Walter T. Wilson, «Matthew, Philo, and Mercy for Animals (Matt 12,9-14)», Vol. 96 (2015) 201-221
After comparing Matt 12,11-12 with its synoptic parallels (Mark 3,4; Luke 13,15-16; 14,5) and with texts that discuss the treatment of animals on the Sabbath (e.g., CD 11.13-14), the passage is compared with Philonic texts (Spec. 2.89; 4.218; Virt. 81, 133, 139-140, 160; cf. Plutarch, Cato 5.5; Esu carn. 996A; Iamblichus, Vit. Pythag. 30.186; Porphyry, Abst. 3.26.6) in which the Alexandrian discerns a principle informing a law that refers to the treatment of animals, and then suggests that the principle applies by analogy to the treatment of people, illuminating the principle with reference to mercy and similar concepts.
03_Wilson_201_221_201_221 10/07/15 12:41 Pagina 212
212 WALTER T. WILSON 212
it is altogether inappropriate to burden and oppress other people.
For if the different parts of the earth, which by nature share in neither
pleasure nor pain, ought to be given a share of rest, how much more
(pw/j ouvci. ma/llon) must this be the case with people, who possess
not only the sense that is common to the irrational animals but also
the special gift of reason? (Spec. 2.89)
Accordingly, the law teaches masters to refrain from imposing
severe orders on their slaves (Spec. 2.90-91), and rulers to refrain
from imposing heavy taxes on their subjects (Spec. 2.92-95). Those
who fail in this regard, he says, have failed to learn the importance
of showing mercy (e;leoj) to those most in need of it (Spec. 2.96).
The theme of mercy also plays a role in Hum. 137-141, a passage
in which Philo explains why Moses prohibited his followers from
sacrificing pregnant animals. Although he refers to it as a no,moj, the
prohibition as such is not found in scripture, but rather is something
that Philo infers from Lev 22,28 (discussed in §§ 134-136), perhaps
under the influence of oral tradition (cf. 4QMMT B 36; 4Q270 9 ii
14-15; 11QT LII 5; m. Hul. 4.5). At any rate, it was from this prece-
dent, he says, that the lawgivers of other nations derived the rule that
a pregnant woman condemned to death must not be executed until
she has delivered her child (§ 139). In Philo’s opinion, this claim
serves as proof that Moses “extends the duty of fair treatment to irra-
tional animals, so that by practicing (avskh,santej) on species of dif-
ferent kinds we might exercise humanity even more so (pollh/| tini
periousi,a)| among beings of like kind to ourselves” (§ 140) 43. Con-
trary to his detractors, then, the legislation of Moses does not promote
inhumane and antisocial practices, but rather “these laws obviously
grant a share of mercy (evle,ou) even to herds of cattle, and the people
through the guidance of customs learned from their earliest youth
amend any disobedience in their souls to a civilized disposition” (§ 141).
Shortly thereafter (in a discussion of Exod 23,19; 34,26; Deut 14,21),
he goes on to identify e;leoj as the “passion that is most indispensable
and most closely related to the rational soul” (§ 144) 44. As David
43
The acquisition of virtue depends on three elements (nature, instruction,
and practice), the last of which is explicitly addressed here. Cf. Abr. 52-54;
Ios. 1; Mos. 1.76; Spec. 4.24; Hum. 133; Praem. 65.
44
The classification of mercy as one of the passions reflects Stoic influ-
ence, e.g., DIOGENES LAERTIUS, Vit. phil. 7.111; cf. SVF III, 394, 413-414,
416; CICERO, Tusc. 4.18; PLUTARCH, Stoic. rep. 1046B-C.