vol 1, Book ii (Cambridge 1989) by Ronald Williamson,
Contents of this Book Review
I. Introductory Remark
II. Outline of the Book
III. Contents of the Book
IV. Evaluation of the Book
V. Importance of the Book
I. Introductory Remark
Jews in the Hellenistic World (Philo) is written by Ronald Williamson, senior lecturer in New Testament Studies at the University of Leeds in England. The book is a part of a commentary series on the writings of the Jewish and Christian world from 200 BC to AD 200. After the introduction to Philo's life and work, the book is divided into four (4) sections, which will be shown in the next section. The author attempts to show the importance of the themes on religion and philosophy in the writings of Philo. In this review, I will attempt to give a small amount of commentary on what the author is saying about Philo and his philosophies.
II. Outline of the Book
1) Introduction: Philo's life and work: This section deals with the life of Philo, his background, his family, his environment, and his works and philosophy. This includes his political life.
2) Philo's Doctrine of God: This section is dealing with Philo's attack on anthropomorphism and anthropopathism; and the revelation of God to man.
3) Philo's Logos Doctrine: This section deals with the Logos as link between creator and created, 'I am the God who appeared to Thee,' 'Sons of God,' The elements of creation, and the High Priest as the Divine Word.
4) Philo's Allegorical Exegesis of Scripture: This section deals with the need for figurative interpretations
5) The Ethical Teaching of Philo: This section deals with humanity and repentance, the Ten Words and Jewish sexual morality and Hellenistic laxity.
6) The conclusion
III. Contents of the Book
Philo is often referred to as Philo Judaeus (Philo the Jew) or Philo of Alexandria. Since the name was prevalent during his lifetime, he was called Philo of Alexandria because he was believed to be of Alexandria, a city of the Jewish Dispersion in Egypt. Of course, his writings (especially Leg, Gaj. 150), indicate evident pride because of his reference to "our Alexandria").
It is believed that Philo lived from around 20 B.C. to A.D. 50, although the author seems unsure of the exact dates of his birth and death. During Philo's lifetime Williamson is unsure as to whether or not he was married, although Williamson refers to two passages in the Legatio ad Gaium that could imply that Philo's experiences with women were not happy ones. In Legatio ad Gaium 39, Philo writes: 'A wife has great power to paralyze and seduce her husband and particularly if she is a wanton, for her guilty conscience increases her wheedling.' In addition, later (ibid. 61) he writes: 'love as they say is a fickle passion, and therefore none of its endearments are stable.' These statements have little biographical value, however the author uses them to allude to the possibility that Philo may have had a wife. I really do not see that as a testament of a married man.
In the introduction of the book, the author refers to many aspects of Philo's life besides the previous statements. He discusses the fact that Philo was a Greek as well as a Jew. He raised the question as to whether Philo was a Greek Jew, or a Jewish Greek. In addition, it is believed that during this period hellenism reigned in Alexandria. If this is the case, Philo would have lived within a Jewish community which was engulfed in Hellenistic culture. Although he was Hellenistic in culture, according to the author, Philo remained loyal to Judaism and/or his judiastic roots and considered himself a Jew. That loyalty is beyond all denial. In all of his writings, Philo shows himself to be a devout believer of Judaism as a universal religion, which religion was capable of attracting and winning the attention of all.
Philo's life covered a period of time when the Temple was still standing in Jerusalem. He visited that Temple to offer sacrifices and prayers at least one time, however, according to Williamson, his worship was done at the synagogue for the most part, since he was a citizen of Alexandria. He gives an example of his devoutness to Judaism when he and four other Jews were emissaries to Rome. Williamson gives explicit details of the trek to Rome to confront the Emperor Caligula about the images of himself that he intended to set up in all religious meeting houses in the Empire. Caligula regarded himself as a god and was having statues erected of himself as Zeus. This erection of idols and/or graven images in the religious meeting houses was in direct violation of the Jewish belief.
The author indicates that Philo was a theological philosopher because in his works he deals with the doctrine of God. He covers several aspects, in part under the heading of Philo's Doctrine of God, and his Logos Doctrine.
