Philo

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 granted Roman citizenship from Roman dictator Gaius Julius Caesar. Jerome wrote that Philo came de genere sacerdotum (from a priestly family).[8][6] His ancestors and family had social ties and connections to the priesthood in Judea, the Hasmonean dynasty, the Herodian dynasty and the Julio-Claudian dynasty in Rome.

Philo had one brother called Alexander Lysimachus who was the general tax administrator of customs in Alexandria. 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 of king Agrippa I, as well as gold and silver to overlay the nine gates of the temple 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 and Marcus Julius Alexander. The latter was the first husband of the Herodian princess Berenice. Marcus died in 43 or 44.

Philo lived in an era of increasing ethnic tension in Alexandria, exacerbated by the new strictures of imperial rule. Some expatriate Hellenes (Greeks) in Alexandria condemned the Jews for a supposed alliance with Rome, even as Rome was seeking to suppress Jewish nationalism in the Roman province of Judaea.[6] In Antiquities 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 in regard to 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 the alabarch Alexander.[10] 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 was Apion, (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.[11]

This event is also described in Book 2, Chapter 5 of Eusebius's Historia Ecclesiae[12]

Philo along with his brothers received a thorough education. They were educated in the Hellenistic culture of Alexandria and the culture of ancient Rome, to a degree in Ancient Egyptian religion and particularly in the traditions of Judaism, in the study of Jewish traditional literature and in Greek philosophy.

In his works, Philo shows extensive influence not only from philosophers such as Plato and the Stoics, but also poets and orators, especially Homer, Euripides, and Demosthenes.[13][14] Philo's largest philosophical influence Plato, drawing heavily from the Timaeus and the Phaedrus , and also from the Phaedo, Theaetetus , Symposium, Republic , and Laws.[14]

The extent of Philo's knowledge of Hebrew, however, is debated. Philo was more fluent in Greek than in Hebrew and read the Jewish Scriptures chiefly from the Septuagint, a Koine Greek translation of Hebraic texts later compiled as the Hebrew Bible and the deuterocanonical books.[15] His numerous etymologies of Hebrew names—which are along the lines of the etymologic midrash to Genesis and of the earlier rabbinism, although not modern Hebrew philology—suggest some familiarity.[16] Philo offers for some names three or four etymologies, sometimes including the correct Hebrew root (e.g., יָרַד, yarád, lit. '"(to) descend"' as the origin of the name Jordan). However, his works do not display much understanding of Hebrew grammar, and they tend to follow the translation of the Septuagint more closely than the Hebrew version.[15] [17][lower-alpha 2]

Philo bases his doctrines on the Hebrew Bible, which he considers as the source and standard not only of religious truth but of all truth.[lower-alpha 3] Its pronouncements are the ἱερὸς λόγος, θεῖος λόγος, and ὀρθὸς λόγος (holy word, godly word, righteous word),[24] uttered sometimes directly and sometimes through the mouth of a prophet, and especially through Moses, whom Philo considers the real medium of revelation. Although he distinguishes between the words uttered by God himself, such as the Ten Commandments, and the edicts of Moses, as the special laws.[25]

Philo regards the Bible as the source not only of religious revelation, but also of philosophic truth. By applying the Stoic mode of allegoric interpretation to the Old Testament, he interpreted the stories of the Pentateuch (first five books) as elaborate metaphors and symbols to demonstrate that Greek philosophers' ideas had already been laid out in the Bible: Heraclitus' idea of binary oppositions, according to Who is the Heir of Divine Things? § 43 [i. 503]; and the conception of the wise man expounded by Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, according to Every Good Man is Free, § 8 [ii. 454].[26] He 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 and Eve the senses. Noah represents tranquility, a stage of "relative" (incomplete but progressing) righteousness.[27] According to Josephus, Philo was largely inspired in this by Aristobulus of Alexandria and the Alexandrian school.[28][29]

Philo frequently engages in Pythagorean-inspired numerology, explaining at length the importance of the first 10 numerals:[30]

