Theophrastus of Eresos on the Jews
Theophrastus of Eresos is the last member of a trio of eminent non-jewish intellectuals who we know relatively little about but whom Josephus cites as stating positive things in regard to the jews. The other two are Aristotle (1) and Pythagoras: (2) the claims about whom have been dealt with in separate articles.
Theophrastus is similar to Clearchus of Soli in so far that like Clearchus: he was a pupil of Aristotle and was also chosen by him to be his successor at the head of his Athenian school of philosophy. This means of course that Theophrastus is a fairly important figure in the development of Western thought and more particularly the philosophical systems that gave birth to the multitude of intellectual perspectives with which we to this day try to comprehend and interpret the world about us.
Josephus' citation of pro-jewish comments in his 'Against Apion' that he attributes to Theophrastus are of some note: precisely because of who Theophrastus was.
Josephus comments thus:
'For it is very truly affirmed of this Pythagoras, that he took a great many of the laws of the Jews into his own philosophy. Nor was our nation unknown of old to several of the Grecian cities, and indeed was thought worthy of imitation by some of them. This is declared by Theophrastus, in his writings concerning laws; for he says that "the laws of the Tyrians forbid men to swear foreign oaths." Among which he enumerates some others, and particularly that called Corban: which oath can only be found among the Jews, and declares what a man may call "A thing devoted to God."' (3)
I have included the context of Josephus' outright lie about Pythagoras (4) to allow the reader to comprehend that Josephus is here trying to argue that the jews are thought of highly by eminent Greek thinkers. The Encyclopedia Judaica best summarises Josephus' intended portrayal when it suggests that these comments prove the jews were considered a 'race of philosophers' by the ancient Greeks: (5) allowing the jews to in effect claim they were great intellectuals before anyone had really heard of them.
Now the reader of the above quote from Josephus could be forgiven for not noticing the problem even after rereading and considering the passage, but the issue lies in what Josephus quotes Theophrastus as saying and what Josephus then states he also said.
What Josephus states that Theophrastus wrote was:
'The laws of the Tyrians forbid men to swear foreign oaths.'
However, Josephus then seeks to imply the Tyrians of Theophrastus is a reference to the jews via his quickly glossing over other points and then stating that a practice called 'corban' is unique among the jews and that this is very praiseworthy and pietistic practice.
Now clearly Josephus is being somewhat dishonest here as the 'Tyrians' of Theophrastus is likely to reference to the inhabitants of Tyre in Lebanon, and certainly not to the jews of Jerusalem and its environs. In addition to this we can see that Josephus is attempting to change the focus of what Theophrastus is alleged to have stated in so far as he tells us that 'he enumerates some others' (i.e., other customs of other peoples) and then claims that Josephus singled out a jewish practice for special praise.
This immediately should ring alarm bells in your mind precisely because Josephus is telling us that the jews were but one of several peoples and rituals mentioned as examples by Theophrastus, but then Josephus says in effect that the context of the statement made by Theophrastus doesn't matter and that he singled out the jews as especially praiseworthy.
The problem is that we can see Josephus is having Theophrastus focus on the jews when we can also see from Josephus' attempt to quickly dismiss it: that Theophrastus was not doing so. In addition to this: Josephus' claim that Theophrastus describes the jewish practice of ‘corban’ as 'a thing devoted to God' is rather unlikely given that Josephus unusually doesn't give the context to that statement and the reference is to a single god of the jews of Josephus' time not the religious context of the many gods of the ancient Greeks in Theophrastus' time (suggesting it is an interpolation by Josephus). We should also note that Josephus in this case prefers to claim what Theophrastus means rather than to quote the whole of the text, which he is normally so keen to do to prove his case (suggesting he is being slightly cagey about what exactly Theophrastus says).
This, of course, just doesn't work with the rest of Josephus' claimed argument precisely because of his mention of other rituals and civilisations that Theophrastus credited: suggesting that Theophrastus probably wasn't singling out jews, but rather he was praising a philosophic principle that he believed the jews among other peoples happened to use.
Thus, we can see that Theophrastus was not being complimentary to the jews, but rather Theophrastus was actually talking of the jews in the way that he would talk of barbarians. In so far as if one knew of an Aztec religious custom, such as a form of endogamy, that one liked and wished to use an example of what should be the case intellectually-speaking: then one is not praising the Aztecs but rather one is using the Aztecs as an example to make an independent point.
This is precisely what Theophrastus is doing with the jews: he is not complimenting or suggesting the jews are a wonderful people (as jews like to claim he is) (6) rather he is simply using the example of the jews to make a point about religious oaths. (7)
It really is that simple.
