Читать книгу Philo of Alexandria - Jean Danielou - Страница 8

Philo’s biography has shown him at the crossroad of Judaism, Hellenism, and Roman civilization. We now pose the question of discovering what he knew in these three areas. We begin by seeing how many tendencies collide in the Jewish world, whether Palestinian or Hellenistic. This late Judaism is simultaneously a period of messianic Zealots and cosmopolitan Herodians, of Pharisaic legalism and Essene pietism. We witness an apocalyptic strain flourish there at the same time as the Gnostic interpretation of Genesis. Similarly, many tendencies see the light of day in Greek philosophy. It is a time of eclecticism, as Cicero had shown half a century earlier: Stoicism, Platonism, and Aristotelianism combine in various proportions. Lastly, at the political level, this is a period when the imperial ideology is elaborated but also of republican revolts.

It would be an impossible task to attempt to draw of picture of such a complex world. Equally, it would be meaningless. What matters to us is what Philo in fact deemed important. Thus, as Wolfson has clearly shown, pagan religious trends affected him little. His Jewish faith makes him impermeable to them. He spoke of them only to criticize. To learn what he knew, the best thing is to query him. We ask ourselves which contemporary tendencies he discussed. It happens that there is a group of his works that precisely set out less his ideas than those of his time. These works will be our sources here. We will see what Philo tells us about Jewish pietism, Greek philosophy, and Roman politics.

Philo and the Essenes

The core of Philo’s thought is indisputably Biblical. Almost all of his output is Scriptural commentary. He uses the Greek Septuagint translation done at Alexandria itself during the previous centuries. These Biblical sources of Philo’s thought are not what interest us for the moment. We will devote a long study to them as well as to the exegetical methods that he found at Alexandria. Our goal is different now. We want to discover what Philo knew about contemporary Judaism. This is the question we put to him. Indeed Philo spoke of Judaism. He wrote an Apology for the Jews of which Eusebius has given us important fragments. In the book Every Good Man is Free, he presented his ideal of Judaism in contrast with the wise men of Persia, India, and Greece. He devoted two short works to the active and contemplative lives. In all these works, we come up against a massive reality: when Philo wants to present ideal Judaism, he talks about the Essenes.

Moreover, we are also shown the reverse of the coin. Philo’s works are very meager in their treatment of other tendencies within contemporary Judaism. We find no echo of the theology of history that was developing an apocalyptic vision, whether in Palestine with contemporary works like the Assumption of Moses or at Alexandria itself with Book II of the Sibylline Oracles, which is slightly earlier than Philo. Remarkably, we find very few traces of the tradition to which the Pharisees adhered that would lead to the Mishnah and the Midrashim. Heinemann has shown that Philo’s legal concepts come from the Greco-Roman environment rather than from the Scribes’ Halakhah. In Philo we find very few of the edifying elaborations of sacred history that constitute the Haggadah that fill a contemporary Jewish current that ranges from the Book of Jubilees to the book of antiquities of Pseudo-Philo.

Thus, for him, the Essenes represent the ideal of contemporary Judaism. We can say that his Judaism has three components: the Greek Bible with its Alexandrian exegesis, Herodian society, and Essene pietism. These three components constitute more of a whole than it might seem. Indeed, as we have already noted, the Herodian circle had geographical contact with the Essenes of Qumran and, furthermore, seemed to be more compatible with these pious monks than with Sadducee politicians or zealot agitators. At the end of his two reports on the Essenes, Philo himself notes that they were protected by even the most despotic of the princes. This is an evident reference to the Herods.

In the first chapter we spoke of contacts with the Herods. In the next one we will speak of Philo’s place in Alexandrian exegesis. What interests us here is his testimony about Essene pietism, and we will study this testimony first. Then we will contrast it with the testimony of the Qumran manuscripts. Lastly, we will ask whether Philo’s works shows Essene influence. But first we face a preliminary question about the value of Philo’s testimony. Indeed, certain authors judge that the depiction of an ideal Judaism in his report has no connection to a particular historical reality. Yet, since he is the first Greek author to speak of the Essenes and the first to give them that name, which is not found in the Dead Sea scrolls, his testimony is of great importance. We must examine the reasons why it is disputed.

