Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56

Philo of Alexandria and

the Conquest of Canaan
Katell Berthelot
Maison Mditerranenne des Sciences de lHomme, UMR 6125
Centre Paul-Albert Fvrier, 5 rue du chteau de lHorloge,
B.P. 647, 13094 Aix en Provence Cedex 2, France
katell.b@fee.f
Abstract
According to the Torah, the Hebrews were commanded either to expel or to exter-
minate the Canaanites who were living in Canaan at the time of the conquest. Philo
seems to feel rather ill-at-ease about the literal meaning of these biblical passages.
Besides allegory, he uses four hermeneutical strategies: 1) to pass over the problem-
atic texts in silence; 2) to play with the meaning of certain Greek words; 3) to justify
the destruction of the Canaanites from a moral point of view; 4) to rewrite the bibli-
cal account.
Keywords
Philo, conquest, Canaanites, herem, anathema, Hypothetica, apologetics, herme-
neutics
As everybody knows, Philos treatises are devoted almost exclusively to the
interpretation of the Pentateuch. It is thus no surprise that the story of
the conquest of Canaan, which is told mainly in the books of Joshua and
Judges, is only rarely referred to in Philos works. Still, the project of the con-
quest and the commandments pertaining to it are explicitly dealt with in
the books of the Torah, from Genesis to Deuteronomy. The main passages
are Gen 15:16.18-21, Exod 23:23-24.27-33, 33:2 and 34:11-13.15-16,
Lev 18:24-25.27-28 and 20:22-24, Num 21:1-3 and 33:51-56, and fnally
Deut 3:21-22.28, 7:1-6, 8:20, 11:22-25, 12:29-30, 20:16-18 and 31:3-8. All
these passages could have been commented on by Philo, as part of the corpus
he was interpreting. And some of them actually were.
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/157006307X170616
www.brill.nl/jsj
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 39 1/2/07 1:19:15 PM
40 K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56
In the last few years, Louis H. Feldman has published several articles
that have to do with Philos interpretation of the conquest narrative, as
well as a book entitled Remember Amalek!: Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group
Destruction in the Bible according to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus.
1
In his
book and in one of his articles, Feldman specifcally tackles the issue of Phi-
los understanding of the command to destroy the seven nations of Canaan.
But in actual fact, he only analyzes the texts relating to Amalek, Sihon and
Og, and fnally concludes: It is striking that Philo, despite the fact that there
is hardly a commandment that he does not refer to in one way or another in
his numerous essays on passages of the Bible, nowhere paraphrases or refers
at all to any of the several biblical passages (. . .) that mention the command-
ment to eradicate the seven nations of Canaan. Perhaps he found it inconsis-
tent with his tolerance toward non-Jewish religions.
2
Feldman is right in
stating that Philo ofen chooses not to comment on verses that deal with the
commandment to eradicate the Canaanites. On the other hand, he does not
take into account several important Philonic textssuch as De virtutibus
109, De vita Mosis 1.250-254, Quaestiones in Genesim 2.65, De specialibus
legibus 2.168-170 and Hypothetica 6.5-7 (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8)which
lead to a diferent picture altogether.
3
The purpose of this paper is to analyze
these texts and set out Philos readings of the conquest narrative in a more
comprehensive way, especially as far as the issue of the eradication of the
Canaanites is concerned.
One more introductory remark is needed before tackling the texts them-
selves. At frst sight, it seems that Philos favourite reading of the conquest
narrative is allegorical. Egypt represents the body, whereas the Promised
Land symbolizes Wisdom and Virtue.
4
The entrance into the Land is also
said to be an entry into philosophy (QE 2.13).
5
The Canaanite sacred
1)
Philos Interpretation of Joshua, JSP 12/2 (2001): 165-78; The Portrayal of Sihon and
Og in Philo, Pseudo-Philo and Josephus, JJS 53/2 (2002): 264-72; The Command, Accord-
ing to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus, to Annihilate the Seven Nations of Canaan, AUSS
41/1 (2003):13-29; Remember Amalek! (MHUC 31; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College,
2004), 134-46, 183-85.
2)
The Command, 16.
3)
Spec. 2.168-170 and Hypoth. 6.6-7 are taken into account by B. Schaller in his article
Philon von Alexandreia und das Heilige Land (in Fundamenta Judaica. Studien zum anti-
ken Judentum and zum Neuen Testament [ed. L. Doering and A. Steudel; Gttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 2001], 13-27) although in a diferent perspective (showing the importance
of the Land in Philos thought).
4)
See for example Migr. 28 and 151; Her. 293, 313-315; Somn. 2.255.
5)
See Schaller, Philon von Alexandreia, 15.
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 40 1/2/07 1:19:16 PM
K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56 41
pillars that the Hebrews are commanded to destroy are symbolically the
accepted opinions which seem to have been established and frmly sup-
ported. (. . .) some are good (. . .) while there are others which are reprehensi-
ble, and of these it is proftable to cause the destruction (. . .) (QE 2.17,
Marcus, LCL).
6
And so on and so forth.
7
In this paper, however, I shall not
deal with the allegorical reading of the exodus and conquest narrative, but
will focus rather on the literal meaning of the biblical passages, which Philo
rarely considers irrelevant, even when he prefers to proceed to the allegorical
level.
