THE LOGIC of the DIETARY LAWS ACCORDING to PHILO One Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notae et Miscellanea DIET AND DESIRE: THE LOGIC OF THE DIETARY LAWS ACCORDING TO PHILO One of Philo’s recurring ethical themes is the argument that luxury and soft- ness are morally corrupting. This makes an abundance even of good things mor- ally dangerous, or at least potentially so1. For example, gluttony, according to Philo, often leads to debauchery because the passions that reign over the belly in- flame the passions that reign over “the parts below the belly”2. In this way, sati- ety ultimately leads to impiety and insolence3. Philo’s treatment of the Jewish di- etary laws is one part of his work that must be seen against the background of this larger ethical topos. This essay will address Philo’s exposition of the dietary laws pertaining to clean and unclean creatures, explore the techniques and possible sources of his allegorism, and assess the ultimate consistency of his interpretive framework4. Philo addresses Jewish dietary prescriptions directly in the fourth book of The Special Laws. Other treatises which contribute to an overall description of Philo’s views include On the Creation (Opif. 163-164), the second and third books of Al- legorical Interpretation (Leg. 2,105-108; 3,138-139), The Posterity of Cain (Post. 148-151), On Agriculture (Agr. 131-145), The Migration of Abraham (Migr. 64-69) and Who Is the Heir of Divine Things? (Her. 239)5. The comments made in this latter group of treatises tend to be more tangential in nature, deviat- ing from Philo’s primary subject matter or appealing to a creature’s clean or un- clean status primarily for illustrative purposes. For this reason it is methodologi- cally proper to focus on The Special Laws and to introduce corroboration from the other works as Philo’s own exegesis dictates. 1. Food and Desire Philo’s four books on The Special Laws are a systematic treatment of a variety of pentateuchal laws under rubrics defined by each of the Ten Commandments6. * An earlier form of this study was presented at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. I would like to express my gratitude to the Philo of Alexan- dria Group for their helpful comments. 1. E.g., Somn. 1,121-123; Mos. 2,58.184; Spec. 1,176; Virt. 161-163. 2. E.g., Agr. 36-38; Somn. 1,122; Abr. 133-136; Spec. 3,43. 3. E.g., Agr. 32.48; Abr. 228; Mos. 2,12-13. 4. Previous surveys of the theme include S. STEIN, The Dietary Laws in Rabbinic and Patristic Literature, in StPatr 2 [TU 64] (1957) 141-154; R.D. HECHT, Patterns of Ex- egesis in Philo’s Interpretation of Leviticus, in SPhilo 6 (1979/80) 77-155, esp. 108-115; and R.M. GRANT, Dietary Laws Among Pythagoreans, Jews, and Christians, in HTR 73 (1980) 299-310. Of these treatments, Hecht’s is the only one which gives focused attention to Philo’s own agenda, though it is highly condensed. While sympathetic to most of Hecht’s conclusions, the present study differs by focusing more closely on the progression of Philo’s argument and the specific exegetical techniques he uses to develop it. 5. Surprisingly, HECHT, Patterns (n. 4), fails to mention Migr. 64-69 and Her. 239. 6. Cf. e.g., Spec. 1,1; 2,1; 3,7; 4,1. THE LOGIC OF THE DIETARY LAWS ACCORDING TO PHILO 123 He addresses the dietary legislation of the Torah in the fourth book, under the rubric of the tenth command, the prohibition of covetousness. Throughout his work, Philo frequently trumpets the dangers of irrational passion and argues that covetous desire (êpi‡umía) is the most grievous of passions (Spec. 4,79-80). Covetous desire tortures a person with the fate of Tantalus, and like a rapidly spreading skin disease, soon infects the entire soul (Spec. 4,81.83). It is the source of all evils, and spawns innumerable vices in the form of thefts and frauds, narcissistic dispositions, tyrannical ambitions, sexual license, and overindulgence in food and drink (Spec. 4,84-91). And as Philo has emphasized elsewhere, the latter is particularly dangerous because it is often the precursor of more serious vices. This is the exegete’s segue into a discussion of the dietary laws. According to Philo, Moses introduced laws pertaining to food and drink pre- cisely to bridle the passion incited by desire. Moses sought to discipline the de- sires of the belly “as the first step, holding that the other forms [of desire] will cease to run riot” by observing the restraint imposed upon that most notorious source of desires. The restraint imposed by Moses took two forms: first, by re- quiring a person to offer the first fruits of his produce to God; and second, by restricting the kinds of food permitted to the nation (Spec. 4,95-99). Philo’s ac- count of clean and unclean animals begins as follows7: All the animals of the land (xersaíwn), sea (ênúdrwn) or air (ptjn¬n) whose flesh is the finest and fattest, thus titillating and exciting the malig- nant foe pleasure, he sternly forbade them to eat, knowing that they set a trap for the most slavish of the senses, the taste, and produce gluttony (âpljstían), an evil very dangerous both to soul and body. … Now among the different kinds of land animals there is none whose flesh is so delicious as the pig’s (tò su¬n génov), as all who eat it agree, and among the aquatic animals the same may be said of such species as are scaleless (tà génj t¬n âlepídwn)8 … Having special gifts for inciting to self-control (êgkrá- teian) those who have a natural tendency to virtue, he trains and drills them by frugality and simple contentedness and endeavors to get rid of extrava- gance (polutéleian) (Spec. 4,100-101). According to Philo, because gluttony is so dangerous a vice, it must be re- placed with the virtue of self-control (êgkráteia); this, in turn produces content- edness (eûkolía), the opposite of covetous desire (êpi‡umía). Philo assures his audience that Moses ordained this legislation with careful forethought, seeking a middle path between Spartan austerity and Sybaritic excess (Spec. 4,102). The “golden mean” is a philosophical ideal that Philo frequently finds at work in the Law of Moses9. 2. The Logic behind Forbidden Carnivores As he develops his exegesis, Philo advances an allegorical argument that ex- plains why no carnivores are among those animals permitted for food. He finds a moral analogy between the nature of certain animals as wild or tame, and a corre- sponding disposition in the human soul: 7. The translation followed throughout is that of F.H. COLSON, G.H. WHITAKER, and R. MARCUS, Philo of Alexandria in Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes) (Loeb Classical Library), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1929-1962. 8. Cf. the discussion in Plutarch, “Table-Talk”, 4,4,4 – 4,5,1 (Moralia 669C-F). 9. Cf. Spec. 4,168; Post. 101-102; Migr. 147; Abr. 257. 124 J.N. RHODES Possibly it might be thought just that all wild beasts (‡jría) that feed on human flesh (ºsa sark¬n ân‡rwpínwn †ptetai) should suffer from men what men have suffered from them. But Moses would have us abstain from the enjoyment of such, even though they provide a very appetizing and de- lectable repast. He was considering what is suitable to a gentle-mannered soul (™mérwç cux±Ç), for though it is fitting enough that one should suffer for what one has done, it is not fitting conduct for the sufferers to retaliate it on the wrongdoers, lest the savage (âgríou) passion of anger should turn them unawares into beasts (‡jriw‡éntev) … [H]e also strictly forbade them to eat the other carnivorous (sarkobórwn) animals. He distinguished between them and the graminivorous which he grouped with the gentle (™mérouv) kind since indeed they are naturally tame and live on the gentle fruits (trofa⁄v ™méroiv) which the earth produces and do nothing by way of at- tempting the life of others (Spec. 4,103-104). Philo’s argument is based on word-play between the antonyms ãgriov / Ømerov (“wild”, “savage” / “tame”, “gentle”) and the cognate noun-verb com- bination ‡jríon / ‡jriów. Philo argues that, in a manner of speaking, to prey upon predatory animals is to engage in retaliation, and retaliation is an act that turns men into beasts, because they succumb to the “savage” (âgríou) passion of anger. By contrast, it is “gentle creatures” (™mérouv âgélav), which themselves feed upon the “gentle fruits” (trofa⁄v ™méroiv) of nature, that are suitable food for the “gentle-mannered soul” (™mérwç cux±Ç). Philo’s argument is reminiscent of the high priest Eleazar’s explanation of clean and unclean birds in the Letter of Aristeas (Let. Arist. 145-149)10: For of the winged creatures of which we make use all are gentle (Ømera) and distinguished by cleanliness and they feed on grain and pulse, such as pigeons, doves, ‘locusts’, partridges, and also geese and all similar fowl. But of the winged creatures which are forbidden you will find that they are wild and carnivorous (ãgriá te kaì sarkofága) and with their strength oppress (katadunasteúonta) the rest and procure their food with injustice (metà âdikíav) at the expense of the tame (™mérwn) fowl mentioned above. And not only these, but they also seize lambs and kids, and they do violence (âdikoÕsi) to men too, both the dead and the living. Through these crea- tures then, by calling them ‘unclean’, he set up a symbol that those for whom the legislation was drawn up must practise righteousness (dikaiosúnjÇ) in spirit and oppress no one (mjdéna katadunasteúein), … just as the gentle creatures (Ømera h¬ça) among the birds above mentioned consume pulses that grow upon the earth and do not tyrannize to the destruc- tion of their kindred (Let.