2012_l_roig_lanzillotta_-_plut_1

892019 2012_L_Roig_Lanzillotta_-_Plut_1

httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2012lroiglanzillotta-plut1 118

PLUTARCHrsquoS IDEA OF GOD IN THE RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT OF LATE ANTIQUITY

Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta

In a curious passage in The Malice of Herodotus Plutarch criticizes Herodo-tusrsquo renowned statement that the divinity is πν φθονερν τε κα ταραχδε

According to the standard translation and interpretation Plutarch is react-

ing against a view of the divinity as ldquoutterly envious and always ready toconfound usrdquo which Herodotus maliciously attributes to Solon Plutarchintended to demonstrate that by using the statesman as ldquoa mouthpiece torevile the godsrdquo Herodotus was in fact ldquocombining blasphemy with malicerdquo

SofarsogoodbutasurprisingfootnoteinPearsonandSandbachrsquosLoebedi-tion strikes us as odd as they state that Solonrsquos attitude towards the gods asreported by Herodotus was not that unusual and that it ldquoappears constantly inGreekliteraturerdquo Such an assertionimmediately raises several questions

Did Solon ever hold such a view Did it really appear as often in Greek lit-erature as these scholars seem to assume If it did why accuse Herodotusof blasphemy and malice and given that Pearson and Sandbach seem toexonerate Herodotus of ldquomalicerdquo (κακοθεια) should the blame then be puton Plutarch

In order to give a proper answer to these questions in the followingpages I intend to analyze Plutarchrsquos idea of God with a view to understand-ing the stumbling block to his religious spirit that determined his attack onHerodotus As it will be argued when criticizing Herodotus Plutarch had

See Hdt 132 Plu De Her malig857Fndash858AEnglishtranslationaccordingtoLPearsonampFHSand-

bach Plutarchrsquos Moralia in Sixteen Volumes XI (LondonndashCambridge 1965) Muntildeoz GallarteldquoTyche and Determinism in the meeting of Solo and Croesus of Lydiardquo (forthcoming) rightly observes that AJ Bowenrsquos translation Plutarch The Malice of Herodotus (de Malignitate Herodoti ) (Wiltshire 1992) 33 seems to force the meaning of β983995ασφηmicroα and its historical

semantic development Pearson amp Sandbach Plutarchrsquos Moralia XI 29 note f Also Bowen The Malice 112 JM Dillon ldquoPlutarch and God Theodicy and Cosmogony in the Thought of Plutarchrdquo

in D Frede amp A Laks (eds) Traditions of Theology Studies in Hellenistic Theology its Back- ground and Aftermath (Leiden 2002) 223ndash237 FE Brenk ldquoPlutarchrsquos Middle-Platonic God



138

something other than the so-called ldquoenvy of the godsrdquo in mind I will rstreview the traditional interpretation of Herodotusrsquo τ θεον πν φθονερν τε

κα ταραχδε which may provide in the rst place a plausible explana-tion for Plutarchrsquos seeming inconsistency The comparative analysis of The Malice of Herodotus and other Plutarchean passages will then help us clarify Plutarchrsquos idea of god and the reasons behind his attack on Herodotus I willthen proceed to contextualize Plutarchrsquos views rstly by comparing themto Platonic receptions of Tim 29E and secondly by contrasting them withChristian and Gnostic Christian discussions that explicitly reject the possi-bility that God might be envious Finally I will draw some conclusions andofer a coherent interpretation of Plutarchrsquos criticism

1 Plutarchrsquos Idea of God and Herodotusrsquo Malice

As already intimated the traditional interpretation of Plutarchrsquos passage of The Malice of Herodotus seems to pose serious problems to the interpreter According to the standard reading Plutarch is attacking Herodotusrsquo concep-tion of the ldquoenvy of the godsrdquo The problem is that this view was allegedly so widespread that it might even be seen to be distinctive of Greek culture

Thus either Plutarch is unjustly accusing Herodotus or he is referring tosomething other than that considered by many interpreters

InrelationtotheviewofPearsonandSandbachevenasupercialsurvey of the texts shows their position to be barely tenable On the one hand notasinglepassageofthepreservedSoloniancorpusatteststothenotionoftheφθνοθενwhileontheotherhandasIhaveshownelsewheretheanalysisof the pertinent texts traditionally adduced as proof of so-called divine envy reveals clear signs of overinterpretation according to a preconceived idea of

the Greek gods

In fact it is my contention that no literary or philosophicaltext from Homer to Aristotle provides clear evidence of a belief in thealleged ldquoenvy of the godsrdquo

As a matter of fact the diculty in understanding what the Greeks actu-ally meant by φθνο θεν has to date produced four diferent hermeneuticapproaches to the issue

About to Enter (Or Remake) the Academyrdquo in R Hirsch-Luipold (ed) Gott und Die Goumltter

Bei Plutarch GoumltterbildermdashGottesbildermdashWeltbilder (Berlin 2005) 27ndash49 L Roig Lanzillotta La envidia en el pensamiento griego De la eacutepoca arcaica al helenismo(Diss Universidad Complutense Madrid 1997)

See L Roig Lanzillotta lsquoThe So-called Envy of the Gods Revisiting a Dogma of AncientGreek Religionrsquo in J Dijkstra et al (eds) Myths Martyrsand Modernity Studies in the History



rsquo 139

a) According to the rst oldest anthropomorphic interpretation theφθνο θεν is a normal human projection of feelings experienced in

human relationships onto the gods

b) According to the second moral-religious perspective it is the pun-ishment that gods inict on those who transcend human measure inother words retribution which could be better described as νmicroεσι orldquorighteous indignationrdquo

c) From an egalitarian viewpoint in the third place divine φθνο isthe result of the godsrsquo intervention so that nothing may trespass themeasures that regulate the aurea mediocritas of the Greek polis

d) The fourth approach resorts to the inveterate Mediterranean supersti-

tion of the evil eye as an explanation for φθνο θεν

ofReligionsinHonourofJanNBremmer (Leiden 2010) 75ndash93 All four approaches can also befound in T Rakoczy Boumlser Blick Macht des Auges und Neid der Goumltter Eine Untersuchung zur Kraft des Blickes in der griechischen Literatur (Tuumlbingen 1996) 247ndash260 (247ndash254) howeverhe personally applies the fourth to this issue

