Philo
and his Sources
by
John Drury
The
most well-known Jewish philosopher of the Hellenistic period is Philo of
Alexandria. He lived in the first
century after Christ, and sought to build a bridge between the Jewish
Scriptures and his own philosophical training.
He is most often regarded as being primarily influenced by the Middle
Platonists.[i] We will first discuss the thought of the
Middle Platonists, after which we will discuss their influence on Philo. We will conclude with a critical examination
of his methodology.
What
is Middle Platonism?
Middle
Platonism was a very eclectic school of thought.[ii] Plato was the Middle Platonists’ most
dominate influence, but they in no way felt limited to him.[iii] Rather, they integrated ideas from the
Neo-Pythagoreans as well as the Stoics.[iv] The Neo-Pythagoreans emphasized divine
transcendence and the existence of mediators between God and humans.[v] Nevertheless, they retained basic Platonic
concepts like the immortal, tri-partite soul as well as the primacy of reason.
Probably
the most famous Middle Platonist was Plutarch.
He believed strongly in the transcendence of God, which implied for him
the existence of intermediary beings.[vi] This solved the question of evil for
Plutarch, because the world was created through these lesser beings. God also communicates with the world through
them.[vii]
The
concept of the Logos was developed within Middle Platonism. This idea has part of its heritage in the
Stoic tradition. The Logos (or “Word”)
is the greatest intermediary being, the form of all things, and the substance
of reason. Through it all other things
are created and sustained. It is God’s
primary agent for interaction with the world.
Another
significant influence for the Middle Platonists, and even more so for Philo,
were the Stoics. Zeno, the founder of
the Stoics, and his followers promoted a natural law which was dominated by
reason.[viii] For them, God is in all things through the
logos and rationality comes from his presence in the world.[ix] Humanity is therefore a fragment of the
divine with the potential for good or evil.
In contrast with the Neo-Pythagoreans, God’s immanence is stressed by
the Stoics. These two traditions were
integrated by Plutarch, and eventually by Philo, through the use of the concept
of the Logos.[x]
Middle
Platonism in Philo
Bertrand
Russell declares simply that “Philo is, in philosophy, primarily a Platonist;
other important influences are those of the Stoics and Neo-Pythagoreans.”[xi] Certainly all these traditions can be found
in Philo’s writings. Most striking is
the way by which he connects their ideas with what is found in the Hebrew
Scriptures.
Even
before delineating the influence of Middle Platonism in Philo, his simple Hellenism
can be pointed out. For instance, he
believes in Empodocles four elements, referring to the world as being made up
of “the earth, the water, the air, and the fire.”[xii] Equally striking is his direct Platonic
influence, as is illustrated by his elevation of the intellect: “the mind is
the dominant portion of the soul.”[xiii] One can also note Philo’s believe in the
immortality of the soul in the following quote: “These then are the things of
the body; but the intellectual and heavenly race of the soul will ascend to the
purest aether as to its father.”[xiv] He acknowledges the independence of the soul
by saying, “there is also in the air a most sacred company of incorporeal souls
as an attendant upon the heavenly souls.”[xv]
Philo’s
picture of the human soul is overwhelmingly Platonic. First of all, he agrees that “the soul is
divisible into three parts.”[xvi] He also says, “I imagine the heaven is in the
world the same thing that the soul is in the human being.”[xvii] This sets up an analogy between the divisions
in the human soul and the divisions of the world similar to that of Plato’s Republic. Just like Plato, rationality is regarded as
the highest of these parts of the soul.
Philo
followed in line with the Middle Platonist with the emphasis on the radical
transcendence of God.[xviii] God is transcendent and unknowable and
therefore communicates through mediums.[xix] “God, being one, has about him an unspeakable
number of powers, all of which are defenders and preservers of every thing that
is created.”[xx] Just as for Plutarch, these intermediary
beings provide an explanation for evil in the world. This is because “it is by means of these
powers that the incorporeal world ... has been put together.”[xxi] Wolfson claims these ideas to be a unique
conception of Philo.[xxii] However, the idea of intermediate beings
between God and the earth is a basic tenant of Middle Platonism.[xxiii]
Philo
integrates Platonic ideas into his doctrine of creation. He interprets the two creation accounts in
Genesis 1 and 2 as the creation of the forms and the creation of the physical
world.
