Compare Irenaeus's statement regarding an anonymous sectarian group who:Confession (homologein, exomologeisthai ) We note, first of all, that Philo, unlike LXX, frequently uses homologein and seldom uses exomologeisthai , thus following the classical Greek practice. Second, exomologeisthai appears only in the sections where Philo speaks of Judah, and where it characterizes this biblical figure.
a) Exomologeisthai Let us first deal with exomologeisthai , which is the same as to deal with Judah.1'1 We noted that LXX usually translates hodah by exomologeisthai , thus paving the way for the Philonic equation, Judah = exomologesis, i.e Confession. But LXX does not take advantage of the two biblical references where the Hebrew plays on the common origin of the words hodah (to praise), and Judah. In Gen. 29:35, Leah gives thanks to God (exomologeisthai ) and, for this reason, she calls her son Judah. In Gen. 49:8, when Jacob blesses Judah saying, "Judah, thy brethren shall praise thee," the Hebrew associates hodah and Judah again but LXX translates "to praise" by ainein. Philo takes full advantage of the play of words found in the two Hebrew references, and uses it to enrich the LXX term exomologeisthai . Therefore, Judah becomes the type of the Confessor of God, ho exomologoumenos . " 1 It is interesting to know what kind of confession Judah figures, and what its object is. First of all, he is the type of the Confessor because his mother "confessed" when she gave him birth. We must turn to the action of Leah, because her own confession of God and her naming her son "Confessor" are the only basis on which Philo builds his figure of Judah. Judah, therefore, is the type of confession whose object is the Lord (to kyrio, Plant. 134-136), or God (Leg.Al. II, 95-96; cf. Congr. 125: pros ton theon homologiai).
But Judah does not properly mean confession of the existence, or of the name, of God, or even that of His sovereign authority. With Judah, we are no longer on the level of conversion, among proselytes, atheists, apostates, and the servants of all kinds of false deities. We are on the level of spiritual life and of those more advanced in perfection. The object of confession is the idea that God, and not man, is the source of all good things, especially the goods of the soul. This is what we find in all the other texts about Judah. 1,1 Two decisive events in the life of Judah witness to this meaning. First, at his birth, Leah brought forth the perfect fruit, Confession, a fruit which can be compared to Isaac, innate grace (Som. I, 37; cf. Q.G. IV, 123). The object of this confession is the idea that God, and not man, is the source of all spiritual good (Leg. Al. I, 79-84; II, 95-96). We have seen this already.
In this passage, Philo develops the contrast between Judah and Issachar. Judah is the perfect man who acknowledges the operation in himself of the grace of God, whereas Issachar is the hard-working ascetic who fights on his own for the acquisition of virtue. Jacob does not need to pray for Judah, because Leah, having received him, can receive nothing better among the gifts of God. Philo also contrasts Judah with Dan, whose name (krisis) suggests the distinction between temporal and eternal blessings, which are indiscriminately desired by his mother Billah, the "insatiable one." This distinction certainly requires the help of God (Leg. Al. II, 95-96). The texts mentioned above refer to Gen. 29:35.
The second event is Judah' s acknowledgment that Tamar is justified, since he has not given her to any mortal (Gen. 38:26). Here again, Judah is a Confessor: he acknowledges that Tamar is pregnantwith a Divine seed, and he does not pretend to be the father, because God alone is the father of spiritual goods (Mut. 136; Congr. 125). The advantage of being praised among his brethren, together with the blessing reserved to him by Jacob (Gen. 49:8), can therefore be ascribed to Judah as a privileged portion of heritage. Philo enumerates these various kinds of praise and places them under the general title of ainesis (praise) (Spec. Leg. I, 224), or of eucharistia (Som. II, 38). The elements of praise are variously grouped under the name of Judah and of the guild named after him (cf. Ebr . 94; Plant. 135).
The association of the figure of Judah with eucharistia is already obvious from what we have just explained, but it eucharistia is already obvious from what we have just explained, but it can also be based on the term itself. If exomologeisthai (Confession) is connected with Judah because of the association in LXX, the same can be said of eucharistein, though, here, Philo may be responsible for it. We shall find these forms of praise again as the characteristics of the eucharistic spirit represented by Judah (Som. II, 38) of the soul blessing God, which is also represented by Judah (Plant. 135). As Judah is called "Confessor," he is also honoured with the title of the "Eucharistic man" (Plant. 136). He is the head of the guild, known after his name, which raises the hymn of thanksgiving (Ebr . 94). He confesses "eucharistically" (exomologeitai eucharistikos, Leg. Al., I, 80). God gives him thankfulness (to euchariston, ibid. 82). Finally, the colour of the gem representing him on the logeion of the high-priest is the ruby, figure of the soul warmed with eucharistia and pouring forth to God the enthusiasm of a noble drunkenness, perhaps within the context of a sacrifice of thanksgiving (ibid. 84).
In Philo, eucharistein tends to replace exomologeisthai in the different meanings of hodah, as noted by J. Robinson, who points out the importance of the play of words on the name of Judah in Philo. J. Robinson shows1 * * that, though Philo uses exomologeisthai , he inclines to substitute eucharistein for it, i.e., Ehe Greek term which in his time better reflected the meaning of hodah in the common language. In the choice of his own vocabulary, indeed, Philo seems to yield to the usage of his time, which favoured eucharistein.
They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.
and Epiphanius's account is even stronger:
Cainites say that Cain is the scion of the stronger power and the authority above; so, moreover, are Esau, Korah and his companions, and the Sodomites.2 But Abel is the scion of the weaker power. They acknowledge all of these as worthy of their praise and kin to themselves. For take pride in their kinship with Cain, the Sodomites,3 Esau and Korah. And these, they say, represent the perfect knowledge from on high. Therefore, they say, though the maker of this world made it his business to destroy them, he could do them no harm; they were hidden from him and translated to the aeon on high, from which the stronger power comes. For Wisdom allowed them to approach her because they were her own. And they say that because of this Judas had found out all about them. For they claim him too as kin and regard him as possessed of superior knowledge, so that they even cite a short work in his name which they call a Gospel of Judas ... But they too interweave the same mythology with their gift of ignorance about these same deadly poisons by advising their followers that everyone must choose the stronger power, and separate from the lesser, feeble one—that is, from the one which made heaven, the flesh and the world—and rise above it to the uttermost heights through the crucifixion of Christ. For this is why he came from above, they say, so that the stronger power might act in him by triumphing over the weaker and betraying the body. And some of them say this; others, other things. For some say that Christ was betrayed by Judas because Christ was wicked, and wanted to pervert the provisions of the Law. For they commend Cain and Judas, as I said, and they say, 'This is why he has betrayed him; he intended to abolish things that had been properly taught.' But others say, 'No, he betrayed him even though he was good, in accordance with the heavenly knowledge. For the archons knew,' they say, 'that if Christ were surrendered to the cross the weaker power would be drained.