1. One is God's number and the basis for all numbers.[31]
2. Two is the number of schism, of that which has been created, of death.[32]
3. Three is the number of the body ("De Allegoriis Legum," i. 2 [i. 44]) or of the Divine Being in connection with His fundamental powers ("De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini," § 15 [i. 173]).
4. 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]).
5. Five is the number of the senses and of sensibility ("De Opificio Mundi," § 20 [i. 14], etc.).
6. 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]).
7. Seven has the most various and marvelous attributes ("De Opiticio Mundi," §§ 30-43 [i. 21 et seq.]; comp. I. G. Müller, "Philo und die Weltschöpfung," 1841, p. 211).
8. Eight, the number of the cube, has many of the attributes determined by the Pythagoreans ("Quæstiones in Genesin," iii. 49 [i. 223, Aucher]).
9. Nine is the number of strife, according to Gen. xiv. ("De Congressu Qu. Eruditionis Gratia," § 17 [i. 532]).
10. Ten is the number of perfection ("De Plantatione Noë," § 29 [i. 347]).

Philo determines also the values of the numbers 50, 70, and 100, 12, and 120. There is also extensive symbolism of objects is very extensive. Philo elaborates an extensive symbolism of proper names, following the example of the Bible and the Midrash, to which he adds many new interpretations.[33]

Philo stated his theology both through the negation of opposed ideas, and through detailed, positive explanations of the nature of God, he contrasted the nature of God with the nature of the physical world. Philo did not consider God similar to heaven, the world, or man; he affirmed a transcendent 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.[34] Only God's existence is certain, no appropriate predicates can be conceived.[35] In Philo, God exists beyond time and space and does not make special interventions into the world because he already encompasses the entire cosmos.

Philo also integrated select theology from the rabbinic tradition, including God's sublime transcendence,[36] and man's inability to behold an ineffable God.[37] He argued that God has no attributes (ἁπλοῡς), in consequence no name (ἅρρητος), and for that reason he cannot be perceived by man (ἀκατάληπτος). Further, God cannot change (ἅτρεπτος): He is always the same (ἀΐδιος). He needs no other being (χρῄζει γὰρ οὐδενὸς τὸ παράπαν),[38] and is self-sufficient (ἑαυτῷ ἱκανός).[39] God can never perish (ἅφθαρτος). He is the simply existent (ὁ ὤν, τὸ ὄν), and has no relations with any other being (τὸ γὰρ ὄν, ᾗ ὄν ἐστιν, οὐχὶ τῶν πρός τι).[40]

Philo considered the anthropomorphism of the Bible to be a monstrous impiety that was incompatible with the Platonic opposition of God to matter, instead interpreting the ascription to God of hands and feet, eyes and ears, tongue and windpipe, as allegories.[41] In Philo's interpretation, Scripture adapts itself to human conceptions; and so God is occasionally represented as a man for pedagogic reasons.[42] The same holds good also as regards God's anthropopathic attributes. God as such is untouched by unreasonable emotions, as appears, e.g., from Exodus ii. 12, where Moses, torn by his emotions, perceives God alone to be calm.[43] He is free from sorrow, pain, and all such affections. But He is frequently represented as endowed with human emotions; and this serves to explain expressions referring to His repentance.

Similarly God cannot exist or change in space. He has no "where" (πού, obtained by changing the accent in Gen. iii. 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.[44] God as such is motionless, as the Bible indicates by the phrase "God stands".[45]

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.[46] Philo endeavored to harmonize this conception with the Bible by designating these powers as angels.[47] 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.[48][lower-alpha 4]

Philo also treats the divine powers of God as a single independent being, or demiurge,[49] which he designates "Logos". Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced by Heraclitus' 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 between imperfect 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.[50] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."[50][51]

