Philo of Alexandria and the Cain and Abel

narrative:
Structure and Typology in Philo’s exegesis of
Genesis 4.1-8.

A dissertation submitted to the

University of Wales Trinity Saint David
in fulfilment of the requirements
of the degree of Master of Arts

January 2017

John Michael Shaw

1
 Contents

Abstract 3
Abbreviations 4
Introduction 5
Chapter 1 Philo’s Sitz im Leben 9
Chapter 2 Literature Review 18
Chapter 3 Philo’s Exegesis of the Cain and Abel Narrative
De Cherubim 30
De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 39
QG1.62-66 51
Quod deterius potiori insidiari Soleat 54
Chapter 4 Conclusion 59
Appendix Genesis 4.1-8 (New English Translation of the Septuagint) 62
The Structure of the Cain and Abel Narrative, Gen 4.1-8 62
Philo’s Use of the Bible 66
Bibliography
Philo of Alexandria 71
Modern Scholarly Literature 71

2
 Abstract
This dissertation engages with two recent debates in Philonic studies, namely did the
Allegorical Commentary exhibit an identifiable structure, and did the exegete make
systematic use of typology.

Chapter One demonstrates Philo’s unique position as an exegete. It is shown that the
Allegorical Commentary utilised concepts and ideas from both Hellenism and Judaism,
though the two cultures were subsumed within Philo’s core purpose of decoding Torah
allegorically. Although Philo used Torah to explain Torah, the chapter demonstrates
the exegete’s predilection for specific passages within Genesis.

An assessment of the Allegorical Commentary’s structure, in Chapter Two, reveals that

arguments proposing a rhetorical framework are not persuasive. Rather, it is shown that
Philo relied on Torah to explain Torah. Examples, selected from the three treatises
under consideration, demonstrate Philo’s use of the Main Biblical Lemma as an anchor
around which he constructed his exegetical framework. The chapter illustrates the
symbiotic relationship between the Main Biblical Lemma and the supporting Secondary
and Tertiary Biblical Lemmata.

The application of this approach is displayed in Chapter Three, which provides a

detailed critique of Philo’s exegesis of Genesis 4.1-8. It is argued that Cain and Abel’s
characters were developed to illustrate the two extremes of the human capacity for good
and evil. It is also established that Philo made extensive use of soul-types (typology) in a
systematic manner.

Chapter Four concludes by demonstrating that Philo’s Allegorical Commentary exhibits a

logical framework based on the use of Biblical lemmata, makes extensive use of
Hellenistic philosophical concepts intermingled with traditional Jewish approaches, and
offers a widespread application of typology.

3
 Abbreviations
Abbreviations of Philonic Treatises cited.
Abr. De Abrahamo
Agr. De agricultura
Cher. De Cherubim
Conf. De confusione linguarum
Congr. De congressu eruditionis gratia
Contempl. De vita contemplation
Decal. De Decalogo
Det. Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat
Deus. Quod Deus sit immutabilis
Ebr. De ebrietate
Flacc. In Flaccum
Gig. De gigantibus
Her. Quis rerum divinarum heres sit
Ios. De Iosepho
Leg. 1-3 Legum allegoriae 1-3
Legat. Legatio ad Gaium
Migr. De migratione Abrahami
Mos. 1-2 De vita Moysis 1-2
Mut. De mutatione nominum
Opif. De opificio mundi
Plant. De plantatione
Prov. 1-2 De Providentia 1-2
Post. De posteritate Caini
QG1 Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim 1
Sacr. De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini
Sobr. De sobrietate
Somn. 1-2 De somniis 1-2
Virt. De virtutibus

Other Abbreviations.

AC Allegorical Commentary
CBL Contextual Biblical Lemma
LCL Loeb Classical Library
MBL Main Biblical Lemma
MOT Mode of Transition
SBL Secondary Biblical Lemma
TBL Tertiary Biblical Lemma

4
 “From the outset it must be recognised that the greatest revolution - certainly
the longest-lasting - in the history of the Cain-Abel theme was the first, when the
biblical brothers were transformed by Philo … into universal, rival, and
contending principles. This was the critical moment of emergence for Cain-Abel
as a theme of significance and extensiveness”.1

Introduction
The impetus for this study arose from an interest in two strands of Philonic studies:
recent efforts to determine a framework for the exegete’s Allegorical Commentary
(hereafter AC), and research associated with Philo’s use of typology. The study’s aim is
to illustrate Philo’s exegetical model through a detailed study of the first half of the Cain
and Abel narrative, Gen. 4.1-8, focusing particularly on Philo’s development of plot by
use of characterisation through soul-type.

The study falls into four chapters. Chapter One places Philo within his Sitz im
Leben. Given the profusion of studies on this topic, only a brief biography is offered.2
Philo’s unique intellectual Sitz im Leben, straddling both the Jewish Scriptures and
Hellenistic philosophy, meant that he could draw on a rich inheritance, and this is much
in evidence in the AC. It will be argued that non-biblical sources directly influenced
Philo’s exegesis. Mansfeld has described the interrelationship between Scripture and
philosophy for the Alexandrian as an “interpretative circle”.3 The final part of the
chapter locates the narrative within the wider Philonic corpus, and then posits that,
despite his extensive knowledge of the Torah, Philo employed a relatively limited range
of pericopae, primarily from Genesis, in support of his exegesis.

Chapter Two considers whether a framework can be developed for the AC, so
ending the long-held view that Philo’s treatises “do not aim at any continuous or
systematic body of thought”.4 It will be argued that the relatively straightforward

1
R. Quinones, The Changes of Cain: Violence and the Lost Brother in Cain and Abel literature
(Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey, 1991), p.23.

2
See the bibliography provided in J. Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition: Jewish and Christian
Interpretations of the First Sibling Rivalry (Brill: Leiden, 2011) for further details.

3
J. Mansfeld, “Philosophy in the service of scripture: Philo’s exegetical strategies” in J. Dillon & A.
Long (eds.), The Question of ‘Eclecticism’: studies in later Greek philosophy (University of California
Press: Berkeley, 1988), pp.70-102, here p.75.

4
F. Colson & G. Whitaker, Philo in Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes) (Loeb: London,
1929-62), Vol. 1, p. x.

5
structure developed by David Runia provides such a framework: Philo uses Torah to
explain Torah.5 Due to this study’s constraints, the applicability of the approach to the
Cain and Abel narrative will be demonstrated by an example taken from each of the
three treatises under consideration.6 It will be argued that characterisation constitutes a
core element of this structure, something Philo achieved by the use of a spectrum of
soul-types and through the allegorical use of etymology.7 It will be shown that Philo
carefully crafted character traits for Cain and Abel’s soul-types, which for him
represented the two extremes of the human capacity for evil and for good. The exegete
then selected other soul-types from a range of biblical characters to support and
develop these traits.8

Chapter Three provides a detailed analysis of Gen. 4.1-8, demonstrating the

validity and applicability of these assertions. Sterling’s recent article on the overarching
structure of the AC demonstrates the appropriateness of the Cain and Abel narrative
for such a study. He posits that the AC comprises three clusters of treatises, each
centred on a specific character - Cain, Noah and Abraham. The treatises associated
with Cain lend themselves to a detailed investigation of structure and characterisation.
Interestingly, of the three characters identified by Sterling, Cain is the sole example of a
negative persona; he is the embodiment of self-love. Noah, in contrast, is a model of
perfection. Abraham acquired virtue by learning.9 And, as this chapter will demonstrate,
Philo is far more interested in portraying Cain’s wayward soul-type than Abel’s

5
D. Runia, “The Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatises”, Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984), pp. 209-
256; see also idem, “Observations on the Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatises”, Vigiliae
Christianae 41 (1987), pp. 105-138.

6
On the Cherubim §§40-53, On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain §§1-32, and The Worse Attacks the
Better §§1-32.

7
H. Najman, “Cain and Abel as Character Traits: A Study in the Allegorical Typology of Philo of
Alexandria” in G. P. Luttikhuizen (ed.), Eve’s Children: The Biblical Stories Retold and Interpreted in
Jewish and Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 107-18; D. Runia, “Etymology as an exegetical
technique in Philo of Alexandria”, Studia Philonica XVI (2004), pp. 101-121.

8
This approach was not new. Plato had adopted such an approach in the Republic. Here he mapped
out a five-part typology, matching the five city-states: the aristocratic, timocratic, oligarchic,
democratic and tyrannical.

9
Sterling’s Cain cluster comprises of the following: Sacr., Det., and Post.; Noah’s comprises
Gig./Deus., Agr., Plant., Ebr., and Sor., and Abraham’s comprises Migr., Her., Congr., Fug., and Mut..
G. Sterling, “What’s in a Name? The place of Philo’s De mutatione nominum in the Allegorical
Commentary”, Philo of Alexandria Seminar, SBL Meeting 21st November 2016, pp. 17-18,
https://biblicalresources.wordpress.com/2016/09/27/philo-at-sbl-annual-meeting-i-3/ (accessed
November 2016).

6
righteous soul-type. For Philo, Cain is a quintessential evil man. This disparity between
the brothers is revealed at all levels of the exegetes’ work, even in its simplest form the
distinction is evident through 28 references to Abel compared with 45 for Cain in these
three treatises.10

Given this study’s constraints, parameters have had to be set and so the analysis is
confined to Gen 4.1-8. This terminus was selected for two reasons, one related to the
nature of the Philonic corpus, and the other to the pericope’s structure. First, an
investigation of Gen 4.1-8 entails the examination of three AC treatises, sufficient to
offer security for the study’s findings. And, secondly, the fratricide as the decisive event
is a natural break within the traditional Cain and Abel narrative of Gen. 4.1-16. After
the opening genealogical verses, the remainder of the narrative suggests a chiastic
structure:

Gen. 4. 2b-5 narrative – Cain and Abel are the main characters; Yahweh passive
Gen 4. 6-7 dialogue – Yahweh questioning Cain
Gen. 4.8 dialogue/narrative – Cain and Abel alone – act of
fratricide
Gen 4. 9-14 dialogue – Yahweh and Cain
Gen 4. 15-16 narrative – Yahweh active, Cain passive11

A further parameter is to include only those sections of the treatises that relate directly to
the development of Cain and Abel’s personae. The richness of Philo’s exegesis means
that substantial sections of the treatises are excluded from this investigation.

The study focuses on three of Philo’s treatises: On the Cherubim §§40-130 (hereafter
Cher.), covering Gen. 3.24-4.1; On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain §§1-139 (Sacr.), covering

10
Overall, the name Cain appears 82 times in Philo’s corpus to Abel’s 40 appearances. See P. Borgen,
K. Fuglseth, R. Skarsten (eds.), The Philo Index: A Complete Word Index to the Writings of Philo of
Alexandria (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2000), pp. 1, 181. In the Cain and Abel narrative, Cain appears
in Cher., 12, 40, 52 (x2), 53, 54, 55, 65, 124; Sacr., 1, 2, 3, 5, 11 (x2), 14, 51, 52, 72, 88; Det., 1 (x3), 32
(x2), 47 (x3), 50, 61, 68, 74, 78, 96, 103, 119, 140, 141, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 177, 178; Post., 1, 10
(x2), 12, 21, 33 (x2), 34, 35, 38, 40 (x2), 42, 45, 48, 51, 65, 124, 170, 172 (x2). Abel appears in Cher.,
40; Sacr., 1 (x2), 2, 3, 5, 10, 11 (x2), 14, 51, 88, 89; Det., 1 (x3), 32 (x2), 37, 42, 45, 47 (x2), 48, 57, 68,
78, 103; Post., 10, 38, 124 (x2), 170, 172 (x2), 173. Reference to Cain and Abel are also found in QG.
where Cain is mentioned five times (1.60, 62, 74, 76, 77) to Abel’s three (1.60, 62; 3.11). The
disparity in coverage between the brothers continues beyond Gen. 4.1-16. Abel is only mention in
Migr. 74 while Cain is mentioned in Agr., 21, 127; Sobr., 50; Conf., 122 (x2); Migr., 74; Congr., 171;
Fug., 60 (x2), 64. An analysis of how Philo utilises the brothers’’ character types elsewhere in the
corpus is not part of this current study.

11
G. Wenham, Genesis 1-15: Word Biblical Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1987),
p. 99.

7
Gen. 4.2-4; and The Worse Attacks the Better §§1-56 (Det.), covering Gen. 4.8. Gen. 4.5-7
will be considered through an analysis of Question in Genesis (QG) 1.62-66.12 Finally,
Chapter Four offers a conclusion of this study’s findings.

12
All references to Philo’s work are taken from F. Colson, G. Whitaker, & R. Marcus, Philo in Ten
Volumes (and two supplementary volumes) (Loeb Classical Library: London, 1929-1962).

8
 Chapter 1: Philo’s Sitz im Leben
Introduction

This section considers elements of Philo’s life and work. After a consideration of the
factors that shaped Philo’s Sitz im Leben which locates him within the world of early
Roman Alexandria, his use of Judaism and Hellenism within the AC is illustrated. An
assessment of the Cain and Abel narrative within the Philonic corpus is then
undertaken.

Philo within Alexandrian society

Philo (c.15BCE-50CE) was a child of a new political era, as 300 years of Ptolemaic rule
had just been overturned in 31BCE.13 Relatively little is known about the Jews of
Alexandria during this period. By the Roman conquest, the Jews were already an integral
part of Alexandrian society, comprising a substantial minority of the population. Their
legal status had been recognised for centuries, most likely as a religious group that was
allowed, within limits, to live in accordance with their ancestral Mosaic Laws.14
Philo was connected to the Jewish elites in Alexandria. Josephus mentions that
Philo’s brother, Alexander, was alabarch of Alexandria. Philo’s education would have
been a unique blend of traditional Jewish instruction in the synagogue alongside the
Greek general education of the encyclios paideia. 15 His writings reveal that he had an
excellent command of the Greek language, was well acquainted with Greek
philosophers, but also possessed a profound knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures.16 Little
is known of Philo’s life other than his leadership of the Jewish Embassy to Rome of
39/40CE, and that he undertook at least one pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem.17

13
P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for his time (SBL: Atlanta, Georgia, 1997), pp. 42-3.

14
Flacc. 50; Legat. 152-159; see S. Pearce, Land of the Body: Studies in Philo’s representation of
Egypt (Mohr Siebeck: Tubingen, 2007), pp. 1-8.

15
Congr. 11, 16-18, 75-76, 148; Somn. 1.205; see further K. Schenck, A Brief Guide to Philo (WJK
Press: Louisville, 2005), p. 11.

16
Schenck, A Brief Guide to Philo, p. 11; Congr. 79.

17
Prov. II.64; Migr. 89-93.

9
 Judaism and Hellenism in Philonic Exegesis
Philo’s writings reflect the convergence of two cultures which flourished in Alexandria
during his lifetime: Judaism and Hellenism. Before considering the importance of these
two traditions it must be noted that Philo’s main frame of reference is the Hebrew
Scriptures in the Greek LXX translation. The two cultures were subsumed within
Philo’s larger purpose, that of explaining the interaction between soul and body as
encoded allegorically by Moses in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Judaism
Philo must have had considerable exposure to the traditions of Jewish biblical exegesis
and interpretation current in his time, that is, a period prior to the development of
rabbinic Judaism. Determining the precise relationship between Philo and pre-rabbinic
Judaism has proved to be a significant challenge and there is still much debate on many
points. 18
Two examples will suffice to illustrate Philo’s adoption of Jewish strands of
Biblical exegesis. The first and most striking is the question-answer method that
permeates the Philonic corpus. Although more marked in the QG, Philo’s exegesis in
the AC is a form of zetetic literature, and David Hay has suggested that the questions
that Philo poses would have come from earlier Jewish interpretation.19 A second
example is the pre-eminence of Moses. Moses is mentioned 480 times in the Philonic
corpus, 62 of which appear in the Cain and Abel narrative. For Philo, Moses was “the
holiest of men” (Cher. §45), the “guardian of the laws” (Sacr. §50), the “most perfect”
person (Det. §132), and the “God beloved” (Cher. §49). He was “the high priest and
prophet and friend of God” (Sacr. §130) who “follows truth in its purity” (Sacr. §12),
“the lawgiver” (Det. §135) who, as the “all-wise” (Post. §28), “acts as God’s interpreter
(Post. §1).20

18
A. Geljon and D. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On Cultivation: Introduction, Translation and
Commentary (Brill: Leiden, 2013), pp. 26-27.

19
D. Hay, “References to other exegetes”, in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of
Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus (Scholars Press: Atlanta, 1991), pp. 81-
97, here pp. 94-5.

20
Borgen, Fuglseth, Skartsen, The Philo Index.

10
Hellenism
Philo had a profound knowledge of Greek philosophy and literature, and the academic
debate over whether he should be considered a Stoic or a Platonist still continues. There
is firm evidence to support the assertion that it was Plato and the Platonic tradition,
through texts such as the Timaeus and the Theaetetus which exerted the greatest impact.21
Runia has ably demonstrated the frequent echoes of the Timaeus in the Philonic corpus;
in several instances in the treatises under consideration, Mind becomes “a shepherd of
the sheep, one who guides the chariot and controls the helm of the unreasoning
faculties of the soul” (Sacr. §45). Lincicum’s catalogue of Philo’s non-biblical citations
supports Runia’s assertions and indicates the importance of Plato’s work to Philo’s
exegesis.22 Furthermore, Stewart’s recent paper, examining Philo’s attitude towards evil,
has assigned a similar importance to the Theaetetus.23
At the core of Philo’s exegesis is the interaction between the soul and the body
as encoded by Moses in the Hebrew Scriptures. In exploring this interface Philo draws
on the Platonic tripartite model as well as the Stoic monistic approach. Plato had
envisioned a division of the soul that sets in continual opposition three discrete parts
described as the “rational”, “spirited” and “appetitive”. The Stoics had posited a
unitary structure, in which the soul was divided into eight parts, centred on reason and
with seven subordinate, irrational extensions. Philo appropriated ideas and concepts
from the two traditions as best suited the exegetical demands of the Scripture under
consideration. This is not an eclectic selection but one that provides “a doxographical
dynamic”, partly embedded in his sources and partly of his own making.24

21
D. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and The Timaeus of Plato (Brill: Leiden, 1986), passim.

22
Lincicum identifies nine quotations or allusions in the Cain and Abel narrative to the Timaeus: Ti.
29e – Cher. 125; Ti. 30a – Sacr. 82; Ti. 32c – Det. 154; Ti. 42e – Post. 5; Ti. 69d – Det. 160; Ti. 90 –
Det. 84-85; Ti. 90a – Det. 85; Ti. 90d – Det. 85; and Ti. 91e – Det. 85. D. Lincicum, “A preliminary
index to Philo’s non-biblical citations and allusions”, Studia Philonica XXV (2013), pp. 139-167, here
p. 158.

23
T. Stewart, “Theological Suicide: Evil and the imperceptions of God”, SBL Philo Paper 2016,
http://torreys.org/philo_seminar_papers/ (accessed November 2016), passim.

24
G. Reydams-Schils, “Philo of Alexandria on Stoic and Platonist Psycho-Physiology: The Socratic
Higher Ground”, in F. Alesse (ed.) Philo of Alexandria and Post Aristotelian Philosophy (Brill: Leiden,
2008), pp. 169-196, here p. 171.

