This essay is a revised and expanded version of a section of my
Establishment Violence in Philo and Luke: A Study of Non-conformity to the Torah and Jewish Vigilante Reactions.
(Biblical Interpretation Series 15)
Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1995, pp. 75ff.
Philo belonged to a rich and influential family in Alexandria (Schwartz, 1953:591-602; Foster 1976\77:26-29; Schwartz 1984:155-171). His brother Alexander Lysimachus was "alabarch," perhaps an office concerned with administration of the paying of taxes and customs. Josephus says that Alexander "surpassed all his fellow citizens both in ancestry and in wealth" (Ant. XX,100). Josephus also tells us that Alexander once lent a large amount of money to Agrippa, or to be more correct, to Agrippa's wife Cypros because he did not trust Agrippa (Ant. XVIII,159). Alexander also disclosed his wealth and demonstrated his reverence for the temple of Jerusalem by clothing nine of its ten ports with gold and silver (Bell. V,205). The position of Alexander in the Alexandria of his days was also expressed in his close relationship to Claudius and his mother Antonia. Gaius Galicula, however, had him thrown in jail, but Claudius released him when he became emperor (Ant. XIX,276).
One of Alexander's sons, Marcus Julius Alexander, was married to Berenice, the daughter of Agrippa (Ant. XIX,277). But another son is mentioned more often in our sources; namely Tiberius Julius Alexander (On Tiberius, see Bennett 134-147; Turner 54-64; and now especially Evans 1995). According to Josephus, Tiberius left Judaism (Ant. XX,200), and had a great career in the service of the Romans. In ca. 46-48 CE he was procurator of Judea (Ant. XX,100; Bell. II,220), and in ca. 66-70 CE he was prefect of Egypt (cf. Bell. II,309.492-498). He also participated actively in the campaigns against Jerusalem in 66-70 C.E. (Bell. V,45-46. VI,237).
Philo must - at least for some period - have had close contact with his nephew Tiberius. It is almost generally accepted in recent research that Tiberius figures directly or indirectly as a debater with his uncle in two of Philo's writings (Borgen, CRINT 249-250; Colson, Philo IX (Loeb ed.):447f.). In De Providentia they discuss if the world is governed by the providence of God, an issue Tiberius doubts. In De Animalibus (Terian 1981). the topic set up for discussion is "Whether Animals have Reason". Philo here discusses a work possible written by Tiberius Alexander. These aspects of Philo's family indicate that it must have been both rich and influential, and that at least one of Philo's close relatives was an apostate.
Against this background of the wealth of his family it is somewhat strange to read Philo's negative sayings about wealth and prosperity. He can even talk about "us poor people" (Spec.leg. 2:20). But these sayings are probably not to be taken as expressions of personal poverty but are related to the traditions he works with in various contexts (Mealand 258-264; Ewald Smidt 85-97).
In Ant. XVIII,259 Josephus comments on the Alexandrian delegation that was sent to Rome to intercede for the Jews at emperor Gaius Caligula. Josephus here presents Philo as "a man held in the highest honor, brother of Alexander the alabarch, and no novice in philosophy-". It is also obvious from Philo's own writings that he had official positions in the city, and the story of the delegation to Rome is told in his De Legatione. It is, however, not obvious what kind of office he did hold, and for how long. Goodenough (1926:77-79) emphasizes "that his duties were of a judicial charac- ter" but admits that "this cannot be demonstrated". A selfbiographical section in Spec. leg. 3:1f has been interpreted as indicating that Philo first had a rather long period in his life in which he was primarily concerned with his philosophy and his writing; then he later was drawn reluctantly into the political life and work of the Jewish community in Alexandria. This is a posible interpretation, but it is very difficulty to say anything more explicit about when Philo had to indulge in the political affairs of his city (contra Goodenough). The function of Spec. leg. 3,1ff seems to be primarily an outblow of frustration over his political work compared with the activity as a philosopher, a work he had much more delight in (cf. also Spec.leg. 2:44).
