We have similar works at the same period in Palestine in the Testaments of the Patriarchs. The Book of Wisdom itself already falls within this genre in great measure and has a long homily on Passover.
Thus Philo appears to have been a good preacher, “the founder of the art of preaching as we know it,” Wolfson has written.18 But his importance does not reside exclusively in the quality of his preaching or even in his concern to adapt it to an environment shaped by classical culture. It resides in the philosophical tone given to this predication. For Philo wanted first of all to be a philosopher. The originality of his philosophical thought has often been overlooked. Wolfson has demonstrated it thoroughly. This originality consists in an attempt to reform traditional Greek philosophy by conforming it to the work of God. And that is done in a way so as to be able to show the superiority of Biblical “philosophy” to pagan philosophy.
At that moment there was a need to establish and teach this Biblical philosophy. Philo indeed found himself in a difficult position, reflected in his work. On the one hand, some Jews continued to confine themselves to completely literal exegesis that was becoming unacceptable to educated minds. But on the other hand, the invasion of Greek philosophy brought its dangers. There was risk of losing sight of the originality of the Biblical message. Philo speaks of the skeptics who identify the story of Iphigenia with that of Isaac. This could lead to apostasy. Philo had the example of his nephew Tiberius. He wanted to show that one could adopt the Hellenic mode of thinking while remaining loyal to Biblical faith.
The Allegory of the Laws contains an echo of this philosophical preaching. We can approximate the Quaestiones that constitute its survey. The method is still that of Jewish midrash. It is a sustained commentary on Scripture. But the content is philosophical. The union of these two elements is disconcerting. The fragmentary form imposed by the need to follow a historical text keeps the thought’s philosophical character from being apparent. Moreover, the exegetes rejected a commentary that continually went beyond the text itself. But that commentary constituted an absolutely original creation, which perhaps made Philo the greatest preacher of his time, in Wolfson’s phrase.
The setting for this teaching as well as its form continues to be the Sabbath gathering at the synagogue. Wolfson observes that Philo himself alludes to the Alexandrian Jewish practice of devoting each Sabbath to the “philosophies of the Fathers” as well as problems “related to nature” in the didaskaleas (διδασκαλεὶα) (De Vita Mosis, II, 216).19 This last term may indicate the synagogue itself or an adjoining lecture room. Philo depicts numerous synagogues for us, surrounded by gardens, scattered around Alexandria. But the word didaskalea that Clement and Origen pick up is interesting. It shows us synagogue gatherings assimilated to lectures given by philosophers.
This is how Philo appears to us in his maturity: he contains the contrasts of Alexandrian Judaism within himself. He is a believing Jew who faithfully observes the Law, whose fulfillment he defends against pure allegorists. The syncretistic religion that some try to attribute to him is not found in him. But he is not content with fulfilling the letter of that Law. He wants to extract its spirit and nourish his inner life with it. Moreover, he knows the speculations of contemporarily Jews on Genesis. This higher learning, this gnosis is what he seeks. He does so in order to nourish his confreres within the community. Furthermore, he knows how to measure out its teaching according to their level of advancement. In all this, he appears as an eminent rabbi of his time.
But he is a liberal rabbi. He is very open to Hellenistic culture. He is at the opposite pole from the sectarian particularism of certain Palestinian circles. He owes this to his family tradition. He also owes it to his astonishingly open mind. He represents the best in contemporary Alexandrian intellectual circles. He has assimilated all of Hellenistic culture and is a past master in it. He can dispute with Greek philosophers as an equal. His ambition is precisely to show that Jews can rival with Greeks in the very area of culture and thus completely earn their membership in Hellenic civilization.
But, if Jews must be open to the values of Hellenism, it is also necessary to present the eminent worth of the Jewish faith to the Greeks. So Philo’s intellectual activity is two-sided. The part of his activity that we have seen is directed to believing Jews. It has an esoteric character. It is carried on within the community. On the other hand, Philo’s activity has an apologetic component. He is careful to present the Jewish faith to Greeks so as to make it acceptable. This is what is expressed in other works: Moses, the Explanation of the Laws, and the Apology for the Jews, of which Eusebius has conserved a fragment.
This facet of Philo’s activity ought to be situated within the context of Alexandrian Judaism. On the one hand, the Jews were the object of bitter hostility from the Egyptian and Greek pagan population. That hostility was social but also religious in nature. We will return to the particular manifestations of anti-Semitism in Alexandria in which Philo was deeply embroiled. But this hostility was likewise expressed in pamphlets in which the Jewish religion was presented as both crude and dangerous. The story of the patriarchs was ridiculed. The practice of circumcision was mocked. The refusal to worship the city gods was criticized.
This anti-Semitism was in full swing in Philo’s time. It is encountered in the priest Cheremon, a Stoic and mystagogue, who was to be Nero’s confident. It is particularly represented by the polygraph Apion, whom Philo will encounter again in Rome and who will write a widely circulated pamphlet against the Jews. Flavius Josephus will answer him later in his Contra Apion. The attacks are dangerous. They threaten to stir up popular hatred and diminish the standing of the Jews with the authorities. Philo’s strives to undermine them. On the one hand, he shows the holiness of the patriarch and the dignity of their customs. That is the precise object of the Explanation of the Law. On the other hand, he exalts the greatness of Jewish monotheism, which justifies the refusal to adore gods or emperors.
During this period, therefore, Judaism created a whole apologetic against the pagan religions.20 In large part Christians of the next generation adopted this apologetic. They were the objects of the same attacks. Celsus will ridicule the story of Jesus. He will accuse Christians of barbaric practices. He will reproach them for disloyalty to the civic cult. Aristides, Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Origen will take up much of the argumentation of Philo and the Jewish apologists. Paul’s speech on the Areopagus already recalls Jewish apologetics. The Christian sibylline oracles pick up themes from the Jewish sibylline oracles.
But to see only a negative apologetic in Philo’s exoteric works would be to limit their meaning. The period to which they belong certainly witnesses Jewish proselytism at its peak. The Diaspora appears as the providential measure by which Yahweh is announced to all nations. This attitude reaches its highest expression in Philo. Judaism is presented as the religion of the true God, which all men ought to adopt and which is severed from its national ties. Such cosmopolitanism is very marked in Philo. He accepts the Roman Empire. His ambition is exactly to unite the religion of Israel, Greek culture, and the Roman Empire. He was to attempt on behalf of Judaism what Christianity would achieve four centuries later.
In this matter, Philo’s Alexandrian Judaism is far from Palestinian Judaism. For Palestinian Jews, nation and religion are one. The sons of Abraham are the people of God. They bear Rome’s political yoke impatiently. This nationalism will grow enormously during Philo’s lifetime, animated by the zealots. In the end, even the Essenes will be swept along. The culmination will be the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Philo must have had no sympathy for this particularism. It is not by chance that his nephew Tiberius Alexander is at Titus’s side as chief of staff during of the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Thus, Philo’s apologetic labor bears witness to religious universalism and a deep missionary sense. But for all that, to think he was not concerned with the interests of his people and particularly those of his own community would be to misunderstand his personality. His great moral standing,
