INTRODUCTION TO EXTRACTS FROM THE HYPOTHETICA
We have no information about the two extracts which are here reproduced beyond what Eusebius tells us, namely that the first is taken from the second book of a work entitled by Philo “Hypothetica,” in which the author is writing a defence of the Jews, and that the second comes from the “apology for the Jews,” while in his history (ii. 18) when giving a list of the works of Philo he mentions one Περὶ Ἰουδαίων. The general assumption is that these three are one and the same.
Of the second extract, which describes the Essenes, nothing need be said here, as some remarks on its relation to Philo’s other account of these communities will be found in the Appendix. The first extract is divided into two main parts and both of these again have two sub-divisions joined together by the phrase μετὰ βραχέα φησίν. Very little discussion so far as I can learn has been devoted to it, though in many ways it is very curious and interesting.
The opening part gives the impression that he wishes to meet the hostile criticism of the Gentiles by giving a rationalistic version of the history. The Exodus is described as the movement of an increasing population seeking a fresh living-room and inspired by a yearning for their own natal land of which the Pentateuch knows nothing. The divine influence is indeed admitted but has been given through dreams and visions, a strange way of treating the visitations described in Exodus. The divine mission of Moses is kept very much in the background and the observer is invited to choose between natural explanations of the fact that he led the people successfully through the wilderness. When we come to the occupation of Palestine any appeal to the miraculous victories of Joshua is definitely set aside, and outsiders are left to choose between two possibilities, one that it was due to superior force, the other that the virtues of the incomers won the respect and submission of the native population. I find it difficult to understand the motive of Philo in this treatment of the story, or of Eusebius in recording it, for Eusebius’s purpose is to give an account of the Mosaic constitution as it is depicted by the two most distinguished Jewish writers, and on this it has no bearing.
The second part of the extract, which does describe this constitution, is at least in the first subdivision curious in another way. We naturally compare it with the vastly longer and fuller account in the four books on the Special Laws and the De Virtutibus. The scope of the two is so hugely different that we should not expect more than the smallest fragment of the great Exposition in these few pages. The strange thing is that they contain so much which is ignored in the Exposition. There we hear little about the subjection of women, or of the inviolability of dedicated offerings or of the ways of obtaining release from these on which so much stress is here laid, or of the minor duties of supplying water, fire and burial. Humanity to animals is stressed in both, but the one law bearing on this which is mentioned here is not noticed there. The contrast no doubt is partly accounted for in the words where he states his intention to note the unwritten as well as the written, but only partly to my mind.
The second subdivision of this second part on the other hand, which deals with the observation of the sabbath, does not contradict anything that we find elsewhere in Philo. The account of the meetings in the Synagogue is much the same as that given in his description of the Essenes in the Quod Omn. Prob. and of the Therapeutae in the De Vit. Cont. and of the nation as a whole in Spec. Leg. ii. 62, and the stress laid on the sabbatical year both as a tribute to the land itself and an act of charity to the poor is thoroughly in his spirit.
The meaning of the title is obscure. The theory of Viger that it means “suppositions,” between which those addressed are invited to choose, only fits the opening sections, and was superseded by that of Bernays, who suggested that it meant exhortations or directions on conduct. Bernays shows that not only is ὑποθῆκαι often used in this sense but the ὑποθετικὸς λόγος is a technical term for a discourse with this object. The examples he quotes show that the hypothetical discourse has a close connexion with the protreptic, the term which Philo so often uses, and that in one case at least it is to be distinguished from the latter as the summary of counsels which closes the discourse. Still this does not seem to agree with the nature of the treatise so far as we can judge it from the specimens which Eusebius records. A hortatory discourse is a very different thing from a defence, at least, a defence of this kind. Bernays indeed quotes a passage in which the closely connected if not identical protreptic is stated on the one hand to show the high worth of virtue and on the other hand to convict those who deny or accuse or otherwise defame philosophy. But this does not apply to the opponents whom Philo is refuting. They do not attack the philosophy of the Law as he represents it, but either deny or are not aware that the Jews have any such philosophy.
The text of these extracts is not included in the Editio Maior of Cohn. As here printed it is that of the Editio Minor. It is not stated who is responsible for this, and there is no Apparatus Criticus. I have however carefully compared the text with those of Heinichen 1842, Dindorf 1867, and Gifford 1903, in their editions of the Preparatio. Gifford has such an apparatus, and in his introduction gives a full account of the manuscripts of which he obtained collations. I am not aware of any later edition.
The following is an analysis of the two extracts:
FIRST EXTRACT, viii. 6. 1–9, 7. 1–20
Part I. The first subdivision (6. 1) gives a short account of the causes which led to the Exodus from Egypt. The second subdivision (6. 2–9) suggests for consideration different explanations of the success of Moses in leading the people though the wilderness (2–4) and of the conquest of Palestine (5–8) and ends with an emphatic assertion of the devotion of the people through all the centuries to Moses and the Law (9).
Part II. The first subdivision (7. 1–9) gives a general sketch of the Mosaic constitution, contrasting its severity with the laxity of Gentile law and practice (1–3), particularly dwelling on the inviolability attached to vows and dedications (3–5). Other laws and customs are mentioned largely dwelling on duties of charity and mercy (6–9). The second subdivision (7. 10–20) describes the Sabbath as an institution intended mainly to provide opportunities for studying the law, gives a short account of the meetings and commends the universal knowledge of the Law which they effect (10–14). It then passes on to the sabbatical year, described as a proper relaxation for the land itself (15–18) and as a charitable institution, because the fruits which grew from it untilled were at the service of the poor and needy (19–20).
SECOND EXTRACT, viii. 11. 1–18
This is merely another description of the Essene communities, a general description (1–2), the mature age required for admission (3), their simple and communal life (4–5), their industry and practice of every kind of innocent activity (6–9), how the proceeds are put into a common bank (10–11), even clothes being held in common (12), their care for the sick and aged (13), their repudiation of marriage and exclusion of women, with some of their reasons for so doing (14–18). A final eulogy (18).
The references to chapters in the eighth book are those in all editions of the Preparatio. The references to sections with the chapters are those in Cohn’s Editio Minor. Sections are also numbered in Heinichen’s edition, but do not correspond to these. Gifford has no such sections, but gives the pages of Viger’s edition with subdivisions a, b, c, d. I have noted these pages but not the sub-divisions. I have also noted the pages in Mangey, vol. ii. They are to be distinguished from the others by the square brackets.