Philo's attitude to the Greco-Roman cultural institutions of Alexandria seems to have been rather friendly and accepting. According to several sayings in his writings he knew by personal experience various forms of the cultural activities of the city. He writes about competitions of wrestling and boxing (Prob. 26), horseraces (cf. Eusebius Praep. ev. 7:14,58 [Hypothetica]), and it is obvious that he frequented the teatre and attended concerts (Ebr. 177; Prob. 141). In Leg. All. 3:155 he tells that he several times participated in convivial gatherings, and that if he had not taken Logos with him, he would fallen prey to the temptations of pleasure. It is not without some pride he here says that
whenever I arrive with convincing reason at my side, I find myself a master not a slave, and, putting forth all my strength, win the noble victory of endurance and self- mastery and pertinacious encounter with everything that excites the unruly desires.
But at the same time he calls for caution, and directly warns his readers against participation in the Greco-Roman clubs and associations (Ebr. 22):
As for contributions or club subscriptions, when the object is to share in the best of possessions, prudence, such payments are praiseworthy and profitable; but when they are paid to obtain that supreme evil, folly, the practice is unprofitable and blameworthy.
Later in the same work (Ebr. 95), he motivates his warning by pointing out that such participation may lead to idolatry and apostasy (cf. my Philo and the Clubs and Associations of Alexandria).
The attitude of Philo to the Greco-Roman culture can further be illuminated by his view of the encyclical education; the paideia encyclia (cf. Borgen; Mendelson 1982 and Kasher 1985 and 1976:148-161.). It seems to be Philo's view that these institutions represent an issue of "adiaphora"; they are in and by themselves neither only good nor bad (cf. Congr. 35; Fug. 212-213). They are in fact, according to Philo, only preliminary to the study of the real and genuine philosophy represented by the Law, i.e., by Judaism.
There are several sayings in his works that can be read as suggesting that Philo himself had undergone the encyclical education (Congr. 74-76). It is not quite clear, however, in what setting he received such education. Wolfson (Philo I:79ff.) believes that the Jews had such educational institutions of their own, but surmises that Philo's sayings are perhaps not related to actual education at all. Kasher (Kasher 1985) argues that the Jews did not at all want to receive the Greco-Roman education of the encyclia since that in fact represented apostasy. The dissension in recent research on this question is due to the issue that the education of the encyclia was necesarry to obtain the rights of citizenship, and it is not quite clear if the Jews enjoyed these rights at the time of Philo. Presupposing that such education, however, was accessible to some Jews, at least to the rich, and due to the fairly good knowledge of these institutions evidenced in the writings of Philo, it is common opinion among scholars today that he received his education in a Greco-Roman cultural setting, i.e., in a gymnasium.
The writings of Philo demonstrate that he had a fairly good knowledge of the Greco-Roman culture, not at least of the various philosophers and their ideas. The influence from the works of Plato, from Pythagoreism and Stoicism is especially prominent in his works. His quotations and allusions to various philosophers are numerous (Wolfson, Philo I:93 lists 23 philosophers of which he finds citations of in the works of Philo).
But Philo was a Jew, and his close relation to Judaism is clearly set forth in his writings; all of them are in one way or other related to the Torah. He further tells that he himself had been to Jerusalem "to sacrifice and pray" (Prov. 2,64), and he scorns those who abolish the literal understanding of the Law in preference for a symbolical or allegorical (Migr. 92);
Why, we shall be ignoring the sanctity of the Temple and a thousand other things, if we are going to pay heed to nothing except what is shown us by the inner meanings of things.
He further praises the synagogues, "they are schools of prudence" (Mos. 2:216), and he states that there are several of them in Alexandria (Legat. 132-134). The "Bibel" of Philo was the Greek version of the OT (cf. Mos. 2:26f), but he also draws on other sources: "...for I always interwove what I was told with what I read" (Mos. 1:4). It is dubious if Philo knew Hebrew, and it is even more discussed if he knew Palestinian traditions of Haggada and Halacha (Borgen ANRW:124ff; CRINT:259ff; Bamberger 1977:153-185.
