On human divinity in early Judaism:
But the lawgiver of the Jews ventures upon a more bold assertion even than this, inasmuch as he was, as it is reported, a student and practiser of plain philosophy; and so he teaches that the man who is wholly possessed with the love of God and who serves the living God alone, is no longer man, but actually God, being indeed the God of men… (Philo, “Every Good Person is Free,” 43.
How convenient you would post this. I’m currently wrapping up a research paper on divinization and theosis.
In your opinion, how common were the views expressed by Philo within Judaism as a whole in the 1st century? Were there differences between Diaspora and Palestinian Judaism when it comes to these types of statements.
I’m curious too. Is this an example of Jewish thinking being influenced by surrounding ANE cultures like maybe Persian mysticism perhaps? Or is this more reflective of passages like John 10:34? Or maybe it’s both?
Not Persian mysticism. When talking about Judaism, this is more typical of Diaspora Judaism than Palestinian, though we must be very cautious about making such a distinction.
The idea of the true philosopher who alignes himself with the divine (through obedience to the divine law, which Philo equates with the Mosaic law). In doing so, this person is also divine in some way. This idea is attested in Pythagorean literature and elements of Stoic thought. Was it common among Greek philosophers? Common enough that it was sometimes made fun of and drawn upon to elevate the status of Greek rulers. It even played a minor role in how some Roman writers wrote about the emperor as one who embodied law and divinity.
Philo is really the only Diaspora Jewish writer who makes much of this sort of perspective, and he does so not only of Moses, but Abraham and Joseph. But we cannot simply assume that means other Diaspora Jews were not aware. On the other hand, the absence of this idea in the way Philo uses it does suggest that Philo’s sort of take (and that of those with whom he was associated) was not widespread in its use within the framework of Jewish thought (if there is such a thing).
Bad sentence in second paragraph. Sorry about that. It should read: “The idea is that of the true philosopher….”
This is typical of Philo’s comment about Moses based on Exodus 7:1 (“I have made thee as a god [or, as God?] to Pharaoh”). What is also typical is Philo’s distinction of Moses’ role from that of the Self-existent One (“the one who is” or “that which is,” Philo’s preferred designations for God, in keeping with LXX Exodus 3:14, “I am the one who is”).
It’s perhaps worth a comment that whatever God grants to Moses that causes him to merit the title or designation “god” (theos) also distinguishes him from “the father of all” and “King and God of gods.” Moses can be called god because of the way he functions with respect to Pharaoh; but he cannot be called “father of all” or “God of gods.” Philo also distinguished “the one who is” from the Logos, which he designated “a second god.” Justin Martyr takes this up, for what it’s worth.
In any case, it’s worth reading this passage in context, and in the Colson translation in the LCL for perhaps a different rendering of Philo’s (always difficult) Greek.
One should also note that, for Philo, Moses also participates in the divine mysteries when he ‘enters into the darkness’ on Sinai, where he enjoys communion (koinonia) with God, the “Father and Creator of the universe” since Moses has shared “the same appellation.” Even though no human being can ever truly see the living God, Moses in some way saw the only God (compare John 1:18 and indeed much of John for arguments that I think are strikingly similar to Philo’s, although of course not all agree on the significance of the alleged parallels).
Yes, I found it fascinating to see how Moses’ divinity had to he parsed just so because of God’s own unencroachable divinity.
So the question is, in what way “divinity” or in what way “divine”? Not, apparently, as an “attribute” or “characteristic” within himself; rather, “functionally” (to characterize Moses’ function with respect to Pharaoh), and because as exegete Philo has to deal with a text); relationally (in derivation from or with respect to his relationship to God, i.e., in communion with the one who is); and only partially or partly (not “Father” or “Creator”). But Philo and “divinity” is not an easy question.