Philo of Alexandria

Of all the Jews who have written in Greek, Philo of Alexandria is un�doubtedly the greatest on account of the breadth and richness of his ideas, the number of his works and his brilliant literary qualities; No other author in antiquity has attempted with so much boldness the confronta�tion and symbiosis of Judaism with another philosophy and another culture. This, one would think, would have assured his work and his personality a posthumous life among the generations of Jews which have followed him throughout the Mediterranean. However, in general Judaism knew absolutely nothing about him for fifteen hundred years, until in the sixteenth century Azariah ben Moses dei Rossi, a man of great learning who knew little Greek but who read in the Latin translation all the ancient Greek writers, including the Fathers of the Church, revived his name and his writings.

These writings, however, had not disappeared in the course of so many centuries; Christians from the beginning knew of them, made use of them and copied the manuscripts until the printed editions of the Renais�sance; in 1552, Adrien Turnebe published the whole of Philo�s treatises in Paris for the first time. But it is above all in the nineteenth century that Philo gradually came to have an increasingly important place in the his�tory of religious and philosophical ideas, as also in literary history; For a century, one study has followed another: sometimes detailed monographs as Zeller already attempted when he devoted nearly a hundred pages to Philo in his monumental Philosophie der Griechen (vol. in. 2, Tubingen, 1852; edn 5, Leipzig 1923); sometimes one-sided essays which overlook the complexity of a man who is both a Greek philosopher nurtured by Judaism and also a Jewish thinker moulded by Greek culture, and which claim to sum up the character of this astonishing personality in a word by choosing one of the alternatives Greek or Jew.

However, in the last decades the literature on Philo has continued to grow at an increasing rate, offering us still more numerous editions, translations irid, in some of the books and articles, an increasingly accur�ate, varied and deepened knowledge of the man and his ideas. For this renewal of interest credit can be given to the progress of Hellenistic scholarship in several spheres: the history of ideas at the end of the Hellenistic period and at the beginning of the Roman Empire, particularly the history of Stoicism, of Middle Platonism and Neo-Platonism; the study of the Jewish Diaspora in antiquity; of the Bible and of the Septuagint; of Christian origins and of the relationship between the New Testament and its Jewish milieu; the development of patristic studies, and finally the great discoveries of Qumran. In short, today the personality of Philo and his work, because both are accessible and better known, take on their true dimensions in history.

I. Biography

Little known: embassy and wealth

The only certain date in the life of Caius Julius Philo is that of his embassy to Rome in ce 40 - he was already an old man, so he tells us himself. He must have been born between 20 and 10 bce and died around ce 50. He was a member of one of the richest Jewish families in Alexandria, and because of this enjoyed from childhood all advantages of Greek culture. His father moreover was a civis romanus. His brother, Alexander Lysimachus, was an alabarch (that is, probably responsible for the collection of customs or taxes) under the emperors Tiberius and Claudius, but was imprisoned by Caligula at the time of the disturbances in Alexandria. He also looked after the property which Antonia, mother of the emperor Claudius, possessed in Egypt. He had an immense for�tune and lent considerable sums of money to Herod Agrippa, paying for the covering of the doors of the Jerusalem temple with gold and silver.

Other family members

We know nothing of Philo�s private life, whether he was married or if he had any children. But his two nephews, the sons of Alexander Lysimachus, are known to historians. One, Marcus Julius Alexander, married Berenice, the daughter of Herod, and the other was extremely well known, to the point of notoriety, because he abandoned the faith and traditions of his fathers to achieve a brilliant career as a leading Roman civil servant. This Tiberius Julius Alexander was successively an official in Rome, epistrategos�m. Thebes, procurator in Judaea (46-8), praefectus of Egypt under Nero, in 66, and finally assistant to Titus in 69-70 during the campaign in Judaea. In 69 he played an important part in raising Vespasian to the imperial throne, and in the course of his prefecture in Egypt he did not hesitate to repress the Jewish revolt very cruelly and to have a large number of his former co-religionists massacred, perhaps as many as fifty thousand.

Alexandria's Jewish community

Alexandria was still in Philo�s time the most brilliant city in the Empire on account of its commercial activity and its maritime importance, its ethnic and religious cosmopolitanism, its library and its schools, its scientific and artistic resources and its fashionable life. The Jewish community there could rightly be considered the most important of the Diaspora, through the number of its faithful, but particularly through the intensity of its religious life. This is the milieu which produced the Septuagint, the Letter of Aristeas, the Wisdom of Solomon, the third book of the Maccabees and several poetic and historical works.

The Jews of Alexandria normally spoke Greek, but remained attached to the Law, the Scripture, to their meetings for worship in Alexandria and to their national unity, as well as their Messianic hope. They were ready to accept Hellenistic culture, which was equally accepted by the Pharisees in Palestine.

Philo, man of his world

We have evidence that Philo did not live on the fringe of his religious community, nor of Alexandrian society; first and foremost from his work, where on every occasion both his deep attachment to the faith and traditions of his fathers and also his knowledge of the activities of the city, with its theatres, gymnasia, its stadium, its banquets and shows and its commercial and financial activity are found. It is significant that his co�religionists chose him as ambassador to Caligula in 39 - 40. In such cir�cumstances only a man who was important in the city could be appointed.

II. The writer

A large literary legacy

It is, however, through his written work that Philo held an important place in his community in Alexandria and that he remains a prominent figure in the history of Judaism. There are about two thousand pages (a small part of this is only preserved in Armenian translation), and this includes works which are very varied in tone and style. Although no classification can be absolutely satisfactory, the following groups can be distinguished: historical works; expositions of the Law; allegorical ex�egeses; philosophical treatises.

(a) Historical� & apologetic works

Works which are historical (and to a slight extent biographical): the In Flaccum and the Legatio ad Gaium. These two treatises deal with the situ�ation of the Jews in Alexandria in the years 35-40; in general they mani�fest detailed information in the case of several episodes which only an eye-witness and a participant in the events could give. They offer pages which are outstanding for their lively descriptions, for the drama of certain scenes and for sometimes restrained and sometimes eloquent or sarcastic emotion; it is with these texts that one should begin reading Philo, to get to know the writer�s personality first.

