[435] peri gig?nton, e peri tou me trepesthai to theion. Upon Gen. vi. 1-4 and 4-12. The two parts of this work, both of which are still extant, form really but one book; for instance, Johannes Monachus (ineditus) quotes from the latter part under the title peri gig?nton (according to Mangey, I. 262, note, and 272, note). But the two are divided in Mangey's edition, where the first is given under the title peri gig?nton (I. 262-272), the second under the title hoti atrepton (I. 272-299). See Schürer, p. 843. The title is found in the form given at the beginning of this note in all the mss. of Eusebius except two, which have kai instead of e, thus making two separate works. This reading is adopted by Heinichen and by Closs, but is poorly supported by ms. authority, and since the two titles cover only one work, as already mentioned, the e is more natural than the kai.
[436] peri te tou kata Mousea theopemptous einai tous oneirous proton, deuteron, k.t.l. Two books are extant, the first upon Gen. xxviii. 12 sqq. and Gen. xxxi. 11 sqq. (given by Mangey, I. 620-658), the second upon Gen. xxxvii. and xl.-xli. (given by Mangey, I. 659-699). Jerome (de vir. ill. 11) follows Eusebius in mentioning five books, and there is no occasion to doubt the report. Schürer thinks that the two extant books are the second and third of the original five (Schürer, 845 sqq.).
[437] zetemata kai luseis; see above, note 3. Eusebius knew only five books upon Exodus, and there is no reason to think there were any more.
[438] Philo wrote a work entitled peri biou Moseos: Vita Mosis, which is still extant, but is not mentioned in the catalogue of Eusebius. It contains a long description of the tabernacle, and consequently Schürer concludes that the work mentioned here by Eusebius (peri tes skenes) represents that portion of the larger work. If this be the case, it is possible that the section in the mss. used by Eusebius was detached from the rest of the work and constituted an independent book. The omission of the title of the larger work is doubtless due, as Schürer remarks, to the imperfect transmission of the text of Eusebius' catalogue. See Schürer, p. 855.
[439] peri ton deka logion: De Decalogo. Still extant, and given by Mangey, II. 180-209. Jerome has the condensed title de tabernaculo et decalogo libri quattuor, and this introduces the third division of the third general group of works upon the Pentateuch (see note 11, above), and, according to Schürer, should be joined directly to the bios politikos, or Life of Joseph, and not separated from it by the insertion of the Life of Moses (as is done by Mangey), which does not belong to this group (Schürer, p. 849 sqq.).
[440] ta peri ton anapheromenon en eidei nomon eis ta sunteinonta keph?laia ton deka logon, a'b'g'd': De specialibus legibus. A part of the third division of the third general group of works (see note 11, above). It is still extant in four books, each with a special title, and each containing many subdivisions. They are given by Mangey: first book, II. 210-269, in seven parts: de circumcisione, de monarchia Liber I., de monarchia Liber II., de præmiis sacerdotum, de victimis, de sacrificantibus, or de victimis offerentibus, de mercede meretricis non accipienda in sacrarium; second book, 270-298, incomplete in Mangey, but entire in Tischendorf's Philonea, p. 1-83; third book, 299-334; fourth book, 335-374: made up like the first of a number of tracts on special subjects. Philo, in this work, attempts to bring all the Mosaic laws into a system under the ten rubrics of the decalogue: for instance, under the first two commandments, the laws in regard to priests and sacrifices; under the fourth, the laws in regard to the Sabbath, &c. See Schürer, p. 850 sqq.
[441] peri ton eis tas hierourgias zoon, kai tina ta ton thusion eide. This is really only a portion of the first book of the work just mentioned, given in Mangey under the title de victimis (II. 237-250). It is possible that these various sections of books--or at least this one--circulated separately, and that thus Eusebius took it for an independent work. See Schürer, p. 851.
[442] peri ton prokeimenon en to nomo tois men agathois athlon, tois de ponerois epitimion kai aron, still extant and given by Mangey (incorrectly as two separate works) under the titles peri athlon kai epitimion, de præmiis et poenis (II. 408-428), and peri aron, de execrationibus (II. 429-437). The writing forms a sort of epilogue to the work upon the Mosaic legislation. Schürer, p. 854.
[443] to peri pronoias, De providentia. This work is extant only in an Armenian version, and is published with a Latin translation by Aucher, Vol. I. p. 1-121 (see above, note 3), and in Latin by Ritter (Vol. VIII.). Two Greek fragments, one of considerable extent, are preserved by Eusebius in his Præparatio Evang. VII. 21, and VIII. 14. In the Armenian the work consists of two books, but the first is of doubtful genuineness, and Eusebius seems to have known only one, for both quotations in the Præp. Evang. are from the present second book, and the work is cited in the singular, as also in the present passage, where to is to be read instead of ta, though some mss. have the latter. The work (which is not found in Mangey's ed.) is one of Philo's separate works which does not fall under any of the three groups upon the Pentateuch.
