By: Crawford Howell Toy, Carl Siegfried, Jacob Zallel Lauterbach
Alexandrian philosopher; born about 20 B.C. at Alexandria, Egypt; died after 40 C.E. The few biographical details concerning him that have been preserved are found in his own works (especially in "Legatio ad Caium," §§ 22, 28; ed. Mangey [hereafter cited in brackets], ii. 567, 572; "De Specialibus Legibus," ii. 1 [ii. 299]) and in Josephus ("Ant." xviii. 8, § 1; comp. ib. xix. 5, § 1; xx. 5, § 2). The only event that can be determined chronologically is his participation in the embassy which the Alexandrian Jews sent to the emperor Caligula at Rome for the purpose of asking protection against the attacks of the Alexandrian Greeks. This occurred in the year 40 C.E.
Philo included in his philosophy both Greek wisdom and Hebrew religion, which he sought to fuse and harmonize by means of the art of allegory that he had learned from the Stoics. His work was not accepted by contemporary Judaism. "The sophists of literalness," as he calls them ("De Somniis," i. 16-17), "opened their eyes superciliously" when he explained to them the marvels of his exegesis. Greek science, suppressed by the victorious Phariseeism (Men. 99), was soon forgotten. Philo was all the more enthusiastically received by the early Christians, some of whom saw in him a Christian.
His Works:
The Church Fathers have preserved most of Philo's works that are now extant. These are chiefly commentaries on the Pentateuch. As Ewald has pointed out, three of Philo's chief works lie in this field (comp. Siegfried, "Abhandlung zur Kritik der Schriften Philo's," 1874, p. 565).
(a) He explains the Pentateuch catechetically, in the form of questions and answers ("Z
His Allegorical Commentary.
(b) That he cared mainly for the latter he shows in his scientific chief work, the great allegorical commentary,
On the Patriarchs.
(c) Philo wrote a systematic work on Moses and his laws, which was prefaced by the treatise "De Opificio Mundi," which in the present editions precedes "De Allegoriis Legum," book i (comp. "De Abrahamo," § 1 [ii. 1], with "De Præmiis et Pœnis," § 1 [ii. 408]). 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.
On the Law.
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 (comp. Stade-Holtzmann, "Gesch. des Volkes Israel," 1888, ii. 535-545; on Philo as influenced by the Halakah, see B. Ritter, "Philo und die Halacha," Leipsic, 1879, and Siegfried's review of the same in the "Jenaer Literaturzeitung," 1879, No. 35). 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." Schürer (l.c. pp. 519 [note 82], 520-522) 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 see Schürer, l.c. pp. 522 et seq. This is the conclusion of the exposition of the Mosaic law.
Independent Works: (1) "Quod Omnis Probus Liber," 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. (2) "In Flaccum" and "De Legatione ad Caium," an account of the Alexandrian persecution of the Jews under Caligula. This account, consisting originally of five books, has been preserved in fragments only (see Schürer, l.c. pp. 525 et seq.). 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). (3) "De Providentia," 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.). (4) "De Animalibus" (on the title see Schürer, l.c. p. 532; in Richter's ed. viii. 101-144). (5)
For a list of the lost works of Philo see Schürer, l.c. p. 534.
Other Works Ascribed to Philo:
(1) "De Vita Contemplativa" (on the different titles comp. Schürer, l.c. p. 535). This work 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 home in Egypt. The writer, however, confines himself to describing 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 (
"De Vita Contemplativa."
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. But 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., Leipsic, 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 baud 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.
(2) "De Incorruptibilitate Mundi." Since the publication of I. Bernays' investigations there has been no doubt 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 ("Gesammelte Abhandlungen," 1885, i. 283-290; "Abhandlung der Berliner Akademie," 1876, Philosophical-Historical Division, pp. 209-278; ib. 1882, sect. iii. 82; Von Arnim, l.c. pp. 1-52).
(3) "De Mundo," a collection of extracts from Philo, especially from the preceding work (comp. Wendland, "Philo," ii., pp. vi.-x.).
(4) "De Sampsone" and "De Jona," in Armenian, published with Latin translation by Aucher.
(5) "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.
(6) 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 (see Schürer, l.c. p. 542).
(7) The pseudo-Philonic "Breviarium Temporum," published by Annius of Viterbo (see Schürer, l.c. note 168).
