From Philo to Plotinus Afterman

8/12/2019 From Philo to Plotinus Afterman

1/21

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical UnionAuthor(s): Adam AftermanSource: The Journal of Religion, Vol. 93, No. 2 (April 2013), pp. 177-196Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667598 .Accessed: 02/04/2013 11:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 13 2.66.11.211 on Tue, 2 Apr 201 3 11:10:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667598?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667598?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/21

From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of

Mystical Union*Adam Afterman / Tel Aviv University

Mystical union in Judaism has always been a controversial matter. 1 Scholarsof past generations, Christians and Jews alike, consistently denied the possi-bility of unio mystica in Judaism, citing as their reason that the Mosaic Law,rejecting incarnation on the one hand and pantheism on the other, main-tained a fundamental gulf between man and God. 2 A famous example fromChristian scholarship is the oft-cited opinion of Edward Caird, writing onthe evolution of religion, who argued that the Jewish mind is not capableof real contemplation and, consequently, not capable of reaching what heconsidered as the ultimate full mystical state of union. Caird contrasts Plo-tinus, the mystic par excellence, with Philo, for it was impossible for a pi-ous Jew like Philo to be a mystic or a pantheist and so to reduce the God of

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to an absolute substance, in whom all the reality of the world is merged. 3 Similarly in the eld of Jewish studies, a Hegelian-

* I would like to express my gratitude to Moshe Idel for his critical yet encouraging reviews of early draftsand to YakirPazforhis enormous help. Thearticle beneted from theengagementsandcritical reections of colleagues and friends includingCharles Stang, DanielAbrams, Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Israel Knohl, Jonathan Garb, Maren Niehoff, Menachem Lorberbaum, MenachemFisch, Moshe Halbertal, Ron Margolin, Ronit Meroz, Shlomo Biderman, Yair Furstenberg, and Yoav Ashkenazi. Special thanks are due to the anonymous reviewers for their critical input that substantially improved the article. Any errors of fact or analysis remain my sole responsibility.

1 SeeYosef Ben-Shlomo, Gershom Scholem on Pantheism in theKabbala, in Gershom Scholem,

the Man and His Work , ed. PaulMendes-Flohr (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1994), 56

72; Nathan Ro-tenstreich, Symbolism and Transcendence: On Some Philosophical Aspects of Gershom Scho-lems Opus, Review of Metaphysics 31, no. 4 (1978): 604 14; Moshe Idel, Unio Mystica as a Cri-terion: Hegelian Phenomenologies of Jewish Mysticism, in Doors of Understanding: Conversations inGlobal Spirituality inHonor of Ewert Cousins , ed. S. Chase (Quincy, IL: Franciscan, 1997), 303 33,and Unio Mystica as a Criterion: Some Observations on Hegelian Phenomenologies of Mys-ticism, Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 1 (2002): 19 41; Peter Schafer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tubingen: Siebeck, 2009), 1 8, 17 20.

2 See the detailed discussion by Moshe Idel, Enchanted Chains: Techniques and Rituals in Jewish Mysticism (Los Angeles: Cherub, 2005), 4 26.

3 See Edward Caird, The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers , Gifford Lectures, vol. 2(repr., Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, 2009), 210, 195; and the discussion in Idel, Enchanted Chains , 18 19.

2013 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.0022-4189/2013/9302-0003$10.00

177

This content downloaded from 13 2.66.11.211 on Tue, 2 Apr 201 3 11:10:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/21

type theory stipulating that Judaism did not evolve into what some consid-ered as the most advanced form of mystical life culminating in full mysticalunion was dominant in the form of Gershom Scholems denial of full mys-tical union even in the most radical forms of Jewish mysticism. 4 Scholemclaimed that theological assumptions regarding an unbridgeable gap be-tween God and man prevented Jewish mystics from developing a practiceand theory of full mystical union, restricting themselves rather to mildmodes of mystical communion. 5

Scholems widely inuential typology of the mystical experience in Ju-daism, including the absence of full mystical union, has been powerfully contended by the last generation of scholars, particularly Moshe Idel andElliot R. Wolfson, who demonstrated that kabbalistic and Hasidic sourcesinclude a variety of forms of mystical intimacy including clear expressions of full mystical union. 6 The articulation of the category of mystical cleaving( Devequt ) and union with God is one of the most important innovations of medieval Jewish philosophy and kabbalah, reecting the creative absorptionof medieval trends of Greek philosophy in the midst of rabbinic Judaism and,at the same time, drawing on several ancient sources, primarily the Hebrew Bible. 7 Bernard McGinn hasdemonstratedhow unio mystica developed in me-dieval Western Christianity, drawing on earlier Neoplatonic sources. 8

Both McGinn and Idel have noted the importance of mystical union inPhilos thought and its possible inuence on the articulated discussions of

unio mystica in Plotinus and consequently on the entire Western mystical tra-dition. 9 In what follows, I argue that the Neoplatonic scheme of elevation,

5 See Gershom Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah , trans. A. Arkush (Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1987), 299 309, 414 16, 454 60.

6 See Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988),59 73, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1988), 1 31, Enchanted Chains , 3 30,and Universalization and Integration: Two Conceptions of Mystical Union in Jewish Mysti-cism, in Mystical Union in Judaism, Christianity and Islam , ed. Moshe Idel and Bernard McGinn(NewYork:Macmillan, 1989), 27 57;ElliotR. Wolfson, Language ErosBeing:KabbalisticHermeneu- tics and Poetic Imagination (New York: Fordham University Press, 2005), 160 210, and Luminal Darkness: Imaginal Gleanings from Zoharic Literature (Oxford: Oneworld, 2007), 111 43.

8 Bernard McGinn, Love, Knowledge, and Mystical Union in Western Christianity: Twelfthto Sixteenth Centuries, Church History 56 (1987): 7 24, and Love, Knowledge and Unio Mys-tica in the Western Christian Tradition, in Idel and McGinn, Mystical Union in Judaism, Chris- tianity and Islam , 59 86.

4 See Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken, 1965), 8 11,122 23, Mysticism and Society, Diogenes 58 (1967): 58, The Messianic Idea in Judaism: And Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York: Schocken, 1971), 203 4, 227, and Kabbalah ( Jerusalem:Keter, 1970), 174 76; and the comment by Joseph Weiss, Studies in East European Jewish Mysticism and Hasidism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 90 n. 5.

9 On Plotinus as therst articulated source of unio mystica , see, e.g., theclassic presentation by Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism (New York: Meridian, 1955), 372 73; and WalterTerence Stace, Mys- ticism and Philosophy (London: Macmillan, 1961), 236. On the Western mystical tradition, seeBernardMcGinn, The Foundations of Mysticism (NewYork:Crossroad, 1992), 1:38 40;MosheIdel,

7 See Adam Afterman, Devequt: Mystical Intimacy in Medieval Jewish Thought [in Hebrew](Los Angeles: Cherub, 2011), 36 43, 273 85, 340 44.