The book itself has great value in introducing one to the content of Philo's life and work. However, some of Williamson's ideas are questionable. By that, I mean that I do not necessarily agree with him. For example: at first he says that the time of Philo's birth and death are not discernable, then later he says that Philo is believed to be born around 30 B.C. In another sentence he says that Philo's lifetime extended over a period of time beginning with Herod the Great, including some of the Jewish rabbis (such as; Hillel, Shammai and Gamaliel); and Paul and he was a contemporary of Jesus (although he makes no mention of Jesus in his writing.
The author uses commentary on the works of Philo that, at times, are hard to understand. He goes out on a limb in explaining what Philo means by certain statements, at other times, which things I will make an attempt to cover in section iv.
IV. Evaluation of the Book
Williamson gives an excellent overview of the life and work of Philo as an introduction to this work. However, where did he get the idea that Philo had any experience with women? Surely not the passages cited (Leg. Gaj. 39 and 61), for Philo, in the first passage, is referring to Macro and the wanton desires of Macro's wife. He would not have to have first hand knowledge in order to learn of the deceitfulness of a wanton woman. That is not to say that Philo had no experience with women, but that this passage does not refer to Philo's experience with women but to that of Macro. Although, as Williamson states, the passage, alluded to may not reflect his own experience as a husband, but instead as a father, I tend to question this as well. According to this text, Philo is here eluding to the relationship between Macro and his father-in-law, Marcus Silanus. He tells of how Marcus Silanus exalted the position of Macro by speaking openly of Macro's attributes because he loved Macro as a father would a son and not as a son-in-law, and yet, Macro did not reciprocate that love. I ask again, where did Williamson get the idea that Philo had any first hand experience with women, either as a husband or as a father, certainly not from this text of Philo's.
When Williamson has completed his ideas, he begins his explanation of the "Philo's doctrine of God." He does not have a systematic order in which to present this doctrine because, he says, "the Philonic doctrine of God is not presented in a systematic way." In this Philo's Doctrine of God, Williamson says that he is going to talk about "anthropo-morphism and anthropopathism," and about the "revelation of God to man" however he goes beyond that. He talks about "Faith in God, God in the Scriptures, Idols and Idolatry, God's championship of his people, God answers prayer, God the Creator, the Fatherhood and love of God, Man knows God's existence but not His essence," etc. Some of these topics covered could be used in describing Philo's doctrine of God because they discuss some of the attributes attributed to God by man. Others, in describing the attributes of God tend to show the very nature of God, although Philo would probably disagree because he feels that man can not begin to understand the essence or nature of God. Although the Scriptures that Philo held so dear talks about the same attributes of God in a way that finite man can understand. Philo, according to Williamson, would attempt to show that man can know something about God's existence in the same sense that Moses knew of God's existence, but in no other way.
In writing about Philo's attack on anthropomorphism Williamson states that Philo has a problem dealing with the possibility that, God could give way to wrath or anger, because he is not susceptible to any form of passion. Williamson explains this passage from Philo as Moses' way to accommodate himself to human weaknesses. He goes on to say that what Philo means is that in order for Moses to instill fear into the people and awaken in them the proper respect for him, he had to use terms that the people would understand. However, is Moses saying that God was wroth or angry or when he said that 'it repented God that He had made man and He was grieved in His heart' was Moses saying that God was sorry that He had made man, yet allowing man to see a deeper feeling that just sorrow? We are said to be made in the image of God, is it possible that those feelings were divine attributes and we were allowed to feel them in a human context?
Under this same section, Williamson writes about Philo's concept of "God as Light." According to Williamson, Philo could not have used a better metaphor as light to express the nature of God. Philo says in "Questions and Answers in GenesisII.34," that light is the 'most beautiful of existing things, and a ministrant of things divine.' Williamson says that Philo in quoting Psalms 27:1 says that 'God is light', and also 'He is not only light, but the archetype of every other light.' The Logos, which 'contained His fullness' was also the light. Williamson goes on to quote 'On the Cherubim 96-7' which states that God is 'himself his own light. For the eye of the Absolutely Existent needs no other light to effect perception, but he himself is the archetypal essence of which myriads of rays are the effluence, none visible to sense, all to the mind.' Williamson explains this by saying that the physical eye can not perceive the essence of God, neither can God be apprehended by the eye of the body, to which it appears that Williamson is being repetitive (perhaps to emphasize his point).