The last author to have done so is Henri del Medico. “The Essenes, as Philo called them, would have lived in Palestine. What did he know about them? Philo was born in Alexandria about 30 B.C. [?], and although he did not know Hebrew [?], was named ethnarch [?] by his Greek-speaking coreligionists in Egypt. He left Egypt for the first time at the age of seventy [?], when he had to go to Rome to defend the interests of the community before Caligula. Philo was never in Palestine [?]. Even the short stay in Jerusalem upon his return from Rome is rather hypothetical. Philo seems to make up the virtuous Essenes out of the whole cloth [?]”32

In the passage I have marked all the inexactitudes with which the text abounds, the central point that concerns us is that Philo was only in Palestine after his return from Rome, therefore in 41 when he was seventy. Now the text that mentions his stay in Jerusalem is De Providentia II; it is related to De Animalibus, which is the work of Philo whose date is best established. It is situated around 35. Thus the voyage is earlier. Moreover, Philo, who was really born around 13 B.C., was about forty at the time. Let us add that there is no reason to believe it was his first trip to Jerusalem. Given the attraction Jerusalem exerted at the time of the great feasts, the proximity of Alexandria in relation to Ascalon, the great wealth of Philo, whose brother was a ship-owner, and his ties to the Palestinian Herods, it would be very strange that he should have had no occasion to go to Palestine.

There is no reason for us to question Philo’s testimony. This is the first point established. But not all the difficulties have been resolved in the identification of the Essenes whom Philo mentions with the Qumran Zadokites. We must, therefore, examine what Philo says. I take the reference of Quid Omnis Probus Liber Sit. It begins with three extraordinarily specific indications. The Essenes (Ἐσσαῖοι), as Philo calls them, number around 4000. This indication is valuable in regard to the situations of the Essenes in the time of Christ, which is what Philo describes. It is implausible that it is fictitious. Philo next explains that the name Ἐσσαῖοι that he gives them transcribes an untranslatable Hebrew word that indicates holiness (Quod Probus, 75). This indication is also very precise. In fact Ἐσσαῖοι seems to be the transliteration into Greek of the Aramaic hasa, which means pious, and corresponds to the Hebrew hasid.33 Essenes and Hasidim are parallel expressions that designate faithful Jews since the second century B.C. This incidentally allows us to observe that Philo certainly knew Hebrew, as Marcus observes.

Philo continues by observing: [they] “have shown themselves especially devout in the service of God, not by offering sacrifices of animals, but by resolving to sanctify their minds” (Quod Probus, 75).34 This passage is one of the most interesting of the report. It contains the observations that the Essenes did not offer bloody sacrifices in the temple but a spiritual sacrifice, which was their priesthood. We first note the last feature, which is an allusion to the priestly origin of the ascetics. What other allusions are there? It was thought that there was a similar condemnation of sacrifices in the Manual of Discipline, IX, 3–5. But a better reading of the text excludes this interpretation.35 There still remains Josephus’s affirmation that the Essenes abstained from offering sacrifices in the Temple (Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, 1, 5). Consequently, two things must be distinguished in Philo’s text. On the one hand, he observes the fact that the Essenes do not offer sacrifices in the temple. That is completely certain. On the other hand, he interprets this fact as a spiritualization of the cult. That is his personal theory.

Philo next tells us that the Essenes live “in villages” outside the cities. The word κωμηδόν is important. It does not mean that the Essenes were scattered throughout towns, but that they consituted settlements of people living together. That can refer to a built up area like Qumran, but it doubtless means that others existed. In any case the essential point is that they lived away from the rest of the Palestinian population, “for they know,” Philo tells us, “that their contact would have a deadly effect upon their own souls” (Quid Probus, 75).36 Now, this exactly corresponds to one of the essential themes of the Qumran manuscripts, radical separation of the community from the rest of the people of Israel, considered to be contaminated (Manual of Discipline, V, 10, 13–20).

What follows concerns the Essene way of life. Some worked the land or as artisans. They did not seek wealth and lived modestly. They did not make arms or trade. They had no slaves (Quod Probus, 76–79). In Philo’s eyes, it will be observed, this life of work distinguishes the Palestinian Essenes from the Therapeutae of Egypt. Now this is just what the Qumran documents show us. There is mention of work in the fields and care for flocks (Damascus Document, X, 20; XI, 6–7). The document condemns manufacture and commerce (Damascus Document, XII, 7–12). By contrast, slaves are explicitly mentioned at least in the Damascus Document (XI, 12; XII, 10).