Critical of Judaism's foes

Philo vigorously attacks the enemies of the Jews: Aulius Avillius Flaccus, who in his term as prefect of Egypt, after five years of blameless government, thought fit to support the nationalist and anti-Semitic demagogues of Alexandria against the Jews who supported Rome and were protected by her; and Caligula, who became mad enough to want pictures or statues of himself set up not only in the synagogues of Egypt but even in the temple of Jerusalem. With a skilful political sense Philo, in these two treatises, seeks to show the Roman administrators - the prefect of Egypt or the Emperor - that the Jews were good citizens, conscientious and devoted, that it would be wise to allow them to ob�serve their religious traditions, and that their persecutors could only bring down divine punishment upon themselves.

De vita Moysis

These two works of circumstance, which are at the same time histori�cal, polemic and apologetic, can be compared with two other treatises of a quite different tone, which are also, in their way, historical and apolo�getic. The first, De vita Moysis, which recounts in the manner of Hellenistic biographies the life of the character chosen, sets forth his career as leader of the Jewish people and shows how he was at one and the same time legislator, priest and prophet. This text, which seems to be addressed to readers who are Gentiles but sympathetic, was conceived by the author as a sort of introduction to Judaism: in it Moses is presented in the same way as Hellenistic writers outline for us the portrait of an ideal sovereign, who should be wise, a saviour, a being of divine inspiration and a living law explaining the law of nature and of God.

De vita contemplativa

The second, the De vita contemplativa, is well known for its enthusiastic description of the life of the Therapeutae, worshippers of the true God who led a solitary existence not far from Alexandria, devoting themselves wholly to philosophy. These hermits, men and women, seemed to Eusebius of Caesarea so like Christian monks that he believed he could see in their� establishment one of the first Christian monasteries. This interpretation was accepted, and for a long time it seemed so plausible that the authen�ticity of the Philonic treatise was questioned and it was seen as a literary imitation. Today no one any longer doubts its authenticity, but neither is there any question of the Therapeutae being Christians. They were a Jewish sect, similar to the Essenes and perhaps of the same origin, with resemblance but also with, some differences.

To this first group of writings may be added some fragments which Eusebius of Caesarea mentions as being extracts from two works which he refers to by the title of Apologia for the Jews and Hypothetica. The first fragment (Apologia) shows us how the Essenes in their piety practise the virtues of sociableness and humanity, a fact which refutes the accusations of misanthropy and of self-segregation laid against the Jews. The other fragments (Hypothetica) contain an apologia for Moses, leader of the Exo�dus and legislator of the Jews, and can be compared with certain passages of the Against Apion of Flavius Josephus.

(b) Expositions of the Law

Philo certainly intended to address to the Gentiles the treatises gen�erally grouped under the heading of Expositions of the Law. It was supposed that, after reading the life of Moses, they would want to be�come acquainted with the Torah. Philo responds to their desire by introducing them to the Pentateuch, and he presents to them in succession - as Goodenough (An Introduction to Philo Judaeus, p. 3;) correctly shows - first a cosmological introduction (the De opificio), then the people who embody the Law (De Abrahamo, De Josepho); then the general principles of the Law and the application of these principles in specific laws (De specialibus legibus); then the connections between the laws and moral vir�tues (De virtutibus); and finally the sanctions, rewards and punishments (De praemiis and De exsecrationibus).

Universalising the Mosaic Law

In the whole of this part of his work Philo�s profoundly religious mind, his devotion to the Law and the universalism of his thought are seen at their best. In his eyes it is evident that the Mosaic Law has a universal meaning and value, it concerns not only the Jews, but all men, and it teaches a manner of conduct which befits every age and every country. The man who obeys the law of Moses is not only a good Jew, but a good citizen of the universe.

Cosmos and Logos

This conviction of Philo was inspired by the Pentateuch: creation is a work of order, harmony and beauty; the cosmos is the image of the Logos and God himself; after the fall man must return to this order and beauty, that is, to the law of the universe or the law of nature; the patriarchs embodied this law until Moses gave us the written Law.

Blending Genesis with Plato

The De opificio mundi is a key treatise in the study of Philo�s thoughts;it can be seen in it how he is fundamentally guided by the biblical text, but also very consciously furnishes himself with ideas borrowed from Greek philosophy, as this appeared in the eclectic culture of the time. Platonism and Aristotelianism were combined with Stoicism; numerical symbolism, amongst other ideas, represents the tradition of Pythagoras. It is then as a philosopher and as a theologian that Philo examines and interprets the dual account of creation, as Genesis presents it, discusses� the problem of time, the origin of the sexes and the fall of man. Heconcludes his treatise firmly by stating emphatically certain principles which undeniably rely on the Mosaic account of Creation, but which have also been explained in great detail in the preceding pages with the help of many philosophical ideas: the existence and unity of God; the creation of the world by God; the unity of the world; God�s fatherly providence. These �teachings�, he tells us, are �the finest and best there are ... The man who has learnt these things ... will live a life of happiness and perfect blessedness, marked by the teachings of piety and saintliness (�� 170-2).

Patriarchal biographies: on virtue

Of the series of biographies which showed the patriarchs as living unwritten laws (De Decalogo � 1; De Abrahamo � 5; etc.), only the De Abrahamo is left: the De Isaaco and the De Jacobo are lost. This triad showed the three ways of acquiring or possessing virtue (that is wisdom or true piety): study, nature and exercise. Abraham is the symbol of virtue as the fruit of instruction, but not without sharing the fruits of nature and exercise, for there is a relationship between these methods of acquiring wisdom, since the three patriarchs constitute one house and one family, all three loving God . and being loved by him. Returning to the accounts in the Bible, Philo skilfully gives us, in turn, the literal and the spiritual or allegorical meaning of the migrations of Abraham, of his sojourn in Egypt, of the visit of the three angels, of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, of the sacrifice of Isaac, of Lot�s quarrel, of the war against the kings of the East and finally of the death of Sarah. And so the founder of the nation becomes an example of perfect faith and an incarnation of the unwritten law, a true friend of God.

