^{page 77 note 1} Even better than that of Wilamowitz, Hermes, liv(1919), 73Google Scholar. On the other hand, reference might well be made to W.'s conjectures, ibid. 72 ff., on 10 and 60, and above all on 96 and 118 ; and to A. Brinkmann's in Aet. 4 (Rh. Mus. lxxii, 1918, 319).Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 2} The latter edited with constant reference to the Armenian version of the entire text. A translation by Professor R. Marcus of the Philonic material only thus preserved is to appear in the Loeb edition.

^{page 77 note 1} Cf. my edition, lx ff.; reference should be made also to Harder, R., Ocellus Lucanus, 32Google Scholar etc., and Theiler, W., Gnomon, ii (1926), 590 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 2} Wendland, P., Philos Sckrift über die Vorsehung, 2.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 3} Cf. Colson, 198 f., 511 f.; note the argument against literalism in Quod omnis, 2 (cf. Somn. i. 39, 209), with a close parallel to 1 Cor. ix. 9.

^{page 77 note 4} Leg. 182 indicates his reputation among Jews for culture; Alexander, 7 (viii, p. 103 Richter)Google Scholar, shows familiarity with the habits of literary society; 73 (ibid. 134) refers to his training from early years in studies aiming at truth.

^{page 77 note 5} [Longin.] De sublim. 9. 9, quoting a phrase of Genes, i which had reached him in some roundabout way, perhaps through Jewish apologetic or echoes of it in speech (reminiscent of Strab. xvi. 2. 36, p. 761, which is almost certainly Posidonian, . The reference to Moses as instead of ó τ. is peculiar: cf. Colson, p. 509, on θεδμóς as contrasted with νóμος: it is barely possible that it involves the Posidonian distinction between Moses as responsible for the basic monotheism of the Jews, and later legalism as the product of successors).

^{page 78 note 1} De usu parlium, xi. 14; Depulsuum differentiis, ii. 4Google Scholar (viii, p. 579 K.); cf. iii. 3 (p. 657).

^{page 78 note 2} So again, Plotinus might possibly have learned of him from Origen or from Numenius' writings (Porph. V. Plot. 14), but would certainly have disapproved. It is noteworthy that Porphyry ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 19.Google Scholar 8, accuses Origen of borrowing his allegorical methods from Chaeremon and Cornutus, and does not bring in Philo. Celsus shows knowledge of Hellenistic Jewish thought and possibly of Philo's writings (Stein, E., Eos, xxxiv, 1932–3, 205 ff.Google Scholar), but he had a controversial motive for acquiring such knowledge.

^{page 78 note 3} The rejection in Aet.—perhaps brief, as in Alex.—is now lost, but cleanly foreshadowed (150).

^{page 78 note 1} Philol. xcii (1937), 153Google Scholar ff.; ibid. 173, an excellent defence of τò óρατóν in Aet. 20.

^{page 78 note 2} Tappe, G., in his excellent dissertation, De Philonis libro qui inscribitur (Gött. 1912), 4 f.,Google Scholar raises some doubts, based on the perplexing language of Alex. 2. 75. Certainty is not attainable, but Tappe is clearly right in postulating a textual error in 2, and there may be more such: the relationships involved would be of minimal interest to later readers and scribes.

^{page 78 note 3} Alex, is proved by an allusion in 27 to be not before A.D. 12. Goodenough, E. R., An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, 64,Google Scholar showed the lateness of Alex.: but his date of birth for Tiberius Julius Alexander, ‘not much if any before A.D. 20’, is too late to be compatible with the appointment in the Thebais. (We may recall the question which Alcibiades when not yet twenty asked Pericles, Xen. Mem. i. 2. 40 ff.: it did not require philosophical knowledge.)

^{page 79 note 1} Cf. above all Fr. Leo, Gott. gel. Anz., 1898,Google Scholar 175 ff.—De plantations, among the exegetical works, has a substantial section on the question ‘Will the wise man get drunk?’ in a comparable style of argumentation (Leisegang, 165) without the dialogue setting, which Aet. also lacks. The source of this is probably, as Colson urges, iii. 209, of an epideictic nature—perhaps a paradox proposed by way of jest, like the contention of Socrates in Plat. Symp. 223 D about dramatic poetry: it is not a Stoic paradox, for Zeno argued against it.

^{page 79 note 2} Cf. the indication, Prov. ii. 115 (p. 100, Richter, ),Google Scholar of discussions to come.

^{page 79 note 3} Cf. Moore, G. F., Judaism, ii. 387 f.;Google ScholarDanby, H., The Mishnah, 397, n. 4.Google ScholarIn Galen, , De usupartium, xi. 14,Google Scholar Moses and Epicurus are the extreme opposites: cf. Hor. Sat. i. 5. 100 ff., and in a different way Plut. Sto. rep. 38, p. 1051 E. The combination of Christians and Epicureans in Lucian, Alex. 38, is the more piquant.

^{page 79 note 1} I still reject the view of H. Box, approved by Goodenough, E. R. (J. Bibl. Lit. lix, 1940, 59),Google Scholarthat Quod omnis, 6–7, refers to the position of the Jews at Alexandria. The objection in C.R. liv (1940), 170,Google Scholar from the supposedly early date of the treatise, must be withdrawn; but Philo's antithesis of citizens and refugees is simply parallel to those of rich and poor, slave and free, and is a plain paradox.