11
 This duality is most striking in contexts where the exegete moves directly from
one model to the other, but such an immediate switch is absent from our treatises. In
his exegesis of Gen 4.15, Philo appropriates the Stoic model:
“the irrational side of the soul is divided into seven parts, seeing, hearing,
smelling, tasting, touching, speaking begetting … the eighth is mind, which is
the ruler of these” (Det. §168).

But reference had already been made to the Platonic model earlier in the treatise:
“the irrational part is dumb; the rational part has a voice, it only having attained
to the conception of God; for with the other part we can apprehend neither
God nor any other mental object” (Det. §91).

Philo offers no hint of a fundamental incompatibility between the two approaches. This
fluidity has been addressed by Reydams-Schils, who identified 34 permutations of the
Platonic/Stoic interface in the Philonic Corpus of which 23 are illustrated in the Cain
and Abel treatises.25
Philo’s further indebtedness to Hellenism is revealed in many other ways, such
as his references to Greek culture and myth; the “Macedonian King Alexander” (Cher.
§63); terminology such as the pancratium (Cher. §81); frequent references to Greek
paideia (Cher. §105); the use of prepositional metaphysics (Cher. §125); and reference to
the “Scylla of fable” (Det. §178). Elements of Neo-Pythagoreanism can be detected in
Philo’s understanding and interpretation of numbers, such as the “perfect number 10”
(Post. §173). Finally, the opening paragraphs of Post. offers a scathing attack on
Epicureanism.26
To conclude this section, reference needs to be made to the creative tension
displayed in Philo’s work as a result of this interplay between Hellenism and Judaism.
Mendelson has convincingly identified a “dialectical movement” in Philo’s exegesis
through an examination of Philo’s evolving approach towards Deuteronomy 28.
Mendelson reveals how in some, perhaps earlier, treatises the exegete adheres to the
spirit in the Deuteronomic scheme, but then in other, perhaps later, works, especially
the Cain and Abel narrative, Philo virtually rejects it. The paucity of evidence means
that it is impossible to ascertain either the order in which these treatises were written or

25
Reydams-Schils, “The Socratic Higher Ground”, pp. 175-187.

26
G. Ranoocchia, “Moses against the Egyptian: The anti-Epicurean polemic in Philo”, in F. Alesse
(ed.), Philo of Alexandria and Post Aristotelian Philosophy (Brill: Leiden, 2008), pp.75-101, here
pp.75-77.

12
the rate at which this interpretative change occurred. However, we can say that Philo’s
brilliance is displayed in the “spirit of reconciliation” that he adopts in maintaining a
balance between these opposing forces: Moses exemplifying Law and tradition, and
Plato typifying rational inquiry. 27

The Cain and Abel narrative as part of the Allegorical Commentary

The extant Philonic corpus is traditionally divided into three series. The first, the AC,
offers an allegorical commentary on Gen. 2.1-17.22 structured through a series of
detailed lemmata. The second, the QG, is a form of zetetic literature, offering a verse-by-
verse lemmatic commentary of Gen. 2.4-28.9. The third is the Exposition of the Law,
which focuses on Creation as outlined in Genesis 1, the lives of the Patriarchs, and the
commandments found in the Pentateuch.28
Although considerable overlap exists between the AC and the QG, there are
significant differences in their treatment of scripture. Ellen Birnbaum’s comment that
the interpreter must “be aware of the possibility that [Philo] may be adapting his
presentation to suit a particular audience or literary genre” is relevant at this juncture.29
First, the depth of exegesis varies quite markedly between the two, thus indicating two
possible audiences. This is well illustrated by the treatises’ treatment of Gen. 4.1. In
QG1.58 Philo’s exegesis of this lemma occupies fewer than ten lines, yet in Cher. he
offers 43 paragraphs. A second difference is in the nature of the exegesis. In the QG,
Philo nearly always offers a brief literal reading with the occasional concomitant
allegorical exegesis. In the AC the reverse is true: the exegesis is chiefly allegorical, with
the literal reading being both cursory and frequently used merely to chide those who
would offer only a literal interpretation of the biblical text. An example of this is
provided in Det. §15 where, in referring to the Vale of Hebron, Philo states that such a
location is “a plain hint to avoid the literal interpretation”. Thirdly, the AC intertwines
allegorical exegesis with what can be, on occasion, quite extensive philosophical

27
A. Mendelson, “Philo’s Dialectic of Reward and Punishment”, Studia Philonica 9 (1997), pp.104-25,
here pp. 104-5, 124-5.

28
Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation, pp. 1-2. The Exposition of the Law does not form a part of this
study.

29
E. Birnbaum, “What does Philo mean by ‘Seeing God’? Some methodological considerations” SBL
Seminar Papers 34 (1995), p.538, cited in T. Stewart, “Theological Suicide: Evil and the imperceptions
of God”, SBL Philo Paper 2016, http://torreys.org/philo_seminar_papers/ (accessed November
2016), p.14.

13
excursions, a style totally absent from the QG. Fourthly, in the AC Philo’s exegesis of
the central biblical lemma is corroborated by reference to several layers of citations
from supporting biblical texts, again something which is missing in QG.
As a result of these differences, there has been much debate over the
relationship between the two sets of treatises, with scholars adopting widely opposing
views. Some posit that the QG consisted of notes made by Philo to aid with the
composition of the AC. Others believe that the QG acted as a Prolegomena to the AC.
Yet others view them as two distinct, unrelated series of treatises. The QG’s simple
structure aimed to engage with a wide readership of both Jews and Gentiles. In contrast,
because of the complexity of the AC, it is generally assumed that it was written for an
inner circle of sophisticated readers, who had a working knowledge of the Greek
Pentateuch and were well-versed in the allegorical method of interpreting its traditions.30
The relationship between the AC and the QG, as far as they relate to Genesis
4.1-8, is outlined in the table below, and the location of the Cain trilogy within the AC
can be seen in the footnote.31 From Eusebius’ catalogue it is clear that several of Philo’s
treatises are no longer extant, and this may explain the absence of a commentary on
Gen. 4.5-7. 32

30
Pearce, Land of the Body, p. 23.

31

1 Legum allegoriae 1-3 Gen. 2.1 - 3.19

2 De Cherubim Gen. 3.24 - 4.1
3 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini Gen. 4.2-4
4 Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat Gen. 4.8-15
5 De posteriate Caini Gen. 4.16-25
6 De gigantibus Gen. 6.1-4
7 Quod Deus immutabilis sit Gen. 6.4-12
8 De agricultura Gen. 9.20a
9 De plantatione Gen. 9.20b
10 De ebrietate Gen. 9.21
11 De sobrietate Gen. 9.24-27
12 De migratione Abrahami Gen. 12.1-6
13 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit Gen 15.2-18
14 De congressu eruditionis gratia Gen. 16.1-6
15 De fuga et inventione Gen. 16.6-14
16 De mutatione nominum Gen. 17.1-22
17 De somniis 1-2 Gen. 28.12-15, 31.11-13, 37, 40-41.

32
For example, Eusebius mentions that De somniis was originally in five books.

14
 AC Treatise Genesis QG133
Cher. §§40-130 4.1-2 58
Sacr. §§1-10 4.2
Sacr. §§11-51 4.2 59
Sacr. §§52-139 4.3 60-1
4.4 62
4.5 63
4.6
4.7 64-66
Det. §§1-56 4.8 6734

Even before we turn to consider the interpretive approach to be adopted in this

study, the centrality of scripture to the exegete’s work is obvious. The preceding table
illustrates how Philo used sequential citations from scripture to provide an overall
structure to his treatises.35 In addition, Philo deploys scripture both to elaborate and to

33
What are the exegetical concerns raised in these 19 Quaestiones? Eight focus on clarification of
the LXX text, three are philosophical in nature, two are linked to issues of anthropomorphism, two
consider the order of the text, one considers contradictions in the text, and one focuses on
unexplained assumptions. Clarification of the text: QG1.58, 62, 65, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73; philosophical:
QG1.60, 64, 75; anthropomorphism: QG1.68, 69; order of the text: QG1.59, 61; contradictions in the
text: QG1.74; unexplained assumptions: QG1.63. The Solutiones can also be classified: there are 18
which are strictly literal, with QG1.75 only offering an allegorical solution. Rather unusually there are
no examples within Gen 4.1-16 that comprise a mixture of the two approaches.

34
Thereafter the remainder of the Cain and Abel narrative is covered in the following distribution by
the AC and QG:
AC Treatise Genesis QG1
Det. §§57-68 4.9 68-69
Det. §§69-95 4.10 70
Det. §§96-99 4.11 71
Det. §§100-103 4.11
Det. §§104-118 4.12
Det. §§119-140 4.12 72
Det. §§141-149 4.13 73
Det. §§150-162 4.14 73
Det. §§163-166 4.14, 16 74
Det. §§167-176 4.15 75
Det. §§177-178 4.15 76
Post. §§1-31 4.16
Thereafter, QG1.77 moves on to Gen 4.23, omitting any reference to 4.16-22, similar to other
sections within QG1 where genealogies are omitted. QG1.77-79 then consider Gen 4.23-26, which is
beyond the scope of this study. The table is extracted from G. Sterling, “Philo’s Quaestiones:
Prolegomena or afterthought?” in Hay (ed.), Both Literal and Allegorical, pp. 99-123, here p. 110. It is
interesting to note the differing interpretation of the relationship offered by Measson and Cazeaux
in the same volume. See A. Measson & J. Cazeaux, “From grammar to discourse: A study in the
Quaestiones in Genesim in relation to the treatises”, ibid, pp.126-225, here pp.133-134.

35
A similar pattern can be identified in other Philonic treatises; see, for example, Geljon and Runia,
On Cultivation, p. 16; D. Runia, “Structure” (1984), pp. 241-44, here referring to Quod Deus Sit
Immutabilis; “Observations”, Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987), pp. 133-34, here referring to De
Gigantibus.

15
develop his exegesis of the central lemmata. Philo follows the principle of explaining the
Torah via the Torah, which he saw as a unified whole and the work of a single author,
and from which he made frequent supporting citations as shown below. 36

Cher. Sacr. Det. Post. Total %

Pentateuch
Genesis 16 14 26 27 83 44
Exodus 6 17 11 12 46 24
Leviticus 2 7 2 5 16 8
Numbers 4 7 4 4 19 9
Deuteronomy 2 9 4 15 30 15
Other
Jeremiah 1 - - - 1 <1
Total 31 54 47 63 195 100

The results reveal Genesis to be Philo’s main book of choice and there is only a
limited reference to non-Pentateuchal sources.37 Most interestingly, the analysis reveals
that even within Genesis, Philo showed a predilection to certain verses, as indicated by
the following table.38

Chapter citations Chapter citations Chapter citations Chapter citations

Gen 2 5 Gen 16 1 Gen 28 1 Gen 39 1
Gen 3 1 Gen 18 9 Gen 29 2 Gen 40 1
Gen 4 5 Gen 19 2 Gen 30 3 Gen 41 1
Gen 5 5 Gen 21 4 Gen 31 4 Gen 46 1
Gen 7 1 Gen 22 2 Gen 33 1 Gen 47 1
Gen 9 1 Gen 24 3 Gen 35 1 Gen 49 1
Gen 11 4 Gen 25 6 Gen 37 9
Gen 12 2 Gen 27 4 Gen 38 1
Genesis 18 and 37 are used nine times; Genesis 25 is cited six times; fourteen
chapters (28%) are cited once; and twenty chapters (40%) have no citation. How are
Genesis 18 and 37 utilised?

36
Although this study focuses on Gen 4.1-8, to increase the sample size the table includes all clear
Bible references found in the four treatises. As this is an exercise to illustrate how Philo used Torah
to explain Torah, the verses from Genesis which act as MBLs have been excluded from the count.

37
These findings are similar to those offered for Agr.: Genesis 9, Exodus 3, Leviticus 2, Numbers 3,
Deuteronomy 6, Psalms 1. See Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation, p. 17.

38
Chapters from Genesis with no citations are omitted.

16
 Philo’s references to Genesis 18 centre on two episodes: Abraham and the three
visitors at Mamre (vv.1-15), and his pleading for Sodom (vv.16-37). The verses cited
are:
Mamre
v. 6 Abraham’s request to Sarah to produce food.
v. 9 questioning the whereabouts of Sarah.
v. 11 (3 times Cher. §8 and §50 and Det. §28) Sarah beyond the age of
child bearing.
Sodom
v. 22 (twice Cher. §18 and Post. §27) Abraham remains standing before
the Lord.
v. 24 plea for 50 righteous men.

In Genesis 37 Philo focuses on Jacob’s dreams (vv.1-11), and being sold into
captivity (vv.12-36):
v. 3 Israel’s love for Joseph.
v. 13 Joseph sent to brother’s flocks at Shechem.
v. 14 Joseph sent to the Valley of Hebron.
v. 15 (four times at Det. §§10, 17, 22 and 24) “What are you looking
for?”
v. 17 Joseph informed brothers have moved on.
vv. 13-17 cited once at Det. §5.

Finally, in Genesis 25, Philo centres on the death of Abraham (vv.1-11),

Ishmael’s sons (vv.12-18), and Esau and Jacob (vv. 19-34):

v. 5 descendants of Abraham.
v. 8 death of Abraham.
v.21 (twice at Cher. §47 and Post. §27) Isaac’s prayer to the Lord.
v. 29 Jacob cooking stew when Esau enters tent.
v. 33 Esau selling birth right to Jacob.

Philo treats these citations in different ways. In some cases the verses are quoted
at length and lead to an extensive piece of allegory, while in other places Philo is
interested in just a single word or phrase.

Conclusion
Philo should be regarded primarily as an exegete and not as a philosopher. Although
Philo made extensive use of non-biblical sources - such as Stoic and Platonic concepts
of the Mind – such material was deployed to elucidate the deeper meaning of scripture.
As Wolfson opined, “philosophy is the handmade of theology” in Philo’s treatises, with

17
the exegete selecting from Hellenistic philosophy as best suited his exegetical purpose. 39
It is also evident that Philo used Torah to explain Torah. However, his references from
scripture are heavily skewed towards Genesis over the other books of the Torah, and,
even within Genesis, Philo focused predominantly on passages relating to Abraham,
Jacob and Joseph.

39
H. Wolfson, Philo, Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Vol. 1.
Structure and growth of philosophical systems from Plato to Spinoza (Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, Mass, 1962), p. 145.

18
 Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction

This section will provide a critique of two approaches to unlocking the structure of
Philo’s AC. That of Burton Mack suggests that rhetorical composition was foundational
to Philonic exegesis within the AC. The second approach, initially proposed by David
Runia, offers a far less structured but more readily applied approach, namely, that Philo
used Torah to explain Torah.

Burton L. Mack and Manuel Alexandre

Two articles by Mack, both focusing on Sacr., are of particular relevance to this study:
Decoding the Scripture (1984) and Argumentation in Philo’s De Sacrificiis (2008). Mack’s
argument requires two central assumptions to be made. The first assumption is
uncontroversial: Philo, exposed to Hellenistic paideia, would be skilled in the art of
Hellenistic rhetorical composition.40 The second assumption, that Philo believed that all
of Moses’ writings were “crafted according to the canons of rhetorical composition”, is
more difficult to substantiate.41 Mack proceeds to dissect the chreia exercises found in
the progymnasmata of Hermogenes and others.42 He then reconstructs Philo’s exegesis of
Sacr. §§1-10 (1984) and Sacr. §§1-139 (2008), noting that “seven of the eight parts of the
chreia-elaboration are present, and in the order in which they occur in Hermogenes!”43 In
2008 Mack accepted that his task was more challenging because of the length of the
four lemmata that comprised Sacr. and that the steps required to identify the underlying
exegetical structure would be complex as the scripture was “encoded”.44 Mack posited

40
Burton L. Mack, “Decoding the Scripture: Philo and the Rules of Rhetoric”, in Nourished with
Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Scholars Press: Chico, California,
1984), pp. 81-116 (p. 83) and “Argumentation in Philo’s De Sacrificiis”, Studia Philonica, Vol. XX (SBL:
Atlanta, Georgia, 2008), pp. 1-32.

41
Mack, “Decoding”, pp. 84 and 115.

42
Mack, “Decoding”, pp 84-99.

43
Mack, “Decoding”, p.99. The eight stages were: (1) praise for the author, (2) paraphrase of the
chreia, (3) statement of the rationale, (4) an argument by contrast, (5) an analogy, (6) an example,
(7) a citation of authority, and (8) an exhortation.

44
Mack, “Argumentation”, pp. 3-4. Sacr. 1-10, Sacr. 11-51, Sacr. 52-87 and Sacr. 88-139.

19
that Philo overcame this by a series of clever rhetorical moves to develop inter-locking
elaborations within each lemma.45

This approach is not persuasive. Given Philo’s background and the length of his
treatises, sections will no doubt exhibit rhetorical argumentation. In a study of Philo’s
use of rhetoric, Manuel Alexandre accepts the limitations of such an approach, choosing
to centre his attention solely on Sacr. §§21-44 rather than the whole treatise. Likewise,
his analysis of Cher. is restricted to §§1-10, 40-52 and 65-83, the parts conducive to
rhetorical analysis, rather than the whole treatise. To apply the approach wholesale to a
complete treatise within the AC (as Mack attempts to do) is unsustainable. Mack
appears to have made Sacr. fit a pre-defined rhetorical framework rather than first
ascertaining what informs the treatises’ overall exegetical structure.46

Mack’s approach can be critiqued on other levels. Although training in rhetoric

existed in Alexandria, it was by no means as pervasive as some thought. Philo’s
numerous references to rhetoric reveals that he was impressed by its importance, and
some sections of his exegesis do mirror chreia. However, ancient rhetoricians were
descriptive rather than prescriptive, discourse was not the straitjacket that Mack infers.
Further, extant rhetorical guides do not consider religious documents and no doubt had
they embraced such texts they would have found alternative characteristics of written
structures.47
Finally, it is an accepted critical truism “that if you are very clear about what it is
you’re looking for, you’ll probably find it, one way or another”, and this holds true for
Mack.48 A detailed survey of Mack’s article reveals that the sections of the treatise
which fail to fit the model are glossed over. Footnote 32, below, provides such an
example taken from Mack’s analysis of Sacr. §§64-72. 49 The left hand box outlines

45
Mack, “Argumentation”, p. 4. Sacr. 1-10 has one elaboration; Sacr. 11-51 has two; Sacr. 52-87 has
three, and Sacr. 88-139 has one. In addition, Mack identified a further thirteen minor elaborations
within the structure where additional biblical texts had been utilised in support.
46
M. Alexandre Jr., Rhetorical Argumentation in Philo of Alexandria, Studia Philonica Monograph 2
(Scholars Press: Atlanta, Georgia, 1999). See also T. Olbricht, “Review of Rhetorical Argumentation in
Philo of Alexandria”, Journal of Biblical Literature 120.4 (2001), pp.763-5.

47
Olbricht, “Review”, pp. 763-5.

48
T. Conley, review of M. Alexandre Jr., Rhetorical Argumentation in Philo of Alexandria, Journal for
the Study of Judaism, XXXI, 3, pp.298-302 (here p. 300).

49
Mack, “Argumentation”, p. 15; Sacr. 69-72.

20
Mack’s rhetorical structure, which is in considerable detail until it reaches what is
classified as an example for which he merely states, “Israel fleeing from Pharaoh”, before
continuing with his conclusio which is cited directly from Philo. The right hand box
outlines what “Israel fleeing from Pharaoh” covers, a rich exegetical structure whose
complexity is far more than Mack’s simple descriptor.

