Reading the Church Fathers discussion
Philo of Alexandria: On Moses
>
On the Life Of Moses I. : open discussion
date
newest »
newest »
Is Nobility Self-evident?Their father was at once struck with admiration of his face, and soon afterwards of his disposition, for great natures are transparent and need no length of time to be recognized. Accordingly, he gave him the fairest of his daughters in marriage, and, by that one action, attested all his noble qualities, and showed that excellence standing alone deserves our love, and needs no commendation from aught else, but carries within itself the tokens by which it is knownPhilo’s description of Moses seems to suggest that nobility of character is self-evident. However, I’m also reminded of Euripides’ Medea, which suggests otherwise.
O Zeus! why hast thou granted unto man clear signs to know the sham in gold, while on man's brow no brand is stamped whereby to gauge the villain's heart?
Nemo asked "Is Nobility Self-evident?" and quoted Philo, "'great natures are transparent and need no length of time to be recognized.'"The question asks us what we think. General question. Fair enough. So I can quote Emerson or Nietzsche. :-)
I would replace "seems to suggest" with "asserts" or even "asserts firmly".
Finally, to end this fussy post about details, I would want to be clear what it is that Philo asserts is self-evident.
My own impression is that Philo is asserting that "great natures are transparent" (emphasis added) not just nobility of character. Philo has described Moses' character, intellect, and physique as all being of superior excellence, and he describes Moses as a preeminently excellent human being. So I'm happier asking whether "great natures" -- fully developed, preeminently excellent human beings -- are self-evident. I welcome other terms to try to denote what exactly Philo claims is self-evident.
(By "fully developed" I am trying to include Philo's description of Moses' education, etc. Since Philo later says that Moses learned important stuff by being a shepherd, I do not mean by "fully developed" that Moses can't learn anything more or can't somehow grow.)
(I also tried to finesse the term "natures". I don't think Philo means "nature" as opposed to "nurture." I have proposed he means the whole package, the entire human being.)
So when I'm done tampering with the question it would be, "Are preeminently excellent adult human beings self-evident?"
A relevant passage might be Isaiah 53:1-2:Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
I am not saying this answers the question completely. I am saying it seems to me relevant.
Since the passage is usually taken to refer to Jesus, and since Jesus is the maximally excellent human being, this passage could be taken to answer the question negatively -- no, the preeminently adult human being is not self-evident.
Clark wrote: "The question asks us what we think. General question. Fair enough. So I can quote Emerson or Nietzsche. :-)..."Where are the quotes? :)
When I asked that question, I had in mind the opening scenes of the movie Amadeus, when Salieri went to meet Mozart for the first time, and wondered to himself, "Is talent like that written on the face?" Suffice to say, he was in for a shock.
Philo writes of "all his noble qualities" in the passage quoted above, and I tried to capture his meaning as succinctly as possible in "nobility of character", where character is defined as "the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person".
Clark wrote: "A relevant passage might be Isaiah 53:1-2:"I agree it is relevant, as Philo was a Jew and contemporary of Jesus. He might give us a clue as to how the majority of Jews of his time regarded Jesus.
Perhaps we should also ask the question: Self-evident to whom? Moses' nobility wasn't self-evident to the Egyptians.
Nemo said, "Where are the quotes? :)"You successfully called my bluff. Those two writers are ones whose views I dislike and I won't be quoting them.
This morning I am thinking of Milton's portrayal of Satan in Paradise Lost. Satan is strong, brave, and charismatic; but evil.
Nemo said, "... character is defined as "the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person".What you said made very good sense, but it seemed to me it didn't capture quite what Philo was saying. For one thing, Philo keeps mentioning that Moses' physical appearance, bearing, etc., impress people deeply. That's why I pushed to reframe the question somewhat.
I want to look at the Greek to see what the words are that are translated as "noble," "great," "excellences." Those words likely have informative connections with Greek ideas of excellence.