The Journal of Religion

178




4/21

illumination, and unio mystica , absorbed later into the three monotheistictraditions, has an important precedent and possible source in Philos alle-gorical commentary on the Torah. 10 Philos interpretation of the biblicalcommandment to cleave to God as mystical union is a fascinating moment when theistic union was born out of a synthesis of Platonism and Philos Judaism. 11

It is through his commentary on the biblical commandment to cleave toGod that Philo introduces his understanding of heno sis as mystical union with God. It seems that Philos discussions of heno sis might have had an im-pact on Plotinus and the entire Neoplatonic tradition of heno sis and conse-quently on a wide range of medieval Jewish, Christian, and Arab articula-tions of the idea and experience of unio mystica .12

10 See, e.g., the discussion in Plutonis, Enneads , 6.7.34 and 6.9.9; and McGinn, Foundations of Mysticism , 53 55. I assume that the Platonic scheme of elevation and contemplative vision of the Ideas lacks a clear and developed idea of assimilation or union of the Nous with the Ideas.The most relevant Platonic discussions of the ascension of the soul to the world of the Ideasare the Symposium , 201D 212A, Phaedrus , 243E 2457B, Republic , 514A 518B, and the SeventhLetter, 341CD; however, cf. Andre J. Festugiere, Personal Religion among the Greeks (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1954); and McGinn, Foundations of Mysticism , 26 35, who high-lights the commentaries of Festugiere and others who nd already in Plato the idea that in theheight of the souls elevation and Nouss contemplation of the One there is some kind of awareness of identity with the present ultimate principle (33). On Philos commentary on theTorah, see James R. Royse, The Works of Philo, in The Cambridge Companion to Philo , ed. AdamKamesar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 38 45.

11 On theistic union, see John Rist, Plotinus: The Road to Reality (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1967), 227 29; Robert Arp, Plotinus, Mysticism, and Mediation, Religious Studies 40 (2004): 145 48.

12 See Alexander Altmann, Ibn Bajja on Mans Ultimate Felicity, in Studies in Religious Phi- losophy and Mysticism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969), 104: The notion of union( ittihad ), however, goes back to the Neoplatonic concept of heno sis in Plotinus andhis successorsand designates the ultimate stage of mystical union; Alfred Ivry, Averroes on Intellection andConjunction, Journal of the American Oriental Society 86 (1966): 81 n. 22; Alexander Altmann andSamuel M. Stern, Isaac Israeli: A Neoplatonic Philosopher of the Early Tenth Century (repr., Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 2009), 185 95; Philip Merlan, Monopsychism Mysticism Metaconscious- ness: Problems of the Soul in the Neoaristotelian and Neoplatonic Tradition (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1963).For the history of the idea of henosis in Dionysius the Areopagite and especially Philos back-ground for his discussion in the De Mystica Theologia on Mosess entrance into the dark cloud,seetheimportantdiscussion in YsabelD.Andia, Henosis: Lunion a dieuchezDenys Lareopagite (Lei-den: Brill, 1996), 309 18.

Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism (New York: Continuum, 2007), 627, Kabbalah: New Perspectives ,39, 289 n. 13, and Enchanted Chains , 18 19, 22. On the importance of Neoplatonic unio mystica for the development of medieval Jewish mysticism, see Afterman, Devequt ; Moshe Idel, On theLanguage of Ecstatic Experiences in Jewish Mysticism, in Religions: The Religious Experience , ed.Matthias Riedl and Tilo Schabert (Wu rzburg: Ko nigshausen & Neumann, 2008), 56 60, andKabbalah: New Perspectives , 42 46; and McGinn, Love, Knowledge and Unio Mystica, 61. An-other possible source in ancient Judaism can be found in the Qumran texts that describe how the mystic may commune or cleave with the angels but not with God. Some scholars employ the term unio mystica in the analysis of this experience of unity with the angels; see the impor-tant discussions by Philip Alexander, The Mystical Texts (London: Continuum, 2006), 101 43;and Schafer, Origins , 122 53; cf. Elliot R. Wolfson, Seven Mysteries of Knowledge: Qumran E/Sotericism Recovered, in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel , ed.H. Najman and J. H. Newman (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 177 213.

From Philo to Plotinus

179




5/21

Although scholarship has addressed mystical union in Philo, the fact that this original notion was articulated out of Philos commentary on the bibli-cal commandment to cleave to God was overlooked. 13 Philo introducedthis element of cleaving or union with God through his original interpre-tation of the meaning of the biblical cleaving to God. Since he drew on thealready developed Platonic theory of elevation and contemplation of theideas, 14 he was in the unique position to offer a Platonic interpretation of the biblical injunction: cleaving to God is possible because man is ultimately a Nous that can escape the sensible realm, elevate itself to Gods place, andthere unite with the transcendent God. 15

My analysis considers Philos writing to be exceptionally diverse and to in-clude different opinions and approaches to the question of the possibility of the union with God or alternatively with God qua logos. I donot assume that all of his writings, written to different audiences and over a period of time,are necessarily coherent and consistent regarding this sensitive matter. It is

13 Leisegang and Goodenough maintained that Philo borrowed the element of mysticalunion and hieros gamos from theGreek mystery religionsandadopted it to his theologyof mono-theistic Hellenized Judaism: see Hans Leisegang, Der Heilige Geist: Das Wesen und werden der Mystisch-Intuitiven Erkenntnis in der Philosophie und religion der Griechen , vol. 1, pt. 1, Die vorchristli- chen Anschauungen und Lehren vom pneuma und der Mystisch-Intuitiven (Leipzig: Teubner, 1919),231 33; Erwin R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (Amster-dam: Philo, 1969). For a detailed survey of their views, see Gary Lease, Jewish Mystery Cults sinceGoodenough, ANRW 20 (1987): 858 80. Eric Robertson Dodds, however, categorically denied

the possibility of mystical union of any sort in Philo: see Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experiences from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine (New York: Norton, 1965),71 72. See also Henry Chadwick, Philo and the Beginnings of Christian Thought, in The Cam- bridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy , ed. A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 1967), 137 57, esp. 154, where Chadwick notes: Philo does not speakof an undifferentiated identity of the soul with the One, but of an unbroken union with Godin Love which is deication; Andrew Louth, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition (Ox-ford: Clarendon, 1981), 18 35, who ignores the subject; Schafer, Origins , 154 74, 352 53, whoseems to agree that Philo promoted some kind of mystical union; and Cristina Termini, PhilosThought within the Context of Middle Judaism, in Kamesar, Cambridge Companion to Philo , 106 9.Some suggest that Philo might have been inuenced by eastern sources that introduced thepossibility of mystical union later adopted into Platonic terms: see the comment by Dan Merkurin Idel and McGinn, Mystical Union in Judaism, Christianity and Islam , 175 76. David Winston, whoanalyzed Philos mysticism systematically, reached a different conclusion that Philo does not pro-mote union with God per se. Winston states in his Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985), 43 58, esp. 49 50, that union with God is pos-sible only through the logos who functions as a living hypostatization of an essential aspect ordimension of the deity, the face of God turned toward creation. According to Winstons analysis, union with God qua logos, that is, Gods face, is the highest possible human achievement.See more of his detailed analysis in David Winston, Was Philo a Mystic? in The Ancestral Philos- ophy: Hellenistic Philosophy in Second Temple Judaism , ed. Gregory E. Sterling (Providence, RI:Brown Judaic Studies, 2001), 151 70, esp. 151, where he states: humans highest union withGod, according to Philo, is limited to the Deitys manifestation as Logos, Was Philo a Mystic?in Studies in Jewish Mysticism , ed. Joseph Dan and Frank Talmage (Cambridge, MA: Associationfor Jewish Studies, 1982), 15-40, and Philos Mysticism, Studia Philonica 8 (1996): 78 82.

14 See, e.g., Philos discussion in De Opicio Mundi , 69 71, and Quaestiones et Solutiones in Gen- esim , 3:3, drawing on Phaedrus , 243E 247E.

15 On God as the place, see, e.g., Philo, De Somniis , 1:63; Idel, Universalization and Integra-tion, 34 35.


180




6/21

possible, however, to recognize a line of thought, a distinct voice in the sym-phony of Philos corpus, where the possibility of mystical union with theOne is clearly and explicitly articulated.