David Runia

Runia’s approach towards Philo’s exegetical structure was first outlined by him in The
Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatises (1984) and then in Further Observations on the Structure
of Philo’s Allegorical Treatises (1987), views which have been developed at length in later
articles and monographs.50 In the first of several contrasts to Mack, Runia posits that

Mack’s structure Philo’s exegesis

In considering the Third Lemma (Sacr. §§52- Mack states:
87), Mack identifies six elaborations of varying §68 Epilog
length. As part of the First Elaboration Mack God’s children then do not delay to do
dissects the example of Gen 27.20 as follows: what is
§64 good
Example (Gen. 27.20) Example
Jacob who found quickly what the Lord God set Israel feeling from Pharaoh
before him §69
Mini-Elaboration Pharaoh cannot see with the eyes of the Soul,
Rationale nor will he seek help through what is timeless
Learning about Creation takes time Plague of frogs and Moses’ offer to remove
Contrast them (Exod. 8.9)
The knowledge of God occurs quickly Pharaoh delays accepting the offer
§65 Analogy §70
Paideia vs Sophia from God This is always the case with those “Facing-
Example both-ways.” They have no firm faith in God and
God’ creation of the world by a word so they flee to created objects – physicians,
§66 Witness (Num. 11.23) drugs, diet. If God is offered as a solution they
“My word shall overtake thee.” scoff
§67 Witness (Ex. 17.6) §71
“Here I stand before thou wast.” But when no created help avails them, then
§68 Epilog they turn to God.
God’s children then do not delay to do But knowing why this has happened, “God
what is does not in all cases follow His law (of mercy)
good but only when it may be followed for good and
Example with profit.”
Israel feeling from Pharaoh (§§69-71) Conclusion
Conclusio
“So that every imagination which counts
that
all things are its own possession….”

50
D. Runia, “Structure”, pp. 209-256; idem, “Observations”, pp. 105-138; see also idem, Timaeus,
pp. 17-27; “The Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatise De Agricultura”, Studia Philonica Annual 22

21
“Philo’s structures are too fluid, too flexible to allow us to ‘decode’ them in a way that
might render them … in any way predictable”.51 Runia continues by differentiating
between Philo’s exegetical procedures and his exegetical techniques. Concerning
procedure, Runia accepts that Philo used a number of methods on a regular basis in
constructing his chapters but, importantly, the same combination is not used in every
chapter.52 With regard to exegetical techniques, Runia argues that Philo focuses the
attention of the reader on one aspect of the lemma which then facilitates a better
understanding of the lemma as a whole.53

Runia’s focus is on Philo’s use of biblical quotations to provide his exegetical

framework. This simple empirical approach means that a minimum of prior
assumptions are made about the text.54 He posits that the treatises’ structure was
determined by Philo’s selection of biblical texts: as mentioned already, Philo used Torah
to explain Torah. Runia’s initial framework (1987) consisted of the following structure:

Main Biblical Lemma the key biblical verse on which Philo comments
(MBL)
Secondary Biblical Lemma an additional biblical verse that is quoted to
explain the MBL
(SBL)

Runia’s approach has since evolved in three ways. First, it is now accepted that
the biblical texts cited by Philo were used in different ways. The only predetermined
lemmata were the MBL, although even these were emended as Philo felt necessary.

(2010), pp. 87-109; “The Structure of Philo’s De plantatione and its place in the Allegorical
Commentary”, SBL Meeting Atlanta, November 2015, Philo of Alexandria Seminar, pp. 1-18.
http://torreys.org/philo_seminar_papers/ (accessed August 2016).

51
Runia, “Observations”, p. 124.

52
Runia, “Observations”, p. 122. These methods are (a) introduction, (b) citation of main biblical
lemma, (c) initial observation, (d) background information, (e) detailed allegorical explanation, (f)
example /comparison /illustration /contrast, (g) allegorical application to the soul, (h) proof or
witness, (i) conclusion or return to the main biblical lemma.

53
Runia, “Observations”, p.123. Examples provided are (a) report of an objection, (b) making a
distinction, (c) making a grammatical observation, (d) outline of a diaeresis.

54
M. Niehoff, Writing a Commentary on a Philonic Allegorical Treatise, SBL Meeting Atlanta,
November 2015, Philo of Alexandria Seminar paper, p.1 (http://torreys.org/philo_seminar_papers/
(accessed August 2016).

22
Philo selected the SBL to achieve his intended exegetical outcome. As an author, Philo
was mindful of his destination and the course his exegesis was to follow.
Secondly, the SBLs differ both in length and function.55 Some are cited at length
and form the basis for extended sections of exegesis. An example from this study is Ex
13.11-13 (Sacr. §90) which underpins §§91-114. Elsewhere the SBL introduces a shorter
sequence of the exegetical argument, such as at Sacr. §46 where Philo’s comment on
Jacob as shepherd leads on to a summary of his sons and Moses as shepherds. In other
places the SBL plays less of a structural role and a brief phrase is used to illustrate an
argument. A fine example is provided in Cher. §§46-50, where a range of examples is
offered to support the idea of the Patriarchs’ wives as virtues.

Finally, Runia’s initial article referred only to the MBL and SBL and this has
now been extended. First, Gregory Sterling identified that Philo makes occasional use of
a tertiary level of argumentation as well as a various modes of transition, so new
nomenclature has been created.56 And in the most recent paper on the exegetical
structure of a Philonic treatise, de Mutatione nominum, for the November 2016 SBL Philo
Meeting, Cover takes the process even further, creating a new acronym for lemmata
that contextualises the MBL as well as refining our understanding of the existing
nomenclature.57

Tertiary Biblical Lemma another biblical text that is quoted to explain

an SBL
(TBL)

55
Runia, “The Structure of Philo’s De plantatione”, p.6.
56
Runia, “The Structure of Philo’s De plantatione”, p.6.

57
M. Cover, Philo of Alexandria, De Mutatione Nominum §§103-119, Philo of Alexandria Seminar,
SBL Meeting 21st November 2016, p.45, https://biblicalresources.wordpress.com/2016/09/27/philo-
at-sbl-annual-meeting-i-3/ (accessed November 2016).
The most recent structure comprises:
MBL Primary Biblical Lemma
MBLQ “Quotation”
MBLA Allusion/Paraphrase
SBL Secondary Biblical Lemma
SBLL Lexical connection to MBL
SBLT Thematic connection to MBL
SBLP Proleptic (anticipatory) SBL
SCL Secondary Classical Lemma
TBL Tertiary Biblical Lemma
CBL Contextualising Biblical Lemma

23
Mode of Transition the way in which the quoted verses are linked
together.58
(MOT)
Contextualising Biblical
Lemma a biblical text quoted to set a frame for the
MBL/SBL
(CBL)

For consistency, the following three examples are taken from the opening
paragraphs of each treatise. The first example is from Cher. §§40-50: 59

MBL §40 Gen 4.1

“And Adam knew his wife and she conceived and bare Cain, and he said, ‘I have
gotten a man through God,’ and He added to this that she bore his brother
Abel”.
Philo’s strategy is to distance Cain’s birth from births to the Patriarchs.
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses are introduced and offered as examples of
those who do not know women.
Philo then moves on to the Patriarchs’ “helpmeets”.
§40 Philo offers the etymology of the Patriarchs’ “helpmeets”, revealing that
they are virtues:
Sarah “sovereign and leader”;
Rebecca “steadfastness in excellence”;
Leah “rejected and faint”;
Zipporah “bird speeding up to heaven”.
Philo moves on to differentiate intercourse between a man and a woman from
intercourse between a man and a virtue. Although Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and
Moses thought they were their child’s father, in reality it was God. Philo’s line of
argument is supported by four SBLs:
SBL §46 Sarah as example – “God visited her in her solitude” (Gen 21.1);
SBL Leah as example – “God opened her womb” (Gen. 29.31);
SBL §47 Rebecca as example – “Isaac the all-wise besought God” (Gen. 25.21);
SBL Zipporah as example – “pregnant through no mortal agency” (Exod.
2.22).
Philo then explains that such information is only for the initiated.
Moving away from the MBL Philo explains that he obtained this information
from Jeremiah.
TBL §48 Jeremiah as “a worthy minister of the holy secrets” (Jer. 3.4)
Philo states that Jeremiah refers to God impregnating only those of “a truly
virgin nature”. Human procreation turns virgins into women, but procreation
with God restores what was a woman into a virgin.
In support this argument Philo offers:

58
Runia has classified these into two variants: verbal – a word or phrase in the MBL prompts Philo to
recall another biblical passage where the same word of phrase appears; thematic – a theme or topic
raised in the MBL prompts Philo to recall another biblical passage where the same topic or theme
appears.

59
See Appendix 1 for details of all the structures associated with the Cain and Abel narrative.

24
CBL §50 God only talks with Sarah once she has “ceased from all that is after the
manner of women” and is “once more as a pure virgin”. (Gen. 18.11)
Having supported his argument Philo returns to the MBL.
MBL Return to the MBL

The second example is from Sacr. §§1-12:

MBL §1 Gen 4.2
“And He added to this that she brought forth Abel his brother”.
Philo offers a literal exegesis of this verse by considering the terms addition and
subtraction.
That the addition of thing one must result in the subtraction of the other.
SBL §4 (Gen 25.21ff)
Philo’s contention is supported by the example of Rebecca: “two nations are in
thy womb” and they will be separated.
Philo offers the etymology of Rebecca - “patience”
Two contending natures are found in Rebecca’s womb, offering, from Philo’s
perspective, a parallel to the situation with Cain and Abel.
Philo then offers a range of scriptural examples of “addition” which place Abel
in a positive light:
SBL §5 Abraham “added to the people of God” (Gen 28.8);
SBL Jacob “added to something better when he left the worse” (Gen 49.33);
SBL §6 Isaac “added to another company” (Gen 35.29).
There is a break in the exegesis at this point while Philo distinguishes Isaac from
Abraham and Jacob.
Moses is then introduced as the fourth example.
SBL §8 For Moses, unlike the others, there is no reference to addition or death
(Deut. 5.31).
Philo offers an explanation of what translation means and supports with
examples, so taking him one step farther away from the original MBL:
TBL Moses is “translated” (Deut. 34.5).
Philo offers an explanation of “translation”.
Philo then provides examples of Moses as a sage:
CBL §10 Moses perceived as an agent of God – given as god to the Pharaoh” (Exod
7.1).
CBL God’s agents such as Moses are not subject to addition or diminution so no
man knows the whereabouts of his grave (Deut. 34.6).
MBL §11 return to the MBL

The final example is from Det. §§1-32:

MBL §1 Gen 4.8

“And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us make our way to the Plain.”
Philo then states that Cain is trying to draw Abel into a dispute on the Plain by
“plausible sophistries” that have the appearance of truth.
§3 The seeker of knowledge, at war with the irrational powers, is always
presented on the Plain.
SBL Philo describes Jacob as being on the Plain with Rachel (Gen. 31.4)
Philo states that the Plain “is a figure for contentiousness.”
He explains this by an expansion of the point – why is Jacob there?
TBL Laban’s face not turned towards him as it used to be (Gen. 31.5)

25
 §5 Return to the theme of the Plain
SBL Second example of Joseph who goes seeking his brothers on the Plain (Gen.
37.13-17)
Philo then looks at Joseph’s story in some detail, moving away from the theme
of the Plain
TBL Joseph’s mind was full of mazes – hence the coat of many colours (Gen. 37.3)
TBL Joseph needs to submit to his brothers (Gen. 37.13)
TBL Joseph found wandering, unwilling to learn at first (Gen. 37.15)
TBL Joseph is despatched from Vale of Hebron – which are hollows of the body
(Gen 37.14)
TBL Joseph in these hollows, hence his reluctance to find his brothers (Gen. 37.15)
TBL A man finds Joseph wandering “What sleekest thou?” Evidence of Joseph’s
reluctance to find his brothers (Gen. 37.15)
TBL Man tells Joseph, “they have departed hence” (Gen. 37.17)
Man’s words to Joseph – they are “going to Dothaim” - show that his brothers
will not quit seeking virtue
CBL Sarah was like Joseph’s bothers who also refused to quit (Gen 18.11)
§29 Return to theme of the Plain
SBL Third example - Isaac going to the Plain not to contend with anyone but to
meet with God (Gen 24.63)
§32 Section ends with Philo stating “I think it has been made sufficiently
clear that the plain on to which Cain challenges Abel to come is a figure of a
contest to be fought out.”

Support for Runia’s approach appeared in 2013, with the publication of On

Cultivation. 60 All volumes of the Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series concerning the AC
will use this approach, indicating the technique’s strength and broad academic
acceptance. In this study Runia’s methodology will be used to determine Philo’s
exegetical structure of Gen 4.1-8, and to illustrate how Philo used this to develop Cain
and Abel’s personae.

Soul-type and etymology

Finally, some brief comments are necessary on what is meant by soul-type and on
Philo’s use of etymology. As has been indicated, Philo’s Sitz im Leben influenced his
interpretation of Gen 4.1-8. Chief among these influences would have been Platonic

60
Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation. Previous volumes in the series are: W. Wilson, Philo of
Alexandria, On Virtues: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (SBL: Atlanta, Georgia, 2011); P.
van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (SBL:
Atlanta, Georgia, 2013); D. Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction,
Translation and Commentary (SBL: Atlanta, Georgia, 2001). Volumes awaiting publication in the AC
that will use Runia’s approach are as follows: Legum allegoriae, De Cherubim, Quod deterius, De
Posteritate, De Plantatione, De Confusione, De migratione Abrahami and De mutatione nominum..
http://divinity.yale.edu/lifelong-learning/philo-alexandria/related-projects/philo-alexandria-
commentary-series (accessed August 2016).

26
and Stoic interpretations of the Soul. For Philo, the Soul and the passions were engaged
in a constant struggle, as the former strove for domination so that it could progress
toward a higher state of virtue, eventually permitting it to penetrate the realm of the
divine. As Najman has cogently argued, “Cain and Abel are presented as two aspects of
the human soul, representing the human capacity for good and the human capacity for
evil”. 61 The interaction between these two personae lies at the heart of the allegorical
exegesis of Gen 4.1-8 and their personae can be a source for moral teaching. Given the
overall structure of the treatises, with frequent exits from and entries into the narrative,
Cain and Abel are most accurately identified as the dramatis personae around which a
four-act play is constructed. 62

Philo constructs Cain and Abel’s personae in two ways. On the one hand clear
reference is made to them as individuals: in Cher. §52, for example, Eve gave birth to
“that thing of ruin … Cain, the fratricide, the accursed”. This stands in marked contrast
to the description of Abel’s birth in Sacr. 10, “the birth of the perfect good”, where “the
good is holiness and the name of holiness is Abel”.63 But their contrasting personae is
reinforced by the supporting cast of other soul types. Philo compares Abel’s positive
soul-type to Abraham, Jacob, Isaac and Moses, and compares Cain’s negative soul-type
to Pharaoh, Esau, Balaam, Lamech and Laban. The reverse is also true, that is, Cain is
compared unfavourably to Abraham, Jacob, Isaac and Moses while Esau and Laban are
compared unfavourably with Abel. Finally, the positive soul-types place their trust only in
“the One, the Primal, the Uncreated and Maker of all”, but the negative soul-types
appear more varied in their characterisation.64

61
Najman, ‘Cain and Abel’, p. 107.

62
The Cain and Abel narrative is often described as a trilogy. This, however, is an inaccurate
description. At the very least it should be viewed as a tetralogy: the traditional volumes of Sacr. Det.,
and Post. prefaced by Cher.. There is good reason to believe that Philo’s exegesis of Gen 4.1-26 was
originally a pentalogy. This study focuses on the extant treatises that comprise the tetralogy.
Recent interpretations of Gen 4 continue to offer support to the idea of a trilogy; see, e.g., A.
Kamesar, “Biblical Interpretation in Philo”, pp. 101-2 in A. Kamesar (ed.), The Cambridge Companion
to Philo (Cambridge: CUP, 2009), pp. 82-111; Najman, “Cain and Abel”, p. 113; Mendelson, “Philo’s
Dialectic of Reward and Punishment”, pp.104-25; Wilson, On Virtues, p. 394.

63
As we shall see, Cain is constantly denigrated by Philo. He is an atheist (Del. §103, 119); those who
think like him are of the race of Cain (Post. §103) and he is the ultimate symbol of wickedness (Migr.
§1.63). See Byron, Cain and Abel, p.208.

64
Virt. 213-8; L. Kerns, Platonic and Stoic Passions in Philo of Alexandria, unpublished PhD, King’s
College London, 2012, pp.185-201.

27
 This process operates in two directions: Philo uses these supporting characters
to “flesh out” Cain and Abel in Gen 4.1-8, but he also uses the Cain and Abel narrative
“as a lens through which to read other biblical narratives”.65 Again a brief example of
each will have to suffice. Working outwards, using Gen 4.1-8 as a lens on others, we
note in Agr. §§20-25 that Cain is compared with Noah as workers of the earth. Cain is
identified as a worker of the earth in contrast to Noah whom Philo portrays as a
cultivator. Reference is made to Gen 4.11-12 in order to indicate that the former is
cursed, demonstrating that this activity and the person involved must be seen in a bad
light.66 Working inwards, in Det. §59 Abraham’s positive response to God’s question,
“Where is thy virtue?” (Gen 18.9), means the latter is “well pleased with the motive of
his answer” (Det. §60); this stands in contrast to Cain’s response to the question,
“Where is Abel thy brother?” (Det. §57), which brought blame. And finally, when
indicating that Cain’s name equates to “possession”, Philo mentions that Jacob would
have “laugh[ed] loud and long” when Laban stated that his daughters, sons and cattle
were “my” possessions (Cher. §67).
Finally, Philo’s use of etymology as an allegorical technique requires mention.
As Chapter 3 will demonstrate, etymology is widespread in Philo’s exegesis. However,
despite the complexity of his exegesis, Philo’s method for utilising etymology as an
allegorical technique “could not be simpler”. 67 Runia posits that Philo’s etymological
allegorical interpretation usually consists of five elements: the biblical lemma is cited;
symbolic identification of the subject of the lemma is made; the Hebrew name is
etymologised to explain the symbolism; justification is provided for the symbolism; and
the explanation is expanded by taking into account the remainder of the biblical lemma.
68
This pattern will be readily identified in the analysis in Chapter 3.

Conclusion
Before moving on to offer an examination of the Cain and Abel narrative (Chapter 3), it
is worth reiterating the strands that underpin the exegesis that follows. To reappropriate
Cazeaux’s reference to Det. §83: these strands provide the warp and weft that allow

65
Najman, “Cain and Abel”, p. 118.

66
Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation, pp. 112-3.

