Philo-From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Philo=Jump to:
navigation,
search For other uses, see Philo (disambiguation).
Philo (20
BC - 50 AD), known
also as Philo of Alexandria (gr. Φίλων ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς),
Philo Judaeus, Yedidia, and Philo the Jew was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher
born in Alexandria, Egypt.
Philo used allegory to
fuse and harmonize Greek philosophy and Judaism. His
method followed the practices of both Jewish exegesis and Stoic philosophy. His
work was not widely accepted. "The sophists of literalness," as he
calls them[1],
"opened their eyes superciliously" when he explained to them the
marvels of his exegesis. Philo's works were enthusiastically received by the
early Christians,
some of whom saw in him a cryptic Christian. His concept of the Logos as God's
creative principle apparently influenced early Christology.
To him Logos was God's "blueprint for the world", a governing plan.[dubious – discuss]
The few biographical details concerning
Philo are found in his own works, especially in Legatio ad Gaium ("embassy to Gaius"), and in Josephus.[2]
The only event in his life that can be determined chronologically is his
participation in the embassy which the Alexandrian Jews sent to the emperor Caligula at Rome as the result of
civil strife between the Alexandrian Jewish and Hellenized communities. This occurred
in the year 40 AD.
|
Contents [hide] |
Biography
We find a brief reference to Philo by
the first century Jewish historian Josephus. In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus tells of Philo's selection by the Alexandrian
Jewish community as their principal representative before the Roman emperor
Gaius Caligula. He says that Philo agreed to represent the Alexandrian Jews in
regard to civil disorder that had developed between the Jews and the Greeks in
Alexandria (in Egypt). Josephus also tells us that Philo was skilled in
philosophy, and that he was brother to an official called Alexander the
alabarch. According to Josephus, Philo and the larger Jewish community refused
to treat the emperor as a god, to erect statues in honor of the emperor, and to
build altars and temples to the emperor. Josephus says Philo believed that God
actively supported this refusal. This portrait of Philo aligns with the
character of Philo revealed in his own writings, as discussed below.
Josephus' comments about Philo are so
brief that we can quote them here in full:
"There
was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the
Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at
variance, who came to Gaius. Now one of these ambassadors from the people of
Alexandria was Apion,
(29) who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews; and, among other things
that he said, he charged them with neglecting the honors that belonged to
Caesar; for that while all who were subject to the Roman empire built altars
and temples to Gaius, and in other regards universally received him as they
received the gods, these Jews alone thought it a dishonorable thing for them to
erect statues in honor of him, as well as to swear by his name. Many of these
severe things were said by Apion, by which he hoped to provoke Gaius to anger
at the Jews, as he was likely to be. But Philo, the principal of the Jewish
embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the alabarch,
(30) and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make
his defense against those accusations; but Gaius prohibited him, and bid him
begone; he was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them
some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to
those Jews who were about him, that they should be of good courage, since
Gaius's words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God
against himself." [Antiquities
of the Jews, xviii.8, § 1, Whiston's translation
(online)]
Our remaining information about Philo
is based upon his own writings. Philo himself claims in his Embassy to Gaius to have been part of an embassy sent by the Alexandrian
Jews to the Roman Emperor Gaius. Philo says he was carrying a petition which
described the sufferings of the Alexandrian Jews, and which asked the emperor
to secure their rights. Philo gives a detailed description of their sufferings,
in a way that Josephus overlooks, to assert that the Alexandrian Jews were
simply the victims of attacks by Alexandrian Greeks in the civil strife that
had left many Jews and Greeks dead. Philo says he was regarded by his people as
having unusual prudence, due to his age, education, and knowledge. This
indicates that he was already an older man at this time (40 CE). Philo
considers Gaius' plan to erect a statue of himself in the temple
of Jerusalem to be a provocation, saying, "Are you making war upon us,
because you anticipate that we will not endure such indignity, but that we will
fight on behalf of our laws, and die in defence of our national customs? For
you cannot possibly have been ignorant of what was likely to result from your
attempt to introduce these innovations respecting our temple." In his
entire presentation he implicitly supports the Jewish commitment to rebel
against the emperor rather than allow such sacrilege to take place. This
reveals Philo's identification with the Jewish community. [Embassy to Gaius, Chapter 28-31, Yonge's translation (online)].