Nemo said, "It seems to me that Philo wrote about the lives of great Jewish legends for the same reason Plutarch wrote the lives of noble Greeks and Romans.I'm not comfortable with this statement. I'd be willing to say that certainly the two share some common aims, but not that they are writing for the same reason.
My predisposition is to say that Philo is working from what he believes to be revelation from God, transmitted to him via written and oral channels. There is that Jewish belief that revelation was passed on as both the written Torah and the unwritten. I would want to see whether or not Philo explicitly says anything about revelation, Scripture, etc. But it doesn't seem to me that Philo's relationship to Moses is the same as Plutarch's to, say, Alexander the Great.
Even if Philo doesn't mention revelation, I would say (subject to exploration of the text) that he is writing from outside, and Plutarch was writing from inside. That is, Philo is self-consciously Jewish, writing about Jewish figures, but his intended readership seems to be (from the sentences you quoted) the wider Roman educated public. Plutarch would have been writing about Roman and Greek figures to an audience for whom these were their own ancestral and cultural heros.
It is quite possible that my knowledge of Plutarch and his goals is incomplete and faulty.
Perhaps one or both of these points could turn into a question to be pursued in a separate topic.
Clark wrote: "..Philo keeps mentioning that Moses' physical appearance, bearing, etc., impress people deeply. ..."Yes, but it is superfluous to say that physical appearance is self-evident. I think Philo is making a point about Moses's qualities that are not self-evident to the senses.
Clark wrote: "Nemo said, "It seems to me that Philo wrote about the lives of great Jewish legends for the same reason Plutarch wrote the lives of noble Greeks and Romans.I'm not comfortable with this statement..."
I don't have any objection to what you wrote. My point was simply that both Plutarch and Philo wrote biographies of great men as a means of moral instruction.
Nemo said, " it is superfluous to say that physical appearance is self-evident."We differ. The simplest way I can say it is that I am unwilling to separate the physical from the other facets of Moses' presence to others. To me it's an indissoluble package. I think Philo thinks that way. We could examine the text if we don't find bigger fish to fry.
Nemo said, "My point was simply that both Plutarch and Philo wrote biographies of great men as a means of moral instruction."If you had originally said "It seems to me that a major reason Philo wrote about the lives of great Jewish legends is the same as Plutarch's in writing the lives of noble Greeks and Romans." then I wouldn't differ. But the absence of the qualifying phrases, makes a huge difference.
Clark wrote: "Nemo said, "My point was simply that both Plutarch and Philo wrote biographies of great men as a means of moral instruction."If you had originally said "It seems to me that a major reason Philo w..."
Yes, I know. But if I added the qualifiers in the beginning, you wouldn't have responded with a very helpful comment. :)
Clark wrote: "Nemo said, " it is superfluous to say that physical appearance is self-evident."We differ. The simplest way I can say it is that I am unwilling to separate the physical from the other facets of M..."
I'm not saying that the physical facets of Moses are separated from the others. I'm only saying that is not Philo's emphasis.
From my limited understanding of the Jewish culture as presented in the OT, the physical characteristics of the people and their lives are always linked with their moral and religious characteristics. Obedience to the divine law leads to wealth and prosperity and disobedience to poverty and calamities.
XV (85) (for it as not at all safe or free from danger to oppose the commands of God)I honestly didn't expect to laugh out loud while reading anything from the church fathers. All I could do was laugh, nod, and think "well, yeah.....".
I needed that ray of sunshine in what is fast becoming brain drain. (I have only begun reading these types of works again recently and the ol' brain isn't as sharp as she used to be.)
I do apologize if it's not serious enough to mention here. I just thought it was quite possibly the most understated thing I'd ever read and thought maybe someone else would get a kick out of it too.
Talea wrote: "XV (85) (for it as not at all safe or free from danger to oppose the commands of God)I honestly didn't expect to laugh out loud while reading anything from the church fathers. All I could do was ..."