67
Runia, “Etymology as an exegetical technique”, p. 103.

68
Runia, “Etymology as an exegetical technique”, p. 104.

28
Philo to weave together his treatises. The first strand is Philo’s willingness to subsume
Hellenism and Judaism to the needs of his exegetical model. The second strand is
Philo’s use of etymology and soul type to support his exegetical framework. The
outcome is “a rigorously controlled structure of unsurpassed coherence and subtlety”.69

69
Runia, “Structure”, p. 212.

29
 Chapter 3
Philo’s Exegesis of the Cain and Abel Narrative
De Cherubim (Cher.)
Introduction
Cher. is the first section of the Cain and Abel tetralogy, and it provides an exegesis of
Gen 3.24 and 4.1 in two distinct parts. Cazeaux has argued that Cher. is organised so as
to demonstrate that “the name Cain, translated as possession, justifies the definitive
punishment imposed on Adam”.70 This summary is not seen as persuasive, as Cazeaux
forces Cher. to fit preconceived notions concerning Philo’s exegetical methods. The only
reference to Cain in §§1-39 occurs at §12, where he is mentioned in the SBL of Gen.
4.16. For Cazeaux’s statement to hold true, Cain would have appeared far more
frequently and directly in §§1-39.
Philo’s AC treatises typically start either at transitional points in Genesis (e.g., Migr.,
at Gen 12.1) or, if they begin mid-chapter, they can be described as relational texts (e.g.,
Gig. and Deus., with Gig. starting at Gen 6.1, and Deus., the associated text, starting at
Gen 6.4). Neither statement holds true for Cher.. As there are no other examples in the
Philonic corpus spanning two chapters of Genesis, why might this be the case here?
Could it simply be that Philo “thought the contents of the book so far were a bit too
short for a decent scroll, so he should add more to it?”71
Irrespective of these issues, Cher. is crucial for our understanding of the exegetical
structure of the Cain and Abel narrative and for Philo’s use of typology. Pearce has
argued that the fate of the soul is the “constant centre of Philo’s thought”, as Mind
struggles to be liberated from the deceptions of Sense. As Cain, whose birth is the focus
of Cher. §§40-130, was the offspring of Mind’s first unguarded interaction with Sense,
the encounter and its result are of the greatest importance.72 A range of secondary
characters offer supporting roles to Cain’s lead; negative personae are depicted by
Pharaoh and Laban, with Joseph and Moses offering examples of sage like soul-types.

70
J. Cazeaux, De la grammaire à la sagesse: Le traité “De Cherubim” (Lyon, 1978), p.1, quoted in
Alexandre, Rhetorical Argumentation, p. 213. Some 70 per cent of Cher. refers to Cain’s birth and
without it Philo’s exegesis of Gen 4.1 would be omitted, as this comprises Cher. §§40-130 with Gen
4.1 only partially covered by QG1.58.

71
M. Niehoff, “Writing a Commentary”, p. 2.

72
Pearce, Land of the Body, p.30.

30
Overall Exegetical Structure of Cher.
The Cain and Abel narrative begins abruptly at §40; there is no transitional statement
from §§1-39.73 Philo develops his argument in Cher. §§40-130 through four elaborations
based on the single MBL of Gen. 4.1-2.
First Elaboration §§40-52
Citation of the MBL followed by an allegorical explanation that differentiates
Cain’s birth from births to the Patriarchs and Moses.74
Second Elaboration §§53-83
A literal argument to explain Cain’s sudden appearance which is taken as a
signifier concerning his character. Philo then develops the allegory of Mind
(Adam) knowing Sense (Eve). Their offspring, Cain, represents the impious
Mind’s belief that all Sense-Perceptions are his own rather than the result of
God’s creation. A range of examples is offered to illustrate the folly of this
misguided belief.
Third Elaboration §§84-124
Philo uses a range of allegories to explain God’s claim to the sole ownership of
all things.
Fourth Elaboration §§124-130
Using Aristotelian prepositional metaphysics, Philo identifies the poverty of
thought in the phrase “I have gotten a man through God.”

Exegetical Development
Philo begins the First Elaboration by quoting Gen. 4.1-2,75 the biblical text on which
he comments throughout this section of Cher.. There is no preface.76

73
There are no transitional passages bridging any of the four treatises relating to Gen 4.1-16. This
stands in marked contrast to those found in the “cluster of five treatises” that constitute the life of
Noah and his sons (Gen 9.21-27). Philo begins Agr. with an MBL of Gen 9.20-21a, but then at the
start of Plant. he opens by referring to what he has written in Agr.. Agr. also has an anticipatory
concluding statement. See Runia, “The Structure of Philo’s De plantatione”, p. 2; Geljon and Runia,
On Cultivation, p.78.

74
As will be seen below, Philo identified Moses as more than a Patriarch. See Winston, Sage and
Super-Sage, pp. 815-24.

75
Cher. only considers Gen 4.1. Gen 4.2 is the opening MBL of Sacr..

76
This has been the pattern in Leg. 1-3 and will continue with Sacr., Det., Post., Gig.-Deus. and Agr.
Thereafter the practice only occurs in Migr. And Congr. See further Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation,
p. 87. Contrast this with the extensive preface found in Opif.. Cf. D. Runia, Creation of the Cosmos, p.
98

31
 Conscious of where he was to proceed with his exegesis, Philo recognised the
need to differentiate Cain’s “noble” birth from the births of offspring to the “ignoble”
Patriarchs.77 He achieves this allegorically in §41: the “helpmeets” of the Patriarchs are
not women but “virtues” who receive their good seed from God: Sarah, “sovereign and
leader”; Leah, “rejected and faint”; Rebecca, “steadfastness in excellence”, and
Zipporah, “bird, speeding upwards from earth to heaven”. Philo develops the allegory
in §§41-47, supported by four SBLs commenting on these “helpmeets”: Sarah conceives
“when God visited her in her solitude”; for Leah, “God opened her womb”; Rebecca
conceived when “Isaac the all-wise besought God”; and Zipporah became pregnant
“through no mortal agency.”
It is worth dwelling on this initial selection from Scripture so as to elicit a
number of points concerning Philonic exegesis. The section illustrates Philo’s mastery of
the Pentateuch. Runia contends that Philo either had a formidable memory or made use
of some form of concordance.78 The examples used by Philo also indicates the
significant biblical knowledge he assumed on the part of his audience, presupposing that
the reader will contextualise the citation or allusion. Often the biblical examples are
selected for their etymology, so as to reinforce character types, although, in this
elaboration, their personalities are not fully developed.79 Also, those who fail to identify
the use of allegory are castigated for “corrupt[ing] religion into superstition” by their use
of “barren words” and “their silly usages and rituals”. Then, the teacher-pupil
relationship is displayed by the language used to introduce the material - “then must the
sacred instruction begin”, “I will give as a warrant for my words”, “thus he implies

77
For Philo, “nobility lies in the possession of virtue” rather than “whoever is born of fine and
excellent parents”. Cain was “sprung from the first wedded pair … from the earthborn man of noble
lineage … became the first to defile the earth with human blood”. In contrast, Abraham “was a
Chaldean by birth … whose father was an astrologer … [who] held that there is no cause outside of
what can be apprehended by the senses”. Yet, despite of this ignoble start to life, Abraham “went in
search of the One with untiring zeal” and was the “first person to have believed in God”. He ended
his life being deemed a king through the “greatness of his soul, his mind being that of a king”. Virt.
§§ 198-200, 212-216 in Wilson, On Virtues, pp. 84-87.
78
‘The Structure of Philo’s De plantatione and its place in the Allegorical Commentary’, SBL Meeting
Atlanta, November 2015, Philo of Alexandria Seminar, p.8.

79
In the first pairing, Sarah and Leah, the text relating to Sarah is seen as rather opaque, so Philo
offers the example of Leah as that is “even clearer”. The second pair, Rebecca and Zipporah, are
used to indicate God’s involvement but also to reinforce the centrality of Moses for Philo. Isaac had
to “besought God” on behalf of Rebecca, whilst Zipporah becomes pregnant without such
supplication. See Wilson, On Virtues, p.165, for a detailed development of the role of Zipporah.

32
clearly”. Finally, it is an excellent illustration of what I will term “exegetical polarity”.
Philo’s tendency is to contrast rather than compare: on the spectrum of
similarities/differences he always operates at the extremes; there is good or evil, or in
this example noble or ignoble, with no acknowledgement that these properties may be
in some way interdependent.

Returning to the exegesis, Philo acknowledges (§49) that he acquired this divine
knowledge from Jeremiah rather than from Moses.80 Jer. 3.4 is then linked to the
current allegory through the notion of virginity. Philo contrasts insemination by man,
transforming a virgin (a changeable form) into a woman, with divine insemination which
restores virginity (an unchangeable form).81 Virtues’ children are divine gifts as he is “in
want of nothing”. 82 Philo enriches the theme by returning to Sarah in Gen 18.11 and
emending the LXX to suit his need. Here Philo’s exegesis reflects contemporary
Hellenistic medical literature. Sarah, as an older woman, “has cast off his feminine ways
(sense-perception), and has now returned to a virginal masculine state … ready to bear
spiritual children”.83 Philo equates this to an absence of sexual activity for the post-
menopausal Sarah: “Thus He will not talk with Sarah till she has ceased from all that is
after the manner of women and is ranked once more as a pure virgin”.

In §52, the Elaboration’s significance is made clear: the children of Virtue are
perfect, but as Adam (Mind) was defiled by embracing Eve (Sense), their accursed issue,
Cain, was “that thing of ruin and confusion.” Philo’s readers are left in no doubt as to
Cain’s character: “the fratricide, the accursed, the possession which is no possession.” 84

80
This is an example of one of Philo’s rare non-Pentateuchal biblical references. This particular
biblical verse is omitted from the PLCL Vol. 1 list of ‘Texts from the Old Testament’, pp. xxviii-xxxiv.
The only Old Testament texts outside the Pentateuch are stated as 1 Samuel, Proverbs, Hosea and
the Psalms. Moses was not only the “law giver” but also “the holiest of men” and “the God
beloved”. Prophets such as Jeremiah were “enlightened” and a “worthy minister”.

81
Wilson, On Virtues, p.171.

82
Philo often stresses that God is in no way in need of anything and that the relationship between
God and his creation is not reciprocal. Cf. Opif. §13. See Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos, p.
125, and Virt. §9; Wilson, On Virtues, p.106.

83
Accordingly, virginity was not a state limited to adolescent females but could be lost and regained
throughout the woman’s life. N. Tilford, “After the ways of women”: the aged virgin in Philo’s
transformation of the philosophical soul, Studia Philonica XXV (2013), pp.17-39 (here p. 18).

84
This is not the first mention of Cain in Cher. Philo’s Allegorical Commentaries have little
chronological structure. Cain had been mentioned in Cher. §12. Here, in providing an example for
one of the three methods by which the term “over against” can be deployed, Philo states, “Of the

33
 The development of Cain’s negative character continues through literal exegesis
in the Second Elaboration. Philo feigns disbelief (§53) when commenting on Moses’
first reference to Cain. The exegete posits that Cain’s introduction is far too abrupt for
someone of his importance, so it must be a deliberate Mosaic strategy. Philo cites Seth’s
birth (Gen 4.25) to illustrate that Moses was aware of the correct procedure to be
adopted and goes on to question why, if that was the case, might this have occurred?
Philo’s answer contrasts human etymological practice with that of Moses,
offering another example of Philonic exegetical polarity. Philo identifies that there is
close relationship between the essential nature of physical realities and their names.
Humans are unable to give appropriate names, and so their names for the realities
frequently differ from the object. For Moses, however, with his knowledge of the
realities, the two never differ. Describing Moses in this way serves the apologetic aim of
showing the greatness of the Jewish legislator. 85 In this manner, Philo indicates that
Cain, already etymologically damned in §52, was introduced abruptly because he was the
corrupt issue of Mind copulating with Sense with all its negative consequences for
humankind.86
The allegory of Mind knowing Sense is developed succinctly in §§57-61.87 Using
a Platonic framework, Mind, who predated Sense, was like “the solitary, ungregarious
animals”, so God completed the soul by weaving Mind with Sense. “Multitudinous
light” poured into Mind, which now perceived the world for the first time. Philo
describes the impact this had on unsuspecting Mind in staccato-like fashion: eyes-
colour; ears-sound; nostrils-smell; tongue-flavours; touch-matter. 88 Mind, immediately

first sense, that of hostility, we find an example of what is said of Cain that “he went out from the
face of God and dwelt in Nod over against Eden.” Philo was happy to use biblical examples that both
preceded or antedated the verse in question.
85
Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation, pp. 90-1.

Philo briefly alluded to the Soul in §§40-52 but now takes this opportunity to develop the allegory
86

more fully.

87
Philo follows the Stoic rather than Platonic approach.

88
Philo adopts a similar approach in Leg. 2.6, which considers Gen. 2.18: “the commanding part of
the soul older than the soul as a whole, and the irrational part younger”. However, in Cong 81, Philo
intimates that “passion is the natural state of man from the beginning of his life.” The detailed
explanation of this apparent contradiction can be found in Philo’s ethics (see Kamesar, “Biblical
Interpretation in Philo”, pp. 175-76). This Elaboration is an excellent example of Philo’s
inconsistency. In §57 he refers to the five external senses but later, in §62, adds pleasure and pain.
Cf. Opif. §62 where a more detailed exposition of the five senses is offered by Philo. See further
Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos, p. 214

34
pregnant, gave birth to Cain, “the worst evil of the soul, vanity of thought”, holding the
misguided belief that it possessed all it now perceived.
Philo then illustrates that nothing less was to be expected by citing Alexander
the Great’s inability to maintain his empire (§63). 89 Alexander’s “immature soul” meant
that he failed to realise the fleeting nature of his “possessions”. Then (§65) Philo
reiterates his central tenet: Cain, trusting his senses, mistakenly believed that he
possessed all. Philo proceeds to offer examples from three soul-types to illustrate that
Alexander was not the only one “feeling foolish to the core” for believing that he
possessed things. The first example is Laban (§67), a soul-type focusing “on that which
has quality” - “my” daughters, sons and cattle - rather than on “the nature that is
without quality”, namely God.90 Gen. 31.43 is cited in full and is then used to develop a
short section of allegorical exegesis (§§68-70). Allegorically Philo reveals their true and
fleeting nature: the daughters (arts and knowledge), the sons (reasoned thoughts) and
the cattle (the senses) are received from the Mind and will be lost through amnesia,
illness or infirmity.91
Philo’s second example (§72) is that of the slave in Exod. 21.5-6 who rejects
freedom because “I have come to love my master”. Again, this example illustrates the
level of knowledge that Philo assumed of his audience, because the citation only
becomes pertinent with an awareness of the preceding verses. The final example (§74) is
taken from the Exodus and Pharaoh’s belief, in Exod. 15.9, that all things are “my
own,” and that he will pursue and overcome the Jews.92 As Pearce has argued, Pharaoh
was Philo’s archetypal negative persona and here, as elsewhere, he is, like Cain, “the
lover of self”. For Philo, the greatest threat to the soul is the belief that, like Cain, he
possesses what belongs to God. Laban, the slave, Pharaoh and Cain all suffer the same
fate which Philo demonstrates by constructing a series of rhetorical antitheses of
opposites, a technique that he deploys in all the Cain and Abel treatises: “he receives

89
356 BCE-323 BCE. This is Philo’s sole reference to Alexander of Macedonia. Alexander stated: “this
way and that are all mine”. Laban states: “all that thou seest are mine and my daughters”.

90
Laban was a “symbol of manifold sensations” (see Alexandre, Rhetorical Argumentation, p. 219).

91
In §71 Philo’s belief in the inherent goodness of man allows a glimmer of hope: through paideia
you will acknowledge that “the activities of your soul” are God’s possession and you will be free,
otherwise you will be “eternally enslaved”.

92
Pharaoh is also censured in Cher. §74 where he “crowns his self-love with madness”.

35
into his soul emptiness for satisfaction, slavery for lordship, he is killed instead of
killing”. 93
Man’s response to this predicament is explored literally in the penultimate
section of this elaboration, where Philo compares inert and enslaving passivity to active,
responsive passivity. The elaboration concludes with an exhortation to renounce inert
passivity and adopt active passivity, accepting at all times that God alone can “claim that
all things are His possessions”, thus returning the reader to the point of departure and
Moses’ precise etymological use with the name Cain.94
We will pass over §§84-107, found in the Third Elaboration, as these
paragraphs do not relate to Cain’s character.95 The first direct reference to the theme of
“possession” applies to the ownership of land. Land, as part of God’s creation, has
been bestowed on mankind, “for He needs it not,” but Man, as a consequence, does not
become “its possessor”, being merely sojourners on the earth. Interestingly, in §113,
Philo makes one of his many off-the-cuff comments pertaining to the Platonic tripartite
structure of the soul: “I seem to have mind, reason, sense, yet I find that none of them
is really mine”. He ends by stating that “not even life itself” is man’s, reiterating the
theme of the impermanence of Mind’s perceived possessions and so the futility of
Cain’s mind-set.
The Fourth Elaboration acts as a summary for the second part of Cher.. Philo
reiterates his central theme in §124: “all things are God’s possession”, and so it was
Mind alone which incorrectly believed, “I have gotten a man through God”.96 Mind’s error,
once it had become entwined with Sense, was to believe that God was the instrument in
Cain’s birth and that Mind is the Cause. This is one of three examples where Philo
makes use of prepositional metaphysics in his exegesis, and in doing so provides a clear
link to Plato’s Timaeus.97 Philo argues that as all created things are brought into being

93
The same approach is used in Sacr. §88, discussed later and in Post. §145.

94
Wilson, On Virtues, p.223.

95
§§84-107 cover several themes. First, only God can truly keep festival as joy, gladness and
rejoicing are his alone for he is “the limit of happiness” and so needs “nothing beyond himself.”
Likewise, as Moses’ reference to the Sabbath illustrates, only God truly rests, but God’s rest is not
mere inactivity but “a working with absolute ease”. The third section offers strong support for
paideia as a means of effecting true worship of such a Deity.

96
Runia inaccurately attributes such thoughts to Cain rather than Mind (see Runia, Timaeus, p. 172).

97
The other examples are at QG1.58 (referring to the same biblical verse) and Prov. 1.23. See Runia,
Timaeus, pp.172-173.

36
through an instrument but by a cause, so, by extension, those who claim they obtained
something through God – such as Cain in Eve’s statement - are mistaken, for by doing so
they conjecture that God is the instrument and the Mind is the cause.98 Philo remarks that
“in the creation of anything, many things must come together” before listing the four
causes: God is the efficient cause; the four elements are the material cause; the instrumental
cause is God’s Logos; and the final cause is the “goodness of the architect”. Philo
supports his reasoning from Scripture, citing Joseph who had claimed to interpret
dreams through God, which was gross impiety, when he should have stated by Him as
cause.99 This final elaboration closes with a Mosaic exhortation taken from Exod. 14.3:
salvation comes not through God but from Him as cause 100 It is appropriate that Philo
should close this first treatise on Cain and Abel by citing his revered Moses, he who
“does not [like other sages] haunt the outer court of the Holy Place as one seeking
initiation, but as a sacred Guide has his abode in the sanctuary” (Post. §§173-174).

98
J. Byron, Cain and Abel, pp. 12-13, suggests that Philo felt obliged to clarify the situation
concerning Eve’s sexual partner. This was because the Hebrew version stated that Eve has “gained a
man with the Lord” and it was the LXX that tried to clear up the ambiguity by the wording “through
God”, but this, in turn, suggested divine intervention.

99
Philo makes use of the Aristotelian principles outlined in Physics Book II Chapter 3. See P.
Wicksteed & F. Cornford, Aristotle, Physics Books 1-4, LCL 228 (1989), pp. 129-33. See also Wilson,
On Virtues, p.177.
Philo offers two parallel analogies:
Example of House/City applied to the Cosmos
The cause “by which” builder/demiurge God the Creator
The material “from which” stones/timber four elements
The instruments “through which” tools/instruments Logos of God
The motive “for which” shelter/safety goodness of the Creator
O. McFarland, Philo’s Prepositional Metaphysics within Early Christian debates about the Relation of
Divine Nature and Agency, in Studia Philonica XXVII (2015), pp. 87-109; Runia, Timaeus of Plato, pp.
171-2.

