The Works of Philo

by Philo of Alexandria, Charles Duke Yonge (Translator)

An affordable edition of Philo! A contemporary of Jesus and Paul, Philo wrote extensively on the Hebrew Scriptures and other Jewish topics, but few have read his work because all available sets were pricey. This edition features modern type, passages keyed to the Loeb referencing system, and several newly translated sections not found in other editions. 944 pages, hardcover from Hendrickson.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Religion, Theology, Classics, Judaism, Christianity

944 pages, Hardcover

First published October 1, 1991

About the author

Philo (20 B.C.–50 A.D.), known also as Philo of Alexandria (Greek: Φίλων ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς, Hebrew: ידידיה הכהן Yedidia Hacohen), Philo Judaeus, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, Yedidia, "Philon", and Philo the Jew, was a Hellenistic Jewish Biblical philosopher born in Alexandria.

Philo used philosophical allegory to attempt to fuse and harmonize Greek philosophy with Jewish philosophy. His method followed the practices of both Jewish exegesis and Stoic philosophy. His allegorical exegesis was important for several Christian Church Fathers, but he has barely any reception history within Judaism. "The sophists of literalness," as he calls the literalist Jews,[1] "opened their eyes superciliously" when he explained to them the marvels of his exegesis. He believed that literal interpretations of the Hebrew Bible would stifle mankind's view and perception of a God too complex and marvelous to be understood in literal human terms.

Some scholars hold that his concept of the Logos as God's creative principle influenced early Christology. Other scholars, however, deny direct influence but say both Philo and Early Christianity borrow from a common source. For Philo, the Logos was God's "blueprint for the world", a governing plan.

The few biographical details concerning Philo are found in his own works, especially in Legatio ad Gaium ("embassy to Gaius"), and in Josephus. The only event in his life that can be determined chronologically is his participation in the embassy in which the Alexandrian Jews were sent to the emperor Caligula at Rome as the result of civil strife between the Alexandrian Jewish and Greek communities. This occurred in the year 40 CE.

Reviews

[Alan Fuller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Martin Luther hated allegorical interpretation of the Bible. The problem according to Luther was that the allegorist could make the scriptures say anything he wanted. Not so for the first-century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria. For Philo, there were rules of allegory made by natural philosophers. Natural philosophy is what we think of today as science.

“I have heard men versed in natural philosophy interpreting this passage in an allegorical manner with no inconsiderable ingenuity and propriety; and their idea is, that the man here is a symbolical expression for the virtuous mind, conjecturing from the interpretation of his name that what is intended to be indicated is the virtuous disposition existing in the soul; and that by his wife is meant virtue…”

“And from this candlestick there proceeded six branches, three on each side, projecting from the candlestick in the centre, so as altogether to complete the number of seven; and in all the seven there were seven candles and seven lights, being symbols of those seven stars which are called planets by those men who are versed in natural philosophy; for the sun, like the candlestick, being placed in the middle of the other six, in the fourth rank, gives light to the three planets which are above him, and to those of equal number which are below him, adapting to circumstances the musical and truly divine instrument.”
Philo of Alexandria; Marsh, E.C.; Yonge, C.D. The Works of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria. Kindle Edition.

Symbolically he calls the mind heaven, because in heaven are the ideas of the mind, and the sense he calls earth because it is corporeal and material. He believed that literal interpretations of the Bible would stifle humanity's perception of God because he is too complex and marvelous to be understood in literal human terms. Philo should not be regarded as a single philosophical genius who suddenly springs up, but as the culmination of a long development, the supreme master of an old tradition.

Philo does tend to be a bit prolix and redundant.

[Steve Seven · Rating 5 out of 5]

The works of the philosopher and theologian Alexandria (ca. 15 BCE–50 CE) are not only highly recommended but compulsory for anyone who is serious about literary, theological or historical criticism of the Christian New Tetament. Philo is one of the most important sources for exploring the contact between Judaism, Christianity and the Hellenistic religions. A near contemporary to Jesus and Paul, Philo was the most influential, prolific and well-known Jewish writer of the second temple period (ca. 530 BCE-70 CE). It is through Philo, who read the Hebrew Bible in the Greek of LXX, that we have the bridge that spans the gap between Hellenistic thought and Christianity. His theology is especially important to engage with the writings of Paul, John, and the book of Hebrews. It is from Philo that we know that, like John, Jews of the ancient Mediterranean world understood the 'Word' or Logos in the Greek philosophical sense as a creative force of God.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 1 out of 5]

I did read this book cover-to-cover. I note that fact since I’m rating it one-star and it is very long winded.