It sounds almost British :-D (only they would have said 'not quite' instead of 'not at all')
It is a bit hard for me to get used to his style. It seems so very strange to me that he is saying so much about how absolutely perfect Moses was even as a child, and in all aspects. Whereas I always find it so valuable that the Bible is so honest about the imperfections and faults of people. Like for example I had always understood that Moses was very quick-tempered at first, and then later so reluctant to do what God said. And therefore it is encouraging that God still wanted to use him, and that over time he became such a friend of God.
I think that Philo bases his descriptions on various traditions, and that he truly thought that Moses was such a perfect child. But I find it hard to believe, and also discouraging, since it seems to attach so much value on how people start out, and not on their later growth.
Ruth wrote: "It is a bit hard for me to get used to his style. It seems so very strange to me that he is saying so much about how absolutely perfect Moses was even as a child, and in all aspects...."The Bible certainly doesn't depict Moses as perfect. I do wonder how much Philo relies on the Scripture and perhaps other sources not available to us, and how much is his own interpretation and literary license.
Given that the main purpose of Philo's writing is moral education, it is understandable that he depicts Moses as perfect, for Moses is the "reasonable and living impersonation of law", and the law must be perfect, although man isn't. On the other hand, it is discouraging, if not prohibitive, when we come to realize the gulf between our own condition and the standard of the law. ... (Hence the need for grace)..
Yes, moral education, as I just read him describing the things that are truly good to abound in (XXVII, 154)"Temperance, and fortitude, and continence, and presence of mind, and acuteness, and knowledge and industry, and patience under evil, and contempt of pleasure, and justice and exhortation to virtue and blame, and lawful punishment of offenders, and, on the contrary, praise and honor to those who did well in accordance with law."
Now I think here he is of course right, that these things are much better than material riches, especially since they are things that no one can take from you. They are much more stable, really, than material wealth or health. (personally I wouldn't add contempt of pleasure to the list though)
And indeed, thankfully there is such a thing as grace...
Talea wrote: "XV (85) (for it as not at all safe or free from danger to oppose the commands of God)I honestly didn't expect to laugh out loud while reading anything from the church fathers. All I could do was ..."
I read somewhere that Philo had no sense of humour whatsoever. Even if that is true, it doesn't mean we can’t get a good laugh out of his sayings. :)
Nemo said, "I do wonder how much Philo relies on the Scripture and perhaps other sources not available to us, and how much is his own interpretation and literary license."FWIW Philo himself says, "[I] shall proceed to narrate the events which befell him, having learnt them both from those sacred scriptures which he has left as marvellous memorials of his wisdom, and having also heard many things from the elders of my nation, for I have continually connected together what I have heard with what I have read, and in this way I look upon it that I am acquainted with the history of his life more accurately than other people."
Nemo says, "Given that the main purpose of Philo's writing is moral education, ..."It was from this that I dissented (message 9). The quotation in the first posting does not support the conclusion drawn from it.
Read the first several paragraphs of the work, before "I will begin first ..." I invite everyone to read it and comment. What does Philo in that passage say his purpose is?
I invite people to post other passages in which Philo himself says what his purpose is.
Ruth said, "But I find it ... discouraging, since it seems to attach so much value on how people start out, and not on their later growth."Below are some quotations I plucked from the first several chapters. To me they seem to talk at length about Moses' later growth.
"And when he had passed the boundaries of the age of infancy he began to exercise his intellect; not, as some people do, letting his youthful passions roam at large without restraint, although in him they had ten thousand incentives by reason of the abundant means for the gratification of them which royal places supply; but he behaved with temperance and fortitude, as though he had bound them with reins, and thus he restrained their onward impetuosity by force. And he tamed, and appeased, and brought under due command every one of the other passions which are naturally and as far as they are themselves concerned frantic, and violent, and unmanageable. And if any one of them at all excited itself and endeavoured to get free from restraint he administered severe punishment to it, reproving it with severity of language; and, in short, he repressed all the principal impulses and most violent affections of the soul, and kept guard over them as over a restive horse, fearing lest they might break all bounds and get beyond the power of reason which ought to be their guide to restrain them, and so throw everything everywhere into confusion."