See for example K Lehrs ldquoVorstellung der Griechen uumlber den Neid der Goumltter unddie Uumlberhebungrdquo in idem Populaumlre Aufsaumltze (Leipzig 1856 [1838]) 35ndash74 KF Naumlgelsbach Die homerische Theologie (Nuumlrnberg 1840) 33ndash34 KFNaumlgelsbach NachhomerischeTheologie

des griechischen Volksglaubens bis auf Alexander (Nuumlrnberg 1857) 49 HL Doumlrries Uumlber den Neid der Goumltter bei Homer (Hameln 1870) E Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihre geschichtlichen Entwicklung II 1 (Leipzig 1875) 20ndash21 L Schmidt Die Ethik der alten Griechen(StuttgartndashBad Cannstatt 1964 [1882]) 78ndash85 S Hoekstra ldquoDe lsquowangunst der goden op hetgeluk ook der rechtvaardigenrsquo naar het grieksche volksgeloof tot op het midden van de vijfde eeuwrdquoVerslagenenmededelingenderKoninklijkeAkademievanWetenschappen 3reeksI (1884) 7ndash105 M Hofmann Die ethische Terminologie bei Homer Hesiod und den alten Elegikern und Jambographen (Tuumlbingen 1914) JAK Thomson StudiesintheOdyssey (Oxford1914) 11ndash13 F Hellmann Herodots Kroisos-Logos (Berlin 1934) M Pohlenz Herodot Der ersteGeschichtsschreiberdes Abendlandes (Leipzig1937)HVCanterldquoIllWilloftheGodsinGreek and Latin Poetryrdquo CPh 32 (1937) 131ndash143 K Nawratil ldquoθεον ταραχδεrdquo PhW 8 (1940) 125ndash126

K Reinhardt Die Ilias und ihr Dichter (Goumlttingen 1961) 471ndash474 at 473 Lehrs Vorstellung W Hofmann ldquoAischylos und Herodot uumlber den φθνο der Got-theitrdquo Philologus 15 (1860) 224ndash266 O Regenbogen ldquoDie Geschichte von Solon und Kroumlsusrdquo Das humanistische Gymnasium 41 (1930) 1ndash20 F Wehrli Λθε βισα Studien zur aumlltesten Ethik bei den Griechen (Leipzig 1931) JL Myres ldquoHomeric Equivalents of φθνοrdquo CR 51 (1937)163ndash164 Pohlenz Herodot ER Dodds The Greeks and the Irrational (Los Angeles 1951)E Fraumlnkel Aeschylus Agamemnon (Oxford 1950) J Kroymanns ldquoGoumltterneid und Menschen- wahnrdquo Saeculum 21 (1970) 166ndash179 H Lloyd-Jones The Justice of Zeus (Los Angeles 1971)P Bulman Phthonos in Pindar (Bufalo 1989)

See R Hirzel Themis Dike und Verwandtes (Leipzig 1906) Hellmann Herodots Kroisos- Logos S Ranulf The Jealousy of the Gods and Criminal Law at Athens (Copenhagen 1933)

Nawratil ldquoΘεον ταραχδεrdquo W Steinlein Φθνο und verwandte Begrife in der aumlltesten grie-chischen Literatur (Erlangen 1941) HW Immerwahr Form and Thought in Herodotus (Cleve-land 1960) Aalders ldquoDe oud-Griekse voorstellingrdquo 45ndash65 W Nicolai Versuch uumlber HerodotsGeschichtsphilosophie (Heidelberg 1986)

See Naumlgelsbach Nachhomerische Theologie 51ndash52 who refers to Pindar O 855 A A



140

It is true that Herodotusrsquo Histories have often been used to testify tothe Greek belief in the so-called ldquoenvy of the godsrdquo However there is no

single passage in Herodotus that might be interpreted in this way be itfrom an anthropomorphic or religious-moral perspective be it due to anegalitarian world-view or an expression of the evil eye For brevityrsquos sake Iconne myself to the two seminal passages which include Herodotusrsquo con-ception of the θεον φθονερν The rst is the above-mentioned conversa-tion between Solon and Croesus (1328ndash9) According to Solon a humanbeing should not be called ldquohappyrdquo until the moment of death as in humanlife all is fortuitous and given that at any point fortune may turn intomisfortune the best characterization that ts mortals is rather ldquofortunaterdquo

(ετυχ)The second passage concerns the famous story of Polycratesrsquo ring (340)

In it we nd almost the same conceptual background although here itis not ldquochancerdquo (συmicroφορ) that prevents mortals from enjoying completehappiness but a certain determinism plausibly due to the ldquothe wheel inhuman afairsrdquo (12072 κκ983995ο τν νθρωπηων πρη983987microτων) which a priori allotsmortalsanequalshareoffortuneandmisfortuneInbothpassageswesee that the issue at stake is that mortals in contrast to the gods who enjoy

complete happiness partake in both happiness and misery In explainingthispeculiarityofhumannatureitistruethatbothSolonandAmasisresortto divine φθονερα

However does it make sense to understand this as the ldquoenvy of thegodsrdquo To begin with there is nothing that the gods might envy in humanephemeral happiness Note by the way that the Histories were writtenalmost a century earlier than the Laws the text in which Plato establishedthe existence of a ldquodescendantrdquo kind of envy namely the eforts by supe-riors to hinder inferiors from achieving status tokens that might reduce

the distance that separates them from each other In addition the text

747 Ar Plut 87 X Cyr 5128 Wehrli Λθε βισα 67ndash69 Rakoczy Boumlser Blick 256 on thebasis of A A (470 947) Pi P 871 and Hdt 7105

Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen 20ndash21 ldquoWie sich durch sein Gluumlck oder durch seineEinbildung uumlber das menschliche Loos erhebt den trift unfehlbar der Neid der Gottheitdenn eifersuumlchtig auf ihre Vorzuumlge duldet sie nicht dass ein Sterblicher ihr sich gleichstelle

Dies stimmt ganz mit dem Geist uumlberein der die aumlltere Dichtung der Griechen durchwehtrdquoSee note 1 to page 21 in which he refers to Hdt 132 34 340 7105 Pl Lg 730Endash731B 3 that allots lowest place of social esteem to the envious individual

who possesses the spiritual goods and intentionally prevents others from reaching them inthis direction Prt 327A4ndash327B 6 puts the unenvious transmission of arete and justice as the



rsquo 141

describes a divine prerogative according to which the gods simply reserveto themselves the right to enjoy stainless happiness refusing to share it with

humans

It thus seems that the term φθονερα refers to divine stinginessrather than to ldquoenvyrdquo to a reluctant attitude or unwillingness to share withmortals something they possess that should perhaps be better translatedby ldquoavaricerdquo Could this divine stinginess explain Plutarchrsquos criticism of Herodotus I think it can

For Plutarchrsquos pious conception of the gods Herodotusrsquo view is mostquestionable since for him the gods can only be a source of goodness formortals Probably based on a more rigorous philosophical denition of thedivinity than that used by Herodotus Plutarch rejects everything that may

demeangodrsquosgoodnessChapter2263Fof How to tell a lattererfrom a friend is clear about this

οmicroαι κα το θεο εερ983987ετεν τ πολ 983995ανθνοντα ατ τ χαρζεσθαι κα εποιεν φσιν χοντα δεσθαι

So hellip I imagine the gods confer their benets for the most part without ourknowledge since it is their nature to take pleasure in the act of being graciousand doing good

Even though this passage focuses on human ignorance regarding the divine ways of favorably determining and inuencing human life both gratious-ness ( χρι) and doing good (ε ποιεν) come to the fore as most distinctiveof the divine nature

As a matter of fact this is also Plutarchrsquos position in an interesting sectionof his That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossibleatextwhichin

basis of a well-functioning polis See Roig Lanzillotta La envidia en el pensamiento griego

419ndash424 The conceptual background of the Histories is still far removed from the developedpsychological analysis of Plato who rst established the existence of a descendant envynamely the protective attitude of those possessing status tokens in order to frustrate theeforts of others to achieve them with a view to frustrating their attempts at reducing thedistance separating them See previous note

Artabanusrsquo words in the seventh book seem to conrm this interpretation As was alsothe case with Solon and Amasis for him human happiness is always mixed with a measureof misfortune (7463) and therefore no mortal may be called ldquotruly happyrdquo (eudaimon) Thischaracterization only ts the gods who enjoy complete happiness in fact the sweetness of their existence highlights the misery of human life Divine lsquoavaricersquo and not lsquoenvyrsquo explains

the fact that while possessing complete bliss themselves the gods allot mortals a mixedcondition (7464) Divine lsquoavaricersquo andthe lsquomixedrsquo character of the human condition arealsobehindHdt 7105 the passage that hasalways been interpreted as expressing the envy of thegods

Plu Quomod adul 63F



142

my view provides the clue to a proper understanding of Plutarchrsquos criticismof Herodotusrsquo religious views After reviewing the wickedrsquos fearful attitude

towards God and the ignorant superstition of the major part of humanity inChapter 21 in Chapter 22 he deals with the ldquobetter class of men the dearestto heavenrdquo (τ β983995τιστον νθρπων κα θεοφι983995στατον 983987νο) According toPlutarch

καθαρα περ θεο δξαι συνντε πντων microν 983987εmicroν 983987αθν πντων δπατρκα983995νκενστι καφα983995ονοθνποιενατθmicroισπεροδπσχειν

Their beliefs about God are pure of error that he is our guide to all blessingsthe father of everything honourable and that he may no more do than sufer anything base

The more philosophical tone in this description of God expectably derivesfrom Epicurusrsquo Kyriai doxai specically ldquoCardinal Tenetrdquo number 1 whichPlutarch is implicitly trying to refute and which reads as follows

Τ microακριον κα φθαρτον οτε ατ πρ983987microατα χει οτε λ παρχειmiddot στε οτερ983987α οτε χρισι συνχεταιmiddot ν σθενε 983987ρ πν τ τοιοτον

What is blessed and imperishable neither sufers trouble itself nor brings iton others hence it is not a prey (sunechetai ) to feelings of anger or of favourfor all such feelings are found in weakness

Although Plutarch openly agrees with the rst proposition he disagrees with the second and in order to refute it quotes Platorsquos denition of Godas the Good par excellence as found in the Timaeus

lsquo983987αθ 983987ρ στιν 983987αθ δ περ οδεν γνεται φθνοrsquo οτε φβο οτrsquoρ983987 microσοmiddot οδ 983987ρ θερmicroο τ ψχειν λ τ θερmicroανειν σπερ οδrsquo 983987αθο τ β983995-πτειν ρ983987 δ χριτο κα χ983995ο εmicroενεα κα το φι983995ανθρπου κα φι983995φρονοτ δυσmicroεν κα ταρακτικν πωττω τ φσει ττακταιmiddot τ microν 983987ρ ρετ καδυνmicroεω τ δrsquo σθενεα στ κα φαυ983995τητο

ldquoFor he is good and in none that is good arises φθνο about aughtrdquo or fear oranger or hatred for it is as much the function of heat to chill instead of warmas it is of good to harm By its nature anger is farthest removed from favor wrath from goodwill and from love of man and kindliness hostility and thespreading of terror for the one set belong to virtue and power and the otherto weakness and vice

Note that Plutarch consciously adapts Platorsquos passage to his conceptualframework Deprived of the introductory sentence that speculates about