His Exegesis.
Cultural Basis: Philo, of Jewish descent, was by birth a Hellene, a member of one of those colonies, organized after the conquests of Alexander the Great, that were dominated by Greek language and culture. The vernacular of these colonies, Hellenistic Greek proper, was everywhere corrupted by idiotisms and solecisms, and in specifically Jewish circles by Hebraisms and Semitisms, numerous examples of which are found in the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament. The educated classes, however, had created for themselves from the classics, in the so-called
Influence of Hellenism.
But more important than the influence of the language was that of the literature. He quotes the epic and dramatic poets with especial frequency, or alludes to passages in their works. He has a wide acquaintance with the works of the Greek philosophers, to which he was devoted, owing to them his real scholarship, as he himself says (see "De Congressu Quærendæ Eruditionis Gratia," 6 [i. 550]; "De Specialibus Legibus," ii. 229; Deane, "The Book of Wisdom," 1881, p. 12, note 1). He holds that the highest perception of truth is possible only after a study of the encyclopedic sciences. Hence his system throughout shows the influence of Greek philosophy. The dualistic contrast between God and the world, between the finite and the infinite, appears also in Neo-Pythagorism. The influence of Stoicism is unmistakable in the doctrine of God as the only efficient cause, in that of divine reason immanent in the world, in that of the powers emanating from God and suffusing the world. In the doctrine of the Logos various elements of Greek philosophy are united. As Heinze shows ("Die Lehre vom Logos in der Griechischen Philosophie," 1872, pp. 204 et seq.), this doctrine touches upon the Platonic doctrine of ideas as well as the Stoic doctrine of the
His Knowledge of Hebrew.
Although he devoted himself largely to the Greek language and literature, especially Greek philosophy, Philo's national Jewish education is also a factor to be taken into account. While he read the Old Testament chiefly in the Greek translation, not deeming it necessary to use the Hebrew text because he was under the wrong impression that the Greek corresponded with it, he nevertheless understood Hebrew, as his numerous etymologies of Hebrew names indicate (see Siegfried, "Philonische Studien," in Merx, "Arehiv für Wissenschaftliche Erforshung des A. T." 1871, ii. 2, 143-163; idem, "Hebräische Worterklärungen des Philo und Ihre Einwirkung auf die Kirchenväter," 1863). These etymologies are not in agreement with modern Hebrew philology, but are along the lines of the etymologic midrash to Genesis and of the earlier rabbinism. His knowledge of the Halakah was not profound. B. Ritter, however, has shown (l.c.) that he was more at home in this than has been generally assumed (see Siegfried's review of Ritter's book in "Jenaer Literaturzeitung," 1879, No. 35, where the principal points of Philo's indebtedness to the Halakah are enumerated). In the Haggadah, however, he was very much at home, not only in that of the Bible, but especially in that of the earlier Palestinian and the Hellenistic Midrash (Frankel, "Ueber den Einfluss der Palästinensischen Exegese auf die Alexandrinische Hermeneutik," 1851, pp. 190-200; Schürer, l.c. p. 546; "De Vita Mosis," i. 1 [ii. 81]).
His Methods of Exegesis: Philo bases his doctrines on the Old Testament, which he considers as the source and standard not only of religious truth but in general of all truth. Its pronouncements are for him divine pronouncements. They are the words of the
Stoic Influence.
Greek allegory had preceded Philo in this field. As the Stoic allegorists sought in Homer the basis for their philosophic teachings, so the Jewish allegorists, and especially Philo, went to the Old Testament. Following the methods of Stoic allegory, they interpreted the Bible philosophically (on Philo's Predecessors in the domain of the allegoristic Midrash among the Palestinian and Alexandrian Jews, see Siegfried, l.c. pp. 16-37).
Attitude Toward Literal Meaning.
Philo bases his hermeneutics on the assumption of a twofold meaning in the Bible, the literal and the allegorical (comp. "Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis," § 11 [i. 280]; "De Somniis," i. 40 [i. 656]). He distinguishes the
There are in addition special rules that not only direct the reader to recognize the passages which demand an allegorical interpretation, but help the initiated to find the correct and intended meaning. These passages are such as contain: (1) the doubling of a phrase; (2) an apparently superfluous expression in the text; (3) the repetition of statements previously made; (4) a change of phraseology—all these phenomena point to something special that the reader must consider. (5) An entirely different meaning may also be found by a different combination of the words, disregarding the ordinarily accepted division of the sentence in question into phrases and clauses. (6) The synonyms must be carefully studied; e.g., why
Views on Numbers.
