What do you think?
Rate this book
Volume I: On the Account of the World's Creation given by Moses. Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis II, III.
The philosopher Philo was born about 20 BCE to a prominent Jewish family in Alexandria, the chief home of the Jewish Diaspora as well as the chief center of Hellenistic culture; he was trained in Greek as well as Jewish learning. In attempting to reconcile biblical teachings with Greek philosophy he developed ideas that had wide influence on Christian and Jewish religious thought.
The Loeb Classical Library edition of the works of Philo is in ten volumes and two supplements, distributed as follows. Volume I: Creation; Interpretation of Genesis II and III. II: On the Cherubim; The Sacrifices of Abel and Cain; The Worse Attacks the Better; The Posterity and Exile of Cain; On the Giants. III: The Unchangeableness of God; On Husbandry; Noah's Work as a Planter; On Drunkenness; On Sobriety. IV: The Confusion of Tongues; The Migration of Abraham; The Heir of Divine Things; On the Preliminary Studies. V: On Flight and Finding; Change of Names; On Dreams. VI: Abraham; Joseph; Moses. VII: The Decalogue; On Special Laws Books I-III. VIII: On Special Laws Book IV; On the Virtues; Rewards and Punishments. IX: Every Good Man Is Free; The Contemplative Life; The Eternity of the World; Against Flaccus; Apology for the Jews; On Providence. X: On the Embassy to Gaius; indexes. Supplement I: Questions on Genesis. II: Questions on Exodus; index to supplements.
The Loeb Classical Library edition of the works of Philo is in ten volumes and two supplements, distributed as follows. Volume I: Creation; Interpretation of Genesis II and III. II: On the Cherubim; The Sacrifices of Abel and Cain; The Worse Attacks the Better; The Posterity and Exile of Cain; On the Giants. III: The Unchangeableness of God; On Husbandry; Noah's Work as a Planter; On Drunkenness; On Sobriety. IV: The Confusion of Tongues; The Migration of Abraham; The Heir of Divine Things; On the Preliminary Studies. V: On Flight and Finding; Change of Names; On Dreams. VI: Abraham; Joseph; Moses. VII: The Decalogue; On Special Laws Books I-III. VIII: On Special Laws Book IV; On the Virtues; Rewards and Punishments. IX: Every Good Man Is Free; The Contemplative Life; The Eternity of the World; Against Flaccus; Apology for the Jews; On Providence. X: On the Embassy to Gaius; indexes. Supplement I: Questions on Genesis. II: Questions on Exodus; index to supplements.
528 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1929
9 people are currently reading
117 people want to read
About the author
Philo of Alexandria
343 books58 followersPhilo (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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
March 7, 2017
I had read this work before in Yonge's Works Of Philo. The nice thing about this edition is that I was able to refer to the Greek when important theological/philosophical terms are used. It does aid the reader enormously in understanding the overall Hellenistic literary context.
Philo was one of the first writers to bridge the Judeo-Hellenistic ideological divide. His adopting of Platonist and Stoical disciplines and marrying them with Judaic religion was pretty novel and paradigmatic at the time; although, some evidence of this is found in the New Testament as well; especially in the Epistle to The Hebrews, which is the New Testament book that indicates the most significant traces of Hellenistic and/or Alexandrian influence. Occasionally, the writer of Hebrews uses the same biblical passages and interprets them in a very similar way, e.g. regarding God's oaths and the figure of Melchizedek. Some parallels with Paul's Epistles is also evident. Whether Philo was aware of Christianity or whether the New Testament writers were familiar with him, is speculative but it remains an interesting possibility. Be that as it may, Philo left his definite mark on later church fathers such as Origen and many many others. His doctrine of multiplicity in the Godhead was set to be adopted by Christian writers where it was unlikely to be adopted by Jews of a more orthodox bent. The main parallel with the New Testament is Philo's theology surrounding the Logos as God's archetypal pattern and His mediator in creation.
To sum up, Philo is not only an important example of Middle Platonism in the history of philosophy, he is also important in the history of theology. Taking that into account, he is really essential reading.
