On the Creation of the World (De opificio mundi)

On Abraham, volume II, page 11 (in the Mangey edition): "They supposed the world itself to be God, not piously likening the thing created to the Creator." original: τὸν κόσμον αὐτὸν ὑπέλαβον εἶναι θεόν, οὐκ εὐαγῶς τὸ γενόμενον ἐφομοιώσαντες τῷ πεποιηκότι The adjective "unclean" original: ἄναγνος (anagnos) is read in Philo’s On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain, volume I, page 190.

5,5 Manuscript V reads "consists" original: συνέστηκεν; the vulgate|The standard or commonly received version of a text reads "subsists" original: ὑφέστηκεν. The cause of the corruption was the preceding verb "to suspect" original: ὑπονοεῖν.

8,19 Manuscript V (and Eusebius) reads "the abyss" original: τὴν δ’ ἄβυσσον (feminine); the vulgate reads "the abyss" original: τὸ δ’ ἄβυσσον (neuter). Just as Philo wrote "he named it darkness" original: τὸ μὲν ἐπεφήμισε σκότος shortly before, so in this place he wrote "the abyss" in the feminine; for in this writer, the relative and demonstrative pronouns quite often agree with the following predicative noun (see below, chapter II).

9,5/6 In the printed editions, the following is read: "But the invisible and intelligible divine Word and the Word of God he calls the image of God; and of this image, that intelligible light, which became the image of the divine Word which interpreted its birth." original: τὸν δ’ ἀόρατον καὶ νοητὸν θεῖον λόγον καὶ θεοῦ λόγον εἰκόνα λέγει θεοῦ· καὶ ταύτης εἰκόνα τὸ νοητὸν φῶς ἐκεῖνο, ὃ θείου λόγου γέγονεν εἰκὼν τοῦ διερμηνεύσαντος τὴν γένεσιν αὐτοῦ The same appears in the manuscripts (except V), though the words "and the Word of God" are absent from some books, and in others "of this image" is written instead of "an image of this." It is easily apparent that Philo did not write this; for it is not understood how, when discussing intelligible light, the speech should suddenly shift to the divine Word and call it "invisible and intelligible," terms Philo usually uses to signify light or the intelligible world. Furthermore, the "divine Word" original: θεῖος λόγος was not an "image of God" to Philo, but almost the same as God. Finally, the tautology|Needless repetition of an idea using different words present in the words "and of this image, that intelligible light, which became the image of the divine Word" is completely intolerable. Manuscript V, Eusebius, and John of Damascus demonstrate that a gloss|A brief explanatory note or marginal entry mistakenly incorporated into the main text by later scribes underlies the standard text. They record: "But that invisible and intelligible light became the image of the divine Word which interpreted its birth," original: τὸ δ’ ἀόρατον καὶ νοητὸν φῶς ἐκεῖνο θείου λόγου γέγονεν εἰκὼν τοῦ διερμηνεύσαντος τὴν γένεσιν αὐτοῦ omitting the rest. This reading is clear and well-suited to the harmony of the thought.

10,14 Manuscript V (and Eusebius) reads "withdrew" original: ἀνεχώρησεν; the vulgate reads "retreated" original: ὑπεχώρησεν. The word "departed" original: ὑπεξέστη precedes it.

12,1 Manuscript V reads "he was giving names to them" original: ὀνόματ’ αὐτοῖς ἐτίθετο (middle voice); the vulgate reads "he was giving names to them" original: ὀνόματ’ αὐτοῖς ἐτίθει (active voice). Philo usually joins the word "name" and similar terms with the middle verb "to place for oneself" original: τίθεσθαι, not the active: compare 57,6 "what names he will set." See On the Cherubim I, 149; On the Change of Names I, 588; On the Decalogue II, 184; Fragment II, 653.

12,8 Manuscript V reads "in a contrary manner" original: κατὰ ἐναντίον τρόπον; the vulgate reads "in the contrary manner" original: κατὰ τὸν ἐναντίον τρόπον.