Philo regards the singular as God's number and the basis for all numbers ("De Allegoriis Legum," ii. 12 [i. 66]). Two is the number of schism, of that which has been created, of death ("De Opificio Mundi, § 9 [i. 7]; "De Allegoriis Legum," i. 2 [i. 44]; "De Somaniis," ii. 10 [i. 688]). 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]). 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,
Philo's teaching was not Jewish, but was derived from Greek philosophy. Desiring to convert it into a Jewish doctrine, he applied the Stoic mode of allegoric interpretation to the Old Testament. No one before Philo, except his now forgotten Alexandrian predecessors, had applied this method to the Old Testament—a method that could produce no lasting results. It was attacked even in Alexandria ("De Vita Mosis," iii. 27 [ii. 168]), and disappeared after the brief florescence of Jewish Hellenism.
His Doctrine of God:
Philo obtains his theology in two ways: by means of negation and by positive assertions as to the nature of God (comp. Zeller, "Philsophie der Griechen," 3d ed., iii., § 2, pp. 353-360; Drummond, "Philo Judæus," ii. 1-64, London, 1888). In his negative statement he tries to define the nature of God in contrast to the world. Here he can take from the Old Testament only certain views of later Jewish theology regarding God's sublimity transcending the world (Isa. lv. 9), and man's inability to behold God (Ex. xxxii. 20 et seq.). But according to the conception that predominates in the Bible God is incessantly active in the world, is filled with zeal, is moved by repentance, and comes to aid His people; He is, therefore, entirely different from the God described by Philo. Philodoes not consider God similar to heaven or the world or man; He exists neither in time nor space; He has no human attributes or emotions. Indeed, He has no attributes whatever (
Views on Anthropomorphisms.
It is evident that this is not the God of the Old Testament, but the idea of Plato designated as 
= "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 (comp. Schürer, "Der Begriff des Himmelreichs," in "Jahrbuch für Protestantische Theologie," 1876, i. 170). The Divine Being as such is motionless, as the Bible indicates by the phrase "God stands" (Deut. v. 31; Ex. xvii. 6). It was difficult to harmonize the doctrine of God's namelessness with the Bible; and Philo was aided here by his imperfect knowledge of Greek. Not noticing that the Septuagint translated the divine name Yhwh by
Philo's transcendental conception of the idea of God precluded the Creation as well as any activity of God in the world; it entirely separated God from man; and it deprived ethics of all religious basis. But Philo, who was a pious Jew, could not accept the un-Jewish, pagan conception of the world and the irreligious attitude which would have been the logical result of his own system; and so he accepted the Stoic doctrine of the immanence of God, which led him to statements opposed to those he had previously made. While he at first had placed God entirely outside of the world, he now regarded Him as the only actual being therein. God is the only real citizen of the world; all other beings are merely sojourners therein ("De Cherubim," § 34 [i. 661]). While God as a transcendent being could not operate at all in the world, He is now considered as doing everything and as the only cause of all things ("De Allegoriis Legum," iii. 3 [i. 88]). He creates not only once, but forever (ib. i. 13 [i. 44]). He is identical with the Stoic "efficient cause." He is impelled to activity chiefly by His goodness, which is the basis of the Creation. God as creator is called
Doctrine of the Divine Attributes:
Although, as shown above, Philo repeatedly endeavored to find the Divine Being active and acting in the world, in agreement with Stoicism, yet his Platonic repugnance to matter predominated, and consequently whenever he posited that the divine could not have any contact with evil, he defined evil as matter, with the result that he placed God outside of the world. 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. This doctrine, as worked out by Philo, was composed of very different elements, including Greek philosophy, Biblical conceptions, pagan and late Jewish views. The Greek elements were borrowed partly from Platonic philosophy, in so far as the divine powers were conceived as types or patterns of actual things ("archetypal ideas"), and partly from Stoic philosophy, in so far as those powers were regarded as the efficient causes that not only represent the types of things, but also produce and maintain them. They fill the whole world, and in them are contained all being and all individual things ("De Confusione Linguarum," § 34 [i. 431]). Philo endeavored to harmonize this conception with the Bible by designating these powers as angels ("De Gigantibus," § 2 [i. 263]; "De Somniis," i. 22 [i. 641 et seq.]), whereby he destroyed an essential characteristic of the Biblical view. He further made use of the pagan conception of demons (ib.). And finally he was influenced by the late Jewish doctrine of the throne-chariot (
), in connection with which he in a way detaches one of God's fundamental powers, a point which will be discussed further on. In the Haggadahthis fundamental power divides into two contrasts, which modify each other: 
. In the same way Philo contrasts the two divine attributes of goodness and power (
The Logos:
Philo considers these divine powers in their totality also, treating them as a single independent being, which he designates "Logos." This name, which he borrowed from Greek philosophy, was first used by Heraclitus and then adopted by the Stoics. Philo's conception of the Logos is influenced by both of these schools. From Heraclitus he borrowed the conception of the "dividing Logos" (
Relation of the Logos to God.