Before moving on to Philos original interpretation of the biblical verses, Irst introduce the relevant verses, their translations, and rabbinical inter-pretations in order to fully appreciate Philos original innovation. I then in-troduce the main elements of Philos religious experience including his no-tions of seeing God, standing beside God, and dwelling in God as the divineportion and place of the soul. All of these elements of religious transforma-tion and experience are present in Philos commentaries on the variousbiblical verses. Next, I present Philos commentary on thebiblical command-ment to cleave to God and his analysis of Gen. 2:24 that adds another dimen-sion to Philos theory of mystical union. I conclude with a reection on thesignicance of Philos discussion to theunderstanding of thehistory andori-gins of the idea of heno sis as theistic union and its signicance for the his-tory of medieval Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thought.

BIBLICAL VERSES AND THEIR RABBINICAL INTERPRETATIONS

The passages in Deuteronomy and Genesis that form the basis for Philosidea of heno sis and mystical union are known as debequt passages, due to theiruse of the cognate d-b-q , meaning to cling, stick, cleave, or hold fast. 16

Commandmentsemploying forms of this cognate d-b-q ( ) appear in Deut.10:20, 11:22, 13:5, and 30:20, 17 of which Philo interprets 10:20 and 30:20,and the same cognate appears in Deut. 4:4 and in Gen. 2:24, the latter in thecontext of the cleavingof husband and wife: Hencea man leaveshis fatherand mother and clings [ ] to his wife, so that they become one esh(Gen. 2:24). 18 While you, who held fast [ ] to the Lord your God,are all alive today (Deut. 4:4). You must revere the Lord your God; only Him shall you worship, to Him shall you hold fast [ ] and by Hisname shall you swear (Deut. 10:20). I call heaven and earth to witnessagainst you this day: I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse.

Choose life

if you and your offspring would live. By loving the Lord yourGod, heeding His commands, and holding fast [ ] to Him; Forthereby you shall have life and shall long endure upon the soil that the Lordswore to your ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give to them (Deut.30:19 20).

16 Gerhard Wallis, Da bhaq, in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament , ed. G. JohannesBotterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. John T. Willis et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,1978), 3:79 84. King James Version and the Revised Standard Version translate this ascleave.

17 See also Josh. 22:5, 23:8; 2 Kings 18:2; and Afterman, Devequt , 16 19.18 The English translation of the Hebrew Bible is taken from the new Jewish Publication So-

ciety translation, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003).


181




7/21

In their biblical context, the injunctions to love and cleave to God are part of a vocabulary regulating the religious covenant between God and the peo-ple of Israel. Drawing on political vocabulary regulating the covenant be-tween the king and his subjects in the ancient Near East, the terms loveand cleave refer in these verses to a formal and political obligation and not to personal religious emotions or spiritual motivations. 19 In contrast to thekey role these passages play in Jewish medieval mysticism and philosophy,they seem to receive relatively little attention in rabbinic literature. 20 Early rabbinic commentaries viewed them as a demand for special devotion dur-ing Hallachic performance, as a demand to stay loyal to God or as a precau-tion against idolatry, all avoiding the possibility of direct communion orunion with God. 21 Some rabbis, emphasizing that cleaving to God is categor-ically impossible due to his numinous nature, which obviates the possibility of any cleaving or union, 22 maintained that the Mosaic imperative to cleavereferred to the creation of a familial bond with no other than the rabbisthemselves, a proof text for the requirement to make the scholars part of ones family, to marry them into the family, and to support them nancially as one would a family member:

But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day(Deuteronomy 4:4); now is it possible to cleave to the divine presence concerning which it is written in Scripture, For the Lord thy God is a devouring re (Deuteron-omy 4:24)? But [the meaning is this:] Any man who marries his daughter to a scholar,

or carries on a trade on behalf of scholars or benets scholars from his estate is re-garded by Scripture as if [ 23 ] he had cleaved to the divine presence. Similarly you readin Scripture, To love the Lord thy God, [to hearken to his voice] and to cleaveunto Him(Deuteronomy 30:20) Is it possible for a human being to cleave unto thedivine presence? But [what was meant is this:] Any man who marries his daughter toa scholar, or carries on a trade for scholars, or benets scholars from his estate is re-garded by Scripture as if he had cleaved to the divine presence. 24

19 See Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 83 84, and Deuteronomy 1 11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 440.

20 See Afterman, Devequt , 13 37.21 See Louis Finkelstein, ed., Sifre on Deuteronomy (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of

America, 2001), sec. 85, 150; Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berachot 50b; and Afterman, Devequt ,22 32; cf. Joshua Abelson, The Immanence of God in Rabbinical Literature (New York: Intellect-books, 1969), 3 5, 278 303, which portrays a totally different picture of rabbinical Judaism aspromoting mystical union with God.

22 Idel assumes that this is true for all, apart from the scholars themselves, who have the ca-pacity to cleave to the re, the numinous divine; see Moshe Idel, R. Menachem Recanati the Kabbalist [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1998), 130.

23 On the term as if and its meaning in mystical discourse, see Moshe Idel, Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism: Pillars, Lines, Ladders (Budapest: Central European University Press,2005), 41, 51 54.

24 Babylonian Talmud, tractate Ketubot 111b (Soncino English translation), emphasis added.See the discussion in Reuven Hammer, Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986), sec. 49, 106: And cleave unto him (Deu 11:22):is it possible for man to ascend to heaven and cleave to re? seeing that scripture has said: For


182




8/21

The rabbinic interpretation of the meaning of the verb in Deut.30:20, 11:22, and 4:4 is drawn, it seems, from the interpretation of the termin Gen. 2:24 alluding to the creation of new family bonds through mar-riage. 25 It is important to notice that it is in the context of Gen. 2:24 that the cleaving leads to the unity of one esh. Philo, as we shall see, willlearn from here the principle that cleaving leads to unity: unity of esh oralternatively unity of spirit to be reached by mystical cleaving to God. For therabbis, however, since it is impossible to marry or bond to God on a phys-ical level, and the possibility of a spiritual cleaving or marriage is not consid-ered, the commandment to cleave to God is shifted to the scholars andtheir students. 26 Therabbis categorical denial that cleaving refers toa spir-itual or mystical personal contact with God might reect some awarenessand perhaps even a reaction to philosophical interpretations of the com-mandment such as Philos commentaries to be discussed below. 27 Of allthe rabbinic interpretations addressing the passages, only the statement (rather than commandment) in Deut. 4:4, But ye that did cleave unto theLord your God are alive every one of you this day, is interpreted as someform of collective communion with God. 28

In another discussion of this statement, we nd a short comment attrib-uted to R. Akiva, But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God literally cleaving! but without any further explanation how such cleaving takesplace. 29 Given the biblical and rabbinical context of the meaning of the

commandment to cleave to God and the absence of spiritual and mysticalinterpretations of the verses in rabbinical sources, a close reading of Phi-los writing on the topics is in order. Such a reading will not only elucidate

25 See the discussion in the Sifre quoted above interpreting the commandment as it appearsin Deut. 11:22. See Moshe Idel, Kabbalah and Eros (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005),19 21.

26 On the collective level, the People of Israel are described by the rabbis, as being mar-ried to God; see Gershom Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism , trans. R. Manheim (New York:Schoken, 1969), 104 9; Idel, Kabbalah andEros , 22 35. This is not the onlyplace where therabbis shift a commandment applying directly to God to the scholars and their students; seeBabylonian Talmud, tractate Kiddushin 57a, Pesachim 22b.

27 TheAramaic translationsof theTorah renderDeuteronomy (10:20, 11:22,13:5, 30:20)as if the cleaving is to be directed to Gods fear, rather than God himself. The Syrian translationuses the verb NKF without mentioning Gods fear, a verb that has a more literal meaningof cleaving, sticking, and to be joined in marriage. See Jessie Payne Smith, ed., A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (London: Oxford University Press, 1957), 351.