“Must not this man who was created according to the
image and idea of God have been a different man from the other, so that two men
must have been introduced into the Paradise together, the one a fictitious man,
and the other modeled after the image of God?”[xxiv]
The first Adam that is mentioned is “not
earthly but heavenly.”[xxv] Philo also reads into Genesis the idea of a
divisible person by proclaiming that God breaths into Adam morality and
intellect.[xxvi]
Since
God is transcendent, creation is performed through the Logos, who is the shadow
of God. Philo interprets Bezaleel in the
Torah to be this creating Logos:
“Now, Bezaleel, being interpreted, means God in his
shadow. But the shadow of God is his
word, which he used like an instrument when he was making the world. And this shadow, and, as it were, model, is
the archetype of other things. For, as
God is himself the model of that image which he has now called a shadow, so
also that image is the model of other things, as he showed when he commenced
giving the law to the Israelites, and said, ‘And God made man according to the
image of God,’ as the image was modeled according to God, and as man was
modeled according to the image, which thus received the power and character of
the model.”[xxvii]
The Middle Platonic language of this
quote is undeniable. Philo also explains
the role of the Logos in the preservation of creation, because it is the
greatest of all the intermediary beings:
“And the Father who created the universe has given to
his archangelic and most ancient Word a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the
confines of both, and separated that which had been created from the
Creator. And this same Word is
continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which
is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the
Ruler of all, to the subject race. And
the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of
it, saying, ‘And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and you;’ neither being
increate as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these
two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties.”[xxviii]
The
Stoic influence on Middle Platonism can also be detected in Philo. For instance, Philo claims that “the earthly
mind ... is neither bad nor good, but of an intermediate character.”[xxix] He also says, “man is almost the only one of
all living things which, having a thorough knowledge of good and evil, often
chooses that which is worst, and rejects those things which are worst.”[xxx] This sort of open-ended moral status of
humanity is directly in line with Stoic doctrines. He also shares with the Stoics the view that
humans are divine emanations: “they who have real knowledge, are properly
addressed as the sons of the one God, as Moses also entitles them, where he
says, ‘Ye are the sons of the Lord God’.”[xxxi] He even says that “the human soul is a
fragment”[xxxii] and
that each person is “borrowing small portions from each essence.”[xxxiii]
Philo’s
Methodology: Integration or Accommodation?
It
is evident that Philo is overwhelmingly influenced by Middle Platonism as well
as the general Hellenistic environment of Alexandria. What is more intriguing is the way in which
Philo integrated this philosophical background with Jewish scripture and
tradition. The attempt to reconcile the
two led “on the one hand to the selection of those elements in Greek
speculation that harmonized best with Jewish religion and on the other hand to
the practice of allegorizing the Jewish Scriptures and interpreting them in
such a way that they would harmonize with Greek thought.”[xxxiv] This two-way harmonizing, the hallmark of
Philo’s methodology, is what we wish to critically examine.