Joseph, model politician

The treatise De Josepho does not call for idealization as do those of the three great patriarchs. It is clear that Philo wished to present here the model of a politician, or more precisely, the model of a prefect of Egypt: if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are typical of the wise man who influences the whole world which is governed by upright reason, Joseph is typical of the top civil servant who rules skilfully and wisely a country which is� governed by its own particular laws; if he succeeded in this, it was because he was faithful to the voice of his conscience, unbiased, pure, devoted to good things which do not pass away, in a word, faithful to his God. The apologetic design of this fine short biography is quite evident; what it reveals to us of Philo�s political views is equally important.

On the Decalogue

Having shown us the unwritten Law present in the cosmos and em�bodied in the great patriarchs, Philo next presents to us the written Law, which the Jews have received from none other than God Himself: that is the aim of De Decalogo. He begins by reminding us of the meaning of the Exodus and the wilderness, stages in a process of sanctification in preparation for the great Revelation. Then he answers certain questions con�cerning the scene at Sinai: what is the sense of the Decalogue? How must the expression the voice of God be interpreted, etc.? It is surprising that Philo did not include a restatement of the story of Scripture, as he did very ably in the case of many other biblical scenes; doubtless a respectful feeling of reserve prevented him from doing so. But he shows how the ten commandments, regulating our connection with God and men, are the general principles from which all individual precepts stem, and he ends his treatise by underlining that this divine legislation is not connected with any sanction, because God �wanted people to choose the greatest good, not unwillingly or yielding to that foolish counsellor, fear, but deliberately and by dint of an enlightened rational step� (� 177). That was the right thing to say to the gentile Greeks. The Jews, on the other hand,- knew well enough that the workers of iniquity were certain to be punished ultimately.

Detailed Jewish legis�lation

The natural complement to the preceding treatise was the presentation of particular laws (De specialibus legibus, in four books), the detailed legis�lation which so clearly marked off the Jewish communities and the indi�vidual Jew, and which was doubtless an object of astonishment to the pagans who surrounded them. Philo attempts with great care and some� times with great imagination to show that particular laws are a reasonable application of the principles of the Decalogue, or else that a moral and spiritual meaning must be found for them. And so he reviews circum�cision, worship in the temple, the priesthood, the tithe, sacrifices, vows, prayers, feasts, family relationships, inheritances, the Sabbath, marriage, sexual life, murders, etc. These four books have, in recent years, been the object of discussions among Philo scholars; must one see in them a reflection of the Greek and Roman legislation and procedure which existed in Egypt in the time of Philo? Is it a commentary largely inspired by Rabbinic traditions? How much Greek influence is there on these moral principles? There is much for study here.

De virtutibus: Ethics

The final pages of De specialibus legibus, which deal with justice, are followed by De virtutibus which deals with courage, the virtue of humanity, repentance and nobility. It does not contain a systematic study of virtues, although certain details in if recall the speculations of Greek ethics. For Philo, virtues are �certain moral values, but, before that and more profoundly, metaphysical powers, whose Source is in the power df God and whose end is to continue and imitate within the world the action of God upon the world.

Nobility and philanthropia

In the pages dealing with the virtue of humanity, (philanthropia), one can sense the concern the writer has to defend the Jews from being reproached for misanthropia, a commonplace feature of contemporary anti-Semitism. But still more noteworthy, on the subject of nobility of birth, is the argument which rests on the Stoic principle of the nobility of the wise man and which claims equality for the proselytes with those born Jews; the latter are even inferior to the former if they do not add the merits of virtue and of practical faithfulness to their tide at birth. The Law requires every man to be judged by his own conduct and not by that of his ancestors.

Archetypes of virtue and vice

And thus the De praemiis et de poenis is linked quite naturally with the preceding text. Philo returns to the double triad of biblical personalities who are the archetypes of virtues recompensed by God: Enosh, Enoch and Noah; Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He adds to them Moses, the great Philonic archetype of perfection, and contrasts them with Cain and Korah, types of the evildoers whom God punishes. At this point the text breaks off abrupdy, the pace changes from that of the preceding pages and the reader meets, in all editions, a writing called De benedictionibus et exsecrationibus. This should probably be regarded as a sermon delivered before a popular audience: it is an exhortation, a very simple but eloquent one, to practise the Law, because God accords to those who do so success, material prosperity and health; just as he re�serves for the unfaithful poverty, servitude and illness.

His intended readership

The Exposition of the Law was certainly intended in Philo�s mind for the pagans, Greeks and Romans, but it was doubtless of value for the Jews of the Diaspora, whose faith was sometimes shaken and who fell into lax behaviour because of the atmosphere in which they lived. All these treatises were apologetic in a twofold way. Having little recourse to allegorical interpretation they are usually confined to the literal commentary and para�phrasing of the biblical text. However this does not prevent the author from continually singling out from amongst the events and characters of history the broad lines of the design of God the Creator and Provider, or from underlining the agreement that exists between the whole of his religion - doctrine, cultus and ethics - and Greek philosophy, or even from suggesting occasionally the incontestable superiority of the former.