The strength of this categorization is that it recognizes that Philo was primarily an exegete and expositor of the Scriptures, and that when he applied the Pentateuchal principles to various issues he presupposed the kind of exegesis he had developed in his expository works.
It is, alas, not possible to fit all his writings into a chronological scheme. The Legatione and Flaccum must, however, have been written after the events they inform us of, i.e., after 38 CE. Perhaps De Animalibus was written at the same time. We cannot place all his philosophical writ- ings in the period of his younger age and the exegetical in the later (cf. Borgen ANRW:119f). If De Animalibus, however, belongs to his later years it shows that his philosophical interest was very intact at that time. On the other hand, it is scarcely reasonable to place all his writings in his later years, as Terian have suggested (Terian ANRW:294f).
The dating of Philo's works is dependent on one's understanding of his life and work. If he were active in political functions and offices during most of his adult life it is not only possible but rather plausible that his work as an author and expositor of the Scriptures must have found place during a rather long period.
J. Dillon has set forth the interesting, but hardly provable suggestion that "at a certain stage of his education he experienced a kind of conversion, a rediscovery of his own culture and traditions". This "conversion" did not lead to an abolishing of the Greek culture, but to "an application of it to the Jews's sacred books, particularly the Pentateuch, -the books of Moses" (Dillon 141.). The first part of Dillon's suggestion can scarcely be proved nor disproved, and the suggestion as such is not necessary either. The last part is, however, more to the point. But it is, after all, probably a more suitable description of Philo's attitude to the Greco-Roman culture to say that his point of departure was Judaism, and that he tried to apply and interpret Judaism for his contemporaries in the context of the Greco-Roman culture. Whether these contemporaries were Jews or Gentiles will be the subject to consider in the next section.
Some aspects of the issues of the question of sources, and the related issues of tradition and redaction should perhaps be commented on here. The question of Philo's traditions or sources is complicated, however, and one on which there seems to be no consensus in recent research. The program set forth by R.G. Hamerton-Kelly (Hamerton-Kelly 1972:3-21) has not been followed up by other scholars. This fact is to a great extent due to the nature of Philo's writings: they take the form of expositions. As espositions "they consist of exegetical paraphrases of words and phrases from the Pentateuchal texts together with other words and phrases" (Borgen ANRW:132). Thus in Philo's expositions can be found OT words and phrases interwoven with comments that reflect various ideas and traditions. Hence the interest in some recent research has shifted to a search for exegetical traditions in Philo's works. In 1974/75 B.M.Mack stated in an article what has now been almost generelly accepted: "Philo used traditional exegetical methods and materials. These materials are diverse and may reflect stages of exegetical history or "schools" of exegesis which are in debate with one another. Philo employed these traditions with varying degrees of acceptance, and he reworked them with varying degrees of consistency" (Mack 75). This statement also concurs with what Philo himself says in Vita Mosis 1,4: "I...tell (the story of Moses) as I have learned it, both from the sacred books.., and from some of the elders of the nation; for I always interwove what I was told with what I read..."
The "kind" of Jewishness of his life and work has been variously evaluated in recent research. The Jewish scholar S. Sandmel can say that "In Philo, the Greek philosophical tradition (was) absorbed to the maximum;- on the other hand, Philo was as loyal to Judaism as any personality in the age with which we deal, and, indeed as any personality in subsequent times" (Sandmel 1978:280). According to P. Borgen, Philo was a Jew on the border of being absorbed by the Greco-Roman culture (CRINT:150): "A conqueror, on the verge of being conquered." This characterization has been adopted by D.T. Runia). This, it must be added, was not because Philo compromised his Judaism or merged Hellenism and Judaism, but because of his efforts to conquer the Greco- Roman culture by asserting that all the good to be found therein in fact stemmed from Judaism. "Consequently, being so extreme in his claims, he was on the verge of ending at the other extreme, that of being overcome by the ideas he wished to conquer. In this way, Philo's extreme form of par- ticularism was on the point of ending up in a universalism where Jewish distinctiveness was in danger of being lost" (Borgen ANRW:154). The question of universalism and particularism in the ideology of Philo should not be considered as settled (cf. Birnbaum 1993). The role of the Torah in the Expositio, and the eschatological outlook in Praemis, inter alia, should be the subject of further investigations.