Philo also adapted Platonic elements in designating the Logos as the "idea of ideas" and the "archetypal idea".[52] Philo identified Plato's Ideas with the demiurge's thoughts. These thoughts make the contents of Logos; they were the seals for making sensual things during world creation.[53] Logos resembles a book with creature paradigms.[54] An Architect's design before the construction of a city serves to Philo as another simile of Logos.[55] Since creation, Logos binds things together.[56] As the receptacle and holder of ideas, Logos is distinct from the material world. At the same time, Logos pervades the world, supporting it.[57] 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.[58][59][60] He calls the Logos "second god [deuteros theos]"[61] the "name of God," [62]

There are, in addition, Biblical elements: Philo, in connecting his doctrine of the Logos with Scripture, first of all bases on Gen. i. 27 the relation of the Logos to God. He translates this passage as follows: "He made man after the image of God," concluding therefrom that an image of God existed.[63] The Logos is also designated as "high priest", in reference to the exalted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men: ἱκέτης,[64] and παράκλητος.[65] Logos has the function of an advocate on behalf of humanity and also that of a God's envoy to the world.[66] He puts human minds in order.[67] The right reason is an infallible law, the source of any other laws.[68] The angel closing Balaam's way (Numbers XXII, 31) is interpreted by Philo as manifestation of Logos, which acts as man's conscience.[69] As such, the Logos becomes the aspect of the divine that operates in the world—through whom the world is created and sustained.[70]

Peter Schäfer argues that Philo's Logos was derived from his understanding of the "postbiblical Wisdom literature, in particular the Wisdom of Solomon".[71] The Wisdom of Solomon is a Jewish work composed in Alexandria, Egypt, around the 1st century BCE, with the aim of bolstering the faith of the Jewish community in a hostile Greek world. It is one of the seven Sapiential or wisdom books included within the Septuagint.

The Logos has a special relation to man. Philo seems to look at man as a trichotomy, nous (mind), psyche (soul), soma (body), common to the Hellenistic view of mind-soul-body. In Philo's writings, however, mind and spirit are used interchangeably.[72] It is the type; man is the copy. The similarity is found in the mind (νοῡς) of man. For the shaping of his nous, man (earthly man) has the Logos (the "heavenly man") for a pattern. The latter officiates here also as "the divider" (τομεύς), separating and uniting. The Logos as "interpreter" announces God's designs to man, acting in this respect as prophet and priest. As the latter, he softens punishments by making the merciful power stronger than the punitive. The Logos has a special mystic influence upon the human soul, illuminating it and nourishing it with a higher spiritual food, like the manna, of which the smallest piece has the same vitality as the whole.

His ethics were strongly influenced by Pythagoreanism and Stoicism, preferring a morality of virtues without passions, such as lust/desire and anger, but with a "common human sympathy".[73] Commentators can also infer from his mission to Caligula that Philo was involved in politics. However, the nature of his political beliefs, and especially his viewpoint on the Roman Empire, is a matter of debate.[74][75]

Philo did suggest in his writings that a prudent man should withhold his true 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[76]

Most of Philo's surviving work deals with the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). Within this corpus are three categories:[77]

• Quaestiones ("Inquiries") – short verse-by-verse exposition: four books on the Book of Genesis and two on the Book of Exodus. All six books are preserved through an Armenian translation published by Jean-Baptiste Aucher in 1826. Comparison with surviving Greek and Latin fragments recommends the translation as literal and accurate so far as it goes, but suggests that some of the original content is missing. There are thought to be twelve original books, six on Genesis and six on Exodus.
• Allegorical Commentary – longer exegesis explaining esoteric meanings; the surviving text deals only with the Book of Genesis, with the notable omission of Genesis 1.
• "Exposition of the Law" – 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 within three genres.

