PHILO. - The greatest writer of the Jews of Alexandria, b. ca. 30 B.C., d. ca. A.D. 50. Of a distinguished family (Fl. Josephus, Antiq. Jud., XVIII, S. 1), he received, along with a Hebrew education, the Greek education common to distinguished citizens (Cong., 74-76). He would sometimes withdraw into solitude to devote himself to contemplation (L. A., II, 21). In A.D. 40, already old (Caium, beginning), he joined the mission that the Jewish community sent to Caligula, on account of the persecution it was suffering (ibid. and Flac.).
In his writings, he attempted to reconcile the Hebrew Revelation with Greek culture, placing the latter at the service of the former: he is therefore the first true Jewish theologian. Permeated with ardent faith and a devotee of the Töräh like a Pharisee of Palestine, P. has a pronounced taste for philosophy, «the most perfect of the goods that have ever come to humanity» (Op., 54), to which he sincerely aspires (Spec., III, 1-6) and heartily celebrates Plato (Prob., II, 13), the neo-Pythagoreans (op. cit., I, 2), Heraclitus, the Stoics, whom he regards as mere imitators of Moses, for their truths and their morality (Heres, 214; M.-J. Lagrange, p. 554).
Here is the list of Philo's writings with, in parentheses, the usual abbreviations: 1. Catechetical exposition: Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim, I-IV (Q. G.); In Exodum, I-II (Q. Ex.). - 2. Allegorical commentary on Genesis: Legum allegoriarum I-III (L. A.); De Cherubim et flammeo gladio (Chor.); De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Sacr.); Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat (Det.); De posteritate Caini (Post.); De gigantibus (Gig.); Quod Deus sit immutabilis (Deus); De agricultura (Agr.); De plantatione Noe (Plant.); De ebrietate (Ebr.); De sobrietate (Sobr.); De confusione linguarum (Conf.); De migratione Abrahami (Migr.); Quis rerum divinarum heres sit (Heres); De congressu quaerendae eruditionis causa (Cong.); De fuga (Fug.); De mutatione nominum (Mut.); De somniis I-II (Somn.). - 3. Exposition of the Mosaic legislation: De mundi opificio (Op.); De Abrahamo (Abr.); De Iosepho (Ios.); De decalogo (Decal.); De specialibus legibus, I-IV (Spec.); De tribus virtutibus: de fortitudine, de caritate, de poenitentia (Virt.); De praemiis et poenis (Praem.). - 4. Other writings: Vita Mois, I-III (Mos.); Quod omnis probus sit liber (Prob.); Adversus Flaccum (Flac.); De legatione ad Caium (Caium); De providentia (Prov.); De Alexandro et quod propriam rationem muta animalia habeant (Alex.); Ipothetica; De Judone; De vita contemplativa (V. Cont.). E. Schürer, pp. 487-512: the abbreviations are those of the Loeb edition, adopted by Völker.
P. is the natural fruit of the Alexandrian environment, the most striking effect of that centuries-old contact between Judaism and the Greek spirit. While some Jews, perverted by Greek sophistry, were apostatizing, despising God and the Law (Post., 33-38), others no longer observed the Law, explained allegorically (Migr., 89), or, faithful to the literal exegesis, found in the Sacred Books legends analogous to the Greek myths (Conf., 2-3), P. defends the revealed truth and illustrates it with Greek humanism. The truth is one and derives from God; it is found entire in the Sacred Books, particularly in the Law. Philosophical knowledge, so laboriously acquired, cannot be contrary to it; it contains only seeds of truth, and serves to understand and enjoy the revealed truth in all its fullness.
P., without excluding any tendency, takes from philosophy everything that is useful to his purpose. He makes use of the skeptics who scourged reason, the arbiter of life, to demonstrate the superiority and the necessity of Revelation; of the Cynics who fought pleasure, to recommend wisdom and virtue; of Aristotle, for the profound analysis of the virtues and the vices; but principally of the Stoics, his preferred masters, for the loftiness of their sentiments; and of Plato, for his clear-cut dualism, in opposition to Stoic pantheism, for his lofty conceptions of the divinity, of the soul (M.-J. Lagrange, p. 543 ff.). P. has nothing of genius; he has no system; he is compared to Cicero by E. Stein and A. J. Festugière. He reflects the mixture of the various systems already in operation at Alexandria and which would pass a little later into the writings of Hermetism; in P. the heterogeneous elements often remain side by side without merging. The very opinions peculiar to a system, which have value if linked to the whole for which they arose, in P. appear detached, without substance and without life; they serve to express ordinary ideas, to illustrate a biblical text or an oratorical development; they are often simple images and metaphors. Characteristic of P. are the belief in the action of the Spirit of God in us (= Grace: Migr., 34-35) and intellectual mysticism (E. Bréhier, A. J. Festugière).
