No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
There is one well-known place in Philo (De profugis, 18, 1, 560) where the ‘powers’ seem for the moment to be limited to six. And this has naturally struck the attention of those who have been looking for coincident similarities between the philonian pieces and the documents which mention the Amesha Spenta of the Zend Avesta. For, as one commentator, Siegfried, has supposed, some of us might consider his treatment of these six cities to be equivalent to the citation of seven (as to which see below), this equalling the number of the ‘immortals’ of the Avesta.
page 553 note 1 The Amesha Spenta (Amshaspends) are the ‘bountiful immortals’; some render the ‘holy.’
page 555 note 1 “Philo von Alexandria als ausleger des alten testaments,” s. 215.
page 557 note 1 A short formula in the gāthic metre of Y. xxviii–xxxiv. The later name by which the earlier Y. xxviii–xxxiv was known was taken from that of this piece. Y. xxviii–xxxiv is called the Gātha ahuna vaiti; i.e. like the ahū-vairyō.
page 558 note 1 De profugis, xix, 1, 561, ὥσθ' ⋯ν⋯οχον μ⋯ν εἶναι τ⋯ν δυνáμεων τ⋯ν λ⋯γον.
page 558 note 2 “Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie,” Dr.Heinze, von Max, Oldenburg, 1872Google Scholar.
page 559 note 1 Do they?
page 560 note 1 Cf. Phileb. 30, C.: οὐκο⋯ν ⋯ν μ⋯ν τῇ το⋯ Δι⋯ς ⋯ρεῖς φ⋯σει βασιλικ⋯ν μ⋯ν ψυχ⋯ν, βασιλικ⋯ν δ⋯ νο⋯ν … See also Hirshig, p. 412.
page 560 note 2 Let me say that for a long time I considered these suggestions as to the later ages of the Gāthas and philonian influence upon them as being not at all worth an answer. It is only now, and at the especial request of respected friends in Bombay, that I enter upon it. I seriously fear that I encourage the view by giving it the dignity of a discussion.
page 560 note 3 He was among other things “everywhere and nowhere”; see De confus. ling., 1, 425, quoted by Heinze.
page 561 note 1 And let us never forget that the powers in general ‘streamed forth from God,’ sometimes just as ‘light’ does. They were, as elsewhere, viewed ‘infinite.’ Zeller, for one, attaches little importance to this sixfold or sevenfold delineation; see p. 369 on Philo. He dwells upon the two first only, the ποιητικ⋯ and the βασιλικ⋯ with the λ⋯γος between as a bond of union, to which last Heinze justly takes exception. The λ⋯γος was indeed a bond uniting those two most prominently, and as ‘a bond’ he is momentarily spoken of as intermediate; but it is inconceivable that Philo could have meant to refer to the logos as occupying an inferior position even just here.
page 563 note 1 Whether it appears so early, or whether later.
page 567 note 1 Sceptics, indeed, might doubt the Scripture passages, but what sceptic can doubt the sculptures of Behistān, not that all they say is accurate.
page 567 note 2 Not that ours was derived from it, but only matured and ripened through its influence under the providence and will of God.
page 567 note 3 See the dogmatik of the Old Testament.
page 567 note 4 Ἀσμοδαῖος is, however, really not more original than the hebrew form, though the book itself was probably first worked in greek.