Philo was one of the first writers to bridge the Judeo-Hellenistic ideological divide. His adopting of Platonist and Stoical disciplines and marrying them with Judaic religion was pretty novel and paradigmatic at the time; although, some evidence of this is found in the New Testament as well; especially in the Epistle to The Hebrews, which is the New Testament book that indicates the most significant traces of Hellenistic and/or Alexandrian influence. Occasionally, the writer of Hebrews uses the same biblical passages and interprets them in a very similar way, e.g. regarding God's oaths and the figure of Melchizedek. Some parallels with Paul's Epistles is also evident. Whether Philo was aware of Christianity or whether the New Testament writers were familiar with him, is speculative but it remains an interesting possibility. Be that as it may, Philo left his definite mark on later church fathers such as Origen and many many others. His doctrine of multiplicity in the Godhead was set to be adopted by Christian writers where it was unlikely to be adopted by Jews of a more orthodox bent. The main parallel with the New Testament is Philo's theology surrounding the Logos as God's archetypal pattern and His mediator in creation.
To sum up, Philo is not only an important example of Middle Platonism in the history of philosophy, he is also important in the history of theology. Taking that into account, he is really essential reading.
November 26, 2012
21st Century fundamentalists take note: an Alexandrian Jew from the 1st Century AD recognized that the account of Creation in Genesis was allegorical, not literal.
January 22, 2026
It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make.
...
Moses adds the words, "when they were created," not defining the time when by any exact limitation, for what has been made by the Author of all things has no limitation. And in this way the idea is excluded, that the universe was created in six days.
It's tiring, more than one can say, the old arguments ad nauseam. "What does 'Yom' mean? Does it mean a literal day, or ages? What about 'There was morning and there was evening?'" Can we ever get to the end of our needling questions?
Perhaps the thing I love most about older writers is that they so often completely sidestep the issues we get hung up on. They make different assumptions, deal with different problems than we'd focus on. That's why we read, to engage with minds unlike our own, and to learn something, not to confirm our cliches. If you do that, you aren't reading, you're masturbating. Contrary to my upbringing, here in the first century AD Philo finds an allegorical interpretation of Genesis self-evident. The thing I think is different between his discourse and ours is that his lacks completely any taint of the politic, of these uniquely modern anxieties like "certainty" and "precision." We lack entirely the spirit of the premodern, which lives at such a slower, saner pace. The lightning-fast and puddle-shallow modern mind fumes with impotent anger at the calm dignity of the premodern. "But you have to take a side!" the Modern rages, pointing to two different cowardices: fundamentalist literalism on one side, and liberal politics-mongering on the other.
But the Premodern worries his mind about neither, dismissing both of them at face value, for their "political" guise, political in the general sense of using everything as a means to an end, and the end as the ego. Instead, Philo has fun with the text:
But the tree of life is that most general virtue which some people call goodness; from which the particular virtues are derived, and of which they are composed. And it is on this account that it is placed in the centre of the Paradise; having the most comprehensive place of all, in order that, like a king, it may be guarded by the trees on each side of it.
The obvious question we must ask ourselves is: why have we so resolutely lost the joy of scripture, of interpretation, of God's word? We too often look at it as if it were a deadly animal, one we must tame perfectly or else it will devour us whole. But the truth of the text is that it is infinitely more durable than we are, it bounces back after our attempts at containing it, it laughs when we laugh. As I've (possibly heretically) observed before, all texts are mirrors to some degree, and scripture is no exception. If we want to see a stern God, we will find one. If we want to find mercy, we will find that too. If we want literal history, we can find it, craggy and strange as it reads. If we want allegories, we unlock something other than the anxiety of the former three approaches. Texts as rich as God's word are overflowing, not paltry, dry, starving, like we so often treat it. As soon as you go searching for prooftexts to best your brother, you've lost the path; you're no longer in the text. In fact, the further you dig into the text with such a spade, the less the text enlightens. It's a paradox: the more you subject the text to your own skill and intention, the more you grasp at nothing but smoke. It's right when you grab so gently it feels like letting go that the thing becomes solid as a rock, like Peter's confession.