8
Just as the allegorical signifcance of biblical commandments does not
prevent their being understood and applied literally, similarly, the allegorical
interpretation of the conquest narrative does not exclude its literal, historical
reading by Philo, even if he feels uncomfortable about certain aspects of it, as
we shall see. This uneasiness results in four diferent hermeneutical strate-
gies: the frst one, as already (but incompletely) pointed out by Feldman,
consists in passing over the problematic texts in silence; the second one relies
on the possibility of variable meanings for certain Greek words used in the
LXX; the third one involves attempting to justify the destruction of the
Canaanites from a moral point of view; the fourth one is a creative rewriting
of the biblical account.
1. S trategy no . 1: S ilence (D e virtutibus 109 and D e specialibus legibus
4.219-225)
Several passages show that Philo feels somehow ill-at-ease about the literal
meaning of the texts pertaining to the conquest of the Promised Land. For
example, in the Quaestiones in Genesim, when it comes to the meaning of
6)
See also QG 3.17 (unfortunately, the passage is slightly corrupt and difcult to understand;
but the allegorical interpretation of the ten nations is still clear) and QE 2.21-26.
7)
Note that even the story of the malediction of Canaan by Noah (which is a kind of midrash
intended to explain the destruction or the submission of the Canaanites by/to
the children of Israel) is interpreted by Philo in allegorical terms (see QG 2.65, 75-77, 79;
Sobr. 33-48). See below, 3.
8)
As V. Nikiprowetzky writes: Alors que dans le Commentaire allgorique lexplication all-
gorique peut parfois tre invoque pour vacuer un sens littral dapparence mythologique,
donc inadmissible, dans lExposition de la Loi lallgorie est toujours utilise lappui dune
disposition lgale, si bizarre soit-elle en apparence. Lallgorie se maintient constamment
dans les limites dune motivation naturelle des commandements dont elle ne rend jamais la
pratique indsirable ou seulement facultative (Le commentaire de lcriture chez Philon
dAlexandrie [Leiden: Brill, 1977], 202. See also 228-31).
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 41 1/2/07 1:19:16 PM
42 K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56
Gen 15:16 (And they shall come back here in the fourth generation; for
the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete), Philo exceptionally
has no answer of his own. He merely refers to an interpretation given by
those who see in this passage a proof that Moses adhered to the notion of
fate, something he disapproves of, as his commentary of the same verse in
Her. 300 shows. There he solves the problem by explaining the passage in an
allegorical way (see 302-306).
9
In most cases, Philo chooses not to comment on the biblical texts dealing
with the Canaanites and their fate during and afer the conquest. One typical
example is his treatment of Deut 20:15-18, a passage which commands the
eradication of the seven nations of Canaan. In Virt. 109, he writes:
These are the laws which he lays down on the conduct to be observed in accept-
ing settlers, but there are other charitable and very merciful regulations as to the
treatment of enemies in wartime. They must not, he declares, be yet regarded as
enemies, even if they are at the gates or stationed beside the walls in full array
and planting their engines, until envoys have been sent with invitations to peace,
so that if they yield they may obtain the supreme boon of friendship, but if they
refuse to listen and continue their opposition, you may with justice to reinforce
you [or: with justice as an ally] advance to defend yourselves ( ) in
the hope of victory. (Colson, LCL)
This text is clearly inspired by Deut 20, but verses 15-18 are conspicuously
lacking. In this part of the treatise, Philos concern is to show the humane
( philanthrpos) character of the Mosaic laws, and to defend them against
accusations of misanthropy that seem to have been current in Alexandria
at the beginning of the frst century C.E.
10
Hence his decision to avoid
mentioning the section of Deut 20 that commands the annihilation of the
seven nations of Canaan. Obviously, it could be argued that Philo omitted
this passage because this commandment was no longer to be put into prac-
tice, since the Canaanites had disappeared long ago. But Philo also modifes
Deut 20:10-14 in order to present the Jewish nation in a purely defensive
9)
Note that according to A. Terian, the Quaestiones were composed and written by Philo
before the Allegoriae. The comparison of Philos commentary of Gen 15:16 in Quaestiones in
Genesim and Quis rerum divinarum heres sit seems to corroborate Terians conclusion. See the
introduction to the Quaestiones in Exodum (Paris: Cerf, 1992), 27-51.
10)
See K. Berthelot, Philanthrpia judaica. Le dbat autour de la misanthropie des lois juives
dans lAntiquit (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 150-53 (about Apion) and 265-300 (on Philos
De Virtutibus).
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 42 1/2/07 1:19:16 PM
K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56 43
position vis--vis its enemies. Whereas Deut 20:10-14 stipulates how Israel
should behave when it attacks a foreign city outside Canaan, Philo describes
a wholly diferent situation, that of a foreign invasion of Israels land by out-
siders. The enemies are described as standing at the gates, which means that
they are besieging an Israelite town. And the Israelites are only supposed to
fght in order to defend themselves (as shown by the words ).
These modifcations prove that the whole passage is not devoid of apologetic
considerations.
