The only event in Philo's life that can be decisively dated is his representation of theAlexandrian Jews in a delegation to the Roman emperorCaligula in 40 CE following civil strife between the Jewish and Greek communities of Alexandria.[1][2][3]
Philo's deployment ofallegory to harmonize Jewish scripture, mainly theTorah, withGreek philosophy was the first documented of its kind, and thereby often misunderstood. Many critics of Philo assumed his allegorical perspective would lend credibility to the notion of legend over historicity.[4] Philo often advocated a literal understanding of the Torah and the historicity of such described events, while at other times favoring allegorical readings.[5]
Philo's dates of birth and death are unknown but can be judged by Philo's description of himself as "old" when he was part of the delegation toGaius Caligula in 38 CE. Jewish history professorDaniel R. Schwartz estimates his birth year as sometime between 15 and 10 BCE. Philo's reference to an event under the reign of EmperorClaudius indicates that he died sometime between 45 and 50 CE.[6] Philo also recounts that he visited theSecond Temple in Jerusalem at least once in his lifetime.[7]
Although the names of his parents are unknown, it is known that Philo came from a family which was noble, honourable and wealthy. It was either his father or paternal grandfather who was grantedRoman citizenship from Roman dictator GaiusJulius Caesar.Jerome wrote that Philo camede genere sacerdotum (from a priestly family).[8][6] His ancestors and family had social ties and connections to the priesthood inJudea, theHasmonean dynasty, theHerodian dynasty and theJulio-Claudian dynasty inRome.
Philo had one brother, Alexander Lysimachus, who was the general tax administrator of customs inAlexandria. He accumulated an immense amount of wealth, becoming not only the richest man in that city but also in the entire Hellenistic world. Alexander was so rich that he gave a loan to the wife ofking Herod Agrippa, as well as gold and silver to overlay the nine gates of thetemple in Jerusalem. Due to his extreme wealth, Alexander was also influential in imperial Roman circles as a friend of emperor Claudius.[9] Through Alexander, Philo had two nephews,Tiberius Julius Alexander andMarcus Julius Alexander. The latter was the first husband of the Herodian princessBerenice. Marcus died in 43 or 44. Some scholars identify Alexander Lysimachus as the Alexander referenced in theBook of Acts, who presided over theSanhedrin trial ofJohn andPeter.[10]
Philo lived in an era of increasing ethnic tension in Alexandria, exacerbated by the new strictures ofimperial rule. Some expatriate Hellenes (Greeks) in Alexandria condemned the Jews for a supposed alliance with Rome, even as Rome was seeking to suppress Jewish national and cultural identity in theRoman province of Judaea.[11][6] InAntiquities of the Jews,Josephus tells of Philo's selection by the Alexandrian Jewish community as their principal representative before the Roman emperor Gaius Caligula. He says that Philo agreed to represent the Alexandrian Jews about the civil disorder that had developed between the Jews and the Greeks. Josephus also tells us that Philo was skilled in philosophy and that he was brother to thealabarch Alexander.[12] According to Josephus, Philo and the larger Jewish community refused to treat the emperor as a god, to erect statues in honour of the emperor, and to build altars and temples to the emperor. Josephus says Philo believed that God actively supported this refusal.
Josephus' complete comments about Philo:
There was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance, who came to Gaius. Now one of these ambassadors from the people of Alexandria wasApion, (29) who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews; and, among other things that he said, he charged them with neglecting the honors that belonged to Caesar; for that while all who were subject to the Roman empire built altars and temples to Gaius, and in other regards universally received him as they received the gods, these Jews alone thought it a dishonorable thing for them to erect statues in honor of him, as well as to swear by his name. Many of these severe things were said by Apion, by which he hoped to provoke Gaius to anger at the Jews, as he was likely to be. But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the Alabarch, (30) and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations; but Gaius prohibited him, and bid him begone; he was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were about him, that they should be of good courage, since Gaius's words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself.[13]
The extent of Philo's knowledge of Hebrew, however, is debated. Philo was more fluent in Greek than inHebrew and read theJewish Scriptures chiefly from theSeptuagint, aKoine Greek translation of Hebraic texts later compiled as theHebrew Bible and thedeuterocanonical books.[17] His numerous etymologies of Hebrew names, which are along the lines of theetymologicmidrash to Genesis and of the earlierrabbinism, although not modern Hebrewphilology, suggest some familiarity.[18] Philo offers for some names three or four etymologies, sometimes including the correct Hebrew root (e.g.,Hebrew:י־ר־ד,romanized: y-r-d,lit. 'descend' as the origin of the nameJordan). However, his works do not display much understanding ofHebrew grammar, and they tend to follow the translation of the Septuagint more closely than the Hebrew version.[17][19][b].[20]