28 See Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 64a, 65b. See the analysis by Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives , 38 39; Afterman, Devequt , 22 32.

29 Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 64a, trans. Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives , 39, 288n. 9. See also the discussion in Heschel, Heavenly , 190 93; Yochanan Moffs, Love and Joy: Law,Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,1992), 49 60, esp. 51 52; Idel, R. Menachem Recanati , 125 26, 130; Afterman, Devequt , 32 37.

the Lord thy God is a devouring re (Deu 4:24) and His throne was ery ames (Dan 7:9),Rather cling to the Sages and to their disciples, and I will account it to you as if you had as-cended to heaven and had received it (the Torah) there. See also Afterman, Devequt , 24 25;cf. Abraham J. Heschel, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted through the Generations (New York: Contin-uum, 2006), 190 93; Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives , 38.


183




9/21

Philos unique position but also provide insight into the type of mystical inti-macy he considered as the core of Mosaic Law.

STANDING WITH GOD : VISION AND UNION AS THE FUNDAMENTALS OFRELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

Before launching into the intricacies of Philos exegetical writings as a ba-sis for mystical union, it will be helpful to understand the context of Philoscharacterization of religious experience. In his allegorical commentaries onthe Mosaic Law, Philo describes two vital experiences that characterize thisreligiosity. The rst is a capacity for visio dei , a direct mystical vision of thecreator not mediated by the logos or other emanations. The second is unio mystica itself: the capacity to cleave to and unite with the transcendent God.Both states are distinguished and different from many of the other mysticalexperiences (e.g., vision and union with the logos) described by Philothroughout his exegetical enterprise, in that their core is a state of unmedi-ated access to God. 30

It is my assumption that it is possible to reconstruct a Philonic theory of human transformation leading to an unmediated and intimate experienceof God that ultimately allows mystical union to take place. In contrast, insome of the other religious and mystical experiences described and analyzedby Philo, including prophecy, ecstatic divination, and sober intoxication,

man is not required or even able it seems to achieve full transcendence, andas a result, the experience is focused on mediating entities, mainly the logos,as opposed to a direct interface with the creator himself. 31

In his famouscharacterization of thepeople of Israel as those whoattainthe unique capacity for mental vision of the transcendent God, 32 Philo em-phasizes the visibility of the transcendent deity, drawing not only on the Pla-tonic tradition and Greek mystery religions but also on the Septuagint. 33

30 See, e.g., the discussions in Dodds, Pagan and Christian , 93 96; and Louth, Origins , 33 35.31 See the analysis of Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology , 49 50.32 The people of Israel in contrast to the Jews is an abstract category that includes all phi-

losophers and prophets who seek the knowledge and intimacy with God; see Ellen Birnbaum,The Place of Judaism in Philos Thought: Israel, Jews and Proselytes (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Liter-ature, 1996), 91 127. See also Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology , 44; Gerhard Delling, TheOne Who Sees God in Philo, in Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel , ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn, Earle Hilgert, and Burton L. Mack (Chico, CA:Scholars, 1984), 34 35, 39; Birnbaum, Place of Judaism in Philos Thought , 91 127; Schafer, Ori- gins , 164 74.

33 Seetheclassic discussionin Philo, LegumAllegoriarum , 3:100 103(F.H. Colson, G. H. Whita-ker, and Ralph Marcus, eds., Philo , Loeb Classical Library, 12 vols. [Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1929 62], 1:369), and De Praemiis et Poenis , 43 46 (Colson, Whitaker, and Mar-cus, Philo , 4:337 39). On the visibility of God in ancient Judaism, see ElliotR. Wolfson, Through a Speculum That Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton, NJ: Prince-ton University Press, 1994), 13 51; on Philo, 50; and cf. David Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 474.


184




10/21

Philo is thus introducing a type of unmediated mental vision of the uncre-ated Father that is not mediated by the logos. 34 This capacity is expressed inPhilos famous phrase light by light, viewing Gods light through his ownlight, rather than through the light of the logos. 35 The direct vision of Goddoes not include knowledge of the divine essence, nor does it necessarily in-clude ecstatic passion or divination. 36 The mind beholding this vision hasthe unique capacity to elevate itself above the created universe and reacha direct, unmediated vision of the uncreated.

The precise nature of this vision isa matter of scholarly debate. David Win-ston has argued that the unmediated intuitive vision as described by Philois actually an inner intuitive illumination, the result of analytical thought and deduction. 37 In contrast to H. Wolfson and H. Lewy, who maintain that Philo is describing an experience that completely bypasses the rational facul-ties anddepends entirelyon Godsgrace,Winston argues that this particularexperience of vision is rather the result of a process of reasoning in the styleof an ontological argument that leads to inner illumination and vision of the mind: It is this inner intuitive illumination, constituting a rational pro-cess of an analytical type, that is to be identied with the divine revelationtaking shape in the human mind and enabling it to have a direct vision of God. 38

While some of Philosdiscussions indeed yield perfectly to Winstonsanal- ysis, in the following example, Philo asserts a vision in which the soul must

rst transcend the created world in order to achieve direct sight of the un-created One:

There is a mind more perfect and more thoroughly cleansed, which has undergoneinitiation into the greater mysteries, a mind which gains its rstknowledge of the rst cause not from created things, as one may learn the substance from the shadow, but lifting its eyes above and beyond creationobtains a clear vision of the uncreated One.So as from him to apprehend both himself and his shadow. . . . The mind of which Ispeak is Moses who says Manifest thyself to me, let me see thee that I know thee

35 Philo, De Praemiis et Poenis , 43 46 (Colson, Whitaker, and Marcus, Philo , 4:337 39): But those, if such there be, who have had the power to apprehend Him through Himself without the cooperation of any reasoning process to lead them to the sight, must be recorded as holy and genuine worshippers and friends of God in very truth. In their company is who in Hebrew is called Israel , but in Greek the God seer who sees not his real nature, for that, as I said, is im-possible but that He is. . . . As light is seen by light, so God too his own brightness and is dis-cerned through himself alone without anything cooperating. The seekers for truth are those who envisaged God through God, light through light. See Goodenough, Light , 176 78; David Winston, Philo of Alexandria: TheContemplativeLife, the Giants, andSelections (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist,1981), 27. This famous passage might have inuenced Plotinus in the Enneads , 5.3.17, 5.5.10.See the discussion in Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology , 44.

36 Loath, Origins , 19 20; Winston, Was Philo a Mystic? in Ancestral Philosophy , 158 59.37 See Winston, Was Philo a Mystic? in Ancestral Philosophy , 155 61.38 Ibid., 157 61, 159; Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology , 46 47; Runia, Philo of Alexandria ,

437.

34 From some of Philos writings one may deduce, however, that the possibility of seeing theOne is categorically denied. See, e.g., De Posteritate Caini , 167 69, and De Opicio Mundi , 71 73.


185




11/21

(Exod. 33:13). . . . One receives the clear vision of God directly from the rst causeHimself. The other discerns the Articer, as it were from a shadow, from createdthings by virtue of inferential reasoning. 39

Since the intellectual vision is direct and not mediated by the logos and in-ferential reasoning, it seems that the soul must rst transcend with his in-ner eye all created reality and only then view the transcendent uncreatedOne. Philo distinguishes between the great minds, those who reached suchdirect contact with the uncreated, and the rest of humanity that must dis-cern the creator through the shadow of the logos.