In Flaccus, Philo
tells indirectly of his own life in Alexandria by describing how the situation
of Jews in Alexandria Egypt changed after Caius Caligula became the emperor of
Rome. Speaking of the large Jewish population in Egypt, Philo says that
Alexandria "had two classes of inhabitants, our own nation and the people
of the country, and that the whole of Egypt was inhabited in the same manner,
and that Jews who inhabited Alexandria and the rest of the country from the
Catabathmos on the side of Libya to the boundaries of Ethiopia were not less
than a million of men." Regarding the large proportion of Jews in
Alexandria, he writes, "There are five districts in the city, named after
the first five letters of the written alphabet, of these two are called the
quarters of the Jews, because the chief portion of the Jews lives in
them." Other sources tell us that Caligula had been asking to receive the
honors due to a god. Philo says Flaccus, the Roman governor over Alexandria,
permitted a mob to erect statues of the Emperor Caius Caligula in Jewish
synagogues of Alexandria, an unprecedented provocation. This invasion of the
synagogues was perhaps resisted by force, since Philo then says that Flaccus
"was destroying the synagogues, and not leaving even their name." In
response, Philo says that Flaccus then "issued a notice in which he called
us all foreigners and aliens... allowing any one who was inclined to proceed to
exterminate the Jews as prisoners of war." Philo says that in response,
the mobs "drove the Jews entirely out of four quarters, and crammed them
all into a very small portion of one ... while the populace, overrunning their
desolate houses, turned to plunder, and divided the booty among themselves as
if they had obtained it in war." In addition, Philo says their enemies,
"slew them and thousands of others with all kinds of agony and tortures,
and newly invented cruelties, for wherever they met with or caught sight of a
Jew, they stoned him, or beat him with sticks". Philo even says, "the
most merciless of all their persecutors in some instances burnt whole families,
husbands with their wives, and infant children with their parents, in the
middle of the city, sparing neither age nor youth, nor the innocent
helplessness of infants." Some men, he says, were dragged to death, while
"those who did these things, mimicked the sufferers, like people employed
in the representation of theatrical farces". Other Jews were crucified.
Flaccus was eventually removed from office and exiled, ultimately suffering the
punishment of death. [Flaccus, Chapters 6 - 9 (43, 53-56, 62, 66, 68, 71-72), Yonge's
translation (online)].
Philo quotes the epic poets with
frequency, or alludes to passages in their works. He has a wide acquaintance
with the works of the Greek philosophers. He holds that the highest perception
of truth is possible only after an encyclopedic study of the sciences. The
dualistic contrast between God and the world, between the finite and the
infinite, appears in both Platonism and in Neo-Pythagorism. The influence of Stoicism is
unmistakable in the doctrine of God as the only efficient cause, in that of
divine reason immanent in the world, in that of the powers emanating from God
and suffusing the world. In the doctrine of the Logos, various elements of
Greek philosophy are united.
As Heinze shows ("Die Lehre vom
Logos in der Griechischen Philosophie," 1872, pp. 204ff), this doctrine
touches upon the Platonic doctrine of ideas as well as the Stoic doctrine of
the γενικώτατόν
τι and the Neo-Pythagorean doctrine of the type that served at the
creation of the world; and in the shaping of the λόγος
τομεύς it touches upon the Heraclitean
doctrine of strife as the moving principle. Philo's doctrine of dead, inert,
non-existent matter harmonizes in its essentials with the Platonic and Stoic
doctrine.
His account of the Creation is almost
identical with that of Plato; he follows the latter's Timaeus closely
in his exposition of the world as having no beginning and no end. Like Plato, he
places the creative activity as well as the act of creation outside of time, on
the Platonic ground that time begins only with the world. The influence of Pythagorism
appears in number-symbolism, to which Philo frequently refers.
The Aristotelian
contrast between δύναμις and ἐντελέχεια
(Metaphysics, iii.73) is found in Philo, De Allegoriis Legum, i.64 (on Aristotle see Freudenthal in
"Monatsschrift," 1875, p. 233). In his psychology he adopts either
the Stoic division of the soul into eight faculties, or the Platonic trichotomy
of reason, courage, and desire, or the Aristotelian triad of the vegetative,
emotive, and rational souls.
The doctrine of the body as the source
of all evil corresponds entirely with the Neo-Pythagorean doctrine: the soul he
conceives as a divine emanation, similar to Plato's νοῦς
(see Siegfried, Philo, pp. 139ff). His ethics and allegories are based on Stoic
ethics and allegories.
