On Kingship in Philo and the Wisdom of Solomon1

Jonathan More

1. Introduction

The Wisdom of Solomon, also known as the Book of Wisdom, is addressed to an assorted group of kings, rulers, judges and princes. The author of the work claims to be a king—more specifically, the king of God’s people.2 The absence of named characters makes it difficult for the uninitiated to know who this people and their king are, yet those who recognise the literary allusions can identify him as Israel’s King Solomon.3 Numerous texts purportedly written to, and for, kings were produced in the Graeco-Roman period, and the Wisdom of Solomon would not have been unusual in this regard. Tracts entitled “περὶ βασιλείας” occur over a broad chronological range and were produced by various philosophi- cal schools.4 Not one of these περὶ βασιλείας volumes has been fully pre- served. However, Stobaeus’ anthology contains a small group of fragments identified as coming from Pythagorean περὶ βασιλείας tracts attributed to Ecphantus, Diotogenes and Sthenidas.5 In an influential essay published

1 On the occasion of his seventieth birthday, I would like to dedicate this essay to Dr Paul Bowers, teacher and friend, who instructed me in the importance of these Jewish texts. 2 Wis 7:1–6; 8:10–15; 9:7, 12. 3 The writer identifies himself as a king who sought wisdom from God (7:7–12; cf. 1 Kgs 3:4–15; 4:29–34) and was responsible for the building of the Jewish temple (9:8; cf. 1 Kgs 7:13–8:21). The allusions in chapter 10 to characters and events from Genesis and Exodus confirm that the author is drawing on the Hebrew scriptures. 4 In his work On the Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Diogenes Laertius lists volumes entitled περὶ βασιλείας by Euphantus (2.110), Aristotle (5.22), Theophrastus (5.42; 5.49), Strato (5.59), Persaeus (7.36), (7.175), (7.178) and (10.28). Other works with similar titles were written by Xenocrates (Στοιχεῖα πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον περὶ βασιλείας; 4.14), Theophrastus (Περὶ παιδείας βασιλέως; 5.42; Πρὸς Κάσανδρον περὶ βασιλείας; 5.47), (Κῦρος ἢ περὶ βασιλείας; 6.16; Ἀρχέλαος ἢ περὶ βασιλείας; 6.18). ’s Statesman is given the second title of περὶ βασιλείας by Thrasylus (3.58). There are other texts which might draw from a similar conceptual pool, e.g., Theophrastus On Tyranny (5.45) and Xenophon’s Hieron or Of Tyranny (2.57). 5 A lack of consensus regarding the dating of these fragments (see n. 9) makes it difficult to know how to refer to them. “Hellenistic Pythagorean” is most appropriate since, even if they come from a later period, they reflect Hellenistic thought and deliberately echo a certain Pythagorean tradition. For the sake of brevity, though, I use the term “Pythagorean” 410 jonathan more in 1928,6 E. R. Goodenough presented a translation and discussion of these fragments and concluded his article with the following claim about the Pythagorean texts: Even though so much has had to be omitted from the present discussion, this philosophy of royalty will, I think, prove to have been the official politi- cal philosophy of the Hellenistic age.7 Even if “the official political philosophy of the Hellenistic age” is somewhat more elusive than Goodenough suggests,8 these fragments provide a use- ful glimpse of the philosophical discussion of kingship in certain circles during the Hellenistic period.9 In his study of the Hellenistic influences on the Wisdom of Solomon, James M. Reese observes that Pseudo-Solomon draws on the same tra- ditions as these Pythagorean kingship treatises in order to construct elements of his anthropology and to enrich his description of God.10 The influence of the Pythagorean tracts on Philo has also been noted by

to refer to these tracts without prejudicing any conclusion regarding their date or the exact nature of the philosophical tradition represented by them. 6 E. R. Goodenough, “The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship,” Yale Classical Studies 1 (1928): 53–102. The article also includes a discussion of a fragment from entitled περὶ νόμου καὶ δικαιοσύνης which is similar to the other fragments but does not claim to make a direct contribution to the περὶ βασιλείας topos. 7 Ibid., 102. 8 See, for example, Aalders’ description of the varieties of Hellenistic political thought which begins with the observation that “Hellenistic political thought is by no means a unity. It consists of a number of strongly diverging, but also interacting tendencies and currents of thought” (G. J. D. Aalders H. Wzn., Political Thought in Hellenistic Times [Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1975], 1). 9 The Pythagorean texts have been dated over a span of six centuries from the Hel- lenistic period (H. Thesleff, An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period. [Acta Academiae Aboensis. Humaniora. Vol. 24 no. 3; Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1961], 72) to the third century c.e. (W. Burkert, “Zur geistesgeschichtlichen Einordnung einiger Pseudopythagorica,” in Pseudepigrapha I [ed. K. von Fritz; Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Clas- sique XVIII; Vandœuvres / Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1972], 25–55). The discussion has recently been summarised by F. Calabi (God’s Acting, Man’s Acting: Tradition and Philoso- phy in Philo of Alexandria [trans. H. C. Tooke; Studies in Philo of Alexandria 4; Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2008], 185–188) and so will not be rehearsed here. The nature of the works, whether considered as textbooks (Thesleff, Introduction, 72) or as summaries of the doc- trines of various schools (O. Murray, Peri Basileias: Studies in the Justification of Monarchic Power in the Hellenistic Period [D.Phil. diss., Oxford, 1971]) suggests their utility for recon- structing the content of aspects of Hellenistic kingship theory regardless of their date of composition. 10 J. M. Reese, Hellenistic Influences on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences (AnBib 41; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), 10, 71–79.