Concerning Essene doctrine, Philo observes: “as for philosophy they abandon the logical part” except in “that which treats philosophically of God and the creation of the universe.” By contrast, “the ethical part they study very industriously” (Quod Probus, 80).37 This text is valuable to inform us about what Philo knew of Essene doctrines. On the one hand, he was struck by the interest in moral problems. That completely coincides with the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus documents. But the other expression is more odd. The issue is what concerns “the origin of the universe.” That seems to me to allude to Greek speculation about the opening of Genesis that would certainly appear to have existed in Judea and may have especially flourished among the Essenes. Further on, we will see that Philo seems to have inherited certain elements of Essene Gnosticism. By contrast, he says nothing about the Messianism and eschatology that have such a large place in the Qumran documents.

Liturgical gatherings take place mainly on the Sabbath, but Bible study is daily. This corresponds to the Qumran regulations. Everywhere that there are ten members, there will be one who studies the law continually.” (Manual of Discipline, VI, 6–7). Philo notes that there is an order of precedence in liturgical gatherings and rules setting down the comportment to be followed (Quod Probus, 81). That is one of the points upon which the Manual of Discipline insists most. (Manual of Discipline, VI, 9–13). A considerable number of rules concern the behavior to be followed during meetings: not interrupt, nor fall asleep, nor spit, nor laugh, nor leave (Manual of Discipline, VII, 9–14). Philo’s expression seems to sum up this whole part of the legislation.

The program of Essene moral teaching that Philo presents includes “piety, holiness, justice, domestic (οἰκονομία) and civic (πολιτεία) conduct, knowledge of what is truly good, or evil, or indifferent, and how to choose what they should and avoid the opposite, taking for their defining standards these three, love of God, love of virtue, love of men” (Quod Probus, 83).38 This greatly resembles the program proposed at the beginning of the Manual of Discipline. One must “practice truth, justice, and law” (I, 5). Good actions and bad actions are described (I, 3). One must withdraw from all evil and adhere to every good work (I, 4–5). The program consists of seeking God (I, 1), practicing the precepts (I, 7), and loving all the Sons of Light (I, 9). In both cases, we have seen this elementary catechesis based on the theme of the two ways and the two commandments that will persist in primitive Christian catechesis and that seems typically Essene.

The details of the precepts present striking points of contact: the state of purity in relation to other people is to be noted (Quod Probus, 84; Manual of Discipline, VI, 16), which is one of the clearest characteristics and emphasizes the separation from the world. The description of common life is especially important. No one has anything, house, storeroom, money, or clothing, which is not common (Quod Probus, 85–86), Now, that is one of the most distinguishing characteristics of Qumran and prevents us from finding, as del Medico does, a description of the Jewish community in general in the portrait of the Essenes (Manual of Discipline, VI, 19–20). The Manual of Discipline specifies that goods and wages are to be handed over to the treasurer (VI, 19–20). This is another of Philo’s reports in the Apology in the exact terms: “Each branch when it has received the wages of these so different occupations gives it to some person who has been appointed [ταμίᾳ]” (Pro Iudaeis, XI, 10).39

It will be noted that on this occasion Philo observes that the Essenes dwell together “in communities” (κατὰ θιάσους) (Quod Probus, 85).40 The word also appears in the Apology: “They live together formed into clubs, bands of comradeship with common meals [κατὰ θιάσους ἑταιρίας καὶ συσσίτια] (Pro Judaeis, XI, 5).41 The Qumran manuscripts again allude to these meals in common (Manual of Discipline, VI, 1–4). These communities are likewise designated by the term ὅμιλος (Apology XI, 1).42 Ralph Marcus shows that these terms, which neither Philo nor Josephus employ for other Jewish sects, seem to translate the Hebrew yahad, which frequently appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls to indicate the Qumran community.43 The terms seem to demonstrate that the Essenes had a completely special character, precisely this very close common life, which was that of the Qumran community.

Two frequently misunderstood expressions of Philo also seem to refer to this common life. Philo explains that the Essenes are taught civil life (πολιτεἰα) and economic life (οἰκονομία) (Quod Probus, 83). Lagrange translates this as “family life and civil life.”44 We cannot see what the first translation corresponds to, because Philo does not speak of marriage among the Essenes. In reality, these two phrases, which are part of a brief summary that Philo gives of the Manual of Discipline, seem to us to designate two of its parts. Πολίτεια is the totality of the rules concerning the relations of the members of the community among themselves, and οἰκονομία is the rules concerning the use of material goods. We could translate them by “rules of obedience and poverty.”