Philo made his philosophy the means of
defending and justifying Jewish religious truths. These truths he regarded as
fixed and determinate; and philosophy was used as an aid to truth, and as a
means of arriving at it. With this end in view Philo chose from the
philosophical tenets of the Greeks, refusing those that did not harmonize with
the Jewish religion, as, e.g., the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity and
indestructibility of the world.
Philo read the Hebrew Bible
chiefly in the Greek translation. His knowledge of Hebrew has been a matter of
scholarly dispute, with most scholars arguing that he did not read that
language. One piece of evidence that supports that hypothesis is Philo's
creative (often fanciful) use of etymologies.
His knowledge of Jewish law, including Midrash, was
extensive, but departed in many significant ways from rabbinic tradition.
The writings of Philo show resemblances
to Plato, Aristotle, as
well as from Attic orators and historians, and poetic phrases and allusions to
the poets. Philo's works offer an anthology of Greek phraseology of the most
different periods.
Philo bases his doctrines on the Hebrew
Bible, which he considers as the source and standard not only of religious
truth but in general of all truth. Its pronouncements are for him divine
pronouncements. They are the words of the ἱερὸς λόγος, ϑεῖος
λόγος, ὀρϑὸς
λόγος[3]
uttered sometimes directly and sometimes through the mouth of a prophet,
especially through Moses,
whom Philo considers the real medium of revelation, while the other writers of
the Old Testament appear as friends or pupils of Moses.
Although he distinguishes between the
words uttered by God, as the Decalogue, and the edicts of Moses, as the special laws[4],
he does not carry out this distinction, since he believes in general that
everything in the Torah is of divine origin, even the letters and accents[5].
The Hebrew Bible had not been canonized
at the time of Philo, and the extent of his knowledge of Biblical books cannot
be exactly determined. Philo does not quote Ezekiel, Daniel, Canticles, Ruth,
Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, or Esther. Philo regards the Bible as the source
not only of religious revelation, but also of philosophic truth; for, according
to him, the Greek philosophers also have borrowed from the Bible: Heraclitus,
according to "Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit" § 43 [i.503]; Zeno,
according to Quod Omnis Probus Liber, § 8 [ii.454].
Greek allegory had preceded Philo in
this field. As the Stoic allegorists sought in Homer the basis for their
philosophic teachings, so the Jewish allegorists, and especially Philo, went to
the Old Testament. Following the methods of Stoic allegory, they interpreted
the Bible philosophically (on Philo's Predecessors in the domain of the
allegoristic Midrash among the Palestinian and Alexandrian Jews, see Siegfried,
l.c. pp. 16-37).
Attitude toward
literal meaning
Philo bases his hermeneutics
on the assumption of a twofold meaning in the Bible, the literal and the allegorical. He
distinguishes the ῥητὴ καὶ φανερὰ ἀπόδοσις[6],
"ad litteram" in contrast to "allegorice"[7].
The two interpretations, however, are
not of equal importance: the literal sense is adapted to human needs; but the
allegorical sense is the real one, which only the initiated comprehend. Hence
Philo addresses himself to the μύσται
("initiated") among his audience, by whom he expects to be really
comprehended[8].
A special method is requisite for
determining the real meaning of the words of Scripture[9];
the correct application of this method determines the correct allegory, and is
therefore called "the wise architect"[10].
As a result of some of these rules of
interpretation the literal sense of certain passages
of the Bible must be excluded altogether; e.g., passages in which according to
a literal interpretation something unworthy is said of God; or in which
statements are made that are unworthy of the Bible, senseless, contradictory,
or inadmissible; or in which allegorical expressions are used for the avowed
purpose of drawing the reader's attention to the fact that the literal sense is
to be disregarded.
He has special rules that direct the
reader to recognize the passages which demand an allegorical interpretation,
and which help the initiated to find the correct and intended meaning. These
passages are such as contain: (1) the doubling of a phrase; (2) an apparently
superfluous expression in the text; (3) the repetition of statements previously
made; (4) a change of phraseology—all these phenomena point to something
special that the reader must consider. (5) An entirely different meaning may
also be found by a different combination of the words, disregarding the
ordinarily accepted division of the sentence in question into phrases and
clauses. (6) The synonyms must be carefully studied; e.g., why λαὸς is
used in one passage and γένος in another, etc. (7) A play upon words must be
utilized for finding a deeper meaning; e.g., sheep
(πρόβατον) stand for progress in
knowledge, since they derive their name from the fact of their progressing
(προβαίνειν), etc. (8) A
definite allegorical sense may be gathered from certain particles, adverbs,
prepositions, etc.; and in certain cases it can be gathered even from (9) the
parts of a word; e.g., from διά in
διάλευκος. (10) Every word must be
explained in all its meanings, in order that different interpretations may be
found. (11) The skillful interpreter may make slight changes in a word,
following the rabbinical rule, "Read not this way, but that way."
