CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

In Plutarch's De genio Socratis, Simmias narrates the myth of Timarchus who, "in his desire to learn the nature of Socrates' sign [inspiration], acted like the high-spirited young initiate in philosophy he was"l and descended into the crypt of Trophonius, where he waited underground two nights and a day until it seemed to him "that he heard a crash and was struck on the head, and that the sutures parted and released his soul." Timarchus' soul raised its eyes to a celestial world popu• lated by spirit beings-daemons-then dipped to a pitch dark abyss, from which souls intermittently ascended and into which they plunged. Then came the query of Timarchus' guiding daemon, "Timarchus, what would you have me explain?" followed by the flustered response, "Everything." The daemon's explanation is intricate, the blueprint of a calculable cosmos-all of which, of course, is lost on an impetuous and unprepared Timarchus, who confesses, "But I see nothing ... only many stars trembling about the abyss, others sinking into it, and others again shooting up from below." The realm of research represented by this study is equally complex and confounding. The range of meanings suggested by the single word, 1tVEUf.1

1 The myth of Timarchus is recounted in Plutarch, De genio Socratis 589F-592E. All citations of classical literature, including Philo Judaeus and Josephus, are from the Loeb Classical Library, unless otherwise indicated. On rare occasions, I have modestly changed gender-exclusive translations when the Greek is more inclusive (e.g., to ... 9EOKAlJtoullEVoV YEvOr; is translated in LCL by "the race ... of men in• spired." I translate instead, "the race ... of people inspired."). Biblical translations are from NRSV, unless otherwise stated. 2 INTRODUCTION

To facilitate this expedition, I have selected the writings of three early Jewish authors as the primary lens for this research:2 the writings of Philo J udaeus, 3 an Alexandrian philosopher and statesman who was born between 20 and 10 BCE and died approximately 50 CE; the fiber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, authored anonymously (by Pseudo-Philo)

2 For introductions to these authors, see the appendix. 3 Although twentieth century scholarship has not overlooked Philo's significance for ascertaining first century Jewish understandings of the divine spirit, these analy• ses have led to fundamentally divergent assessments of Philo's view of the spirit. There is virtually no consensus concerning the most profound influences that shaped Philo's understanding of the spirit. H. Leisegang (Der Heilige Geist: Das Wesen und Werden der mystisch-intuitiven Erkenntnis in der Philosophie und Religion der Griechen; 1.1: Die vorchrisMichen Anschauungen und uhren vom ltVEUl1a und der mystisch-intuitiven Erkenntnis [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft] 53-69), H. Lewy (Sobria Ebrietas. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der antiken Mystik [BZNW 9; Giessen: Topelmann, 1929] 64-(6), and E. R. Goodenough (By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel qf Hellenistic Judaism [New Haven: Yale University, 1935] passim) located Philo's view of inspiration pri• marily in the ecstatic experiences of the hellenistic mystery religions. G. Verbeke (L'ivolution de la doctrine du pneuma du StoiCisme a S. Augustin: etude philosophique [Parisi Louvain: L'lnstitut Superior de Philosophie, Universite de Louvain, 1945] 254) dis• agreed emphatically by tracing inspiration to the Septuagint rather than to popular Greco-Roman beliefs, as did H. Burkhardt (Die Inspiration heiliger Schri.ften bei Philo von Alexandrien [Giessen, Basel: Brunnen, 1988] 221), who looked to the wisdom tradi• tion, according to which "Inspiration vollzieht sich entsprechend nicht unter Aus• schaltung der menschlichen Vernunft, sondern als ihre Indienstellung und Begnadung mit tiber die Moglichkeiten empirischer und rationaler Erkenntniswege hinausfiihrender Erkenntnis." H. A. Wolfson (Philo: Foundations qf Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Chris• tianity, and Islam [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1947] 2.25) chose neither alternative entirely, rec·ognizing instead in Philo's writings a synthesis of the biblical view of the spirit as the cause of prophecy and the Platonic view of ecstatic posses• sion. R. Berchman ("Arcana Mundi: Magic and Divination in the De Somniis of Philo of Alexandria," SBLSP 1987,403-28; "Arcana Mundi: Prophecy and Divina• tion in the Vita Mosis of Philo of Alexandria," SBLSP 1988, 385-423) portrayed Philo as an eclectic philosopher whose view of inspiration was influenced by a wide range of sources, from Plato to Plutarch. Other studies have looked to Philo's apologetic motive to explain his conception of the spirit-though again without consensus. D. Georgi (The Opponents qf Paul in Second Corinthians [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986] 109-12), who contended that the synagogue was the center ofJewish mission in the first century, saw the spirit as the central force in biblical interpretation which, according to Georgi, was considered by Philo to be a prophetic phenomenon: "The interpreters qf the Bible, the exegetes, are therefore for Philo the prophets qf the present" (Ill). M. E. Isaacs (The Concept qf Spirit: A Study qf Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and its Bearing on the New Testament [HM 1; London, University of London, 49) disagreed fundamentally with Georgi, contending instead that Philo recounted contemporary instances of inspiration, such as dream interpre• tation and prediction, but limited possession by the spirit to the biblical prophets in order to assert implicidy "that the inspiration of the authors of scripture was quali• tatively different from any subsequent insight." Most recendy, in "Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus," JS] 26 (1995) 271-323, I have developed a typology of philonic concep• tions of the divine spirit.