"[H]e exhibited the doctrines of philosophy in all his daily actions, saying precisely what he thought, and performing such actions only as were consistent with his words, so as to exhibit a perfect harmony between his language and his life, so that as his words were such also was his life, and as his life was such likewise was his language, like people who are playing together in tune on a musical instrument."
"Moses was devoting himself to all the labours of virtue, having a teacher within himself, virtuous reason, by whom he had been trained to the most virtuous pursuits of life, and had learnt to apply himself to the contemplation and practice of virtue and to the continual study of the doctrines of philosophy, which he easily and thoroughly comprehended in his soul, and committed to memory in such a manner as never to forget them; and, moreover, moreover, he made all his own actions, which were intrinsically praiseworthy, to harmonise with them, desiring not to seem wise and good, but in truth and reality to be so, because he made the right reason of nature his only aim; which is, in fact, the only first principle and fountain of all the virtues."
"Moses, having become the most skilful herdsman of his time, and the most prudent provider of all the necessary things for his flock, and of all things which tended to their advantage, because he never delayed or hesitated, but exerted a voluntary and spontaneous cheerfulness in all things necessary for the animals under his charge, ..."
Ruth said, "It is a bit hard for me to get used to his style. It seems so very strange to me that he is saying so much about how absolutely perfect Moses was even as a child, and in all aspects. Whereas I always find it so valuable that the Bible is so honest about the imperfections and faults of people."The following is a general comment, aimed at everybody everywhere at all times. :-) I'm using your simple observations as a springboard.
Your first sentence states a good awareness -- this text is radically different from what I am used to. The second sentence gives details on what you expect and prefer. But it seems to me there is a third sentence necessary when one encounters a person or writing from another "culture" (whether social or intellectual): How can I refrain from stopping at this point (within my own culture) but rather go into the other culture and get inside it and see the world as it does?
Mortimer Adler, who wrote How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading and who was the guide and leader of the Britannica "Great Books of the Western World" set, called this extra step "docility." One might call it a suspension of disbelief, or a suspension of culture-bound judgment, or whatever. One takes on this docility and then later, after having given the author the benefit of the doubt, one unsuspends belief and critical judgment to form one's mature, informed view of the work.
If one recoils from getting into the "culture" of the author, one can never really see what the author is saying.
So one might ask things like, "To whom, with what mindset, would Philo's treatment seem appropriate?" It seems to me that his readership would have known the Scriptural stories. (It was Jews in Egypt who translated the OT into Greek.) Why would Philo think this kind of story would be effective and well received? Why would he himself think it the right way to proceed? I myself don't know.
Clark wrote: "Nemo said, "I do wonder how much Philo relies on the Scripture and perhaps other sources not available to us, and how much is his own interpretation and literary license."FWIW Philo himself says,..."
Yes, Philo mentioned all three ( Scripture, tradition and himself) as his sources. I just can’t tell which part of his narrative comes from which source.
Clark wrote: "Nemo says, "Given that the main purpose of Philo's writing is moral education, ..."It was from this that I dissented (message 9). The quotation in the first posting does not support the conclusio..."
I thought you disagreed that Philo and Plutarch wrote for the same reason, not that Philo wrote for the purpose of moral education.
Clark wrote: "So one might ask things like, "To whom, with what mindset, would Philo's treatment seem appropriate?" It seems to me that his readership would have known the Scriptural stories. (It was Jews in Egypt who translated the OT into Greek.) Why would Philo think this kind of story would be effective and well received? Why would he himself think it the right way to proceed? I myself don't know. "Thanks for these really helpful questions. I think with these in mind it will be easier to get something out of the text.
Clark wrote: "Ruth said, "But I find it ... discouraging, since it seems to attach so much value on how people start out, and not on their later growth."Below are some quotations I plucked from the first several chapters. To me they seem to talk at length about Moses' later growth.
"
Okay, but still I find it a type of growth that is too picture perfect.