Philo, therefore, changed accents, breathings, etc., in Greek words. (12) Any
peculiarity in a phrase justifies the assumption that some special meaning is
intended: e.g., where μία ("one") is used instead of
πρώτη ("first"; Gen. i.5), etc. Details
regarding the form of words are very important: (13) the number of the word,
if it shows any peculiarity in the singular or the plural: the tense of the
verb, etc.; (14) the gender of the noun; (15) the presence or omission of the
article; (16) the artificial interpretation of a single expression; (17) the
position of the verses of a passage; (18) peculiar verse-combinations; (19)
noteworthy omissions; (20) striking statements; (21) numeral
symbolism. Philo found much material for this symbolism in the Hebrew
Bible, and he developed it more thoroughly according to the methods of the
Pythagoreans and Stoics. He could follow in many points the tradition handed
down by his allegorizing predecessors[11].
Philo analyzed the usage of numbers of
the Bible, and believed that certain numbers symbolized different ideas.
Philo regards number one as God's
number, and the basis for all numbers ("De Allegoriis Legum," ii.12
[i.66]).
Philo regards number two as the number
of schism, of that which has been created, of death ("De Opificio Mundi, §
9 [i.7]; "De Allegoriis Legum," i.2 [i.44]; "De Somaniis,"
ii.10 [i.688]).
Three is the number of the body
("De Allegoriis Legum," i. 2 [i.44]) or of the Divine Being in connection
with His fundamental powers ("De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini," § 15
[i.173]).
Four is potentially what the number ten
actually is, the perfect number ("De Opificio Mundi," §§ 15, 16
[i.10, 11], etc.); but in an evil sense four is the number of the passions,
πάθη ("De Congressu Quærendæ Eruditionis Gratia."
§ 17 [i.532]).
Five is the number of the senses and of
sensibility ("De Opificio Mundi," § 20 [i.14], etc.).
Six, the product of the masculine and
feminine numbers 3 × 2 and in its parts equal to 3+3, is the symbol of the
movement of organic beings ("De Allegoriis Legum," i.2 [i.44]).
Seven has the most various and
marvelous attributes ("De Opiticio Mundi," §§ 30-43 [i.21 et seq.]).
Eight, the number of the cube, has many
of the attributes determined by the Pythagoreans ("Quæstiones in
Genesin," iii.49 [i.223, Aucher]).
Nine is the number of strife, according
to Gen. xiv. ("De Congressu Qu. Eruditionis Gratia," § 17 [i.532]).
Ten is the number of perfection
("De Plantatione Noë," § 29 [i.347]).
Philo determines also the values of the
numbers 50, 70, and 100, 12, and 120.
Philo's conception of the matter out of
which the world was created is similar to that of Plato and the Stoics.
According to him, God does not create the world-stuff, but finds it ready at
hand. God cannot create it, as in its nature it resists all contact with the
divine. Sometimes, following the Stoics, he designates God as "the
efficient cause,"and matter as "the affected cause." He seems to
have found this conception in the Bible (Gen. i.2) in the image of the spirit
of God hovering over the waters ("De Opificio Mundi," § 2 [i.12]).
Philo, again like Plato and the Stoics,
conceives of matter as having no attributes or form; this, however, does not
harmonize with the assumption of four elements. Philo conceives of matter as
evil, on the ground that no praise is meted out to it in Genesis ("Quis
Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit," § 32 [i.495]). As a result, he cannot posit an
actual Creation, but only a formation of the world, as Plato holds. God appears
as demiurge
(Greek: craftsman) and cosmoplast (Greek: universe molder).
Philo frequently compares God to an
architect or gardener, who formed the present world (the
κόσμος ἀισϑητός) according to a pattern, the
ideal world (κόσμος
νοητός). Philo takes the details of his story of
the Creation entirely from Genesis 1, the Elohist account.