The
primary manner for finding philosophical truths in the simple narratives of the
Torah was by the method of allegorical interpretation. Take, for example, Philo’s allegorizing of
the Jewish temple:
“For there are, as it seems, two temples belonging to
God; one being this world, in which the high priest is the divine word, his own
first-born son. The other is the
rational soul, the priest of which is the real true man, the copy of whom,
perceptible to the senses, is he who performs his paternal vows and sacrifices,
to whom it is enjoined to put on the aforesaid tunic, the representation of the
universal heaven, in order that the world may join with the man in offering
sacrifice, and that the man may likewise co-operate with the universe.”[xxxv]
The allegorical meaning is regarded
as even more important than the literal.[xxxvi] The Rabbis of Philo’s time too used a
somewhat allegorical interpretation of the Torah.[xxxvii] However, Philo was more of a “rationalist”
and “elitist” and therefore was steered toward more philosophically acceptable
interpretations of the Torah.[xxxviii] His Hellenistic presuppositions even led him
expound on non-philosophical issues differently than the Rabbis.[xxxix]
Philo
can turn this allegory to prove any point he wishes. For instance, Philo interprets a host of
phrases as being names for the Logos:
“And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy
to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned
according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great
archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God,
and the Word, and man according to God’s image, and he who sees Israel.”[xl]
By pointing out one single meaning
behind this long list of Biblical phrases, Philo is able to change the meaning
of an endless number of passages for the sake of his own philosophical
ends. He will also uses scriptural
proof-texts to prove things like the immortality of the soul.[xli]
This
method sprang forth from Philo’s “all consuming desire to put his hand to the
great task of reconciling Judaism and Hellenism.”[xlii] He goes as far to treat Moses as a
philosopher, illustrated by the following quote: “Moses wished to represent all
the actions of the Deity as just.”[xliii] Was Moses really asking these kind of
questions? Does Philo compromise the
actual meanings and truths in scripture by looking so intently for
philosophical ideas?
Philo not only asks philosophical questions, he
answers them philosophically. He seems
to be controlled by rationalism. This
has the positive effect of a mature understanding the metaphorical nature of
scripture, exemplified by his acknowledgment of the anthropomorphisms in the
Torah:
“For let us take care that we are never filled with
such absurdity as to think that God employs the organs of the mouth or nostrils
for the purpose of breathing into anything; for God is not only devoid of
peculiar qualities, but he is likewise not of the form of man, and the use of
these words show as some more secret mystery of nature.”[xliv]
On the other hand, Philo’s
rationalism equally lends itself to a sort of esoteric attitude toward “lesser
knowledge.” For example, he says that
certain “things are not comprehensible by the outward senses ... for the soul
is also invisible.”[xlv] Instead of seeing knowledge as apprehensible
to all, it is only for those with great intellects.
Philo’s
integration of Greek thinking with the Hebrew Bible is modeled in the New
Testament. For instance, the conception
of creation in 1 Corinthians is very similar to that of Philo’s.[xlvi] The idea of the Logos finds its way into the
opening chapter of the Gospel of John.[xlvii] In addition, “the Christian Fathers found
that he had shown the ways to reconcile Greek philosophy with acceptance of the
Hebrew Scriptures.”[xlviii] Clement and Origen also make use of Philo’s
allegorical method for making philosophical interpretations of the scriptures.[xlix]
Christianity is highly influenced by
Philo’s methodology and the traditions which do so ought to be critiqued along
with him.
Conclusion
Despite
the impressive nature of Philo’s integration of philosophy and the Scriptures,
we must beware of his methodology. All
religions, including Christianity, have faced the issue of how sacred theology
and secular philosophy ought to interact.
When one is too quick to integrate, the chances of accommodation
increase. Also, it is very easy to trust
the principles of philosophy over those of one’s religion. However, Philo open the doors to dialogue
between different ideas, an attitude which is to be appreciated.
Fall
2000
[i] Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy Vol. I (New York: Doubleday, 1985) 459.
[ii] F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy 451.
[iii] The tension between orthodox following of Plato and eclectic integration was primary conflict in Middle Platonism. F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy 451-452.
[iv] The varieties within Middle Platonists is illustrated in that, despite the influence of the Stoics, some still wrote treatises against the them. F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy 451.
[v] F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy 451.
[vi] F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy 453.
[vii] F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy 453.
[viii] Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre 6th ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999) 106.
[ix] S. E. Stumpf, Socrates to Satre 108.
[x] F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy 453.
[xi] Bertrand Russel, A History of Western Philosophy (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972) 322.
[xii] Philo, “Who is the Heir of Divine Things,” The Works of Philo, Transl. by C. D. Yonge (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993) 300. Additional Philo quotes will be taken from this collection as well.
[xiii] Philo, “Allegorical Interpretation, I” I 29.
[xiv] Philo, “Who is the Heir of Divine Things” 300.