His work, directed more to his coreligionists to preserve their faith than to the gentiles, is an exegesis of the Töräh verse by verse and by chosen passages. For all this, it is almost impossible to order the elements of his doctrine into a synthesis; nor is it worth insisting on the divergences, since P. often places the various theories side by side in the same text (cf. Decal., 134).
P. makes use of allegorical exegesis, used by the Stoics to interpret polytheism (Prov., II, 41) and by the Hellenistic Jews. P. believes it more worthy of God that the spiritual sense, expressed by the facts, by the persons, in the choice of the very terms, be almost habitual (Ios. 28); and he strives to discover it by scrutinizing etymologies, calculating numbers, which for the neo-Pythagoreans were the symbol of ideas (E. Bréhier, p. 43 ff.). He builds it upon the literal sense, which he defends, just as one does not renounce the body when one studies the soul (Migr., 89; H. A. Wolfson, I, pp. 55 ff., 115-64). But with such a method P. substitutes for the historical sense an ethical-religious treatise, which presents interest but which can no longer be called biblical exegesis (M.-J. Lagrange, pp. 546-54).
The idea of God, positive and personal, in P., is that of the Bible (Op., 21-23; Deus, 24-76; etc.). He is the God of the world, however, and not of the Jews alone. P. with Stoic terms calls him ἀντίνος (L. A., I, 50, 53) without specific and individual determination; the soul, the intellect of the universe (op. cit., I, 91; III, 29), but he sharply denies any immanence (Conf., 173) and follows Plato (A. J. Festugière, pp. 535-40; J. Lebreton, pp. 184-98). From God derive: the sensible world, in the manner described by the Töräh, and the spiritual world; the angels of the Bible; the logos and the powers of Alexandrian philosophy. The angels for P. become powers (Somn., I, 127, 141 ff., etc.); but besides the office of intermediaries, they have nothing in common with them, of whom they are called servants (Spec., I, 66). The angels are persons: the powers are ideas (Plato) and forces (Stoics); exemplary causes (Plato) and efficient causes (Stoics: loc. cit., 46-48, 66, 320; Op., 17 ff. 72; Fug., 69; etc.); simple manifestations in relation to God (Abr., 119-21, 131). They make possible the relations of knowledge and of religion between God and man, who is in himself incapable of reaching God (Q. Ex., II, 68; Conf., 97; Fug., 97 ff.; E. Bréhier, p. 175).
The first intermediary is the logos (Heres, 205; E. Bréhier, p. 170). F. believes he finds it on every page of the biblical narratives: the angel of Jahweh, in the various theophanies (Somn., I, 117, 226; Cher., 3; etc.); the high priest is its symbol, as mediator (Fug., 108-19; etc.). F. understands by the logos the expressions: the Name, the Glory, etc. (Somn., I, 62, 227) and the rabbinic speculations on the Word of God (Decal., 32-36); he calls it (cf. Sap. 7, 8; Proc. 8, 25), God's instrument in creation (Cher., 125-27); image of God (Fug., 101); his firstborn son (loc. cit., 109, etc.). In reality, these are simple evocations occasioned by the sacred text. F. explains the Bible with Alexandrian philosophical terminology. The logos is an ideal projected between heaven and earth, the exemplar of the world (Op., 24-25), revealer of God; it is the cosmic principle of separation and diversity (λόγος πωλεός), just as human reason is the logical principle of discrimination (Heres, 130-40; H. A. Wolfson, I, p. 335 ff.). These Platonic elements are matched by the preponderant Stoic influence. As in Chrysippus, the logos is a force that sustains the world, a principle of determination, seminal logos (loc. cit., p. 118 ff.), which fecundates everything and acts in the world as the soul does in us (loc. cit., pp. 230-33; Fug., 110); human destinies depend on it (Dens, 176); law of the universe (Op., 143), moral law. The guiding idea behind such diverse images is the transcendence of God and the necessity of an intermediary between God and the world. The logos therefore is not God; otherwise the whole system would collapse. The name of God given to it (Somn., I, 228-30; L. A., II, 207 ff.; Q. G., II, 62) is only an exegetical exigency; and it is softened into an improper term (θεύσερος θεός). It is not a person, but an undecided personality, closer to a simple instruction (J. Lebreton, pp. 209-51).
