The Jewish Annotated New Testament (165 page)

WORKS

Philo was a prolific writer, producing dozens of works of varying length during his writing life. Central in number and significance are varied forms of biblical exegesis (e.g.,
On the Creation
;
Allegorical Interpretation of the Laws
;
The Sacrifices of Abel and Cain
;
The Migration of Abraham
;
The Life of Moses
;
The Special Laws
;
Questions and Answers on Genesis
) but notable as well are his apologetic and historical works (e.g.,
Every Good Person Is Free
;
On the Contemplative Life
;
The Embassy to Gaius
).

At the very heart of Philo’s hermeneutical enterprise lies the unparalleled stature of the Pentateuch: from the account of the opening chapters of Genesis we learn that

the world [Gk
kosmos
] is in harmony with the Law [Gk
nomos
=Heb
Torah
], and the Law with the world, and that the individual who observes the Law is thus constituted a loyal citizen of the world [
kosmopolitēs
], regulating his actions by the will of Nature [
physis
], according to which the entire world is governed. (
On the Creation
3)

Philo has linked the Law with the natural order,
kosmos
, and in turn with
physis
, thereby asserting that the moral or spiritual order and the natural order are not in opposition but arise from the same source. This philosophical position creates a complex equation where the Torah, as both legal system and document, is revealed as the blueprint for cosmic and political harmony. God is similarly seen in rabbinic writings as providing the order to the created cosmos, and a famous metaphor in the opening of
Genesis Rabbah
(1.1), often compared with Philo, describes the Torah as a form of “blueprint” for the creation of the world. The Pentateuch is thus established to be a text of universal validity and significance.

THOUGHT

Philo was an important figure in the philosophical tradition that has come to be recognized by scholars of Greco-Roman philosophy as “Middle Platonism.” The influence of Plato extended beyond the classical era, through Late Antiquity and into the Middle Ages, and the adaptation of his writings and ideas was an ongoing effort. Historians of philosophy, therefore, distinguish between early Platonism, the philosophical approach that began in the Academy of Plato and extended until the first century BCE; Middle Platonism, from the first century BCE to the early third century CE; and Neoplatonism, associated first and foremost with the philosopher Plotinus, from the third century BCE on. The philosophical schools of the Roman imperial period were characterized by a “syncretistic” approach, assimilating elements from rival outlooks or systems, and Middle Platonism reveals strong influences from and adaptations of the Aristotelian and Stoic traditions. These philosophical movements were deeply significant during the formative period of Christian thought, and Philo himself was a very important figure in this development.

Philo’s philosophy, however, is in a sense the underpinnings of his larger agenda. The center of his intellectual project and the overwhelming bulk of his literary output are dedicated to the presentation and explication of the biblical text. Dependent on the Greek version of the Pentateuch (the Septuagint [LXX])—accepted by Alexandrian Judaism as no less accurate or even inspired than the Hebrew text—Philo explicated the characters and themes of scripture in terms that could be grasped not only by Jews with a Hellenistic education but also by non-Jews for whom Judaism was a foreign faith and not well known. Philo also undertook a painstakingly detailed explication of the books of Genesis and Exodus. Philo’s labors of interpretation, which anticipate both rabbinic midrash and early Christian commentary, were predicated on the dual assumption of the absolute significance of every aspect of the Greek text of scripture and the unfailing correspondence between biblical precept and philosophical truth. Within his intensive and exhaustive exegesis of the biblical text, we meet a broad range of themes, philosophical and theological, which were to determine Philo’s great importance for emergent Christian thought.

A corollary of the supreme status of the Law (Gk
nomos
, Heb
Torah
) in Philo’s thought is the unique standing of Moses, who represents a fourfold perfection: philosopher-king, lawgiver, priest, and prophet (
Life of Moses
2). A wide variety of biblical figures are of great importance for Philo, as they embody and symbolize a wide range of intellectual and moral virtues. The patriarchs demonstrate varied aspects of the Platonic or Stoic sage, with Abraham, for example, in his departure from his country and kindred, representing the mind leaving behind the senses and bodily inclinations to meditate on that which is imperishable and incorporeal (
Migr
. 7–13). Yet the role and stature of Moses is elevated to a different plane altogether, as he exceeds the patriarchs in his achievement of a superhuman degree of perfection. Philo presents Moses as a supreme example of an ideal in Hellenistic thought, the
theios anēr
or “divine man,” the human being who by ascetical practice and concentration on the divine realm becomes a participant in that realm (
Life of Moses
1.156–59; 2.66–70). By depicting Moses in this way, Philo understands the Pentateuch as “the books of Moses” in the sense that Moses alone embodies the very principles innate in the Law and necessary for its full comprehension (
Life of Moses
2.10).

This philosophical view, that the “divine man” or exceptional individual can participate to some extent in the divine realm, as well as the broader theme of divine-human interaction, is but one aspect of a central concern of Philo’s thought: the relationship between this-worldly physical existence and the realm of a higher spiritual reality. Philo’s Platonic outlook assumes that there is a sharp distinction between these two planes, and he explores afresh the anthropological, ethical, and cosmological implications of this earthly-heavenly divide within a scriptural perspective.

