billd89 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:49 pm
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 12:50 pm
- Where does one read Philo on Genesis 42:11? What part of what work of Philo?
Yonge's 'On the Confusion of Languages'
[147
[and 41
]] LINK:
Thank you,bild89 (and for the other citations) !!
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:57 pm
I would translate it "one Man's sons.'
billd89 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 2:18 pm
I would just be happier with the original Greek/Latin in support, and more precise (better) translations -- thx.
Link:
διὸ προήχθην ὀλίγῳ πρότερον ἐπαινέσαι τὰς ἀρετὰς τῶν φασκόντων ὅτι „πάντες ἐσμ̀ν υἱοὶ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου“ (Gen. 42, 11)· καὶ γὰρ εἰ μήπω ἱκανοὶ θεοῦ παῖὲς νομίζεσθαι γεγόναμεν, ἀλλά τοι τῆς ἀειδοῦς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ, λόγου τοῦ ἱερωτάτου· θεοῦ γὰρ εἰκὼν λόγος ὁ πρεσβύτατος. {148}...
Colson's
Philo Vol.4 (1935)
p.90:
{147}: And therefore I was moved a few pages above to praise the virtues of those who say that “We are all sons of one Man ” (Gen. 42:11). For, if we have not yet become fit to be thought ‘Sons of God’ yet, we may be Sons of His Invisible Image, the most holy Word. For the Word is the eldest-born Image of God. {148} And often indeed in the Law-Book we find another phrase, 'Sons of Israel,' hearers, that is, 'Sons of Him that Sees' since hearing stands second in estimation and below sight, and the recipient of teaching is always second to him with whom realities present their forms clear to his vision and not through the medium of instruction.
Philo starts
On the Confusion of Languages XXVIII with reference to the previous section and
XXVIII {142}
... ‘‘God came down to see the city and the tower,” but the phrase which follows, “which the sons of men built” (Gen. xi. 5), is no idle addition, though perhaps some profane person might say with a sneer, ‘‘a novel piece of information this which the lawgiver here imparts to us, namely that it is the sons of men and not some other beings who build cities and towers. ‘‘Who,” he would continue, “even among those who are far gone in insanity, does not know facts so obvious and conspicuous?”
{143} But you must suppose that it is not this obvious and hackneyed fact which is recorded for us in our most holy oracles/scriptures, but the hidden truth which can be traced under the surface meaning of the words.
{144} What then is this truth? Those who ascribe to existing things a multitude of fathers as it were, and by introducing their miscellany of deities, have flooded everything with ignorance and confusion
... they assume a multitude of what they falsely call sources and causes to account for the origin of the existing world and have no knowledge of the one Maker and Father of all.
{145} But they who live in the knowledge of the One are rightly called “Sons of God,” as Moses also acknowledges when he says, “Ye are sons of the Lord God ” (Deut. xiv. 1), and “God who begat thee” (
ibid. xxxii. 18), and “Is not He Himself thy Father?” (
ibid. 6)
...
{146} But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a Son of God, let him press to take his place under God’s First-born, the Word, who holds the eldership among the angels, their ruler as it were. And many names are his, for he is called, “the Beginning,” and the Name of God, and His Word, and the Man after His image, and “he that sees,” that is Israel.
{147} And therefore I was moved a few pages above
[§41; see below in this post] to praise the virtues of those who say that “We are all sons of one Man” (Gen. xlii. 11). For if we have not yet become fit to be thought sons of God yet we may be sons of His invisible image, the most holy Word. For the Word is the eldest-born image of God.
https://archive.org/details/PhiloSupple ... 0/mode/2up
( Philo baits and switches from the plural, 'sons of men,' to the singular, 'a son of God' and 'sons of Man' )
On the Confusion of Languages § 41 in context:
ΧΙ. {39} Now there are many who
...find refuge in the support of the solely Wise Being and beseech Him to become their helper. Such a one is the disciple of Moses who prays thus in the Psalms: “Let their cunning lips become speechless” (Ps. xxx. [xxxi.] 19). And how should such lips be silent, unless they were bridled by Him who alone holds speech itself as His vassal?
{40} Let us flee, then, without a backward glance from the unions which are unions for sin, but hold fast to our alliance with the comrades of good sense and knowledge.
| {41} And therefore when I hear those who say ‘‘We are all sons of one Man, we are peaceful” (Gen. xlii. 11), I am filled with admiration for the harmonious concert which their words reveal. “Ah! my friends,’’ I would say, “how should you not hate war and love peace: you who have enrolled yourselves as children of one and the same Father, who is not mortal but immortal: God’s Man,a who, being the Word of the Eternal, must needs himself be imperishable?’’ [Colson, modified slightly] | {41} In reference to which I admire those who say, "We are all one Man's sons, we are men of Peace," (Gen 42:11.) because of their well-adapted agreement. Since 'how,' I should say, 'could you, O excellent men, avoid being grieved at war, and delighted in peace, being the sons of one and the same Father, and he not mortal but immortal, the man of God, who being the reason of the everlasting God, is of necessity himself also immortal?' [Yonge] |
...< . . omit {42} . . >
{43} But those who rejoice in the oneness of their blood and honour One* Father,* right reason, reverence that concert of virtues, which is full of harmony and melody, and live a life of calmness and fair weather.
FH Colson version
a This conception of the Logos recurs in §s 62 and 146
* one and father capitalised, 'One Father', by me
On the Confusion of Languages § 62 :
{60} ... The better is when the beam of the virtues rises like the rays of the sun; the worse when virtues pass into the shadow and vices rise above the horizon.
{61} We have an example of the former in these words: ‘‘And God planted a pleasaunce in Eden towards the sun-rise’’ (Gen. ii. 8). That garden was not a garden of the plants of the soil, but of heavenly virtues, which out of His own incorporeal light the Planter brought to their rising, never to be extinguished.
{62} I have heard also an oracle from the lips of one of the disciples of Moses, which runs thus: ‘‘Behold a man whose name is the rising’’ (Zech. vi. 12), strangest of titles, surely, if you suppose that a being composed of soul and body is here described. But if you suppose that it is that Incorporeal one, who differs not a whit from the divine image, you will agree that the name of “rising’’ assigned to him quite truly describes him.
{63} For that man is the eldest son, whom the Father of all raised up, and elsewhere calls him His first-born, and indeed the Son thus begotten followed the ways of his Father, and shaped the different kinds, looking to the archetypal patterns which that Father supplied.
Philo is espousing monotheism and what could be viewed as the foundation of Christianity