(c) Allegorical exegesis

Since they were intended for his fellow Jews it seems that Philo�s other writings are characterized by allegorical exegesis which draws out from each passage of the holy text not only its deep and objective meaning, accessible only by meditation, but also developments which are apparendy more or less arbitrary and which can only be justified as the application and explanation of a theology and spirituality which are themselves inferred from Scripture as a whole. This exegesis, which is rather disconcerting in the beginning, is addressed to the initiated. This word must not be taken in too esoteric a sense; it simply means men who are in search of wisdom; but, for a Jew, this wisdom can only mean knowledge of God, of the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and of the ways that lead to him. To these believers, Philo proposes a spiritual doctrine, deeply rooted in the Jewish religion, in history and in biblical theology. The background of this allegorical interpretation is

"the human drama, the internal struggle which opposes man to himself in oppos�ing him to God.. . (this drama) is represented everywhere in the Bible, and Philo never fails to make it evident, every time he meets it or has a sense of its presence in a passage of the Sacred Book. This explains why the commentary is never restricted precisely to the episode which he takes as his theme, but evokes constantly other characters and other analogous scenes, which give resonance to the teaching which emerges and lets us - so to speak - hear its harmonics. Passages which often seem to the reader to be simple digressions are precisely a result of this method of composition." (Arnaldez)

A tribute to Alexandrian Judaism

And so the severe judgements expressed by a good number of literary historians and numerous criticisms about the apparent disorder of composition in the works of Philo should not discourage the reader; they show that these astonishing writings have not yet been studied closely enough. If we take the trouble to read and reread them carefully, we find in them a learned composition, and even a coherent pattern of thought which bears witness to the religious maturity of Alexandrian Judaism at that time. No doubt, too, new methods of analysing texts, used with discernment on work which is essentially religious and which has been suggested as divine revelation, will soon be able to enlighten us more effectively on the writer�s mode of composition and on his own reading of the Bible.

allegories on Genesis 2-31

Without spending any time analysing the eighteen treatises which con�stitute this allegorical series we may note that they all deal with the Penta�teuch and in fact only with Genesis, from chapters 2 to 31. Although, when Philo stops at an episode of the history of the. patriarchs, he normally follows the text step by step and often word by word, it is immediately noticeable that, in the same passage, he occasionally omits on purpose a certain verse and that, among the treatises which followed, from Legum allegoriae to De somniis, there are groups of verses and even whole chapters missing. This absence stems partly from the lacunae which affect several treatises that have been handed down to us incom�plete, pardy from the loss of at least nine others and finally also partly frpm the writer�s choice. This choice, which he nowhere explains to us, stems perhaps from the fact that he intended to comment elsewhere on these chapters and verses. Indeed he scarcely concerns himself with offering us a systematic exposition of a teaching which is basically quite coherent, in spite of some contradictions in the details; the unity he desires for each treatise appears in the image or figure which inspires the tide, and they are themselves connected with some biblical scene or other: terrestrial paradise, the Cherubim, Cain and Abel offering their sacrifices, the tower of Babel, Noah, the departure of Abraham, etc.

Allegories on the Laws

The most important treatise of this series is without doubt the Legum allegoriae (this is the usual title), first of all because of its length, but also and above all because it gives a commentary on the second and third chapters of Genesis and constitutes a rich repository of Philo�s religious ideas on the eternity of God and his transcendence, the creation of all beings and particularly of man, the non-eternity of the world and the creative act outside time, the profound unity of the cosmos and the hierarchy of its elements, on Providence, both transcendent and imman�ent, and on the direct action of grace in the depths of the soul - just to mention the most constant themes of this commentary. Through this religious cosmology, which is a sort of theodicy, Philo develops a teach�ing of an inner life and examines in succession the different attitudes of the soul in relation to God; innocence and sin, repentance, trust, personal responsibility and grace, progress toward the knowledge of God and the possession of the true wisdom, which is in the end the vision of God, by throwing off passions and vices and practising virtues, by a kind of meditation on the divine Logos and the union with him.

But here again it must be emphasized that this allegorical interpretation does not exclude the literal exegesis of the text: it would be a grave error to think that Philo evaporates historical facts or concrete precepts from the Bible to confine himself to a purely spiritual interpretation and to teach a religion which is strictly inner, non-temporal and without legal observances. We shall discuss later what Philo thought about these and how he considered them as indispensable. From a historical point of view he maintains a continuity from Adam to the present.

In fact, although in the Allegory of the Laws Adam and Eve are treated entirely symbolically, as representative of the basic facilities of the human soul, in the De opificio mundi the ancestor of the human race is also presented as the leader of humanity (�� 134-40). On to the chain of generations which goes from the first man to Moses, allegory and history are superimposed - and the further one goes, the more the human types studied become actualized in people who have really lived, so much so that at the end Moses is undoubtedly for Phiio a historical being rather than an allegorical figure. (R. Arnaldez, introduction to De posteritate, pp. 15-16)

Exegetical writings

After the Legum allegoriae (and there is no question here of chronologi�cal order, but simply of grouping together writings which are properly exegetical) Philo�s allegorical interpretation extends to numerous treatises which certainly do not lack repetitions, but of which each one possesses its own originality; so much so that drie does not weary of going from one to another, so varied are the literary methods, the aspects of teaching, the allusions to contemporary life and finally, the sentiments of the author�; Philo, who only very rarely steps into the picture, gives rein in turn to his eloquence, his irony, his indignation, his lyrical or mystical fervour, the impassioned tremor of a master who wants to enlighten, con�vince and persuade, his skill in narrating or explaining, sometimes with an alrriost incisive clarity, sometimes with a richness of images and a verbal abundance which stun the reader.

It is in this brilliant form that Philo presents in turn the De cherubim, then the group of De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, the Quod deterius potiori insidiari solet, in which Cain, the murderer of his brother, represents the internal conflict of every man who is divided between love of God and love of self, and the De posteritate Caini, a text full of ideas on the problem of evil in man; two treatises complete in themselves, the De gigantibus and the Quod Deus sit immutabilis, in which the writer avails himself of all his ordinary procedures of exegesis from literalism to allegorism without neglecting constant recourse to Greek philosophy in order to show us the abasement of man abandoned to himself and his recovery through God�s infinite mercy; and a group of four short treatises devoted to a commen�tary on verses 20 and 21 of chapter 9 of Genesis, on Noah the vine-grower: the De agicultura, the De plantatione, the De ebrietate and the De sobrietate, which trace for us the advance of the soul towards wisdom and also emphasize in a negative way the consequences of blinding passions and ignorance. Next comes the De confusione linguarum, which is a commentary on the account of the Tower of Babel. The character of Abraham, the man who relies completely on God, is the central point of four important treatises which are very rich in content: the De migratione Abrahami, the Quis rerum divinarum heres (concerning the descendants of the patri�archs), the De congressu quaerendae eruditionis gratia, which refers to relations between Abraham and Hagar, the De fuga et inventione, the title of which recalls the flight of Hagar and her meeting with the angel, and, finally, the De mutatione nominum, which comments on the changing of the names of Abram and Sarai as a symbol of a profound change in the soul.