100
Gen 4.1 is also covered by QG1.58. In QG, in contrast to the developed allegorical answer
outlined above, Philo answers the question literally and directly. Philo states that it was impious to
believe that Eve had acquired a man through God as this would make God, “the father and creator
of the universe”, equal to an instrument, but God is cause, not an instrument. Of special interesting
is the similarity in the wording of Cher. §124, “in these last two words he erred” with those found in
QG1.58: “he errs against correct thinking”.

37
Conclusion
In conclusion, Cher. has revealed the richness of Philo’s Jewish-Hellenistic Sitz im Leben,
with ideas from both woven around a scriptural framework.101 It has also provided four
exempla of Philo’s exegetical polarity: noble/ignoble births; human etymology/Mosaic
etymology; Mind/Sense perception; and, inert passivity/active passivity; there is no
middle ground from Philo’s perspective.
Clearly Cher., stressing Cain’s etymology, should be acknowledged as the
opening act of a Philonic four-act drama centred on the ongoing struggle for control of
the Soul. It is a treatise which concerns Cain far more than Abel, with only one
reference to Abel and nine to Cain. Cain is typecast in considerable detail in Cher., as
representing a negative disposition of the soul. First, Cain’s birth is isolated from births
to the pious; secondly, Cain’s flawed conception of God is reflected in Moses’ precise
etymology; thirdly, Mind and Sense’s mating is singled out as the cause of Mind’s
misapprehension; fourthly, Mind’s subsequent impiety – its belief that it possesses all
that it sees from Creation - is understandable but mistaken; and in reality all things are
God’s with Man but a sojourner. Finally, Philo’s disapproval of Cain’s soul-type is
reflected both in the soul-types he is paired alongside, Alexander the Great, Pharaoh
and Laban, and those who he is contrasted with, Joseph, Moses and the other
Patriarchs; and in his pejorative language: “Cain the fratricide”, “Cain meaning
possession”, §§53-55, and Cain as someone “feeling foolish to the core or rather
impious”, §65.

101
The following could be selected from the many examples. Greek: Stoic Mind/passions, the five
senses, importance of paideia, Sisyphus and Alexander the Great. Jewish: centrality of Moses, laws
pertaining to the Sabbath and Jubilee, centrality of Scripture. Space precludes their further
development.

38
 De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Sacr.)
Introduction
Sacr. constitutes the second element of the tetralogy. The opening sentences of Sacr.
make no reference to what has preceded and there is no preface. A lack of internal
markers means that it is very difficult to determine the relative date of their
composition. 102 It is likely, however, that once completed, the AC would have been
read in sequential order, each treatise building on earlier ones. While Cher. focused
solely on Cain’s relationship with Mind, Abel only being mentioned in the opening
MBL, now, in Sacr., references to Abel outnumber those to Cain.103 Philo continues to
polarise the characters immediately, with six references appearing in §§2-5. Abel, “one
who refers (all things) to God”, is depicted as “God-loving” and as being of “good
conviction”. Cain’s description echoes Cher., as we are reminded that his name means
“Possession”, and he is “self-loving” and of a “foolish opinion”.
In contrast to Cher’s. simple structure, Sacr. comprises four MBLs of varying
complexity. Philo uses the four MBLs as a philosophical staircase; on each tread the
disparity between the brothers’ soul-type is heightened. Philo begins with etymology,
before continuing to consider the impact of Abel’s birth on Cain, the significance of
their occupations, and, finally, the nature of their sacrifices. At the treatise’s close, Philo
has moulded two contrary soul-types, their characters ideally shaped for the fratricide
that occurs in the opening paragraphs of Det..104

Overall Exegetical Structure of Sacr.

Sacr. comprises four MBLs:

First MBL §§1-10 (Gen 4.2)

A literal explanation of Abel’s birth (§1) precedes a more detailed allegorical
explanation of the impact Abel’s birth had on Mind, (§§2-10).

102
There is no consensus among scholars as to the chronological order of the treatises’ composition.
As Mendelson states, “it is widely assumed that Philo wrote for different audiences; obviously the
specific audience for which a work is written will shape that work as profoundly as external events
do. Yet we know very little about any of these variables”. See Mendelson, “Philo’s Dialectic of
Reward and Punishment”, p. 125.

103
There are 12 references to Abel and 11 to Cain.

104
Najman, Cain and Abel, pp. 108, 113.

39
Second MBL §§11-51 (Gen 4.2)
First Elaboration (§§11-44).
In explaining why Cain and Abel’s occupations are stated in reverse order to
their appearance, Philo allegorises the accepted conventions associated with
primogeniture, supported by the example of Jacob and Esau.
Second Elaboration (§§45-51).
An allegorical explanation of the significance of Abel as a shepherd supported
by the examples of Jacob and his sons (§§46-49), and Moses (§§50-51).
Third MBL §§52-88 (Gen 4.3)
First Elaboration (§§52-71)
Philo considers the first of two charges against Cain, that he brought his
offering “after some days” rather than immediately (§§52-71).
Second Elaboration (§§72-88)
The second charge against Cain is allegorised, that his offering comprised the
fruits rather than the first-fruits.
Fourth MBL §§88-139 (Gen 4.4.)
This MBL argues that Abel’s offering was offered as required by the sacred
ordinance of Ex. 13.11-13.
First Elaboration (§§88-103)
The Elaboration focuses on Ex. 13.11.
Second Elaboration (§§104-113)
The Elaboration examines Ex. 13.12.
Third Elaboration (§§114-139)
The Elaboration examines Ex. 13.13 before offering a conclusion.

Exegetical Development
First MBL
In the First MBL, §§1-10, Philo considers the implications of Abel’s birth on Mind. In
the first of a series of allegories, Philo’s exegesis of Abel’s birth interweaves Hellenistic
concepts of the Mind/Soul with Jewish patriarchal interpretations. 105 Displaying a
common Philonic trait, the exposition starts with simple literal exegesis (§1), that the
addition of one thing must mean the subtraction of another.

105
Najman, Cain and Abel, p. 113.

40
 Philo has already demonstrated that the brothers are conflicting soul-types, and
so, logically, they cannot coexist in peace in the “womb of the single soul”.106
[They are] “two opposite and contending views of life, one which ascribes all
things to the mind as our master … the other which follows God”. (§1)

Their soul-types are reiterated through their etymology: the first is Cain, “called
Possession, because he thinks he possesses all things”, and the second is Abel, “whose
name means, ‘one who refers all things to God’”. Deploying Platonic reasoning to
support his allegory, Philo suggests that until Abel’s birth, Mind was not cognisant of a
world-view other than that offered by Cain. Now that both Cain and Abel coexist in
“the single soul”, Mind hastily forsakes Cain for Abel, because Abel, through his
goodness, “acknowledges the Cause”.107
To emphasise this point, Philo evokes the womb-based conflict of Esau and
Jacob, who were also “two contending natures of good and evil”. 108 For Philo, their
soul-types imitate those of Cain and Abel. At one extreme lies Jacob, a sage soul-type,
who “sees God, the original Cause of being, as the recipient of honour” (Post. §63),
unlike Esau “named after his folly” (Sacr. §17). Rebecca, alarmed by the jostling of the
foetuses in her womb, sought solace from God and was informed that, “two peoples
shall be separated from thy womb”. The corollary for Eve meant that when God added
Abel, the good conviction, to the soul, it was forced to take away Cain, the foolish
opinion.109
Philo elucidates the effect of God “adding” Abel to Mind through four SBLs
linked to the Patriarchs.110 The first two Patriarchs were added to the “people of God as
these soul-types had attained perfection through progress: Abraham through instruction
and Jacob through training. The third example, Isaac, was added to a “genus” as his

106
Najman, Cain and Abel, p. 114.

107
Najman states that “the birth of Abel only worsens Cain’s negative disposition” (Cain and Abel,
p.114).

108
Etymologically Rebecca is named “Patience”, Esau “folly” and Jacob “practice of things excellent”.
See W. Wilson, On Virtues, p. 401.

109
Burton Mack, “Decoding”, p. 10. By the time of Jacob and Esau the self-lover has become a
person in his own right and not just a character trait of the Mind. See Najman, Cain and Abel, p. 115
NETS Gen 25.21.

110
This approach also reinforces Philo’s hierarchy of soul types.

41
soul-type had acquired virtue by nature.111 Finally, Moses, as a super-sage, will stand
next to God. Philo then proceeds to explain Moses’ exalted status through three
TBLs.112 The examples chosen make it clear, therefore, that Abel’s “addition” to Mind
places him in the esteemed company of the most revered of the Patriarchs.
Philo concludes by establishing a clear contrast between the brothers. Cain has
already been derided in Cher. as “that thing of ruin … the fratricide, the accursed”. This
is restated in Sacr. §2, where Cain is described as “possession, because he thinks he
possesses all things”. Philo’s readers would contrast this to the description he offers of
Abel in Sacr. §10, “the birth of the perfect good”, where “the good is holiness and the
name of holiness is Abel”.113 Sacr. §10 provides the clearest contrast between the
brothers’ soul-types anywhere in the AC. There is only one even more direct reference
in the Philonic corpus, QG1.59, where “even though the righteous man was younger in
time than the wicked one, still he was older in activity”.

Second MBL

Sacr.’s Second MBL, §§11-51, comprises two Elaborations: the first reflects on the way
in which the brothers’ occupations are introduced, §§11-44, and the second considers
the significance of the term “shepherd”, §§45-51.

Philo opens the First Elaboration by posing a rhetorical question, a common

Philonic device. As Cain is the older brother, why is Abel’s occupation named first by
Moses? As with Cain’s introduction in Cher., this allows Philo to demonstrate that the
reversal was a deliberate Mosaic strategy. First, in §12, Philo reaffirms Moses’
unimpeachable status. As man is capable only of ascertaining truth which has been
corrupted, he is content to accept “the flotsam of the plausible”. Moses, as God’s
chosen, however, “sets no value on probabilities and plausibilities” only to “truth in its

111
While Abraham and Jacob “advanced to perfection” under a teacher, Isaac dispensed with the
instruction of men and became an apt pupil of God and so is translated “into the genus of the
imperishable and fully perfect”.

112
Wilson, On Virtues, p.195. On Moses’ death we do not hear of him “being added” as in the
former examples but of being “translated.” Moses was also unique when on earth: “He appointed
him [Moses] as god to Pharaoh.” And as God is unchangeable, the passing of Moses’ perfect soul
means no man knows of his grave.

113
As we shall see, Cain is constantly denigrated by Philo. He is an atheist (Del. §103, 119); those
who think like him are of the race of Cain ( Post. §103) and he is the ultimate symbol of wickedness
(Migr. §1.63). See Byron, Cain and Abel, p.208.

42
purity”.114 So the truth is that while chronologically, in human terms, Cain (vice) appears
to precede Abel (truth), in terms of “truth in its purity”, the reverse is really the case. By
connecting Cain and Abel’s soul-types to measures of vice and truth, Philo has not only
once again challenged Cain’s persona but has prepared his readers for his exegesis of their
occupations.

At this juncture, the exegete embarks on a complex five-stage argument,

drawing on a range of philosophical and theological concepts, to interpret the relative
merit of the brothers’ occupations. What follows, by necessity, is an overview.

First, Philo taps into Hellenistic concepts concerning the stages in the life of
man (§§15-16). There would normally have been three to seven stages in such a model,
but here Philo makes use of just two so as to emphasise the sense of exegetical polarity:
Cain/Abel, Jacob/Esau, Vice/Virtue, and now Youth/Maturity. In his youth, Philo
opines, man is given over to the “fiery furnace of the passions”, but when entering his
more mature years “the throbbing fever of the passions is abated”, and virtue “lulls to
rest … the waves of passion”. So although “vice” will often be dominant in the first
stage of life and man succumbs to the passions, in the years of maturity, virtue will have
precedence both in “repute and honour”.

In the next stage Philo reinforces this idea through an SBL. In Gen 25.33, Esau,
chronologically older, sells his birth right to his younger brother Jacob. 115 Esau,
etymologically “folly”, is contrasted to Jacob who is “named from his discipline and
practice of things excellent”. Jacob gained Esau’s birth right because “virtue gives its
place of honour … not to any of the wicked, but to the lover of wisdom only”. Even
though Esau was the eldest, Jacob took precedence because he was able to master his
passions, a situation that Philo can now apply to Cain and Abel.116

114
Runia, Creation of the Cosmos, p. 189. At this juncture Philo draws on the analogy of the surge
and stormy sea of life: while man is trailed along with the flotsam of the probable and plausible,
Moses holds fast to truth and spurns baseless guesswork. This last comment would have been
directed against Philo’s contemporaries who over-relied on rhetorical styles. Space prevents the
further development of this and subsequent themes. Such an approach is associated with the
philosophy of the New Academy, and predates Middle Platonism, revealing Philo’s willingness to use
earlier doctrines when they suit his exegetical purpose.

115
The “forsaken first born” is a common theme in Genesis: Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau
and Jacob, Reuben-Joseph and Manasseh-Ephraim.

116
Other themes touched on by Philo which cannot be pursued: Jacob and Esau are located in an
arena where this battle against the passions takes place. The victor’s crown is wisdom (Sophia).

43
 In the third stage, by turning to the Law of primogeniture and quoting Deut.
21.15-17, Philo dramatically alters his approach (§19).117 What follows is an excellent
example of Philo’s manipulation of his audience. Philo begins by recounting a tale of a
man with two wives. In the retelling, Philo argues that the man’s eldest child, born to
the wife that he detests, should not be overlooked and should still receive “a double
portion … for he is the beginning of his children”. Philo’s skilful depiction of the hate
the man displays towards the mother of his first-born, and the love shown to the
mother of his second born, would have led his audience to believe that a double
blessing to the eldest was unjust.

With perfect timing Philo offers an allegorical interpretation of the passage

(§20). Every Mind, the exegete suggests, is mated with two wives, who hate and loathe
each other. One of the wives is loved by Mind because it sees her as “our nearest and
dearest”, while it hates the other because she is “rough, ungentle and crabbed”.118 But,
“mark well ... and understand” commands Philo, the wife that has beguiled Mind to
love her is Pleasure, while the wife Mind hates is Virtue.

The reason for Mind’s enticement is provided in the fifth stage through Philo’s
use of personification. This section of Sacr., the Speech of Courtesan Pleasure (§§21-33),
cataloguing 148 wicked characteristics associated with pleasure, is the longest list of its
kind to survive from antiquity. 119 Pleasure, posits Philo, “purposely conceals” truth
from Mind and her words are set against the Speech of Guiless Virtue (§§34-44), who
offers truth “frankly and without concealment”.120 There is real tension here, as these
two contrary but interdependent principles play themselves out. Pleasure and Virtue

117
B. Mack, “Argumentation”, p. 11.

118
Space precludes further development. A man has two wives, one loved and the other hated. Both
wives bear the man’s sons, with the son of the hated wife being the first born. On day of blessing the
father has to give a double portion not to the son of the one whom he loves but to the son of the
one whom he hates. However, Philo explains that the hated wife is “virtue” and the loved wife is
“vice.” This is possible because the natural instinct is to think that “virtue” is unlovely. See B Mack,
“Argumentation”, p. 11.

119
Mendelson, “Philo’s Dialectic of Reward and Punishment”, p. 111. Personification is used by Philo
elsewhere, such as Agr. §17-19. Personification was inspired by the tale of Heracles at the
crossroads where it is addressed by virtue and vice. See Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation, p. 111.

120
Philo frequently makes women adopt particular “postures and movements”, as here a harlot is
“bait to entice the souls of the youth”. See Wilson, On Virtues, p. 141.

44
mirrors Philo’s understanding of good and evil, and develops the exegetical duality
mentioned in the first stage.121 Philo concludes the elaboration with Mind renouncing
Cain. Apprehending virtue’s true loveliness, Mind turns away from pleasure and cleaves
to Abel (§45).122

In the Second Elaboration, §§45-51, the relative value of the brothers’

occupations is considered. With a Philonic allusion to the Timaeus, Mind begins a
spiritual journey to a higher understanding of the Cause as it “guides the chariot” and
takes control of “the helm of the unreasoning faculties of the soul”. Thus, the Mind
“becomes a shepherd of the sheep”.123

Shepherding of the passions is a frequent Philonic motif, and here Philo offers
three SBLs to illustrate its importance. In the first, Jacob submits to “shepherd the
sheep of Laban”, so his thoughts can shift from “colours and shapes and lifeless
bodies” to matters more “congenial to virtue” (§§46-47). In the second, his sons are
portrayed as shepherds in Pharaoh’s Egypt, undazzled “by his lavish pomp and
splendour” (§§48-49). And finally, Moses, who judged “the business of a shepherd to be
a great and glorious task”, is depicted leading “his sheep down into the wilderness”
(Exod. 3.1).124

121
Although Philo refers to “things holy in virtue of their essential goodness” (§44), nowhere does he
make a parallel statement, “things unholy in virtue of their essential evil”. As Mendelson posits, Philo
recognises goodness as a unity but evil as a multiplicity. To give evil a sense of coherence would be
to provide it with an ontological status that would weaken Philo’s concept of goodness. For this
reason, in the AC the characteristics of evil must generally be inferred as the polar opposite of his
positive statements concerning good. For example, Philo states in §59 that God’s “goodness is the
measure of things good”, so God is not the measure of evil things. And, §63, “There is no good thing
which is not divine and is not of God”, so evil things are not from God and are not divine. See further
Mendelson, “Philo’s Dialectic of Reward and Punishment”, pp. 111-2.

122
One outlines pleasure, who comes in the form of “a harlot or courtesan” (§§21-34), which is then
contrasted against Virtue (§§35-44). This last speech is supported by two SBLs with a thematic MOT
of “right practice” focusing first on Jacob and then Isaac. Space prevents a detailed analysis of this
section of the treatise.
123
Once again the Greek similes of charioteer and the helmsman who guide the unreasoning
faculties of the soul are mentioned. Like a charioteer, the Mind must sometimes give rein to the
passions but at other times be willing to pull them in and draw them back.

124
Philo realised that the biblical authors frequently likened rulers to shepherds (2 Sam 5.2; 1 Chron.
11.2). Moses, too, was a shepherd (Exod 3.1) and so in Philo’s understanding, “the only perfect king
… is one who is skilled in the knowledge of shepherding” (Mos. 1.62), a point reinforced in QG1.59
where shepherding is seen as “preparatory to rulership and kingship”.

45
 Just one of these allegories can be considered in greater depth: Jacob’s tending
of Laban’s sheep. Philo notes the specificity of the language of Gen 30.36, describing
Jacob as “shepherd [to] the sheep of Laban”. So this meant that Jacob was shepherd
only to “those [sheep] that were left”, as most of the herd was with Laban’s sons, “three
days’ journey away”. Philo asks the leading question, “What does this mean”, allowing
the exegete to open up a discussion on the unreasonableness of the soul. The sheep
tended by Jacob represent those who are involuntarily ignorant of the truth through a
lack of proper tutoring, while the flock tended by Laban’s sons represented those who
were voluntarily ignorant caused by a “wilful malady of the soul”.125 Allegorically, Philo
has associated Abel’s shepherding to that of Jacob who, having overcome “the
dominant elements of blind passion” now has a clear vision of the True Cause (Sacr.
§135).