Philo’s report ends with a final detail whose exact equivalent is found again in the Manual. Philo notes the care that is taken with the sick and the aged who are under the community’s charge. Now, the Damascus Document contains identical prescriptions. A tax is deduced from salaries to be paid to the common fund (XIV, 13). The goal is to come to the assistance “of the poor and the indigent,” of the “elderly,” of those affected with leprosy, of “those who have been captives in a foreign land” (XIV, 14–16). Here too the specificity of the report in Philo is such that it practically excludes doubt. Again it emphasizes the group’s communal character described both by Philo and the manuscripts.

Such are the data in Quod Probus. They attest to Philo’s exact knowledge of the Qumran community. The information in the Apology for the Jews mostly repeats them, adding particular details like the distinction between winter and summer garments (XI, 12), or the indication of raising bees and tending flocks among practical trades (XI, 8). But on one point it adds a very important characteristic: the explicit affirmation that the Essenes do not marry (XI, 14). The fact that there are no children or adolescents among them can be linked to that. The point is quite unusual. Josephus and Pliny will both observe it. Now, according to the Damascus Document, the Zadokites have wives and children (V, 6–7; VII, 6–9). The Manual of Discipline says nothing about the matter. Investigations carried out at the Qumran cemetery certainly seem to show that women are buried there.

This leads us to observe that, besides indisputable overall similarities, there are notable differences in the description of the community between Philo and the Qumran manuscripts. They are of two kinds and come under two explanations. On the one hand, we have seen that Philo’s Quod Probus presents several characteristics that the manuscripts do not, ones that highlight the rigor of the communal regime: prohibition of all oaths (84) and prohibition of slaves. The Apology adds celibacy and exclusion of adolescents and children. Now these features contradict what the Damascus Document says permitting oaths (IX, 8–16; XVI, 6–12), mentioning slaves, talking about children, and showing us married people. Still it must be noted that the Manual of Discipline says nothing of slaves, celibacy, oaths, or children.

That implies differences of time period and orientation. If, as seems plausible, the Manual of Discipline shows us the earliest state of the community, we can say that the community subsequently split into two movements. The larger one is that which the Damascus Document and Josephus mention. The other, more strict, is what Philo discusses in Quod Probus, but it still does not seem to acknowledge an obligation to celibacy when Philo was writing his work. By contrast, it existed after 41 when he wrote the Apology for the Jews. Josephus knew this last state. Therefore, it would seem that celibacy appeared late.

This poses the question of knowing what influenced its appearance. If we recall that we are dealing with a period around 40, and if we wonder what influences might give rise to the ideal of virginity in Palestine at that date, it certainly seems that there could only be one, Christianity. That would lead us to think that in Palestine there were mutual influences between Christianity and Essenism at this date.45 From that might follow the odd consequence that Eusebius was not completely wrong when he believed he recognized Christians in the Essenes described by Philo and Josephus. Indeed, those whom the former’s Apology for the Jews and the latter’s work describe might already have undergone Christian influence. But in this period, Christians and Essenes must not have been so easy to distinguish in outward appearance to a stranger to Palestine.

We can ask whether two other characteristics that differentiate the Apology for the Jews from Quod Probus may likewise refer rather to Christians than to Essenes so that in the Apology we would have a testimony about what Philo tried to say at the end of his life about the development of Christianity in Palestine, which from a distance he confused with Essenism. Quod Probus told us that the Essenes fled cities and lived in villages (κωμηδὀν) and that they numbered 4000 in all. Now the Apology for the Jews shows them as “dwelling in many cities of Judea and also many villages where they form numerous large communities (πολυανθρώπους)” (XI, 1). Living in cities is absolutely opposed to Essene practice. By contrast it describes Christians. Moreover, major growth of the Essenes in this period is not very likely. Their community in fact was pulled in two directions. The Zealots, on the one hand, sweep them along in the revolt against Rome, as Josephus testifies: a sign of this can be seen in the Apology’s no longer mentioning the pacifism to which Quod Probus bears witness. On the other hand, they were drawn into the Christian orbit, if we are to believe with Cullman that the numerous priest converts mentioned in Acts 6: 7 are Zadokites.