Philo identified the angel of the Lord (in the singular) with theLogos.[21][22] In the text attributed to Philo, he "consistently usesΚύριος as a designation for God".[23] According to David B. Capes, "the problem for this case, however, is that Christian scholars are responsible for copying and transmitting Philo's words to later generations", and adds,
George Howard surveys evidence and concludes: "Although it is improbable that Philo varied from the custom of writing the Tetragram when quoting from Scripture, it is likely that he used the wordΚύριος when making a secondary reference to the divine name in his exposition".[24]
James Royse concludes:
(1) the exegete [Philo] knows and reads biblical manuscripts in which the tetragram is written inpalaeo-Hebrew orAramaic script and not translated bykyrios and that (2) he quotes scriptures in the same way he would have pronounced it, that is, by translating it askurios."[24]
Philo bases his doctrines on theHebrew Bible, which he considers the source and standard not only of religious truth but of all truth.[c] Its pronouncements are theἱερὸς λόγος,θεῖος λόγος, andὀρθὸς λόγος (holy word, godly word, righteous word),[26] uttered sometimes directly and sometimes through the mouth of a prophet, and especially throughMoses, whom Philo considers the true medium ofrevelation. However, he distinguishes between the words uttered by God himself, such as theTen Commandments, and theedicts of Moses (as the special laws).[27]
Philo regards the Bible as the source not only of religious revelation but also of philosophical truth. By applying the Stoic mode of allegorical interpretation to the Hebrew Bible, he interpreted the stories ofthe first five books as elaboratemetaphors andsymbols to demonstrate that Greek philosophers' ideas had preceded them in the Bible:Heraclitus's concept ofbinary oppositions, according toWho is the Heir of Divine Things? § 43 [i. 503]; and the conception of the wise man expounded byZeno of Citium, the founder ofStoicism, inEvery Good Man is Free, § 8 [ii. 454].[28] Philo did not reject the subjective experience of ancient Judaism; yet, he repeatedly explained that the Septuagint cannot be understood as a concrete, objective history.
Philo's allegorical interpretation of scripture allows him to grapple with morally disturbing events and impose a cohesive explanation of stories. Specifically, Philo interprets the characters of the Bible as aspects of the human being and the stories of the Bible as episodes from universal human experience. For example,Adam represents the mind andEve, the senses.Noah represents tranquility, a stage of "relative"—incomplete but progressing—righteousness.[29] According toJosephus, Philo was inspired mainly in this byAristobulus of Alexandria and theAlexandrian school.[30][31]
Two is the number ofschism, that which has been created, and death.[34]
Three is the number of the body ("De Allegoriis Legum," i. 2 [i. 44]) or of the Divine Being in connection with its fundamental powers ("De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini," § 15 [i. 173]).
Four is potentially what ten is actually: the perfect number ("De Opificio Mundi," §§ 15, 16 [i. 10, 11], etc.); but in an evil sense, four is the number of the passions, πάθη ("De Congressu Quærendæ Eruditionis Gratia." § 17 [i. 532]).
Five is the number of the senses and of sensibility ("De Opificio Mundi," § 20 [i. 14], etc.).
Six, the product of the masculine and feminine numbers 3×2 and in its parts equal to 3+3, is the symbol of the movement of organic beings ("De Allegoriis Legum," i. 2 [i. 44]).
Seven has the most various attributes ("De Opiticio Mundi," §§ 30-43 [i. 21 et seq.]; comp. I. G. Müller, "Philo und die Weltschöpfung," 1841, p. 211).
Eight, the number of the cube, has many of the attributes determined by thePythagoreans ("Quæstiones in Genesin," iii. 49 [i. 223, Aucher]).
Nine is the number of strife, according to Gen. xiv. ("De Congressu Qu. Eruditionis Gratia," § 17 [i. 532]).
Ten is the number of perfection ("De Plantatione Noë," § 29 [i. 347]).
Philo also determines the values of the numbers 50, 70, 100, 12, and 120. There is also extensive symbolism of objects. Philo elaborates on the extensive symbolism of proper names, following the example of the Bible and theMidrash, to which he adds many new interpretations.[35]
Philo stated histheology both through thenegation of opposing ideas and through detailed, positive explanations of thenature of God; he contrasted the nature of God with the nature of the physical world. Philo did not consider God similar toHeaven, theworld, or man; he affirmed atranscendent God without physical features or emotional qualities resembling those of human beings. Following Plato, Philo equates matter to nothingness and sees its effect in fallacy, discord, damage, and decay of things.[36] Only God's existence is specific; no appropriate predicates can be conceived.[37] To Philo, God exists beyond time and space and does not makespecial interventions into the world because God already encompasses the entire cosmos.