In another discussion, Philo introduces his interpretation of the divineportion granted to those who choose to become intimate with God:

The tribe ofLevi, He says, shall haveno lot orportion among the childrenof Israel,fortheLord is their portion(Deuteronomy 10:9);and there is an utterance rung out on this wise by the holy oracles in the name of God, I am the portion and inheri-tance (Numb 18:20): for in reality the mind which has been perfectly cleansed andpuried, and which renounces all things pertaining to creation, is acquainted withOne alone, and knows but One, even the uncreate, to whom it has drawn nigh, by Whom also it has taken to Himself. 40

Here we are introduced to another facet of knowing the One, via the ideathat through human transcendence the Levitate mind can become ac-quainted with the One not through any mediators. God may become theportion of that human mind.

Another notion that Philo links to the process of human transcendence,of soaring above all created reality and reaching an unmediated experienceof God, is referred to as standing beside God: There are still others, whomGod has advanced even higher, and has trained them to soar above speciesand genus alike and stationed them beside himself. Such is Moses to whomhe says Stand here with me (Deut. 5:31). 41 Gods invitation to Moses tostand beside him is interpreted as a capacity of his mind to soar above andbeyond all earthly reality in order to reach him at his place and stand there.The Mosaic religiosity allows the personal engagement with the transcen-dent deity; this intimacy with God is alluded to as standing with him at orin his place, where God becomes his only portion. 42 Given that only thetranscendent God stands and all creation moves, in order for the human

40 Philo, De Plantatione , 63 64, and Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum , 2:29 (Colson, Whitaker,and Marcus, Philo , 3:245, 12:69 70).

41 Philo, De Sacriciis Abelis et Caini , 8 10 (Colson,Whitaker, andMarcus, Philo , 2:99);see David Winston The Philonic Sage [in Hebrew], Daat 11 (1983): 15 17.

42 Following David Winston,I usethe term mystical intimacyrather than mystical gnosis toclassify the apex experience of Mosaic Law as portrayed by Philo in some of his commentaries;see Winston, The Sage as Mystic in the Wisdom of Solomon, in Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy ,110 13;Dan Merkur, Gnosis: An Esoteric Tradition of Mystical Visions and Unions (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993).

39 Philo, Legatio ad Gaium , 3:100 103 (Colson, Whitaker, and Marcus, Philo , 1:369).


186




12/21

mind to reach this state of standing with God, who becomes the placeand portion of the soul, it must rst transcend the created moving universe.

David Runia, who investigated the Philonic theme of the standing God,has shown that in some of Philos discussions the theme of the standing Godis transferred to the wise man par excellence , Moses (or Abraham), whocleaves to God and achieves the same stability of thought and purpose. 43

The notion of the standing God and the wise men that stand next to him isfurther developed(possiblyundersome impactof Philo) in theNeoplatonictradition as evidenced in Numenius and Plotinus and later in Procolos,Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine. 44

Both experiences describedby Philo mystical visionandmystical stand-ing in/with God, who becomes the minds portion concern the intimate,personal journey of the soul, which, by transcending its corporeality and as-cending beyond the created universe, is able to encounter directly the tran-scendent God. This process, which is a condition for both the vision and, as we shall see, mystical union, is not executed necessarily by the more com-mon ascending and vision of the logos but rather by bypassing the createduniverse and the logos altogether. 45

In order to attain immediate access, the individual must uphold certainmoral virtues that enable him to come close to God. 46 The embodiment of divine virtues such as piety and faith is a condition for the direct perceptionof the rst cause and for a personal encounter with the transcendent crea-

tor, which at times Philo describes as the product of divine grace.47

The in-sight that the Torah demands that human beings strive for an intimate anddirect encounter with the transcendentGod, whodespite his transcendenceis capable of having an intimate relationship with those who have sought him, is characteristic of Philos allegorical interpretation of the Mosaic Law.

It was the Platonic tradition that provided the anthropological and theo-logical foundations that enabled Philo to articulate the possibility for thesoul to ascend to the end of the created universe and then return to God.The odyssey of the soul to God is probably the most important theme inPhilos thought, which embodies, on the one hand, the transcendence of

43 David Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 199; seealso the discussions in Philo, De Posteritate Caini , 19 30, De Cherubim , 18 19, De Gigantibus , 48 49,and De Confusione Linguarum , 30 32.

44 See Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers , 182 205;Merker, Gnosis , 147. For further discussionof possible links between Philo and Plotinus on a related topic, see Tatjana Alekniene, Lex-tase mystique dans la tradition platonicienne Philon dAlexandrieET Plotin, Studia Philonica 22 (2010): 53 82. On the possible inuence of Philo on Plotinus via Numenius, see the refer-ences indicated by Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives , 38 39, 289 n. 13, and Ben , 642 n. 97.

45 Winston, Was Philo a Mystic? in Ancestral Philosophy , 157 59; Chadwick, Philo, 148.46 See Philo, De Migratione Abrahami , 24:132 (Colson, Whitaker, and Marcus, Philo , 4:207 9),

to be discussed below.47 On the rst cause, see Naomi Goldstein Cohen, Philos Cher. 40 52, Zohar III 31a, and

BT Hag. 16a, Journal of Jewish Studies 57 (2006): 197. On divine grace, see Louth, Origins , 30;Chadwick, Philo, 150 53.


187




13/21

the deity and, on the other hand, the idea that the encounter is personal, in-timate, and mutual.

MYSTICAL HENO SIS IN PHILO S COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLICALCLEAVING TO GOD

While interpreting the cleaving verses in Deut. 30:20 and 10:20 and Gen.2:24, Philo clearly follows theSeptuagint terminology. 48 For these verses, theSeptuagint uses three different verbs: proskolle the setai (Gen. 2:24), kol-lethe i (Deut. 10:20), and echesthai (Deut. 30:20). 49 Philo seems to con-nect Deut. 30:20 and 10:20 not on a philological basis, since the Septuagint uses two different verbs to translate Davak ( ), but rather on a thematicand theological basis.

The common ground is the commandment itself the commandment toattach to God and its correlation to the idea of the divine Portion andthe idea of coming near God and standing next to/with him. Due to thisunderlining structure, it is possible to bring together the two verses, despitethe difference in terminology. While coming to interpret Deut. 30:20, Philomakes a note to the reader in one of his discussions of the exact meaning of the Greek verb echesthai used in this context. 50 Since for the Greek readerthis verb is not usually associated with mystical or spiritual cleaving, Philomakes a note that in this context it means spiritual union with God.

Philos rst discussion of Deut. 30:20 appears in a long section beginningat On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile ( De Posteritate Caini , 12), where he de-scribes the man of God who continuously seeks Gods presence and thematerial man represented by Cain who chooses to cleave to his sense ex-periences and, consequently, lives a life of wandering and restless move-ment. The man of God seeks the stable and constant existence of the tran-scendent One, leading to a life of tranquility achieved by standing in Godsplace and transcending the movement of the universe.

48 Philo is interpreting the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible; there is generallyno ev-idence that Philo knew or read Hebrew.

49 Wallis, Dabhaq, notes that the Septuagint uses thirteen different verbs to translate the various occurrences of . For the various meanings of these verbs in the Septuagint, See Johan Lust et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint , 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Biblelge-sellschaft, 1996); T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2002),s.vv. kollao, proskollao , exo. See also John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deu- teronomy (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), 120. On the range of the meaning of kollao in later Chris-tian writings, see Cecile Dogniez and Marguerite Harl [et al.], La bible dAlexandrie: Le Deuter- onome (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1992), 156 57; see also Geoffrey William Hugo Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961). These verbs do not seem tocarry any theological or mystical connotations in profane Greek literature; see Henry GeorgeLiddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon with a Revised Supplement (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1996).

50 See Liddel and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon , s.v. echo (C. Med): to hold oneself to, holdon by, cling to, make fast to.