But I will try to keep your questions in mind and ponder about why Philo might have considered this a useful type of instruction.
At the end of paragraph XXXV"But Moses having raised our expectations, and puffed us up with fine speeches, and filled our ears with vain hopes, racks our bodies with hunger and does not give us even necessary food. He has deceived this vast multitude with the name of a settlement in a colony; having first of all led us out of an inhabited country into an uninhabitable district, and now sending us down to the shades below, which is the last journey of life.”
I think this is a very good description how they must have felt. Isn't it a very apt description of how we all feel at times? We've come to believe in beautiful words of the church, and then sometimes we see that real life is not at all so smooth. How to keep the faith in such circumstances, is an interesting question.
I like this viewpoint about manna:"Now therefore, it has seemed good to him that the air should produce food instead of water,"
I didn't speak well about how I read Philo's purpose in writing the Life of Moses, Book I. Let me start over from scratch. This will take me several messages.The scope of the text I'm considering is the beginning of the Life of Moses, Book I, up through "... I am acquainted with the history of his life more accurately than other people."
Okay. Philo's sentences as translated and probably in the original are *really* long.
He starts (I have removed a parenthetical for now): "I have conceived the idea of writing the life of Moses, ... the greatest and most perfect man that ever lived, having a desire to make his character fully known to those who ought not to remain in ignorance respecting him, ..."
He concludes: "... [I] shall proceed to narrate the events which befell him, having learnt them both from those sacred scriptures which he has left as marvellous memorials of his wisdom, and having also heard many things from the elders of my nation, for I have continually connected together what I have heard with what I have read, and in this way I look upon it that I am acquainted with the history of his life more accurately than other people."
Setting aside the material I have not quoted (which is indeed the bulk of the text) I say that Philo says these things:
1. Moses was "the greatest and most perfect man that ever lived."
2, There are people who don't know about Moses (or at least about his full life). Some of those people, at least, "ought not to remain in ignorance respecting him." His goal is to inform those people so they are no longer ignorant of him.
3. He [Philo] is qualified to write the life of Moses well.
Next: What kind of work does he say he is writing?
In the same limited text from the beginning of the Life of Moses, Book I, how does Philo denote or point to the kind of work he is writing?I see some phrases:
"to make [Moses'] character fully known"
"preserving a record of virtuous men and praiseworthy lives"
"narrate the events which befell [Moses]"
"the history of [Moses'] life"
Furthermore, he describes the kind of works that Greek historians should have written or be writing: "from the disposition so common to many persons of resisting the commands which are delivered by lawgivers in different states, since the historians who have flourished among the Greeks have not chosen to think him worthy of mention, ... while they ought rather to have employed their natural endowments and abilities in preserving a record of virtuous men and praiseworthy lives, so that honourable actions, whether ancient or modern, might not be buried in silence, and thus have all recollection of them lost, while they might shine gloriously if duly celebrated; ..."
So from these I conclude that Philo says he is writing a history (narrating events, describing actions, recording Moses' life), specifically a biography ("the history of his life"), even more specifically a biography of a lawgiver. Ancient societies (e.g., Greek cities) often had lawgiver biographies, and Philo takes the Greek historians to task for writing immoral crap instead of a lawgiver history of Moses.
I further conclude that his stated goal is to fill an important gap in the set of histories written in Greek and available to people who read histories written in Greek. There is no such lawgiver history of Moses and he is going to write it. If no such history is written, the actions of Moses might be "buried in silence, and thus have all recollection of them lost."
Based on the above, I think I found one perspective for approaching the earlier questions about Philo's presentation of Moses as perfect, without fault. If it is true that Philo is writing a work to fill in a gap in the set of lawgiver biographies available in Greek, then we could look at other such works to see if they treated their people the same way.
Just because I like to do it, let's look at the audience constructed by this passage. For whom is his book?He seems to be aiming it at the Greek-speaking elite in general -- this would include Romans, Greeks, Greek-speaking Jews, and most every elite around the Mediterranean. He does *not* seem to be aiming it primarily at Jews. He pushes the notion of Moses as being a member of the set of lawgivers, plus being a prophet and priest.