The De somniis and the Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim et in Exodum are usually added to this series. The first of these treatises, now badly defec�tive, is, judging by the first third of it, not the psychological analysis that its title suggests but yet another allegorical commentary on the dreams sent by God to Jaebb, to Joseph, to the officials of the Pharaoh�s court and to the Pharaoh himself. We note that Joseph, who was presented to us in the In Flaccum as the model of a good ruler, appears here, in the pursuit of the good, as a rather lukewarm person compared with Jacob, the noble ascetic. As for the Quaestiones et solutiones, it is a work of a particular literary genre, inherited from classical Greek philosophy (Aris�totle), and often used after Philo by Christian writers up to the Middle Ages; the writer actually intends to give a fairly close commentary on the text of Scripture, but he presents it in the form of questions which he himself puts and whieh are in fact the ones he intends to deal with. This process, already somewhat artificial in Philo�s time, was to become more so, as the writers of such Quaestiones forsook the true story of the text to copy their predecessors more or less slavishly. What characterizes this work of Philo�s and earns it an important place is that he gives quite methodically, in each reply, first the literal and then the allegorical sense. The Quaestiones in Genesim, as they have readied us, are no doubt incom�plete, and of those concerning Exodus, even Eusebius of Caesarea knew no more than two books out of five. Philo perhaps intended to pursue this method of commentary on the Pentateuch up to the end of Deuter�onomy (Quaestiones in Gen. iv.123); but nothing gives us reason to believe he ever did.

(d) The philosophical treatises

Finally, mention must be made of those treatises which have been called philosophical; they ate characterized by the fact that Philo speaks in them as a philosopher and scarcely quotes Scripture or does not even mention it at all. Their authenticity has been discussed and denied more than once. Today, it seems, they are generally accepted; with good reason in the case of De aeternitate mundi, the Alexander (or De animalibus), the De providentia an the Quod omnis probus liber sit. In them Philo tackles some of the great problems which could excite the cultivated minds of Alexandria; he treats them with little originality and only rarely and surreptitiously does he allow any religious preoccupation to appear. One may wonder if this is not the way in which such subjects were approached at the time; Philo may have used it following many others. Perhaps too they could have been essays or school exercises� undertaken in his youth: Philo certainly received a careful education which included the study of eclectic philosophy, as befitted the times. Each of these treatises deserves indi�vidual attention.

On the intelligence of animals

Here it must suffice to say that the Alexander is a (fictitious?) dialogue between Philo and his brother Lysimachus about a work in which his nephew Alexander was trying to prove by examples that ani�mals have intelligence - a subject already tackled by Aristotle.

On world origins, and providence

We possess only the first half of the De aeternitate mundi. We owe to it extracts from ancient works which have since disappeared. It shows us how Philo, in spite of his firm and constant adhesion to the teachings of Moses, was aware of those of the Greek philosophers. It is again in the form of a dialogue, with his nephew Alexander, that Philo develops, in the only Book left to us from the De providentia, his ideas on this subject, opposing Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics in turn to his arguments. Finally fas. Quod omnis probus liber sit (That every good man is free), of which we have only the second half, also takes up a Stoic scholarly theme, approached by arguments, classic examples and some scriptural texts; in particular it contains the famous section on the Essenes (�� 75 - 91), which must be compared with the extract from an Apology for the Jews preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea.

�Chronology Of Philo�s Works

This account has given some idea of the extent to which Philo was essentially a writer bound to Judaism, even though he expressed himself in Greek and his writings are steeped in Hellenistic culture. However, nothing has been said yet about the chronology of the treatises. This has been discussed frequently, but the best studies have not led to decisive results. For Philo�s references to his own works are normally so vague that it is impossible to decide if allusions are being made to a certain passage, or whether he is indicating a treatise still to be written or one lately written. On the other hand it cannot be claimed that there is an evolution in his work from literal exegesis to allegorical exegesis, as certain critics have been tempted to assume. Why should Philo not have had in hand at the same time an exposition of his religion (Life of Moses, etc.) intended for cultured Greeks whom he knew well and frequented daily, and an allegorical commentary, worded in case it was needed for homilies in the synagogue, for the information of his co-religionists? It is clear at least that the In Flaccum and the Legatio were only composed in the very last years of his life, after the troubles in Alexandria in ce 38 and after his embassy to Rome (ce 40). It can be concluded that the philosophi�calwritings are probably essays done in his youth, both on account of their clumsy composition and of their similarity to the type of scholastic exer�cises which were practised in the schools of rhetors and philosophers.

III. Transmission and Influence of Philo�s Works

A few words must be said about the transmission and influence of Philo�s works. Their Greek text must have been the object of a first recension in Alexandria and must have been kept in the city�s famous library: in the second half of the second century.