[444] peri 'Ioudaion, which is doubtless to be identified with the he huper 'Ioudaion apologia, which is no longer extant, but which Eusebius mentions, and from which he quotes in his Præp. Evang. VIII. 2. The fragment given by Eusebius is printed by Mangey in Vol. II. p. 632-634, and in Dähne's opinion (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1883, p. 990) the two preceding fragments given by Mangey (p. 626 sqq.) also belong to this Apology. The work entitled de nobilitate (Mangey, II. 437-444) possibly formed a part of the Apology. This is Dähne's opinion (see ibid. p. 990, 1037), with whom Schürer agrees. The genuineness of the Apology is generally admitted, though it has been disputed on insufficient grounds by Grätz (Gesch. der Juden, III. p. 680, third ed.), who is followed by Hilgenfeld (in the Zeitschrift für wiss. Theologie, 1832, p. 275 sq. and in his Ketzergesch. des Urchristenthums, p. 87 sq.). This too, like the preceding, was one of the separate works of Philo. See Schürer, p. 861 sq.
[445] ho politikos. Still extant, and given by Mangey (II. 41-79) under the title bios politikos hoper esti peri 'Ioseph: De Josepho. Photius, Bib. Cod. 103, gives the title peri biou politikou. This forms a part of the second division of the third great group upon the Pentateuch (see above, note 11), and follows directly the Life of Abraham, the Lives of Isaac and Jacob probably having fallen out (compare note 15, above). The work is intended to show how the wise man should conduct himself in affairs of state or political life. See Schürer, p. 849.
[446] ho 'Alexandros e peri tou logou ?chein ta aloga zoa, De Alexandro et quod propriam rationem muta animalia habeant, as the title is given by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 11). The work is extant only in Armenian, and is given by Aucher, I. p. 123-172, and in Latin by Ritter, Vol. VII. Two short Greek fragments are also found in the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes, according to Schürer. This book is also one of the separate works of Philo, and belongs to his later writings. See Schürer, p. 860 sqq.
[447] ho peri tou doulon einai p?nta phaulon, ho exes estin ho peri tou p?nta spoudaion eleutheron einai. These two works formed originally the two halves of a single work, in which the subject was treated from its two sides,--the slavery of the wicked man and the freedom of the good man. The first half is lost; but the second half is extant, and is given by Mangey (II. 445-470). A long fragment of the extant second half is given also by Eusebius, in his Præp. Evang. VIII. 12. The genuineness of the work has been disputed by some, but is defended with success by Lucius, Der Essenismus, p. 13-23, Strasburg, 1881 (Schürer, p. 85).
[448] See the preceding chapter; and on the work, see note 2 on that chapter.
[449] ton en nomo de kai prophetais 'Ebraikon onom?ton hai hermeneiai. The way in which Eusebius speaks of this work (tou autou spoudai einai legontai) shows that it lay before him as an anonymous work, which, however, was "said to be the result of Philo's industry." Jerome, too, in speaking of the same work (at the beginning of his own work, De nominibus Hebraicis), says that, according to the testimony of Origen, it was the work of Philo. For Jerome, too, therefore, it was an anonymous work. This testimony of Origen cannot, according to Schürer, be found in his extant works, but in his Comment. in Joann. II. 27 (ed. Lommatzsch, I. 50) he speaks of a work upon the same subject, the author of which he does not know. The book therefore in view of the existing state of the tradition in regard to it, is usually thought to be the work of some other writer than Philo. In its original form it is no longer extant (and in the absence of this original it is impossible to decide the question of authorship), though there exist a number of works upon the same subject which are probably based upon this lost original. Jerome, e.g., informs us that his Liber de Nominibus Hebraicis (Migne, III. 771) is a revision of it. See Schürer, p. 865 sq.
[450] "This report is very improbable, for a work full of hatred to the Romans and of derogatory references to the emperor Caligula could not have been read before the Roman Senate, especially when the author was a Jew" (Closs). It is in fact quite unlikely that Philo was in Rome during the reign of Claudius (see above, chap. 17, note 1). The report given here by Eusebius owes its origin perhaps to the imagination of some man who supposed that Philo was in Rome during the reign of Claudius (on the ground of the other tradition already referred to), and whose fancy led him to picture Philo as obtaining at that time his revenge upon the emperor Caligula in this dramatic way. It was not difficult to imagine that this bitterly sarcastic and vivid work might have been intended for public reading, and it was an attractive suggestion that the Senate might have constituted the audience.
[451] See above, chap. 5, note 1.
[452] Romans xv. 19.
[453] See Acts xviii. 2, 18, 19 sqq.