Philo also integrated select theology from the rabbinic tradition,[specify] including God'stranscendence,[38] and humankind's inability to behold anineffable God.[39] He argued that God has no attributes (ἁπλοῡς)—in consequence, no name (ἅρρητος)—and, therefore, that God cannot be perceived by man (ἀκατάληπτος). Furthermore, he posited thatGod cannot change (ἅτρεπτος): God is always the same (ἀΐδιος). God needs no other being (χρῄζει γὰρ οὐδενὸς τὸ παράπαν) for self-existence or the creation of material things,[40] and God is self-sufficient (ἑαυτῷ ἱκανός).[41] God can never perish (ἅφθαρτος), is self-existent (ὁ ὤν, τὸ ὄν), and has no relations with any other being (τὸ γὰρ ὄν, ᾗ ὄν ἐστιν, οὐχὶ τῶν πρός τι).[42]
Philo considered theanthropomorphism of the Bible to be an impiety that was incompatible with the Platonic conception of "God in opposition to matter", instead interpreting the ascription to God ofhands and feet, eyes and ears, tongue and windpipe, as allegories.[43] In Philo's interpretation, Hebrew scripture adapts itself to human conceptions, and so God is occasionally represented as a man forpedagogic reasons.[44] The same holds true for God'santhropopathic attributes. God, as such, is untouched by unreasonable emotions, as appears inExodus 32:12, wherein Moses, torn by his feelings, perceives God alone to be calm.[45] He is free from sorrow, pain, and other affections. But God is frequently represented as endowed with human emotions, and this serves to explain expressions referring to humanrepentance in the ancient Jewish context.
Similarly, God cannot exist or change in space. He has no "where" (πού, obtained by changing the accent in Genesis 3:9: "Adam, where [ποῡ] art thou?"), is not in any place. He is Himself the place; the dwelling-place of God means the same as God Himself, as in the Mishnah = "God is" (comp. Freudenthal, "Hellenistische Studien," p. 73), corresponding to the tenet of Greek philosophy that the existence of all things is summed up in God.[46] God as such is motionless, as the Bible indicates by the phrase "God stands".[47]
Philo endeavored to find the Divine Being active and acting in the world, in agreement with Stoicism, yet his Platonic conception of Matter as evil required that he place God outside of the world in order to prevent God from having any contact with evil. Hence, he was obliged to separate from the Divine Being the activity displayed in the world and to transfer it to the divine powers, which accordingly were sometimes inherent in God and at other times exterior to God. In order to balance these Platonic and Stoic conceptions, Philo conceived of these divine attributes as types or patterns of actual things ("archetypal ideas") in keeping with Plato, but also regarded them as the efficient causes that not only represent the types of things, but also produce and maintain them.[48] Philo endeavored to harmonize this conception with the Bible by designating these powers as angels.[49] Philo conceives the powers both as independent hypostases and as immanent attributes of a Divine Being.
In the same way, Philo contrasts the two divine attributes of goodness and power (ἄγαθότης and ἀρχή, δίναμις χαριστική and συγκολαστική) as expressed in the names of God; designating "Yhwh" as Goodness, Philo interpreted "Elohim" (LXX. Θεός) as designating the "cosmic power"; and as he considered the Creation the most important proof of divine goodness, he found the idea of goodness especially in Θεός.[50][d]
Philo also treats the divine powers of God as a single independent being, ordemiurge,[51] which he designates "Logos". Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced byHeraclitus' conception of the "dividing Logos" (λόγος τομεύς), which calls the various objects into existence by the combination of contrasts ("Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit," § 43 [i. 503]), as well as the Stoic characterization of the Logos as the active and vivifying power.
But Philo followed the Platonic distinction betweenimperfect matter and perfect Form, and Philo's conception of the Logos is directly related to the Middle Platonic view of God as unmoved and utterly transcendent; therefore, intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[52] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."[52][53]
Philo also adapted Platonic elements in designating the Logos as the "idea of ideas" and the "archetypal idea".[54] Philo identified Plato'sIdeas with the demiurge's thoughts. These thoughts make the contents of Logos; they were the seals for making sensual things during world creation.[55] Logos resembles a book with creature paradigms.[56] An Architect's design before the construction of a city serves to Philo as another simile of Logos.[57] Since creation, Logos binds things together.[58] As the receptacle and holder of ideas, Logos is distinct from the material world. At the same time, Logos pervades the world, supporting it.[59] This image of God is the type for all other things (the "Archetypal Idea" of Plato), a seal impressed upon things. The Logos is a kind of shadow cast by God, having the outlines but not the blinding light of the Divine Being.[60][61][62] He calls the Logos "second god [deuteros theos]"[63] the "name of God,"[64]
There are, in addition, Biblical elements: Philo connects his doctrine of the Logos with Scripture, first of all, based on Genesis 1:27, the relation of the Logos to God. He translates this passage as follows: "He made man after the image of God," concluding from that place that an image of God existed.[65] The Logos is also designated as "high priest" in reference to the exalted position that the high priest occupied after the Exile as the physical center of the Jews' relationship with God. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of the Jews' sins and the mediator and advocate for humankind before, and envoy to, God: ἱκέτης,[66] and παράκλητος.[67][68] He puts human minds in order.[69] The right reason is an infallible law, the source of any other laws.[non sequitur][70] The angel blockingBalaam's way inNumbers 22:22–35 is interpreted by Philo as a manifestation of the Logos, which acts as Balaam's—or humankind's—conscience.[71] As such, the Logos becomes the aspect of the divine that operates in the world through whom the world is created and sustained.[72]
Peter Schäfer argues that Philo's Logos was derived from his understanding of the "postbiblicalWisdom literature, in particular theWisdom of Solomon".[73] The Wisdom of Solomon is a Jewish work composed inAlexandria,Egypt, around the 1st century BCE, to bolster the faith of the Jewish community in a hostile Greek world. It is one of the sevenSapiential or Wisdom books included in theSeptuagint.