Philo then returns to the MBL and draws the obvious conclusion concerning
the brothers’ personae: “Abel who refers all that is best to God [is called] a shepherd”,
while Cain “who refers them to himself and his own mind is called a tiller of the soil”.126

Third MBL

Having identified the superiority of Abel’s occupation, Philo returns to critique Cain’s
actions. Two charges are levelled against him: first, why his offering to God was made
“after some days” rather than immediately (§§52-71), and secondly, why he offered only
of the fruits and not of the first-fruits (§§72-87).

In the First Elaboration, §§52-71, Philo’s exegesis starts with an exhortation,

that all good deeds made in response to the Primal Good should be done in a spirit of
eagerness and without any sense of hesitation. He cites Deut. 23.21, “if thou vowest a
vow, delay not to pay it”, to reinforce the point (§53). The exegete moves on to
consider three groups who are tardy in responding to God. The first are those who lack
a spirit of thankfulness and simply forget; the second are those who through pride

125
The theme is then continued to encompass Jacob’s sons who will go to Egypt and not be dazzled
by Pharaoh. Philo then directs his attention to Moses “our pilot and guide” who saw the importance
and so “led his sheep down into the wilderness”. Philo’s distaste of Egyptians revealed: “every
shepherd of sheep is an abomination the Egyptians” and later “he will sacrifice to God the
abominations of Egypt” (PLC p. 132 for comment).

126
Philo is quite explicit: he would have discussed tiller of soil I have shown in earlier books (look
again at this sentence). The only detailed reference is in Agr. 21-22 where the tiller of the soil was
orientated to bodily pleasures.

46
believe they are the cause of the good things which have befallen them rather than the
True Cause; and the third group, although acknowledging God as Cause, believe that
their good fortune is their natural inheritance. Philo counters each of the reasons
offered by deploying three TBLs.127 The outcome for all, once they have noted their
error, is the realisation that all gifts to God should be perfect and complete, and that
they now “run and leap to meet our Master … ready to do His bidding” (§58).

Philo now illustrate this correct response by turning once again to selected
passages from Genesis. His first example is of Abraham’s zealous response when
encountering the three visitors at Mamre (§59), requesting Sarah “with all zeal and
speed” to prepare food for the visitors.128 The second example reflects on the nature of
Jacob’s learning (§64). When Isaac enquired, “What is this that thou has found so
quickly, my son” (Gen. 27.20), it reveals the immediacy of God imparting Wisdom
(Sophia) when compared to human paideia. The third example is of Pharaoh (§69), who
is incapable of perceiving true knowledge as a result of his spiritual blindness. 129 Earlier
in Sacr. Philo had commented on Mind using the “eyes of the Soul” to identify truth
and virtue, and here the exegete revisits the theme by stating that Pharaoh cannot
perceive the virtues as, in his case, “the eyes of the Soul” are blind. Rather than turning
to God when challenged, Pharaoh would put his trust in “created things”. Pharaoh, also
described by Philo as “Facing-both-ways”, would acknowledge God only as a last resort
“out of the depths of their helplessness”.

Philo concludes this elaboration (§71) by censuring Cain yet again. As a soul-
type, Cain “counts all things as its own possession and honours itself before God”. He

127
The first group, those who are forgetful, should take heed that all that they take for granted has
been provided by God. The second group should remember that it was God that gave them the
strength that they needed to acquire what they have. The third group should remember the
Covenant agreed with God, which is an allegory of his gifts of grace.” So if we overcome these three
reasons we will run and leap to meet our master. This acts as a transitory statement to the next
grouping those who speed.

128
The allegory is developed as follows: Abraham was visited by God and his two highest potencies,
and although they are not measurable they are the measure of all things in Creation. His goodness is
the measure of all things good, and his sovereignty is the measure of all things corporeal and
incorporeal. These three measures are blended in the soul (analogy to Sarah kneading cakes) and
through this she is initiated into the divine mysteries. A link is then made to the Israelites baking the
dough which they brought out of Egypt in all haste.

129
When Moses offered to pray immediately for the removal of the frogs, Pharaoh delayed until
“tomorrow”.

47
will be tardy and offer his “sacrifice after some days”, but as a result he will “be brought
to the judgement-bar for impiety”.

The second charge is levelled against Cain in the Second Elaboration, §§72-87:
“why does he make his offering of firstlings from the fruits instead of from the first
fruits”. As before, Philo starts with a simple literal explanation: Cain’s actions reveal that
he prefers to “give the first honour to created being and render only the second to
God”. Philo continues with a further reference to exegetical polarity: “some prefer the
body to the soul, the slave to the mistress”, so Cain prefers to “honour the created
rather than God” (§72). Such action is against scripture (Exod. 23.19), which clearly
states that “the firstlings of the first fruits of the land [should be brought] into the
house of the Lord God”. Indeed, Cain is doubly damned when Philo cites Lev. 2.14,
“you should bring an offering of first fruits”.
At this point consideration needs to be given to how such an offering was to be
accomplished. According to Lev. 2.14, it should be done in the manner of “first the
new, then the roasted, then the sliced and last the ground” (§76). Philo now offers an
extensive section of allegory which is beyond the remit of this study, as he exegetically
dissects the terms “new”, “roasted”, “sliced” and “ground”, deploying five TBLs in the
process. 130 In summary, Philo concludes that it is only when the true significance of
these four concepts has been grasped, the “new” (representing “blossom and vigour”),
the “roasted” (representing “fire tested and invincible reason”), the “sliced”
(representing “the division of things into their classes”), and the “grounded”
(representing “the persistent practice and exercise in what the mind has grasped”), that
man will be willing to bring “an offering of first fruits of the soul” (§88). And when that
happens, however long it may take, God will respond positively, echoing Exod. 6.7: “I
will take you to be my people and I will be your God”.

130
A detailed analysis of §§76-79 is provided by Runia, Timaeus, pp.74-77, who notes that Philo’s
exegesis recalls the text of The Timaeus. Interestingly, it is Sacr. §76 that underpins Cazeaux’s thesis
concerning Philo’s Allegorical Commentary. He argues that Philo’s allegorical exegesis of Sacr. §§76-
87 reveals “the total coherence of the literary composition and structure of his treatises.” In his
allegorical exegesis of Sacr. §§76-87, “Philo reveals that the logos, when it has been divided into the
finest divisions, should receive its appropriate demonstrations in the manner that the warp receives
the woof (§83)”. Cazeaux is convinced that this passage provides vital information on the method
and structure of Philo’s allegorical treatises.” See also Runia, “Structure”, p. 211.

48
Fourth MBL
In the preceding MBLs Philo has critiqued Cain’s actions in some detail, and relatively
little space has been allocated to Abel. Abel has merely acted as an opposing figure to
Cain in the conclusion to each MBL. However, the Fourth MBL opens with the
spotlight on both brothers, as Philo focuses on the nature of their offerings:
Abel’s offering Cain’s offering
Living Lifeless
First in age and value Second in age and value
Strength and superior fatness Weakness.

Philo’s detailed exegesis focuses solely on Abel’s offering of “the firstlings of

the sheep and their fat” (Gen 4.4). Abel’s offering was undertaken according to the
Law, Exod. 13.11-13, which the exegete, against type, quotes in full.
“It shall be when the Lord thy God has brought thee into the land of the
Canaanites, as he swore to thy fathers, and shall give it unto thee, thou shalt
separate everything that opens the womb that is male unto the Lord; everything that
opens the womb from thy herds among thy cattle, all that are born to thee, the
males to the Lord. All that opens the womb of an ass, though shalt exchange for
sheep; but if thou does not exchange it, thou shalt redeem it.”

Yet having done this, Philo’s exegesis centres purely on the italicised phrase,
“that which opens the womb”. By authorial sleight of hand, Philo links this phrase from
Exodus to the “first born” offered by Abel, which, in turn, must have been the first to
open the womb. So Abel’s gift complied with the Law. Having established this tenuous
relationship between Gen. 4.4 and Exod. 13.11-13, Philo now proceeds to ignore
Genesis and focuses on the proof-text which he allegorises into a set of “signs”. In the
paragraphs which follow (§§91-135), the Alexandrian deals with many concepts, finally
re-engaging with Abel in §136.
Of the numerous ideas developed by Philo, only one will be commented upon here
because of its link to the theme of exegetical polarity. In Sacr. §121 Philo states, “every
wise man is a ransom for the fool, whose existence could not endure for an hour, did
not the wise provide for his preservation by compassion and forethought”. The sage
soul-type and the fool soul-type are, for Philo, simultaneously both antagonistic and
symbiotic. This is mirrored by the brothers, for as Quinones states, the “brothers serve
to intensify, epitomise and generalise all sorts of discord and division … [but] the appeal

49
of the theme is not simply division, but division within a context of extraordinary
unity”.131

Summary
In Cher. Philo introduced Cain and focused on his negative disposition and no reference
was offered concerning Abel. In Sacr. the brothers are set alongside each other in a
series of contrasts. First, Abel’s birth exacerbates Cain’s negative disposition; secondly,
Abel’s disposition is seen as preferable to Cain’s, so Mind abandons Cain; thirdly, the
brother’s occupations reinforce their fundamental differences, with Abel, as a shepherd,
interacting with living things being prepared for leadership, while Cain’s occupation, as
tiller of the soil, involves him with inanimate objects; fourthly, Cain, as a self-lover, is in
no rush to thank God for what he perceives to be the fruits of his own labour while
Abel’s immediate sacrifice of first fruits reinforces his God-loving nature.132

131
The extract from Sacr. 121 also reflects the impact of the Hellenistic culture on Philo. Philo’s
words echo those of Plato in Theaetetus (176a): “but it is impossible that evils should be done away
with … for there must always be something opposed to the good”. See H. Fowler, Plato Theaetetus,
Plato Vol. 7, Loeb Classical Library Vol. 123 (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass., 1921), p.
127.

132
Among some of the other examples of exegetical polarity raised in Sacr. are youth/maturity;
plausibilities/truth; wickedness/wisdom; hate/love; vice/truth; slave/mistress; voluntary
ignorance/involuntary ignorance; strength/weakness; living/lifeless; and
reasonableness/unreasonableness.

50
 QG1.62-66
Sacr. concluded with an exegesis of Gen 4.4, and the next Philonic treatise, Det., begins
with an exegesis of Gen 4.8, leaving Gen 4.5-7 unaccounted for. In all probability there
would have been a treatise associated with these verses. Eusebius’ catalogue makes
reference to treatise that are today no longer extant but even his index fails to mention a
volume relating to Gen. 4.5-7. If any such work did exist, its absence from the catalogue
means that it was already missing by Eusebius’ time.133 Fortunately, Philo offers a
commentary on these verses in QG1.62-66, but regrettably the exegesis offered is very
brief, only serving to whet our appetite concerning what would have been available had
the AC treatise survived. What follows is a brief resume of the relevant paragraphs
from the QG.
In contrast to the detailed allegorical exegesis offered in the AC, that of the QG
is literal and brief.134 QG1.62 enquires about the difference between a gift and a sacrifice
and Philo’s response is in two stages. First, he defines the terms “sacrifice” and “gift”:
the former entails the animal’s slaughter and division before its blood is “poured on the
altar”, after which the flesh is retrieved. With a gift the whole is offered “to him who
receives it”. Interestingly, while Philo makes it clear that an animal constitutes the
sacrifice, the gift is not given any description. Such a stance seems to create an
exegetical reversal - Genesis is clear that God condemns the grain offering made by
Cain while commending Abel’s animal sacrifice. Philo then proceeds to state that those
who offer a sacrifice, such as Cain, are to be seen as dividers and those that offer a gift,
such as Abel, are “lovers of God”. This is another opportunity for Philo to stress
Cain’s baseness. The responsibility rests solely with Cain: “neither the sacrifice nor God
were deficient”.135 It was Cain’s decision to divide the offering and retain some for
himself that was at fault.
In QG1.63 the rift between the two characters continues. Philo considers Cain’s
feeling of dejection after he realised that his sacrifice was not pleasing to God. In
contrast, Philo portrays Abel as one filled with joy and gladness because he had
sacrificed something “purely and blamelessly”.

133
Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation, pp. 2-3.

134
For a detailed consideration of the differences between the QG and the AC, see supra pp. 7-9.

135
Byron, Cain and Abel, p. 43.

51
 In QG1.64 Philo dissects the phrase, “Not that thou dost not offer rightly, but
that thou dost not divide rightly”. As part of Creation, Philo describes animals and
plants coming into existence “from moist and dry seeds” by the process of “cutting and
… division”. Man’s response should be to “imitate this order in all things … especially
in returning thanks … to Him who gives them to us”. God should be the recipient of
the first fruits, something Cain had failed to fulfil. Cain’s error, therefore, was not a
failure to divide properly but, after the division, to offer the best things “to that which
was created, namely oneself, and the second best to the All-wise”. Such reprehensible
action was clear proof of Cain’s greed and his ingratitude towards God. 136
QG1.65 then considers the phrase, “Thou hast sinned, be quiet”. Obviously, not
to sin was the greatest good, but even one who sinned and was ashamed of his actions
was “kin to this man”. Although no reference is made to the act, Philo locates Abel
“abashed and ashamed” into this final category through his reference to “the younger
beside the elder”. In contrast, Cain, added insult to injury: not only had Cain failed to
sacrifice correctly to God, knowing his transgression he had openly boasted about the
act he had committed to others.137

Finally, in QG1.66 Philo makes a convoluted attempt to explain what he

believes is a misreading of the phrase, that God should “give the good man into the
hand of the evil man”. In his exegesis Philo moves tangentially to consider the phrase in
the LXX, “you will rule over him”. By sleight of hand Philo makes sin rather than Abel
the referent of the pronoun. The initial impious act, which God refers to here, was
Cain’s failure to sacrifice correctly. An action that presents the “beginning of every
voluntary wrongdoing”. 138

Summary

Two key points deserve comment from this brief overview. First, in QG1.65, Philo
implies that Abel sinned: “he who sins and is … ashamed is kin to this man … as one
might say, is the younger [Abel] beside the elder [Cain]”. This is inconsistent with Sacr.,
where Philo describes Abel as “the perfect good”, where “the good is holiness”, or

136
Byron, Cain and Abel, pp. 49-50.

137
Byron, Cain and Abel, p. 60.

138
Byron, Cain and Abel, p. 54. See M. Scarlata, Outside of Eden: Cain in the ancient versions of
Genesis 4.1-16 (Bloomsbury: London, 2013), pp. 82-3.

52
sinless. 139 Could this shift be illustrative of Philo distancing himself from the strictures
of scripture? Could QG, as many scholars posit, have been written in his formative years
and that Sacr. reflects the greater maturity of later life? 140
Secondly, in QG1.66, Philo credits Cain with “the beginning of every voluntary
wrongdoing”. This is a significant statement for the exegete. The Alexandrian never
explains the origin of evil, but he does consistently describe evil as the result of
voluntary action. This is shown in Sacr. §81, where he describes evil as voluntary actions
“based on vice and passion”, 141 leading Mendelson to state: “for an action to be
regarded as evil in Philo’s scheme of things, it must be voluntary”.142 Indeed, it is this
distinction between voluntary/involuntary that allows Philo, in Post. §§9-11, to
differentiate between Adam’s exile from Eden (Gen. 3.24) and Cain’s actions in Gen
4.16.143

139
Sacr. §10

140
Mendelson, “Philo’s dialectic of reward and punishment”, p.124.

141
Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation, pp. 61-2; Byron, Cain and Abel, p. 222.

142
Mendelson, “Philo’s Dialectic of Reward and Punishment”, p. 113.

143
Byron, Cain and Abel, p. 222. Space prevents the further development of this point. The section
states: “Men who have suffered this loss [losing the vision of God] under compulsion, overwhelmed
by the force of an inexorable power, deserve pity rather than hatred. But those who have of their
own free choice turned away and departed from the Existent Being, transcending the utmost limit of
wickedness itself … these must pay no ordinary penalties. Now no effort of thought could hit upon a
greater and more unheard of than to go forth into banishment from the Ruler of the Universe.
Adam, then, is driven out by God; Cain goes out voluntarily. Moses is showing us each form of moral
failure, one of free choice, the other not so. The involuntary act, not owing its existence to our
deliberate judgement, is to obtain later on such healing as the case admits of … The voluntary act,
insomuch as it was committed with forethought and of set purpose, most incur woes ever beyond
healing. For even as right actions that spring from previous intention are of greater worth that those
that are involuntary, so, too, among sins those which are involuntary are less weighty than those
which are voluntary” (Post. §§9-11).

53
 Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat (Det.)
Introduction

Sacr. concludes with an exegesis of Gen 4.4, and Det. begins at Gen. 4.8 and offers an
exegesis of Gen 4.8-15 through eight MBLs of varying complexity. 144 As with previous
treatises, Det. lacks a preface and begins immediately with an MBL. The imbalance of
references to the brothers noted in previous treatises continues in Det.: Cain is
mentioned 25 times to Abel’s 15, with many of the latter associated with MBLs. Cain is
again described as “acquisition” (§32), “the lover of self” (§67), “godless and impious”
(§103), and “a scoundrel” (§165). In contrast, relatively few descriptions are offered for
Abel, “the God-loving creed” (§32).

Overall Exegetical Structure of Det.

As the current study finishes at Gen 4.8, the structure outlined below is limited to the
first MBL.

First MBL Det. §§1-56 Gen. 4.8

The First MBL comprises three elaborations.
First Elaboration Det. §§1-31
A brief literal interpretation of the term “plain” §§1-2, followed by a detailed
allegorical exegesis using the SBLs of Jacob, Joseph and Isaac.
Second Elaboration Det. §§32-46
An allegorical exegesis of Virtue (Abel) is contrasted with the Lover of Self
(Cain) in terms of their rhetorical skills.
Third Elaboration Det. §§47-56
An allegorical interpretation of why it is in reality Cain that has died and Abel
still lives.

Exegetical Development
The First MBL centres on an exegesis of Gen 4.8, achieved through three elaborations.
In the First Elaboration the exegete begins by defining the term “Plain”, the battlefield
where Cain defeated Abel by use of “plausible sophistries”. From the outset, Philo
makes it clear that Cain’s invitation to “the Plain” was to a disputation, and not simply a

144
The exegesis of Gen 4.8-15 breaks down as follows: 4.8 (§§1-56) above, 4.9 (§§57-68), 4.10 (§§69-
95), 4.11 (§§96-103), 4.12 (§§104-140), 4.13 (§§141-149), 4.14 (§§150-166), 4.15 (§§167-178).