Conversely, we know that Theophrastus probably did mention jews in his work - as otherwise given Josephus' very doubtful credibility in reliably quoting sources we should be inclined to dismiss his claims about what people said - because we have a excerpt from the anti-jewish and anti-Christian neo-Platonic philosopher Porphyry of Tyre, which is a quote from Theophrastus about the jews.
To wit:
‘'Nevertheless,' says Theophrastus, 'though the Syrians [of Judea], because of their original mode of sacrifice, continue to offer animal sacrifices at the present time, if any one were to bid us sacrifice in the same way, we should revolt from the practice. For instead of feasting upon what had been sacrificed, they made a whole burnt-offering of it by night, and by pouring much honey and wine over it they consumed the sacrifice more quickly, in order that even the all-seeing sun might not be a spectator of the dreadful deed.
And while doing this they fast throughout the intermediate days; and all this time, as being a nation of philosophers, they converse with one another about the Deity, and at night they contemplate the heavenly bodies, looking up to them, and calling upon God in prayers. For these were the first to dedicate both the other animals, and themselves, which last they did from necessity and not from any desire.' (8)
We should here briefly mention the comment that the jews are a 'nation of philosophers' is an unfortunate translation of the text in so far as it is correct but yet incorrect at the same time. A better translation of the term has been pointed out by Bar-Kochva to be 'thinking about things concerning nature' (9) or very simply put: the jews were not philosophers in the sense we mean it today, but rather spent a lot of their time in religious speculation. Or put even more simply: the jews were heavily inclined towards religious mysticism much as they have been historically sense.
This, of course, is very different to the logic, mathematics and the 'elicitation of truth via the medium of debate' of Aristotle and Theophrastus, but the standard translation of 'nation of philosophers' would suggest they are the same. When from the context we can see that the jews are actually not being philosophic, but rather just very superstitious (hence their nightly rituals, fear of the 'all-seeing sun' [i.e., Apollo Helios] and habit of 'contemplating the heavenly bodies' [i.e., religious mysticism]).
Indeed, the association of negativity to these night-time rites is suggested by the last phrase of quotation:
‘For these were the first to dedicate both the other animals, and themselves, which last they did from necessity and not from any desire.'
The context we need to understand here is that it was the jewish custom to offer burnt offerings - i.e., Canaanite religious sacrifices - to Yahweh from early on in their history and that the Greeks also performed similar sacrifices.
Now the problem with the jewish interpretation of this passage is that it focuses on the 'nation of philosophers' assertion and leaves out the rest of the context as it is 'contradicted by the Torah'. (10)
One is therefore forced to ask how standard jewish arguments on this score are much better than those proffered by many creationists whose argument often boils down to: if it is contradicted by our interpretation of the Bible, it is wrong.
In essence then the jewish interpretation asserts that the Torah is always right (a religious not a historical intellectual position I might add) and that because what Theophrastus suggests was the case is contradicted by the Torah: then we must always believe the Torah, because that is what the jews have always believed to be the case. In essence the jewish argument is a tautology as it doesn't tell us why the Torah is always correct in the historical details of Judaism.
Not only is this argument from the jews absurd (as clearly the Torah isn't always right as otherwise incest would be morally permissible or at least arguably so) but it also distracts from what Theophrastus is saying and the confirmation that it finds in other Greek sources of around this time.
If we then re-read Theophrastus' first paragraph acknowledging the centrality of the sacrifice to Greek and jewish religious thought, which is:
‘'Nevertheless,' says Theophrastus, 'though the Syrians [of Judea], because of their original mode of sacrifice, continue to offer animal sacrifices at the present time, if any one were to bid us sacrifice in the same way, we should revolt from the practice. For instead of feasting upon what had been sacrificed, they made a whole burnt-offering of it by night, and by pouring much honey and wine over it they consumed the sacrifice more quickly, in order that even the all-seeing sun might not be a spectator of the dreadful deed.'‘
We can see that Theophrastus is actually saying that the jews had an original mode of sacrifice, which has been continued by the use of animals in partial place of an original sacrificial object. Theophrastus then makes clear what this sacrificial object is when he states:
'For these were the first to dedicate both the other animals, and themselves, which last they did from necessity and not from any desire.'
Or put in a simpler way to illustrate his meaning: the jews currently sacrifice animals as burnt offerings in continuance of an ancient tradition of theirs whereby they were the first of all peoples to sacrifice both animals and humans to the gods.