11
Similarly, in the section of the De specialibus legibus that deals with justice,
when Philo discusses the laws addressed to the whole nation concerning its
relationship with its enemies, he avoids referring to Deut 20:15-18, and
focuses on Deut 20:10-14 and 19-20. This passage of the De specialibus legi-
bus is not devoid of apologetic aspects either. Philo, who views the children
of Israel as a peaceful people, considers that the city attacked by the Israelites
is in fact an ally who, in betraying the alliance, deserves punishment (see
Spec. 4.219). He avoids explaining that according to Deut 20:11, if the for-
eign city asks for peace, its population shall be subjected to the Israelites and
do forced labour for them, and merely states that the Israelites are to accept
the peace treaty (221).
12
In fact it seems that the allies mentioned by Philo
are already subjects, since they are described as people who revolt, literally
who cast of the yoke () (220). Conversely, if the city does
not agree to make peace with the Israelites, Deut 20:12-14 commands Israel
to attack and destroy it, to slaughter the men and to capture the women and
children, as part of the booty. According to Philo, since the lives of the
women and children are spared, these Deuteronomic laws clearly show that:
the Jewish nation is ready for agreement and friendship with all like-minded
nations whose intentions are peaceful, yet is not of the contemptible kind which
11)
In her recent book, Maren Niehof has rightly underlined that Philos writings have too
systematically been understood as apologetic, and drawn attention to the fact that in Antiq-
uity, each author wrote for his immediate friends and intellectual community (Philo on
Jewish Identity and Culture [Tbingen: Mohr, 2001], 13). But it is probable that Philo had a
few friends among the Greek and Roman intellectuals of Alexandria, to whom he could give
his works to read. Moreover, apologetic works may be intended not only for an external audi-
ence, but for an internal one as well. Thus, to label part of Philos works as apologetic does not
prevent from understanding them as intended also for a Jewish audience.
12)
F.H. Colson laconically comments: Verse 11 they shall become tributary and serve thee,
which Philo much sofens down (LCL, 5th ed.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989,
8:146).
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 43 1/2/07 1:19:17 PM
44 K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56
surrenders through cowardice to wrongful aggression. When it takes up arms
it distinguishes between those whose life is one of hostility and the reverse.
For to breathe slaughter against all, even those who have done very little or
nothing amiss, shows what I should call a savage and brutal soul, and the same
may be said of counting women, whose life is naturally peaceful and domestic,
to be accessories to men who have brought about the war. (224-225, Colson,
LCL)
Interestingly enough, in this context Philo does not say a word of the biblical
herem against the Canaanites, which implies killing even the women and the
children, and roughly corresponds to the slaughter against all he vehe-
mently condemns.
If Philo felt the need to modify Deut 20:10-14 in order to present the
Mosaic laws about enemies as just and humane, then this is all the more so
concerning vv.15-18. Philos way of dealing with Deut 20 thus clearly shows
that he felt uncomfortable about the command to eradicate the Canaanites.
But his answer to this exegetical challenge did not consist solely in passing
over the problematic texts in silence.
2. S trategy no . 2: P laying on G reek Words
First, it must be underlined that Philo does not systematically avoid referring
to the biblical verses which command getting rid of the Canaanites.
13
In his
historical account of the events of the life of Moses, Philo paraphrases the
speech Moses addressed to the children of Gad and Reuben, who were
allowed to settle in Transjordan, but obliged to fght with their brothers in
Canaan (Num 32), in the following terms:
When all the enemies are destroyed (
), and there is no prospect of war still awaiting us, (. . .) when
fnally the whole country has been cleared of its former inhabitants (
), then will the prizes and rewards for
valour be given to the tribes on equal terms. (Mos. 1.327, Colson, LCL)
14
13)
Or to the promise by God to expel or destroy these nations; see for example QE 2.22-23,
Congr. 119, Praem. 96.
14)
See also Mos. 1.332: (. . .).
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 44 1/2/07 1:19:17 PM
K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56 45
The idea that the land should be cleared of its former inhabitants is ambig-
uous, since it could mean that they were simply expelled, and not killed.
However, the verb can have a stronger meaning. And in Isa 11:15
LXX, it corresponds to the Hebrew verb yrjhl, which in this case is trans-
lated in the NRSV by utterly destroy.
15
In any case, the use of the verb
leaves no doubt: the Canaanites are to be killed, not just expelled.
This corresponds to Num 32:21 LXX, which states that the Lord will exter-
minate () his enemies.
16
Although the Lord will be fghting on behalf
of his people, the tribes of Gad and Reuben are commanded to join their
brothers to fght the Canaanites, implying that God will not give the victory
without men participating in the fght and killing the enemies. Thus, in this
passage Philo does refer to the command to annihilate the Canaanites, or at
least to the fact that the Canaanites are to be annihilated by the Hebrews
with the help of God.
Strangely enough, although Feldman focuses his attention on the De vita
Mosis, he does not refer to Moses discourse in Mos. 1.327, nor to another
interesting passage that tackles even more directly the issue of the herem
against the Canaanites, namely Philos rewriting of Num 21:1-3 (in Mos.