In De virt. iv. 190Google Scholar ff. Philo gives a more religious treatment of the theme of Quod omnis (Colson, viii, p. xvii): here too the base man is ipso facto an expatriate.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 2} With Philo's divergent treatments of the Essenes (Colson, 106 n.), cf. his diametrically opposite views of Joseph (Colson.vi, p. xii).—The description of the Therapeutai is marked by an idyllic romanticism: Colson is no doubt right in thinking that the settlement was small and ephemeral (cf. the various modern colonies of single–taxers, etc.). De vita cont. 80 on their hymns in various metres might have an element of truth, since virtuosity could count as a mark of piety (cf. Nock, , Harv. Theol. Rev. xxvii, 1934, 61),Google Scholar but is probably a mere phrase: cf. Joseph, . Ant. Jud. ii. 346;Google Scholar iv. 303, on hexametric songs by Moses. On the Therapeutai see in general I. Heinemann, Pauly Wissowa, v A. 2321 ff.

^{page 79 note 3} Colson, 409 n., and above all Wendland, P., Fleck. Jakrb. Suppl. xxii (1896), 709 ff.Google Scholar (ibid. 714 f. on the meaning of its title). The discussion of the sabbath and the sabbatical year refutes by implication such charges as appear in Tac. Hist. v. 4Google Scholar (cf. Phil, . Sotnn. ii. 123 for a clash with Roman authority on the former).Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 1} Cf. i. 108 (with Thackeray's note), ii. 347 f., iii. 8, 322; C. Ap. ii. 160. He sometimes intensifies the miraculous (Ant. Jud. v. 284Google Scholar is parallel to the miracle of Hor. Sat. i. 5. 99. Cf. L. Bieler, Oetos Ανήρ, ii. 27). I hope to return elsewhere to the Jewish attitude towards miracles, and to contrast early Christian attitudes.

^{page 80 note 2} Bieler, op. cit., 25 ff., and Heinemann, I., Pauly-Wissowa, xvi. 374 f.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 3} Heinemann, ibid. 369 f. When Philo speaks of divine monitions ‘through visions and dreams’ to the Jews to leave Egypt, he speaks of the types of supernatural commands most widely recognized in the Gentile world: cf. De somn. i. 1 f., also V. Mos. i. I, ‘Moses whom some describe as the lawgiver of the Jews, others as the interpreter of (ερμηνéως: perhaps ‘intermediary bringing’) the holy laws’, and Heinemann, I., Philons griech. u. jud. Bildung, 477,Google Scholar on his willingness to treat laws as resulting from personal decisions of Moses, which do not for him need to be unassisted human reasoning: cf. Heinemann, Pauly-Wissowa, VA. 2325: the passage of Strabo discussed in p. 77, note 5, supra, represents Moses as bidding people sleep in the temple to secure dreams (as in the regular pagan practice of incubation).

^{page 80 note 1} Neither εùδβεια nor óδιóτμς implies deification, but they are certainly the strongest words for ‘proper dutiful attitude’ toward powers ordained of God (Rom. xiii. 1) that Philo could use: he is going as far as he can.

^{page 80 note 2} Cf. Spec. leg. i. 55, on the merit of taking personal action against wrongdoers. For ‘defections’, , cf. the passages cited by Box ad loc., and also Vit. Mos. i. 31

^{page 81 note 1} Bell, H.I., Jews and Christians in Egypt, p. 25, ii.89 ff.Google Scholar (accepting eireioiraUiv from E. Schwartz for .

^{page 81 note 2} Herm. lx (1925), 482 ff.;cf. Bell, H. I., J. Rom. Stud, xxxi (1941), 10.Google Scholar Willrich identified Philo with the hellenizing wing. He was, however, insistent on the letter of the law; and, though he might have supported a Jewish claim to a theoretical right of entering the gymnasium as the prerequisite of Alexandrian citizenship, he would not have countenanced any violation of the Mosaic code. The suggestion that the embassy under Caligula asked for actual citizenship seems to me doubtful: προνομίας, in Leg(atio) 183, refers simply to Caligula's promise to hear the delegation before others which awaited an audience, and Leg. 370–1 implies that the Jewish position in Alexandria was identical with that in other Greek cities. They may have asked for more than they expected to get: presumably they sought the dejure confirmation of their de facto situation before Flaccus had acted. (Incidentally, Caligula's orders in Leg. 344 confirm the view expressed in Comb. Anc. Hist. x. 496, that the Jewish destruction of an altar at Jamnia provoked Caligula's order to Petronius to erect a statue in the Temple at Jerusalem.)

^{page 81 note 1} Cf. Oehler, J., Pauly-Wissowa, vii. 2023,Google Scholar and the cults of Attalids in the gymnasium at Cos (Herzog, R., Abh. Berl. Akad. 1928, vi. 26).Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 2} Cf. the passing reference in Leg. 161 to the few Jews who were guilty in the episode under Tiberius.

^{page 81 note 3} Nock, St. Paul, 107 f.; cf. Paul's, own Tu quoque in Gal. 6. 13.Google Scholar