Influenced Clement, Origen and Eusebius

Clement of Alexandria is familiar with them, gets inspiration from them and even uses them (several hundred times), much more often than he cites them (four times). They also exert an undisputed influence on Origen, whether he had already read them in Alexandria or later at Caesarea in Palestine. Eusebius, in the fourth century, is able to find the collected works in Caesarea, but already incomplete, in some disorder, and perhaps already revised again by a Jewish rabbi, at least with regard to biblical quotation and certain words in the text (nomos, logos). It is there, too, that Bishop Euzoius had the manuscripts which came from Alexandria recopied, also in the fourth century. Then in the Mediterranean throughout the Middle Ages it was the Christians who preserved and read Philo�s works: following Eusebius of Caesarea and St Jerome, they were convinced that Philo met Peter in Rome and that when he described the Essenes and the Therapeutae he was describing the first Christian monks, so that more than one mediae�val manuscript gave the Alexandrian Jew the title of Bishop. It is, how�ever, impossible to find the slightest trace of Christianity in his work, and the meeting in Rome is only a legend.

Influenced Christian interpretation of the OT

It is nonetheless certain that his work had a considerable influence on Christian writers, especially on their interpretation of the Old Testament. Ambrose, in Milan, read his actual texts and translated from them in his homilies or in his commentaries oh the Scriptures; Augustine was famil�iar with a Latin translation of Philo�s work which must date from the fourth century.

Translated into Armenian

It was probably in Constantinople in the sixth century that some of his work was translated into Armenian; this version alone has preserved the two books of the De providentia and some other treatises and what we have of the Quaestiones. In the Renaissance it was the Christians who took it upon themselves to re-edit the work. Today some Jews, too are reading and studying Philo again, and their studies take their place among the numerous books devoted to the man and his writings and to the editing and translation of his works.

Applying spiritual intelligence to the Word of God

How can this immense and lasting success which Philo had amongst Christians be explained? It is not enough to say that he offered them an acceptable interpretation of a certain number of texts of the Pentateuch. By this we do not mean that psychological or cosmological interpretation which is the extreme form of allegorization, but a spiritual intelligence which goes beyond the literal reading, penetrates to the heart of the holy text and seeks to seize the Word of God, the meaning of which is always greater than the form in which it is expressed. Certainly the Septuagint, Aristeas, Aristobulus and several others before Philo had made transla�tion�s. But Philo, surpassing them greatly in the breadth and value of his undertaking, represents the first encounter in depth and the first substan�tial exchange between Jewish theology on the one hand and Greek cul�ture on the odier. And so, first of all, he was an example to follow for the Christians who were anxious to convert the civilisation in which they were living, but also he was for them an excellent interpreter of the Old Testament, which Christianity inherited through its foundation in the Jewish milieu, because he spoke (brilliantly) their language and used the ideas of his day.

IV. Hellenism and Judaism in the Works of Philo

Eclecticism characteristic of this epoch

Today when the study of Hellenistic thought and philosophy at the beginning of the Roman Empire reveals more clearly the syncretism and eclecticism which are characteristic of this epoch, we can claim that Philo was not only a great authority on the philosophy of his time but even one of its representatives, alongside the slighdy earlier Cicero and the slightly later Plutarch. There were numerous meeting-points between the philo�sophy of his day and Jewish theology on the most important questions: the existence and nature of God, divine transcendence and immanence, the creation of the world and of man, the dual nature of man, the pre-existence and survival of the soul, the intermediary between God and man and the cosmos, relations between the soul and God, not to men�tion questions concerning truth and ethics. It is important to see in detail how often, sometimes with discernment, sometimes clumsily, but always guided by the necessity of his biblical commentary and not by an arbitrary eclecticism, Philo borrowed Greek concepts which serve to explain what is the object of his faith and to express it to his readers. He does this unhesitatingly and with confidence, for he is convinced of the superiority of his beliefs over the teaching of the pagan philosophers, and moreover is sure, as were his predecessors, that the most brilliant Greek thinkers, including Plato, who is his master almost as much as Moses is, educated themselves through the school of Moses, and that their loftiest thoughts are already familiar to the disciples of the great prophet. He borrows from all the schools: those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and even from the Epicureans and the Sceptics.

The wisdom ideal

Since the sciences constituting the cycle of education help one to grasp philoso�phy, similarly philosophy helps one to acquire wisdom . . . and wisdom is the knowledge of things human and divine and their causes. (De congressu, � 79) Now, for a practising Jew, this knowledge is the natural accompaniment of the Scriptures and the Law.

But the point is that Philo is above all a practising Jew: from the bottom of his heart he is this, and although he is profoundly affected by Hellenism, his mind is completely convinced of the truth and superiority of his religion. If he resorts to philosophical language, he does so in order to express his theology more clearly, to communicate his faith. He holds the faith of his family and his community: on several occasions he alludes to the teaching of the elders, which he has heard in the synagogue; he made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, �in order to pray and make sacrifices there�, he says (De providentia, ii � 107), he has read and pondered the works of Moses, which he considers as revelation and inspiration in their very words; he is familiar with the Pentateuch but he is aware too of the other books of the Old Testament, although he only rarely quotes them, He read them in the Septuagint, since he knew very little Hebrew, but he considered this version just as much dictated by God. His heroes are Abraham and, above all, Moses. Apart from these, Philo scarcely quotes any other name in Jewish history.

Mixing Action with Contemplation

Philo, who, because of his fortune and his family�s rank, was involved in the fashionable aspects of the life of the city and was obliged to concern himself with financial and perhaps even commercial business, always took care to balance an active life with a time reserved for study and meditation and even religious contemplation. The fervour with -which he describes to us the life of the Therapeutae or the Essenes reveals his taste for meditation and contemplation, and it is possible that he may have shared for a time the life of the Therapeutae. The few passages of his work in which he lets personal confidences slip out give evidence of his inner life.

One cannot but realize too that he was a faithful observer of Jewish religious practices when one reads a page such as the one from De migratione (� 89-90), quoted here in its entirety:

Some men understand that the laws, literally expressed, are symbols of intellec�tual realities; they show themselves over-scrupulous in analysing the symbol, but neglect the letter of the law, which they scorn. I willingly reproach them for the laxity they allow themselves. For one should apply oneself at the same time to the scrupulous pursuit of the invisible content and to irreproachable stewardship of the visible content. Now, in fact, they behave as if they were living all alone in the desert, or as if they had become disembodied souls.