In cosmology F. takes up the commonplaces of the philosophy of his time: a mixture of Platonism, Stoicism and Neo-Pythagoreanism (A. J. Festugière, La révélation..., pp. 228-33).
In anthropology he illustrates Jewish thought with the doctrine of Aristotle and Plato. In man there is σῦμα, ψυχή, νοῦς. The ψυχή is the seat of sensitive life; it is the pre-existing soul that enters the body and forms the earthly man. F. admits with Plato the pre-existence of souls; the νοῦς, made in the image of God, is the seat of intellectual, moral and mystical life. Only the νοῦς is immortal and constitutes the personality of man. The ψυχή is intermediate between the ἀλόγον (the lower part as a whole) and the νοῦς, in the continuous struggle that takes place between them. The ψυχή is bound as in a prison in the body, which is the root of evil; once freed from the predominance of the νοῦς, it returns to the intelligible world. It is impossible for the νοῦς to raise itself to the θεωρία (knowledge) of God without the communication of the πνεῦμα on the part of God himself. The νοῦς is the receptacle of the divine πνεῦμα (L. A., I, 12-13; Det., 80-84; Heres, 11-12; A. J. Festugière, L'idéal..., pp. 212-20). As it is impossible without divine Grace (the action of the Spirit of Jahweh, often identified by F. with the logos) to renounce mortal things or to remain always in incorruptible things (Ehr., 145 ff.). The Spirit of God (the logos) is the cause of virtue, the force that makes the νοῦς conquer (E. Bréhier, pp. 214-24).
Man with his natural faculties can only arrive at knowing from creation the existence of God; he can raise himself to the two powers: the creative and the regal, closer to the divine Monad; sometimes as far as the logos. As soon as the soul recognizes its weakness, the divine πνεῦμα descends upon it; a divine light that shines when the human light is kindled (Somn., I, 118). The divine light leads it up to the pure idea, absolutely simple, God himself. In ecstasy the νοῦς does not separate itself from the body, is not suppressed, but is possessed by God. The virtuous man thus becomes a prophet, an instrument of God (M.-J. Lagrange, pp. 524-71).
F. makes of history a religious-moral teaching: God's care for every soul; and he thereby blocks the way to messianism, of which he has only a faded image. F. remained isolated. There is no relationship between the New Testament and F., except for the literary dependence of Hebrews. F. remained ignored by Judaism. While Christianity was bursting into the Hellenic world, some among the Fathers gave credit to the writings of F., for the theology on the Word; but the heretics, their opponents, had recourse to them more.