The two views referred above may bring to a close this sketch of some aspects of Philo's life and works. The purpose of this section has not been to deal with all aspects of his life, but to concentrate on and present some of the most interesting issues current in recent research. In the following section we shall have a look at the question of the addressees of De Expositio.
In recent research the answers to the question dealt with here can be split up into three groups: the Spec. leg. is written for the Jews, for the Gentiles, or for both Jews and Gentiles. The last mentioned group ought to be divided into two groups according to which group Philo is thought to have had primarily in mind: Gentiles or Jews.
a) The Exposition as written for the Jews.
Since the publication of the work of Massebieau (1889:1-91) this view has won many adherents in scholarly circles; the Expositio was written for the Jews. S. Sandmel is one of the strongest advocates for this position in more recent research. He states that the writings of the Expositio are defensive and apologetic, sometimes even indignated, and he is of the opinion that the Expositio was written for "a Jewish audience, those who seemed ignorant of their Jewish heritage and inclined to or on the verge of apostacy; the Exposition was an effort to retain these Jews for Judaism" (Sandmel, ANRW). V. Tcherikover agrees with the efforts to see the Jews as the addressees, but states that it was not for the advanced Jews. It was meant to be a more simple exposition "that would be com- prehensible to a simple Jewish reader. This was written with the purpose of propagating the practical side of Moses' teaching, so to speak, for everyday use" (See CPJ I:78).
The question of addressees is thus closely bound up with that of purpose, and these two aspects must be seen together if one want to gain a clearer impression of whom the Expositio was written for.
Goodenough, who is of the opinion that the Expositio is written for the Gentiles, reproaches Massebieau that he builds his understanding of the Expositio too much on his general impression (l'impression generale) of the works. But Massebieau presents also arguments based upon some concrete expressions and sayings in Philo's texts; the "tou hemeterou ethnous" in Dec. 1 may indicate Jewish readers, the same can be said of the use of 1. p. pl. in Spec.leg. 1:153, cf. 1:314. Massebieau is also of the opinion that the mentioning of the measures to be taken against the apostates according to Spec.leg. 1:54ff. presupposes Jewish readers. It must be admitted that Goodenough has pinpointed weaknesses in some of Massebieau's arguments (Goodenough 1933:114f points to the fact that in Spec.leg. 2:79 and 3:29 Philo cites Moses speaking to the Jews.). But it is nevertheless difficult to escape the impression that there are rather much in these writings that favor the Jews as the primary recipients.
b) The Exposition as written for the Gentiles.
One of the most energetic spokesmen for this view in recent times is E. R. Goodenough. And his arguements clearly demonstrates how closely the question of addressees are linked to that of purpose. Goodenough says that
One large part of the Exposition, namely De Specialibus Legibus, which is a great analysis of the Jewish Law to show how it is in practical harmony with the gentile jurisprudence of contemporary Egypt, seems to me wholly pointless as designed for Jews. But such as argument would be highly sig- nificant for Gentiles - who had a great interest in the Jewish religion but retained the point of view toward legal administration set for them by the Roman prefect and iuridicus (Goodenough 1933:117).
