[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
Philo of Alexandria, a first-century BCE/CE Jewish author with a substantial surviving corpus, has inspired debate over his participation in and knowledge of philosophical schools. Traditionally viewed as a Platonist with dabbling tendencies, this volume aims to explore his participation in different philosophical frames more deeply. It had its origin in a two-day conference held in May 2019 at the University of Münster. It contains thirteen English-language articles from leading scholars in the field of Philonic studies, and is capped with indices of ancient texts, modern authors, and subjects. An introduction, by Michael Cover and Lutz Doering, offers a brief history of the question of Philo’s relationship to Greek philosophy and places the volume in the history of scholarship. Summaries of each chapter are given, but no synthesis is offered.
In the first chapter, “Philo’s Library and the Libraries of Philosophical Schools,” Gregory Sterling aims to reconstruct the contents of Philo’s library on the basis of his literary references. He relies on four criteria: 1) frequency of use; 2) breadth of the citations/allusions; 3) length of citation; and 4) distribution of use across the corpus Philonicum. Sterling’s criteria are solid and his application is measured. Although one might disagree with some of his conclusions – for instance, the probability of Philo having Euripides’ Chrysippus or the implied unlikely ownership of much of the Septuagint – this study marks an important step forward in this debate, especially in highlighting the role that Philo’s students may have played in the production and editing of his works.
Sharon Weisser argues in “The Socratic Background of Philo’s Ethics: The Case of Piety” that Philo is an intellectualist regarding piety in that he thinks that a proper cognitive apprehension of the divine naturally leads to virtuous behaviour. Challenging the tendency by scholars to explain difficulties by the framework of ‘the argument from Judaism’, which often presents a singular and holistic picture of the Jewish people, Weisser shows how Philo’s distinctive position, that piety is the source of all other virtues, can be viewed as a natural outworking of his drawing from the whole of the Platonic corpus.
Carlos Lévy’s study (“Was Philo’s Moses a Pyrrhonian Hero?”) provides a close comparison of the ideas attributed to Pyrrho in the testamonia and fragments (including their formulation by Aenesidemus) and those of Philo. Of particular importance are the shared use of technical terms and Philo’s application of them to Moses. Lévy concludes that Philo strategically employed Pyrrhoisms and Neo-Academic probabilism in his corpus, although his identifying Moses as a Pyrrhonian hero might go too far.
Geert Roskam (“Crawling on the Belly and Eating Earth: How Relevant was Epicurus for Philo?”) critiques methods adopted in previous comparisons of Philo and Epicurus, arguing that they create the impression that Philo engaged in a systematic polemic against Epicurean thought. In contrast, Roskam evaluates Philo’s view of pleasure on his own terms, showing that when Philo discusses pleasure it is framed by his understanding of the serpent in Genesis and not Epicurean hedonism.
Addressing Philo’s therapy of desire, Jason Zurawski explores the different ways in which Philo images freedom from the passions (“Philo’s Therapy of Desire: Law, Askēsis, and the Rod of Paideia”). A particular focus is Philo’s discussion of the rod (ῥάβδος), which, metaphorically, can beat the passions away from the soul. An allegorical interpretation of the rod allows Philo to move away from the idea of corporal punishment, and to make connections in the Pentateuch, especially drawing from Jacob and Moses and how their training as shephered relates to their paideutic development.
Troels Engberg-Pedersen provides a detailed investigation of Philo’s Quod omnis probus liber sit (“Philosophy and the Sitz im Leben of Philo’s Quod omnis probus liber sit’). Arguing that Probus is a very well organised treatise, Engberg-Pedersen begins with a detailed outline of the work and its internal cohesion. He argues that the philosophy expressed in it is consistent with Stoic ideas and that it is addressed to those who have obtained paideia but are not yet philosophers (contra von Bendemann). A contribution of the article is his comparison of the Essenes in Probus and Hypothetica and discussion of how the Essenes are leveraged in the different treatises to support their respective theses.
Continuing with Probus, Maren Niehoff provides a detailed reading of Probus 1–15. Niehoff argues that the combination of motifs in the opening of Probus raises questions about the development of his thought and changes in his philosophical orientation arising from his stay in Rome. She highlights how intellectual communities in Rome, such as those around Lucullus and Asinius Pollio, could facilitate Philo’s change of perspective and result in work being written to non-Jews and in what she identifies as a genre of treatise identified as λόγος, namely a philosophical book presenting proofs (p. 197). Specifically, she shows how Philo’s introduction to Probus resonates with Stoic and Cynic discussions of freedom and slavery; it also shows that Plato had become more marginal in Rome. Although some scholars might disagree with Niehoff’s theoretical starting point, her argument shows the complex interplay between Greek and Latin philosophical schools active during Philo’s stay at Rome.
In Chapter Nine, “Natural Philosophy and Stoicism in Philo’s Oeuvre,” Gretchen Reydams-Schils tests Maren Niehoff’s hypothesis of Philo’s philosophical development towards Stoicism[1] through an attempt to find ‘bridge concepts’, in which Philo’s philosophical position shifts. Reydams-Schils argues that natural philosophy as expressed in Plato’s Timaeus is one example in which Philo’s latter writings show more Stoic influence. Specifically, Reydams-Schils examines Philo’s depiction of ‘Chaldeans’, who are known for their study of the heavens, and claims that in his later works Philo creates sharper lines between Chaldeans and the correct kind of natural philosophy exhibited in the Allegorical Commentary.
