APPENDIX TO DE SOBRIETATE
§ 12. Comeliness of the body … beauty of the soul. Philo is thinking of Symposium 218 E, where Socrates says to Alcibiades, “You must see in me that κάλλος, greatly different from the εὐμορφία which I see in you.”
Ibid. Bastard brothers. This distinction between the sons of the concubines and those of the legitimate wives has already been made, though in a somewhat different way, in Quod Deus 119 ff.; see also De Mig. 95, where Asher in particular is the symbol αἰσθητοῦ καὶ νόθου πλούτου. Below (66) and elsewhere all twelve are put on a level.
§ 18. The phrase thus set before us, etc. The thought of this section seems to be this; the phrase “God blessed him” explains in what sense Abraham was an elder, because the εὐλογία of God necessarily produces εὐλογιστία in man and this εὐλογιστία is moral seniority. According to the Stoics τὸ εὐλογιστεῖν in the selection of what is according to nature is the “end” of the individual man and brings him into agreement with the law of the universe, which is identical with Zeus (Diog. Laert. vii. 88). Philo, in his desire to equate the Stoic ideal with the divine blessing, more than once, e.g. Leg. All. iii. 191, 192, brings εὐλογία into close connexion with εὐλογιστία. The mere fact that they both contain εὖ and λόγος would be enough for him. But in De Mig. 70 he strengthens the connexion by explaining εὐλογήσω as ἑπαινετὸν λόγον δωρήσομαι.
§ 32. [δοῦλος δούλων]. This is given instead of the παῖς οἰκέτης of the LXX in Aquila’s version, whence Wendland supposes that it was interpolated into Philo’s text. Ryle on the other hand (Philo and Holy Scripture, p. 44), points out that Philo in quoting Gen. 9:26 and 27 (in sections 51 and 59) uses δοὺλος where the LXX has παίς, and infers that it is more likely that he had δοῦλος δούλων here. But in 51, where he quotes this verse 25 again, we have παῖς οἰκέτης without any variant or addition.
§ 34. The state of rest. Philo seems always to use σχέσις in contrast to κίνησις (see Index). In calling it “akin” to ἕξις he is in general agreement with Stobaeus (S.F.V. iii. 111), where, after opposing τὰ ἐν κινήσει ἀγαθά to τὰ ἐν σχέσει ἀγαθά, he adds that some of the latter are also ἐν ἕξει, others ἐν σχέσει μόνον. He gives as examples of τὰ ἐν κινήσει joy and the like, of τὰ ἐν ἕξει the virtues and the arts when transformed by virtue and permanently established, of τὰ ἐν σχέσει μόνον “orderly quietude” (εὔτακτος ἡσυχία). From this use of ἐν σχέσει μόνον in contrast to ἐν σχέσει καὶ ἕξει comes the contrast between σχέσις itself and ἕξις as something transitory opposed to the less transitory, just as ἕξις in its turn is often opposed to διάθεσις, as something less permanent, or perhaps less essential and engrained (cf. on De Cher. 62). This use of σχέσις does not appear in Philo, though he uses the adverb so in Leg. All. iii. 210, where σχετικῶς καὶ εὐαλώτως ὡς ἂν ἐκ τυχῆς is contrasted with ἀπὸ ἕξεως καὶ διαθέσεως. The distinction between ἕξις and διάθεσις is ignored in De Sobrietate as in Stobaeus, thus bringing ἕξις into agreement with the Aristotelian use of the word.
§ 50. The oracles in Genesis. Wendland, in adopting the reading mentioned in the footnote (as well as in 49), is following the version of 49 and 50, quoted in Nicetes Serranus’s commentary on St. Luke. The MS. of this commentary is of the 12th century, but the date of the author is not stated. If Nicetes gives the true reading here, how are we to account for the wanton alteration from πρὸς τὸν Καῖν to περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεως? The translators incline to think that the reading of the MSS. is right. It is natural enough that, as the preceding quotations come from Exodus and Leviticus, Philo should want to indicate that this comes from Genesis and since, as he says (De Abr. 1), this book takes its name ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως, the expression here used is not impossible. That Nicetes should have corrected a reference so vague and apt to mislead to something more definite is equally natural. Wendland’s statement about the general superiority of this excerpt to the MSS. of Philo is hardly borne out by his practice. He follows them as often as he follows Nicetes.
§ 51. Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem. When Philo wrote the Quaestiones (Quaest. in Gen. ii. 15), he clearly read Κύριος ὁ θεός, ὁ θεὸς Σὴμ, for not only is the text quoted as “benedictus est dominus deus, deus Sem,” but the comment demands this, e.g. “bis nominatur benefica virtus dei.” Should we read the same here? It is against it that when the verse is cited in 58 (but see note) the MSS. again have only one ὁ θεός. On the other hand, the argument of 55 will become clearer. God is Lord God of the world, but God only of Shem.
§ 52. The interpretation of “Shem” as = “name” and thence, as the best of names, “the good,” does not appear elsewhere in what we have of Philo. But the idea was taken up by the Latin Fathers, though they characteristically substituted Christ for the good. So Ambrose, Ep. 7. 46 “Sem dicitur Latine nomen,” Augustine, De Civitate Dei xvi. 2 “Sem quippe, de cuius semine in carne natus est Christus, interpretatur nominatus. Quid autem nominatius Christo?”
§ 56. My friend. This variant, which, as the argument shews, is deliberate, is especially noticeable in view of James 2:23 φίλος ἐκλήθη θεοῦ. Ryle, l.c. p. 75, suggests that it was an earlier rendering, subsequently altered as too familiar, yet retaining its influence after the LXX became the standard version.
Ibid. He alone is nobly born. For this and the other “paradoxes” which follow see S.V.F. iii. 589 ff.
§ 58. Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem. Observe that Philo here substitutes εὐλογημένος for the εὐλογητός of the LXX which he followed in 51, though in De Mig. 107 he carefully distinguishes between the two as meaning respectively “the subject of blessing (by others),” and “worthy of blessing.” It is quite possible, as Heinemann suggests, that he means us here to take Σήμ as dative. Compare his treatment of Δάν in De Agr. 99. In this case we should translate “let the Lord God be blessed by Shem.” This rendering suits the argument which follows, and it is quite in Philo’s manner to suggest such a double rendering, and further to imagine or accept a variant εὐλογημένος to fit it.
§§ 60 ff. For the three kinds of goods cf. De Ebr. 200 ff. and note on Quod Det. 7. Here Philo comes nearer to the Peripatetic view than in De Gig. 38. He is still nearer to it in Quis Rer. Div. Her. 285 ff.