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 in image of God existed. 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.
Pneumatology.
The relation of the Logos to the divine powers, especially to the two fundamental powers, must now be examined. And here is found a twofold series of exegetic expositions. According to one, the Logos stands higher than the two powers; according to the other, it is in a way the product of the two powers; similarly it occasionally appears as the chief and leader of the innumerable powers proceeding from the primal powers, and again as the aggregate or product of them. In its relation to the world the Logos appears as the Universal substance on which all things depend; and from this point of view the manna (as
Cosmology:
Philo's conception of the matter out of which the world was created is entirely un-Biblical and un-Jewish; he is here wholly at one with Plato and the Stoics. According to him, God does not create the world-stuff, but finds it ready at hand. God can not create it, as in its nature it resists all contact with the divine. Sometimes, following the Stoics, he designates God as "the efficient cause,"and matter as "the affected cause." He seems to have found this conception in the Bible (Gen. i. 2) in the image of the spirit of God hoveringover the waters ("De Opificio Mundi," § 2 [i. 12]). On the connection of these doctrines with the speculations on the 
, see Siegfried, l.c. pp. 230 et seq.
Philo, again like Plato and the Stoics, conceives of matter as having no attributes or form; this, however, does not harmonize with the assumption of four elements. Philo conceives of matter as evil, on the ground that no praise is meted out to it in Genesis ("Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit," § 32 [i. 495]). As a result, he can not posit an actual Creation, but only a formation of the world, as Plato holds. God appears as demiurge and cosmoplast.
Philo frequently compares God to an architect or gardener, who formed the present world (the
Anthropology.
The Doctrine of Man as a Natural Being: Philo regards the physical nature of man as something defective and as an obstacle to his development that can never be fully surmounted, but still as something indispensable in view of the nature of his being. With the body the necessity for food arises, as Philo explains in various allegories. The body, however, is also of advantage to the spirit, since the spirit arrives at its knowledge of the world by means of the five senses. But higher and more important is the spiritual nature of man. This nature has a twofold tendency: one toward the sensual and earthly, which Philo calls sensibility (
Man as a Moral Being: More important in Philo's system is the doctrine of the moral development of man. Of this he distinguishes two conditions: (1) that before time was, and (2) that since the beginning of time. In the pretemporal condition the soul was without body, free from earthly matter. without sex, in the condition of the generic (
According to Philo, man passes through several steps in his ethical development. At first the several elements of the human being are in a state of latency, presenting a kind of moral neutrality which Philo designates by the terms "naked" or "medial." The nous is nude, or stands midway so long as it has not decided either for sin or for virtue. In this period of moral indecision God endeavors to prepare the earthly nous for virtue, presenting to him in the "earthly wisdom and virtue" an image of heavenly wisdom. But man (nous) quickly leaves this state of neutrality. As soon as he meets the woman (sensibility) he is filled with desire, and passion ensnares him in the bonds of sensibility. Here the moral duties of man arise; and according to his attitude there are two opposite tendencies in humanity.
Ethics.