The view of Goodenough is thus closely bound up with his understanding of the purpose of the writings; Spec.leg. is written to show that the Law of the Jews is in harmony with the laws of the courts in Egypt. But Goodenough also adduces some arguments taken from specific texts in the Expositio. In the allegorical writings, according to Goodenough, the proselytes are almost never mentioned, but in the Expositio they figure rather often and in Virt. 175-227 Philo presents an "eager exhortation to proselytes to come inside". He further says that the Allegories presuppose that the readers were familiar with the Scriptures while in the Expositio Philo is much more descriptive and explanatory both with regard to the Scriptures and Jewish institutions as the sabbath and the various feasts. It further belongs to the Goodenough's conception that Vita Mosis was meant as an introduction for interested Gentiles. Hence, to meet the interest aroused by this work, Philo wrote the Expositio (Goodenough 1933:124-125.
The last sections in De praemis et poenis (79ff) represent, however, serious problems for such an understanding of the addressees; here the recipients doubtless are considered to be Jews. Goodenough admits this, but he tries to solve the problem by setting forth the hypothesis that these sections did not originally belong to this work.
His two hypotheses have not won general acceptance in philonic research, but not a few has accepted his view of Vita Mosis (cf. Borgen ANRW:118
c) The Exposition as written for both Gentiles and Jews.
In recent research, there are some who have tried to combine the two standpoints referred above. Perhaps Philo did have both the Gentiles and the Jews as his supposed readers? But the question can be even more refined by asking who were supposed to be the primary readers of the Expositio.
H. Hegermann tends to prefer the solution that the Jews were the primary addressees of these works. He says that Vita Mosis is for "gebildete, heidnische Leser" but that the Expositio is "in einer zugleich auch Nichtjuden ausprechender Weise dargestellt" (Hegermann 359.356.) H. Koester has a similar view; "for the educated Gentile (or even Jewish) reader." This is also the opinion of Colson (Koester 272; Colson Philo (Loeb ed.) vol.vii, p.xiv.).
P. Borgen endorses the hypothesis of Goodenough that Vita Mosis belongs to the Expositio, but he states that Goodenough's preference for the Gentiles as addressees is too onesided: "Goodenough overlooks however, that at the same time, this book is also written for Jews to strengthen them for their universal role. The same dual purpose also runs through The Exposition of the Laws of Mosis" (CRINT:118.) A closer reading of his article does not give any clear answers to the question about who is the primary recipients of the Expositio. He seems to prefer the dual solution to the problem, but with no small emphasis on the function of these writings for the Jews in Alexandria: "In the situation in Alexandria, when Jews infiltrated into the environment of the Gymnasium, Philo's work thus offered an ideological basis for the activities of the Jews and their attempt to overcome the non-Jews through their religion and philosophy" (ANRW:118).
This emphasis on the social situation of the Jews in Alexandria is an important presupposition for understanding the purpose, role and function of the writings of Philo, and reading it against this background makes it an even more plausible that the Expositio was written with the Jews as the primary recipients.
d) The Exposition as written for both Jews and Gentiles.
The present author favors the view that the Expositio was written primarily for the Jews, but that Philo also took account of the possibility that his works could be used in a presentation of Judaism to interested Gentiles (Runia 1986:26; Morris).
It seems unrealistic to believe that the Expositio was written with the Gentiles as the sole presupposed recipients. We certainly do have some apologetic works that obviously were written for a Gentile audience, e.g., Contra Apion by Josephus and Philo's In Flaccum, De Legatione and his Apologia (Hypothetica). But V. Tcherikover (Tcherikover 1957:169-193; cf. Delling 1974:133-176, esp. pp. 163f) has pointed out that there is very few sources from this period indicating that the Gentiles did read Jewish works.
Furthermore, the fact that Philo can make use of Gentile philosophical conceptions and literary genres is no strong argument for the view that he wrote primarily for Gentile readers, but only an indication to his own education and the philosophical traditions applied.
Borgen lays great stress on the historical social situation of the Jews in Alexandria as an important issue in understanding the context of the works of Philo. Without having to take issue with his theory of "infiltration" we agree that this way of solving the problem of the possible recipients of the Expositio is a rewarding method. Taking into consideration the prominent position Philo enjoyed in Alexandria certainly support the hypothesis here advocated that Philo wrote primarily for his fellow-Jews.