"The mind which is in each of us is able to comprehend all other things, but has not the capability of understanding itself. For as the eye sees all other things, but cannot see itself, so also the mind perceives the nature of other things but cannot understand itself. "
But we moderns in our egotism selfishly seek to only know ourselves, and in the process learn to know nothing. We balk at things like Philo saying that Adam metaphorically represents the Mind and Eve metaphorically represents the senses and the body, because we sense here some sort of sexism. But is it really that? Is it not actually the opposite, a way to distance the female sex from the folly of eve, being that men and women both equally have minds and bodies? This allegorical approach also provides a convenient escape from the bloody-if-literal invasion of the holy land; if we interpret that allegorically as well, does it not ease our conscience and give us something real to work with: purge your body and mind like the holy land, destroying the altars to Ba'al and Moloch which you find there?
Of course, there are points at which Philo says things which I disagree with, like his equivocation of "imperfect, diseased, slavish, and female" and his equivocation of "living, perfect, masculine, free, healthy," etc.; I also dislike his use of the old Greek metaphor of Reason as a charioteer and controller of the body and passions, because it's the opposite of plainly experienced reality. But by and large, his allegorical interpretations of Genesis make sense out of otherwise nonsensical or paltry texts when taken literally, or at the most, soterologically. For example, the trees in the garden representing virtues, or Adam and Eve's "hiding from God" being what the unenlightened mind does. Philo does go too far hating pleasure/the body and extolling the mind, sometimes feeling a bit proto-gnostic, but he tempers this with anti-gnostic clarifications such as "all the things which are in the world, and the world itself, are the gift and benefaction and free grace of God."
It is out of Philo's overflowing love of the text that he can write poetic and beautiful phrases heavily reminiscent of the book of Hebrews: "But Melchisedek shall bring forward wine instead of water, and shall give your souls to drink, and shall cheer them with unmixed wine, in order that they may be wholly occupied with a divine intoxication, more sober than sobriety itself."
For paradoxes like drunk sobriety are exactly the stuff of scripture and of wisdom. Scripture seems to me to be narrative for the sake of comprehension, not for the sake of genre. The genre is something we impute to it after the fact, not something inherent in the text. We humans, made in the image of God, love stories. God loves stories. What madman would be angry at a storyteller if they learned Luke Skywalker didn't really exist in history? Likewise, we would be wise to not even bother about such questions. I don't think that it's even worth worrying over. Let the smaller minds squabble, I'm too busy having fun with faith. As Philo writes:
And take notice here, that Moses does not say, "I will cause enmity to thee and the woman," but, "I will place enmity between thee and between the woman:"--why so? because the war between these two is concerning what is in the middle, and what lies, as it were, on the borders of pleasure and of the outward sense. And that which lies between them is what is drinkable, and what is eatable, and what is inclined to all such things, every one of which is an object to be appreciated by the outward sense, and an efficient cause of pleasure. When, therefore, pleasure wallows immoderately in these things, it at once by so doing inflicts injury on the outward sense.
Wisdom lies in the tension between two truths, not the excluding tendency of certainty and precision. The mind is true, and the body is true: between the two we find human life, and faith, and love. Now I know where Origen learned his deceptively effective "side-step-swipe" approach: Philo.
...
Moses adds the words, "when they were created," not defining the time when by any exact limitation, for what has been made by the Author of all things has no limitation. And in this way the idea is excluded, that the universe was created in six days.
It's tiring, more than one can say, the old arguments ad nauseam. "What does 'Yom' mean? Does it mean a literal day, or ages? What about 'There was morning and there was evening?'" Can we ever get to the end of our needling questions?
Perhaps the thing I love most about older writers is that they so often completely sidestep the issues we get hung up on. They make different assumptions, deal with different problems than we'd focus on. That's why we read, to engage with minds unlike our own, and to learn something, not to confirm our cliches. If you do that, you aren't reading, you're masturbating. Contrary to my upbringing, here in the first century AD Philo finds an allegorical interpretation of Genesis self-evident. The thing I think is different between his discourse and ours is that his lacks completely any taint of the politic, of these uniquely modern anxieties like "certainty" and "precision." We lack entirely the spirit of the premodern, which lives at such a slower, saner pace. The lightning-fast and puddle-shallow modern mind fumes with impotent anger at the calm dignity of the premodern. "But you have to take a side!" the Modern rages, pointing to two different cowardices: fundamentalist literalism on one side, and liberal politics-mongering on the other.