Sensual Life: The soul is first aroused by the stimuli of sensual pleasures; it begins to turn toward them, and then becomes more and more involved. It becomes devoted to the body, and begins to lead an intolerable life (
Ascent to Reason: Abraham, the "immigrant," is the symbol of man leaving sensuality to turn to reason ("De Migratione Abrahami." § 4 [i. 439]). There are three methods whereby one can rise toward the divine: through teaching, through practise(
The method through teaching begins with a preliminary presentiment and hope of higher knowledge, which is especially exemplified in Enos. The real "teaching" is represented in the case of Abraham, the "lover of learning." The pupil has to pass through three stages of instruction. The first is that of "physiology," during which physical nature is studied. Abraham was in this stage until he went to Haran; at this time he was the "physiologer" of nature, the "meteorologer." Recognizing his short-comings, he went to Haran, and turned to the study of the spirit, devoting himself at first to the preparatory learning that is furnished by general education (
By the method of practise man strives to attain to the highest good by means of moral action. The preliminary here is change of mind (
Views on Virtue.
Good moral endowment, however, takes precedence of teaching and practise. Virtue here is not the result of hard labor, but is the excellent fruit maturing of itself. Noah represents the preliminary stage. He is praised, while no really good deeds are reported of him, whence it may be concluded that the Bible refers to his good disposition. But as Noah is praised only in comparison with his contemporaries, it follows that he is not yet a perfect man. There are several types in the Bible representing the perfect stage. It appears in its purest form in Isaac. He is perfect from the beginning: perfection is a part of his nature (
Hellenistic Judaism culminated in Philo, and through him exerted a deep and lasting influence on Christianity also. For the Jews themselves it soon succumbed to Palestinian Judaism. The development that ended in the Talmud offered a surer guaranty for the continuance of Judaism, as opposed to paganism and rising Christianity, than Jewish Hellenism could promise, which, with all its loyalty to the laws of the Fathers, could not help it to an independent position. The cosmpolitanism of Christianity soon swept away Hellenistic Judaism which could never go so far as to declare the Law superfluous, notwithstanding its philosophic liberality. (For the extent and magnitude of Philo's influence on Judaism and Christianity see Siegfried, l.c. pp. 275-399.)
Bibliography:
Schürer, Gesch.:
Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria, etc., 1875. On the Greek MSS. of Philo's extant works: Schürer, l.c. iii. 493, note 26;
Cohn-Wendland, Philonis Alexandrini Opera Quæ Supersunt, vol. i. pp. i.-cxiv.; vol. ii., pp. i.-xxxiv.; vol. iii, pp. i.-xxii.
On the indirect sources that may be used for reconstructing the text: Schürer, l.c. pp. 494 et seq., notes 28, 29.
On translations of Philo's works: Schürer, l.c. p. 496, note 30;
Cohn-Wendland, l.c. vol. i., pp. lxxx. et seq.
Other German translations: M. J [ost], Philos Gesammelte Schriften Uchersctzt, Leipsic, 1856-73;
M. Friedlander, Ueber die Philanthropie des Mosaischen Gesetzes, Vienna, 1880.
—His Relation to the Halakah:
Philo's relation to Palestinian exegesis and exposition of the Law is twofold: that of receiver and that of giver. While his method of interpretation was influenced by the Palestinian Midrash, he in his turn influencedthis Midrash; for many of his ideas were adopted by Palestinian scholars, and are still found scattered throughout the Talmud and the Midrashim. The Palestinian Halakah was probably known in Alexandria even before the time of Philo, and was apparently introduced by Judah b. Ṭabbai, or Joshua b. Peraḥyah, who fled from the persecutions of Hyrcanus to Alexandria, where he remained for some time. Philo had, moreover, the opportunity of studying Palestinian exegesis in its home; for he visited Jerusalem once or twice, and at these times could communicate his views and his method of exegesis to the Palestinian scholars. Furthermore, later teachers of the Law occasionally visited Alexandria, among them Joshua b. Hananiah (comp. Niddah 69b); and these carried various Philonic ideas back to Palestine. The same expositions of the Law and the same Biblical exegesis are very frequently found, therefore, in Philo and in the Talmud and Midrashim. The only means of ascertaining Philo's exact relation to Palestinian exegesis lies in the determination of the priority of one of two parallel passages found in both authorities. In the solution of such a problem a distinction must first be drawn between the Halakah and the Haggadah.