This is clearly demonstrated by Dennis Hughes who points out that Theophrastus - especially when quoted by Porphyry (as the latter was an advocate of vegetarianism while the former an opponent of blood sacrifice) - (11) is actually explicitly addressing the concept of human sacrifice as a religious ritual among both the Greeks and other peoples. (12)
In other words, then the picture that Theophrastus is presenting of the jews is not the positive one that jews are want to ascribe it as, but rather that he is actually accusing the jews of being the first people to perform both human and animal sacrifice via the burnt offering.
Further Theophrastus is actually attacking the jews in this passage in so far as he explicitly states that the sacrificial practices of the jews would be 'revolting' to the Greeks: a culture we should note who had their own culture of human (as described by Homer in relation to Agamemnon's ritual sacrifice of his daughter) and animal sacrifices.
One can therefore legitimately wonder at how horrific the human sacrifices that were described to Theophrastus must have been to warrant such a response and suggestion in the light of the bloody Greek practice of ritual human and animal sacrifice. However, a clue to his horror is given in the reference to the burnt offering that Theophrastus describes in that the jews take the victim and immolate them live pouring honey and wine on them to make them burn quicker. In other words: Theophrastus is linking how the jews currently immolate their animal sacrifices (using honey and wine to fuel the flames) to how they have historically immolated their human sacrifices.
This is a practice that may be - within reason - linked to the famous story of Greek who had been kidnapped and kept in the temple of Solomon (13) who was then to burnt alive in a wood before - in all probability - an idol of the Canaanite goddess: Asherah (i.e., what before what we call an 'Asherah pole'). (14)
Now all this may still sound a little far-fetched, but any doubt is removed when we remember that the jewish god Yahweh was originally the Canaanite 'King of Heaven' and that many jews are testified in the Tanakh as having offered humans for sacrifice as burnt offerings per the Canaanite religious practice at various different times such as the reign of Solomon. Further to this we know that the major colony of the Canaanites - the Carthaginians - were avid practitioners of human sacrifice and we have little reason for doubting the Canaanites were as well. (15)
From this - in addition to the several mentions of such a practice by other ancient Greeks and Romans - (16) we can see that what Theophrastus is referring to the jews as doing is actually quite plausible and that the jews by taking one particular phrase out of context have been - like Josephus earlier did - misrepresenting what Theophrastus wrote about them.
That doesn't tell us that Theophrastus was an opponent of the jews, but rather that the jewish practices that he came across were not the praiseworthy ones that Josephus claims he asserted, but rather that jewish practices were negative examples to be used to prove a point. In this case the inadvisable nature of human and animal blood sacrifice as a religious ritual.
Indeed, when one understands the negativity towards jewish practices of the second quotation from Theophrastus then it becomes quite clear that Josephus' claim that Theophrastus thought highly of the jews is not only unlikely: it is utterly implausible. It also informs us once again that Josephus is not an objective source of information - which is how he is treated by the pro-jewish side of the argument - but rather is a highly partisan one out to misrepresent opponents of the jews of his day and in doing so falsify quotations from eminent Greeks to make his case appear much stronger than it in fact was.
We can thus summarise that Theophrastus of Eresos was not a pro-jewish Greek philosopher and if anything he - while not being an opponent of the jews in the modern sense - found jewish religious rituals to be a vile phenomenon to be disdained and suppressed not praised and copied.
References
(1) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/clearchus-of-soli-aristotle-and-the
(2) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/hermippus-of-symrna-pythagoras-of
(3) Joseph. Cont. Ap. 1:22
(4) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/hermippus-of-symrna-pythagoras-of
(5) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0019_0_19799.html
(6) Ibid.
(7) A great example of how examples are used in this way is afforded by Sir Richard Burton who has been dogged by claims of homosexuality because he allegedly wrote a report about the practice of it in what is now Pakistan and made a lot of examples based on testimony he collected. This is discussed and the claims of homosexuality debunked in detail by Edward Rice, 1990, 'Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton', 1st Edition, Charles Scribners and Sons: New York, pp. 118-119, 128-130
(8) Eusb. Caes. Pamp. Praep. Evang. 9:2
(9) Bezalel Bar-Kochva, 2010, 'The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period', 1st Edition, University of California Press: Berkeley, pp. 137-138; 204-205
(10) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0019_0_19799.html
(11) Dennis Hughes, 1991, 'Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece', 1st Edition, Routledge: New York, p. 187
(12) Ibid., 97, 104, 115-117, 122-124
(13) Joseph. Cont. Ap. 2:89-96
(14) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/reconstructing-the-first-jewish-ritual
(15) Shelby Brown, 1991, 'Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context', 1st Edition, Sheffield Academic Press: New York, pp. 22-23
(16) Joseph. Cont. Ap. 2:70