Philo is such a disagreeable person and his orthodoxy doesn’t allow for much original thought despite the length of his writings. He really dislikes women in general even beyond other ancient writers.

One does start to understand the background for which Paul of Tarsus came out of, and even at times one gets to understand the milieu Jesus and the New Testament authors resided. The longing for a messiah and a savior does linger within Philo just as eschatological thought lingers within the New Testament.

Philo is redundant and prolix and tends toward superfluity, two words used often in this translation. The former means ‘wordy’, the later ‘excessive’.

He also is always desperately seeking solutions for the absurd especially when he’s defending the indefensible as with his fantastic allegories regarding all events of the Old Testament, and blaming women when possible, and rationalizing all wicked behavior as deserving because that’s what happened and therefore it must be just.

I did enjoy parts of this book. His 50 or so pages on Josephus obviously inspired Thomas Mann’s “Josephs and his brothers”. Mann at least knew the story was fictional and makes for a highly entertaining story while Philo never questions the story and rationalizes and defends what happened. He knows that God ‘hardened’ Pharoh’s heart thus justifying the killing of all the first-born Egyptians. Philo deceptively argues that everything that ever happened is because God made it so including the hardening of Pharoh’s heart, and every event that ever happened before Pharoh’s heart was hardened led to that moment. Philo used that logic multiple times throughout his writings and justifies everything by that kind of reasoning.

Philo does argue that our existence is reason enough for us just to be grateful and that we owe the creator gratitude for His Grace (unearned favor). A sentiment that I share, at least if I replace the word God with the word Universe.

I think most people mischaracterize Philo. Yes, he read Plato, but he really seems to channel mostly Plato’s Timaeus, just like Plotinus does 200 years later, and pseudo-Dionysius will do later. Thomas Aquinas does the same. At times Philo seemed to predate those thinkers and would say what they would say before they did. Image of an image is merely a copy, a hierarchy of truth from the One to us, and God’s essence is his existence and so on. That stuff does lurk within Philo but Philo is not a good philosopher over all, and he is often not coherent. He really does give lovers of wisdom a lot to disagree with by how he presents his arguments.

Philo overall only excels when he not arguing his muddled allegorical laden theological defenses or pretending to understand philosophy. His section on the Essenes was marvelous, his recording of the cruel Governor in Alexandria during 40 CE, or his ambassadorship on pleading their cause to Caesar were all just great history and how the desecration of the Temple is worst than death to him. Unfortunately, those moments of great history telling are intwined with a bunch of crap that Philo just doesn’t let go of, such as Moses’ snake represents the sin of the people and must fold upon himself as our virtue does, or other such nonsense that Philo will state as allegorical facts.

Oh yeah, women represent the outward senses and are our worst instincts while men represent our intellect and virtue which are our best instincts. Philo used that as a motif throughout the whole book, so it’s not easy to forget that kind of gruff crap. “The wicked and effeminate’ are to be avoided according to Philo. As with all old books, one needs to forgive the misogyny, but there comes a point where it just becomes too much especially when it is such a large theme for the writer.

Augustine clearly read Philo. It’s easy to see how Philo was more influential to Christians than he would have been for the Jews . John of the Gospels clearly got ‘in the beginning was the word, and the word was God’ from Philo. As for Augustine, he gave his readers instructions on the best way to beat women such that bruises would not be visible, but even with that, he didn’t dwell excessively on the misogyny prevalent during previous time periods.

There is a lot of bad philosophy, theology, silly allegories justifying the absurd, and prolixity and superfluity through out this book. It is just moderately good enough to finish if you start it, but it is unsatisfying overall and takes a long time to finish.

[Yaya · Rating 3 out of 5]

Commenting here only on “The Contemplative Life or Suppliants)—Philo gives one of the few accounts of a group of Jews who cloistered themselves away from the public and engaged in a monastic style of life. Philo holds this group in high esteem and praises them as the ideal. Key takeaways that are worth noting (besides the usual celibacy, prayer, etc…); they were vegetarian, and they generally spent their weeks alone in study and contemplation coming together for prayer, meals, and Shabbat, which is described in detail as a joyous time with singing dancing etc…also it’s nice to know that the rabbis even back then could speak for too long…3 stars because while it provides a broad outline, it doesn’t speak to a larger monastic tradition or specific practices as possibly indicated in the fragments from the Cairo genizah. Cool quick and easy read though !

[Allan Armstrong]

A great introduction to first century thought concerning spirituality. His use of allegory is not only profound but of real value to modern man lost in either mechanistic post-m0dernism or looking for a way to engage with understanding modern quantum physics.

[Karla Renee Goforth Abreu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent insight, extremely interesting. Must read for all Bible students, scholars, teachers, and those interested in history. It is often difficult to read long passages in Philo but well worth the effort.

[Royce Ratterman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most books are rated related to their usefulness and contributions to my research.
Overall, a good book for the researcher and enthusiast.
Read for personal research
- found this book's contents helpful and inspiring - number rating relates to the book's contribution to my needs.

[Seth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Translation is not so great, however the mind of Philo of Alexandria of use Greek ideas of allegory on interpreting the books of Moses is incredible and changed the world of exegesis

[Arnold hamilton · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an interesting book that covered the old and new Testament and the works of Philo was considered lost. Even though scholars have always known and used Philo. They have essentially been misplaced as far as the average student of the Bible is concerned.(from the back covered of the book)

This book is good for any who wants to learn more about the Bible from someone from that age. Philo of Alexandria lived from about 20 B.C. to about A.D. 50.

[Wesley]

As a representative taste, I only read De opificio mundi (On Creation), perhaps Philo's best-known and most important work.

[Wesley Molt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unless you are interested in philosophy, and especially the philosophy of the First Century, then I would suggest you stay away from Philo.

[Elyse DeBarre · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the useful sources for the historical background to my Roman Archaeology Master's thesis, and his biases are also informative.

[Socrate · Rating 4 out of 5]

I. (1) Dintre ceilalţi legiuitori, unii au stabilit ceea ce ei au considerat a fi just şi
rezonabil, într-o manieră directă şi neîmpodobită, în timp ce alţii, amplificându-şi din plin
ideile, au căutat să-i zăpăcească pe oameni, îngropând adevărul sub un morman de invenţii
absurde. (2) Dar Moise, respingând aceste două metode, una ca fiind nechibzuită, neglijentă şi
nefilozofică, iar cealaltă ca fiind mincinoasă şi plină de şiretlicuri, a făcut începutul legilor
sale în întregime frumos, şi admirabil în toate privinţele, nici declarând imediat ce ar trebui
făcut, sau dimpotrivă, ce nu ar trebui făcut, nici (deoarece era necesar să modeleze în prealabil
dispoziţia acelora care urmau să utilizeze aceste legi) inventând legende el însuşi sau
adoptându-le pe acelea inventate de alţii. (3) Iar introducerea sa, după cum am spus deja, este
admirabilă; cuprinzând creaţia lumii, în cadrul ideii că legea corespunde lumii iar lumea
corespunde legii, iar un om care respectă legea este, prin faptul că face aşa, un cetăţean al
lumii, îşi stabileşte acţiunile în funcţie de intenţia naturii, în raport cu care se rânduieşte
întreaga lume universală. (4) În consecinţă, nimeni, fie el poet sau istoric, nu ar putea da
vreodată expresie într-o manieră adecvată frumuseţii ideilor sale referitoare la creaţia lumii;
căci acestea depăşesc întreaga putere a limbajului, şi ne uimesc auzul, fiind prea măreţe şi
venerabile pentru a fi adaptate la cugetul oricărei fiinţe create. (5) Acesta, însă, nu este un
motiv să devenim indolenţi în privinţa acestei chestiuni, ci din afecţiunea noastră pentru
divinitate ar trebui să ne străduim chiar mai presus de puterile noastre pentru a le descrie: nu
că am avea prea mult de spus de la noi, dar în loc de mult, e nevoie doar de puţin, astfel încât
intelectul uman să poată dobândi ceva, atunci când este pe de-a întregul ocupat cu o dragoste
şi o dorinţă de înţelepciune. (6) Căci aşa cum cel mai mic sigiliu primeşte imitaţia lucrurilor
de o mărime colosală atunci când sunt înscrise în el, tot aşa, în unele ocazii, frumuseţea
extremă a descrierii creaţiei lumii, aşa cum este înregistrată în Lege, eclipsând cu strălucirea
ei sufletele acelora care se întâmplă să o întâlnească, va fi salvată într-o înregistrare mai
concisă, după ce aceste fapte vor fi utilizate mai întâi ca premise, pentru că ar fi nepotrivit să
fie trecută sub tăcere.