BIBLI: Edizioni: Deno Vedio princeps incompleta di Parigi 1552, la prima completa è quella di Th. Manges, Phil. Ind. opera, 2 voll., Londra 1742. Editio maior: L. Cohn - P. Wendland - S. Rutter, Phil. Alex. opera quae superam, con indici di J. Leiceman, 2 voll., Berlino 1806-1930; J. Heinemann - M. Adler, Die Werke Philos von Alexandrin (trad. tedesca), 6 voll., Bresla-via 1909-38; F. H. Colton - G. H. Whittaker, Philo, with an English translation, 9 voll., Cambridge 1930-41; H. Box, Philons Alexandrin in Floreum. Edited with an introduction, translation and commentary, Londra 1930. - Bibl. completa fino al 1938 (ca. 1963 numer.) - E. R. Goodenough, The politics of Philo Judaeus. Practice and theory, with a general philosophy, Nova Haven 1938. - Studi più importanti: E. Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, Londra 1875; B. Ritter, Philo and the Holoch, Lignin 1879; J. Drummond, Philo Judaeus, London 1888; E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, III, 3e ed., Lipsia 1898, pp. 487-562; P. Heimach, Der Einfluss Philos und die älteste christliche Exegete, Münster 1908; E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Graebuer, III, II, 4e ed., Lipsia 1900, pp. 385-467; E. Bréhier, Les idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philons d'Alexandrie, 2e ed., Parigi 1925; J. Lebreton, Histoire du Dogme de la Trinité, I, 6e ed., ivi 1927, pp. 178-251; E. Stern, Die allegorische Exegese der Philo aus Alexandrin, Gresson 1920; M.-J. Lagrange, Le Judaïsme avant Hans-Christ, 2e ed., Parigi 1931, pp. 542-86; I. Heinemann, Philons eresch. und jüd. Bildung, Bresla-via 1932; A. J. Festugière, L'idéal religieux des Grecs et l'Évangile, 2e ed., Paris 1934, pp. 212-18; id., La révélation d'Hermis Trimitigiste, II, Le Dieu commun, ivi 1940, pp. 310-83; H. Schmidt, Die Anthropologie Philons von Alexandrin, Würzburg 1933; W. Knuth, Der Begriff der Stöde bei Philons von Alexandrin, evi 1934; H. Levy, Philos von Alexandrin. Von den Machtverweisen Gottes, Berlino 1934; K. Steur, Parmandes in Philo, Numeren 1935; H. Willson, Eliz. eine begreifungsschichtliche Untersuchung zum Platonsum, in Philos von Alexandrin, Münster 1935; R. R. Goodenough, By light, light; the mystic Gospel of Théloniste Judaeus, New Haven 1935; M. Preissler, Der Glaubensbegriff bei Philons, Bresla-via 1936; W. Völler, Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrin. Eine Studie am Geschichte der Fremngaben, Lipsia 1938; A. Meyer, Verlossergebn. und Schiefstädte in ihren Verhältnis bei Philo von Alexandrin, Würzburg 1936; S. Belkin, Philo and the oral law, Cambridge 1940; M. Pohlens, Philos von Alexandrin, Gottling 1942; G. De Ruggiere, Storia della filosofia, II, 6e ed., Bibi 1945, pp. 244-52; E. Bertola, La filosofia ebraica, Milano 1947, pp. 32-40; H. A. Wolfson, Philo: foundations of religious philosophy in judicium, christianus and islam, I-II, Cambridge 1947. - Articoli: C. Trichsel, Griechische Fragmente in Philons Oussetiones in Genesis et in Eudem, in Zeitschrift für ältest. Wissenschaftl. 14 (1937), pp. 108-15; H. Leiceman, Philons Schrift über die Geomantschaft der Alexandrin. Juden an den Kaiser Gaius Caligula, in Journal of biblical literature, 57 (1938), pp. 377-405; anon., s. v. in Pauly Wis-owa, Suppl. XX, 1, coll. 1-50; G. Bertram, Philo als politisch-theologischer Engagements des spätnischen Judentums, in Theologische Literaturzeitung, 63 (1939), pp. 193-99; W. Knox, A note on Philo's use of the Old Test., in Journal of theological studies 41 (1940), pp. 30-34; F. H. Colton, Philo's quotation from the Old Test., ibid., pp. 237-51; F. V. Courneon, Philo Judaeus and the concept of creation, in New scholasticism, 15 (1941), pp. 45-58; J. Llamas, Reseña del estado de los cuestiones, Filos de Alejandría, in Sefarad, 2 (1942), pp. 437-47; K. Stiehlschmidt, Eine unbekannte Schrift Philons von Alexandrin, in Aegyptus, 22 (1942), p. 169-98; H. A. Wolfson, Philo as free will and the historical influence of his view, in Harvard theological review, 35 (1943), pp. 131-60; E. R. Goodenough, Philo on immortality, ibid., 39 (1946), pp. 84-108; E. Vanderlinden, Les diverses modes de connaissance de Dieu selon Philos d'Alexandrie, in Mélanges de science religieuse, 1 (1947), pp. 285-304; C. Sniou, La philoxime de l'Éphire aux Hébions, in Revue biblique, 56 (1949), pp. 542-72.
Francesco Spadafora