Embassy to Gaius (Caligula)

This devotion to action in his religion doubtless prepared him for the step which crowned his career: the embassy to Rome in 40, to Caligula. To accept the leadership of it was brave and even dangerous. The city of Alexandria was experiencing at that time a fever of anti-Semitism which had led, in the course of the previous months, to all kinds of harassment inflicted on the Jews, tolerated and no doubt encouraged by the prefect Flaccus: public humiliation of notable people in the community, mock�ing, insults, looting, expulsions, tortures and massacres. Soon, again with the approval of Flaccus, the rioters set up effigies of the emperor in those synagogues which had not been destroyed or sacked. This was too much. The Jews of Alexandria decided to send a delegation to Rome and asked Philo to be its head.

Opposing delegation, led by Apion

In Italy, the ambassadors had to bide their time for months awaiting an imperial audience. Then they were received by the emperor in a coarse, off-hand manner and were finally dismissed after he had referred to them as wretches and fools. One can imagine how Philo, who was already an old man, a man known for the dignity of his life, his connections and his culture, reacted and what his feelings were when confronted by this mad Caligula and the members of the opposing delegation: one Apion, a conceited pagan, a pretended scholar, and one Isodorus, a vulgar and unscrupulous demagogue. In the end, this em�bassy ended in failure, for it seems that the emperor, when he abandoned his plan to have his statue put in the Temple of Jerusalem, was yielding to the influence of his friend Herod Agrippa, rather than to the demands of Philo and the Jewish delegation. These men had fulfilled their difficult mission in spite of the most formidable problems. They were ready, as many of their co-religionists had been, to be condemned by the tyrant: they were convinced that �a most glorious death in order to safeguard our laws is itself a way of life� (Legatio, � 192).

His belief in Judaism as a universal religion

Philo�s fidelity to Judaism was neither narrow nor petty, and he has perceived admirably indeed the universal elements in the teachings of the Bible: God is the creator of the whole universe and of all beings, his Law is reasonable and capable of guiding all men, whoever they may be, his people have a universal mission and even a responsibility as priestly mediator, through prayer and offerings, for the salvation of humanity. Philo is deeply convinced that his religion can and should be that of the whole world. It is with this aim that he constantly sought to find in the sacred text what is most religious in Greek philosophy, sometimes being readily satisfied with a superficial similarity or even an arbitrary interpretation.

Alexandrian Judaism very Hellenist

At this time Jewish monotheism was encountering a diffuse mono�theism in pagan circles. The reason why we have difficulty in (and are sometimes prevented from) distinguishing what Philo borrows from Greek philosophy and what he owes to his own religion is that we have insuf�ficient knowledge of both Hellenism and Judaism of the time. Thus, in an endeavour to place Philo within Judaism, he has been linked in turn with the Sadducees and the Pharisees. But what in fact distinguished those groups at that particular time? If the extraordinary discoveries of Qumran had not been made, what might we understand of the descriptions which Philo gives us of the Essenes and the Therapeutae? It is probable that Alexandrian Judaism was strongly affected by Hellenism, and it is not likely that Philo was an absolutely original innovator; he was part of a movement already familiar with Hellenism. But this double affiliation, which he did not hide, which on the contrary he emphasized with all the vigour of a great mind and the impetus of a profoundly religious soul, was to be fatal to him in the generations of Jews to come. It is partly because of this that Judaism subsequently neglected him. It did so the more easily since the Christians appropriated his work without hesitation, just as they had from the beginning of their Church adopted the Septuagint for their reading of the Old Testament.

What is curious however is that the Christians (at least those of the early generations as they expressed themselves through apologists) reproached the pagans unceasingly for their polytheism; while Philo, although he asserted that only the supreme, unique God could be adored, only rarely attacked such polytheism, and he even seems to see in the pagan world that surrounded him a measure of monotheism. Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that his attention was focused on the philo�sophy of his time rather than on the religious practices of the masses.

Views God as the Supreme Being

In any case, God is not only the Supreme Being who created the universe, the principle of everything, but also a father, protector and providence to his children, compassionate and merciful, devoted to his people, those who see God and who are loved by God. This can be observed throughout his works, even in the most abstract and philosophical texts.

V. Philo as Spiritual Master

Focus on the soul's journey to God

Philo is indeed a spiritual master and even a mystic. After many studies which have tried to emphasize the main features of his thought, what Brehier, a philosophical historian, had already written in 1908 can still be repeated: �The main idea is that of the relations of the soul with God. These relations are not the object of. philosophical theory with limited and definite ideas: they are the actual expression of the intimate experi�ence of the author. One of the constant aspects of his thoughts is the description of the stages that lead the soul to God. For this reason he is a master of the inner life. He always takes care to balance the active and the contemplative life. Though he does not wish the quest for the latter to be motivated by egoism and laziness, he makes it the supreme aim: �It is fine to struggle to the end of an active life and then to have access to a life of contemplation ... (De fuga � 36), for it produces an �unadulterated joy� (ibid., �176). It seems probable that, from his youth, Philo was able to devote months, if not years (perhaps with the Therapeutae) to this life of study and meditation, and that he had to give it up to take up public responsibilities. He describes an interruption of this kind, but a more tragic one than any before at the beginning of the third book of Special Laws, where the reference is perhaps to the embassy to Rome.

A famous passage from the Legum allegoriae (11, � 8 5) testifies eloquently to the fact that wherever he was, he kept the habit of meditation and prayer:

Often indeed when I have left family, friends and country, and gone into the desert to think� about something worthy of contemplation, I have gained nothing from it; my intellect, distracted or seized by passion, would keep turning to other �things. And yet, sometimes in a crowd of thousands of men I am made tranquil in my thoughts: God has scattered the throng that is in my soul and has taught me that it is not different places which make one well or ill disposed, but God himself who moves and leads the chariot of the soul where he chooses.

Belief in God's Grace

It is God, Philo goes on, who can directly quench the thirst of the soul and nourish it with his manna.