Rainer Hirsch-Luipold (“‘Holy and Philosophical’: Two Religious Platonists in their Endeavour to Be Both Theologically and Philosophically Orthodox”) argues that the theological-philosophical approach adopted by Philo and Plutarch is best understood when the two authors are interpreted together. Challenging the view that they are “preparers of Neoplatonism,” Hirsch-Luipold claims that their conception of God as the source of truth embodied in lived religious traditions represents a new form of Platonism. Although some have engaged in this comparative study before, Hirsch-Luipold makes a strong case for renewed engagement.
Mauro Bonazzi’s chapter, “Philo of Alexandria on the Practical and Contemplative Life,” revisits the longstanding question of the best type of life. Bonazzi critiques the view that Philo held the same view as his contemporaries, namely that the mixed life was best (so Joly). He argues that Philo, although acknowledging that both are valid and that a mixed life might be necessary, prioritises the contemplative life. What is distinctive about Philo is not this position, but the content of and way by which one contemplates; contemplation is resolved in exegesis and the contemplative life is the study of Scripture.
In the next chapter, “What’s in A Name Change? Neo-Pythagorean Arithmology and Middle-Platonic Namewrights in Philo’s Orchard of Philosophy”, Michael Cover asks whether Philo had multiple philosophies of language and whether they were leveraged differently in his various series. Using the example from De mutatione 60–4 and its parallel in Questions on Genesis 3.43, Cover argues that Philo adopts two different explanations for the name changes of Abram and Sarai (Genesis 17), a Stoic and Neopythagorean one in the latter case and a Platonic one in the former. Cover’s close interpretation leads him to the conclusions that Philo is not a systematic thinker and so could use multiple approaches, and that the harder interpretation in De mutatione suggests that it was written later.
The penultimate chapter, “Philo of Alexandria on the Hebdomad: Neo-Pythagorean Arithmology and Jewish Tradition”, by Lutz Doering, explores Philo’s Neopythagorean influences. The heart of Doering’s paper is a close comparison of Philo’s discussion of the number seven in Legum allegoriae 1.8–15 and De opificio mundi 92–110 and his attribution of different ideas about this to Pythagoreans. Doering explains this difference by arguing that Philo learned more about Pythagoreanism after writing Legum allegoriae I, with De opificio mundi representing a more accurate attribution. In his evaluation of Philo, Doering draws from John Lydus and Anatolius but argues that Philo “depends heavily” on Pythagorean arithmologies for his exegesis of the Pentateuch (p. 308).
The final paper in the volume, Ilaria Ramelli’s “The Double Creation of the Human Being and Philosophical Soteriology”, explores Philo’s engagement with Platonic ideas (especially from Timaeus) in his interpretation of the dual creation of man in Genesis 1 and 2. Arguing that the first ‘man’ is an incorporeal image of the logos and the second is the corporeal moulding of the human, Ramelli shows how Philo adopts Plato’s hierarchy of the non-physical over the material world. It is this double creation that, Ramelli argues, allows for a dual soteriology. Salvation for Philo depends on philosophy and piety, which is attainable only for the soul. As a result, Philo excludes bodily resurrection.
The individual chapters in this volume do not really engage with each other. However, the composite whole provides an interesting and needed consideration of Philo’s pluriform engagement with different philosophical schools. The primary thesis developed in the volume is that Philo engaged widely with contemporary philosophical schools, and each study reinforces Philo’s creative and complex participation in intellectual debate and the development of ideas. Although not explicitly articulated by the editors, we see some concepts and questions recur throughout the work: can one identify a shift in Philo’s outlook (so Niehoff) and, if so, what does that means for our understanding of his corpus? How knowledgeable was Philo about particular authors and schools? How did he get his knowledge of different philosophical ideas? To what extent does Philo adhere to/adapt/reject the philosophical arguments of others? Such questions and many more form the underlying current of this work and much of modern study of Philo. The chapters in this volume advance these questions and, most importantly, help the reader think more deeply about them. One minor issue is the typographical errors, which are distracting, although they do not compromise the reader’s ability to understand the various arguments.
Overall, this is a welcome volume and, because it is open access, is readily available to students of Philo and ancient philosophy.
Authors and Titles
Introduction: Philo of Alexandria and Philosophical Discourse (Michael B. Cover and Lutz Doering)
Philo’s Library and the Libraries of Philosophical Schools (Gregory E. Sterling)
The Socratic Background of Philo’s Ethics: The Case of Piety (Sharon Weisser)
Was Philo’s Moses a Pyrrhonian Hero? (Carlos Lévy)
Crawling on the Belly and Eating Earth: How Relevant was Epicurus for Philo? (Geert Roskam)
Philo’s Therapy of Desire: Law, Askēsis, and the Rod of Paideia (Jason M. Zurawski)
Philosophy and the Sitz im Leben of Philo’s Quod omnis probus liber sit’ (Troels Engberg-Pedersen)
First Century Rome as a Philosophical Context for Philo of Alexandria: The Introduction to Philo’s Treatise Every Good Man is Free (Probus 1–15) (Maren R. Niehoff)
Natural Philosophy and Stoicism in Philo’s Oeuvre (Gretchen Reydams-Schils)
“Holy and Philosophical”: Two Religious Platonists in their Endeavour to Be Both Theologically and Philosophically Orthodox (Rainer Hirsch-Luipold)
Philo of Alexandria on the Practical and Contemplative Life: Some Remarks (Mauro Bonazzi)
What’s in A Name Change? Neo-Pythagorean Arithmology and Middle-Platonic Namewrights in Philo’s Orchard of Philosophy (Michael B. Cover)
Philo of Alexandria on the Hebdomad: Neo-Pythagorean Arithmology and Jewish Tradition (Lutz Doering)
The Double Creation of the Human Being and Philosophical Soteriology (Ilaria L.E. Ramelli)
Notes
[1] Maren R. Niehoff, Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).