54
declamation given by the sophists.145 Philo provides a short literal exegesis of the term,
a place for sporting or military contests (§1), before offering a far more detailed
allegorical interpretation (§2-31). Exegetically, the Plain is a place where the soul’s
irrational powers are shepherded, and Philo develops three SBLs to support this
contention. The first depicts Jacob meeting Rachel and Leah on the Plain to contend
with them about Laban §§3-4, with the exegesis focusing on Laban’s inability to restrain
his irrational impulses.
The Second SBL, centring on Joseph, is far more elaborate and is, in turn,
supported by no fewer than ten TBLs, and extends over §§5-28. To summarise: Joseph,
unable “to bear the too great severity of his father’s wisdom,” is despatched to find his
brothers, who were “in the Plain caring for the irrational powers within them” so that
he could learn what would be beneficial from “the hands of more lenient instructors”.
Joseph is reluctant to find his brothers for he is a “promulgator of doctrine full of
mazes and hard to disentangle”, with Philo making use of this to weave together several
other allegorical strands. On two occasions, Philo uses this material to chide those who
support literal exegesis. For Philo, the reference to the “vale of Hebron” is “a plain hint
to avoid the literal interpretation”, and later on, the same message is offered as to why
Jacob would send a son of “whom he was especially fond” given Jacob’s “abundant
supply of servants” if it was not a “hint to avoid the literal interpretation”. The theme
of the third, far shorter SBL, is provided by Isaac who is seen on the Plain by Rebecca;
although he seems to be alone, he is conversing with the unseen God.
The Second Elaboration (§32) dwells on the brothers’ actions. The
forthcoming confrontation allows Philo to develop further the brothers’ characters.
Before embarking on this stage, Philo reminds his audience of the etymology
underpinning the two protagonists. The brother’s etymology was first raised at Cher. §40
and again at Sacr. §2. Its reappearance at §32 indicates that “etymology is an integral part
of the interpretive equipment that Philo had at his disposal”.146 To Philo, Cain and Abel
represent opposing views “in a contest to be fought out” on the Plain, where the “God-
loving creed” of Abel is to be pitted against the “self-loving creed” of Cain. Cain will
“leave no stone unturned” as he plies his questions, until his opponent either submits or
is “completely destroyed”. Cain, in his greed, is willing to abuse and kill others to

145
B. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1997), p. 100.

146
Runia, “Etymology as an Allegorical Technique”, pp. 101-21, especially pp.110-11.

55
achieve his end. Soul-types such as Cain have “mark and wealth, are recipients of
honours, portly, healthy and robust, revelling in luxurious and riotous living” and, most
importantly, have honed rhetorical skills. Philo provides an example of such rhetoric
expected from Cain, as lover of self:
“is not the body the soul’s house? Why, then, should we not take care of a
house, that it may not fall into ruins? Are not eyes and ears … and the band of
other senses bodyguards … as it were, of the soul? … Did nature create
pleasures and enjoyments and the delights that meet us all the way through life,
for the dead … and not for the living? And what is to induce us to forgo the
acquisition of wealth and fame and honours and offices … things which secure
for us a life not merely a life of safety but of happiness?” (Det. §33)

In marked contrast, Philo depicts the virtuous soul-type in far from glamorous
terms, “of mean estate, sallow, reduced to skeletons and in training for dying” (§34).
While Philo acknowledges that a few of these virtuous souls are “doubly successful”, as
their “mind is secured by wisdom … and their speech by the arts of eloquence”, he
realises that most have never even “dreamt of jugglery with words” (§36). Philo asserts
that those, such as Abel, devoid of rhetorical skills, should evade the “sophistry of the
self-lover” at all costs, and criticises Abel for the choice he made:
“Now Abel has never learned the art of speech, and knows the beautiful and
noble with his mind only. For this reason, he should have declined the meeting
on the plain, and have paid no regard to the challenge of the man of ill-will”
(Det. §37).

Philo supports his exegesis with two SBLs. The first outlines Moses’ actions
when faced with the sophistry of the Egyptians (§38-9), the second outlines the patience
displayed by Rebecca following Isaac’s murderous threat to Jacob (§46). The message
projected by these two SBLs is that “the man who falls short of perfection” when
challenged by a sophist should decline the confrontation, or he “will be liable not to be
wounded only, but to be utterly destroyed” (§46).
In the Third Elaboration Philo is faced with a quandary, for Gen 4.8 is clear
that “Cain rose up against Abel … and slew him” (§47). The onus is on Philo to explain
the apparent injustice suffered by Abel. At this juncture, a number of possibilities lay
open to Philo, approaches he utilises in other treatises when faced with a theological
dilemma. In Congr. §180, commenting on Sarah’s ill treatment of Hagar, he ignores the
literal interpretation and addresses the issue allegorically.147 In Abr. §96, commenting on

147
Mendelson, “Philo’s Dialectic of Reward and Punishment”, p. 117. Mendelson argues that such a
stance is taken when considering Gen 21. 9-19 because of the need to defend Jewish interests.

56
Abram and Sarai’s actions in Egypt, he focuses on the compassionate nature of God.148
In our example, a third approach, a Platonic appearance-reality dichotomy, is applied.
While Philo accepts that, “so far as superficial appearance goes”, it appears that
fratricide has occurred, in reality Abel was not killed.149 Philo achieves this through a
textual correction and inserting a single vowel into Gen. 4.8, so changing the phrase καί
άπέκτεινεν αύτόν to καί άπέκτεινεν έαύτόν.150 Indeed, later on, in Det. §69, Philo
illustrates that Cain was twice mistaken concerning his actions:
God’s question [to Cain] is a mockery “of the man who thought that his treachery
had accomplished his brother’s death”
and
“the mockery [of Cain] is occasioned by his thinking that his evil design was
against him who was better than he”
And such an understanding is also supported in §70 where:
“he that seems dead is alive, since he is found … using his voice”.
Lamech, Cain’s descendant, and a minor figure in the Philonic corpus, makes
his sole appearance at this point. The exegete uses him to illustrate the maxim that the
soul that has evil intentions always harms itself in the end, even if it requires several
generations. Lamech’s statement to his wives, that he had just killed a man, was perfect
for Philo to allegorise:
“If a man slays the principle of courage, he wounds himself with the opposite
disease of cowardice, and if a man does away with the strength that is attaining
its prime in training for noble deeds, he inflicts upon himself blows and great
indignities with no small shame” (Det. §51).
So, by the end of the Third Elaboration Philo’s exegesis has suggested not only that
“Cain has been done away with by himself”, but that there would also be a further price
to pay.

148
Mendelson, “Philo’s Dialectic of Reward and Punishment”, p. 117. Here Philo’s interpretation is
supported by God inflicting the plague on Pharaoh and his household.

149
Commenting on this verse, Byron notes that the use of the present tense verb in the LXX could
make the cry from Abel’s blood appear as though happening in the present. For Philo, Abel’s
continued existence was the obvious way to explain the present tense of βoά. See Byron, Cain and
Abel, p. 178.

150
Stewart, “Theological Suicide”, p. 5.

57
Summary
By the end of Gen 4.8, Philo has created two developed soul-types: the lover of vice
against the lover of virtue, an absolute antithesis as taught in Stoic ethics. Cain is left
with an uncertain future - the price to be paid for his immoral actions. Philo unfolds
Cain’s future in what remains of this treatise and in Post.. And Abel, though apparently
dead, is still incorporeally alive and has been vindicated. In murdering Abel, Cain has
merely killed “that which shares Abel’s name, the impression stamped to resemble him”
but not the original “God-loving Creed” that now lives with God. More importantly,
through fratricide, Cain has deprived himself of that which would have allowed him to
“live a guiltless life”.

58
 Chapter 4: Conclusion
This study provides the first detailed analysis of Philo’s exegesis of Gen. 4.1-8. As such
it has offered a fresh perspective on the exegete’s techniques and mind-set. The study
has succeeded in achieving its two main objectives. First, it has demonstrated the crucial
importance typology played in Philo’s exegesis. The exegete placed Cain and Abel’s
soul-types at the two extremes of an axis scaling the human capacity for good and evil,
and interspersed them with contrasting soul-types of varying natures of the fool
(Pharaoh and Laban, for example) or sage (Abraham, Isaac and the super-sage, Moses).
Secondly, it has been argued that compositional integrity is clearly identifiable in Philo’s
exegesis through his use of an interpretative circle linking Scripture and philosophy.151
The model proposed here is, in many ways, a half-way house between the exegetical
disarray posited by Colson and the rigid structuralism suggested by Mack and Alexandre
Jr.. 152 Rather than repeat that preceding chapter-based conclusions, what follows is
commentary on a few of the key findings.

Some of the findings are over-arching, and can be applied to the Philonic
corpus as a whole. Philo has been shown to be a product of his time. The exegete
appropriated philosophies from Judaism and Hellenism, even apparently conflicting
theories if that suited his purpose, in his determination to decode the Scriptures,
revealing that Philo was predominately an exegete rather than a philosopher. The study
has also added weight to the opinion that Philo used Torah to explain Torah, though it
has been demonstrated conclusively that the exegete had a predilection to specific
passages from Genesis. Further, the study has argued that claiming Philo’s treatises to
be exemplar of rhetorical argumentation should be treated with caution. It is seen as
inappropriate to force Philo’s prose to occupy a rhetorical framework, which in itself is
largely a construct of modern academia, a purpose for which it was never envisaged. In
contrast, the study revealed the crucial role performed by the Main Biblical Lemma with
its dynamic, almost symbiotic relationship with the supporting Secondary and Tertiary
Biblical Lemmata. The final conclusion concerns the importance of soul-types to Philo.
While Cain and Abel provide examples of the extremes of good and evil soul-types,
Philo made use of a wide-range of soul-types to elucidate his exegetical model. Philo’s

151
Mansfeld, “Philosophy in the service of Scripture”, p. 75.

152
Colson & Whitaker, Philo in Ten Volumes, Vol. 1, p. x; Mack, “Augmentation”, p.3-4.

59
expertise both as an exegete and as an author is illustrated in the manner by which he
deploys some of these soul-types to complement the brother’s personae while utilising
others by way of providing a contrast.

Some findings are specific to Gen. 4.1-8. The first is that the Cain and Abel
narrative, so long viewed as a trilogy, was in fact a tetralogy, with much of the
audiences’ awareness of Cain’s negative soul-type provided in Cher. The study revealed
that Philo was a consummate author as well as an exegete, fully cognisant of how he
wished to structure his narrative, working on the readers’ emotions and using a range of
compositional techniques to elicit dramatic effect. Further, the title “Cain and Abel
Trilogy” was shown to be a misnomer, as the majority of Philo’s exegesis centres on
Cain’s negative persona, a disparity which only increases in the exegete’s consideration of
Gen. 4.9-16.

So, Cher. is the opening act of a Philonic four-act drama focussing on the fate of
the Soul. Cher. introduces Cain, Philo’s exemplar for a negative disposition of the Soul,
and the exegete makes use of the treatise to distance Cain’s soul-type from Abel and
other Biblical characters, such as Moses and Abraham. It was through Cain’s
conception that Mind acquired her misguided understanding that it possesses all that it
perceived.

Sacr. witnesses the introduction of Cain’s foil, Abel, the God-loving soul-type;
the very antithesis of Cain. Philo exploits Sacr.’s MBLs to offer a series of contrasts
between the brothers, each widening the chasm between the siblings’ soul-types, each
stage making use of the soul-types representing other Biblical characters. In QG1.62-66
Philo proceeds to associate Cain with the origin of every voluntary wrongdoing,
generating a clear distinction between voluntary and involuntary sin. Again, the
juxtaposing of soul-types, this time of Noah and Adam, is used to create this view, and
fashion a theme which reverberates throughout the entire Philonic corpus. By the close
of the study, Philo had crafted two distinct soul-types, the lover of vice against the lover
of virtue. This section, therefore, clearly illustrates the importance of typology to Philo
and that he deployed Cain and Abel as two extremes of the human capacity for evil and
for good.

Given the study’s constraints, several topics arise for further study. First, there is
a need for research into the exegetes’ corpus-wide treatment of Cain and Abel, similar

60
to Pearce’s comprehensive study of Philo’s references to all-things Egyptian.153 Such a
study would add greatly to our understanding of Philo’s approach towards typology and
soul-types, and his use of Stoic and Platonic philosophical frameworks. Our
understanding of Philo’s overall exegetical method for the AC would be increased
through the completion of a detailed route-map of Philo’s exegesis of Genesis 4 in
terms of the relationship between the MBL and the SBL/TBL.

153
Pearce, Land of the Body. In his review of this monograph, Gregory Sterling concludes, “The work
is an excellent example of how a scholar can explore a theme that runs throughout Philo’s works
while remaining true to the realities of his exegetical orientation and indebtedness to other
thinkers… It is a good model for those who want to tackle a theme that spans the corpus”. Sterling,
G., Review of S. Pearce, Land of the Body, Studia Philonica Annual XXII (2010) pp. 282-286.

61
 Appendix
Genesis 4.1-8 (New English Translation of the Septuagint)
1
Now Adam knew his wife Heua, and after she had conceived she bore Kain and said,
“I have acquired a man through God”. 2 And she proceeded to bear his brother Habel.
And Habel became a herder of sheep, but Kain was tilling the earth. 3 And it came
about after some days that Kain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruits of the
earth, 4 and Habel, he also brought of the firstlings of his sheep and of their fat
portions. And God looked upon Habel and his gifts, 5 but on Kain and his offerings he
was not intent. And it distressed Kain exceedingly, and he collapsed in countenance. 6
And the Lord God said to Kain, “Why have you become deeply grieved, and why has
your countenance collapsed? 7 If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly, have
you not sinned? Be still; his recourse is to you, and you will rule over him.” 8 And Kain
said to his brother Habel. “Let us go through into the plain”. And it came about when
they were in the plain, that then Kain rose up against his brother Habel and killed him.
154

The Structure of the Cain and Abel Narrative, Gen 4.1-8

Cher.
First Elaboration (§§40-52)
§ Text Kind Content
40 Gen. 4.1 MBL “And Adam knew his wife and she conceived and bare
Cain, and
he said, “I have gotten a man through God,” and He
added to
this that she bore his brother Abel”.
46 Gen. 21.1 SBL Sarah as example of an “helpmeet”.
46 Gen. 29.31 SBL Leah as an example of an “helpmeet”.
47 Gen. 25.21 SBL Rebecca as an example of an “helpmeet”.
47 Exod. 2.22 SBL Zipporah as an example of an “helpmeet”.
48 Jer. 3.4 TBL Philo initiated through Jeremiah.
50 Gen. 18.11 CBL Sarah as a pure virgin meeting with God.
53 Gen. 4.1 MBL Return to MBL.

Second Elaboration (§§53-83)

§ Text Kind Content
53 Gen. 4.1 MBL “she brought forth Cain”.
54 Gen. 4.25 SBL Seth as a correct entry of introduction.
64 - - Alexander the Great as misguided example of
possession.

154
New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS), translated by R. Hiebert, p.8.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/01-gen-nets.pdf (accessed November 2016).

62
67 Gen. 31.43 SBL Laban as example of misguided understanding of
possession.
72 Exod. 12. 5-6 SBL The slave’s misguided understanding of possession.
74 Exod. 15.9 SBL Pharaoh’s misguided understanding of possession.

Third Elaboration (§§84-124)

§ Text Kind Content
84 Numb. 28.2 MBL God’s statement that all things are mine.
87 Exod. 20.10 SBL Sabbath is God’s day of rest
108 Lev. 25.23 SBL All things are God’s and are only on loan to man.
119 Lev. 25.23 TBL Man is merely a sojourner on the Earth.
124 Gen. 4.2 MBL Return to MBL

Fourth Elaboration (§§124-130)

§ Text Kind Content

124 Gen. 4.1 MBL “I have gotten a man through God”.
128 Gen. 40.8 SBL Joseph’s interpret dreams through God.
130 Exod. 14.3 SBL Moses call for all to trust in God.
130 Gen. 4.1 MBL Return to the MBL.

Sacr.
First MBL (§§1-10)

§ Text Kind Content

1 Gen. 4.2 MBL “And He added to this that she brought forth Abel his
brother”.
4 Gen. 25.21ff SBL God’s answer to Rebecca’s plea.
5 Gen. 28.8 SBL Addition of Abraham to the people of God.
5 Gen. 49.33 SBL Addition of Jacob to the people of God.
6 Gen. 35.29 SBL Addition of Isaac to another company.
8 Deut. 5.31 SBL No reference to addition or death.
9 Deut. 34.5 TBL Translation of Moses.
9 Exod. 7.1 CBL Moses as a God to Pharaoh.
10 Deut. 34.6 CBL As God’s agent, Moses not subject to addition or
subtraction.
10. Gen. 4.2 MBL Return to MBL.

Second MBL (§§11-51)

§ Text Kind Content
11 Gen. 4.2 MBL “And Abel became a shepherd of sheep, but Cain was a
tiller of
the ground”.
13 Exod. 4.10 SBL Moses as a super sage.
18 Gen. 25.33 SBL Sale of Esau’s birth right to Jacob – relationship
virtue/folly.
19 Deut. 21.15-17 SBL Law relating to primogeniture.

63
42 Gen. 33.11 SBL Jacob as example of younger son gaining all through
control of
passions..
43 Gen. 25.5 TBL Jacob acquired this knowledge from grandfather,
Abraham.
46 Gen. 30.36 SBL Jacob as shepherd to Laban – gaining control of
passions.
48 Gen. 47.3 TBL Development of theme – Jacob’s sons in Egypt.
50 Exod. 3.1 SBL Moses’ leadership displayed through shepherding.
51 Gen. 46.34 TBL Moses describing shepherds as an abomination to Egypt.
51 Exod. 8.26 TBL Moses sacrificing to God the abomination of Egypt.
51 Gen. 4.2 MBL Return to MBL.

Third MBL (§§52-87)

§ Text Kind Content
52 Gen. 4.3 MBL “And it came to pass after some days that Cain brought
of the
first fruits of the earth, as an offering to God”.
53 Deut. 23.21 SBL Legalism – if you vow a vow, delay not to pay it.
55 Deut. 8.12-14 TBL Forget not the Lord (after eating).
56 Deut. 8.17 TBL Achievements are made in God’s strength.
57 Deut. 9.5 TBL The Covenant is established.
59 Gen. 18.6 SBL Abraham’s speed with visitors at Mamre.
62 Exod. 12.39 SBL Unleavened cakes when leaving Egypt
63 Exod. 12.11 TBL Eat your meal in haste.
64 Gen. 27.20 SBL Jacob’s appreciation of God’s teaching.
66 Numb. 9.23 TBL Speed of the woken word.
67 Exod. 17.6 TBL God is everywhere.
69 Exod. 8.9 SBL Pharaoh’s reaction to the plague of frogs.
72 Exod. 23.19 SBL Firstlings and first fruits offered to God.
76 Lev. 2.14 TBL Make your offering as required by Holy Writ – new,
roasted,
sliced, and ground
77 Lev. 19.32 CBL New - Thou shalt honour the head of the elder –
nothing is ancient.
77 Numb. 11.16 CBL New - Truths from your elders worth remembering.
79 Lev. 26.10 CBL New - Need to read the writings of the sages.
81 Gen. 25.29 CBL Roasted – Jacob being tested.
86 Numb. 11.8 CBL Pounding – grinding manna to make buried cakes.
87 Exod. 6.7 SBL You will be my people and I will be your God.
87 Lev. 26.12 SBL You shall be a people to me. I am the Lord.

