On Philo, The Contemplative
Life, 25:
This passage is often cited as proof of the existence of the
tripartite canon in the early first century AD. Philo’s mention of Psalms is
understood to be synecdoche for the third section of the canon, the Writings.
However, Barton has pointed out that Philo is a witness
to four classes of books, not three: Law, Prophets, Psalms, and other
books. (Barton, Oracles of God, 58) Moreover, in light of the
classification of the holy books found in 4QMMT (see discussion above beginning
on page 69) where the third group can only consist of Psalms, it is much more
likely that Philo’s classification of the Therapeutae’s Scriptures means that
the third group is only the Psalms, not his title for the Writings as we know
them. In addition, υμνοι is
Philo’s regular name for the Psalms, and he never uses it elsewhere to mean a
group of books of which Psalms is a part.
Nor should we place too much weight on this one quotation
from Philo because, as Barton points out, “Philo . . . has various ways of
subdividing the books of Scripture, but it is clear that they come from only
two sources: Moses, or the ‘disciples of Moses’. This second expression is used
to designate the Psalmist, Zechariah and Solomon.” (Barton, Oracles of God,
49). Thus, Philo’s separation of the Psalms from the Prophets does not indicate
a radical departure from the generally held bipartite division of the canon
into Law and Prophets. (Andrew E. Steinmann, The Oracles of God: The Old
Testament Canon [Saint Paul, Miss.: Concordia Publishing House, 1999], 79-80)
On “the other books that
foster and perfect knowledge and piety” in The Contemplative Life, 28-29:
This further information clarifies Philo’s earlier
statement. First of all, it makes clear that the Therapeutae did have a canon,
which Philo refers to here as the Holy Scriptures (GK). This probably corresponds
to the Law, Prophets and Psalms in the earlier section. In fact, Philo’s usage
may imply that he agrees with them on the limits of this canon since he does
not call it “their Holy Scriptures but simply “the Holy Scriptures.” In
addition, he also defines for us what he meant by “the other books that foster
and perfect knowledge and piety.” These are probably “writings of men of old,
the founders of their sect” which not only guide them in their quest for knowledge,
but also move them to compose hymns and psalms (i.e., an act of piety).
While it might be argued that the earlier mention of
Psalms refers to these psalms and not to the canonical book of Psalms, Philo states
that the Psalms are taken into the cloister, but that the other hymns and
psalms are produced while in contemplation in the cloister. This makes it
unlikely that the compositions produced in the cloister are to be identified
with the Psalms taken into the cloister. Instead, the first quotation is
referring to the canonical book and the second to compositions that imitate the
canonical book.
If the Therapeutae are linked somehow to the sectarians
at Qumran (which many assume to be Essenes), their composition of hymns and
psalms may shed further light on the manuscripts from Qumran that contain
noncanonical psalms, and perhaps reinforce the opinion that those manuscripts
were indeed liturgical compilations since the Therapeutae apparently used both
canonical and noncanonical psalms in their meditation. Furthermore, if the
Therapeutae are an offshoot of the Essenes and the Qumran sectarians were
Essenes, the books that the Therapeutae took into their cloister may be essentially
the nonbiblical books found at Qumran.
In summary, then, Philo’s description of the Therapeutae
leads to the following conclusions:
The existence of a canon among the
Therapeutae. They had a canon, a collection of
authoritative books that could simply be called Holy Scripture.
The organization of the canon. The
canon could be subdivided into three groups: Law, Prophets and Psalms. The
third group most likely consisted only of the book of Psalms, not the entire
Writings as we know them.
The canon as a closed collection.
The Therapeutae had a high regard for other books, but they were not considered
canonical and apparently they did not attempt to add them to the canon. (Ibid.,
80-81)