Plu Non poss 1102D Epicur Sent 1 Plu Non poss 1102D



rsquo 143

the cause of Godrsquos engaging in the creative process that will give rise to thecosmos (below) Platorsquos sentence no longer speaks about Godrsquos activity

but about his nature In addition Plutarch amplies Platorsquos passage by adding fear anger and hatred to φθνο which he collectively ascribesto weakness and vice Consequently while the Timaeus refers to Godrsquosinherently creative nature Plutarch seems mainly to be concerned withdenying the possibility that God might experience any negative passion whatsoever while insisting that God is the sole source of goodwill love of humanity and kindliness

This means for Plutarch that Epicurus was wrong when he armed thatthe divinity ldquois not a prey to feelings of anger and favourrdquo (ο τονυν lsquoρ-

983987αrsquo κα lsquo χρισινrsquo ο συνχεται τ θεον) Rather it belongs to Godrsquos nature ldquotobestow favour and lend aidrdquo from which follows that ldquoit is not his natureto be angry and do harmrdquo Not only passions but also hostility (τ δυσmicroε-ν) and the spreading of terror (τ ταρακτικν) are alien to divine natureExtrapolating this view to Plutarchrsquos criticism in The Malice of HerodotusGodrsquos φι983995ανθρωπα ldquokindlinessrdquo and φι983995οφροσνη or ldquofriendlinessrdquo seem torule out the second element of Herodotusrsquo characterization of God namely the adjective ldquodisturbingrdquo (ταραχδε)

However what about the rst element namely τ φθονερν Does Non posse suaviter which includes Platorsquos reference to the φθνο of god provideany hint as to how Plutarch interpreted this rst element of HerodotusrsquomottoIthinktheclueappearsinthequotefromDiogenestheCynicwhichPlutarch introduces immediately after dealing with the consequences of Platorsquos denition of God

πντα δ τν θεν κατ τν ∆ιο983987νη κα κοιν τ τν φ983995ων κα φ983995οι το θεοο 983987αθο κα τν θεοφι983995 micro τι ε πρττειν θεοφι983995 micro εναι τν σφρονα καδκαιον δνατν στιν

All things belong to the gods as Diogenes said among friends all property iscommon good men are friends of the gods and it cannot be that one dear tothe gods should fail to prosper or that the temperate and upright man shouldfail to be dear to the gods

Pl Tim29DndashE Λ983987ωmicroεν δ διrsquo ντινα αταν 983987νεσιν κα τ πντδε συνιστ συνστησεν Plutarchrsquos ethical interest in this passage of Non poss becomes even more obvious

when compared with his quotation of Tim 29E in De an procr 1014B and 1015B which focuson Godrsquos creation and therefore refer to the product of creative activity as resembling divinenature as far as possible Also his De fato 573C refer to Godrsquos goodness (with reference to PlTim 29E) as only reason of Godrsquos engaging in creation

Plu Non poss 1102F



144

After describing Godrsquos goodness and attributing to him every virtuePlutarchrsquos adaptation of Diogenesrsquo syllogism now focuses on freely shar-

ing or withholding onersquos property in relation to friends Given that gods arefriends of the righteous Plutarch denies that they might be reluctant to givethem everything they have He consequently ascribes them the virtue of liberality or generosity in order to reject the contrary vice to wit an unwill-ingness to share ldquoavaricerdquo or ldquostinginessrdquo This is the way he understoodthe φθνο of Platorsquos passage and τ φθονερν in Herodotusrsquo motto

2 Late Antique References to Platorsquos Timaeus 29E

Up to this point my approach to Plutarchrsquos interpretation of Herodotusrsquomottowasconnedtothosepassagesoftheauthorthatseemtoexcludeany possible reference to ldquoenvy of the godsrdquo as a background for the Herodotean view of the gods The comparison of Plutarchrsquos appropriation of Tim 29E with some contemporary or later receptions of this passage will help us torene the analysis As we will now see in spite of a wide range of inter-pretations later Platonic tradition never understood this section of PlatorsquosTimaeus as a reference to envy either

Let me begin by referring to H Doumlrriersquos warning that it would be mis-leading to interpret this section of the Timaeus as a reference to ldquoenvyrdquo

since the text seems to be much more pregnant with meaning Obviat-ing that which became the central issue in the Middle and Neoplatonicmilieus namely whether there was another hypostasis above God to witthe Good that transmitted God his goodness the sentence is concerned with at least two important aspects of the Demiurge Firstly it provides acause of Godrsquos engaging in the creative process secondly it exculpates

DL 672 So also Plu Numa 44 H Doumlrrie ldquoWas ist lsquospaumltantiker Platonismusrsquo Uumlberlegungen zur Grenzziehung zwis-

chen Platonismus und Christentumrdquo TheolRund 36 (1971) 285ndash302 at 294 ldquoφθνο muszligebenso wie invidia als Feindseligkeit als Miszliggunst als schaumldliche Gesinnung verstanden werden hier ware lsquoNeidrsquo als Uumlbersetzung irrefuumlhrend Der Schopfer kann und will Schaumldli-ches Boses Wertwidriges in diese seine Schopfung nicht einfuumlgen es ware seinem Wesenzuwiderrdquo

J Opsomer ldquoDemiurges in Early Imperial Platonismrdquo in Hirsch-Luipold Gott und dieGoumltter 51ndash99 passim Based on M Baltes ldquoZur Philosophie desPlatonikers Attikosrdquo in HD Blumeamp F Mann

(eds) Platonismus und Christentum Festschrift fuumlr H Doumlrrie (Muumlnster 1983) 38ndash57 at 40OpsomerldquoDemiurgesrdquo65pointsoutthat Atticus already arguedthat theTimaeus calledgod



rsquo 145

him from any responsibility for the possible appearance of imperfection orevil within his design thus providing a fragment of the Platonic theodicy