He assigns an especially important position to the Logos, which executes the
several acts of the Creation, as God cannot come into contact with matter,
actually creating only the soul of the good. The philosophical term Logos
(word, reason) parallels the Hebrew phrase "word of God" ("dabar Yahweh"),
which the Hebrew Bible portrays as bearing God's message, especially to his
prophets.
Philo regards the physical nature of
man as something defective and as an obstacle to his development that can never
be fully surmounted, but still as something indispensable in view of the nature
of his being. With the body the necessity for food arises, as Philo explains in
various allegories. The body, however, is also of advantage to the spirit,
since the spirit arrives at its knowledge of the world by means of the five
senses. But higher and more important is the spiritual nature of man. This
nature has a twofold tendency: one toward the sensual and earthly, which Philo
calls sensibility (αἴσϑησις), and one toward the spiritual,
which he calls reason (νοῦς).
Sensibility has its seat in the body,
and lives in the senses, as Philo elaborates in varying allegoric imagery.
Connected with this corporeality of the sensibility are its limitations; but,
like the body itself, it is a necessity of nature, the channel of all
sense-perception. Sensibility, however, is still more in need of being guided
by reason. Reason is that part of the spirit which looks toward heavenly
things. It is the highest, the real divine gift that has been infused into man
from without ("De Opiticio Mundi," i.15; "De Eo Quod Deterius
Potiori Insidiatur," i.206); it is the masculine nature of the soul. The
νοῦς is originally at rest; and when it begins to move it
produces the several phenomena of mind (ἔνϑυμήματα). The
principal powers of the νοῦς are judgment, memory, and language.
More important in Philo's system is the
doctrine of the moral development of man. Of this he distinguishes two
conditions: (1) that before time was, and (2) that since the beginning of time.
In the pretemporal condition the soul was without body, free from earthly
matter. Without sex, in the condition of the generic
(γενικός) man, morally perfect, i.e.,
without flaws, but still striving after a higher purity. On entering upon time
the soul loses its purity and is confined in a body. The nous becomes earthly,
but it retains a tendency toward something higher.
Philo is not entirely certain whether
the body in itself or merely in its preponderance over the spirit is evil. But
the body in any case is a source of danger, as it easily drags the spirit into
the bonds of sensibility. Here, also, Philo is undecided whether sensibility is
in itself evil, or whether it may merely lead into temptation, and must itself
be regarded as a mean (μέσον). Sensibility in any case
is the source of the passions and desires. The passions attack the sensibility
in order to destroy the whole soul. On their number and their symbols in
Scripture see Siegfried, l.c. pp. 245 et seq. The "desire" is either
the lustful enjoyment of sensual things, dwelling as such in the abdominal
cavity (κοιλία), or it is the craving for this
enjoyment, dwelling in the breast. It connects the nous and the sensibility,
this being a psychologic necessity, but an evil from an ethical point of view.
According to Philo, man passes through
several steps in his ethical development. At first the several elements of the
human being are in a state of latency, presenting a kind of moral neutrality
which Philo designates by the terms "naked" or "medial."
The nous is nude, or stands midway so long as it has not decided either for sin
or for virtue. In this period of moral indecision God endeavors to prepare the
earthly nous for virtue, presenting to him in the "earthly wisdom and
virtue" an image of heavenly wisdom. But man (nous) quickly leaves this
state of neutrality. As soon as he meets the woman (sensibility) he is filled
with desire, and passion ensnares him in the bonds of sensibility. Here the
moral duties of man arise; and according to his attitude there are two opposite
tendencies in humanity.
The soul is first aroused by the
stimuli of sensual pleasures; it begins to turn toward them, and then becomes
more and more involved. It becomes devoted to the body, and begins to lead an
intolerable life (βίος ἄβίωτος).
It is inflamed and excited by irrational impulses. Its condition is restless
and painful. The sensibility endures, according to Gen. iii.16, great pain. A
continual inner void produces a lasting desire which is never satisfied. All
the higher aspirations a stilled. The end is complete moral turpitude, the
annihilation of all sense of duty, the corruption of the entire soul: not a particle
of the soul that might heal the rest remains whole.
The worst consequence of this moral
death is, according to Philo, absolute ignorance and the loss of the power of
judgment. Sensual things are placed above spiritual; and wealth is regarded as
the highest good. Too great a value especially is placed upon the human nous;
and things are wrongly judged. Man in his folly even opposes God, and thinks to
scale heaven and subjugate the entire earth. In the field of politics, for
example, he attempts to rise from the position of leader of the people to that
of ruler (Philo cites Joseph as a type of this kind). Sensual man generally
employs his intellectual powers for sophistry,
perverting words and destroying truth.