The Logos has a special relation to humankind. Philo seems to look at humans as atrichotomy ofnous (mind),psyche (soul), andsoma (body), which was common to the Hellenistic view of themind-body relationship. In Philo's writings, however, mind and spirit are used interchangeably.[74] The soul is the type; man is the copy.[jargon] The similarity is found in the mind (νοῦς) of humans. For the shaping of the nous, the individual has the Logos for a pattern to follow. The latter officiates here also as "the divider" (τομεύς), separating and uniting.[jargon] The Logos, as "interpreter," announces God's designs to humankind, acting in this respect as prophet and priest. As the latter, the Logos softens punishments by making God's merciful power stronger than the punitive. The Logos has a special mystic influence upon the human soul, illuminating it and nourishing it with higher spiritual food, like the manna, of which the most diminutive piece has the same vitality as the whole.[citation needed]
Philo's ethics were strongly influenced byPythagoreanism andStoicism, preferring a morality of virtues without passions, such as lust/desire and anger, but with a "common human sympathy".[75] Commentators can also infer from his mission toCaligula that Philo was involved in politics. However, the nature of his political beliefs, especially his viewpoint on the Roman Empire, is a matter of debate.[76][77]
Philo did suggest in his writings that a prudent man should withhold his genuine opinion about tyrants:
he will of necessity take up caution as a shield, as a protection to prevent his suffering any sudden and unexpected evil; for as I imagine what a wall is to a city, that caution is to an individual. Do not these men then talk foolishly, are they not mad, who desire to display their inexperience and freedom of speech to kings and tyrants, at times daring to speak and to do things in opposition to their will? Do they not perceive that they have not only put their necks under the yoke like brute beasts, but that they have also surrendered and betrayed their whole bodies and souls likewise, and their wives and their children, and their parents, and all the rest of the numerous kindred and community of their other relations? ... when an opportunity offers, it is a good thing to attack our enemies and put down their power; but when we have no such opportunity, it is better to be quiet[78]
The works of Philo are mostly allegorical interpretations of theTorah (known in the Hellenic world as thePentateuch) but also include histories and comments on philosophy. Most of these were preserved in Greek by theChurch Fathers; some survive only through an Armenian translation, and a smaller number survive in aLatin translation. The exact dates of writing and original organization plans are unknown for many of the texts attributed to Philo.[79]
Most of Philo's surviving work deals with theTorah (the first five books of theBible). Within this corpus are three categories:[79]
Quaestiones ("Inquiries") – short verse-by-verse exposition: four books on theBook of Genesis and two on theBook of Exodus. All six books are preserved through an Armenian translation published byJean-Baptiste Aucher in 1826. A comparison with surviving Greek and Latin fragments recommends the translation as literal and accurate as it goes, but it suggests that some original content is missing. There are thought to be twelve original books, six of which are about Genesis and six of which are about Exodus.
Allegorical Commentary – a longer exegesis explaining esoteric meanings; the surviving text deals only with the Book of Genesis, with the notable omission ofGenesis 1.
"Exposition of the Law" – a more straightforward synthesis of topics in the Pentateuch, probably written for Gentiles as well as Jews.
Philo's commentary on the Pentateuch is usually classified into three genres.
TheQuaestiones explain the Pentateuch catechetically, in the form of questions and answers ("Zητήματα καὶ Λύσεις, Quæstiones et Solutiones"). Only the following fragments have been preserved: abundant passages in Armenian – possibly the complete work – in explanation of Genesis and Exodus, an old Latin translation of a part of the "Genesis", and fragments from the Greek text inEusebius, in the "Sacra Parallela", in the "Catena", and also inAmbrosius. The explanation is confined chiefly to determining the literal sense, although Philo frequently refers to the allegorical sense as the higher.
Νόμων Ἱερῶν Ἀλληγορίαι, or "Legum Allegoriæ", deals, so far as it has been preserved, with selected passages fromGenesis. According to Philo's original idea, the history of primal humanity is here considered a symbol of the religious and moral development of the human soul. This commentary included the following treatises:
"Legum allegoriae", books i.–iii., on Gen. ii. 1–iii. 1a, 8b–19 (on the original extent and contents of these three books and the probably more correct combination of i. and ii.)[80]
"De Somniis", book i., on Gen. xxviii. 12 et seq., xxxi. 11 et seq. (Jacob's dreams); "De Somniis", book ii., onGen. xxxvii. 40 et seq. (the dreams of Joseph, of the cupbearer, the baker, and Pharaoh). Philo's three other books on dreams have been lost. The first of these (on the dreams ofAbimelech andLaban) preceded the present book i., and discussed the dreams in which God Himself spoke with the dreamers, this fitting in very well with Gen. xx. 3.[90]
Philo wrote a systematic work onMoses and his laws, which is usually prefaced by the treatise "De Opificio Mundi". The Creation is, according to Philo, the basis for theMosaic legislation, which is in complete harmony with nature ("De Opificio Mundi", § 1 [i. 1]). The exposition of the Law then follows in two sections. First come the biographies of the men who antedated the several written laws of the Torah, asEnos,Enoch,Noah,Abraham,Isaac, andJacob. These were the Patriarchs, who were the living impersonations of the active law of virtue before there were any written laws.