On the one hand the inherent goodness of God his generosity and the willthat everything might be as similar as possible to himself starts the creativeprocess This in fact the way later tradition unanimously understood theTimaeus passage The absence of anything evil in his nature on the otherhandmeansthatGodisableandwillingtoavoideverythingnoxiousevilorimperfect in his creation Therefore it seems obvious that by means of theterm φθνο Plato intended to exclude a wider range of notions than mereenvy such as a lack of generosity stinginess and ill-will

As already advanced Timaeus 29E was a favorite text for later Platonists

Given the numerous interpretations I shall conne myself to briey sum-marizing the main if I may call them so orthodox interpretive trends anddwell a little longer upon the textrsquos appropriation and transformation in theChristian and Gnostic-Christian milieus As far as the former are concernedsome interpreters closely follow the Timaeus and focus on the cause behindGod engaging in creation Thus for example Seneca and Philo state thatthe creative activity emanates from Godrsquos goodness OtherssuchasNume-

ldquogoodrdquo and the ldquobest of the causesrdquo in reference to Pl Tim 29A2ndash3 ( τε δηmicroιουρ983987 983987αθ)6 ( δrsquo ριστο τν ατων) E1 (983987αθ ν)

See Pl R 617 E θε νατιο On the theodicy aspect see Doumlrrie ldquoSpaumltantike Platon-ismusrdquo 294 EB Stevens ldquoEnvy and Pity in Greek Philosophyrdquo AJPh 69 (1948) 171ndash189 at176

Ph De opif mund 23 Plu De fato 9 (572E) Alcin Didask 10 (16436ndash37) ClemAlStrom1863SE M 1170Plot Enn V 4 [7] 134 V 2 [11]19etcPorphap Procl In Plat TimI 39415 Procl In Plat Tim I 37329 Diehl DL 372 See also GrNaz Or 389 ( PG 36320C)Dion Ar De div nom 419 ( PG 3716BndashC)

The existence of imperfection or even of evil was sometimes explained on the ground

that the measure of the good received was determined not by the donor but by the recipientSee Ph De opif mund 23 (below note 30) Plot EnnIV3[27]932Aug CivDei 1219 etc seeon the issue H Doumlrrie amp M Baltes Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus 5 platonische Physik (im antiken Verstaumlndnis) II (StuttgartndashBad Cannstatt 1998) 477 note 78

Seneca Ep mor 6510 As for Philo in De opif mund 51 he focuses exclusively on theinherent goodness that gives rise to his creative activity ldquohellip for if anyone were desirous toinvestigate the cause on account of which this universe was created I think that he wouldcome to no erroneous conclusion if he were to say as one of the ancients did say ldquoThat theFather and Creator was good helliprdquo etc God confers upon chaotic matter the order it waslacking and he does that by means of the goodness that emanates from him Philo De opifmund 23ldquoAndGodnotbeingurgedonbyanyprompter(forwhoelsecouldtherehavebeen

to prompt him) but guided by his own sole will decided that it was tting to benet withunlimited and abundant favours a nature which without the divine gift was unable itself topartake of any good thing but he benets it not according to the greatness of his own gracesfor they are illimitable and eternal but according to the power of that which is beneted toreceive his gracesrdquo



146

nius Plotinus and Proclus wonder whether Godrsquos goodness arises fromhimorratherfromasuperiorinstancetowittheGoodandstillotherssim-

ply focus on Godrsquos goodness either to conclude that his creation is as goodas possible or that nothing bad might be predicated of his nature since hehimself is the source of goodness (Alcinous) Let me repeat in this widespectrum there is no reference to envy whatsoever

It is true however that the reception of Platorsquos sentence did develop aline of interpretation in which φθνο considered as ldquoenvyrdquo played a promi-nent role but not without radically changing the conceptual framework behind Tim 29E Whether or not one is permitted to extrapolate what theTimaeus saysabouttheemanationofGodrsquosgoodnessandthecreationofthe

cosmos to Godrsquos relationship with mortals discussed in other dialogues thisis in fact the background we nd in several ancient (and modern) interpre-tations of Timaeus 29E It goes without saying that the setting is that of thelikeness to God the microοωσι θε κατ τ δυνατν of Theatetus 176AndashB thatbecame a central matter in later Platonism Once the possibility of human

Numen fr 21 Des Places According to Opsomer ldquoDemiurgesrdquo 67ndash68 for Numenius

ldquoThe good is the demiurge of being as opposed to the ldquomakerrdquo who is then the demiurgeof becomingrdquo for which he resorted to Platorsquos Republic (509B6ndash7) where the good is said toproduce being

Plot Enn IV 86 V 41 II 917 According to Proclus the One is completely transcendent and has no relation with

anything whatsoever Procl Inst 24ndash25 See also In Tim 130327ndash3043 where he criticizes Atticus and Numenius for not distinguishinging properly between the good and being

Alcin Didask 103 121 with Opsomer ldquoDemiurgesrdquo 65 note 79 In the same line Ire-naeus refersto theintrinsicrelationship between Godrsquos goodness andhis creation in Timaeus29E in order to attack Marcionites Adv haer III255 etiterumfactoremetfabricatoremhuiusuniversi talis bonum ostendit lsquoBono autem (inquit)nulla unquam de quoquam nascitur invidiarsquo

hoc initium et causam fabricatoris mundi constituens bonitatem dei See above note 24 Doumlrrie-Baltes Der Platonismus 5 translate or describe the termφθνο as ldquoNeid Kargen Vorenthaltenrdquo (476) or ldquoVerargenrdquo (479)