1.250-254). Even before entering the Promised Land, the Hebrews encoun-
ter a hostile Canaanite king, who is said to be king of Arad in the MT, and
who attacks them. As a consequence, the Hebrews promise to devote the
Canaanites and their cities to God if He gives them victory. God agrees to
answer their prayer and grants them victory. Finally, afer having utterly
destroyed (yrjhl, ) the Canaanites, the children of Israel call
the place Horma (MT)/Anathema (LXX). For sure, the herem may in this
case be seen as Israels initiative, and not as Gods command. But it is approved
by God. Moreover, the depiction of the king of Arad and his people as
Canaanites implies that their fate is in accordance with the fate that awaits
the other Canaanite tribes. How does Philo deal with the episode? He
re-writes the story in the following words:
While they thus exhorted each other, they vowed to devote () to
God the cities of the king and the citizens in each as frst fruits of the land (
), and God, assenting to their prayers, and inspiring courage
into the Hebrews, caused the army of the enemy to fall into their hands. 253.
15)
In Jer 25:9 LXX, yrjhl is translated by .
16)
The MT (wynpm wybya ta wyrwh d[) speaks only of dispossessing them.
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 45 1/2/07 1:19:18 PM
46 K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56
Having thus captured them by the might of their assault, in fulflment of their
vows of thank-ofering, they took none of the spoil for themselves, but dedi-
cated () the cities, men and treasures alike, and marked the fact
by naming the whole kingdom Devoted (). 254. For, just as every
pious person gives frst fruits of the years produce (
), whatever he reaps from his own possession, so too the whole nation
set apart the kingdom which they took at the outset, and thus gave ()
a great slice of the great country into which they were migrating as the frst fruits
of their settlement ( ). For they judged it irreligious
to distribute the land or the cities (in order) to inhabit (them) until they had
made a frstfruit ofering of the land and the cities (
). (Mos. 1.252-254, Colson, LCL (slightly modifed))
In the Greek world, an is an object dedicated to a deity, generally
in a temple, such as a statue, a tripod, and so on. The dedicated object may in
no way be given back to a human being, but it is never destroyed. On the
contrary, it is carefully kept in the temple.
17
It is thus striking that the transla-
tors of the LXX chose to translate rjwhich generally implies the com-
plete destruction of the things dedicatedby .
18
In the Bible, there
is hardly a doubt (especially in the Torah and in Joshua) that the herem
against the Canaanites implies their complete destruction, including that of
the women and children. Hence there is no ambiguity about the meaning of
anathema in these contexts. However, Philos use of the term is
similar to that of Greek writers. In Philos works, it generally means votive
17)
See J. Rudhardt: (. . .) le rite consiste dans lacte de prendre un objet, de le poser, de le
dresser, de le suspendre sur un monument ou dans un lieu consacr. (. . .) Les sont
des : la dposition de lobjet dans un temple ou dans un lieu consacr lui confre
la qualit de (Notions fondamentales de la pense religieuse et actes constitutifs du culte
dans la Grce classique [2nd ed.; Paris: Picard, 1992], 214-15).
18)
The diferent spellings do not matter in Greek. The LXX favors the spelling , but
there are two cases in which rj is translated by (in Deut 7:26). On the notion of
rj, see P.D. Stern, The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israels Religious Experience (BJS 211;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991); S. Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of
Violence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 28-77; R.D. Nelson, Herem and Deutero-
nomic Social Conscience, in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. Festschrif C.H.W.
Brekelmans (eds. M. Vervenne and J. Lust; Leuven: Leuven University PressPeeters, 1997),
39-54; A. Lemaire, Le herem dans le monde nord-ouest smitique, in Guerre et conqute dans
le Proche-Orient ancien (Paris: J. Maisonneuve, 1999), 79-92; Y. Hofman, The Deuteron-
omistic Concept of the Herem, ZAW 111 (1999): 196-210.
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 46 1/2/07 1:19:18 PM
K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56 47
ofering, and refers to things or people that are consecrated to God without
being destroyed. In Decal. 133, Philo even writes that murderers are looting
the temple of God, because they deprive Him of the most magnifcent and
sacred ofering (), a human being. In this text, it is thus the living
human being that is an anathema pleasing to God, whereas the killing of a
human being (which is generally implied by the biblical herem/anathema)
deprives God of this ofering. When Philo combines the terminology of
anathema (including the verb ) with that of the frst fruits,
19
there
is no idea of destruction either. According to Prob. 15, for example, young
people should dedicate the frst fruits of the fower of their prime above all
else to culture (
) (Colson, LCL). Obviously, it does not mean that they have to
destroy or waste their youth (quite the opposite is meant). In Spec. 2.134,
Philo evokes the frst-born sons of the Hebrews in Egypt, who were dedi-
cated by consecration as a thank-ofering to God (
) (Colson, LCL), whereas the frstborns of the Egyp-
tians were killed (Exod 11-12). The frstborns of the Israelites are then
described as frst fruits ().
20
But according to the Torah, the rule to
consecrate the frst-born sons to God does not imply their destruction.
21
Then, is Mos. 1.252-254 an exception? At frst it seems that Philo is excep-
tionally using the term as in Num 21:1-3 LXX, in which it implies
the destruction of the Canaanites.