188




14/21

By cleaving to God, the soul may escape the fate of all creation, whichchanges, moves, and eventually disintegrates, gaining eternal life beside thestanding God. Philos characterization of the man of God suggests that cleaving to God and standing in his place or next to him are one. Philosinterpretation of the cleaving commandment is part of the larger schemeof the wise men that stand in/with the standing God analyzed in De Pos- teritate Caini (12 23). 51

Of the four Deuteronomy cleaving verses, Philo chooses to interpret thetwo (10:20, 30:20) that correlate cleaving to God with gaining true life,suggesting that cleaving to God leads to real and eternal life standing be-side God. Philo identies Moses, whom God calls on to stand next to him(but you stand [stethi] here with me; Deut. 5:28), as the one who has theauthority to command Israel to cleave to God: But Moses will lay down forhis pupils a charge most noble to love God and hearken to and cleave toHim (Deu. 30:20); assuring them that this is the life that brings true prosper-ity and length of days. And his way of inviting them to honour Him Who is a worthy object of strong yearning and devoted love is vivid and expressive. Hebids them cleave (echesthai) to Him, bringing out by the use of this wordhow constant and continuous and unbroken is the concord and union(henoseos) that comes through making God our own. 52

A second discussion of the same verse from Deuteronomy is found in The Preliminary Studies : A great and transcendent soul does such a boast be-

speak, to soar above created being, topassbeyond its boundaries, tohold fast (periechesthai) to the uncreated alone, following the sacred admonitions in which we are told to cling (echesthai) to Him (Deuteronomy 30:20), andtherefore to those who thus cling (exomenois) and serve him without ceas-ing He gives himself as portion, and this my afrmation is warranted by theoracle which says The Lord himself is his portion (Deuteronomy 10:9). 53

Together, the two commentaries on the commandment to cleave to Godconstitute a clear ideal of mystical union. 54 I would suggest that Philos com-mentary on verse 30:20 is not only the rst attempt to interpret the biblicalcommandment in mystical terms but fundamentally the rst attempt to ar-

ticulate the idea of mystical union with God, as found later in the monothe-istic mystical traditions. 55

Philos reading of the imperative to cleave to God, his choice to invoke theterm heno sis , suggests that a full union with the transcendent creator is not only possible but in fact the pinnacle of Mosaic Law. God is to be the object

51 See Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers , 182 205.52 Philo, De Posteritate Caini , 12 (Colson, Whitaker, and Marcus, Philo , 2:335); see Winston,

Was Philo a Mystic? in Ancestral Philosophy , 167; McGinn, Foundations of Mysticism ,40andn.93.53 Philo, De Congressu Eruditionis Gratia , 24:133 35 (Colson, Whitaker, and Marcus, Philo ,

4:527).54 Winston, Was Philo a Mystic? in Ancestral Philosophy , 167, notes that the discussion in De

Posteritate Caini , 12, includes a notion of actual union with God.55 See Winston, Was Philo a Mystic? in Ancestral Philosophy , 167; Afterman, Devequt , 19 22.


189




15/21

of yearning and love; his transcendence does not obviate personal intimacy and union by Israel. To the contrary, the Deuteronomic injunction to cleaveto God is a commandment to establish a personal love relationship withGod, to make him our own, to become his close friend.

The union of the soul with the creator is a result of the soul transcendingthe boundaries of created existence and reaching an unmediated contact with the divine. Once the soul gains (or regains) its transcendent existenceand true life, the conditions are met for the mystical union with the transcen-dent God who becomes the souls portion. Standing in the same place,they become one.

Philos commentary in the De Posteritate Caini is striking because of theclear correlation he makes between gaining unmediated access to God andachieving union with him. In the two discussions of Deut. 30:20, we nd that by cleaving to God, the human mind stands in Gods place, rendering Godhis portion and replacing all other concerns. Gods transcendence, which isa fundamental idea in Philos biblical exegesis, does not preclude the pos-sibility of reaching mystical intimacy with God including mystical union of the mind, stripped of all its somatic and corporeal garments, and the tran-scendent God. 56 Philo makes it clear that the nature of the encounter is that of total union, stressing the depth of intimacy reached through such mysti-cal union.

The mystical cleaving to the uncreated is not a result of comprehension of

his essence, a notion categorically denied by Philo, but rather an alternativestage achieved when the puried soul bypasses the created universe andcleaves to the divine in a theistic union. 57 Mystical intimacy is conditionedon the souls capacity to encounter the divine at his own place beyond thecreated world that, ultimately, is viewed as lacking true being. 58 Union withthe One is not characterized as an impersonal merging with an abstract prin-ciple or substance. On the contrary, the union takes place with the biblicalGod who in spite of his transcendence is capable of loving and maintainingpersonal friendships.

Deut. 4:4, whichcorrelates thecleaving toGodand meriting life as inDeut.

30:20, is interpreted by Philo to be referring to the real life lived in God. InOn Flight , Philo discusses this connection by returning to Deut. 30:20, in re-lation to Deut. 4:4:

She conrmed what she said by holy oracles also, one of them to this effect: Ye that did cleave (hoi proskeimenoi) unto the Lord your God are alive all of you at this day.

56 See Harry Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948), 2:94 164; Peter Frick, Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 25 55; Runia, Philo of Alexandria , 442 43; Winston, Was Philo a Mystic? in Ancestral Philosophy , 151 54, and Logos and Mystical Theology ,45 50.

57 See Philo, Legum Allegoriarum , 3:206, and De Mutatione Nominum , 7 12.58 See Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology , 52 54; Chadwick, Philo, 151.


190




16/21

[Deut. 4:4] For only those who have taken refuge in God and become his supplicantsdoes Moses recognize as living, accounting the rest to be dead men. . . . Again else- where: This is thy life, and length of days, to love the Lord thy God. [Deut. 30:20]

This is the most noble denition of deathless life, to be possessed by a love of Godand a friendship for God with which esh and body have no concern. 59

Philo stresses once again that cleaving to God is a spiritual process that leadsto true friendship and love of God, which leads in turn to eternal life next tohim. The same process of spiritual cleaving to God is reected in Philos in-terpretation of another verse from Deuteronomy (10:20) commanding thecleaving to God: Using still loftier language to express the irrepressiblecraving for moral excellence, he calls on them to cleave (kollasthai) to Him.His words are: thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and Him shalt thou serve,

and to Him shalt thou cleave (pros auton kolle the sei) (Deut. 10:20). What then is the cementing substance? Do you ask what? Piety, surely, and faith:for these virtues adjust (harmozousi) and unite (henousin) the intent of theheart (dianoian) to the incorruptible Being: as Abraham when he believedis said to: Come near to God (Gen 18:23). 60 This interpretation of thecleaving in this verse lacks the element of transcendence stressed by Philoin his interpretation of Deut. 30:20. Here he emphasizes the idea that em-bodying certain moral values adjusts and harmonizes the heart with God inline with the idea that the Mosaic Law aims to unite mans mind withGod and no other mediators. The manner in which one heeds the Mosaic

commandment to cleave to the Lord is by adhering to piety and faith. We may conclude from the two commentaries on the commandment inDeut. 30:20 and especially from the long discussion in De Posteritate Caini (12 23) that the biblical imperative to love and cleave to God was inter-preted as a commandment to transcend the created universe and to reach

59 Philo, De Fuga et Inventione , 11:56 (Colson, Whitaker, and Marcus, Philo , 5:39 41).60 Philo, De Migratione Abrahami , 132 (Colson, Whitaker, andMarcus, Philo , 4:207 9);cf.Philo,