Williamson goes on to write that although the eye can not see the essence of God, God can reveal Himself to the soul. He calls those ones 'holy and genuine worshippers and friends of God.' This knowledge according to Williamson, man can not attain but it comes at the will of God. This sounds good; however, I can not help but wonder how this would be applicable today. Since everyone has some knowledge of God, no matter how minute. Who, then, would be considered by Philo or Williamson to be the 'holy and genuine worshippers and friends of God.' If we, as God's children, become children of the light and/or the light of the world, would not God's essence be revealed to us, especially since we no longer walk in darkness? If we no longer walk in darkness, would not we as children of the light have awareness or knowledge of the larger 'Light?' Since he is considered, by Philo, as the "fountain of the purest radiance, which reveals himself to a soul by the rays that he puts forth in the that soul, would not that soul now have knowledge of that "fountain of radiance?" After all of this rhetoric about man not being able to see the essence of God, Williamson states that God can be known by man through the action of His power. Although it is perfectly clear to me that only because of the divine revelation of God can man come to know God; Williamson appears to be a bit confused as to whether or not man can really know God.
Philo's Logos doctrine can really be taken as a part of his Doctrine of God, according to Williamson. He says that when one thinks of the word Logos it should not be taken in the same context as the word Word, even though in John's Gospel it is translated as word. This word, according to Williamson, has its primary meaning in the context of the "spiritual Mind of the transcendent God." Williamson goes on to say that the word Logos means (among other things) the rational thought of mind expressed in utterance or speech. It is something present within the total reality of God himself, within the natural order of the universe, within man himself. That concept of the Logos, at first, was mind boggling, especially when one thinks of the prospect of having "the mind of Christ," as Paul put it in I Corinthians 2.16, "For who hath know the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." And again in Philippians 2.5: "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus . . ." In this concept, however, Williamson says that the Logos is the "Wisdom" of God; the "Reason" of God; the "Mediator (in the person of Christ and also in His Messianic role);" the "Light;" the "image" of God; the "idea" of God; it is eternal; and it is the "power" of God in the world. Williamson states that the Logos is said, by Philo, to be the Divine Logos that "implants its seed" within man. If what Williamson and Philo are saying is true, this would go along with the concept that man was created in the "image" of God, as well as the concept that, "God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living soul," also causing man to have reasoning capabilities. This concept makes these ideas more understandable to the finite mind.
In reference to the "Sons of God," in On the Confusion of Tongues (145-6) Philo refers to the one who is worthy to be called a Son of God as "God's First-born, the Logos, who holds the eldership among the angels, the archangel, as it were, who possesses many names." Philo goes on to say that He is called by names such as "the Beginning, and the Name of God, and His Word, and the man answering to God's image, and he that sees, that is Israel." Williamson, in referring to this passage from Philo states that "Logos" is not eternal in the absolute sense that God is eternal. He goes on to say that it does pre-exist the created order. He goes on to say that it was "there in the beginning, the Agent or Instrument of creation." If He pre-existed the created order and is called the Beginning, why is He not eternal in the absolute sense that God is eternal?
Williamson concludes his book by stating that Philo's writings, although they present certain difficulties in understanding, are worthy of extremely close scrutiny by the student because of the focus on Hellenistic Judaism and background studies of the New Testament.
V. Importance of the Book
This book could be a valuable source for the student who has some knowledge of the Jews in the Hellenistic world and/or of Philo. However, for the student who knows very little about the subject matter, I believe there are gaps that need to be filled for the novice to get a better understanding of the authors commentary and intent.
For the more seasoned student, the book could be used as a good source book as long as the student dialogues with the author and comes to her/his own conclusions. As in any work that is a commentary on another work, it is best for the student to digest what the author says and, where possible, read the primary sources. By doing this, the student is able to not only read the comments others make, but s/he will be able to make commentary for themselves. In addition, they will not be relying solely on the commentary of someone else.
As an introduction to the Hellenistic period, this is an excellent source, however, as stated above, it is best to read the primary sources when possible. In this way, the student need not rely on the opinions and conclusions of others.
The book presents an excellent exegesis on the Philo's Doctrine of God and especially on the Logos Doctrine. It has some enlightening ideas and concepts that are valuable when taken in context with Scripture. The novice, who tries to take Williamson at his word without drawing her/his own conclusions will have a problem digesting its' contents.
I would, however, recommend this book to any and everyone who believes that s/he is up to the challenge of contextual differences between it, the Works of Philo and Scripture.