Further, he says, "the glory of the laws which he left behind him has reached over the whole world, and has penetrated to the very furthest limits of the universe[.]" This is claiming that Moses is not merely a particular polity's lawgiver and hence of interest as an example or just to fill out the collection, but he influenced the world of the Greek-speaking elite.
My guess is that Philo's Greek is polished; his audience would be people who can recognize and appreciate good literary Greek.
It seems he also implicitly aims the book at people who like him disdain the "comedies and works full of Sybaritish profligacy and licentiousness" he attacks.
The above is perhaps all pretty obvious. What perhaps is more interesting is what he does *not* do: He makes only a generic appeal to all in that elite, and he does not make a special appeal to Jewish readers.
A question: Philo says, "[T]he glory of the laws which [Moses] left behind him has reached over the whole world, and has penetrated to the very furthest limits of the universe; ...." I truly do not know whether or not similar language would be used about the lawgivers of other polities, or whether this is a distinctively universal claim. People did talk about the glory of heroes (including lawgivers) spreading throughout the (Mediterranean) world. But it's possible that Philo is saying something that resonates with the verses about the Gentiles being blessed through the Jews, etc.?
I don't think the word "universe" necessarily implies what we would take it to be -- the whole physical universe -- but rather the "world." But people could hunt to see how the term is used at that time.
This same section that I've been writing about constructs an opponent, "the historians who have flourished among the Greeks ..." "the greater part of whom have both in their poems and also in their prose writings, disparaged or defaced the powers which they have received through education, composing comedies and works full of Sybaritish profligacy and licentiousness to their everlasting shame, while they ought rather to have employed their natural endowments and abilities in preserving a record of virtuous men and praiseworthy lives ...."So Philo is not making the neutral statement that the Greek historians failed to write about Moses, so he has to fill the gap. He is saying that the omission of Moses is part of a larger pattern in which those writing for the Greek-speaking elite have abandoned their true vocation, writing about "virtuous men and praiseworthy lives," and instead are devoting their intellectual and literary gifts to producing immoral literature and distorted history.
The opponent here is not the entire Greek-speaking elite but rather the Greek-speaking intelligentsia. This implies, I think, an appeal to those of the Greek-speaking elite who think as Philo does about these literati. These latter are Philo's intended audience.
So why do we care about all this stuff -- Philo's goal, his intended audience, his opponents, and his own qualifications?My idea is that it helps us answer questions about why he approaches certain things certain ways, that it can help us answer some of the questions asked above.
I have concluded that the book is aimed at the Greek-speaking cosmopolitan elite that is spread throughout the Empire. The people he attacks are part of that elite, the intelligentsia, who focus on immoral and irrelevant subjects. He mentions in passing that he is Jew and has special sources and is qualified to write about Moses.
What we don't see is any specific Jewish-identity goal or plea. He seems to be saying to the Greek-speaking elite, "I am one of you. My nation is part of this civilization. Here is an important but overlooked part of our common civilization's heritage. And I'm Jewish and I think Moses is unique and good." There is a specific Jewish viewpoint here but it is not a combative one. It is not a "leave us alone" argument or "stop oppressing us" argument or "we're better than you" argument.
Clark wrote: "..."I am one of you. My nation is part of this civilization. Here is an important but overlooked part of our common civilization's heritage. And I'm Jewish and I think Moses is unique and good"..."We'll said. I also think Moses is "universal" in that sense.
Ruth wrote: "I like this viewpoint about manna:"Now therefore, it has seemed good to him that the air should produce food instead of water,""
It is interesting how Philo describes the elements as actively participating in both the blessings and punishments of men.
The natural world is "interactive", to use a modern parlance.
It seems to me that Philo wrote about the lives of great Jewish legends for the same reason Plutarch wrote the lives of noble Greeks and Romans.