But the Premodern worries his mind about neither, dismissing both of them at face value, for their "political" guise, political in the general sense of using everything as a means to an end, and the end as the ego. Instead, Philo has fun with the text:
But the tree of life is that most general virtue which some people call goodness; from which the particular virtues are derived, and of which they are composed. And it is on this account that it is placed in the centre of the Paradise; having the most comprehensive place of all, in order that, like a king, it may be guarded by the trees on each side of it.
The obvious question we must ask ourselves is: why have we so resolutely lost the joy of scripture, of interpretation, of God's word? We too often look at it as if it were a deadly animal, one we must tame perfectly or else it will devour us whole. But the truth of the text is that it is infinitely more durable than we are, it bounces back after our attempts at containing it, it laughs when we laugh. As I've (possibly heretically) observed before, all texts are mirrors to some degree, and scripture is no exception. If we want to see a stern God, we will find one. If we want to find mercy, we will find that too. If we want literal history, we can find it, craggy and strange as it reads. If we want allegories, we unlock something other than the anxiety of the former three approaches. Texts as rich as God's word are overflowing, not paltry, dry, starving, like we so often treat it. As soon as you go searching for prooftexts to best your brother, you've lost the path; you're no longer in the text. In fact, the further you dig into the text with such a spade, the less the text enlightens. It's a paradox: the more you subject the text to your own skill and intention, the more you grasp at nothing but smoke. It's right when you grab so gently it feels like letting go that the thing becomes solid as a rock, like Peter's confession.
"The mind which is in each of us is able to comprehend all other things, but has not the capability of understanding itself. For as the eye sees all other things, but cannot see itself, so also the mind perceives the nature of other things but cannot understand itself. "
But we moderns in our egotism selfishly seek to only know ourselves, and in the process learn to know nothing. We balk at things like Philo saying that Adam metaphorically represents the Mind and Eve metaphorically represents the senses and the body, because we sense here some sort of sexism. But is it really that? Is it not actually the opposite, a way to distance the female sex from the folly of eve, being that men and women both equally have minds and bodies? This allegorical approach also provides a convenient escape from the bloody-if-literal invasion of the holy land; if we interpret that allegorically as well, does it not ease our conscience and give us something real to work with: purge your body and mind like the holy land, destroying the altars to Ba'al and Moloch which you find there?
Of course, there are points at which Philo says things which I disagree with, like his equivocation of "imperfect, diseased, slavish, and female" and his equivocation of "living, perfect, masculine, free, healthy," etc.; I also dislike his use of the old Greek metaphor of Reason as a charioteer and controller of the body and passions, because it's the opposite of plainly experienced reality. But by and large, his allegorical interpretations of Genesis make sense out of otherwise nonsensical or paltry texts when taken literally, or at the most, soterologically. For example, the trees in the garden representing virtues, or Adam and Eve's "hiding from God" being what the unenlightened mind does. Philo does go too far hating pleasure/the body and extolling the mind, sometimes feeling a bit proto-gnostic, but he tempers this with anti-gnostic clarifications such as "all the things which are in the world, and the world itself, are the gift and benefaction and free grace of God."
It is out of Philo's overflowing love of the text that he can write poetic and beautiful phrases heavily reminiscent of the book of Hebrews: "But Melchisedek shall bring forward wine instead of water, and shall give your souls to drink, and shall cheer them with unmixed wine, in order that they may be wholly occupied with a divine intoxication, more sober than sobriety itself."
For paradoxes like drunk sobriety are exactly the stuff of scripture and of wisdom. Scripture seems to me to be narrative for the sake of comprehension, not for the sake of genre. The genre is something we impute to it after the fact, not something inherent in the text. We humans, made in the image of God, love stories. God loves stories. What madman would be angry at a storyteller if they learned Luke Skywalker didn't really exist in history? Likewise, we would be wise to not even bother about such questions. I don't think that it's even worth worrying over. Let the smaller minds squabble, I'm too busy having fun with faith. As Philo writes:
And take notice here, that Moses does not say, "I will cause enmity to thee and the woman," but, "I will place enmity between thee and between the woman:"--why so? because the war between these two is concerning what is in the middle, and what lies, as it were, on the borders of pleasure and of the outward sense. And that which lies between them is what is drinkable, and what is eatable, and what is inclined to all such things, every one of which is an object to be appreciated by the outward sense, and an efficient cause of pleasure. When, therefore, pleasure wallows immoderately in these things, it at once by so doing inflicts injury on the outward sense.