The other characteristic that separates the Apology for the Jews from Quod Probus is the affirmation that entry into the community is not by birth but free choice (Pro Iudaeis, XI, 2). That is why he adds: “Thus no Essene is a mere child nor even a stripling or newly bearded, since the characters of such are unstable” (Pro Iudaeis, XI, 3).46 This does not square with the Zadokites: the community was composed of priestly families. By contrast, the characteristic seems to correspond to the Christian affirmation that race is not important and that entrance into the community depends only of free choice. Accordingly, the difference between the Apology and Quod Probus pose a curious problem whose most satisfactory explanation is that there is a reference to Christianity.

With this we have not yet finished with the question posed by the comparison of the information from Philo and the Qumran manuscripts. Indeed, if they describe a community, they at least equally testify to the presence of an eschatological tendency. God sent the Master of Justice to announce that the end of time, foretold by the prophets, had begun. The community left for the desert to prepare itself for the imminent last judgment. The coming of the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel would be its first sign. Then the pagans would be annihilated and the people of God exalted. Now all this—the eschatological expectation, theology of history, messianic tendencies, national exaltation—are totally absent from Philo’s information. The practices described are the same, but the spirit is totally different. How are we to admit that Philo could have modified things to this degree?

Yet, this is the solution that imposes itself on us for various reasons. First, there are reasons of prudence. Philo speaks about the Essenes in apologetic writings directed to pagans. He wants to present the Jews in an attractive manner. It is clear that the Zadokite apocalyptic spirit would disconcert and perturb the pagans. Besides, partisan of the Roman Empire that he is, Philo has no sympathy for this facet of the Zadokites. He detests their nationalism. He is not unaware of the notion of an eschatological judgment, but it is foreign to his thought: his ideal is inner. Consequently, it must be admitted that here Philo deliberately sets aside the whole eschatological component of the Zadokite community to retain only its moral characteristics.

One last question remains. Does the rest of Philo’s work testify to knowledge of Essene doctrines? We know that the most characteristic Essene doctrine is that of the two spirits, of truth and of iniquity created by God at the beginning and presiding over all human history (Manual of Discipline, III, 18–19, IV, 15). These two spirits are mingled in each human. According to whether a person follows one or the other, he places himself in the army of light or of darkness. Here we are not merely dealing with the idea of inner struggle that sets the tendencies of good and evil against each other in the human heart. This last doctrine is that of the two yeser, which is found in Judaism before the Essenes. But what seems peculiar to them is attaching each yeser to a spiritual power and attributing to God the establishment of the latter from the beginning. On this point it is difficult to avoid seeing an influence of Iranian magi on the Essenes.

This doctrine is foreign to the totality of Philo’s work. As we will see, his angelology is not dualist. It is most unusual to find a text in his work where there is such pronounced dualism. The question arises of knowing whether the text is an allusion to Essene doctrine.47 It is found in Quaestiones in Exodum (I, 23). “Into every soul at its very birth, there enter two powers [δυνάμεις], the salutary [σοτερία] and the destructive [φθοροποιός]. If the salutary one is victorious and prevails, the opposite one is too weak to see. And if the latter prevails, no profit at all or little is obtained from the salutary one.”48 This first part affirms the presence from the start of two opposite powers put by God in man’s heart. This doctrine may be Essene. It is found again in Christian works influenced by the Essenes like the Shepherd of Hermes.

But the continuation is still more odd:

Through these powers [δυνάμεις] the world too was created. People call them by other names: the salutary (power) they call powerful [potens?] and beneficent [εὐργετικός];49 the opposite one (they call) unbounded [immensa?] and destructive [κολαστική]. Thus the sun and moon, the appropriate positions of the other stars and their ordered functions, and whole heaven together come into being and exist through the two (powers). And they are created in accordance with the better part of these, namely when the salutary and beneficent (power) brings to an end the unbounded and destructive [κολαστική] nature. Wherefore also to those who have attained such a state and a nature similar to this is immortality given. But the nature is a mixture of both (these powers), from which the heavens and the entire world as a whole have received this mixture. Now sometimes the evil becomes greater in this mixture and hence (all creatures) live in torment, harm, ignominy, contention, battle, and bodily illness together with all the other things in human life, as in the whole world, so in man.50

In any case, this difficult text affirms parallelism between the action of two hostile powers in the cosmos and their action in man. Here two problems must be distinguished. The idea of the two powers established by God at the beginning recalls the Manual of Discipline. We observe that Philo seems to assimilate this doctrine to that of the powers who surround God that is familiar to him. We can connect this to Quaestiones in Exodum, II, 68, where Philo teaches that the favorable power whose proper name is Benevolent (εὐεργετικός) is subordinated to the creative power and that the legislative (νομοθετική) power is joined to the royal (βασιλική) power. See also De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, 38, 131–33. These similarities assure the passage’s Philonic authenticity. But the doctrine of powers in our text still has a dualistic character foreign to Philo’s overall work.