Then, the laws are discussed in detail: first, the chief ten commandments (the Decalogue), and then the precepts in amplification of each law. The work is divided into the following treatises:
"De Opificio Mundi" (comp. Siegfried in "Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie", 1874, pp. 562–565; L Cohn's important separate edition of this treatise, Breslau, 1889, preceded the edition of the same in "Philonis Alexandrini", etc., 1896, i.).
"De Abrahamo", on Abraham, the representative of the virtue acquired by learning. The lives of Isaac and Jacob have been lost. The three patriarchs were intended as types of the ideal cosmopolitan condition of the world.
"De Josepho", the life of Joseph, intended to show how the wise man must act in the actually existing state.
"De Vita Mosis", books i.-iii.; Schürer, l.c. p. 523, combines the three books into two; but, as Massebieau shows (l.c. pp. 42 et seq.), a passage, though hardly an entire book, is missing at the end of the present second book (Wendland, in "Hermes", xxxi. 440). Schürer (l.c. pp. 515, 524) excludes this work here, although he admits that from a literary point of view, it fits into this group, but he considers it foreign to the work in general, since Moses, unlike the Patriarchs, can not be conceived as a universally valid type of moral action, and can not be described as such. The latter point may be admitted. However, the question remains whether it is necessary to consider the matter in this light. It seems most natural to preface the discussion of the law with the biography of the legislator. In contrast, the transition from Joseph to the legislation, from the statesman who has nothing to do with the divine laws to the discussion of these laws themselves, is forced and abrupt. As the perfect man, Moses unites in himself, in a way, all the faculties of the patriarchal types. His is the "most pure mind" ("De Mutatione Nominum", 37 [i. 610]), he is the "lover of virtue", who has been purified from all passions ("De Allegoriis Legum", iii. 45, 48 [i. 113, 115]). As the person awaiting the divine revelation, he is also specially fitted to announce it to others after receiving it in the form of the Commandments (ib. iii. 4 [i. 89 et seq.]).
"De Decalogo", the introductory treatise to the chief ten commandments of the Law.
"De Specialibus Legibus", in which treatise Philo attempts to systematize the several laws of the Torah and to arrange them in conformity with the Ten Commandments. To the first and second commandments he adds the laws relating to priests and sacrifices; to the third (misuse of the name of God), the laws on oaths, vows, etc.; to the fourth (on the Sabbath), the laws on festivals; to the fifth (to honor father and mother), the laws on respect for parents, old age, etc.; to the sixth, the marriage laws; to the seventh, the civil and criminal laws; to the eighth, the laws on theft; to the ninth, the laws on truthful testifying; and to the tenth, the laws on lust.[91] The first book includes the following treatises of the current editions: "De Circumcisione"; "De Monarchia", books i. and ii.; "De Sacerdotum Honoribus"; "De Victimis". On the division of the book into these sections, the titles of the latter, and newly found sections of the text, see Schürer, l.c. p. 517; Wendland, l.c. pp. 136 et seq. The second book includes in the editions a section also entitled "De Specialibus Legibus" (ii. 270–277), to which is added the treatise "De Septenario", which is, however, incomplete inMangey. The greater part of the missing portion was supplied under the title "De Cophini Festo et de Colendis Parentibus" by Mai (1818) and was printed in Richter's edition, v. 48–50, Leipsic, 1828. The complete text of the second book was published byTischendorf in his "Philonea" (pp. 1–83). The third book is included under the title "De Specialibus Legibus" in ed. Mangey, ii. 299–334. The fourth book also is entitled "De Specialibus Legibus"; to it, the last sections are added under the titles "De Judice" and "De Concupiscentia" in the usual editions, and they include, also, as an appendix, the sections "De Justitia" and "De Creatione Principum".
The treatises "De Fortitudine", "De Caritate", and "De Pœnitentia" are a kind of appendix to "De Specialibus Legibus".[92] combines them into a special book, which, he thinks, was composed by Philo.
"De Præmiis et Pœnis" and "De Execratione". On the connection of both[93] This is the conclusion of the exposition of the Mosaic law.
This exposition is more exoteric than allegorical and might have been intended forgentile audiences.[79]
Apologies for Judaism, includingOn the Life of Moses,On the Jews, andOn the Contemplative Life.
Historical works (describing current events in Alexandria and the Roman Empire), includingAd Flaccum andDe legatione ad Gaium
Philosophical works includingEvery Good Man Is Free,On the Eternity of the World,On Animals, andOn Providence, the latter two surviving only through Armenian translation.
"On Providence", preserved only in Armenian, and printed from Aucher's Latin translation in the editions of Richter and others (on Greek fragments of the work see Schürer, l.c. pp. 531 et seq.).
"De Animalibus" (on the title, see Schürer, l.c. p. 532; in Richter's ed. viii. 101–144).
ϓποθετικά ("Counsels"), a work known only through fragments in Eusebius,Præparatio Evangelica, viii. 6, 7. The meaning of the title is open to discussion; it may be identical with the following
Περὶ Ἰουδαίων an apology for the Jews (Schürer, l.c. pp. 532 et seq.).
This is the second half of a work on the freedom of the just according toStoic principles. The genuineness of this work has been disputed byFrankel (in "Monatsschrift", ii. 30 et seq., 61 et seq.), byGrätz ("Gesch." iii. 464 et seq.), and more recently byAnsfeld (1887),Hilgenfeld (in "Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie", 1888, pp. 49–71), and others. NowWendland,Ohle,Schürer,Massebieau, andKrell consider it genuine, except the partly interpolated passages on the Essenes.
InLegatio ad Gaium (Embassy to Gaius), Philo describes his diplomatic mission toGaius Caligula, one of the few events in his life which is explicitly known. He relates that he was carrying a petition describing the sufferings of the Alexandrian Jews and asking the emperor to secure their rights.
InAgainst Flaccus, Philo describes the situation of the Jews in Egypt, writing that they numbered not less than a million and inhabited two of the five districts in Alexandria. He recounts the abuses of the prefectAulus Avilius Flaccus, who he says retaliated against the Jews when they refused to worship Caligula as a god.[95] Daniel Schwartz surmises that given this tense background, it may have been politically convenient for Philo to favor abstract monotheism instead of overt pro-Judeanism.[6]
Philo considers Caligula's plan to erect a statue of himself in theSecond Temple to be a provocation, asking, "Are you making war upon us, because you anticipate that we will not endure such indignity, but that we will fight on behalf of our laws, and die in defence of our national customs? For you cannot possibly have been ignorant of what was likely to result from your attempt to introduce these innovations respecting our temple." In his entire presentation, he implicitly supports the Jewish commitment to rebel against the emperor rather than allow such sacrilege to take place.[96]
This account, consisting initially of five books, has been preserved in fragments only (see Schürer, l.c. pp. 525 et seq.).[97] Philo intended to show the fearful punishment meted out by God to the persecutors of the Jews (on Philo's predilection for similar discussions see Siegfried, "Philo von Alexandria", p. 157). Philo says he was regarded by his people as having unusual prudence due to his age, education, and knowledge. This indicates that he was already an older man at this time (40 CE).[96]
This work[98] describes the mode of life and the religious festivals of a society of Jewish ascetics, who, according to the author, are widely scattered over the earth and are found predominantly in everynome inEgypt. The writer, however, confines himself to describing theTherapeutae, a colony of hermits settled onLake Mareotis in Egypt, where each lives separately in his own dwelling. Six days of the week they spend in pious contemplation, chiefly in connection with Scripture. On the seventh day, both men and women assemble together in a hall, and the leader delivers a discourse consisting of an allegorical interpretation of a scriptural passage. The feast of the fiftieth day is the most celebrated. The ceremony begins with a frugal meal consisting of bread, salted vegetables, and water, during which a passage of Scripture is interpreted. After the meal, the members of the society, in turn, sing religious songs of various kinds, to which the assembly answers with a refrain. The ceremony ends with a choral representation of the triumphal festival Moses and Miriam arranged after the passage through theRed Sea, the voices of the men and the women uniting in a choral symphony until the sun rises. After a common morning prayer, each goes home to resume contemplation. Such is the contemplative life (βίος θεωρητικός) led by these Θεραπευταί ("servants of Yhwh").
The ancient Christian Church regarded theseTherapeutæ as disguised Christian monks. This view has found advocates even recentlyP. E. Lucius's opinion, particularly that the Christian monastery of the third century was here glorified in a Jewish disguise, was widely accepted ("Die Therapeuten", 1879).
Massebieau ("Revue de l'Histoire des Religions", 1887, xvi. 170 et seq., 284 et seq.),Conybeare ("Philo About the Contemplative Life", Oxford, 1895), andWendland ("Die Therapeuten", etc., Leipsig, 1896) ascribe the entire work to Philo, basing their argument wholly on linguistic reasons, which seem sufficiently conclusive. However, there are significant dissimilarities between the fundamental conceptions of the author of the "De Vita Contemplativa" and those of Philo. The latter looks upon Greek culture and philosophy as allies, and the former is hostile to Greek philosophy (see Siegfried in "Protestantische Kirchenzeitung", 1896, No.42). He repudiates a science that numbered among Its followers the sacred band of thePythagoreans, inspired men likeParmenides,Empedocles,Zeno,Cleanthes,Heraclitus, andPlato, whom Philo prized ("Quod Omnis Probus", i., ii.; "Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit", 43; "De Providentia", ii. 42, 48, etc.). He considers thesymposium a detestable, common drinking bout. This can not be explained as a Stoic diatribe, for Philo would not have repeated it in this case. And Philo would have been the last to interpret the PlatonicEros in the vulgar way in which it is explained in the "De Vita Contemplativa", 7 (ii. 480), as he repeatedly uses the myth of double man allegorically in his interpretation of Scripture ("De Opificio Mundi", 24; "De Allegoriis Legum", ii. 24). It must furthermore be remembered that Philo in none of his other works mentions these colonies of allegorizing ascetics, in which he would have been highly interested had he known of them. However, pupils of Philo may subsequently have founded similar colonies near Alexandria that endeavored to realize his ideal of a pure life triumphing over the senses and passions, and they might also have been responsible for the one-sided development of certain of the master's principles. While Philo desired to renounce the lusts of this world, he held fast to the scientific culture of Hellenism, which the author of this book denounces. Although Philo liked to withdraw from the world to give himself up entirely to contemplation and bitterly regretted the lack of such repose ("De Specialibus Legibus", 1 [ii. 299]), he did not abandon the work that was required of him by the welfare of his people.
"De Mundo", a collection of extracts from Philo, especially from the preceding work[99]
"De Sampsone" and "De Jona", in Armenian, published with Latin translation byJean-Baptiste Aucher.
"Interpretatio Hebraicorum Nominum", a collection, by an anonymous Jew, of the Hebrew names occurring in Philo.Origen enlarged it by adding New Testament names, andJerome revised it. See below for the etymology of names occurring in Philo's exegetical works.[100]
A "Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum", which was printed in the sixteenth century and then disappeared, has been discussed by Cohn in "J. Q. R." 1898, x. 277–332. It narrates Biblical history from Adam to Saul[101]
For a list of Philo's lost works, see Schürer, l.c. p. 534.
"De Incorruptibilitate Mundi".Jakob Bernays has argued convincingly that this work is spurious. Itsperipatetic basic idea that the world is eternal and indestructible contradicts all those Jewish teachings that were, for Philo, an indisputable presupposition. Bernays has proved simultaneously that the text has been confused through wrong pagination, and he has cleverly restored it.[103]
Although Philo was a Jewish Middle Platonist, his influence on both Platonism and Judaism was limited compared to his adaptation by the early Christian Church fathers. His impact on Platonism was mainly restricted to Christian Middle Platonists such asClement of Alexandria andOrigen, and even potential connections toNumenius of Apamea, a 2nd-century CE Middle Platonist who also wrote on Judaism and was influenced byPythagoreanism, cannot be definitively proven.[104]
Though never properly attributed, Philo's marriage ofJewish exegesis withStoicism andPlatonism provided a formula later picked up by otherMidrash content from the 3rd and 4th centuries. Philo's ideas were further developed by later Judaism in the doctrines of theDivine Word creating the world, the divine throne-chariot and its cherub, the divine splendor and itsShekhinah, the name of God, as well as the names of the angels.[105]
Some claimed this lack of credit or affinity for Philo by the Rabbinic leadership at the time was due to his adoption ofallegorical instead ofliteral interpretations of theHebrew Bible. However, this was more likely due to his criticism of Rabbinic scholars,[106] as Philo argued their works and ideas were "full of Sybaritic profligacy and licentiousness to their everlasting shame",[107] "eager to give a specious appearance to infamous actions, so as to secure notoriety for disgraceful deeds",[108] and ultimately, that he "disregards the envious disposition of such men, and shall proceed to narrate the true events of Moses' life," of which he felt were unjustly hidden.[109]
For a long time, Philo was read and analyzed chiefly by Christian authors.Azariah dei Rossi'sMe'or Enayim: Imre Binah (1575), one of the first Jewish commentaries on Philo, describes four "serious defects" of Philo: reading the Torah in Greek, not Hebrew; belief in primordial matter rather thancreatio ex nihilo; unbelief in the Lord as evidenced by excessively allegorical interpretation of scripture; and neglect of theJewish oral tradition. Dei Rossi later gives a possible defense of Philo and writes that he can neither absolve nor convict him.[110]
Some 50 works by Philo have survived, and he is known to have written some 20 to 25 further works which have been lost.The following list gives conventional Latin and English titles and abbreviations commonly used in reference works.
Cohn, Leopold &Paul Wendland,Philonis Alexandrini Opera quæ supersunt (The Surviving Works of Philo of Alexandria) [Greek and Latin]. Berlin: George Reimer.