His Debt to the Halakah.
With regard to the Halakah, which originated in Palestine, it may be assumed with certainty that the interpretations and expositions found in Philo which coincide with those of the Halakah have been borrowed by him from the latter; and his relation to it is, therefore, only that of the recipient. Any influence which he may have exercised upon it can have been only a negative one, inasmuch as he aroused the opposition of Palestinian scholars by many of his interpretations, and inspired them to controvert him. The following examples may serve to elucidate his relation to the Halakah: Philo says ("De Specialibus Legibus," ed. Leipsic, § 13, ed. Mangey [cited hereafter as M.], 312), in interpreting Deut. xxii. 23-27, that the distinction made in the Law as to whether the violence was offered in the city or in the field must not be taken literally, the point being whether the girl cried for help and could have found it, without reference to the place where she was assaulted. The same view is found in the Halakah: "One might think that if the deed occurred in the city, the girl was guilty under all circumstances, and that if it took place in the field, she was invariably innocent. According to Deut. xxii. 27, however, 'the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.' This shows that wherever help may be expected the girl is guilty, whether the assault is made in the city or in the field; but where no help is to be expected, she is innocent, whether the assault occurs in the city or in the field" (Sifre, Deut. 213 [ed. Friedmann, p. 118b]). Philo explains (l.c. § 21 [M. 319-320]) the words "God delivers him into his hand" (Ex. xxi. 13, Hebr.) as follows: "A man has secretly committed a premeditated murder and has escaped human justice; but his act has not been hidden from divine vengeance, and he shall be punished for it by death. Another man who has committed a venial offense, for which he deserves exile, also has escaped human justice. This latter man God uses as a tool, to act as the executioner of the murderer, whom He causes him to meet and to slay unintentionally. The murderer has now been punished by death, while his executioner is exiled for manslaughter; the latter thus suffering the punishment which he has merited because of his original minor offense." This same interpretation is found in the Halakah as well (Mak. 10b: comp. also Mek., Mishpaṭim, iv. [ed. Weiss, p. 86a]). In explaining the law given in Deut. xxi. 10-14, Philo says, furthermore ("De Caritate," § 14 [M. 394]), that a captive woman taken in war shall not be treated as a slave if her captor will not take her to wife. The same interpretation is found in the Halakah (Sifre, Deut. 214 [ed. Friedmann, p. 113a]), which explains the words "lo tit'amer bah" (= "thou shalt not do her wrong") to mean, "thou shalt not keep her as a slave."
Numerous instances are also found in which, though Philo departs in the main point from the Halakah, he agrees with it in certain details. Thus, in interpreting the law set forth in Ex. xxi. 22 ("De Specialibus Legibus," § 19 [M. 317]) he differs entirely from the Halakah, except that he says that the man in question is liable to punishment only in case he has beaten the woman on the belly. The Halakah (Mek. l.c. v. [ed. Weiss, p. 90a]) deduces this law from the word "harah" (= "pregnant").
Philo agrees with the Halakah also in his justification of various laws. The law given in Ex. xxii. 1, according to which the owner has the right to kill a thief, is based by Philo on the assumption that the thief breaks in with murderous intent, in which case he would certainly be ready to kill the owner should the latter try to prevent him from stealing ("De Specialibus Legibus," § 2 [M. 337]). The Mishnah (Sanh. viii. 6 and Talmud 72a) gives the same explanation.
It is especially interesting to note that Philo borrowed certain halakot that have no foundation in Scripture, regarding them as authoritative interpretations of the law in question. He says, for instance (l.c. § 5 [M. 304]), that the marriage of a Jew with a non-Jewish woman is forbidden, no matter of what nation she be, although the Talmud says ('Ab. Zarah 36b) that, according to the Pentateuchal law (Deut. vii. 3), only a marriage with a member of any of the seven Canaanitish peoples was forbidden, the extension of this prohibition to all other nations being merely a rabbinic decree.
Agreement with the Earlier Halakah.