22
But is this really the case? A closer look
at the text shows that there is no hint at the killing of the Canaanites. In
particular, the verb (to consecrate) used in 253 does not imply
the idea of destruction. Somebody not familiar with the meaning of anath-
ema in the Bible could not infer from Philos text that the Canaanites were
utterly destroyed. Philo only insists on the fact that [the Hebrews] took
19)
This association is also to be found in the Greek world. See for example Isaeus, On the
Estate of Dicaeogenes 42.
20)
In Spec. 1.137-140, Philo deals with the rule to consecrate the frst-borns to God
and also compares them with the frst fruits. The verb used for consecrate is
(see 138).
21)
See Exod 13:1-2.11-15; Num 3:40-51; Deut 15:19-23. On the issue of child sacrifce in
ancient Israel, see Th. Rmer, Le sacrifce humain en Juda et Isral au premier millnaire
avant notre re, ARG 1/1 (1999), 16-26.
22)
This is the only passage in Philos works in which he writes (with ) and not
. This is to be explained by the presence of the noun in the biblical verse
he is commenting on.
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 47 1/2/07 1:19:19 PM
48 K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56
none of the spoil for themselves, and apparently this is all that is inferred
from the name and the act of dedication. It fts both the biblical
and the Greek meaning of the term , but leaves the biblical notion
of destruction out. Moreover, Philos association of this anathema with the
frst fruits of the land sounds strange. Does it not imply that the rest of the
land of Canaan (with its cities and inhabitants) will be kept by the Israelites
as their own? But in the book of Deuteronomy, God commands the Israelites
to dedicate (yrjhl, ) all the Canaanites, not only the group
Israel encounters before crossing the Jordan. Conversely, Philos terminology
suggests that the anathema described in Num 21:1-3 is a one-of event,
and that the following stages of the conquest will work out diferently. So, in
Mos. 1.252-254, Philo interprets the biblical text freely, by playing on the
meaning of the Greek word . He keeps the idea of dedication to a
god, but omits the connotation of destruction that characterizes the use of
the term in the LXX (at least in Num 21:1-3). Finally, he introduces the
metaphor of the frst fruits, which helps him to emphasize the piety of Israel.
This interpretation is corroborated by Mos. 1.259, in which Philo recalls that
in their frst encounter with the Canaanites, the Hebrews had captured
their enemies with abundant ease, while they lef the spoil untouched in their
eagerness to dedicate the frst prizes to God (
) (Colson, LCL). Philos use of the verb (to
capture) instead of a verb meaning to kill or to destroy, is signifcant,
especially in view of his use of in 261, when he describes the fate
of the Amorites. It leaves us with a question Philo does not answer: in which
way were the Canaanites and their territory dedicated to God? This is a
difcult question. In Greek literature, it is possible to imagine that the goods
of a whole city be dedicated to a god, at least theoretically.
23
A territory may
also be dedicated to a god; it generally means that it cannot be cultivated
anymore (except by the priests serving the deity, in certain cases).
24
Finally, a
person may also be said to be dedicated to a god; then he/she serves in the
temple of the deity.
25
Thus, the only way the Canaanites could be dedicated
to God without being put to death is by becoming slaves of God, in a way
that would make them be in His service and depend directly on Him. But, as
23)
See Aristotle, Oeconomica 1346 a-b.
24)
See Thucydides 3.104.2; Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon 107-109.
25)
See Euripides Ion, for instance.
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 48 1/2/07 1:19:20 PM
K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56 49
already said, Philo does not dwell on this issue, and contents himself with
omitting any allusion to the killing of the Canaanites.
3. Strategy no. 3: Moral Justifcation (Quaestiones in Genesim 2.65 and
De specialibus legibus 2.168-170)
Within the Scriptures themselves, a passage from Genesis tries to explain
the expulsion or annihilation of the Canaanites by the children of Israel
through a kind of midrash that recounts the malediction of Canaan by Noah
(Gen 9:18-27). Philo is aware of the explanatory function of this biblical pas-
sage, as QG 2.65 clearly shows. There he writes, concerning the literal mean-
ing of Gen 9:18-19:
(. . .) it may be that (Scripture) foretells to those who are able to see from afar
what is distant with the sharp-sighted eyes of the mind that He will take away
the land of the Canaanites afer many generations and give it to the chosen and
god-beloved race. And so (Scripture) wishes to show that Canaan, the ruler and
inhabitant of that country, practised peculiar evils of his own, as well as those of
his father, so that from both sides his ignobility and low-born alienness are
shown. (Marcus, LCL)
According to this passage, the unhappy fate of the Canaanites is connected
to the sins of their ancestor. However, the biblical text hardly refers to evil
deeds committed by Canaan himself, as Philo correctly notices in another
treatise, in which he writes: (. . .) the person cursed is not the apparent sin-
ner, Noahs son, but that sons son, Noahs grandson, though up to this point
no clear wrongdoing great or small on his part has been indicated by Moses
(Sobr. 31). QG 2.65 paradoxically shows that Philo is bothered by the idea
that an innocent child may be punished for the sin of his father.
26
He needs
Canaan to be a sinner in order to preserve the justice of Noah, who curses his
grandson instead of his son. This is why Philo considers the insertion of the
sentence Ham was the father of Canaan in Gen 9:18 an allusion to the fact
that Canaan joined in the evil deeds of his father. And for good measure, he
then adds that Canaan practised peculiar evils of his own.