There are numerous studies on the issue see H Merki Homoiosis Theoi von der Pla-tonischen Angleichung an Gott zur Gottaumlhnlichkeit bei Gregor von Nyssa (Freiburg in derSchweiz 1952) D Rolof Gottaumlhnlichkeit Vergoumltlichung und Erhoumlhung zu seligem LebenUntersuchungen zur Herkunft der platonischen Angleichung an Gott (Berlin 1970) D SedleyldquolsquoBecoming Like Godrsquo in the Timaeus and Aristotlerdquo in T Calvo amp L Brisson Interpretingthe lsquoTimaeusrsquomdashlsquoCritiasrsquo Proceedings of the IV Symposium Platonicum Selected Papers (Sankt Augustin 1997) 327ndash339 J Annas Platonic Ethics Old and New (IthacandashLondon 1999) 52ndash71 K Comoth ldquolsquoHomoiosisrsquo bei Platon Und Origenesrdquo Origeniana Septima (Leuven 1999)

69ndash75 EF Cooke ldquoThe Moral and Intellectual Development of the Philosopher in PlatorsquosRepublicrdquo AncPhil 19 (1999) 37ndash44 D Sedley ldquoThe Ideal of Godlikenessrdquo in G Fine (ed) Plato 2 Ethics Politics Religion and the Soul (Oxford 1999) 309ndash328 M Erler ldquoEpicurus asDeus Mortalis Homoiosis Theoi and Epicurean Self-Cultivationrdquo in Frede amp Laks (eds) Tra-ditions of Theology 159ndash181 DC Russell ldquoVirtue as lsquoLikeness to Godrsquo in Plato and Senecardquo



rsquo 147

divinization arises gods and mortals are placed in a relatively egalitarianframework and this is the context in which envy arises When pondering

the diferences between divine and human natures human shortcomingscould be seen to be due to a deliberately obstructive attitude by God

It is in this context that a number of texts vigorously deny the possibility that God might be subject to envy This is clearly the case for example withthe fourth tractate of the Corpus Hermeticum called The Cup which assertsthat while God gave reason (983995983987ο) to every human being not so intellect(νο) In order to explain this peculiarity The Cup explicitly excludes envy as a possible elucidation of Godrsquos withholding nous

τν microν ον 983995983987ον Ττ ν πσι το νθρποι microρισε τν δ νον οκτι οφθονν τισινmiddot 983987ρ φθνο οκ νθεν ρχεται κτω δ συνσταται τα τν νον microχντων νθρπων ψυχαndash ∆ι τ ον πτερ ο πσιν microρισε τν νον θεndash Ηθ983995ησεν τκνον τοτον ν microσ τα ψυχα σπερ θ983995ον δρσθαι

ldquoGod shared reason (983995983987ο) among all people O Tat but not mind (νο)though he begrudged it to none Grudging envy comes not from on high itforms below in the souls of people who do not possess mindrdquondash ldquoFor what reason then did god not share mind with all of them my

fatherrdquondash ldquoHe wanted it put between souls my child as a prize for them to

contestrdquo

The passage seems to echo Phaedrus 247A (φθνο 983987ρ ξω θεου χρου σταται) since envy is excluded from the divine region and allocated to thelower realm However note that the change of focus which is now on Godrsquosgranting or withholding that which may make the individual perfect hasalso altered the meaning of φθνοwhichinthe Phaedrus was equivalent tothat of the Timaeus 29E

JHPh 42 (2004) 241ndash260 JM Armstrong ldquoAfter the Ascent Plato on Becoming like GodrdquoOSAPh 26 (2004) 171ndash183 DC Baltzly ldquoThe Virtues and lsquoBecoming like Godrsquo Alcinous to Pro-clusrdquo OSAPh 26 (2004)297ndash321 S Lavecchia Unaviacheconducealdivinolalsquohomoiosistheorsquo nella losoadi Platone (Milan 2006) see most recently PL Miller Becoming God Pure Rea-son in Early Greek Philosophy (LondonndashNew York 2011)

For the need of a comparative framework for the development of envy see L RoigLanzillotta ldquoThe Envy of God in the Paradise Story according to the Greek Life of Adamand Everdquo in A Hilhorst et al (eds) Flores Florentino Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early JewishStudies in Honour of Florentino Garciacutea Martiacutenez (LeidenndashBoston 2007) 537ndash550

On the issue in the context of the Nag Hammadi writings and the Corpus Hermeticumsee L Roig Lanzillotta ldquoA Way of Salvation Becoming like God in Nag Hammadirdquo in A Klos-tergaard Petersen amp K von Stuckrad (eds) The Gods as Role Models in Western Traditions( Numen special issue 601 [2013]) Forthcoming

CH IV 3



148

A similar background can be found in the Nag Hammadi treatise Gospel ofTruth While ignorance is the greatest evil knowledge of the Father might

help improve human imperfection by providing the means and the goal of the Gnostic search for knowledge namely the reunion with the source of our being In this context GosTruth rejects the possibility that the Fathercould enviously withhold knowledge and be responsible for ignorance

Although he retained their perfection within himself hellip the Father was not jealous What jealousy indeed (could there be) between himself and hismembers hellip He retains within himself their perfection granting it to themas a return to him and a perfectly unitary knowledge

Again God and man are seen within the same evaluative framework Godis superior and mortals inferior but the former possesses the key to thelatterrsquos eventual existential promotion Like the Hermetic tract The Cupthe GospelofTruth and other Nag Hammadi texts such as the Interpretationof Knowledge or the Tripartite Tractate argue against the possibility thatGod might withhold knowledge out of envy since this is excluded fromdivine nature

As could be expected some interpretations of Genesis 2ndash3 recognizethe same background to God prohibiting the act of eating from the tree in

the middle of Paradise In the Life of Adam and Eve the devil attempts tomislead Eve by asserting that Godrsquos prohibition is due to his own interestby denying the rst couple knowledge he arms God actually preservesfor himself what determines his superiority That this interpretation wasrelatively well-known in second-century Christian milieus appears from thetestimony of Irenaeus and Theophilus of Antioch who respond by stressingGodrsquos goodness

The same reason can be found in some Nag Hammadi texts the only dif-

ference being that this thorny problem was solved by means of a theologicaldualism As already advanced Gnostics reject the possibility that the high-est God could be deemed envious Given that in their view the Paradise