Moreover, the action of the two opposing powers not only in human souls and in history but also in the cosmos has no equivalence in Essene doctrine. By contrast, it has striking similarity to the doctrine we find in Plutarch, a pagan author slightly posterior to Philo. In De Iside et Osiride Plutarch explains: “nothing that is in nature is free from mixture and everything comes to us from two opposed principles” (45). He shows this is common to several traditions. He mentions Iranian dualism, the benevolent and malevolent influence of the stars in the Chaldeans, the different Greek dualisms, the two souls in Plato’s Laws. Then he adds, “I will devote myself to reconciling the theology of the Egyptians and Plato’s teaching” (De Iside et Osiride, 48). He then interprets Osiris as the source of all that “the earth, wind, water, sky, and stars is orderly, constant, and salutary, and Typho with all that is perishable and harmful in the body of the universe, irregularities and seasonal bad weather, solar eclipses, the occultation of the moon” (De Iside et Osiride, 49).

It is not that Plutarch is the source of our passage. By contrast, it is very plausible that Philο and he applied the same procedure, one to the exegesis of the Bible and the other to the exegesis of Egyptian myths, and that they used lecture notes where different dualist interpretations of philosophers and religious traditions were brought together. Indeed, several characteristics of Philo’s text recall that of Plutarch. One of the titles of the harmful power is immensa, which seems to translate ἄπειρος. Now, Philo’s text says that for Anaxagoras and Pythagoras the source of evils is the ἄπειρον (48). The reference to heavenly disorders with the mention of solar eclipses (κρύψεις), occultation of the moon (ἀφανισμοί), seasonal bad weather (ἀωρίαι) is met again amid textbook arguments against Providence in De Providentia II, 71, another of Philo’s works about which we will speak below. It certainly seems that Philo alludes to Greek philosophical doctrines here.

The continuation confirms it: “This mixture [μῖξις] is in both the wicked and the wise man, but not in the same way. For the souls of foolish men have the unbounded and destructive rather than the powerful and salutary (power), and it is full of misery when it dwells with earthly creatures. But the prudent and noble (soul) rather receives the powerful and salutary (power) and, on the contrary, possesses in itself good fortune and happiness, being carried around with the heaven [μετεωροπορῶν], because of kinship [συγγένεια] with it.”51 These last expressions allude to Plato’s Phaedrus and are frequent in Philo. But here again, he evidently uses a source alien to his thought. The idea of the family relationship of the soul with the heavens, likewise the idea that destinies are determined by the proportion of good and evil in the soul are foreign to Philo’s thought—and also to Essene doctrine.

By contrast, the conclusion brings us back to the introduction: “The force which is the cause of destruction strives, as it were, to enter the soul, but is prevented by the divine beneficences [θέιαι εὐεργεσίαι], from striking (it), for these are salutary. But those from whom the favors and gifts of God [αἱ τοῦ θεοῦν τοῦ χάριτες] are separated and cut off suffer the experience of desertion and widowhood.”52 Here again we find the Essene idea of the two spirits disputing for the soul and the soul opening itself to one or the other. Thus, it seems that the strange passage has two sources, both alien to Philo: on the one hand, the Essene explanation of the two spirits and their action upon the soul; on the other, a dualistic philosophical explanation proceeding from Egyptian philosophical schools. Once again, it seems here that Philo has retained a moral trait of Essene teaching but has divorced it from its eschatological context and replaced that context with a cosmological explanation.

The Philosophers of Alexandria

Philo interpreted the Bible with the categories of Greek philosophy. Thus, our problem is to find out what this philosophy is. This is not accomplished easily. Pohlenz devoted a chapter to Philo in his book on Stoicism. Wolfson views Philo as a Platonist. Wendland ties him to Aristotle. Festugière is satisfied to speak about eclecticism. In that, Philo is certainly the reflection of the period of the early Empire to which he belongs. Schools tended to be confused with each other following a trend that began in the previous century. Posidonius had opened classical Stoicism to Platonic influences. Antiochus of Ascalon had integrated Stoic and Aristotelian elements into Platonism. These diverse influences persist into Philo’s period.