit, ut scrip-sit Philo philosophus. The text is later than our cut-off point, but doubtless contains earlier material (the information is clearly-and mistakenly-taken from Eusebius HE 2.7.1).

43 Text at C-W 1.cix. Johannes Damascenus in the Prologue to his famous Sacra Parallela calls Philo and Josephus logioi. The content of this work is primarily theological and philosophical, so presumably Johannes had these aspects of Philo's writings in mind when he wrote this passage.

44 On this author see below p. 20.

45 Three studies should be mentioned: Kuhn-Gutbrod (1965), Arazy (1977), Tomson (1986). All three examine three names, Ioudaioi, Israhl, Ebraioj. The first examines primarily Jewish (including Hellenistic-Jewish) and New Testament evidence, as does the third, which moreover attempts to apply sociological criteria to the subject. Only the second takes into account Greco-Roman and Patristic usage, but the analysis given in this unpublished work is rather primitive and parochial. It is remarkable that Feldman (1993) in his compendious work on Jew and Gentile does not touch on this issue at all. A full examination of Patristic usage of the two terms is thus very much a desideratum. On the use of ÑEbra›ow in non-Jewish writers see also Stern (1974-84) 2.160. Lemche's state-ment (1992) 95 that 'only in the Greco-Roman tradition did Greek Ebraios (sic) become the ordinary way of indicating Jews, and thereafter this tradition was taken over by the Christian church and became a general way of designing members of the Jewish people' is in this unnuanced form not correct. According to Kuhn-Gutbrod (1965) 372 it is rare in Greek literature, but this too is somewhat exaggerated. The truth lies somewhere in between.

46 Cf. Kuhn-Gutbrod (1965) 373-375, Arazy (1977) 1.141-158, Tomson (1986) 136-137. On the related (but for us not relevant) issue of the relation between two terms Ebraioj and Xaldaioj see Wong (1992).

47 Rightly observed by Tomson (1986) 137.

48 Note the reference to Jews (and Egyptians) practising circumcision at QG 3.48, which clearly has a contemporary reference.

49 Cf. King Agrippa's self-description at Legat. 278.

50 Tomson (1986) 138.

51 There are doubts about the text here, since the oldest ms. and Eusebius delete these words.

52 Tomson ibid.; cf. Kuhn-Gutbrod (1965) 374, who thinks it refers to the fact that he came from a Palestinian family. Cf. also Arazy (1977) 2.10-11, who is not impressed by Josephus' manœuvre.

53 Arazy (1977) 2.29.

54 Ibid. 2.30-31.

55 De Lange (1976) 31. See also his comment at 32: 'Origen has thus prepared the ground for Eusebius' complete repainting of the traditional picture of Jewish history, which finally redefines Hebraioi, so that it can stand in contrast to Ioudaioi.' It is unfortunate for our theme that Origen never gives Philo a title.

56 See further Runia (1993) 245.

57 See further ibid. 234.

58 Text at Petit (1991) 135.

59 Compare the use of Rabbinic material in Origen's exegesis, as sketched in De Lange (1976) 103-132. Kamesar (1993) 150 n.189 speaks of an 'exegetical tradition'.

60 As I argue at Runia (1993) 265.

61 Jerome wrote his De viris illustribus in 392-393; cf. Kelly (1975) 174. The mini-treatise 'Against the allegorists' of Theodore is most likely (but not wholly certainly) derived from his Commentary on the Psalms; cf. Van Rompay (1982) xlv-xlvii. We know from Theodore's own testimony that this work was his 'debut', written when he was scarcely twenty years of age. Even if allowance is made for some exaggeration, this indicates a date between 370 and 375; see further Vosté (1925) 70-72, Devreesse (1948) 28, Schaüblin (1974) 18-19.

62 The translation is dated to the last quarter of the 4th century by Petit (1977) 1.13. A difficulty is caused by the fact that this title only occurs in the 1527 edition of Sichardus based on the now lost ms. of Lorsch. We cannot be certain that it was not added by the editor himself, although this is unlikely. I would like to thank Mme. Caroline Carlier (Jerusalem) for drawing my attention to this text.

63 Examples in Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Barhadbsabba Arbaya, Anastasius the Sinaite, Ps.Sophronius, Photius, Arethas, the Souda.