GosTruth (NHC I3) 1836ndash197 See Roig Lanzillotta ldquoThe Envy of God in the Paradise Storyrdquo 545ndash549 Life of Adam and Eve 141ndash152 and especially the devilrsquos conclusion τοτο δ 983987ινσκων

θε τι σεσθε microοιοι ατο φθνησεν microν κα επεν ο φ983987εσθε ξ ατο σ δ πρσχε τ

φυτ κα ψει δξαν microε983987983995ην Theophil Autol II25 διοχφθοννατθε οονται τινε κ983995ευσεν micro σθεινπ τ 983987νσεω Irenaeus Adv haer III236 Quaproptereteiecit(scDeus)eum(scAdam)de Paradiso et a ligno vitae longe transtulit non invidens ei lignum vitae quemadmodum audent quidan dicere sed miserans eius



rsquo 149

story did show a divine being obstructing the rst couplersquos access to knowl-edge theyconcludethatGenesiscouldnotbedescribingtheactionsofthe

real God

butofsomeotherlowerbeingInfactthegrantingorobstructingof the possibility of knowledge is that which in Gnostic texts characterizesthe natures of the Father and the lower creator god

In all these views we might see an echo of Platorsquos Timaeus and Phaedrusbut the conceptual framework has been altered by transposing what is saidof Godrsquos relationship to the world to the context of the Theaetetus whichencourages mortals to follow God and imitate him as far as possible Itis obvious that in such a setting Godrsquos sharing or withholding that whichmight improve the human condition might be interpreted as envy This is

especially the case if one takes into account Aristotlersquos discussion in the Metaphysics which raises the questionmdashin order to answer it negativelymdash whether the divinity may censure human attempts to attain something that was seen as an exclusive possession of the gods namely knowledge

3 Conclusions

It is time to draw some conclusions I think my analysis has shown that

when accusing Herodotus of malice Plutarch was not thinking of the ldquoenvy ofthegodsrdquoOntheonehandaclosereadingofHerodotusrsquosectiononSolondoes not seem to allow such an interpretation On the other the analysis of Plutarchrsquos idea of God as expressed in How to tell a latterer from a friend and That Epicurus actually makes a pleasant life impossible seems to pointtosomethingelseasthestumblingblocktohisreligiousspiritIn TheMaliceof Herodotus Plutarch was reacting against a view of the gods as malevolentbeings who enjoy confounding mortals and who are stingy regarding their

ApJohn (NHC II1) 223ndash7 BG 578ndash18 see also TestimTruth (NHC IX3) 4728ndash30 488ndash13 HypArch (NHC II4) 906ndash10 OrigWorld (NHC II5) 1195

See for example the conclusion to TestimTruthrsquos (NHC IX3) retelling of the ParadiseStory 481ndash4 ldquoWhat sort of God is this First [he] was envious of Adam that he should eatfrom the tree of knowledge And secondly he said ldquoAdam where are yourdquo So God did nothave foreknowledge hellip What sort of God is this Indeed great is the blindness of those whoread (this) and have not recognized himrdquo

Arist Metaph 982B32ndash983 A 5 ldquoIf then there is something in what the poets say and

jealousy is natural to the divine power it would probably occur in this case above all andall who excelled in this knowledge would be unfortunate But the divine power cannot be jealous (nay according to the proverb lsquobards tell a liersquo) nor should any other science bethought more honorable than one of this sortrdquo In this vein see GosTruth (NHC I3) 1834ndash1910 TripTrac (NHC I5) 6220ndash33 Interpr Know (NHC XI1) 1518ndash21



150

prerogativesAstotheformerPlutarchrsquosmostbasicinterpretationofPlatorsquosdenitionofGodinTim29Eallowshimtorejectanynegativeelementfrom

divinenatureAstothelatterhisquotationofDiogenesrsquoonthegodssharingtheir goods with their friends clearly shows that he understands φθνο asldquoavaricerdquo or ldquostinginessrdquo

The brief survey of the Platonic receptions of Tim 29E seems to supportthis interpretation insofar as they show that in spite of the semantic preg-nancy of Platorsquos passage envy never played a role in their disquisitions Inorder to nd such an interpretation we need a new evaluative frameworka new context in which God and men are placed at a similar existentiallevel knowledge being the only issue separating divine and human natures

This complex situation can be found in the background to some of the early Christian texts referred to in my exposition

Thus it was not divine envy but stinginess that bothered Plutarch inrelation to Herodotusrsquo motto θεον πν φθονερν τε κα ταραχδε and thisis the interpretation one might reach by placing Plutarchrsquos views in thecontext of the religious and philosophical discourse of Late Antiquity



Plutarch in the Religiousand Philosophical Discourse

of Late Antiquity



Ancient Mediterranean

and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner

Studies in Platonism Neoplatonism

and the Platonic Tradition

Edited by

Robert M BerchmanDowling College and Bard College

John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board

JOHN DILLON (Trinity College Dublin) ndash GARY GURTLER (Boston College)

JEAN-MARC NARBONNE (Laval University Canada)

VOLUME

The titles published in this series are listed at brillcomspnp



Plutarch in the Religious

and Philosophical Discourseof Late Antiquity

Edited by

Lautaro Roig LanzillottaIsrael Muntildeoz Gallarte

LEIDEN bull BOSTON



Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Plutarch in the religious and philosophical discourse of late antiquity edited by Lautaro RoigLanzillotta Israel Muntildeoz Gallarte

pages cm ndash (Ancient Mediterranean and medieval texts and contexts volume )Papers from the XI Congress of the International Plutarch Society held June

Includes bibliographical references and indexISBN ---- (hardback alk paper) ndash ISBN ---- (e-book) PlutarchndashCongresses Philosophy AncientndashCongresses I Roig Lanzillotta Lautaro II

Muntildeoz Gallarte Israel III International Plutarch Society IV Series Ancient Mediterranean andmedieval texts and contexts v

PAP ndashdc

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual ldquoBrillrdquo typeface With over characters covering Latin IPA Greek and Cyrillic this typeface is especially suitable foruse in the humanities For more information please see wwwbrillcombrill-typeface

ISSN -X ISBN ---- (hardback)ISBN ---- (e-book)

Copyright by Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden The NetherlandsKoninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Global Oriental Hotei PublishingIDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhof Publishers

All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced translated stored ina retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic mechanicalphotocopying recording or otherwise without prior written permission from the publisher

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center Rosewood Drive Suite Danvers MA USAFees are subject to change

This book is printed on acid-free paper



138

something other than the so-called ldquoenvy of the godsrdquo in mind I will rstreview the traditional interpretation of Herodotusrsquo τ θεον πν φθονερν τε

κα ταραχδε which may provide in the rst place a plausible explana-tion for Plutarchrsquos seeming inconsistency The comparative analysis of The Malice of Herodotus and other Plutarchean passages will then help us clarify Plutarchrsquos idea of god and the reasons behind his attack on Herodotus I willthen proceed to contextualize Plutarchrsquos views rstly by comparing themto Platonic receptions of Tim 29E and secondly by contrasting them withChristian and Gnostic Christian discussions that explicitly reject the possi-bility that God might be envious Finally I will draw some conclusions andofer a coherent interpretation of Plutarchrsquos criticism

1 Plutarchrsquos Idea of God and Herodotusrsquo Malice

As already intimated the traditional interpretation of Plutarchrsquos passage of The Malice of Herodotus seems to pose serious problems to the interpreter According to the standard reading Plutarch is attacking Herodotusrsquo concep-tion of the ldquoenvy of the godsrdquo The problem is that this view was allegedly so widespread that it might even be seen to be distinctive of Greek culture

Thus either Plutarch is unjustly accusing Herodotus or he is referring tosomething other than that considered by many interpreters

InrelationtotheviewofPearsonandSandbachevenasupercialsurvey of the texts shows their position to be barely tenable On the one hand notasinglepassageofthepreservedSoloniancorpusatteststothenotionoftheφθνοθενwhileontheotherhandasIhaveshownelsewheretheanalysisof the pertinent texts traditionally adduced as proof of so-called divine envy reveals clear signs of overinterpretation according to a preconceived idea of

the Greek gods

In fact it is my contention that no literary or philosophicaltext from Homer to Aristotle provides clear evidence of a belief in thealleged ldquoenvy of the godsrdquo

As a matter of fact the diculty in understanding what the Greeks actu-ally meant by φθνο θεν has to date produced four diferent hermeneuticapproaches to the issue

About to Enter (Or Remake) the Academyrdquo in R Hirsch-Luipold (ed) Gott und Die Goumltter

Bei Plutarch GoumltterbildermdashGottesbildermdashWeltbilder (Berlin 2005) 27ndash49 L Roig Lanzillotta La envidia en el pensamiento griego De la eacutepoca arcaica al helenismo(Diss Universidad Complutense Madrid 1997)

See L Roig Lanzillotta lsquoThe So-called Envy of the Gods Revisiting a Dogma of AncientGreek Religionrsquo in J Dijkstra et al (eds) Myths Martyrsand Modernity Studies in the History



rsquo 139
















140














rsquo 141


humans












Plu Quomod adul 63F



142















rsquo 143










Plu Non poss 1102F



144













rsquo 145














146















rsquo 147







contestrdquo





CH IV 3



148














rsquo 149


real God




3 Conclusions









150









of Late Antiquity




and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc









rsquo 139
















140














rsquo 141


humans












Plu Quomod adul 63F



142















rsquo 143










Plu Non poss 1102F



144













rsquo 145














146















rsquo 147







contestrdquo





CH IV 3



148














rsquo 149


real God




3 Conclusions









150









of Late Antiquity




and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc









140














rsquo 141


humans












Plu Quomod adul 63F



142















rsquo 143










Plu Non poss 1102F



144













rsquo 145














146















rsquo 147







contestrdquo





CH IV 3



148














rsquo 149


real God




3 Conclusions









150









of Late Antiquity




and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc









rsquo 141


humans












Plu Quomod adul 63F



142















rsquo 143










Plu Non poss 1102F



144













rsquo 145














146















rsquo 147







contestrdquo





CH IV 3



148














rsquo 149


real God




3 Conclusions









150









of Late Antiquity




and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc









142















rsquo 143










Plu Non poss 1102F



144













rsquo 145














146















rsquo 147







contestrdquo





CH IV 3



148














rsquo 149


real God




3 Conclusions









150









of Late Antiquity




and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc









rsquo 143










Plu Non poss 1102F



144













rsquo 145














146















rsquo 147







contestrdquo





CH IV 3



148














rsquo 149


real God




3 Conclusions









150









of Late Antiquity




and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc









144













rsquo 145














146















rsquo 147







contestrdquo





CH IV 3



148














rsquo 149


real God




3 Conclusions









150









of Late Antiquity




and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc









rsquo 145














146















rsquo 147







contestrdquo





CH IV 3



148














rsquo 149


real God




3 Conclusions









150









of Late Antiquity




and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc









146















rsquo 147







contestrdquo





CH IV 3



148














rsquo 149


real God




3 Conclusions









150









of Late Antiquity




and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc









rsquo 147







contestrdquo





CH IV 3



148














rsquo 149


real God




3 Conclusions









150









of Late Antiquity




and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc









148














rsquo 149


real God




3 Conclusions









150









of Late Antiquity




and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc









rsquo 149


real God




3 Conclusions









150









of Late Antiquity




and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc









150









of Late Antiquity




and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc










of Late Antiquity




and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc










and Medieval Texts

and Contexts

Editors

Robert M Berchman

Jacob Neusner



Edited by


John F Finamore

University of Iowa

Editorial Board



VOLUME






Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc











Edited by


LEIDEN bull BOSTON








PAP ndashdc














PAP ndashdc







2012_l_roig_lanzillotta_-_plut_1

Documents