De Fuga et Inventione , 92 (Colson, Whitaker, and Marcus, Philo , 5:59 61): All of this is to theend that the word or thought within the mind may be left behind by itself alone, destitute of body, destitute of sense-perception, destitute of utterance in audible speech; for when it hasbeen thus left, it will live a life in harmony with such solitude, and will render, with nothingto mar or to disturb it, its glad homage to the Sole existence. See also the translation of Win-ston, Philos Mysticism, 78: For thus left behind [the thought within the mind] it will live alife in accord with such solitude, and will cleave (aspasetai) in purity and without distraction tothe alone existent. See also Philo, Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim , 188 (Colson, Whitaker,and Marcus, Philo , 11:472 73): Rightly, therefore, and properly does the wise man believing(his) end (to consist in) likeness to God, strive, so far as possible, to unite the created with theuncreated and the mortal with the immortal. In other discussions, the terms harmozousiand henousin are used in a nonmystical sense: see, e.g., the discussion in De Plantatione ,1:60, and Legatio ad Gaium , 1:8, where Philo correlates the ideas of divine portion, virtue, andthe number seven that cause or signify the harmony and unity of human society; see also Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat , 1:107, and De Agricultura , 1:6, where the term is employed in anagricultural context, and De Confusione Linguarum , 1:69, Legatio ad Gaium , 1:37, De Migratione Abrahami , 1:220, Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit , 1:40, De Fuga et Inventione , 1:112, Moses , 2:243, De Specialibus Legibus , 4:168, 4:168, 4:207, De Virtutibus , 1:135, De Aeternitate Mundi , 1:147, andQuaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim , 3:3, where the term is used in different nonspiritual contexts.


191




17/21

his place and stand there, becoming Gods true friend and lover, thereby gaining true and eternal life. The union iscomplete onlywhenman and Godstand in the same place and develop a love relationship resembling family relationships. The friendship with God, coming close to him and standingin his place, represents the core of Mosaic religion.

CLEAVING TO GOD AS HIEROS GAMOS IN GENESIS 2:24

The metaphor of family relations and in particular the marriage bond formystical union is reected in Philos commentary on the cleaving verse inGen. 2:24. As part of his commentary on the creation of man in Genesis,Philo interprets the two different, ostensibly contradictory, versions of thebiblical account of the creation of Adam (Gen. 1:26 and 2:7). 61

Philos typology of mankind includes the earthly Man who dwells in thecreated and sensible things, the heavenly Man who has gained the capacity to look beyond the created world toward both the sensible world and God,and the divinely Man who is elevated totally beyond the created universeand stands beside God. 62 Philo introduces the possibility that the godly manof heavenly origin may become Gods close friend. 63 Of special interest tous is Philos analysis of Gen. 2:24:

For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave(proskolle the setai) unto his wife, and the twain shall be one esh (Gen 2: 24): For

the sake of sense-perception the Mind, when it has become her slave, abandons bothGod the Father of the universe, and Gods excellence and wisdom, the mother of allthings, and cleaves (proskollatai) to and becomes one (henoutai) with sense percep-tion and is resolved into sense-perception so that the two become one esh and oneexperience. Observe that it is not the woman that cleaves (kollatai) to the man, but conversely the man to the woman, Mind to sense-perception. For when that which issuperior, namely Mind, becomes one (heno the i) with that which is inferior, namely sense-perception it resolves into the order of esh which is inferior. Into sense-perception, the moving cause of the passions. But if Sense the inferior follow Mind the superior, there will be esh no more, but both of them will be mind.The man, then, that the prophet speaks is such as has been described; he prefersthe love of his passions to the love of God. But there is a different man, one who

61 On Philos interpretation of the biblical account addressed to the Jewish community in Alexandria, see Maren R. Niehoff, Questions and Answers in Philo and Genesis Rabbah, Jour- nal for the Study of Judaism 39 (2008): 20 30. On the two accounts, see Runia, Philo of Alexandria ,334 46.

62 See Alan Mendelson, Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati: Hebrew UnionCollege Press, 1982), 47 59; on Philos attitude toward the body and questions of self, see AlonGoshen Gottstein, The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature, Harvard Theological Review 87, no. 2 (1994): 176 77; Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 3 5, 78 80, 231 34; Schafer, Origins , 160 61;Raymond Martin and John Barresi, The Rise and Fall of Soul and Self (New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 2006), 42 44.

63 See Philo, De Gigantibus , 58 64 (Colson, Whitaker, and Marcus, Philo , 2:475 77).


192




18/21

has made the contrary choice . . . this man forsakes father and mother, his mindand material body, for the sake of having as his portion the One God for theLord himself is his portion (Deut. 10:9). Passion becomes the portion of the lover

of passion, but the portion of Levi the lover of God is God.64

Philos allegorical interpretation of the cleaving of man and his wife that creates a union of esh is as follows: the cleaving of mind (man) to senseperception (wife) creates one union of the mind with its physical concerns.The correlation between cleaving and union is fundamental, as when themind cleaves and unites with sense perception a united experience is con-stituted by the two; however, the same unity is reached alternatively with vir-tue and God when the mind cleaves to God and establishes a unity of spirit or mind.

Man, who Philo identies with the mind, has an inherent capacity tocleave to other concerns, depending on his nature. 65 The material mancleaves to his physical body and sense perception, becoming one with senseexperience. The man of God cleaves not to his body and senses but rather toGod himself, until God becomes his minds portion, an idea we exploredabove in our discussion of both the visio dei and the union with God. Finally,the Levite, representing the man of God (e.g., Moses) who is not granted aterrestrial portion of the Holy Land, instead has God for his portion anddwells in him. 66

The intimacy of mind and God is parallel and mutually exclusive to the

intimacy of mind and sense experience. The attachment of the mind to thebody is a metaphorical marriage; by stripping away its corporeality and con-sorting with the divine, the soul regains its virginity. 67 This idea is revisitedby Philo in his discussion in De Cherubim (40 53): Souls, when they cleave toGod (proskolle tho si theo i), from being woman become virgins; they cast off thewomanly destruction which is latent in sense andfeeling, andfollow after

64 Philo, Legum Allegoriarum , 2:49 52 (Colson, Whitaker, and Marcus, Philo , 1:255 57).65 In Philos discussion in De Posteritate Caini , we learn that the souls essential quality is to

unite with any given concerns. This quality is signied in the Hebrew term Hebron derivingfrom the Hebrew root HVR (which has a similar meaning to the verb DBQ, i.e., cleaving) sig-nifying friendship or alliance; the soul becomes a friend with its concerns, be it the body but alternativelyalso with virtueor God; see Philo, De Posteritate Caini , 59 62 (Colson, Whitaker, andMarcus, Philo , 2:361): Hebron, for instance,means union butunion maybe of twokinds, thesoul being either made the bodys yokefellow, or being brought into fellowship with virtue.

66 See Philo, De Sacriciis Abelis et Caini , 8 9, De Gigantibus , 61, Legum Allegoriarum , 3:99 102,Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit , 45 46, and De Gigantibus , 60 62 (Colson, Whitaker, and Marcus,Philo , 2:475): But the men of God are priests and prophets who have refused to accept mem-bership in thecommonwealthof theworldand tobecomecitizenstherein,buthave risen wholly above the sphere of sense-perception andhave been translated into the world of the intelligibleanddwell there. Seealso Goodenough, Light ,229 30: Moses . . .hasgone beyondanymaterialor created manifestation of God to cleave to God alone, and so has received God himself for hisportion.

67 Cohen, Philos Cher. 40 52, 203.


193




19/21

the true and untampered Virgin, namely that which is pleasing to God. 68 Inthis transformation from woman to a virgin and the detachment of self frombody, the union achieved between that soul and God is that of a hieros gamos replacing the marriage between soul and sense experience. 69 The cleavingbetween man and woman is the prototype for mystical union with God, andit is achievable by those, such as Abraham or Levi, who dedicate their life tothe love of God and not to esh. The Levitical state of mind is dened by amystical attachment and love for God.