Fourth MBL (§§88-139)

§ Text Kind Content
88 Gen. 4.4 MBL Return to MBL
89 Exod. 13.11-13 SBL That which opens the womb is the first born.
97 Exod. 13.11 TBL Separation in the womb.
101 Deut. 1.31 TBL As a man cherishes his son.
104 Exod. 13.12 TBL All males that open the womb belong to the Lord.
107 Numb. 15.19-20

64
 TBL Set apart a mixture from the threshing floor.
111 Numb. 28.2 TBL Offer fruits to God at his feasts.
112 Exod. 13.13 SBL What opens womb of an ass exchange for a sheep.
114 Exod. 13.13 TBL Exchange and redeem.
118 Numb. 3.2-13 SBL First born of the Levites.
122 Lev. 25.10 SBL Fifty needed for liberty at Sodom.
122 Gen. 18.24ff TBL Sodom’s destruction.
127 Lev. 25.32 SBL Cities of Levites ransomed for ever.
130 Exod. 32.26-28 SBL Destruction of false doctrine.
133 Exod. 21.13 TBL God delivered him into their hands.
134 Numb. 3.13 TBL Will smote the first born of Israel.
135 Gen. 27.30 SBL Jacob and Esau.
136 Lev. 3.3 TBL Bring the fat, the kidneys and the lobe of the liver

Det.
§ Text Kind Content
1 Gen. 4.8 MBL “And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us make our way
to the
plain.
3 Gen 3.4 SBL Jacob shepherding on the plain
4 Gen. 31.5 TBL Laban’s face not turned towards him.
5 Gen. 37.13-17 SBL Joseph searching for his brothers on the plain.
6 Gen. 37.3 TBL Joseph’s coat of many colours.
9 Gen. 37.13 TBL Joseph’s need to submit to this brothers.
10 Gen. 37.15 TBL Joseph found wandering.
15 Gen. 37.14 TBL Joseph in the Vale of Hebron.
16 Lev. 14.57 TBL Law relating to Leprosy.
17 Gen. 37.15 TBL Joseph found wandering again.
18 Deut. 16.20 TBL Legal witness.
22 Gen. 37.15 TBL Proper name of “man”.
24 Gen. 37.15 TBL What are you seeking?
26 Gen. 37.17 TBL Man responds that they have departed hence.
28 Gen. 18.11 CBL Sarah as an example of quitting passions.
29 Gen. 24.63 SBL Isaac going on the plain.
38 Exod. 4.10 SBL Moses evades the sophists in Egypt.
38 Exod. 4.10 TBL Moses is speechless.
39 Exod. 4.16 TBL Moses use of Aaron.
39 Exod. 7.1 SBL Rebecca’s patient waiting.
46 Gen. 27.41 SBL Isaac’s patient waiting.
47 Gen. 4.8 MBL Return to MBL
48 Gen 4.10 SBL Abel’s voice crying out.
50 Gen. 4.23 SBL Example of Lamech.
51 Gen. 27.45 SBL Rebecca’s patient waiting.
52 Exod. 20.12 SBL Legal witness.

65
Philo’s Use of the Bible
Philo followed the principle of explaining Torah by use of Torah, which he sees as a
unified whole and the work of a single author. Although this study focused on Gen 4.1-
8, the following table includes all Bible references found in the four Cain and Abel
treatises so as to increase the sample size for the various statistical exercises located in
the body of the study. As this is an exercise to determine how Philo used Torah to
explain Torah, the MBLs have been excluded from the count.

Cher.
No. § Verse
1 Gen 3.24
1 3 Gen 16.6
2 3 Gen 21.14
3 8 Gen 18.11
4 9 Gen 21.10
5 10 Gen 4.16
6 14 Gen 5.18
7 16 Deut 16.20
8 16 Deut 29.29
9 17 Num 5.18
10 18 Gen 18.22
11 25 Exod 25.19
12 31 Gen 22.6
13 32 Num 22.29
14 35 Num22.30
40 Gen 4.1-2
15 46 Gen 21.1
16 46 Gen 29.31
17 47 Gen 25.21
18 47 Exod 2.22
19 49 Jer. 3.4
20 50 Gen 18.11
53 Gen 4.1-2
21 54 Gen 4.25
22 57 Gen 3.20
23 67 Gen 31.43
24 72 Exod 12.5-6
25 74 Exod 15.9
26 84 Numb 28.2
27 87 Exod 20.10
28 108 Lev 25.23
29 119 Lev 25.23
124 Gen 4.2
30 128 Gen 40.8
31 129 Exod 14.3

66
Sacr.
No. § Verse
1 Gen 4.2
1 4 Gen 25.21
2 5 Gen 25.8
3 5 Gen 49.33
4 6 Gen 35.29
5 8 Deut 5.31
6 8 Deut 34.5
7 9 Exod 7.1
8 10 Deut 34.6
11 Gen 4.2
9 13 Exod 4.10
10 18 Gen 25.33
11 19 Deut 21.15-17
12 42 Gen 33.11
13 43 Gen 25.5
14 46 Gen 30.36
15 48 Gen 47.3
16 50 Exod 3.1
17 51 Exod 8.26
51 Gen 4.2
52 Gen 4.3
18 53 Deut 23.21
19 55 Deut 8.12-14
20 56 Deut 8.7
21 57 Deut 9.5
22 59 Gen 18.6
23 62 Exod 12.39
24 63 Exod 12.11
25 64 Gen 27.20
26 66 Numb 9.23
27 67 Exod 17.6
28 69 Exod 8.9
29 72 Exod 23.19
30 76 Lev 2.14
31 77 Lev 19.32
32 77 Numb 11.16
33 79 Lev 26.10
34 81 Gen 25.29
35 86 Numb 11.8
36 87 Exod 6.7
37 87 Lev 26.12
89 Gen 4.4
38 89 Exod 13.11-13
39 97 Exod 13.11
40 101 Deut 1.31
41 104 Exod 13.12
42 107 Numb 15.19-20
43 111 Numb 28.2

67
44 112 Exod 13.13
45 114 Exod 13.13
46 118 Numb 3.12-13
47 122 Lev 25.10
48 122 Gen 18.24ff
49 127 Lev 25.32
50 130 Exod 32.26-28
51 133 Exod 21.13
52 134 Numb 3.13
53 135 Gen 27.30
54 136 Lev 3.3ff

[No longer extant Treatise on Gen 4.5-7?]

Det.
No. § Verse
1 Gen 4.8
1 3 Gen 31.4
2 4 Gen 31.5
3 5 Gen 37.13-17
4 6 Gen 37.3
5 9 Gen 37.13
6 10 Gen 37.15
7 15 Gen 37.14
8 16 Lev 14.57ff
9 17 Gen 37.15
10 18 Deut 16.20
11 22 Gen 37.15
12 24 Gen 37.15
13 26 Gen 37.17
14 28 Gen 18.11
15 29 Gen 24.63
16 38 Exod 4.10
17 38 Exod 6.12
18 39 Exod 4.16
19 39 Exod 7.1
20 46 Gen 27.41
47 Gen 4.8
21 48 Gen 4.10
22 51 Gen 27.45
23 52 Exod 20.12
57 Gen 4.9
24 59 Gen 18.9
62 Gen 4.9
25 64 Numb 8.24-26
26 67 Deut 33.9
69 Gen 4.10
27 71 Numb 23.8
79 Gen 4.10
28 80 Lev 17.11

68
29 80 Gen 2.7
30 93 Exod 2.23
96 Gen 4.11
100 Gen 4.11
31 103 Numb 19.15
104 Gen 4.12
32 105 Gen 9.20
113 Gen 4.12
33 114 Deut 32.13
34 118 Deut 32.13
119 Gen 4.12
35 121 Gen 5.29
36 123 Gen 21.6
37 126 Exod 4.14
38 135 Exod 4.14
39 138 Gen 4.26
40 139 Gen 5.1
141 Gen 4.13
41 147 Numb 30.10
150 Gen 4.14
42 159 Gen 12.1
43 159 Gen 12.7
44 160 Exod 33.7
45 160 Exod 3.14
46 161 Exod 7.1
163 Gen 4.14
164 Gen 4.14
166 Gen 4.15
167 Gen 4.15
47 170 Gen 7.2
177 Gen 4.15

Post.
No. § Verse

1 Gen 4.16
1 10 Gen 4.25
2 12 Deut 30.20
3 14 Exod 20.21
4 17 Gen 22.3
5 24 Deut 28.65-6
6 26 Deut 21.23
7 27 Gen 18.22
8 28 Deut 5.31
9 29 Gen 46.4
33 Gen 4.17
40 Gen 4.17
10 40 Gen 5.18
40 Gen 4.18
11 40 Gen 5. 21, 25

69
12 47 Lev 13.3
13 48 Lev 23.27
14 53 Gen 11.6
15 53 Gen 11.4
16 54 Exod 1.11
17 59 Gen 31.46
18 60 Numb 13.22
19 63 Exod 4.22
20 63 Deut 21.17
21 64 Gen 2.2
22 65 Gen 2.4
23 67 Numb 27.16
69 Gen 4.18
24 69 Deut 30.19
25 70 Lev 16.10
73 Gen 4.18
74 Gen 4.18
75 Gen 4.19
26 76 Gen 11.29
27 76 Gen 28.2
28 76 Exod 6.23
29 77 Gen 24.67
30 77 Exod 2.21
31 80 Gen 39.2
32 81 Gen 11.6
83 Gen 4.20
33 84 Deut 27.17
34 85 Deut 30.11-14
35 89 Deut 19.14
36 89 Deut 27.7-9
37 95 Lev 27.32f
38 96 Gen 41.49
98 Gen 4.20
100 Gen 4.21
39 102 Deut 28.14
103 Gen 4.21
120 Gen 4.22
40 121 Deut 32.15
41 122 Numb 14.9
42 123 Lev 3.16
124 Gen 4.25
43 127 Gen 2.6
44 128 Gen 2.10
45 132 Gen 24.16-20
46 134 Gen 18.11
47 135 Gen 29.31
48 136 Exod 19.24
49 142 Deut 15.8
50 143 Exod 20.19
51 155 Exod 15.23
52 156 Exod 15.25

70
53 158 Exod 32.20
54 166 Exod 32.2
55 167 Deut 32.39
56 169 Exod 33.23
170 Gen 4.25
57 175 Gen 19.32
58 176 Gen 19.33
59 177 Deut 23.2
60 179 Gen 30.2
61 179 Gen 30.24
62 180 Gen 38.9
63 183 Numb 25.7

71
 Bibliography

Philo of Alexandria

Editions and Translations of the Cain and Abel Narrative

Colson, F., Whitaker, G., (and R. Marcus), Philo in Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary
Volumes) Loeb Classical Library (LCL: London, 1929-1962). Vol. 2, pages 3-439.

Lexica
Borgen, P., Fuglseth, K., and Skarsten, B., The Philo Index: A Complete Word Index to the
Writings of Philo of Alexandria (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2000).

Modern Scholarly Literature

Alexandre Jr., M., Rhetorical Argumentation in Philo of Alexandria, Studia Philonica

Monograph 2 (Scholars Press: Atlanta, Georgia, 1999).
“Rhetorical Hermeneutics in Philo’s Commentary on Scripture”, Revista de
Retórica y Teoría de la Comunicación Año I, nº 1 • Enero 2001 • pp. 29-41. Located at
http://www.avizora.com/publicaciones/comunicacion/textos/textos_pdf/0005_rheto
rical_hermeneutics_philo_scripture.pdf (accessed November 2016).

Arnold, B., Genesis: New Cambridge Biblical Commentary (Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, 2013).

Birnbaum, E., “What does Philo mean by ‘Seeing God’? Some methodological
considerations” SBL Seminar Papers 34 (1995).

Borgen, P., Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for his time (SBL: Atlanta, Georgia, 1997), pp.
42-3.

Byron, J., Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition: Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the First
Sibling Rivalry (Brill: Leiden, 2011).
“Cain and Abel in Second Temple Literature and Beyond”, in C. Evans & J.
Lohr & D. Petersen (eds.), The Book of Genesis Composition and Reception (Leiden: Brill,
2012), pp. 331-351.
“Abel’s Blood and the Ongoing Cry for Vengeance”, The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, Vol. 73 1 (2011), pp. 743-756.
“Cain’s Rejected Offering: Interpretative approaches to a Theological Problem”,
Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 18.1 (2008), pp.3-22.

Conley, T., review of M. Alexandre Jr., Rhetorical Argumentation in Philo of Alexandria,

Journal for the Study of Judaism, XXXI, 3, pp.298-302.

Cover, M., Philo of Alexandria, De Mutatione Nominum §§103-119, Philo of Alexandria

Seminar, SBL Meeting 21st November 2016,
https://biblicalresources.wordpress.com/2016/09/27/philo-at-sbl-annual-meeting-i-3/
(accessed November 2016).

72
Dillon, J., The Middle Platonists: a study of Platonism 80BC to AD 220 (Duckworth: London,
1996).

Fowler, H., Plato Theaetetus, Plato Vol. 7, Loeb Classical Library Vol. 123 (Harvard
University Press: Cambridge, Mass., 1921).

Francis, M., Voluntary and Involuntary Sin and the Allegory of the Soul in Philo, Philo
of Alexandria Seminar, SBL Meeting 22nd November 2015.
http://torreys.org/sblpapers2015/S22-03_MFrancisSubmissionPhilo.pdf (accessed
November 2016).

Geljon, A. and Runia, D., Philo of Alexandria: On Cultivation: Introduction, Translation and
Commentary (Brill: Leiden, 2013).

Greenspahn, F., Hilgert, E., & Mack, B. (eds.), Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic
Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Scholars Press: Atlanta, 1984).
When brothers dwell together: The pre-eminence of younger siblings in the Hebrew Bible
(Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1994).

Hay, D., “References to other exegetes”, in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of
Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus (Scholars Press: Atlanta, 1991).

Kamesar, A. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Philo (Cambridge: CUP, 2009).

Kerns, L., Platonic and Stoic Passions in Philo of Alexandria, unpublished PhD, King’s
College London, 2012.

Kim, A., “Cain and Abel in the light of envy: a study of the history of the interpretation
of envy in Genesis 4.1-16”, Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Vol. 12.1 (2001),
pp. 65-84.

Lewis, J., “The Offering of Abel (Gen. 4.4): A History of Interpretation”, Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 37.4 (1994) pp.481-496.

Lincicum, D., “A preliminary index to Philo’s non-biblical citations and allusions”,

Studia Philonica XXV (2013), pp. 139-167.

Lohr, J., “Righteous Abel, Wicked Cain: Genesis 4.1-16 in the Masoretic Text, the
Septuagint, and the New Testament”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol. 79.3 (2009)
pp. 485-96.

McFarland, O., Philo’s Prepositional Metaphysics within Early Christian debates about the Relation
of Divine Nature and Agency, in Studia Philonica XXVII (2015).

McKeown, J., Genesis: The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary (Eerdmans: Grand
Rapids, 2008).

Mack, B., “Decoding the Scripture: Philo and the Rules of Rhetoric”, in Nourished with
Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Scholars Press: Chico,
California, 1984), pp. 81-116.

73
 “Argumentation in Philo’s De Sacrificiis”, Studia Philonica, Vol. XX (SBL:
Atlanta, Georgia, 2008), pp. 1-32.

Mackie, S., “The Passion of Eve and the Ecstasy of Hannah: Sense Perception, Pasion,
Mysticism, and Misogyny in Philo of Alexandria, De ebrietate 143-52”, JBL 133, No. 1
(2014), pp. 141-163.

Mansfeld, J., “Philosophy in the service of scripture: Philo’s exegetical strategies” in J.

Dillon & A. Long (eds.), The Question of ‘Eclecticism’: studies in later Greek philosophy
(University of California Press: Berkeley, 1988), pp.70-102.

Mattila, S., “Wisdom, Sense Perception, Nature, and Philo’s Gender Gradient”, Harvard
Theological Review, Vol. 89, No. 2 (1996), pp.103-129.

Measson, A., & J. Cazeaux, “From grammar to discourse: A study in the Quaestiones in
Genesim in relation to the treatises”, in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of
Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus (Scholars Press: Atlanta, 1991).

Mendelson, A., “Philo’s Dialectic of Reward and Punishment”, Studia Philonica 9 (1997),
pp.104-25.

Najman, H., “Cain and Abel as Character Traits: A Study in the Allegorical Typology of
Philo of Alexandria” in G. P. Luttikhuizen (ed.), Eve’s Children: The Biblical Stories Retold
and Interpreted in Jewish and Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 107-18.

Niehoff, M., Writing a Commentary on a Philonic Allegorical Treatise, SBL Meeting Atlanta,
November 2015, Philo of Alexandria Seminar paper, p.1
(http://torreys.org/philo_seminar_papers/ (accessed August 2016).

Olbricht, T., “Review of Rhetorical Argumentation in Philo of Alexandria”, Journal of

Biblical Literature 120.4 (2001), pp.763-5.

Pearce, S., Land of the Body: Studies in Philo’s representation of Egypt (Mohr Siebeck:
Tubingen, 2007).

Quinones, R., The Changes of Cain: Violence and the Lost Brother in Cain and Abel literature
(Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey, 1991).

Ranoocchia, G., “Moses against the Egyptian: The anti-Epicurean polemic in Philo”, in
F. Alesse (ed.), Philo of Alexandria and Post Aristotelian Philosophy (Brill: Leiden, 2008),
pp.75-101.

Reydams-Schils, G., “Philo of Alexandria on Stoic and Platonist Psycho-Physiology:

The Socratic Higher Ground”, in F. Alesse (ed.) Philo of Alexandria and Post Aristotelian
Philosophy (Brill: Leiden, 2008), pp. 169-196.

Runia, D., “The Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatises”, Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984),
pp. 209-256.
“Observations on the Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatises”, Vigiliae
Christianae 41 (1987), pp. 105-138.

74
 “Etymology as an exegetical technique in Philo of Alexandria”, Studia Philonica
XVI (2004), pp. 101-121.
Philo of Alexandria and The Timaeus of Plato (Brill: Leiden, 1986).
“The Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatise De Agricultura”, Studia Philonica
Annual 22 (2010), pp. 87-109.
“The Structure of Philo’s De plantatione and its place in the Allegorical
Commentary”, SBL Meeting Atlanta, November 2015, Philo of Alexandria Seminar, pp.
1-18. http://torreys.org/philo_seminar_papers/ (accessed August 2016).
On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction, Translation and
Commentary (SBL: Atlanta, Georgia, 2001).

Scarlata, M., Outside of Eden: Cain in the ancient versions of Genesis 4.1-16 (Bloomsbury:
London, 2013).

Schenck, K., A Brief Guide to Philo (WJK Press: Louisville, 2005).

Sterling, G., “What’s in a Name? The place of Philo’s De mutatione nominum in the
Allegorical Commentary”, Philo of Alexandria Seminar, SBL Meeting 21st November
2016, https://biblicalresources.wordpress.com/2016/09/27/philo-at-sbl-annual-
meeting-i-3/ (accessed November 2016).
“Philo’s Quaestiones: Prolegomena or afterthought?” in Hay (ed.), Both Literal
and Allegorical, pp. 99-123.

Stewart, T., “Theological Suicide: Evil and the imperceptions of God”, SBL Philo Paper
2016, http://torreys.org/philo_seminar_papers/ (accessed November 2016).

Tilford, N., “After the ways of women”: the aged virgin in Philo’s transformation of the
philosophical soul, Studia Philonica XXV (2013), pp.17-39.

van der Horst, P., Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom: Introduction, Translation and Commentary
(SBL: Atlanta, Georgia, 2013).

Wenham, G., Genesis 1-15: Word Biblical Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1987).

Westermann, C., Genesis 1-11 A Commentary (Augsburg Publishing: Minneapolis, 1974).

Wicksteed, P., & F. Cornford, Aristotle, Physics Books 1-4, LCL 228 (LCL: London, 1989).

Wilson, W., Philo of Alexandria, On Virtues: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (SBL:
Atlanta, Georgia, 2011).

Winston, D., & Dillon, J., (eds.) Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: a commentary on De
gigantibus and Quod Deus sit immutabilis (Scholars Press: Atlanta, 1983).

Winter, B., Philo and Paul among the Sophists (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1997).

Wolfson, H., Philo, Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Vol.
1. Structure and growth of philosophical systems from Plato to Spinoza (Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, Mass, 1962).

75