Comparison of Humans to Animals in 2 Peter 2,10b-22 107 Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.148. Both dogs and pigs are mentioned negatively in Musonius Rufus 18B. In addition to these passages, humans are often compared to dogs and pigs when the latter are not specifically called irrational animals. And these comparisons follow a pattern similar to that of the passages mentioned above: humans are compared to dogs with respect to both positive and negative qualities; humans are almost always compared to pigs with respect to negative qualities (18). One specific context in which humans are compared to dogs and pigs, as well as other animals, is that of physiognomy, the assessment of persons’ character from their outer appearance. One of the methods of doing this is to infer the relationship between appearance and character in humans from the relationship between the two in animals, on the assumption that the two are similar. In pursuing this approach to physiognomy, the inferences based on dogs and pigs are sometimes positive, sometimes negative. In the case of the dog, the two are approximately equal; in the case of the pig the latter preponderate. a) Comparison of humans to dogs Otto Keller divides dogs in the ancient world into five large groups: Spitz-type dogs, shepherd’s dogs, street dogs, greyhounds and mastiffs (19). Humans are usually compared negatively to street dogs; they are compared positively to other kinds of dogs. Humans are also compared to dogs in a neutral way. Judg 7,5 speaks about humans lapping water like a dog. In Somn. 1.108 Philo says that just as barking is peculiar to a dog, so is reasoning to a human. Seneca makes a similar point somewhat more elaborately in Epistles 76. In Somn. 2.267 Philo interprets the statement about a dog in Exod 11,7 as referring to the tongue that is dog-like in barking so loud. Musonius Rufus argues that just as the trainers of dogs make no distinction in the training of male and female, so women should study philosophy (4, Lutz 44-45). And Musonius argues that just as a dog was not created for pleasure, neither were humans (17, Lutz 106- 109). Epictetus frequently draws conclusions about human beings from the characteristics and behavior of dogs. For example, in 1.2.34 he argues that humans differ in their abilities by asking if all dogs are skilled in tracking. In 2.23.24 he argues that human faculties are all useful though differing in value by saying that a dog is useful though less so than a slave. In 3.1.1-6, 23, 45 he argues that human beauty consists in possessing the excellence proper to a human by saying that this is true of dogs. Similar arguments are found in 3.26.26; 4.1.85 and 124; 4.8.42. Odyssey 20.9-13 compares the heart of Odysseus, filled with wrath (18) In contemporary English usage as in first century Greek and Latin, comparing someone to a pig is almost always negative — e.g., making a pig of oneself, pigging out, sweating like a pig, male chauvinist pig — but comparing someone to a dog is more positive than in the first century — e.g., dogged determination. This is based on the more favorable estimate of dogs in our culture – the dog is man’s best friend. However, the negative comparison is still found — e.g., son of a bitch. (19) O. KELLER, Die Antike Tierwelt (Hildesheim 1963) 1.91.