64 Cf. Kuhn-Gutbrod (1965) 369-371, Tomson (1986) 136-140 (who emphasizes that it is the name used by Jews in communication with non-Jews, i.e. the outside title in contrast to the inner description Israel). Arazy (1977) passim over-emphasizes the negative conno-tations of Ioudaios, which leads him to see a more positive development in the 4th cent., when Julian sees the Jews as allies against the Christians.

65 And so can perhaps even be used of a pagan adherent to Judaism (but who is not a proselyte); cf. Van der Horst (1991) 68-71.

66 Exceptions are, I think, the two references to Philo as author of the Wisdom of Solo-mon in Cassiodorus and Isidore of Seville and the reference to Philo in Arethas, where the term does no more than indicate Philo's ethnic origin.

67 On this text see further Runia (1993) 264-269.

68 See further ibid. 269-270.

69 Further comments on these texts in ibid. 204-209 and Runia (1991).

70 As Zahn (1880) liv indicates, one cannot be absolutely certain that the author has our Philo in mind, because the incident is situated in Asia Minor.

71 See my monograph (1993), but I do not pursue the question systematically beyond 400. On Philo and heresy see also Runia (1992).

72 Cf. esp. Tomson (1986) passim.

73 Text at Aucher (1822) vii-xi. Above the text we read 'Outline of the translator or interpreter which precedes the books of Philo on Providence', but this may be simply the surmisal of Aucher the editor, as my colleague J. J. S. Weitenberg informs me. In this case it is also possible that the piece is of much later date. Terian (1981) 6 simply speaks of an 'anonymous scholion'.

74 According to Weitenberg the Armenian word hre\aj (= Jew) is not easily used as a title, whereas for the word ebrajecci there is no problem.

75 The account begins by stating that it is not certain from which tribe Philo came. Cf. Jerome's statement that Philo was de genere sacerdotum, which according to Schwartz (1984) is not likely to be legendary. The Armenians seem to have been interested in the fate of the Jewish captives. According to the History of the 8th cent. author Moses Khorenats'i one of the leading Armenian families descended from a Jewish captive at the court of Nebuchadnezzar; cf. Thomson (1978) 30.

76 See the discussion at Royse (1991) 14-25; at 17 n.12 he notes that C-W cite some quota-tions from Mos. 2 from the Catenae in Numeros, but he adds that their sources are of doubtful quality (at Mos. 1.220 C-W also cite a quote in the Catena in Psalmos).

77 So far she has reached Gen. 11 in two volumes, Petit (1992-93); her hypothesis on the author is presented at (1992) xiv.

78 A good impression of the complexity of the transmission can be gained by looking at the collection of lemmata from QG and QE published in Petit (1978). Because the published information is incomplete, I shall give no analysis of the vari-ations in the titles, except to say that the name alone is found mainly in the Leningrad codex.

79 Also collections of excerpts, but not to be confused with the Catenae; cf. Royse (1991) 26-58.

80 Cf. Petit (1991-93) nos. 237, 225.

81 Alan Mendelson suggests that Bishop might be used loosely for a eminent religious person, regardless of 'denominational' membership. Compare the way that in the 19th century one spoke of the 'Jewish Church'.

82 Cf. also the anonymous Armenian translator, who relates Philo to the members of the Alexandrian synagogue mentioned in Acts 6:9, and Barhadbsabba Arbaya, who names Philo as the director of the Alexandrian school.

83 On this biographical material see Schamps (1987) 460-469.

84 See above p. 5.

85 This is different in Italian, where it still occasionally occurs: cf. R-R nos. 6501, 6820.

86 It was still the preferred title of Goodenough, e.g. in the bibliography that he com-piled with Goodhart (1938). Perhaps if his Introduction to Philo Judaeus had first been written in 1962 rather than 1940 he might have chosen the alternative title. It seems that the title Philo the Jew is never used anymore (not a single example in R-R). For an example of a very deliberate use of the title 'Philo the Jew' in Modern Hebrew see the remark on Rav Hanazir's Qol Hanevoua at Neher (1986) 390 n. 6.

87 Apart from my colleagues Van Rompay and Weitenberg already mentioned in the notes, I would also like to thank Alan Mendelson (Hamilton, Canada), Gerard Mussies (Utrecht), James Royse (San Francisco), David Satran (Jerusalem), and Daniel Schwartz (Jerusalem) for their helpful comments on various draft versions.