26)
The importance of this idea in Philos thought is rightly underlined by Feldman, The
Command, 15. In Spec. 3.153-168, Philo deals at length with this issue, reminding his reader
of Deut 24:16 (The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children
be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin).
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 49 1/2/07 1:19:20 PM
50 K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56
The justifcation of the conquest provided by the story of Canaan in Gen-
esis is indeed problematic from a moral point of view. Thus, in a passage
from a later treatise (Spec. 2.168-170), Philo resorts to a diferent argument,
found mainly in the book of Deuteronomy, that can be summarized as fol-
lows: the Canaanites were to be destroyed because of their abominable reli-
gious practices, which included child sacrifce, an act so cruel that it could
only be performed by inhuman people who deserved death.
27
In the context
of his discussion of the Feast of the Sheaf (Lev 23:9-14), Philo writes that the
people of Israel give thanks to God because, at the time of the conquest,
it was no uninhabited land which they received, but one which contained a
populous nation and great cities flled with stalwart citizens. Yet these cities
have been stripped of their inhabitants and the whole nation, except for a small
fraction, has disappeared, partly through wars, partly through heavenly visita-
tions, a consequence of their strange and monstrous practices of iniquity and all
their heinous acts of impiety aimed at the subversion of the statutes of nature.
(Spec. 2.170, Colson, LCL)
This passage refects the Deuteronomic perspective: Canaanites were killed,
28

not expelled, and this was due to their iniquities and impiety. The subver-
sion of the statutes of nature certainly refers to the sacrifce of ones children,
not only because of the Deuteronomic infuence on Philo in this specifc
context, but also because of the way this expression is used in other Philonic
texts such as Opif. 171 and Decal. 132. It must be underlined that in other
contexts, Philo prefers to understand the reference to child sacrifce in an
allegorical way.
29
Thus, he writes in Spec. 1.312-313:
27)
See Deut 18:9-13 and 12:31, as well as Lev 18:26-30, in which the same argument is put
forward. Conversely, Gen 15:16 does not specify what the iniquity of the Amorites consists
of. Other texts from the Torah (such as Exod 23:28-31, Lev 20:23 and Num 33:52-55) only
mention the expulsion of the Canaanites, and do not refer to their practice of child sacrifce.
For a comprehensive analysis of these texts, see M. Weinfeld, The Ban on the Canaanites in
the Biblical Codes, in History and Traditions of Early Israel (SVT 50; Leiden: Brill, 1993),
142-60. On the reception of the Deuteronomic argument in Second Temple Judaism, see
K. Berthelot, Ils jettent au feu leurs fls et leurs flles pour leurs dieux: une justifcation
humaniste du massacre des Cananens dans les textes juifs anciens?, RB 112/2 (2005):
161-91.
28)
The verb is used.
29)
For a more detailed analysis of the issue of child sacrifce in Philos thought, including
his treatment of Gen 22, see A. Reinhartz, Philo on Infanticide, SPhA 4 (1992): 42-58;
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 50 1/2/07 1:19:21 PM
K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56 51
(. . .) So if we are victorious over our enemies, let us not afect their impious ways
in which they think to show their piety by burning their sons and daughters to
their gods. This does not mean that all the outside nations have a custom of giv-
ing their children to the fre. They have not become so savage in nature as to
bring themselves to do in peace to their nearest and dearest what they would not
do in wartime to their enemies in the feld or to the objects of their implacable
hatred. Rather the words refer to that consuming fre in which they veritably
destroy the souls of their ofspring right from the cradle by failing to imprint on
their still tender souls truth-giving conceptions of the one, the truly existent
God (. . .). (Colson, LCL)
In short, Philos implicit reference to Canaanite child sacrifce in Spec. 2.170
has an apologetic character, which becomes even clearer when one considers
his argumentation about the universal character of the ofering in 162-
167, which ends with the following remark:
It astonishes me to see that some people venture to accuse of inhumanity (our)
nation ( ), which has
shewn so profound a sense of fellowship and goodwill to all men everywhere
(
), by using its prayers and festivals and frst-fruit oferings as a means
of supplication for the human race in general and of making its homage to the
truly existent God in its own name and in the name of those who have evaded
the service which it was their duty to give (167).
On the one hand, Philo is concerned to show that the command to eradicate
the nations of Canaan does not undermine or contradict the justice of God;
on the other hand, he seeks to refute and to confound those who accuse the
Jews of misanthrpia.
30
But a difculty remains: even if the adult Canaanites
M.R. Niehof, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture, 164-74; K. Berthelot, Jewish
Views of Human Sacrifce in the Hellenistic and Roman Period, in Human Sacrifce in
Ancient Mediterranean Religion and Later Recurrences (ed. A. Lange et al.; Leiden: Brill,
2006), forthcoming.
30)
On this aspect of Philos works, see P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria. An Exegete for his Time
(Leiden: Brill, 1997), 243-60; Berthelot, Philanthrpia judaica. Le dbat autour de la misan-
thropie des lois juives dans lAntiquit, 233-321; id., Ils jettent au feu, 186-88. See
also Spec. 3.110, about Exod 21:22-23. There Philo writes that the lawgiver prohibits the
exposure of infants, a sacrilegious practice which among many other nations, through their
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 51 1/2/07 1:19:21 PM
52 K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56
deserved to be put to death because of their abominable practices, what
about the little children, who were innocent victims, and should not have
been slaughtered with their parents?