The most important feature of Philo's relation to the Halakah is his frequent agreement with an earlier halakah where it differs from a later one. This fact has thus far remained unnoticed, although it is most important, since it thus frequently becomes possible to determine which portions of the accepted halakah are earlier and which are later in date. A few examples may serve to make this clear. Philo says ("De Caritate," § 14 [M. 393]), in explaining the law given in Deut. xxi. 10-14. regarding a woman taken captive in war, that she must cut her nails. This interpretation of verse 12 of the same chapter agrees with the earlier halakah, represented by R. Eliezer (Sifre, Deut. 212 [ed. Friedmann, p. 112b]);but the later halakah (Sifre, l.c.), represented by R. Akiba, explains the words "we-'asetah et-ẓiparneha" as meaning "she shall let her nails grow." Again, Philo says ("De Specialibus Legibus," § 19 [M. 317]), in interpreting the law of Ex. xxi. 18-19: "If the person in question has so far recovered from his hurt that he is able to go out again, although it may be necessary for him to be assisted by another or to use crutches, his assailant is no longer liable to punishment, even in case his victim subsequently dies; for it is not absolutely certain that his death is a result of the blow, since he has recovered in the meantime." Hence Philo takes the phrase "upon his staff" (ib. verse 19) literally. In like manner he interprets (l.c. § 2 [M. 336-337]) the passage "If the sun be risen upon him" (ib. xxii. 3) as follows: "If the owner catches the thief before sunrise he may kill him; but after the sun has risen, he no longer has this right." Both these explanations by Philo contradict the accepted halakah, which interprets the passages Ex. xxi. 19, xxii. 3. as well as Deut. xxii. 17, figuratively, taking the phrase "upon his staff" to mean "supported by his own strength," and interpreting the passage "If the sun be risen upon him" to mean "when it is clear as daylight that the thief would not have killed the owner, even had the latter prevented him from the robbery" (comp. Mek., Mishpaṭim, vi. [ed. Weiss, p. 88b]). Philo here follows the earlier halakah, whose representative, R. Eliezer (Sifre, Deut. 237 [ed. Friedmann, p. 118a]), says "debarim ki-ketabam" (= "the phrases must be taken literally"). Although only Deut. xxii. 17 is mentioned in Ket. 46a and Yer. Ket. 28c in connection with R. Eliezer's statement, it is not expressly said that such statement must not be applied to the other two phrases; and it may be inferred from Philo that these three phrases, which were explained figuratively by R. Ishmael, were taken literally by the old halakah.
Supports the "Lex Talionis."
The same agreement between Philo and the earlier halakah is found in the following examples: Philo takes the phrases Ex. xxi. 23-25 and Deut. xix. 21, "eye for eye," "tooth for tooth," etc., literally, saying (l.c. § 33 [M. 329]) that, according to the Mosaic law, the "lex talionis" must hold. This explanation differs from that of the accepted halakah, which interprets the phrases in question as meaning merely a money indemnity (Mek, l.c. viii. [ed. Weiss, p. 90b]; B. Ḳ. 93b-94a), whereas the earlier halakah (as represented by R. Eliezer, B. Ḳ. 94a) says "'ayin teḥat 'ayin mammash" (= "an eye for an eye" is meant in the literal sense). This view of the earlier halakah was still known as such to the later teachers; otherwise the Talmud (B. Ḳ. l.c.) would not have taken special pains to refute this view, and to prove its incorrectness.
It frequently happens that when Philo differs from the Halakah in expounding a law, and gives an interpretation at variance with it, such divergent explanation is mentioned as a possible one and is disproved in the Talmud or the halakic midrashim. This fact is especially noteworthy, since in many cases it renders possible the reconstruction of the earlier halakah by a comparison with Philo's interpretations, as is shown by the following example: Philo says (l.c. § 27 [M. 323]), in discussing the law of Ex. xxi. 28-29, that if an ox known to be vicious kills a person, then the ox as well as its owner shall be sentenced to death. Philo interprets the words "his owner also shall be put to death" (ib. verse 29) to refer to "death by legal sentence,"although in certain circumstances the Law may exempt the owner from this penalty and impose a fine instead. The accepted Halakah, however, explains the phrase in question to mean that the owner will suffer death at the hand of God, while human justice can punish him only by a fine, in no case having the right to put him to death because his ox has killed a man (Mek. l.c. x. [ed. Weiss, p. 93a]; Sanh. 15a, b). This interpretation of the Halakah was not, on the other hand, universally accepted; for in Mek. l.c. and especially in the Talmud, l.c. it is attacked in the remark: "Perhaps the passage really means that the owner shall be sentenced to death by a human court." It appears from this statement as well as from Sanh. i. 4 (comp. Geiger, "Urschrift," pp. 448 et seq.) that the earlier halakah held that the owner should be sentenced to death. This view was vigorously opposed by the later halakah, and was not entirely set aside until a very late date, as appears from Sanh. l.c.