We can already see in a similar text that it is not only a question of a simple ascetic exercise, of pure intellectual, even pious reflection, but of a mystical state where the soul�s own effort no longer counts for any�thing, but where it is the gift of God, his grace (Philo uses the word in this sense) which invades the soul, overwhelms it with joy, grants it a vision of truth, in short manifests an action of quite a different quality from the natural opening out of moral virtues. That is what the changing of names, a divine prerogative, symbolizes according to Philo, and this explains the passage in the Quis heres (�� 68-70) in which the soul appears more passive than active and in which the expressions, if not the thoughts, are connected with a tradition of the religious philosophy of the Greeks:

"Transported by God"

Who then will be the heir? It is not the way of thinking which remains of its own accord in the prison of the body, but that which has been loosened from its chains, has been set free and gone outside the walls and, so to speak, left itself behind: he who comes out of you, he says, shall be your heir (Gen. 15:4). If then, my soul, any desire, to inherit the good thing of God enters you, leave not only your country, that is, the body, and your kinsmen, that is, the senses and your father�s house, speech, but fly yourself, come out of yourself, like the possessed and corybants, seized by a Bacchic frenzy, transported by God in a Sort of prophetic enthusi�asm. For the mind which is filled by God and which is no longer within itself, but is excited and almost maddened by heavenly love, led by the One who truly is and drawn towards him, preceded by the truth which removes all obstacles so that the soul may walk on a smooth road, this mind has the inheritance.

VI. Philo and Politics

A dangerous but necessary activity

Philo was not only a spiritual person and a mystic: he was a politician and, it could be said, a political thinker. It must be emphasized first that Philo, an intellectual and mystic, considers politics an essentially impure occupa�tion - in which he is more a disciple of Plato than of Moses. But he also considers it a difficult activity. We see Philo in the De somniis attacking at length that same Joseph whom he had, in the biography De Josepho, made the model of the good governor, and we see him emphasize the weak�nesses which show Joseph to be a dangerous governor, the qualification of a bad governor being reserved for Flaccus. When dealing with this governor (be he dangerous or bad) one must employ all the resources of prudence and skill: Philo is advising his fellow citizens to behave towards princes and civil servants like Joseph as he himself was behaving towards Flaccus and the Romans.

Have they not then lost their senses, are they not mad, those who strain them�selves to display inopportune candour, daring to defy in words and deeds kings and sometimes tyrants? Do they not realize that they not only have their neck under the yoke, like beasts of burden, but that the same chain holds their whole bodies prisoner, their souls, wives, children, fathers, mothers, their numerous relatives and the vast circle of their friends; that the one. who holds the reins can with the greatest of ease spur on, push, hold back, stop by the mane and apply with whatever force he pleases any treatment whatever? That is why they are stabbed, whipped, mutilated, enduring all the tortures which pitiless cruelty inflicts before death and finally are led away and killed.

That is the reward for inopportune candour, a candour, moreover, which is not such in the eyes of sensible judges, but which is foolishness, madness, incurable extravagance. What do you say? Would anyone who saw that the weather could not possibly be worse, that there was a violent wind rising, that a violent hurricane was raging and that the sea was stormy, when it was advisable to stay in the harbour, would anyone such leave the harbour and take to the open sea?�� (De somniis 11 �� 83 - 5)

Delicate status of the Alexandrian Jews

No one sensed better than Philo that the position of the Alexandrian Jews, and hence his own too, was delicate, for this community enjoyed privileges which, in their circumstances, aroused much jealousy amongst the Egyptians. Although, apart from a few exceptions, the Jews had neither Roman nor even Alexandrian citizenship, they could live according to the traditions of their forefathers, with their synagogues and with a measure of autonomy which separated them from foreigners and in particular gave them the right to assemble together. Another cause of difficulty was added to this first one: this was the social and above all the religious tie which bound the Jewish community in Alexandria to the Jewish people in Palestine, and created for both a very special situation within the Roman Empire.

Loyal to both Mosaic and Roman law

In spite of this, Philo�s effective loyalty towards the might of Rome and its representatives, as long as they respected Jewish traditions, must be emphasized. In accordance with his political ideas, Philo saw no problem in the fact that particular laws of the Empire should be added to the unique Law, the Law of God, of nature and of Moses, which could and should rightly govern the whole of humanity. Since the necessity of time and place gave rise to particular laws, nothing prevented the Jews from accepting them, provided that the people of God could observe their special laws. Philo�s writings do indeed suggest the interpretation of his work which Goodenough proposes: Philo felt and acknowledged, before Augustine, the co-existence of the two cities.

In any case Philo presents the political organization of the Jewish people, that is to say of Moses, as profoundly original and superior to all others. In order to prove this, it was sufficient to say that it comes from God. But he added yet another proof: this political constitution brings together all the advantages of the best Greek regimes, those of the monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, and it is, in his eyes, the ideal state, one in which each individual recognizes himself subject only to God and to the Law. The king and the high priest have all their authority from the Law and are only instruments of its interpretation and its application. Moreover, this unique authority only authorizes the existence of the one single Temple (De specialibus legibus 1 � 67).

Anti-Semitism in Roman Egypt

However, Philo remains conscious that this politico-religious organiza�tion of the Jews sets them apart in the midst of the nations and that this is perhaps the most real cause of anti-Semitism, which was already rife in Roman Egypt. He sees the solution to this eternal problem in the coming of the Messianic era, but for him there is no question of a conquering, still less of a warlike, Messianism: it is to be the adoption of the Law by the whole universe, the conversion of humanity to the God of the Jews and to that religion, the universalism of which he has often emphasized. This, nevertheless, could not happen before Israel became the true Israel, that is one which is sincerely and totally faithful to the teaching of Moses, nor before the day when all men wholeheartedly seek out virtue and wisdom. That is the discreet and essentially spiritual Messianism of Philo.

From the Cambridge History of Judaism