The biblical patriarch Abraham is seen
by Philo as the symbol of man leaving sensuality to turn to reason[12].
Philo holds that there are three methods whereby one can rise toward the
divine: through teaching, through practise (ἄσκησις),
and through natural goodness (ὁσιότης).
Philo holds that good moral endowment
takes precedence of teaching and practise. Virtue here is not the result of
hard labor, but is the excellent fruit maturing of itself. The biblical character
Noah represents the
preliminary stage. Noah is praised, while no really good deeds are reported of
him, whence it may be concluded that the Bible refers to his good disposition.
But as Noah is praised only in comparison with his contemporaries, it follows
that he is not yet a perfect man.
Philo holds that there are several
types in the Bible representing the perfect stage. It appears in its purest
form in the biblical patriarch Isaac. Isaac is perfect from the beginning: perfection is a
part of his nature (φύσις); and he can never lose it
(αὑτήκοος καὶ αὑτομάϑης).
With such persons, therefore, the soul is in a state of rest and joy.
Philo's doctrine of virtue is Stoic,
although he is undecided whether complete dispassionateness (άπάϑεια[13])
or moderation (μετριοπαϑεῑν[14])
designates the really virtuous condition. Philo identifies virtue in itself and
in general with divine wisdom. Hence he uses the symbols interchangeably for
both; and as he also frequently identifies the Logos with divine wisdom, the
allegoric designations here too are easily interchanged.
The Garden of Eden is "the wisdom
of God" and also "the Logos of God" and "virtue." The
fundamental virtue is goodness; and from it proceed four cardinal
virtues—prudence, courage, self-control, and justice
(φρόνησις, ἀνδρία,
σωφροσύνη,
δικαιοσύνη) — as the four
rivers proceeding from the river of Eden.
An essential difference between Philo
and the Stoics is found in the fact that Philo seeks in religion the basis for
all ethics. Religion helps man to attain to virtue, which he can not reach of
himself, as the Stoics hold. God must implant virtue in man[15].
Hence the goal of the ethical endeavor is a religious one: the ecstatic
contemplation of God and the disembodiment of souls after death.
Cairo
Geniza Elephantine papyri Jewish temple at Elephantine Land of
Onias Philosophy
Philo's view of God Philo's
Works
Pseudo-Philo
Moses in rabbinic literature
^ De Somniis, i.16-17
^ Antiquities xviii.8, § 1; comp. ib. xix.5, § 1; xx.5, § 2
^ De
Agricultura Noë,"§ 12 [i.308]; De Somniis, i.681, ii.25.
^ De
Specialibus Legibus, §§ 2 et seq. [ii.300
et seq.]; De Præmiis et Pœnis, § 1 [ii.408].
^ De Mutatione
Nominum, § 8 [i.587].
^ "De Abrahamo," § 36 [ii.29 et seq.]
^ "Quæstiones in Genesin," ii.21.
^ "De Cherubim," § 14 [i.47]; "De
Somniis," i.3[i.649].
^ "Canons of Allegory," "De Victimas
Offerentibus," § 5 [ii.255]); "Laws of Allegory," "De
Abrahamo," § 15 [ii.11]
^ "De Somniis," ii.2 [i.660].
^ "De Vita Contemplativa," § 8 [ii.481]. ^ "De Migratione
Abrahami." § 4 [i.439].
^ De
Allegoriis Legum iii. 45 [i.513].
^ De Abrahamo § 44 [ii.137].
^ De
Allegoriis Legum, i.53 [i.73].
[External linksWikiquote has
a collection of quotations related to: Philo
·
Philo
·
The Works Of
Philo Judaeus Vol II (1854) (Yonge's Eng. transl.)
·
On Dreams Original Greek
Text
·
Philo entry in historical
sourcebook with fresh translations of
key excerpts by Mahlon H. Smith
Retrieved
from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo"
Categories: Roman era philosophers | Philosophers of Judaism | Ancient Jewish Egyptian
history | Ancient Jewish Greek history
| Ancient Jewish Roman history
| Egyptian Jews | Jewish philosophers | Hellenistic Egyptians | 20 BC births | 50 deaths | Jews and
Judaism-related controversies