Influence of the Court of Alexandria.
It is impossible, however, to ascribe to the earlier Halakah all the interpretations of Philo that are mentioned and refuted in the Talmud and the halakic midrashim; and extreme caution must be observed in determining which of Philo's interpretations that differ from the accepted Halakah are to be assigned to the earlier one. Many of Philo's explanations are quoted according to the rulings of the court of Alexandria and to its interpretation of the Law, and were never recognized in the Palestinian Halakah. They are, nevertheless, cited as possible interpretations, and are refuted in the Talmud and in the Midrashim, Alexandrian judicial procedure in general being frequently made an object of criticism.
Philo's relation to the Palestinian haggadic exegesis is different, for it can not be said that wherever Palestinian ideas coincide with his own it must invariably have formed the basis of his statements (comp. Freudenthal, "Hellenistische Studien," pp. 57-77). While this dependence may have existed in numerous instances, it may confidently be affirmed that in many other cases the Palestinian sources borrowed ideas which Philo had drawn from Hellenistic authorities. The following examples may serve to show that the Palestinian Haggadah is indebted to Philo: Gen. R. viii. 1 explains the passage Gen. i. 27 to mean that God originally created man as an Androgynos, this idea being first expressed by Philo in explanation of the same passage ("De Opificio Mundi," § 24 [M. 17] and more clearly in "De Allegoriis Legum," ii. 4 [M. 49]). In like manner the idea expressed in Gen. R. xiv. 3 of a twofold creation of man, in part divine and in part earthly, has been taken from Philo, who was the first to enunciate this doctrine ("De Opificio Mundi," § 12 [M. 49-50]), while the interpretation given in Ex. R. xxvi. 1, that Moses was called by the same name as the water, is certainly taken from Philo, who says ("Vita Mosis," i. 4 [M.83]) that Moses received his name because he was found in the water, the Egyptian word for which is "mos."
Relation to Palestinian Haggadic Exegesis.
In the case of many of the ideas and principles found both in Philo and in the Talmudic and Midrashic literature it is impossible to assert that there has been borrowing on either side; and it is much more justifiable to assume that such ideas originated independently of each other in Palestine and in Alexandria. This may have been the case also with the rules of hermeneutics. The principles which Philo framed for the allegoric interpretation of Scripture correspond in part to the exegetic system of the Palestinian Halakah. It is highly probable, however, that neither borrowed these rules from the other, but that both, feeling the need of interpreting Scripture, though for different purposes, independently invented and formulated these methods while following the same trend of thought. Some examples of similarity in the rules may be given here. Philo formulates the principle that a deeper meaning is implied in the repetition of well-known facts ("De Congressu Eruditionis Gratia," § 14 [M. 529]); and this same rule was formulated by Akiba also (Sifre, Num. 2, according to the reading of Elijah Wilna). Philo states as another rule that there is no superfluous word in the Bible, and wherever there is a word which seems to be such, it must be interpreted. Hence he explains ("De Profugis," § 10 [M. 554]) the apparently superfluous word in Ex. xxi. 12. This principle is formulated by Akiba also (Yer. Shab. xix. 17a; comp. also Sanh. 64b, where Akiba deduces the same meaning from the apparently redundant word in Num. xv. 31, as Philo does from Ex. xxi. 12).
Bibliography:
Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der Palilstinensischen Exegese auf die Alexandrinische Hermeneutik, pp. 190-192, Leipsic, 1851;
Idem, Ueber Palästincnsische und Alexandrinische Schrift for schung, in The Programme of the Breslau Seminary, 1834;
Bernhard Ritter, Philo und die Halacha, ib. 1879;
Grätz, Das Korbfest der Erstlinge bei Philo, in Monatsschrift, 1877, pp. 433-442;
Carl Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alten Testaments, Jena, 1875;
N. J. Weinstein, Zur Genesis der Agada: part ii., Die Alexandrinische Agada, Göttingen, 1901.