Скачать книгу
an independent work. See Schürer, p. 851. 23 περὶ τῶν προκειμένων ἐν τῷ νόμω τοῖς μὲν ἀγαθοῖς ἄθλων, τοῖς δὲ πονηροῖς ἐπιτιμίων καὶ ἀρῶν, still extant and given by Mangey (incorrectly as two separate works) under the titles περὶ ἄθλων καὶ ἐπιτιμίων,
de præmiis et pœnis (II. 408–428), and περὶ ἀρῶν,
de execrationibus
(II. 429–437). The writing forms a sort of epilogue to the work upon the Mosaic legislation. Schürer, p. 854.
24 τὸ περὶ προνοίας,
De providentia. This work is extant only in an Armenian version, and is published with a Latin translation by Aucher, Vol. I. p. 1–121 (see above, note 3), and in Latin by Ritter (Vol. VIII.). Two Greek fragments, one of considerable extent, are preserved by Eusebius in his
Præparatio Evang. VII. 21, and VIII. 14. In the Armenian the work consists of two books, but the first is of doubtful genuineness, and Eusebius seems to have known only one, for both quotations in the
Præp. Evang. are from the present second book, and the work is cited in the singular, as also in the present passage, where τὸ is to be read instead of τὰ, though some mss. have the latter. The work (which is not found in Mangey’s ed.) is one of Philo’s separate works which does not fall under any of the three groups upon the Pentateuch. 25 περὶ ᾽Ιουδαίων, which is doubtless to be identified with the ἡ ὑπὲρ ᾽Ιουδαίων ἀπολογία, which is no longer extant, but which Eusebius mentions, and from which he quotes in his
Præp. Evang. VIII. 2. The fragment given by Eusebius is printed by Mangey in Vol. II. p. 632–634, and in Dähne’s opinion (
Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1883, p. 990) the two preceding fragments given by Mangey (p. 626 sqq.) also belong to this
Apology. The work entitled
de nobilitate
(Mangey, II. 437–444) possibly formed a part of the
Apology. This is Dähne’s opinion (see
ibid. p. 990, 1037), with whom Schürer agrees. The genuineness of the
Apology is generally admitted, though it has been disputed on insufficient grounds by Grätz (
Gesch. der Juden,
III. p. 680, third ed.), who is followed by Hilgenfeld (in the
Zeitschrift für wiss. Theologie, 1832, p. 275 sq. and in his
Ketzergesch. des Urchristenthums, p. 87 sq.). This too, like the preceding, was one of the separate works of Philo. See Schürer, p. 861 sq. 26 ὁ πολιτικός. Still extant, and given by Mangey (II. 41–79) under the title βίος πολιτικὸς ὅπερ ἐστὶ περὶ ᾽Ιωσήφ:
De Josepho.
Photius, Bib. Cod.
103, gives the title περὶ βίου πολιτικοῦ. This forms a part of the second division of the third great group upon the Pentateuch (see above, note 11), and follows directly the Life of Abraham, the Lives of Isaac and Jacob probably having fallen out (compare note 15, above). The work is intended to show how the wise man should conduct himself in affairs of state or political life. See Schürer, p. 849.
27 ὁ ᾽Αλέξανδρος ἢ περὶ τοῦ λόγου žχειν τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα,
De Alexandro et quod propriam rationem muta animalia habeant,
as the title is given by Jerome (
de vir. ill. c. 11). The work is extant only in Armenian, and is given by Aucher, I. p. 123–172, and in Latin by Ritter, Vol. VII. Two short Greek fragments are also found in the
Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes, according to Schürer. This book is also one of the separate works of Philo, and belongs to his later writings. See Schürer, p. 860 sqq.
28 ὁ περὶ τοῦ δοῦλον εἶναι π€ντα φαῦλον, ᾧ ἐξῆς ἐστιν ὁ περὶ τοῦ π€ντα σπουδαῖον ἐλεύθερον εἶναι. These two works formed originally the two halves of a single work, in which the subject was treated from its two sides,—the slavery of the wicked man and the freedom of the good man. The first half is lost; but the second half is extant, and is given by Mangey (II. 445–470). A long fragment of the extant second half is given also by Eusebius, in his
Præp. Evang. VIII. 12. The genuineness of the work has been disputed by some, but is defended with success by Lucius,
Der Essenismus,
p. 13–23, Strasburg, 1881 (Schürer, p. 85). 29 See the preceding chapter; and on the work, see note 2 on that chapter. 30 τῶν ἐν νόμῳ δὲ και προφήταις ᾽Εβραϊκῶν ὀνομ€των αἱ ἑρμηνεῖαι. The way in which Eusebius speaks of this work (τοῦ αὐτοῦ σπουδαῖ εἰναι λέγονται) shows that it lay before him as an anonymous work, which, however, was “said to be the result of Philo’s industry.” Jerome, too, in speaking of the same work (at the beginning of his own work,
De nominibus Hebraicis), says that, according to the testimony of Origen, it was the work of Philo. For Jerome, too, therefore, it was an anonymous work. This testimony of Origen cannot, according to Schürer, be found in his extant works, but in his
Comment. in Joann. II. 27 (ed. Lommatzsch, I. 50) he speaks of a work upon the same subject, the author of which he does not know. The book therefore in view of the existing state of the tradition in regard to it, is usually thought to be the work of some other writer than Philo. In its original form it is no longer extant (and in the absence of this original it is impossible to decide the question of authorship), though there exist a number of works upon the same subject which are probably based upon this lost original. Jerome, e.g., informs us that his
Liber de Nominibus Hebraicis (Migne, III. 771) is a revision of it. See Schürer, p. 865 sq.
31 “This report is very improbable, for a work full of hatred to the Romans and of derogatory references to the emperor Caligula could not have been read before the Roman Senate, especially when the author was a Jew” (Closs). It is in fact quite unlikely that Philo was in Rome during the reign of Claudius (see above, chap. 17, note 1). The report given here by Eusebius owes its origin perhaps to the imagination of some man who supposed that Philo was in Rome during the reign of Claudius (on the ground of the other tradition already referred to), and whose fancy led him to picture Philo as obtaining at that time his revenge upon the emperor Caligula in this dramatic way. It was not difficult to imagine that this bitterly sarcastic and vivid work might have been intended for public reading, and it was an attractive suggestion that the Senate might have constituted the audience.
32 See above, chap. 5, note 1.
33 Romans xv. 19.
34 See Acts xviii. 2, 18, 19 sqq.
Chapter XIX.—The Calamity which befell the Jews in Jerusalem on the Day of the Passover.
Table of Contents
1. While Claudius was still emperor, it happened that so great a tumult and disturbance took place in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, that thirty thousand of those Jews alone who were forcibly crowded together at the gate of the temple perished,1 being trampled under foot by one another. Thus the festival became a season of mourning for all the nation, and there was weeping in every house. These things are related literally2 by Josephus.
2. But Claudius appointed Agrippa,3 son of Agrippa, king of the Jews, having sent Felix4 as procurator of the whole country of Samaria and Galilee, and of the land called Perea.5 And after he had reigned thirteen years and eight months6
Скачать книгу