31
In view of Philos stand in Spec. 3.153-
168, in which he echoes Deut 24:16 (The fathers shall not be put to death
for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers), this
is a serious problem, and may explain why Philo resorted to the Deutero-
nomic argument only once in his works.
4. Strategy no. 4: Creative Rewriting of the Biblical Account
(Hypothetica 6.5-7)
In a treatise that is considered one of the latest and most apologetic works of
Philo, the Hypothetica,
32
the Alexandrian exegete makes use of a completely
diferent strategy. The book starts with a brief survey of Israels history, from
Abraham to the conquest of the Promised Land. Afer having recalled the
events of the exodus, Philo writes:
5. So much for the story of the migration. But when they came to this land the
holy records show clearly how they established themselves there and occupied
the country. Yet in discussing the probable facts of this occupation I think it
better to go not so much by the historical narrative ( ) as by what
our reason ( ) tells us about them. 6. Which alternative do
you prefer? Were they still superior in the number of their fghting men though
they had fared so ill to the end, still strong and with weapons in their hand, and
did they then take the land by force, defeating the combined Syrians and Phoe-
nicians when fghting in their own country? Or shall we suppose that they were
unwarlike and feeble, quite few in numbers and destitute of warlike equipment,
but won the respect of their opponents who voluntarily surrendered their land
ingrained inhumanity ( ), has come to be regarded with
complacence. In the same passage, parents who kill their children are accused of misanthrpia
(112).
31)
Compare with Mos. 1.311.
32)
See J. Bernays, Philons Hypothetika und die Verwnschungen des Buzyges in Athen, in
Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Berlin: W. Hertz, 1885), 1:262-82; B. Motzo, Le
di Filone, in Ricerche sulla letteratura e la storia giudaico-ellenistica (Rome: Centro Editoriale
Internazionale, 1977), 581-98, esp 589-90; G.E. Sterling, Philo and the Logic of Apologet-
ics: An Analysis of the Hypothetica, SBL 1990 Seminar Papers (ed. D.J. Lull; Atlanta: Scholar
Press, 1990), 412-30; Schaller, Philon von Alexandreia, 24-25; K. Berthelot, Philanthrpia
judaica, 301-14.
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 52 1/2/07 1:19:22 PM
K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56 53
to them and that as a direct consequence they shortly aferwards built their
temple and established everything else needed for religion and worship? 7. This
would clearly show that they were acknowledged as dearly beloved of God even
by their enemies. For those whose land they suddenly invaded with the inten-
tion of taking it from them were necessarily their enemies. (Colson, LCL)
Philos question to his reader is rhetorical, and he obviously believes that the
second solution is more likely. The respect () shown by the Canaan-
ites can be interpreted as a kind of reverent fear, linked to the Hebrews frst
victories against their enemies in the desert. In this case, they are acknowl-
edged as dearly beloved of God because of the victories He gave to them.
This interpretation has a good biblical basis. But if one takes Philos argu-
ment seriously, one may doubt that he had the military victories of the book
of Numbers in mind,
33
because his rational criticism could apply to them
too. Alternately, if one understands as compassion, the sentence
could mean that God inspired the Canaanites to pity the wandering Hebrews
and welcome them in a hospitable manner. But in 8, Philo writes that the
Hebrews got respect and honour ( and ) from the Canaanites.
Hence, the word in 6 should rather be interpreted as carrying
the connotation of admiration. The preceding and following paragraphs
(2-4 and 8-9) show that in this historical summary, focused on Moses,
Philo was especially concerned to demonstrate the perfection of the Mosaic
Law and to defend Moses against people who accused him of being an impos-
tor and a deceitful person (2). Thus it seems to me that Philo tries his best
to convince his readers that all peopleHebrew and Canaanite alike
acknowledged Moses authority and the inspired character of the laws given
through him.
This interpretation may be corroborated by a passage of the Quaestiones
in Exodum in which Philo comments on Exod 23:27, and tries to answer the
question: What is the meaning of the words, I will terrify all the nations
into which you will come?
The (expression) I will terrify in the literal sense is equivalent to I will strike
with fear, which He earlier spoke of sending down for the destruction of their
adversaries force, for fear is the cause of weakness. In the second place, He seems
to bear testimony to the surpassing virtue of the nation in that it would convert
33)
See for example Num 21:1-3.21-35.
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 53 1/2/07 1:19:22 PM
54 K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56
not only its own (members) but also its enemies (Secundo virtutem amplam
videtur nationi testifcari, quod non suos tantum, sed etiam inimicos convertat);
and by enemies I mean not only those who commit acts of war but also those
who are heterodox. (Marcus, LCL)
When Philo writes In the second place, he is still dealing with the literal
meaning of the verse. Only later on does he discuss its deeper meaning.