[xv] Philo, “On the Confusion of Tongues” 250.
[xvi] Philo, “Who is the Heir of Divine Things” 295.
[xvii] Philo, “Who is the Heir of Divine Things” 295.
[xviii] F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy 458.
[xix] Henry Wolfson, Philo Vol. II (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982) 110.
[xx] Philo, “On the Confusion of Tongues” 249.
[xxi] Philo, “On the Confusion of Tongues” 250.
[xxii] Henry Wolfson, Philo Vol. II (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982) 111-112.
[xxiii] F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy 453.
[xxiv] Philo, “Allegorical Interpretation, I” 30.
[xxv] Philo, “Allegorical Interpretation, I” 35.
[xxvi] Philo, “Allegorical Interpretation, I” 29.
[xxvii] Philo, “Allegorical Interpretation, II” 61.
[xxviii] Philo, “Who is the Heir of Divine Things” 293.
[xxix] Philo, “Allegorical Interpretation, I” 35.
[xxx] Philo, “On the Confusion of Tongues” 250.
[xxxi] Philo, “On the Confusion of Tongues” 247.
[xxxii] Philo, “Who is the Heir of Divine Things” 301.
[xxxiii] Philo, “Who is the Heir of Divine Things” 300.
[xxxiv] F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy 457.
[xxxv] Philo, “On Dreams, That They Are God-Sent” 385.b
[xxxvi] Henry Wolfson, Philo Vol. I (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982) 123.
[xxxvii] Samuel Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979) 129.
[xxxviii] Samuel Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria 133.
[xxxix] Take for instance his interpretation of Exodus 21 as expounded on by Stanley Isser in “Two Traditions: The Law of Exodus 21:22-23 Revisted.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (1990) 33.
[xl] Philo, “On the Confusion of Tongues” 247.
[xli] Henry Wolfson, Philo Vol. I, 396-397.
[xlii] David Winston, Philo of Alexandria (New York: Paulist Press, 1981) 4.
[xliii] Philo, “Allegorical Interpretation, I” 29.
[xliv] Philo, “Allegorical Interpretation, I” 29.
[xlv] Philo, “On Dreams, That They Are God-Sent” 377.
[xlvi] Gregory E. Sterling, “Wisdom Among the Perfect: Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian Christianity.” Novum Testamentum 37:4 (1995) 365-367.
[xlvii] Thomas H. Tobin, “The Prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish Speculation,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:2 (1990) 257.
[xlviii] Bertrand Russel, A History of Western Philosophy 322.
[xlix] Annewies van den Hoek, “The Catechetical School of Early Christian Alexandria and its Philonic Heritage,” Harvard Theological Review 90:1 (1997) 59-87.
Bibliography
The Works of Philo. Transl. by C. D. Yonge. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993.
Philo of Alexandria. Transl. by David Winston. New York: Paulist Press, 1981.
Copleston, Frederick. A
History of Philosophy. Vol. I. New York: Doubleday, 1985.
Isser, Stanley. “Two Traditions:
The Law of Exodus 21:22-23 Revisted.” Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (1990) 30-45.
Russel, Bertrand. A History
of Western Philosophy. New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1972.
Sandmel, Samuel. Philo of
Alexandria. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1979.
Sterling, Gregory E. “Wisdom
Among the Perfect: Creation Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism and Corinthian
Christianity.” Novum Testamentum
37:4 (1995) 355-384.
Stumpf, Samuel Enoch. Socrates
to Sartre. 6th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999.
Tobin, Thomas H. “The Prologue
of John and Hellenistic Jewish Speculation.”
Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 52:2 (1990) 252-269.
van den Hoek, Annewies. “The
Catechetical School of Early Christian Alexandria and its Philonic
Heritage.” Harvard Theological Review
90:1 (1997) 59-87.
Winter, Bruce W. Philo and
Paul among the Sophists. Society for
New Testament Studies, Monograph Series 96.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Wolfson, Henry. Philo,
Vol. I. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1982.
Wolfson, Henry. Philo,
Vol. II. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1982.