The Quaestiones 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 full work – in explanation of Genesis and Exodus, an old Latin translation of a part of the "Genesis", and fragments from the Greek text in Eusebius, in the "Sacra Parallela", in the "Catena", and also in Ambrosius. 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 from Genesis. According to Philo's original idea, the history of primal man is here considered as a symbol of the religious and moral development of the human soul. This great commentary included the following treatises:

1. "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.)[78]
2. "De cherubim", on Gen. iii. 24, iv. 1;
3. "De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini", on Gen. iv. 2–4;[79]
4. "De eo quod deterius potiori insidiatur";
5. "De posteritate Caini", on Gen. iv. 16-25[80]
6. "De gigantibus", on Gen. vi. 1–4;
7. "Quod Deus sit immutabilis", on Gen. vi. 4-12[81]
8. "De Agricultura Noë", on Gen. ix. 20;[82]
9. "De Plantatione", on Gen. ix. 20b;[83]
10. "De Ebrietate", on Gen. ix. 21[84]
11. "Resipuit; Noë, seu De Sobrietate", on Gen. ix. 24–27;
12. "De Confusione Linguarum", on Gen. xi. 1–9;
13. "De Migratione Abrahami", on Gen. xii. 1–6;
14. "Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit", on Gen. xv. 2–18;[85]
15. "De Congressu Quærendæ Eruditionis Gratia", on Gen. xvi. 1–6;
16. "De Profugis",[86] on Gen. xvi. 6–14;
17. "De Mutatione Nominum", on Gen. xvii, 1-22;[87]
18. "De Somniis", book i., on Gen. xxviii. 12 et seq., xxxi. 11 et seq. (Jacob's dreams); "De Somniis", book ii., on Gen. 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 of Abimelech and Laban) 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.[88]

Philo wrote a systematic work on Moses and his laws, which is usually prefaced by the treatise "De Opificio Mundi". The Creation is, according to Philo, the basis for the Mosaic 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, as Enos, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 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:

1. "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.).
2. "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.
3. "De Josepho", the life of Joseph, intended to show how the wise man must act in the actually existing state.
4. "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. but the question still remains whether it is necessary to regard the matter in this light. It seems most natural to preface the discussion of the law with the biography of the legislator, while 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. Moses, as the perfect man, 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 having received it in the form of the Commandments (ib. iii. 4 [i. 89 et seq.]).
5. "De Decalogo", the introductory treatise to the chief ten commandments of the Law.
6. "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.[89] 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 in Mangey. 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 by Tischendorf 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 appendix, the sections "De Justitia" and "De Creatione Principum".
7. The treatises "De Fortitudine", "De Caritate", and "De Pœnitentia" are a kind of appendix to "De Specialibus Legibus".[90] combines them into a special book, which, he thinks, was composed by Philo.
8. "De Præmiis et Pœnis" and "De Execratione". On the connection of both [91] This is the conclusion of the exposition of the Mosaic law.

This exposition is more exoteric than allegorical and might have been intended for gentile audiences.[77]

Philo is also credited with writing:[77]

• Apologies for Judaism including On the Life of Moses, On the Jews, and On the Contemplative Life.
• Historical works (describing current events in Alexandria and the Roman Empire), including Ad Flaccum and De legatione ad Gaium
• Philosophical works including Every Good Man Is Free, On the Eternity of the World, On Animals, and On Providence, the latter two surviving only through Armenian translation.
• Works now lost, but mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea.[92]

1. "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.).
2. "De Animalibus" (on the title see Schürer, l.c. p. 532; in Richter's ed. viii. 101–144).
3. 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
4. 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 to Stoic principles. The genuineness of this work has been disputed by Frankel (in "Monatsschrift", ii. 30 et seq., 61 et seq.), by Grätz ("Gesch." iii. 464 et seq.), and more recently by Ansfeld (1887), Hilgenfeld (in "Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie", 1888, pp. 49–71), and others. Now Wendland, Ohle, Schürer, Massebieau, and Krell consider it genuine, with the exception of the partly interpolated passages on the Essenes.

Woodcut from Die Schedelsche Weltchronik (Nuremberg Chronicle)

In Legatio ad Gaium (Embassy to Gaius), Philo describes his diplomatic mission to Gaius Caligula, one of the few events in his life which is known specifically. He relates that he was carrying a petition describing the sufferings of the Alexandrian Jews and asking the emperor to secure their rights. Philo gives a description of their sufferings, more detailed than Josephus's, to characterize the Alexandrian Greeks as the aggressors in the civil strife that had left many Jews and Greeks dead.