At the very core of Philo’s religious-philosophical worldview lies his creative and tireless reading of scripture. No aspect or feature of the biblical text, however small or plain, is devoid of an inner meaning, which needs to be recovered through the careful extraction (exegesis) of its added significance. For example, Philo’s extended explication of the passage in which Rebekah gives water to Abraham’s servant (Gen 24.15–18) presents the inner significance of the scriptural text as the teacher who has accumulated wisdom (as she has drawn water from the well) and is offering it to students according to their capacity to take it in (as she gives the servant water to the extent that he wants or needs it) (
Posterity
132–41).

Such allegorical interpretation of scripture, in Philo’s view, reveals its hidden truth and allows the appreciation of its full philosophical depth and scope. Yet Philo also gives expression to the dangers of this interpretative mode when abused by those who behave

as though they were living alone by themselves in a wilderness, or as though they had become disembodied souls, and knew neither city nor village nor household nor any company of human beings at all, overlooking all that the mass of men regard, they explore reality in its naked absoluteness. … 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 meaning of things. No, we should look on all these outward observances as resembling the body, and their inner meanings as resembling the soul. It follows that, exactly as we have to take thought for the body, because it is the abode of the soul, so we must pay heed to the letter of the laws. (
Migr
. 90–93)

This search for the spiritual meaning of the Torah combined with a deep concern for its practical observance is the goal toward which Philo aimed in his writings. He was concerned that the spiritual meaning (which for him was the inner philosophical truth) of scripture should be made plain; but at the same time, he strove to show how the moral and legal precepts of scripture were to be obeyed.

INFLUENCE

New Testament scholars (and others whose fields cover that historical period) have brought out parallels between Philo and various New Testament authors and passages. Among the issues that scholars have raised are questions such as these: Could early Christian views of Jesus, particularly those emphasizing his divine status, have drawn on the same Hellenistic currents of thought that underlie Philo’s approach to the character of Moses? To what extent does subsequent rabbinic delimitation of the role of Moses reflect a critical sensitivity to this Jewish-Hellenistic model and its influence?

Varied features of Philo’s worldview have been compared fruitfully with aspects of a number of New Testament writings, particularly the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and certain other letters of Paul and his school. Despite numerous, suggestive, and broad similarities, it is doubtful whether any of these authors had firsthand knowledge of Philo and his writings, as the similarities are not specific enough and the ideas found in Philo are known elsewhere as well. In the years following the New Testament era—beginning around the middle of the second century CE—major Christian theologians, including Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, would begin using and citing Philo’s works. For example, the concept of the
Logos
, the mediating principle between the divine mind and human reason, as both thought and word, which appears prominently both in Philo’s theological system and so dramatically in the prologue to the Gospel of John (1.1–18), is known elsewhere as well (see “John’s Prologue as Midrash,” p.
546
). While it is virtually certain that John’s Gospel introduces this term in his presentation of Jesus without any direct reference to or knowledge of Philo, subsequent discussions of the
Logos
, e.g., by Justin Martyr (
1 Apol
.) or Origen (
Cels
.), are heavily indebted to Philo.

Philo’s influence, therefore, is not a direct one for the New Testament authors. He is important in showing the prevalence of certain ideas and philosophical approaches that are also present in the New Testament. In addition, Philo’s influence on later Christian writers, and particularly on their exegesis of the Jewish scriptures, has established a mode of reading those Jewish writings, which was greatly influential in the development of Christianity. Paul’s location of Christ in the Exodus narrative (1 Cor 10.4) set an example that later Christian exegetes, who had absorbed the method that Philo established, would apply to show that the Christian Old Testament fore-shadowed the teaching of the New Testament and the ministry of Jesus. Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism, therefore, is very much the world in which subsequent generations of the new faith were to find the exegetical and theological tools to forge their new identity.

JOSEPHUS

Shaye J. D. Cohen

Students of the Second Temple period owe enormous gratitude to Joseph son of Matthias, in Hebrew Yosef ben Mattityahu, better known as Flavius Josephus or simply Josephus (37–100 CE). His
Jewish War
, also known as
Judaean War
, completed in the early 80s CE, and
Jewish Antiquities
, also known as
Judaean Antiquities
, completed in 93/94 CE, both written in Greek and in accordance with the conventions of Greek rhetoric and historiography, give a continuous narrative of the history of the Jews of Judea from about 175 BCE to some time after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. He also wrote two smaller works in Greek, an autobiography (
The Life
), which focuses on his military career in the Galilee in the spring and summer of 67 CE, and a defense of Judaism (
Against Apion
), which attempts to refute a host of malicious accusations against Jews and Judaism. All of these works were preserved by Christians, not Jews. (A Jewish historical work called
Josippon
, written in Hebrew in Italy in the tenth century, had access to some of Josephus’s works in Latin translation.) Without Josephus, even major figures such as John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jannaeus, Herod the Great, and the revolutionaries John of Gischala, Simon bar Giora, and Eleazar ben Yair, would be for us little more than bare names. Similarly, virtually all of what is known about the destruction of the Temple, the fall of Masada, and the history of the Jews of the Diaspora during these centuries, and much of what we know about the Essenes, derives from Josephus.