(13) The Apocrypha
Philo makes no quotations from
the Apocrypha; and he gives not the slightest ground for the supposition that
the Jews of Alexandria, in his time, were disposed to accept any of the books
of the Apocrypha in their Canon of Holy Scripture. That there are occasional
instances of correspondence in subject-matter and in phraseology between Philo
and the books of the Apocrypha, in particular the Sapiential books, no one will
dispute. But it is very doubtful whether the instances contain actual allusions
to the Apocryphal writings. It is more probable that the use of similar terms
arises merely from the discussion of similar topics. The phraseology of Philo
helps to illustrate and explain that of the Apocrypha; and vice versa. More than this can hardly be affirmed with any
confidence.
The following are some of the
best instances:
Wisdom 3:16 τέκνα δὲ μοιχῶν ἀτέλεστα ἔσται. Philo, De Confus. Ling. § 28, i. 426, τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς τέλος ἡδονῇ παραδόντες … τῶν ἐκ πόρνης ἀποκυηθέντων οὐδέν, ὥς γʼ οἶμαι, διαφέροντες,
οὓς ὁ νόμος ἐκκλησίας ἀπελήλακε θείας …· ὅτι καθάπερ περὶ πολλὰ τέλη πλανώμενοι.… τὸν ἕνα ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα τῶν ὅλων ἠγνόησαν. Both passages refer back to Deut.
23:2. The coincidence that one writer employs the adjective ἀτέλεστα, and the other the substantive τέλος (though with different
significance), is probably only fortuitous; and yet is sufficiently striking to
give colour to the suggestion of a direct allusion.
Wisdom 7:1 εἰμὶ μὲν κἀγὼ θνητὸς ἴσος ἅπασιν, καὶ γηγενοῦς ἀπόγονος πρωτοπλάστου. Philo, De
Nobilitate, § 3, ii. 439, τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ γηγενοῦς φύντας τίς οὐκ ἂν εὐπατρίδας εἴποι; the
word γηγενής is used in both
passages.
Wisdom 7:26 ἀπαύγασμα γάρ ἐστιν φωτὸς αἰδίου, καὶ ἔσοπτρον ἀκηλίδωτον τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνεργείας, καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ. The descripton of σοφία may be illustrated by, but is
clearly not quoted by, Philo in his description of the λόγος in De Confus. Ling. § 28, i. 427, κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ λόγον, τὸν ἄγγελον πρεσβύτατον, ὡς ἀρχάγγελον πολυώνυμον ὑπάρχοντα· καὶ γὰρ ἀρχή, καὶ ὄνομα θεοῦ, καὶ λόγος, καὶ ὁ κατʼ εἰκόνα ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ὁρῶν Ἰσραὴλ προσαγορεύεται.
Wisdom 7:19, 20. The subject of
the preexistence of the soul which is here alluded to, may also be illustrated
from Philo, Leg. Allegor. i. § 12, i.
49, De Confus. Ling. § 17, i. 416.
Ecclus. 42:15 ἐν λόγοις κυρίου τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. Philo’s language in De Vita Mosis, i. § 51, ii. 125 is a
striking parallel; but there is no sign of a quotation: Φθέγξεται τὸ παράπαν οὐδέν, ὃ μὴ τελειωθήσεται βεβαίως, ἐπεὶ ὁ λόγος ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτῷ.
Ecclus. 44:16 Ἑνὼχ εὐηρέστησεν κυρίῳ καὶ μετετέθη. Philo refers to the same
passage, Gen. 5:24; but there is no allusion to the passage in Ecclus. when he
adds πρὸς δὲ τὸ βέλτιον ἡ μεταβολή, διότι προμηθείᾳ γίνεται θεοῦ (De Abrahamo, § 3, ii. 4).
Ecclus. 51:10 (14) ἐπεκαλεσάμην κύριον πατέρα κυρίου
μου. Philo makes no reference to this passage, when he compares the
Logos to the first-begotten of God: ὁ θεὸς
… προστησάμενος
τὸν ὀρθὸν αὑτοῦ λόγον, πρωτόγονον υἱόν … (De Agricult. § 12, i. 308).
Tobit 12:12. This passage
describes the offices performed by the angel Raphael. There is no appearance of
its being directly alluded to by Philo in De
Gigant. § 4, i. 264: ἀγγέλους τοὺς μὲν τῆς ἀγαθῆς προσρήσεως ἀξίους πρεσβευτὰς τινὰς ἀνθρώπων πρὸς θεὸν καὶ θεοῦ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους.
2 Macc. 15:14 ὁ φιλάδελφος οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πολλὰ προσευχόμενος περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τῆς ἁγίας πόλεως Ἰερεμίας ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ προφήτης. The Spirit of Jeremiah is
here represented as making intercession for the Jews. Philo speaks of
disembodied souls being free for the exercise of prayer on behalf of others: ταῖς ἀφειμέναις σωμάτων ψυχαῖς ἄπλαστον καὶ γυμνὴν ἐπιδεικνυμέναις πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα θεραπείαν τὰς ὑπὲρ υἱῶν καὶ θυγατέρων ἱκετείας οὐκ ἀτελεῖς εἰώθασι ποιεῖσθαι, γέρας αὐτοῖς παρέχοντος τοῦ πατρὸς τὸ ἐπήκοον ἐν εὐχαῖς (De Exsecrat. § 9, ii. 436).
These instances will more than
suffice to show the character of the references to the Apocrypha, which have
sometimes been ascribed to Philo. In reality they are merely the words or
passages which have been illustrated
from the Apocrypha in the footnotes of Mangey’s edition. These were diligently
collected by Hornemann in a footnote on pp. 29–32 of his Observationes ad Illustrat. Doctr. de Canone V. T. ex Philone. No
one who has attempted to verify the passages could suppose that Philo was
quoting from the Apocrypha. Hornemann himself who speaks of the ‘altum Philonis de omnibus libris apocryphis
silentium’ would have been the last to admit the possibility. (Herbert
Edward Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture: Or, The Quotations of Philo from the
Books of the Old Testament [London: Macmillan and Co., 1895], xxxiii-xxxv)