Wisdom lies in the tension between two truths, not the excluding tendency of certainty and precision. The mind is true, and the body is true: between the two we find human life, and faith, and love. Now I know where Origen learned his deceptively effective "side-step-swipe" approach: Philo.
Read
December 15, 2021VIII: προνομίας δὲ τό τε πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ φῶς ἠξιοῦτο· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὠνόμασε θεοῦ, διότι ζωτικώτατον τὸ πνεῦμα, ζωῆς δὲ θεὸς - breath and light are most important; breath is divine because it is life
XXII.68: ἡ δ᾿ οἷα τεχνίτης, ἢ κυριώτερον εἰπεῖν ἀνεπίληπτος τέχνη, ζῳοπλαστεῖ, τὴν μὲν ὑγρὰν οὐσίαν εἰς τὰ τοῦ σώματος μέλη καὶ μέρη διανέμουσα, τὴν δὲ πνευματικὴν εἰς τὰς τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεις, τήν τε θρεπτικὴν καὶ τὴν αἰσθητικήν· τὴν γὰρ τοῦ λογισμοῦ τανῦν ὑπερθετέον, διὰ τοὺς φάσκοντας θύραθεν αὐτὸν ἐπεισιέναι, θεῖον καὶ 68ἀίδιον ὄντα. But nature, or growth, like an artificer, or (to speak more properly) like a consummate art, forms living creatures, by distributing the moist substance to the limbs and different parts of the body, the substance of life-breath to the faculties of the soul, affording them nourishment and endowing them with perception. We must defer for the present the faculty of reasoning, out of consideration for those who maintain that it comes in from without, and is divine and eternal.
- breath holds water together
XXII.68: ἡ δ᾿ οἷα τεχνίτης, ἢ κυριώτερον εἰπεῖν ἀνεπίληπτος τέχνη, ζῳοπλαστεῖ, τὴν μὲν ὑγρὰν οὐσίαν εἰς τὰ τοῦ σώματος μέλη καὶ μέρη διανέμουσα, τὴν δὲ πνευματικὴν εἰς τὰς τῆς ψυχῆς δυνάμεις, τήν τε θρεπτικὴν καὶ τὴν αἰσθητικήν· τὴν γὰρ τοῦ λογισμοῦ τανῦν ὑπερθετέον, διὰ τοὺς φάσκοντας θύραθεν αὐτὸν ἐπεισιέναι, θεῖον καὶ 68ἀίδιον ὄντα. But nature, or growth, like an artificer, or (to speak more properly) like a consummate art, forms living creatures, by distributing the moist substance to the limbs and different parts of the body, the substance of life-breath to the faculties of the soul, affording them nourishment and endowing them with perception. We must defer for the present the faculty of reasoning, out of consideration for those who maintain that it comes in from without, and is divine and eternal.
- breath holds water together
January 17, 2023
I enjoyed On Creation quite a bit more than the 3 Allegorical Interpretation treatises. There is a turn made from seeing how the text narrates something harmonious in what it says, to how the text narrates something harmonious in what it 'means'. That may not be the right way to say it, but there is a significant difference between the two sets. I'm also curious to think through what Philo is really after in the Allegorical Interpretations. How much is it interpreting the text and how much is it making the points about well lived human life and ordering mind and soul? I was focusing on the English with an eye to the Greek (rather than reading the Greek) but still see a number of issues with the now dated translations. Still, a rich trip through a bit of Philo's world.
December 2, 2010
If you were going to read just one book written by Philo, this is the volume that I recommend. Most of his most important ideas and a number of classic examples of his interpretive approach are set out in De opificio mundi and Legum allegoriarum libri i‑iii.
While newer translations of these texts are coming out now, this volume remains a solid, readable text for the contemporary reader. The newer versions offer a updated introductions, a better critical apparatus, and language that better reflects the modern tongue.
While newer translations of these texts are coming out now, this volume remains a solid, readable text for the contemporary reader. The newer versions offer a updated introductions, a better critical apparatus, and language that better reflects the modern tongue.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews