De opificio mundi

Not to be confused with De opificio mundi (John Philoponus).

The De opificio mundi (On the Creation of the Cosmos) is a treatise on the Genesis creation narrative (Genesis 1–3) by Philo of Alexandria, a first-century Jewish philosopher. It is the first surviving example of a genre of literature known as the Hexaemeral literature, although it was not the first to have ever been written, and Philo in many cases relied on earlier works in the Alexandrian school of biblical exegesis, such as the commentary of Aristobulus of Alexandria. This work also appears, with one exception, as the first text in all collected editions and translations of Philo's works (with one exception) since the edition by Turnebus in 1552. In addition, among Philo's works, the Opificio was second only to his Legum allegoriae in its popularity. Reasons for this included its wholesale dedication to the topic of the creation of the world, its offering of the first monotheistic reading of the Timaeus by Plato (opening the way for its further use by the Church Fathers and Christian Platonism in later periods), the way it elaborates an image of the divine architect, and its Logos theology.

Philo also wrote other commentaries on the Pentateuch, including his Allegorical Commentary on Genesis and his Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, for which the Opificio served as an opening treatise. It is thought that Philo composed the Opificio sometime between 30 and 40 AD, when he was in his fifties.

This work is not to be confused by another work of the same name, namely, the De opificio mundi of John Philoponus.

Influences

Philo was working within an existing Jewish tradition of commentary and exegesis of the books of Moses, such as the earlier (and now lost) writings of Aristobulus of Alexandria. Philo also cites some of his colleagues as well as earlier philosophers like Plato, although he rarely refers to them and, when he does, usually not by name. Baudouin Decharneux has argued that Philo's doctrine of divine powers (δυναμεις) was influenced equally by biblical and Greek (primarily Platonic) ideas.

Because of the lost nature of many of the works that Philo relied on or worked in the tradition of, his extensive extant writings, including the Opificio, have been used to help reconstruct them.

Genre

In his subsequent writings, Philo repeatedly retrospectively calls the Opificio a συνταζξις, referring to an "ordered composition" and may be understood as a didactic or systematic prose work in contrast to a speech or a dialogue. In addition, it is well-accepted that this work, alongside some of Philo's others, constitutes a commentary on the books of Moses. Furthermore, the Opificio was one member of a much larger set of works by Philo that are referred to as the Exposition of the Law. This work reflected Philo's conception of the tripartite nature of the Pentateuch, insofar as it could be divided into a first section on creation (for which the Opificio was dedicated), a second part on history, and a third part on legislation (such as the Decalogue).

Structure

According to Runia, the structure of Philo's Opificio can be divided into twenty-five chapters as follows (with the symbol §§ denoting the term "sections"):

• §§1–6. Introduction.
• §§7–12. Preliminary comments on God and the cosmos.
• §§13–15a. Comments that the six days are not literal but simply denote the order of creation.
• §§15b–25. Day one.
• §§26–28. Comments that "In the beginning" refers to what God did first, as the first temporal moment.
• §§29–35. Seven main components of the cosmos according to Gen 1:1–3.
• §§35–37. Second day.
• §§38–44. Third day.
• §§45–52. Fourth day: comments on the relationship between the number of the day (four) and what was created on this day.
• §§53–61. Fourth day: the creation events.
• §§62–68. Fifth day.
• §§69–71. Comments on why man is made in God's image.
• §§72–76. Why did God use helpers to create (according to Gen 1:26)?
• §§77–88. Why was man made last?
• §§89–128. The relationship between the Sabbath and the number seven.
• §§129–130. Summarizing reflection on Gen 2:4–5a.
• §§131–133. On the separation of fresh water from salt water.
• §§134–135. On the making of man from the Earth.
• §§136–147. The excellence of the first human being.
• §§148–150. Man naming the animals.
• §§151–152. The origins of woman and the quest for bodily pleasure.
• §§153–156. Interpretation of events in the garden.
• §§157–166. Interpretation of the snake.
• §§167–170a. The consequence of wickedness.
• §§170b–172. Moses teaches five vital lessons.

Translations and commentaries

• Douwe Runia, Philo of Alexandria, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses Introduction: Translation and Commentary, Brill, 2001.

References

Sources

• Decharneux, Baudouin S. (2017). "Divine Powers in Philo of Alexandria's De opificio mundi". In Mormodoro, Anna; Viltanioti, Irina-Fotini (eds.). Divine Powers in Late Antiquity. Oxford University Press. pp. 127–139.
• Katsos, Isidoros (2023). The Metaphysics of Light in the Hexaemeral Literature: From Philo of Alexandria to Gregory of Nyssa. Oxford University Press.
• Matusova, Ekaterina (2010). "Allegorical interpretation of the Pentateuch in Alexandria: inscribing Aristobulus and Philo in a wider literary context". The Studia Philonica Annual. 22: 1–51.
• Runia, David (2001). Philo of Alexandria, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Brill.
• Sterling, Gregory (2013). "Different Traditions or Emphases? The Image of God in Philo's De Opificio Mundi". In Anderson, Gary; Clements, Ruth; Satran, David (eds.). New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity. Brill. pp. 41–56.
• Walker, Joel (2006). The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq. University of California Press.