In Against 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 prefect Aulus Avilius Flaccus, who he says retaliated against the Jews when they refused to worship Caligula as a god.[93] 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 the Second 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.[94]

This account, consisting originally of five books, has been preserved in fragments only (see Schürer, l.c. pp. 525 et seq.).[95] 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).[94]

This work[96] 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 especially in every nome in Egypt. The writer, however, confines himself to describing the Therapeutae, a colony of hermits settled on the Lake 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 especially 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 that Moses and Miriam arranged after the passage through the Red 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 his contemplation. Such is the contemplative life (βίος θεωρητικός) led by these Θεραπευταί ("servants of Yhwh").

The ancient Church looked upon these Therapeutæ as disguised Christian monks. This view has found advocates even in very recent times; Lucius' opinion particularly, that the Christian monkdom of the third century was here glorified in a Jewish disguise, was widely accepted ("Die Therapeuten", 1879). But the ritual of the society, which was entirely at variance with Christianity, disproves this view. The chief ceremony especially, the choral representation of the passage through the Red Sea, has no special significance for Christianity; nor have there ever been in the Christian Church nocturnal festivals celebrated by men and women together.

Massebieau ("Revue de l'Histoire des Religions", 1887, xvi. 170 et seq., 284 et seq.), Conybeare ("Philo About the Contemplative Life", Oxford, 1895), and Wendland ("Die Therapeuten", etc., Leipsig, 1896) ascribe the entire work to Philo, basing their argument wholly on linguistic reasons, which seem sufficiently conclusive. But there are great 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, 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 the Pythagoreans, inspired men like Parmenides, Empedocles, Zeno, Cleanthes, Heraclitus, and Plato, whom Philo prized ("Quod Omnis Probus", i., ii.; "Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit", 43; "De Providentia", ii. 42, 48, etc.). He considers the symposium a detestable, common drinking-bout. This can not be explained as a Stoic diatribe; for in this case Philo would not have repeated it. And Philo would have been the last to interpret the Platonic Eros 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. But pupils of Philo may subsequently have founded near Alexandria similar colonies 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 in order 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[97]
• "De Sampsone" and "De Jona", in Armenian, published with Latin translation by Jean-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; and Jerome revised it. On the etymology of names occurring in Philo's exegetical works see below.[98]
• 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[99]
• The pseudo-Philonic "Breviarium Temporum", published by Annius of Viterbo[100]

For a list of the lost works of Philo see Schürer, l.c. p. 534.

• "De Incorruptibilitate Mundi". Jakob Bernays has argued convincingly that this work is spurious. Its Peripatetic basic idea that the world is eternal and indestructible contradicts all those Jewish teachings that were for Philo an indisputable presupposition. Bernays has proved at the same time that the text has been confused through wrong pagination, and he has cleverly restored it.[101]

Though never properly attributed, Philo's marriage of Jewish exegesis with Stoicism and Platonism provided a formula later picked up by other Midrash content from the 3rd and 4th centuries. Philo's ideas were further developed by later Judaism in the doctrines of the Divine Word creating the world, the divine throne-chariot and its cherub, the divine splendor and its shekinah, and the name of God as well as the names of the angels.[103]

Some claimed this lack of credit or affinity for Philo by the Rabbinic leadership at the time was due to his adoption of allegorical instead of literal interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. However, this was more likely due to his criticism of Rabbinic scholars,[104] as Philo argued their works and ideas were "full of Sybaritic profligacy and licentiousness to their everlasting shame",[105] "eager to give a specious appearance to infamous actions, so as to secure notoriety for disgraceful deeds",[106] 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.[107]

For a long time, Philo was read and analyzed mostly by Christian authors. Azariah dei Rossi's Me'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 than creatio ex nihilo; unbelief in the Lord as evidenced by excessively allegorical interpretation of scripture; and neglect of the Jewish oral tradition. Dei Rossi later gives a possible defense of Philo and writes that he can neither absolve nor convict him.[108]