Reading Philo in Greek

Reading Philo in Greek

I just recently started meeting with some colleagues and a student in a Greek reading group. I suggested to a colleague in Classics that it might be interesting to read Philo of Alexandria together, and she got very excited about the idea, and some other colleagues in Religion also expressed an interest.

And so lately, I have felt disconcertingly like I am back in Greek class, wondering why the verses that I end up with when it is my turn to read and translate are so difficult, while those others end up with seem comparatively easy. Of course, if I had been preparing for โ€œclassโ€ as I should have been, I probably would not have felt that way. ๐Ÿ™‚

But kidding aside, it is intended to be a low-pressure, enjoyable experience in which we read and if necessary muddle through together. Although weโ€™ve only met twice, I am already finding it a really rewarding experience. Doing this is relatively straightforward thanks to the availability online without cost of editions of the Greek text, as well as Yongeโ€™s older English translation.

We are reading his โ€œOn the Creationโ€ (known in Latin as De opificio mundi and in the original Greek as ฮ ฮตฯฮน ฯ„ฮทฯ‚ ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑ ฮœฯ‰ฯ…ฯƒฮตฮฑ ฮบฮฟฯƒฮผฮฟฯ€ฮฟฮนฮนฮฑฯ‚). It is worth reading for many reasons, not least of which is the clear evidence it provides that the so-called literalism of some contemporary interpreters is not โ€œthe traditional approachโ€ to the creation accounts in Genesis. III.13 is particularly illustrative:

แผ›ฮพ ฮดแฝฒ แผกฮผฮญฯฮฑฮนฯ‚ ฮดฮทฮผฮนฮฟฯ…ฯฮณฮทฮธแฟ†ฮฝฮฑฮฏ ฯ†ฮทฯƒฮน ฯ„แฝธฮฝ ฮบฯŒฯƒฮผฮฟฮฝ, ฮฟแฝฮบ แผฯ€ฮตฮนฮดแฝด ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฮตฮดฮตแฟ–ฯ„ฮฟ ฯ‡ฯฯŒฮฝฯ‰ฮฝ ฮผฮฎฮบฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ แฝ ฯ€ฮฟฮนแฟถฮฝ โ€“ แผ…ฮผฮฑ ฮณแฝฐฯ ฯ€ฮฌฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮดฯแพถฮฝ ฮตแผฐฮบแฝธฯ‚ ฮธฮตฯŒฮฝ, ฮฟแฝ ฯ€ฯฮฟฯƒฯ„ฮฌฯ„ฯ„ฮฟฮฝฯ„ฮฑ ฮผฯŒฮฝฮฟฮฝ แผ€ฮปฮปแฝฐ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮดฮนฮฑฮฝฮฟฮฟฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮฝย โ€“ย , แผ€ฮปฮปโ€™ แผฯ€ฮตฮนฮดแฝด ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮณฮนฮฝฮฟฮผฮญฮฝฮฟฮนฯ‚ แผ”ฮดฮตฮน ฯ„ฮฌฮพฮตฯ‰ฯ‚. ฯ„ฮฌฮพฮตฮน ฮดแฝฒ แผ€ฯฮนฮธฮผแฝธฯ‚ ฮฟแผฐฮบฮตแฟ–ฮฟฮฝ, แผ€ฯฮนฮธฮผแฟถฮฝ ฮดแฝฒ ฯ†ฯฯƒฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ ฮฝฯŒฮผฮฟฮนฯ‚ ฮณฮตฮฝฮฝฮทฯ„ฮนฮบฯŽฯ„ฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ แฝ แผ•ฮพยท ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฯ„ฮต ฮณแฝฐฯ แผ€ฯ€แฝธ ฮผฮฟฮฝฮฌฮดฮฟฯ‚ ฯ€ฯแฟถฯ„ฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„ฮญฮปฮตฮนฯŒฯ‚ แผฯƒฯ„ฮนฮฝ แผฐฯƒฮฟฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ แผ‘ฮฑฯ…ฯ„ฮฟแฟฆ ฮผฮญฯฮตฯƒฮน ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯƒฯ…ฮผฯ€ฮปฮทฯฮฟฯฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฯ‚ แผฮพ ฮฑแฝฯ„แฟถฮฝ, แผกฮผฮฏฯƒฮฟฯ…ฯ‚ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฯ„ฯฮนฮฌฮดฮฟฯ‚, ฯ„ฯฮฏฯ„ฮฟฯ… ฮดแฝฒ ฮดฯ…ฮฌฮดฮฟฯ‚, แผ•ฮบฯ„ฮฟฯ… ฮดแฝฒ ฮผฮฟฮฝฮฌฮดฮฟฯ‚, ฮบฮฑแฝถ แฝกฯ‚ แผ”ฯ€ฮฟฯ‚ ฮตแผฐฯ€ฮตแฟ–ฮฝ แผ„ฯฯฮทฮฝ ฯ„ฮต ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฮธแฟ†ฮปฯ…ฯ‚ ฮตแผถฮฝฮฑฮน ฯ€ฮญฯ†ฯ…ฮบฮต ฮบแผ€ฮบ ฯ„แฟ†ฯ‚ แผ‘ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮญฯฮฟฯ… ฮดฯ…ฮฝฮฌฮผฮตฯ‰ฯ‚ แผฅฯฮผฮฟฯƒฯ„ฮฑฮนยท แผ„ฯฯฮตฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮณแฝฐฯ แผฮฝ ฯ„ฮฟแฟ–ฯ‚ ฮฟแฝ–ฯƒฮน ฯ„แฝธ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯ„ฯ„ฯŒฮฝ, ฯ„แฝธ ฮดโ€™ แผ„ฯฯ„ฮนฮฟฮฝ ฮธแฟ†ฮปฯ…ยท ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯ„ฯ„แฟถฮฝ ฮผแฝฒฮฝ ฮฟแฝ–ฮฝ แผ€ฯฮนฮธฮผแฟถฮฝ แผ€ฯฯ‡แฝด ฯ„ฯฮนฮฌฯ‚, ฮดฯ…แฝฐฯ‚ ฮดโ€™ แผ€ฯฯ„ฮฏฯ‰ฮฝ, แผก ฮดโ€™ แผ€ฮผฯ†ฮฟแฟ–ฮฝ ฮดฯฮฝฮฑฮผฮนฯ‚ แผ‘ฮพฮฌฯ‚.

Iโ€™ll offer my own rough translation of the first sentence: โ€œHe says that in six days the world was fashioned โ€“ not ย because the Maker required a length of time (for it is natural for God to accomplish everything at once, not only in commanding but even in thinking), but because the things being brought into being required arrangement. And numbers administer arrangementโ€ฆโ€

The rest finds mathematical significance in the number six. None of what Philo writes on this topic in the passage bears even the slightest resemblance to how modern-day fundamentalists approach the text.

I wonder how many people who read this blog have ever read Philo in Greek. This is my first time trying to read an entire work of his in the original language, and is an expression of my longstanding desire to read more in Greek beyond the New Testament. I am grateful to colleagues in Classics for joining me in doing so โ€“ and hope we can keep it up!


Browse Our Archives