It does not seem very reasonable to suggest that Philo was a "solitary scholar" (contra Sandmel) who lived his life primarily concerned with his studies. His appointment as one of the delegates to go to Rome to negotiate with the Emperor puts him in a central position in the social life of the Jewish community in Alexandria. Nor was he "solitary" in the sense that he did not have interest in the common people or cared for their lives as Torah-observing Jews. And he had both predecessors and contemporary learned fellows in Alexandria; the many references in his works to other exegetes indicate that there were not a few of them among his contemporaries (Schroyer 261-284; Hay 1979/80:41-75.
B.L. Mack has stressed that even though Philo had a good knowledge of older and contemporary Greco-Roman philosophy, all his writings- except for a few- are concerned with the Law of Mosis. Both in form and content they are concerned with the exposition and application of the norms stated in the Law. His references to other exegetes seem also to refer to other Jewish scholars (Mack, ANRW II,21.1:227-271). Thus it can be argued that Philo could have had both the Jews and Gentiles in mind when he wrote the Expositio, but the primary addressees would have been the Jews.
e) Does it matter?
The search for the addressees of Philo's works seems to end up at the doors of the Jews, having the Greeks as close neighbors. The quest have, however, been reopened recently by D. T. Runia and D. M. Hay: Does it really matter? Can't Philo's works be read and interpreted without regard to his intended audience? In 1986 (Runia 1986:192) Runia surmised:
Philo is writing his long series of treatises in the first place for himself. They are a material record of his quest to fathom the depths of wisdom contained in scripture, a quest the result of which he was prepared to share with others. The question of Philo's projected audience needs to be borne in mind, but it is not, in my view, going to to play a decisive role when we confront the question of how we should read Philo
In Runia's article, this statement seems primarily to concern the allegorical treatises, while the addresses of the others will have been "...well-educated Jews, but he would have welcomed interest from sympathetic outsiders" (p. 192). D.M. Hay, in a recent article from 1991, takes Runia's viewpoint a little further. Drawing on the notions in recent literary theory of implied author and reader, he suggests that these aspects may prove rewarding in characterizing the projected readers. He seems to end up, however, with the suggestion that "...it seems likely that Philo wrote his treatises for an `open-ended' readership, one not limited to Alexandria and, perhaps, not limited to his own time....Perhaps Philo deliberately avoided inserting any very particular description of intended readers in his treatises because he expected, or at least hoped for, a wide and continuing audience" (p. 2).
These viewpoints might be worthy of further considerations. The literary theory or theories often labelled "Reader-response criticism" have offered new insights also in Biblical studies, and might as well prove profitable for the study of Philo's works. Some reluctance should, however, be called for.
A quest for the implied reader in Philo's work has not yet been carried out. It may prove rewarding in order to get a clearer view of how the reader as created by the texts might be. This reader(s) should not, however, be confused with the real reader, but might be used as a foil against which one might consider the historical reader. Historical studies should still have the priority in this quest.
The main reason for this reluctance is grounded in the nature of Philo's texts, at least as far as they are represented by the Expositio. The Expositio is, as the label says, an expository work. The works contained therein are not narratives, but exegetical expositions. Philo interprets the Torah for his prospected readers. Hence he has little need to directly address and characterize his readers.
So again, we seem to end up knocking at the doors of the Jews, still wanting to know how they really were. Literary, historical and sociological studies should join in the efforts to find these readers. And the works of Philo might provide valuable material for all these ways of searching.
Conclusions.
Philo was no solitary scholar in Alexandria. He belonged to a wealthy and influential family. In his scholarly interests he had predecessors as well as contemporaries concerned with much of the same issues as he was. In his own writings he aimed primarily at his Jewish contemporaries. As such his works could function as both a presentation of their common Jewish traditions in the social setting of Alexandria, and at the same time provide an ideological basis for the struggle of survival as Jews in that society.