Although the literal meaning of the expression I will terrify seems plain,
Philo interprets it in two diferent ways. Not only will God inspire fear in the
enemies of Israel, but the virtue of the people of God will be acknowledged
even by them, who will be converted. The exact signifcance of this con-
version is far from clear. Will they be convinced of the superiority of the
Mosaic constitution? Will they ask to join the people of Israel? Or simply
repent from their hostility towards them? The text does not provide a clear
answer to these questions. But the frst possibility is highly probable, since
Philo extends the signifcance of the biblical text to a more general situation,
that of people who will abandon their foreign opinions or beliefs once they
have been convinced of the truth of the religion of Israel. This elliptical
passage becomes more signifcant when compared to Hypoth. 6.5-7, which it
seems to foreshadow. Moreover, it confrms the interpretation of respect in
Hypoth. 6.6 as a kind of admiration (perhaps mingled with fear), implying
roughly that the Canaanites recognized the election of Israel and the truth of
the Mosaic laws, and possibly adopted the Israelites way of life.
In Hellenistic literature, there seems to be a parallel to Philos rewriting of
the biblical account in the Hypothetica. The idea that the Hebrews settled in
the country in a peaceful way, and rallied the natives to their political and
religious project (or, in Philos terms, won their respect), is to be found in
Strabos Geography. For sure, Hecataeus of Abdera already describes Judaea as
a country without inhabitants, so that the Hebrews logically settle in Judaea
without fghting.
34
Similarly, Strabo, who probably depends on the Stoic phi-
losopher Posidonius of Apamea,
35
writes that Moses easily took possession of
the place which was to become Judaea, since it was not a place that would be
34)
See Diodorus 40.3.2-3; M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism ( Jerusa-
lem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974), 1:26-28.
35)
See B. Bar-Kochba, Mosaic Judaism and Judaism of the Second Temple PeriodThe
Jewish Ethnography of Strabo, Tarbiz 66/3 (1997): 297-336; K. Berthelot, Poseidonios
dApame et les Juifs, JSJ 34/2 (2003): 160-98. Posidonius certainly knew Hecataeus excur-
sus on the Jews.
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 54 1/2/07 1:19:23 PM
K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56 55
looked on with envy, nor yet one for which anyone would make a serious
fght, because it was rocky, and its surrounding territory barren and water-
less. But Strabo/Posidonius adds that the people all round, one and all, came
over to [Moses], because of his dealings with them and of the prospects he
held out to them (16.2.36),
36
a detail which on the one hand is lacking in
Hecataeus, and on the other hand sounds similar to Philos argument. Did
Philo know about this text? Was he infuenced by it? Although this possibil-
ity can not be ruled out, in my view the similarities between the two texts
are not strong enough to infer from them a direct infuence of Strabo/
Posidonius on Philo. Contrary to the Greek ethnographers, Philo, who else-
where proudly recalls that the Hebrews received a country which contained
a populous nation and great cities (Spec. 1.170), does not write that the
country was empty. Quite the opposite is true, since in his view the reaction
of the natives is in itself a proof of Israels election and of Moses worthiness
as Israels leader. Overall, Philos account is much more faithful to the biblical
story than that of the Greek ethnographers, and relies on a rational argument
that is totally missing in Strabo/Posidonius, because of the latters lack of
knowledge of the biblical text behind the story and his diferent ideological
agenda.
In the Hypothetica, Philos understanding of the settlement in the Prom-
ised Land is thus both original and personal.
37
The freedom with which he
modifes the biblical account is striking. This passage shows that Philo took
the literal, historical meaning of the conquest narrative seriously, but could
simultaneously criticize some aspects of the biblical account by introducing
rational arguments.
Although the story of the conquest is only a marginal topic in Philos
works, a systematic analysis of his writings shows that he is one of the boldest
and most creative Jewish interpreters of the biblical texts dealing with the
conquest of Canaan (at least as far as the Second Temple period is con-
cerned). Philo is aware of several theological, ethical and political problems
set by the biblical texts in the context of the frst century C.E. In particular,
36)
See Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 1:300.
37)
Schaller writes: Philon entpuppt sich hier geradezu als Apologet der Landnahme. Wie
weit er mit seinen Erwgungen wirklich erhobenen oder mglichen Einwnden gegen die
Landnahme begegnen will, oder ob es ihm wesentlich darum geht, am Beispiel der Land-
nahme den besonderen Charakter Israels als eines idealen Friedenvolkes zu veranschaulichen,
ist schwer zu entscheiden (Philon von Alexandreia, 19).
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 55 1/2/07 1:19:23 PM
56 K. Berthelot / Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 39-56
and contrary to what Feldman claims, he does tackle the issue of the com-
mand to eradicate the seven nations of Canaan. Moreover, Philo does not
merely choose to give an allegorical interpretation of the biblical passages
pertaining to the Canaanites. He develops several hermeneutical and apolo-
getical strategies in order to deal with the literal meaning of the verses com-
manding or predicting the eradication of the Canaanites, and these strategies
also aim at refuting the charges of misanthropy levelled against the Jews by
contemporary pagan authors. In this context, Philo tackles the issue of the
historical reality of the conquest at least once (a quite unique attempt at
that time). He is in fact the frst Jewish exegete to question the biblical
account of the conquest and to propose a diferent historical scenario (in the
Hypothetica).
JSJ 38,1_f4_39-56 56 1/2/07 1:19:24 PM