In summary, Philos reading of the cleaving of man and wife as unionin Genesis completes the picture that emerges from the interpretations of the cleaving verses. Cleaving to God means uniting the mindwithGod; thisis possible since the human mind is designed to cleave or unite with its con-cerns and most importantly withGod. Philo maintains that the unity of mindand sense experience may be replaced with the unity of mind and God.

CONCLUSION

The close reading of Philos discussions of unio mystica deriving from hiscommentary on the cleaving verses offers a rare opportunity to reevaluatethe trajectories of inuence in this history of religious traditions concerningmystical union. Mystical union emerged from Philos original Platonic-Jewishinterpretationof the Septuagint. Philo was the rst to interpret, in writing, the

Deuteronomic injunction as referring to spiritual, mystical cleaving to God,rather than to mediating entities, institutions, or people.Philo converted the Deuteronomic covenantal type of cleaving into a

unique synthesis of a mystical union with the One and religious emotions of love and intimacy with the God of Israel. Mystical union for Philo is the most intimate experience of God, a religious experience of coming close to Godand cleaving to him in love and friendship.

The Septuagint, with its commandment to love and cleave to God, provided Philo, the middle Platonist philosopher, with the idea that it is possiblenot only to ascend in contemplation and mentally view the transcendent

God but even to cleave and unite with him, an idea never before articulatedin both the Platonic and the Jewish traditions. Philos discussions of thecommandment, and specically his discussion of the heno sis with God in hiscommentary on Deut. 30:20, certainly signify a major innovation that shouldbe taken into account as an important precedent and backdrop for the laterdevelopments of the idea of heno sis in the Neoplatonic tradition.

68 Translation by Goodenough, Light , 388, of a fragment printed in Colson, Whitaker, andMarcus, Philo , 12:241, fragment b; cf. Philo, Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum , 2:3 (Colson, Whitaker, and Marcus, Philo , 12:38): For when a man comes in contact with a woman, he marksthe virgin as a woman but when souls become divinely inspired from being woman they become virgins, throwing off the womanly corruptions which are in sense perception and passion.

69 See Lease, Jewish Mystery Cults since Goodenough, 862.


194




20/21

Philos allegorical interpretation of Gen. 2:24 and Deut. 10:20 and 30:20allowed him to articulate a spiritual understanding of the biblical command-ment and consequently to create the category of mystical heno sis . In a similarmanner although not as a result of direct inuence, Jewish authors writingunder the impact of medieval Arab and Latin Neoplatonism interpreted, orrather reinterpreted, the same verses from the Torah as a commandment formystical communion and union with God. 70 Two of the main elements that constitute mystical intimacy in the Philonic commentaries analyzed above,contemplative vision and mystical union, became predominant in the Neo-platonic mystical tradition and consequently in medieval Jewish theology and kabbalah. 71

The fact that one of Philos discussions of mystical union and heno sis ispart of his longer discussion of the men of God who stand by cleaving tothe standing God, a theory that was developed later by Numenius and Plo-tinus, possibly under some inuence of Philo, suggests that he might haveplayed some role in the later developments of the idea of mystical union. 72

I nd the two commentaries on Deut. 30:20 with the description of the great souls that transcend the universe and then unite with the One as a very in-teresting precedent and even a possible source for the Neoplatonic schemeof elevation and heno sis with the One.

We thus have an opportunity to reevaluate the trajectories of inuence inthis history of religious traditions concerning mystical union. In light of

these ndings, the presumed polarity between Jerusalem and Athens as twoopposing ideological and hermeneutic dispositions must be reconsidered,even if only within the limited scope of the current discussion, which never-theless is a central theme in the history of the Abrahamic religions.

The new narrative that emerges is one of how under the inuence of Pla-tonism, Philo, a Jewish interpreter of the Hebrew Bible, wrote in Greek

70 On the possible link between Philo and Jewish medieval mysticism, see Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism , 114 15; Goodenough, Light , 359 69;ElliotR. Wolfson, Traces of Phi-lonic Doctrine in Medieval Jewish Mysticism: A Preliminary Note, Studia Philonica 8 (1996):99 106 and his summary of previous disputes and literature; Yehudah Liebes, Ars Poetica in Sefer Yetsira [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 2000), 111 20, and The Work of the Chariot and the Work of Creation as Esoterical Teachings in Philo of Alexandria, in Scriptural Exegesis: The Shapes of Culture and the Religious Imagination; Essays in Honour of Michael Fishbane , ed. Debo-rah A. Green and Laura Suzanne Lieber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 105 20. Thereis no evidence for any direct inuence of Philo on medieval Jewish and Islamic philosophy; seeSteven Harvey, Islamic Philosophy and Jewish Philosophy, in The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy , ed. Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2005), 349 50.

71 On Neoplatonic mystical tradition, see Plutonis, Enneads , 4.8.1,6.9.9 11, 5.3.17, 5.3.34 37,5.5.10. Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology , 44, suggests the possibility that Philos theory of mystical vision of God might have inuenced Plotinus, who describes at the highest level of spiritual ascension a vision of the light of the One; see, Pierre Hadot, Plotinus; or, The Simplicity of Vision , trans. Michael Chase (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 61 72. On medi-eval Jewish theology and kabbalah, see Wolfson, Through a Speculum ; Afterman, Devequt .

72 See the careful discussion in Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers , 199 200.


195




21/21

about the mystical union of man with God. Christianity would later emergefrom a Jewish and Greek background and assume the central role in devel-oping these themes in a philosophic vein. This vein emerged independently from the Platonic tradition (possibly under Philos inuence) from Plotinusand on through the Middle Ages.

The emergence or perhaps the revival of the ideal of mystical cleavingand union in medieval Judaism and at the same time in the Western Chris-tianity and Arab philosophy was a result of the creative absorption of Araband Latin Neoplatonism. 73 As for medieval Judaism, unio mystica was recon-structed once again through the interpretation of exactly the same key verses from the Torah in light of the Neoplatonic scheme of elevation, illu-mination, and communion/mystical union. 74 If indeed Philos discussionsbore any inuence on the Neoplatonic scheme of mystical union, we might notice a very interesting closure in the way the medieval synthesis betweenPlatonism and Judaism led again to the articulation of a religion focused onmystical intimacy, communion, and mystical union with God.

The most important element that emerged from the medieval synthesis isthe new/ancient idea of mystical communion and unio mystica as a part of afundamental shift in rabbinical Judaism toward a much more spiritual andphilosophical religion. The rst-century synthesis of Platonism and Judaismgave birth originally to the idea of unio mystica , and this idea was born onceagain in medieval Jewish philosophy and kabbalah.

The study of Jewish mysticism has engaged its sources for decades froma methodology of longue dure e , learning of the implicit traditions or ideastransmitted internally through subterranean channels to have emerged only in much later generations. In the case of mystical union, scholars should not marginalize Jewish traditions from antiquity, nor should the works of themedieval Jewish philosophers and mystics be simply conceived of as only another chapter in the reception of Greek traditions but also as late reso-nance of original Jewish traditions, which found their later and fullest expres-sion within the hermeneutic frameworks of medieval Jewish theology andkabbalah.

73 See, e.g., Peter Adamson, Al-Kindi and the Reception of Greek Philosophy, in Adamsonand Taylor, Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy , 32 51; Alexander Altmann, The DelphicMaxim in Medieval Islam and Judaism, and Ibn Bajja on Mans Ultimate Felicity, in Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism , 1 40, 103 7.

74 See Afterman, Devequt ; Altmann andStern, Isaac Israeli ,185 95; Altmann, Delphic Maximin Medieval Islam and Judaism. On interpretation as a commandment for mystical commu-nion and union with God, see Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 45 72.


196

Documents

From Philo to Plotinus Afterman