"Index of Philosophical Writings"(PDF).Documenta Catholica Omnia (in Greek). [Online Greek text of Volumes 1-7 above. Under "Graecum - Greco - Greek" section]
Philo with an English Translation. Vol. 1–10. Translated by F.H. Colson & G.H. Whitaker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1929–62.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
^On the parallel activity of the two powers and the symbols used therefor in Scripture, as well as on their emanation from God and their further development into new powers, their relation to God and the world, their part in the Creation, their tasks toward man, etc., see Siegfried, "Philo," pp. 214–218.
^abSchwartz, Daniel R. (2009)."1.1: Philo, His Family, and His Times". In Kamesar, Adam (ed.).The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Cambridge University Press. p. 18.ISBN978-0-521-86090-1.At a very early stage, the use of Hebrew seems to have declined and the language of the Jews of Alexandria came to be Greek exclusively. The translation of the Torah (and in time the other books) allowed Greek to be a vehicle for Jewish culture. Indeed, there developed a very rich Jewish literature in Greek already in the second century BCE. By the time of the era of Philo, it is hardly surprising that he was a highly accomplished Greek stylist, and probably knew little to no Hebrew.
^("De Opificio Mundi, § 9 [i. 7]; "De Allegoriis Legum," i. 2 [i. 44]; "De Somaniis," ii. 10 [i. 688])
^On the difference between the physical and ethical allegory, the first of which refers to natural processes and the second to the psychic life of man, see Siegfried, l.c. p. 197.
^Legum Allegoriae II, §2;The Works of Philo: Greek Text with Morphology, ed. P. Borgen et al. (Bellingham, WA: 2005).
^Legum Allegoriae I, §44: "...ἱκανὸς αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ὁ θεός..." (The Works of Philo: Greek Text with Morphology, ed. P. Borgen et al. (Bellingham, WA: 2005)).
^De mutatione nominum, §27;The Works of Philo: Greek Text with Morphology, ed. P. Borgen, et al. (Bellingham, WA: 2005).
^Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly, Prince Press, 2004, p. 20.
^Schäfer, Peter (24 January 2011).The Origins of Jewish Mysticism. Princeton University Press. p. 159.ISBN978-0-691-14215-9.It is more than likely that Philo knew the postbiblical Wisdom literature, in particular theWisdom of Solomon. and was influenced by it. The obvious identification of Logos and Wisdom in the Wisdom of Solomon is a case in point. Wisdom (Greeksophia) plays a prominent role in Philo as well and is yet another power among the divine powers that acts as an agent of creation. Whereas the Logos, as we have seen, is responsible for the intelligible world, Wisdom would seem to be responsible for the world perceived by the senses.
^Frederick S. Tappenden,Resurrection in Paul: Cognition, Metaphor, and Transformation (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016). p.100
^seeCohn andWendland, "Philonis Alexandrini", etc., ii., pp. xviii. et seq., 1-41; "Philologus", lvii. 248-288);
^Schürer,Geschichte iii. p. 506] correctly combines Nos. 6 and 7 into one book; Massebieau,Classement, adds after No. 7 the lost books Περὶ Διαθηκῶν); ("Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes", p. 23, note 2, Paris, 1889)
^Von Arnim, "Quellenstudien zu Philo von Alexandria", 1899, pp. 101–140)
^Albert Geljon and David Runia, "Philo of Alexandria On Planting: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary", 2019, p. 2
^on the lost second book see Schürer, l.c. p. 507, and Von Arnim, l.c. pp. 53–100)
^(on the work Περὶ Μισθῶν cited in this treatise see Massebieau, l.c. pp. 27 et seq., note 3)
^This is often referred to nowadays as "De Fuga et Inventione".
^on the fragment "De Deo", which contains a commentary on Gen. xviii. 2, see Massebieau, l.c. p. 29;
^On a doxographic source used by Philo in book i., § 4 [i. 623], see Wendland in "Sitzungsbericht der Berliner Akademie". 1897. No. xlix. 1–6.
^CompareBernhard Stade-Oskar Holtzmann,Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1888, ii. 535-545; on Philo as influenced by the Halakah, see B Ritter, "Philo und die Halacha", Leipsic, 1879, and Siegfried's review of the same in the "Jenaer Literaturzeitung", 1879, No. 35.
^"Gesammelte Abhandlungen", 1885, i. 283-290; "Abhandlung der Berliner Akademie", 1876, Philosophical-Historical Division, pp. 209–278; ib. 1882, sect. iii. 82; Von Arnim, l.c. pp. 1–52
^Marmorstein, A. (1920).The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, Two Volumes: I. The Names and Attributes of God and II, Essays in Anthropomorphism. New York: JQR. pp. 41–45 and 295–306.
^N. A. Dahl and Alan F. Segal (1978). "Philo and the Rabbis on the Names of God".Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period.9 (1):1–28.doi:10.1163/157006378X00012.JSTOR24656850.
Goodenough, Erwin R. (1938).The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and Theory. With a "General Bibliography of Philo" byHoward L. Goodhart and Erwin R. Goodenough. Yale University Press.
Open source XML versions ofPhilo's works have been made available by theOpen Greek and Latin Project at the University of Leipzig. English translations of Philo's writings are also availablehere.