For the readers of today his works provide various kinds of insight into the life of first century CE Alexandria. Philo provides us with insight into current philosophical traditions in Alexandria as well as into the Jewish exegetical traditions and viewpoints in vogue. Furthermore, he is an unvaluable source for the social and political conditions of the Jews in Alexandria. The complexities of his works as well as the comprehensiveness of their contents are the main reasons for their ability to still attract the attention of scholars of very diverse backgrounds and interests.
Back to Resource Page for Biblical Studies
Rob. E. Bennett,
The Prefects of Roman Egypt 30 BC-69 AD
(Ph.D dissertation, Yale University 1971, University Microfilms
International), pp. 134- 147.
Ellen Birnbaum, "The PLace of Judaism in Philo's Thought: Israel, Jews and Proselytes," SBL Annual Meeting Seminar Papers (Ed. Eugene H. Lovering Jr.) (Atlanta, GA 1993), pp. 54-69
Peder Borgen,
Bread from Heaven. An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the
Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo.
Supplements to Novum Testamentum 10 (Leiden, 1981, repr).
Peder Borgen,
"Philo of Alexandria A critical and Synthetical survey of research
since World War II," W. Haase, (ed.,) Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen
Welt II 21 1 (Berlin 1984), pp. 98-154, (Abbr. ANRW).
Peder Borgen, "Philo of Alexandria," CRINT II,2, p. 233-282.
Peder Borgen,
"Philo of Alexandria,"
The Anchor Bible Dictionary vol 5:O-Sh, Ed. David Noel Freedman,
(New York, Doubleday, 1992), pp. 333-342
G. Delling,
"Wunder - Allegori-Mythos bei Philon von Alexandria,"
Studien zum Neuen Testament und zum Hellenistischen Judentum:
Gesammelte Aufsatze 1950-1968 (Gøttingen, 1970), pp. 72-129.
G. Delling,
"Perspektiven der Erforschung des hellenistischen Judentums,"
Hebrew Union College Annual, 45 (1974), 133-176.
J. Dillon,
The Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism 80 BC to AD 320
(Leiden, 1977).
S. S. Foster,
"A Note on the "Note" of J. Scwhartz,"
Studia Philonica 4 (1976/77), pp. 26-29.
Katherine G. Evans, "Alexander the Alabarch: Roman and Jew," SBL Seminar papers 1995. Edited by Eugene H. Lovering Jr. (Atlanta, 1995), pp. 576-594.
E. R. Goodenough,
"Philo and Public Life"
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 12 (1926), pp. 77-79.
E. R. Goodenough,
"Philo's Exposition of the Law and his De Vita Mosis"
Harvard Theological Review 26 (1933), pp. 109- 126.
E.R.Goodenough,
The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt: Legal Administration
by the Jews under the early Empire as described by Philo Judaeus
(New Haven, 1929).
E. R. Goodenough,
An Introduction to Philo Judaeus
University Press of America, Inc., 1986 (orig.publ.1940, sec. ed.)
D.M. Hay,
"Philo's references to other allegorists,"
Studia Philonica 6 (1979/80), pp. 41- 75.
D. M. Hay,
"Philo's view of Himself as Exegete: Inspired, but not Authorative,"
The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism
(Earle Hilgert Festchrift) 3 (1991), pp. 40-52.
R.G. Hamerton-Kelly, "Sources and Traditions in Philo Judaeus: Prolegomena to an Analysis of his Writings," Studia Philonica 1 (1972), pp. 3-21.
H. Hegermann,
"Philon von Alexandria,"
Litteratur und Religion des Frühjudentums
Hrg. J. Maier and J. Schreiner (Wurzburg, 1973) pp. 353-369.
I. Heinemann,
Philons griechische und judische Bildung: Kultur- vergleichende
Untersuchungen zu Philons Darstellung der judischen Gesetze
(Darmstadt, 1966).
