Philo of Alexandria - Books and Journals

critical studies 2002 229
material from Philo does not support the view that the early zealots formed any
consistent movement or party, but that they were vigilant individuals who took
the Law in their own hands when observing cases of gross transgressions of the
Torah. (TS)
20291. F.Shaw,TheEarliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Ιαω (diss.
University of Cincinnati 2002).
The publication of a fragmentary Septuagint manuscript from the Judean
desert, 4QLXXLevb (= 4Q120), which contains a few instances of the earliest
GreekformoftheJewishnameofGodΙαώ, has brought up the problem of the
role of this name in the LXX’s textual tradition. After reviewing what little has
been said in scholarship on this matter, in order to investigate the issue of this
formofthedivinenamewithinJudaism,thestudyexaminesall(ornearlyall)
the earliest non-mystical usage of Iao. This includes the following: (1) Christian
copies of ancient onomastica (which must go back to earlier Jewish originals)
where a surprising number of instances of Iao are found in expositions of biblical
characters’ names. This evidence indicates that far more copies of LXX mss.
containing Iao must have circulated than the single instance found so far since
the onomastica were originally based on the LXX’s text. (2) Several classical/
Gentile sources: specifically Diodorus of Sicily and the Roman polymath Varro;
other instances may exist in Herennius Philo of Byblos, the emperor Gaius (in
Philo Judaeus), Valerius Maximus, and the pagan story of Jewish ass worship.
(3) Jewish sources: a passage in the Mishnah, several instances in the Pseudepigrapha,
epigraphic evidence. (4) Ecclesiastical testimony: Origen, Eusebius,
Jerome, Theodoret, and the unknown ecclesiastical interpolator(s) responsible
for certain entries in Hesychius’ lexicon. The conclusion reached is that, if one is
to understand the appearance of Iao in the LXX’s history, one must look beyond
merely the textual issue. Rather this Qumran ms. is evidence of the fact that
there was contention within ancient Judaism on the matter of the use and disuse
of God’s name. Not all Jews of the second temple period were eager to discontinue
their employment of the divine name. Some likely motives for their
persistent use of Iao and the historical situation that may have influenced their
usage of the name are explored. A chronology of the use of the divine name
in various sources during the late centuries b.c.e. and the first few centuries
c.e. is sketched, and an attempt is made to document when the name most
likely moved from being a non-mystical usage to the more commonly known
one associated with Gnostics, magical papyri, and other charms and amulets.
Three areas need further investigation and elaboration. First, not all second
temple period Greek-speaking Jews referred to God as κρις or ες. Some
employed Iao (onomastica, Qumran ms., classical sources), some ‘Heaven’ (1,
2Maccabees, Matthew, Prodigal Son parable in Luke), others ‘Father’ (most NT
writers), others ‘the Unseen One’ (onomastica, Hebrews 11), others Greek philosophical
terms (Philo, Acts 17, Josephus) while at times some Jews used δεσπτης
instead of the more standard κρις (two LXX translators, Josephus); all
this, combined with scribal practices at Qumran, seems to show that there was
considerable choice among ancient Jews and early Christians regarding how