D. L. Mealand,
"Philo of Alexandria's Attitude to Riches"
Zeitschrift fur Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 69 (1978), pp.258-264.
A. Kasher,
"The Jewish Atti- tude to the Alexandrian Gymnasium in the First
Century A. D.,"
American Journal of Ancient History Vol 13 (1976), pp. 148-161.
A. Kasher,
The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt
Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 7 (Tübingen, 1985).
B.L. Mack, "Exegetical Traditions in Alexandrian Judaism," Studia Philonica 3 (1974/75), pp. 71-112.
B.L. Mack,
"Philo Judaeus and Exegetical Traditions in Alexandria,"
ANRW II,21.1., pp. 227-271.
M. L. Massebieau,
"Le Classement des Oevres de Philon,"
Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Hautes etudes, sciences Religieuses
1 (1889), pp. 3- 91.
A. Mendelson,
"A Reappraisal of Wolfson's Method,"
Studia Philonica 3 (1974-75), pp. 11- 26.
A. Mendelson,
Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinatti, 1982).
A. Mendelson,
Philo's Jewish Identity,
Brown Judaic Studies (Atlanta, Georgia, Scholars Press, 1988).
Jenny Morris,
"The Jewish Philosopher Philo,"
The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ by
E.Schurer. A New English Version, Revised and edited by G. Vermes,
F. Millar and M. Goodman. Vol. III,2 (Edinburgh, 1987), pp. 809-889.
Philo of Alexandria: The contemplative Life, The Giants, and
Selections. Transla- tions and Introduction by D. Winston. Preface by
J. Dil- lon. (London, 1981).
D. T. Runia,
Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato
2 vols. (Leiden, 1968).
D. T. Runia,
"Philo, Alexandrian and Jew,"
idem, Exegesis and philosophy: studies in Philo of alexandria,
Collected Studies Series <332>, (Alershot, 1990), pp. 1-18.
D. T. Runia,
"How to read Philo,"
Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 40 (1986), pp. 185-198.
S. Sandmel,
"Philo Judaeus," ANRW 21.1, pp. 3-46 ,
S. Sandmel,
Judaism and Christian Beginnings (Oxford, 1978).
S. Sandmel,
The First Christian Century in Judaism and Christianity
(New York, 1969).
D.R. Schwartz,
"Philo's Priestly Descent,"
Nourished with peace: Studies in hellenistic Judaism in Memory of
Samuel Sandmel. Eds F.G.Greenspahn, E. Hilgert and B. L. Mack
(Chico, California, 1984), pp. 155-171.
J. Schwartz,
"Note sur la famille de Philon d'Alexandrie"
Melanges Isidore Levy (Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie et
d'historire orientales et slaves 13 (1953), pp. 591- 602.
M. J. Shroyer,
"Alexandrian Jewish Literalists"
Journal of Biblical Literature 55 (1936), pp. 261-284.
T. Ewald Smidt,
"Hostility to Wealth in Philo of Alexandria,"
JSNR 19 (1983), pp. 85- 97
V. Tcherikover,
Jewish Apologetic Literature reconsidered,
Symbolae R Taubenschlag dedicatae 3 Eos. Commentarii Soc.
Phil. Polonarum 48/3 (Warshaw, 1957), pp. 169-193.
V. Tcherikover,
Corpus Papyrorum Ioudaicorum I (Cambridge, Ma, 1957).
A. Terian,
Philonis Alexandrini de Animalibus: The Armenian Text with an
Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Chico, California, 1981).
A. Terian,
"A Critical Introduction to Philo's Dialogues,"
ANRW II,21.1. pp. 272- 294.
E. G. Turner,
"Tiberius Julius Alexander,"
JRS 44 (1954), pp. 54- 64.
H. A. Wolfson,
Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity
and Islam 2 vols (Cambridge MA, 1948-1962).
Mail to webmaster